Re: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF

Linda Dunbar <> Wed, 28 July 2010 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32ED3A6895 for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ClJ9J4vkZA0C for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CAF3A685A for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (usaga03-in []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:19:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from L735042 ( []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <> for; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:19:57 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:20:07 -0500
From: Linda Dunbar <>
In-reply-to: <>
To: "'Monique Morrow (mmorrow)'" <>, "'Chris Fenton (Iridescent)'" <>,
Message-id: <011501cb2e57$9ab0c6a0$>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_BmfVDv8C3Ja2By36A3vFvg)"
Thread-index: AcsuTL9mj8JJKN//Q4q9BVXc3kn9gAABABdyAAFdd5A=
References: <024501cb2e4c$c17f78e0$447e6aa0$@com> <>
Subject: Re: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:19:36 -0000

It is very nice that Bhumip to create a bar BOF for interested parties to
present different aspects of Cloud.  As we can see that API and Cloud log
are very different from dynamic resource management, which is also different
from Private VPN. They need different expertise. People in Service layer may
think the network wiring too detail and trivial. People worrying about
network details view API as software features which can be application

Since ITU-T already starts the Cloud initiative, why not let ITU-T defines
the general framework for Cloud and come to IETF for specific problems?


Linda Dunbar 



From: [] On Behalf Of
Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:31 AM
To: Chris Fenton (Iridescent);
Subject: Re: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF



Do you proposed perhaps a framework draft as a starting point?


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Fenton (Iridescent) []
Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 5:02 AM
Subject: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF

Hi all,

Thanks for interesting presentations.  To me the cloud without common or
option for a standardised interface/api is not a cloud its a set of service
platforms. We need to move forwards define the topic areas for
standardisation but essentially its all the elements you have for
subscribers to access a data platform from identity thru transport. Then
there are the service management aspects and the service provider
capabilities who want logs session or usage records and finally the platform
owner would need some or at least be able to support the above....

So possible topic areas for definition are :

Service user
- access
- transport
- service discovery maybe

Service provider
- Service management (also VM management - movement etc...)
- Subscription management
- charging billing etc...
- basically these are all FCAPS aspects Fault, Configuration, Accounting,
Performance, Security

Platform provider - not so sure what standards apply so long as the platform
itself provides the APis the boxes can be anything
- Management
- also FCAPS


Mr Chris Fenton
+44 7802 221 541
Skype: chrisfentouk