> From: Robert P Ricci <
ricci@...>
> Date: May 21, 2008 1:01:33 PM EDT
> To: Heidi Picher Dempsey <
hdempsey@...>
> Cc:
control-wg@...,
omis-wg@...
> Subject: Re: [cwg] Fwd: [omis-wg] Indiana University comments on
> OMIS use Cases
>
> Thus spake Heidi Picher Dempsey on Wed, May 21, 2008 at 09:57:12AM
> -0400:
>> Below are some comments on the OMIS use cases that we posted on the
>> wiki a while ago. What do folks on this list think about using the
>> term "token" instead of "ticket" for control descriptions to avoid
>> future confusion between the overlapping term "ticket" that ops and
>> control both currently use?
>
> The word "token" is already used in the architecture documents to
> refer
> to a system built on top of tickets by brokers, which might permit
> over-booking or other economic models more complex than the simple
> semantics of a ticket. So, that name isn't an option.
>
> It seems like a few of the groups that are implementing prototypes are
> finding it convenient to treat a ticket as a particular type of
> credential. So, it's probably worth considering whether "resource
> credential" or something similar would work as an alternate name.
>
> --
> /-----------------------------------------------------------
> | Robert P Ricci <
ricci@...> | <
ricci@...>
> | Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
> | www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
> \-----------------------------------------------------------
