Re: [clouds] __答复:_scope_of_the_cloud

Sam Johnston <sjj@google.com> Wed, 14 April 2010 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sjj@google.com>
X-Original-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D5228C154 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.483, BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TPpKe+H1YeCB for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFE128C191 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.80]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3ECgiLw027467 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:42:44 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271248965; bh=GVSotvtlu6AwA2g1dgoIFcErjm0=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=Sct9JW9icDNxswyimbMscQc8szMLBQSepTVcv1/rjo8Je3poOK+eDrSYOtNyaya/v oh+Eptkba7YHKKRcs8/wA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=Hn9xWp9wBEtn2sBckqFfPYQL4P4VrwO1ITrt1VVpu2mGA51jOM+OEFBD2BI+zUHGW cIhB9mm5X2G1XI6iLtPpQ==
Received: from bwz5 (bwz5.prod.google.com [10.188.26.5]) by kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3ECggqV031322 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:42:43 -0700
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so83220bwz.0 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.150.67 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <92648F46-12F1-4CF8-BFD1-77E3E2DE4C15@cisco.com>
References: <201004091421281408197@chinamobile.com> <OF97A02D2D.F12C57AA-ON48257700.0025B7E9-48257700.00267C69@zte.com.cn> <i2kda8464b11004090045scff74af9qd5a43fde4cc2df31@mail.gmail.com> <201004091607326563002@chinamobile.com> <w2o460b71b91004090146te13e3415y72f3d870b3de408b@mail.gmail.com> <92648F46-12F1-4CF8-BFD1-77E3E2DE4C15@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:42:36 +0200
Received: by 10.204.32.77 with SMTP id b13mr8415571bkd.113.1271248956435; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <p2i460b71b91004140542w362755fdz90200ddafd8b7151@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sam Johnston <sjj@google.com>
To: Mark Webb <mwebb@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325555bba783861048431b683
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "clouds@ietf.org" <clouds@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [clouds] =?utf-8?b?X1/nrZTlpI06X3Njb3BlX29mX3RoZV9jbG91ZA==?=
X-BeenThere: clouds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <clouds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds>
List-Post: <mailto:clouds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:47:26 -0000

On 13 April 2010 22:38, Mark Webb <mwebb@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:46 AM, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> We're also missing a way of describing containers (e.g. hypervisors,
> platforms, etc.) and workloads (e.g. applications, virtual machines).
>
> I really think this is the realm of DMTF.  They have a good start with OVF.
> There is more to do, (network, security and policy abstraction to name a
> couple) but it would be good for the industry if those container issues were
> mostly handled in this same place.
>

That may be true, but what IETF is renowned for is creating relatively
tight, interoperable specifications for well defined/constrained problems.
Others tend to want to boil oceans (e.g. OVF's normative reference to CIM),
which may well be necessary to solve their problems (e.g. "private" cloud)
but not ours (e.g. services like EC2).

Sam