Re: [clouds] Cloud-APPS BoF request and list status

Bhumip Khasnabish <> Thu, 10 February 2011 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B803A6A5F for <>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QrytmqF6w3HI for <>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE023A6A58 for <>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywk9 with SMTP id 9so785063ywk.31 for <>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:46:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vxu5DuO4mW5dRWYDrot/vXxxo+vRPJtuYFKbehMruE4=; b=d+LVQK9dvSvCtnYGGp/biADUkOsc2PGm4lVTv3xWCOq67tUvvNF6PWJT3aP6Z/lBiD tRIZPIsWL7NDtbwibR52YTCJZBpfhc0ajGq+de1c19KSfVEM7OM2JedxQAKOkc5OPg0i 3oH9P6Tb1h5JVwX+my08KOC7EPJUFD39/E84Q=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=XJg3kkmDhMQZru/H3w3wRB0Ly4gTPx5RRY2p5Nqt6cFqZJpYWvWx8gEp9SJDZz0bIj L9cKFPa6tECgK5zzKzeci3An8DIjOdg+WwA3xBG9Ji/JAu8VNe70147XEDOxNIChZjHF Du6gGQWyG22EXTz7uQKdpIozJ690MsiY22DjA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id i8mr3801416ybd.52.1297359963405; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:46:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:46:03 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Bhumip Khasnabish <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd59cdcc3beb5049bf127a0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [clouds] Cloud-APPS BoF request and list status
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:45:54 -0000


Per your suggestion, we plan to focus virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI)
and related materials only going forward.

We'll review these and related contributions during our scheduled call
(sending DIN and PC soon) at 10 AM ET tomorrow (Friday-11-Feb.-2011). Would
appreciate if you can join the call.

 Best Regards.

Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:+001-781-752-8003,

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <>wrote;wrote:

> Folks, during yesterday's BoF Coordination Call, the joint IAB and IESG
> decided to reject the request for a "Cloud-APPS" Birds of a Feather
> (BoF) session at IETF 80 in Prague.
> In essence, numerous IAB and IESG members expressed concerns about the
> lack of a clearly defined engineering problem that would be appropriate
> for solving within the limited scope of an IETF working group.
> Furthermore, many IAB and IESG members also are not confident that the
> lack of a clearly defined engineering problem can be overcome on this
> list, given (a) the unfocused nature of the discussions here and (b) the
> overly broad topic (anything to do with "clouds").
> Therefore, as one of the Area Directors for the Applications Area (under
> which the list is slotted), I shall ask the IETF
> Secretariat to close this list.
> I (or other IESG/IAB members) might be open to starting a new list in
> the future devoted to a specific engineering topic (e.g., a virtual
> desktop protocol). However, before starting such a list I for one would
> need to see that the proponents of such work have learned some of the
> lessons that knowledgeable people with IETF experience have been trying
> to impart to folks on this list over the last year, including:
> 1. Focus on a problem statement and proposed charter, not on early
> solution work or wide-ranging surveys.
> 2. Focus on protocols, not on services, frameworks, or architectures.
> 3. Focus on what protocols you can reuse, what protocols you need to
> extend, and what protocols you might need to invent from scratch.
> 4. Focus on engineering in a 12- to 18-month time horizon.
> 5. Focus on a modular approach, identifying modules that (mostly) fit
> into one IETF area.
> When working groups get formed at the IETF, it's usually because the
> proponents have been focused in the ways just described. As mentioned,
> one of the primary concerns about the clouds list has been the unfocused
> nature of the discussions.
> Although some IAB and IESG members appear to agree that cloud computing
> presents an interesting and important deployment scenario, IETF people
> are engineers and tend to focus on engineering problems. It's not enough
> to say "we need to do this work because it's cloud-related"; it's better
> to say "here is an interesting and important engineering problem that
> just happens to arise in cloud computing deployment scenarios". Once
> you've gotten that far, you really need to demonstrate the following (to
> quote RFC 5434):
>   - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
>     group to attempt solving it.
>   - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
>     problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).
>   - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
>     is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
>     what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.
>   - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
>     proposed documents) are the right set.
>   - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
>     having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
>     charter in a timely fashion).
> That is a relatively simple checklist, but over the past year there has
> been very little progress toward completing those tasks. Rather than
> leave this list open indefinitely, it seems more appropriate to close
> the list and encourage folks who are interested in engineering problems
> that happen to arise in cloud computing deployment scenarios to (a) do
> some hard thinking, (b) continue to write Internet-Drafts if they so
> desire, and (c) perhaps work to propose a very tightly defined working
> group at some point in the future. Continuing to flail about is not
> productive for the proponents, for people who are currently serving in
> IETF leadership roles (IESG and IAB members), or for IETF participants
> as a whole.
> If you have any questions regarding rejection of the BoF request or
> closing of this list, please let me know.
> Peter Saint-Andre, as co-AD of the Applications Area
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list