Re: [clouds] Clouds SDO gap analysis template (a Table)

[Song Haibin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

In general, I agree with you. I'm not sure this kind of general gap analysis
between SDOS is helpful or not. How much does it help to determine what
protocol should be developed in IETF?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 3:03 PM
> To: ext Linda Dunbar; Sam Johnston; Mark Carlson
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [clouds] Clouds SDO gap analysis template (a Table)
> 
> Hi Linda,
> 
> Two minor items that come to my mind.
> 
> 1) "Cloud Computing" is largely a marketing term. Many of us (including
me)
> are not good in marketing. For discussions it therefore helps to translate
the
> cloud terminology into something that many of us understand.
> 

I agree with that. A small piece of work that needs interoperability is
always good. "Cloud" means different things to different people.

> 2) Keeping up with all the "cloud" work is in some sense quite easy to do.
> Why? It seems that most organizations just look around what other SDOs are
> doing and try to figure out what cloud computing actually means.
> 

> We typically try to work on well-defined scoped work (see all the working
> group charters). Some SDOs have taken a different approach and that's fine
> as well. So far, I have not seen anyone proposing detailed *technical*
work. I
> am looking forward to see technical contributions from Sam (in the mail
> thread below) and others.
> 

+1

> In starting new work there are additional aspects to consider (beyond what
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434 says), namely:
> 
> 1) Are there deployed solutions available that require standardization?
(Not
> everything requires interoperability.) Bringing work to the IETF that has
> found acceptance in the marketplace already offers some advantages over
> starting with a clean slate.
> 

Or you can come up with a concrete problem that industrial world agrees on,
and try to solve it here.

> 2) Do those companies producing whatever solutions (such as
virtualization,
> etc.) demand that their work gets standardized? If not, then the outcome
of
> standardization will have a hard time to find acceptance.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> PS: Just something to think about. When I helped to bring OAuth to the
IETF
> nobody was talking about cloud computing. It was just about delegated
> authentication on the Internet. Now, a year later some people refer to the
> very same use cases but use the term "cloud" somewhere in the description
> even though nothing has changed compared to last year from a technical
> point of view.
> 

I'm reading OAuth stuff these days. Is it widely deployed now? I would like
to get more information about it (privately, not in this thread).

