Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
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:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Bhumip Khasnabish
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:46 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *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 [phone]
> *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:[phone], vumip1 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:vumip1%20at%20gmail.com>)
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhumipkhasnabish
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds

_______________________________________________
clouds mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds