[Go-essp-tech] Next GO-ESSP telco (Tuesday)

[stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk]

Yes, I agree we need to expand the scope beyond security -- as the
Cmip5Status wiki page already does.  However, most integration workflow
tests have a strong security component so it's a good place to start.

Cheers,
Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Wilhelmi [mailto:wilhelmi at ucar.edu] 
Sent: 22 November 2010 17:29
To: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
Cc: ejn at ucar.edu; go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
Subject: Re: Next GO-ESSP telco (Tuesday)

Hi all,

    I don't believe that Eric will be online at all this week. One
comment I think I can make is that I believe the intended test scope is
indeed larger than just security. I believe the goal is to make sure the
whole federation system works. While a big part of this is security,
there are other critical components such as replication that will need
to be integration tested.

-Nate

On 11/22/2010 04:54 AM, stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> Eric,
>
> It's a pity you aren't available tomorrow, and I'll be away next
> Tuesday.  I think we need to plough ahead on organising integration
> testing without you.  Maybe you can comment on the other the testing
> thread before the telco?
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Nienhouse [mailto:ejn at ucar.edu] 
> Sent: 19 November 2010 13:41
> To: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> Cc: Luca.Cinquini at jpl.nasa.gov; Kershaw, Philip (STFC,RAL,SSTD);
> ejn at mail.ucar.edu; Nathan Wilhelmi
> Subject: Re: Next GO-ESSP telco (Tuesday)
>
> Hi Stephen, All,
>
> I will be out on holiday next week and unavailable on Tuesday.  It
would
>
> be great to keep things moving forward regarding the testing schedule 
> and plans.  Would you be willing to hold a meeting on the topic
(without
>
> me)?
>
> If not, I'd suggest we schedule discussing federation testing for the 
> following week (11/30.)
>
> Any work toward the next Gateway/Datanode software version would be a 
> good topic for the agenda in my opinion. The primary focus of this
next 
> version is security, specifically the "1.3" items we identified in the

> security meeting at ANL.  The ORP cookie discussion would be
appropriate
>
> IMO.
>
> -Eric
>
>
> stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I've lost track of exactly what exactly has been proposed for 
>> Tuesday's GO-ESSP telco.  Luca reminded us that we should discuss the

>> re-engineering the ORP cookie security.  I'd like to discuss the 
>> testing schedule suggested by Eric.  I'm sure there was something
else
>>     
>   
>> can anyone remind me?
>>
>>  
>>
>> I'd like to put out a detailed agenda today.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stephen.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
>>
>> Centre of Environmental Data Archival
>>
>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Scanned by iCritical.
>>
>>
>>     
>   

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.