[Bro-Dev] CBAN design proposal
Slagell, Adam J
slagell at illinois.edu
Tue May 24 11:11:13 PDT 2016
> On May 24, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Siwek, Jon <jsiwek at illinois.edu> wrote:
> I lean toward starting w/ the most streamlined and least complicated approach and seeing what quality control checks you need to layer on top of it because we might just expend a lot of effort planning for problems that don’t actual ever pop up in practice. But as a person that has to do development work on cban I might be biased toward doing what seems easier for me, so I’m fine not having a vote.
I guess I’m not seeing more vs. less complicated; I see mandatory vs. optional being the difference.
The important design goals here I think are:
1. Not block anything on a human if possible.
2. Be extensible so we can add future checks and change things between optional and mandatory.
3. Require as little information as needed, but no less.
And these goals are really in service of the broader goals of having a useful repository with low barrier to entry. It is is these two goals that are in tension a bit.
I’d prefer not to have anything in there that we know is broken, and I believe Robin is concerned that any blocks are going to require interaction on our part. I don’t think that is the case, but both of us are speculating with out data. I think compromises can be made as long as we have the flexibility to change approaches as things progress and we get data back.
Adam J. Slagell
Chief Information Security Officer
Director, Cybersecurity Division
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"Under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), any written communication to or from University employees regarding University business is a public record and may be subject to public disclosure."
More information about the bro-dev