Re: [clouds] Use cases

Bhumip Khasnabish <vumip1@gmail.com> Thu, 08 April 2010 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <vumip1@gmail.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 AF0E528C0D9 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 UJD8-dEDNlfg for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f217.google.com (mail-gx0-f217.google.com [209.85.217.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A53D3A67BD for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so1117940gxk.8 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ldpwaH0YVihZCRrbSOIOXrGh8QnQf5O7CqjwicYfGDQ=; b=nZH4chlEdnVv/zUC5Jxj344dh6hDw3J7uDPTdG0DCb1Wz4MSK7/av0HPBUnSUjHtyF BHMr+tsCUgnd0qdq6LY/k8ydRRMhqyx+Y7xo1FBhW89MVf3Amvyo2KnDDKGe9o36/ENd 1WuEkTqWgvH93qm0myPJOlm2YggIiH/8eJGW4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=eaUJrWLImLpzY/q8axISNSKWu7FvSGlGBQS8hpynrSiy5NZxTnyp6RsOrsjuBRQIce /KpdeQp5hgnp4L03Qx6Z0gqPoB4pt+OVLbDooM25m3XH7N/SPY2+26fUkViYx9c8xikg zNJ64Pb3V0sBLGJNTH/IPCmvdSv+DIAosKdaU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.8.147 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <68DC040F-2B5C-4920-8E4B-AF750917D5E6@cisco.com>
References: <C6A1D07CACFDBD4D9422C7D7ED288D41041896117A@34093-MBX-C01.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <4BBC9B0C.5050207@stpeter.im> <C6A1D07CACFDBD4D9422C7D7ED288D41041896119B@34093-MBX-C01.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <D7AB7C87-E8F6-496B-9D37-E13FAED746F2@cisco.com> <C6A1D07CACFDBD4D9422C7D7ED288D410418961201@34093-MBX-C01.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <68DC040F-2B5C-4920-8E4B-AF750917D5E6@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:22:25 -0400
Received: by 10.101.204.37 with SMTP id g37mr16927191anq.28.1270700545983; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <s2qa065968d1004072122vac14e3c1lb6abc6426b3168a7@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bhumip Khasnabish <vumip1@gmail.com>
To: mwebb@cisco.com, meng.yu@zte.com.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e68e7f66a8c5640483b206bd"
Cc: "clouds@ietf.org" <clouds@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [clouds] Use cases
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 04:22:51 -0000

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.