Re: [clouds] Strawman CloudApps BoF (proposed for IETF-80) Agenda

<> Sun, 30 January 2011 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE423A6903 for <>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:34:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36lMPcoPKws1 for <>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE2B3A68AF for <>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p0U0bgqV002794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:37:42 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:37:32 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p0U0axRQ026776; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:36:59 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:36:59 -0500
From: <>
To: <>, <>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:36:56 -0500
Thread-Topic: [clouds] Strawman CloudApps BoF (proposed for IETF-80) Agenda
Thread-Index: Acu//QzDmturqhmCRBaHhIVGk+YKRQAF+g+Q
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E03DA705D7AMX14Acorpemcc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [clouds] Strawman CloudApps BoF (proposed for IETF-80) Agenda
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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 00:34:38 -0000

Here's a hint from an IETF process perspective - remove item -3-, and roll a small piece of it into item -4-.   The primary purpose of a BoF is to get to a WG charter (or decide that a WG is not appropriate).  Handing out presentation slots to every possibly relevant I-D mostly serves to reduce the time available for that purpose.

--David (storm WG chair, past chair of other IETF WGs, has been through a number of BoF experiences ...)
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754

From: [] On Behalf Of Bhumip Khasnabish
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:39 PM
Subject: [clouds] Strawman CloudApps BoF (proposed for IETF-80) Agenda

Strawman CloudApps BoF Agenda
(Early draft)
-1- Introduction by chairs
-2- Problems and Open issues

a)      Potential CloudApps workitems and use cases

b)      Discussion on level of interest
-3- Scope and requirements of the work in IETF

a)      Presentation of other I-Ds related to survey, framework, and gaps

b)      Presentations on I-Ds related to requirements and proposed solutions of a handful of potential workitems

c)      Prioritization of work items
-4- Discussion of potential charter

a)      Presentation of a draft charter & list of deliverables by chairs

b)      Discussion on the draft charter
-5- Consensus and debates

a)      Problem description and the need to solve them

b)      Workitems to solve in IETF and consensus on descriptions

c)      Contributors, reviewers and editors

d)      Update the proposed charter to reflect the consensus

e)      Decision on the formation of the working group

Best Regards.

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