Folks, sorry for being late to voice my opinion, but I'm again out of office. BTW, I'm glad that Helsinki University provides my with decent access to the Internet! *> I tend to agree with you here but before we change the database config to *> make connect optional I guess we should get the okay from the chair who *> will be coordinating the new definitions for the objects. * *I agree. It is my understanding that this approach was a general consensus, thus I propose to (immediately) proceed in this direction. *> Also, we can take it a step further in that if the connect field is there *> it is LOCAL (something to add to the syntax checker ;-(). * *I was thinking of a multi-step phase-in of the new policy, and that this *would be the natural next step. Or do we just jump into it with both feet *rigt away? Well, sometimes you have to jump, although in this case I would strongly advocate a step-by-step approach. I'd also like to keep the possibility of submitting objects with connect: attributes other than LOCAL, as long as we have not agreed on and implemented a decent replacement functionality. More so if the attribute is optional, I don't see the case for doing more syntax checking for an attribute that is about to go away. I include the relevant section of the DB-WG minutes FYI. I think the wording does reflect the proposed approach reasonably well: ---------- 6. DB usage conventions and recommendations Quite some time was spent to discuss the connect: attribute of the network object. It was agreed that the only well-defined value is LOCAL. This attribute should eventually be obsoleted. Later it was noted that it is currently mandatory and should be made optional after one round of mailing-list discussion. However, there is a need for the functionality, maybe the community: approach is the right way to go (eg. create community NSF). Still there is concern that some of the approaches that are obvious for "old hands in networking" are not necessarily useful for the end-users. Maybe the tools coming out of the PRIDE project can help to solve this problem. NCC to start the discussion with a rough proposal before the next meeting. ---------- Wilfried.
"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> writes:
It is my understanding that this approach was a general consensus, thus I propose to (immediately) proceed in this direction.
The conenct: attribute will move from mandatory to optional in the next 10 minutes. Have a nice weekend everyone. Daniel
----- Text sent by Daniel Karrenberg follows -------
"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> writes:
It is my understanding that this approach was a general consensus, thus I propose to (immediately) proceed in this direction.
The conenct: attribute will move from mandatory to optional in the next 10 minutes.
This is fine with me, providing that the nets that are "local" (i.e. not yet affected to anybody, or do not get out of a site) are tagged LOCAL. We still have to differenciate the "private" nets from the "public" ones!
Have a nice weekend everyone.
Thanks. Same to you. -- Jean-Michel
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg
-
jimi@dxcoms.cern.ch
-
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet