Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS

["So, Ning" <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps I am not describing my thoughts in a clearly defined terms and definition, thus the confusion :)  

When I say "the protocols outside IETF", I meant the interworking between IETF protocols and the protocols outside IETF, which should be addressed in IETF as well as outside IETF.

When I say "other areas and WGs", I meant that a set of requirements may be met with different solutions using protocols from different areas and WGs.  

Both cases are true for the VPN Extension Requirement for Cloud Services draft.

The CloudOPS charter has been defined and modified numerous times.  I listed the drafts meant to show that they fit into the current proposed CloudOPS charter, not the proposed ARMD charter.  

Hopefully this helps to clarify the matter, not causing additional confusion :)  I will keep my mouth shut on this, and let others chime in.   

 
Best regards,
 
Ning So
Network Evolution Planning
Verizon, Inc.
(office) 972-729-7905
(Cell) 972-955-0914
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:01 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS

Hi,

just to point out some issues...

below...

El 11/02/11 20:48, So, Ning escribió:
>
> Bhumip and all,
>
> As discussed in this morning's call, here are my personal views on the 
> proposed CloudOPS WG and the related drafts.
>
> Frameworks, high-level requirements, and best practices descriptions 
> on cloud infrastructure that impact multiple IETF protocols under 
> different areas and WGs,
>
If it is an OPS area WG what you are proposing, then the work you 
propose should fall into OPS, don't you think? (as opposed to multiple 
areas)
If the work you propose fall into other WG, then it should go to the 
other WGs, right?


> and/or protocols outside of IETF, belong to the CloudOPS WG.
>
If protocols are outside the IETF, then they shouldn't be defined in the 
IETF, don't you agree?

> New protocols that impact multiple IETF protocols under different 
> areas and WGs,
>
similar comment here, if this is an OPS WG, then it should work within 
the OPS area scope
again, if the protocol is being defined in another WG, then the work 
should be done in that WG.
>
> and/or protocols outside of IETF, also belong to the CloudOPS WG.
>
work outside the IETF, should be done, well, outside the IETF

> ARMD WG's work is very focused and much needed, and I voiced my 
> support for its establishment. However, I see difficulties in 
> broadening its charter to make it a single and only default CloudOPS 
> WG. All the non-ARMD related drafts will become distraction and cause 
> confusion.
>
i agree you should leave ARMD alone.
It is well defined and well scoped problem and it is good as it currently is

> In my humble opinion, the following drafts belong to the CloudOPS WG. 
> Many of them were presented at Cloud BoF in IETF79, and are in the 
> process of getting updated for IETF80. Several are new submissions 
> that are recently uploaded. I think what we have here is more than one 
> and half hours of meeting time JI really do not want to inflict the 
> pain on my ARMD friends.
>
I don't think you are approaching this from the right perspective.
This is not about draft, is about real problems and concrete items that 
you want to work on.
You should work on defining a charter, not in voicing for drafts that 
should be included in a WG that doesn't exist yet.

In addition, all this long list seems to cover a too wide variety of topics.
I would reccomend to be less ambitious, define a much scoped work, by 
defining a charter (As opposed to write drafts)

my two cents

regards, marcelo



>    1. Cloud Reference Framework
>    2. Cloud Security Framework
>    3. VPN Extension for Cloud Services
>    4. Network Abstraction for Enterprise and SP Class Cloud
>    5. Protocol Considerations for Workload Mobility in Clouds
>    6. Service Management for Virtualized Cloud
>    7. Virtual Network Management Information Model
>    8. Network Probability Requirements and Models
>    9. Syslog Extension for Cloud Using Syslog Structured Data
>   10. Virtual Resource Management (VRM) in Clouds
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ning So
>
> Network Evolution Planning
>
> Verizon, Inc.
>
> (office) 972-729-7905
>
> (Cell) 972-955-0914
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Bhumip Khasnabish
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:46 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [clouds] Conf call on Friday [11-February-2011] at 10 AM 
> US/NY time
>
> Please plan to join a conf call on
> *Friday, 11-Feb.-2011 starting from 10 AM ET* (New York, USA time)
>
> to get updates on the Clouds initiatives/activities.
>
> [you may find the current NY/USA time (from your location) at the 
> following URL: 
> http://www.worldtimeserver.com/current_time_in_US-NY.aspx ].
>
>
> Dial in number: *US Toll-free [phone]
> *If the toll-free number does not work, pls use *+001-203-875-8973*
> *Passcode: 204 1744*
>
> (Thanks to Mr. Ning So for providing the conf bridge).
>
> **
>
> *_Proposed Agenda:_*
>
> **
>
>    1. VEPC draft update -- Ning et al
>    2. CloudLog draft update -- Gene and Sam
>    3. Data Center Operations (DCOPS) proposal update -- Ross (with
>       info from Ron, if any)
>    4. draft-rfc-seamless-Cloud-masum-01.txt
>       <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/draft-rfc-seamless-Cloud-masum-01.txt>(27.1
>       KB) - Masum et al, /Network Abstraction for Enterprise and SP
>       class Cloud: Seamless Cloud Abstraction and Interfaces /
>    5. Protocol Considerations for Workload Mobility in Clouds.txt
>       <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/Protocol%20Considerations%20for%20Workload%20Mobility%20in%20Clouds.txt>(21.5
>       KB) - Masum et al, /Protocol Considerations for Workload
>       Mobility in Clouds /
>    6. Karavettil-et-al-IETF-Cloud-Security-Framework-11Feb2011_v2.pdf
>       <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/Karavettil-et-al-IETF-Cloud-Security-Framework-11Feb2011_v2.pdf>(0.6
>       MB) - Suren et al, /updated cloud security framework (CSF) slides /
>    7. draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility-01.txt
>       <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility-01.txt>(42.0
>       KB) - Mr. Yokota et al, /Service Management for Virtualized
>       Networks /
>    8. Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Requirements and Survey
>       update - Mr. Wang and Mr. Ma
>    9. Cloud (client and network sides) APIs update - Sam
>   10. VRM update -- Mr Chu et al
>   11. VDI proposal expectations (further guidance) -- Peter Saint-Andre
>   12. VDI proposal development -- TBD
>   13. Any other topics?
>
> As always, all of the drafts and presentations are available at the 
> following URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/Clouds
>
> *Next conf call*will be held on
>
> *_Friday-18-February-2011_**starting from 10 AM ET*(New York, USA time).
>
> *Many Thanks for Participation and Contributions.*
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:[phone], vumip1 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:vumip1%20at%20gmail.com>)
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhumipkhasnabish
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds

_______________________________________________
clouds mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds