perfsonar development work

["Jeff W. Boote" <>]

Nicolas Simar wrote:
> Jason Zurawski wrote:
> > Fausto;
> >
> > > I have the following doubt: if you have a schema for SNMP, so a 
> > > ma-rrd can only implement this schema instead of implementing 
> > > Utilization, Errors and Discards?
> > >
> > > Or any ma needs to implement all this schemas?
> >
> >
> > The schemas can be used together or separately.  The RRD MA currently 
> > implements characteristic schemas (util/errors/discs) only while the 
> > SNMP MA implements the tool and characteristic namespaces together.  
> > There is no requirement for an MA to offer all of these, the choice is 
> > up to the service provider.
>
> For a schema point of view I fully agree.
> For a consistency point of view amongst provider that wishes to work 
> together, there must be a an agreement on a common namespace amongst 
> everybody otherwise, the whole exercise of perfSONAR is useless.
> Note that this doesn't prevent to  implement additional namespace.

I believe there is general agreement in this case. Getting agreement in this way 
is why Jason sent around the examples before implementing it. Roman, Nina and 
David also participated in the discussion about what made sense. (As Joe points 
out, more thorough documentation would be better. But, this is what we have so far.)

Roman said he did not have time before this release to implement the SNMP 
namespace, but I believe it is in his future plans.

jeff