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

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

For a group discussing “logging and auditing” aspects of Cloud, it should
have a separate name for the group (definitely not “Cloud”). 

 

Having a name being “cloud”, you will just invite all other discussions
which are not related to “Logging and Auditing”. 

 

Linda 

 

  _____  

From: Gene Golovinsky [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:17 PM
To: Bhumip Khasnabish; Linda Dunbar
Cc: [e-mail]; Mark Webb; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

 

I am sure that different people are interested in aspects of Cloud
technologies. Much as there are multiple areas of interest for the Internet.

But precisely because the conversation is still in its infancy it is
probably useful to keep it in the same context at least for now.

 

In the same time to avoid talking past each other and to make the scope more
manageable, should we pick a topic or two?

This way conversation will be more focused.

 

Can I suggest logging and auditing? Like I pointed out before, lack of
consistent logging and auditing facilities prevents people requiring
compliance from adopting cloud technologies. 

 

--Gene

 

 

 

 

 

From: Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:07 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: Gene Golovinsky; [e-mail]; Mark Webb; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big

 

of course there are and will be many workitems within the theme of
cloud-based systems, services, inter-cloud system, and so on.  Cloud-based
storage, cloud-based mobile-data backup service,  cloud-based network
service in order to maintain service continuity, disaster-tolerant
communications, etc. are a few examples. Can we keep the discussion in the
same group please. Thanks a lot.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]> wrote:

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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:37 AM
To: Linda Dunbar; [e-mail]; 'Mark Webb'; [e-mail] 


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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:16 PM
To: [e-mail]; 'Mark Webb'; [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:59 AM
To: 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Mark Webb'; [e-mail]
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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:48 AM
To: 'Mark Webb'; [e-mail]
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: 

*     Infrastructure-as-a-Service (
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_gci1
358983,00.html> IaaS),

*     Platform-as-a-Service (
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1332892
,00.html> PaaS) and 

*     Software-as-a-Service (
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_gci1
170781,00.html> SaaS)

 

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Mark Webb
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:48 AM
To: [e-mail]
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
[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.