BR,
Haibin

> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of ext Linda Dunbar
> 	Sent: 27 May, 2010 08:58
> 	To: 'Sam Johnston'; 'Mark Carlson'
> 	Cc: [e-mail]
> 	Subject: Re: [clouds] Clouds SDO gap analysis template (a Table)
> 
> 
> 
> 	I don't think it is realistic for IETF to keep up with all the Cloud
work
> done by other SDO. "Cloud" is just too big a scope for one IETF working
> group. We should focus on one concrete problem. Other SDO's work will be
> background and justify why this problem has to be solved by IETF instead
of
> other SDO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Linda Dunbar
> 
> 	________________________________
> 
> 		From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Sam Johnston
> 	Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:18 PM
> 	To: Mark Carlson
> 	Cc: [e-mail]
> 	Subject: Re: [clouds] Clouds SDO gap analysis template (a Table)
> 
> 
> 
> 	Bhumip/Mark,
> 
> 
> 
> 	In terms of gap analysis, I'd be more interested in seeing other
groups
> feeding into IETF than having it picking up the scraps. I certainly intend
to
> submit CloudAudit, and ideally [parts of] OCCI to the I-D/RFC process for
a
> start. IETF is well known for having clean, interoperable specifications
which
> is something specialist groups are not so good at.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Sam
> 
> 
> 
> 	On 25 May 2010 19:49, Mark Carlson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> 	That's great. When the IETF decides what it wants to do, you should
> 	also create and maintain an entry up there.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 
> 	-- mark
> 
> 
> 	On 5/25/10 11:15 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote:
> 
> 	Dear Mark,
> 
> 
> 
> 	Thanks for your inputs and suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Yes, we'll utilize all of the relevant existing information from the
sites
> that you mention and a few others.
> 
> 
> 
> 	As you know our objective is to determine the gaps (existing and
> emerging) and focus on where IETF can contribute in terms of
> standardization (protocol development, protocol extension
> recommendation, etc.) and profile development for Cloud-based services.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Hope these help clarify matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Thanks again.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Best.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Bhumip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Mark Carlson
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 	Bhumip,
> 
> 	Not sure why you are doing this. The information you need is largely
> already
> 	available on http://cloud-standards.org
<http://cloud-standards.org/>
> wiki. Each SDO has already created
> 	an entry describing their cloud work, and they use a standard
template
> already
> 	to describe each standard.
> 
> 	For example, here is one for an already finalized standard:
> 
> 
> 	http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=SNIA_Cloud_Data_Ma
> nagement_Interface_%28CDMI%29
> 
> 
> 	Cloud Standard
> 
> 
> 	1. The name of the specification
> 
> 	SNIA Cloud Data Management Interface
> 
> 
> 	2. A short statement (<100 words) of the purpose and function of the
> specification The SNIA Cloud Data Management Interface (CDMI) is the
> functional interface that applications will use to create, retrieve,
update and
> delete data elements from the cloud. As part of this interface the client
will
> be able to discover the capabilities of the cloud storage offering and use
this
> interface to manage containers and the data that is placed in them. In
> addition, metadata can be set on containers and their contained data
> elements through this interface.
> 
> 	3. The version number (or other distinct identifier) and date of the
most
> recently approved version of the specification.
> 
> 	SNIA Architecture - 1.0 standard
> 
> 	4. If the specification is part of a group of explicitly related
> specifications from the same source, the name of the group of
specifications.
> Not applicable
> 
> 	5. URI for the normative text of the specification
> http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/standards/curr_standards/cdmi
> <http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/standards/curr_standards/cdmi>
> 
> 
> 	SOURCE
> 
> 
> 	6. The name of the SDO that generated/authored/hosted the
> specification. Storage Networking Industry Association
> 
> 	7. URI for the SDO http://snia.org <http://snia.org/>
> 
> 	8. The level of approval that the SDO has conferred on the
specification
> as described by the SDO's process. SNIA Architecture (Final Standard)
> 
> 	9. The language or languages in which the specification is
available. US
> English
> 
> 
> 	SUBJECT
> 
> 
> 	10. Which of the categories of Cloud services does the standard
address?
> (Infrastructure as a Service - IaaS, Data Storage as a Service - DaaS,
Platform
> as a Service - PaaS, Software as a Service - SaaS) DaaS (Cloud Storage)
> 
> 	11. Does the standard address both functional and management
> aspects of the service? Yes. Management is done by setting metadata on
> containers of data and individual data elements. The functional interface
> allows CRUD semantics for storage of data via HTTP.
> 
> 
> 	OPTIONAL
> 
> 
> 	12. The level of approval of the specification in this generic
lifecycle
> taxonomy:
> 
> 	Final standard
> 
> 
> 	13. URI for the applicable SDO's patent and copyright rules, if any,
> applicable to development and use of the specification. SNIA IP Policy
> <http://www.snia.org/about/corporate_info/ip_policy/>
> 
> 	14. URI for the SDO's posting location, (if any) for notices from
> participants or individuals regarding claims under the rules stated under
> number 15. SNIA IP Policy
> <http://www.snia.org/about/corporate_info/ip_policy/>
> 
> 	15. Interoperability, conformance, or certification test activity
for the
> specification (by owner name or URI).
> 
> 	None
> 
> 	16. Known implementations of the specification (by owner name or
> URI).
> 
> 	The SNIA Cloud Storage TWG is producing an open source reference
> implementation.
> 
> 	17. A list (or URI pointer to same) of the other specifications*
that are
> normatively referenced in the specification.
> 
> 
> 	[ISO-8601] International Standards Organization, "Data elements and
> interchange formats -- Information interchange -- Representation of dates
> and times", ISO 8601:20044 -
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?
> csnumber=40874
> 
> 	[ITU-T509] International Telecommunications Union
> Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), Recommendation X.509:
> Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory:
> Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks, May 2000. Specification
and
> technical corrigenda - http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/publications/recs.html
> 
> 	[RFC2119] IETF RFC 2119 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119> . Key
> words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels -
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> 
> 	[RFC2045] IETF RFC 2045 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045> .
> Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet
> Message Bodies - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt
> 
> 	[RFC2578] IETF RFC 2578 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2578> .
> Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) -
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2578.txt
> 
> 	[RFC2616] IETF RFC 2616 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616> .
> Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 -
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
> 
> 	[RFC3280] IETF RFC 3280 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3280> .
Internet
> X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation
List
> (CRL) Profile - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3280.txt
> 
> 	[RFC3530] IETF RFC 3530 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3530> .
> Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol -
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt
> 
> 	[RFC3986] IETF RFC 3986 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986> .
> Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax -
> http://www.ietf/org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
> 
> 	[RFC4346] IETF RFC 4346 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4346> . The
> Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1 -
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4346.txt
> 
> 	[RFC4627] IETF RFC 4627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627> . The
> application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) -
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
> 
> 	[RFC5246] IETF RFC 5246 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246> . The
> Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 -
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 	18. A list (or URI pointer to same) of the other specifications*
that are
> referenced in the specification (except the ones listed under number 17).
> 
> 	[CRC] Williams, Ross, "A Painless Guide to CRC Error Detection
> Algorithms", Chapter 16, August 1993,
> http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/LINK/F_crc_v3.html
> 
> 	[PKS12] RSA Laboratories, PKCS #12: Personal Information Exchange
> Syntax, Version 1.0, June 1999. Specification and Technical Corrigendum -
> http://www.rsa.com:80/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2138
> <http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2138>
> 
> 	[REST] "Representational State Transfer" -
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm
> <http://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Efielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm
> >
> 
> 	[RESTful Web] Richardson, Leonard and Sam Ruby, RESTful Web
> Services, O'Reilly, 2007.
> 
> 	[SIRDM] Storage Industry Resource Domain Model -
> http://www.snia.org/education/storage_networking_primer/sirdm/
> 
> 
> 	19. A list (or URI pointer to same) of other specifications* with
which
> the specification may (speculatively) interoperate or act in
complementary,
> compatible fashion.
> 
> 	OCCI - see OGF entry.
> 
> 	20. A list (or URI pointer to same) of other specifications* similar
to this
> specification. (Whether or not substitutable.)
> 
> 	None.
> 
> 	-----------------------------------
> 
> 	The template can be found here:
> 	http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Template
> 
> 	-- mark
> 
> 
> 
> 	On 5/25/10 10:33 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote:
> 
> 		Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> 		Attached please find a template (a Table) that can be
utilized for
> Clouds SDO gap analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 		Very much appreciate your comments, inputs, suggestions for
> updating it.
> 
> 
> 
> 		The plan is to populate this template with SDOs'
information,
> 
> 		once this template is finalized through email discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 		Thanks a lot for your support and contributions
> 
> 
> 
> 		Best Regards.
> 
> 		Bhumip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:[phone],
> [e-mail])
> 
> 		© 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.
> 
> 
> 		_______________________________________________
> 		clouds mailing list
> 		[e-mail]
> 		https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
> 
> 
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	clouds mailing list
> 	[e-mail]
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	--
> 	Best Regards.
> 
> 	Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:[phone], [e-mail])
> 
> 	© 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.
> 
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	clouds mailing list
> 	[e-mail]
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds