perfsonar development work

[Maciej Glowiak <>]

Szymon Trocha wrote:
> Maciej Glowiak wrote:
> > Roman Lapacz napisa�(a):
> > > Eric L. Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > > c) Conforming to the naming scheme for services
> > > >    ACTION ITEM: Define naming scheme for services. Consider 
> > > > including developing institution, development language, service 
> > > > type, tool, e.g. DFN-PERL-MA-BWCTL service.
> > >
> > > Including the name(s) of institution(s) doesn't look good for me. For 
> > > example if there are 4 institutions involved: 
> > > INTERNET2-DANTE-UoD-PSNC-MP-XXXXX
> >
> > I agree. My proposal is to split the single name into several fields
> > (extended information in metadata) such as:
> >
> > -serviceType (required, rely on hierarchy like error.codes):
> >
> >   ma.rrd
> >   ma.sql
> >   ls.xml
> >   ls.uddi
> >   mp.snmp
> >   mp.cl
> >
> > -serviceLocation (required, may be hierarchical too):
> >
> >   abilene
> >   abilene.internet2.ann_arbor
> >   geant
> >   geant.pionier
> >
> > -implementationLanguage (optional):
> >
> >   java
> >   perl
> >   python
> >
> > -usedTools (optional)
> >
> >   bwctl,owamp
> >   exist-db
> >   rrdjtool
>
> Approaching the next release we can go back to this discussion about 
> naming schema which Maciej initiated. Any other opinions or proposals?
>
> Regards,


Szymon, I think we moved forward with the discussion during the 
Montpellier meeting. As far as I remember we agreed to use just

   service_name.domain

schema, where:

a) service_name means anything (and should be unique in domain scope)
b) domain is domain name such as "geant.net" or just "geant". I think we
   still need some hierarchy of domain names.

Maciej

--

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Maciej Glowiak        Network Research and Development            ||
| 

     Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center ||
| (+48 61) 858 2024     http://monstera.man.poznan.pl/              ||
 ====================================================================