Re: [clouds] Use cases

Surely, these are good inputs and comments since we are still at bar BoF
stage.

As was mentioned earlier, "the interoperability between cloud entities or
between different clouds could be the candidates."

For the API work, yes, we'll look into what  are being *planned* by other
SDOs, and what are actually being *delivered*. The requirements may be
driven by the services (XaaS) and use cases under consideration, and IETF
Clouds group can contribute to that as well.

Metadata may be useful for hiding configuration and provisioning complexity
in each clouds, and may in turn support seamless interoperability.

Service-specific, privacy and security profiles are very important, and as
you mentioned " You got to figure out what other SDOs are not already
targeting " and that's what we plan to do in the Std. survey and
gap analysis.

The last bullet simply mentions the need for business, technical, and
functional ref. framerwork for cloud services.

Thanks again.

Bhumip

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Masum Hasan (masum) <masum@cisco.com>wrote:

>  -          Interoperability of what? A what level/layer?
>
> -          API development? Yet another? No. There are plethora of them.
> Mark pointed out DMTF may get into API spec work. There are also OGF OCCI
> (for compute) and SNIA CDMI (storage). IETF/IRTF could define requirements,
> specially as they relate to certain aspects of networking (IETF’s forte),
> which other SDOs could use  as input to extend existing APIs
> (OCCI/vCloud/CDMI).
>
> -          Data exchange format (DEF)? What data? Exchange (virtual
> appliance) package spec? Consider OVF. Exchange Amazon SimpleDB Table data
> with Microsoft Azure? Metadata for defining services? Other SDOs are working
> on this.  Also, Metadata for defining services and DEF are the same? I
> think, not.
>
> -          Privacy/security profiles? You got to figure out what other
> SDOs are not already targeting.
>
> -          The last bullet … too vague.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Masum
>
>
>
> 408 219 9713   Cell                  408 853 5926   Desk
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~masumz/
>
> http://wwwin-people.cisco.com/masum/ (Intranet)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Bhumip Khasnabish
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:22 PM
> *To:* Mark Webb (mwebb); meng.yu@zte.com.cn
> *Cc:* clouds@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [clouds] Use cases
>
>
>
> Thanks for all of the inputs and discussion.
>
> So far looks like the following could be the possible work items in IETF’s
> Clouds ...
>
>
>
> ·         Interoperability
>
> ·         API development
>
> ·         Data exchange formats (may be use of metadata for defining
> services and/or moving services from one cloud to another or using hybrid
> cloud)
>
> ·         Privacy and security profiles (or frameworks) for privacy and
> security in a variety of clouds domains
>
> ·         Functional, technical and business models for clarification and
> use in Clouds services
>
>
>
> Any other suggestions and/or comments?!
>
>
>
> Bhumip
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Mark Webb <mwebb@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> DMTF with OVF is the primary group for Virtual Machine format & exchange
> for IaaS.   Look for that to evolve into something that will allow some
> abstractions for policy - security.  Given the dynamic nature of cloud
> today, the more abstraction that is allowed the better.   This will enable
> demand to grow and the use-cases to expand and viable services to be
> offered.
>
>
>
> The cloud incubator effort, (in DMTF) looks to be spawning several other
> working groups.  Three different APIs have been submitted to the cloud
> incubator and look like a working group will be created to look at that.
>  There are several ways to look at the API user role and/or use-case of
> APIs.  I think DMTF focus will remain IaaS initially for the APIs as well.
>
>
>
> For Security, Cloud Security Alliance is the clearing house for best
> practices, potential certification process in Cloud Audit.  These may end up
> serving the industry as the security focal point.  There are likely _most_
> of the components for security existing today in various SDO.  So, this
> profiles (or frameworks) for security are what is most needed right now
> IMO.
>
>
>
> Most of my comments are IaaS focused.  I believe PaaS and SaaS are too ill
> defined with no center of gravity to be something mature enough to consider
> standardization yet.  What the industry wants and will support in a
> functional, technical and business models from PaaS and SaaS has some
> design, use and clarification before we will know what is worth locking up
> IMO.
>
>
>
> Mark Webb
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Gene Golovinsky wrote:
>
>
>
>   Mark.
>
> I would agree with  that.
>
> Like you said there are several initiatives going on in SNIA and TOG for
> example.
>
>
>
> I do not see, however, interoperability/API, data exchange formats and
> security covered anywhere.
>
>
>
> --Gene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Webb [mailto:mwebb@cisco.com <mwebb@cisco.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:09 AM
> *To:* clouds@ietf.org
> *Cc:* Peter Saint-Andre; Gene Golovinsky
> *Subject:* Re: [clouds] Use cases
>
>
>
> I was not there at the BoF, but did get reports from a couple of people in
> attendance.
>
>
>
> An important perspective is to ensure IETF does NOT start a new effort that
> overlaps with other SDO and Forum already underway.  The industry does not
> need more SDO declaring they are relevant to cloud computing IMO.
>
>
>
> Seeking contributions on relevant & IETF appropriate gap analysis is the
> _most_ that should be pursued at this point in time.
>
>
>
> Mark Webb
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Gene Golovinsky wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, I think this is a topic worthy of IETF time and attention.
> How can I help to move the discussion forward?
>
> Was there any specific area out of the white paper discussed?
> I think Cloud interoperability and security are topics were IETF is
> traditionally focusing its efforts.
>
> --Gene
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org<clouds-bounces@ietf.org>]
> On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:48 AM
> To: clouds@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [clouds] Use cases
>
> On 4/7/10 8:40 AM, Gene Golovinsky wrote:
>
> >    2. I saw references to bar BoF at last IETF meeting, but could not
> >       really figure out if the WG was chartered.
>
> It was a bar BoF, not a real BoF. And IMHO the discussion was so nebulous
> that folks are a long way from forming a WG.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> clouds@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> clouds@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards.
>
> Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:+001-781-752-8003, bhumip@acm.org)
>
> © 2010 Bhumip Khasnabish. Do not view, print, forward, and save the content
> of this email if you are not the intended recipient of the communiqué.
>

-- 
Best Regards.

Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:+001-781-752-8003, bhumip@acm.org)

© 2010 Bhumip Khasnabish. Do not view, print, forward, and save the content
of this email if you are not the intended recipient of the communiqué.