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

[" Sun Shaoling " <[e-mail]>]

I fully agree with that. I think we shouldn't reinvent APIs or formats defined by other SDOs unless we can prove those are good enough.


2010-04-09 



Sun Shaoling 



发件人： Ning Zong 
发送时间： 2010-04-09  17:02:17 
收件人： 'Monique Morrow (mmorrow)'; 'Bhumip Khasnabish'; 'Linda Dunbar' 
抄送： [e-mail] 
主题： Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big 
 
I Agree with Monique.
 
So far, I couldn’t see any concrete problems need to be solved and why IETF is the right place for such study. IMO, we could not move forward without getting agreement on these basic issues.
Clear Problem Statement and Gap Analysis on both SDO-wide and protocol-wide are definitely required at this stage.
 
My 2 cents.
 
BR,
Ning Zong
 



From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:18 PM
To: Bhumip Khasnabish; Linda Dunbar
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big
 
Bhumip,

 Having attended-participated at the BoF and following this thread, some of my suggestions moving forward:

1. Clear problem statement; and specifically what corresponding protocol work should the IETF develop and or reuse;

2. To [1] goes an SDO/Forum gap analysis [if not done already] as to assure there is unnecessary replication of work and/or potential of SDO/forum clash  output = scope

3. Identification of use case examples;

4. Finally,  is there any potential for interlock with work being kicked off at the IRTF Virtual Networks Research Group WG?

Best regards

Monique

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] on behalf of Bhumip Khasnabish
Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 9:07 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: [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:
>
> p     Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_gci1358983,00.html>
> ),
>
> p     Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS)<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1332892,00.html>and
>
> p     Software-as-a-Service (SaaS<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_gci1170781,00.html>
> )
>
>
>
> 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]<[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.