Re: [apps-discuss] proposal for Virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) work in APP area

[Scott W Brim <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 18:11, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  However, most of the interesting work here is, in fact, an API. Note that
> I am *not* one of the people who says "the IETF { doesn't / can't } do
> APIs"; I think we do/can as long as we are upfront about it.
>

Right.  Personally I believe it's fine for the IETF to do APIs that enable
capabilities closely associated with the network.  I see no problem doing
this.


> Given that the text of the proposed charter says that the protocol would be
> between the VDI Client and the Virtual Desktop Agent", which might be
> software running on a Guest OS with no network connectivity, this will be an
> API unless there is a requirement that the Guest OS has network connectivity
> at a known and predictable address, and that the Virtual Machine (actually,
> the host system) also has network connectivity at a known and predictable
> address, and neither is firewalled from the VDI client.
>
> A different model would be that the VDI Client has a new protocol to talk
> to the host system, and that the host system has an API for talking to the
> Guest OS in a way that would reach the Virtual Desktop Agent. This model has
> some advantages over the narrow one in the charter. For example, the
> protocol would allow control over Guest OSs, such as "start up machine X"
> and "send text to the console on machine X". These will work even if the
> Guest OS does not support the API, or if it does not currently have network
> connectivity.
>
> The proposed WG could come up with requirements for both the client-to-host
> protocol and the API between the host and the desktop agent, and the two
> could clearly have some good interactions.
>

If I understand you correctly, I just want to be sure functions are
decoupled.  The client SHOULD NOT know whether its agent is in a particular
environment, e.g. a VM / Guest OS.  Environments need to be replaceable, and
the VDI or VDIs must be able to change independently.  No?  So I think it's
okay to just focus on just the relationship between client and agent to
start with, and possibly bring other things in as they turn out to be
useful.

Scott