Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 16 February 2011 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 0AFB73A6CD7 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:18:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, 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 rxP5CDiVnMiF for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C1F3A6C38 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83568400F6 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:37:27 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4D5C0714.6010108@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:19:16 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: clouds@ietf.org
References: <AANLkTinm925CP5KDCDqyXEOKVbd5g0QQx1AdTeHt0qFQ@mail.gmail.com><14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060006933C32@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> <4D55956D.7050201@it.uc3m.es> <62B843A2D44446C2B7C8B187F47A957F@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <62B843A2D44446C2B7C8B187F47A957F@china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms030406010806090706040702"
Subject: Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS
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, 16 Feb 2011 17:18:53 -0000

Sorry about that, I was travelling and then catching up afterward.

This list will close very soon because I will send a request to the
Secretariat *right now*.

Peter

On 2/16/11 10:17 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Just to mention one more issue ...
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre said he would request that the IETF Secretariat close
> this mailing list two weeks ago.
> 
> If you guys would like to have a place to discuss CloudOPS (or Data
> Center Ops, or ...) it would probably be great if you requested a
> mailing list for that. I'm thinking that Ron Bonica would be the right
> contact for that.
> 
> If you guys would like to have a place to discuss Virtual Desktop stuff,
> Peter said he might be willing to create a mailing list for that, so he
> would be an excellent choice as the contact for that.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that this mailing list is still working at all :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "marcelo bagnulo braun"
> <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
> To: <clouds@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> just to point out some issues...
> 
> below...
> 
> El 11/02/11 20:48, So, Ning escribió:
>>
>> Bhumip and all,
>>
>> As discussed in this morning’s call, here are my personal views on the
>> proposed CloudOPS WG and the related drafts.
>>
>> Frameworks, high-level requirements, and best practices descriptions
>> on cloud infrastructure that impact multiple IETF protocols under
>> different areas and WGs,
>>
> If it is an OPS area WG what you are proposing, then the work you
> propose should fall into OPS, don't you think? (as opposed to multiple
> areas)
> If the work you propose fall into other WG, then it should go to the
> other WGs, right?
> 
> 
>> and/or protocols outside of IETF, belong to the CloudOPS WG.
>>
> If protocols are outside the IETF, then they shouldn't be defined in the
> IETF, don't you agree?
> 
>> New protocols that impact multiple IETF protocols under different
>> areas and WGs,
>>
> similar comment here, if this is an OPS WG, then it should work within
> the OPS area scope
> again, if the protocol is being defined in another WG, then the work
> should be done in that WG.
>>
>> and/or protocols outside of IETF, also belong to the CloudOPS WG.
>>
> work outside the IETF, should be done, well, outside the IETF
> 
>> ARMD WG’s work is very focused and much needed, and I voiced my
>> support for its establishment. However, I see difficulties in
>> broadening its charter to make it a single and only default CloudOPS
>> WG. All the non-ARMD related drafts will become distraction and cause
>> confusion.
>>
> i agree you should leave ARMD alone.
> It is well defined and well scoped problem and it is good as it
> currently is
> 
>> In my humble opinion, the following drafts belong to the CloudOPS WG.
>> Many of them were presented at Cloud BoF in IETF79, and are in the
>> process of getting updated for IETF80. Several are new submissions
>> that are recently uploaded. I think what we have here is more than one
>> and half hours of meeting time JI really do not want to inflict the
>> pain on my ARMD friends.
>>
> I don't think you are approaching this from the right perspective.
> This is not about draft, is about real problems and concrete items that
> you want to work on.
> You should work on defining a charter, not in voicing for drafts that
> should be included in a WG that doesn't exist yet.
> 
> In addition, all this long list seems to cover a too wide variety of
> topics.
> I would reccomend to be less ambitious, define a much scoped work, by
> defining a charter (As opposed to write drafts)
> 
> my two cents
> 
> regards, marcelo
> 
> 
> 
>>    1. Cloud Reference Framework
>>    2. Cloud Security Framework
>>    3. VPN Extension for Cloud Services
>>    4. Network Abstraction for Enterprise and SP Class Cloud
>>    5. Protocol Considerations for Workload Mobility in Clouds
>>    6. Service Management for Virtualized Cloud
>>    7. Virtual Network Management Information Model
>>    8. Network Probability Requirements and Models
>>    9. Syslog Extension for Cloud Using Syslog Structured Data
>>   10. Virtual Resource Management (VRM) in Clouds
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ning So
>>
>> Network Evolution Planning
>>
>> Verizon, Inc.
>>
>> (office) 972-729-7905
>>
>> (Cell) 972-955-0914
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Bhumip Khasnabish
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:46 PM
>> *To:* clouds@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [clouds] Conf call on Friday [11-February-2011] at 10 AM
>> US/NY time
>>
>> Please plan to join a conf call on
>> *Friday, 11-Feb.-2011 starting from 10 AM ET* (New York, USA time)
>>
>> to get updates on the Clouds initiatives/activities.
>>
>> [you may find the current NY/USA time (from your location) at the
>> following URL:
>> http://www.worldtimeserver.com/current_time_in_US-NY.aspx ].
>>
>>
>> Dial in number: *US Toll-free +1-866-710-5490
>> *If the toll-free number does not work, pls use *+001-203-875-8973*
>> *Passcode: 204 1744*
>>
>> (Thanks to Mr. Ning So for providing the conf bridge).
>>
>> **
>>
>> *_Proposed Agenda:_*
>>
>> **
>>
>>    1. VEPC draft update -- Ning et al
>>    2. CloudLog draft update -- Gene and Sam
>>    3. Data Center Operations (DCOPS) proposal update -- Ross (with
>>       info from Ron, if any)
>>    4. draft-rfc-seamless-Cloud-masum-01.txt
>>
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/draft-rfc-seamless-Cloud-masum-01.txt>(27.1
>>
>>       KB) – Masum et al, /Network Abstraction for Enterprise and SP
>>       class Cloud: Seamless Cloud Abstraction and Interfaces /
>>    5. Protocol Considerations for Workload Mobility in Clouds.txt
>>
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/Protocol%20Considerations%20for%20Workload%20Mobility%20in%20Clouds.txt>(21.5
>>
>>       KB) - Masum et al, /Protocol Considerations for Workload
>>       Mobility in Clouds /
>>    6. Karavettil-et-al-IETF-Cloud-Security-Framework-11Feb2011_v2.pdf
>>
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/Karavettil-et-al-IETF-Cloud-Security-Framework-11Feb2011_v2.pdf>(0.6
>>
>>       MB) – Suren et al, /updated cloud security framework (CSF) slides /
>>    7. draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility-01.txt
>>
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility-01.txt>(42.0
>>
>>       KB) – Mr. Yokota et al, /Service Management for Virtualized
>>       Networks /
>>    8. Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Requirements and Survey
>>       update – Mr. Wang and Mr. Ma
>>    9. Cloud (client and network sides) APIs update - Sam
>>   10. VRM update -- Mr Chu et al
>>   11. VDI proposal expectations (further guidance) -- Peter Saint-Andre
>>   12. VDI proposal development -- TBD
>>   13. Any other topics?
>>
>> As always, all of the drafts and presentations are available at the
>> following URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/Clouds
>>
>> *Next conf call*will be held on
>>
>> *_Friday-18-February-2011_**starting from 10 AM ET*(New York, USA time).
>>
>> *Many Thanks for Participation and Contributions.*
>>
>> Best Regards.
>>
>> Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:+001-781-752-8003, vumip1 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:vumip1%20at%20gmail.com>)
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhumipkhasnabish
>>