perfsonar development work

[Joe Metzger <>]

Szymon & Loukik,
I have been looking at this and I have realized that the
URN's are not quite as flexible as I thought.  There is a domain field
in the URNs, but it should probably not be overloaded to include project
information.

So, I have come to the conclusion that we do need an extension to handle
this capability.

--Joe







On May 23, 2008, at 5:59 AM, Szymon Trocha wrote:

> Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> > Joe Metzger wrote:
> > > Loukik,
> > > I don't think we need this.  We have already discussed putting URN's
> > > into the protocol. These URN's contain a domain field. So, I  
> > > think we should
> > > just implement the approach that has already been discussed,  
> > > instead of
> > > inventing a new one.
> > > Or, does this new proposal support some capability that URN's  
> > > don't support?
> > Hi Joe,
> > I might have missed this point. URN is a great idea and I am fine  
> > with using that approach. However, I am not clear where such a URN  
> > will fit within the store file and the protocol and how it will  
> > help us achieve the objectives discussed in Zagreb and detailed  
> > for implementation below.
> > Can you please explain with some examples?
>
> Hi Loukik,
>
> How is this specification progressing?
> Joe - can you give us some examples of using URNs?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Szymon Trocha
>
> Poznan Supercomputing & Ntw. Center ::: NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
> Tel. (+48 61) 8582022
> http://noc.man.poznan.pl  ::: http://noc.pionier.gov.pl