Re: [clouds] __答复:_scope_of_the_cloud

Sam Johnston <sjj@google.com> Wed, 14 April 2010 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sjj@google.com>
X-Original-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386AB3A6926 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-AJB9wES-eB for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0354F3A686C for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3ED6S5i023734 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:28 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271250388; bh=OaZ5TSScaNkaHk+bcK0AxRxhe9Y=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=uKBh2bnZVoeUwa48H4/egIzTCXBqRSBTzGiJg9AVoACLsQAqUa58WUq+ozKgowqBX lkgFPPVofHNmEXkg93ikQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=tfJwJbh5WEs64K0DgDzs6LYtpWQeah6zwh7xVARkAocIGZWQbCXVxaTIkIE2YfXfk ikHsq23qiWPM0oWmZ/dNg==
Received: from bwz2 (bwz2.prod.google.com [10.188.26.2]) by wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3ED6QGw025725 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:27 -0700
Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so109002bwz.10 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.150.67 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0A0785B8@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com>
References: <201004091421281408197@chinamobile.com> <OF97A02D2D.F12C57AA-ON48257700.0025B7E9-48257700.00267C69@zte.com.cn> <i2kda8464b11004090045scff74af9qd5a43fde4cc2df31@mail.gmail.com> <201004091607326563002@chinamobile.com> <w2o460b71b91004090146te13e3415y72f3d870b3de408b@mail.gmail.com> <92648F46-12F1-4CF8-BFD1-77E3E2DE4C15@cisco.com> <p2i460b71b91004140542w362755fdz90200ddafd8b7151@mail.gmail.com> <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0A0785B8@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:06:25 +0200
Received: by 10.204.21.1 with SMTP id h1mr8390773bkb.171.1271250386125; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <p2w460b71b91004140606l7b78e50cl34aee6ef19a19185@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sam Johnston <sjj@google.com>
To: "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ksankar@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555ad52af85f80484320ba1
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] =?gb2312?b?X1+08Li0Ol9zY29wZV9vZl90aGVfY2xvdWQ=?=
X-BeenThere: clouds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <clouds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds>
List-Post: <mailto:clouds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:06:45 -0000

On 14 April 2010 14:53, Krishna Sankar (ksankar) <ksankar@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Eh ? Is there someplace a statement or an intention which says IETF will
> work only on “service like EC2” ?
>
No - my point is that the needs of enterprise technology vary (often
significantly) from those of Internet-facing services. CDMI is but another
example of a protocol which has a bright future in feature rich products and
services, but which I remain unconvinced is suitable for something like
Amazon S3 (where I'd prefer to see something like a "lite" version of
WebDAV). Others include SAML vs OAuth, ActiveSync vs CalDAV, Exchange vs
IMAP, etc.

Sam

 *From:* clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Sam Johnston
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:43 AM
> *To:* Mark Webb (mwebb)
> *Cc:* clouds@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [clouds] __答复:_scope_of_the_cloud
>
>
>
> On 13 April 2010 22:38, Mark Webb <mwebb@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:46 AM, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> We're also missing a way of describing containers (e.g. hypervisors,
> platforms, etc.) and workloads (e.g. applications, virtual machines).
>
>   I really think this is the realm of DMTF. They have a good start with
> OVF. There is more to do, (network, security and policy abstraction to name
> a couple) but it would be good for the industry if those container issues
> were mostly handled in this same place.
>
>
>
> That may be true, but what IETF is renowned for is creating relatively
> tight, interoperable specifications for well defined/constrained problems.
> Others tend to want to boil oceans (e.g. OVF's normative reference to CIM),
> which may well be necessary to solve their problems (e.g. "private" cloud)
> but not ours (e.g. services like EC2).
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>