Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

Focusing on specific area, specially as it relates to network (like
"virtual network services for Cloud"),  is a good idea to pursue in IETF
(so far the focus is lacking). 

--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 Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:22 AM
To: 'Gene Golovinsky'; carlw@mcsr-labs.org; Mark Webb (mwebb);
clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

I am looking at a very different angle of the "Cloud". Rather than the
"IT functions as a service", I am looking at Virtual Network Services
and Storage Services which can be offered by Service Providers. 

Are there anyone else interested in this area? Maybe we should form a
separate discussion group. 

Linda Dunbar

________________________________

From: Gene Golovinsky [mailto:gene@alertlogic.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:37 AM
To: Linda Dunbar; carlw@mcsr-labs.org; 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

While I agree that SaaS, IaaS and PaaS are different categories they all
basically do the same thing - letting people consume IT functions as
service.

As a result the same multiple problem spaces apply: users need to be
authenticated, their access need to be controlled, activities audited,
data protected, functionality provisioned and the list goes on.

Cloud Security Alliance mentioned earlier does not necessarily deal with
those issues. I read their guidelines and it mostly deals with
deployment recommendations, but the area of auditing for example is not
really covered. 

Ability to audit is really important if we want to insure that people
that care about compliance actually use cloud technologies. Yet neither
ability, nor technology for that is there. While traditional logging
(syslog) is not good enough for the cloud simply because we are dealing
with shared and dynamically allocated resources and user info is not
consistently available. 

--Gene

From: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:16 PM
To: carlw@mcsr-labs.org; 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

I find it difficult that people in the same room talking about totally
different subjects. Very hard to get the discussion moving forward. 

Linda 

________________________________

From: Carl Williams [mailto:carlw@mcsr-labs.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:59 AM
To: 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

The name is irrelevant and perhaps in future it could change to avoid
distraction.  The technology discussions is what is key and that is what
was discussed in the informal meeting.  From what I can tell the purpose
was to get some informal discussion going first and see what people are
thinking.  There seems to be some conclusion that the next step was to
conduct a gap analysis.

Carl

From: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:48 AM
To: 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
Subject: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

I attended the CLOUD's bar BOF. I don't think it is appropriate for IETF
to have a working group on "CLOUD" because it means different things to
different people. Cloud computing is a general term for anything that
involves delivering services over the Internet. I can see three basic
categories: 

p  Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_
gci1358983,00.html> ),

p  Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS)
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci133
2892,00.html>  and 

p  Software-as-a-Service (SaaS
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_
gci1170781,00.html> )

There are a lot of stuff under each of the categories above. I suggest
separating them and further studying if there are enough contents for
one of them to become a working group. 

Linda Dunbar 

________________________________

From: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Webb
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:09 AM
To: clouds@ietf.org
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] 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