Re: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF

["Natale, Bob" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think Linda's idea of having a single SDO - and the ITU-T works fine for me in this case - is a good one.

If the IETF endorses it, I could convey that message to the TM Forum Cloud Services Initiative as well.

Each such SDO that agrees with the approach would send a liaison message to the ITU-T Cloud group expressing agreement, stating the focus area(s) best assigned to that SDO (e.g., the IETF-based protocols mentioned by Monique below), identifying any scheduled near-term (1 yr or less?) deliverables in those areas, and soliciting future "assignments" (to be negotiated via open collaboration) from the ITU-T.  With the stipulation that the ITU-T Cloud effort must be open in terms of meetings, documents, and inputs at a minimum.  Or something like that...?

Cheers,
BobN

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:37 AM
To: Linda Dunbar; Chris Fenton (Iridescent); [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF


Linda

That is certainly an approach -- in addition to leveraging and developing IETF-based protocols as discussed today in some of the use cases presented.

Best -monique



-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 6:20 AM
To: Monique Morrow (mmorrow); 'Chris Fenton (Iridescent)'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; 'Bhumip Khasnabish'
Subject: RE: [clouds] IETF-78 Cloud Standards BOF

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
specific.

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



Chris

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

Monique





-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Fenton (Iridescent) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 5:02 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
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

CJ

Mr Chris Fenton
[phone]
[e-mail]
Skype: chrisfentouk
http://www.iridescentnetworks.com