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

[Bhumip Khasnabish <[e-mail]>]

There are both client side and server side API requirements, and we would
need both for effective use and rolling out of cloud-based services.

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Sun Shaoling <[e-mail]>wrote:

>  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]<[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]<[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] <[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]<[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]<[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]>
> <[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])
>
> (c) 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.
>



-- 
Best Regards.

Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:[phone], [e-mail])

(c) 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.