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

[Sam Johnston <[e-mail]>]

Mark,

I should perhaps have been more specific. I'm well aware of CDMI but am
looking for something simple and lightweight, somewhere between HTTP and
WebDAV rather than a HTTP-based SMB/CIFS. There's certainly applications for
the latter but it wasn't what I had in mind.

Sam

On 8 April 2010 19:39, Mark Carlson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Exactly. http://snia.org/cloud - CDMI is essentially done.
>
> -- mark
>
> On 4/8/10 11:34 AM, Masum Hasan (masum) wrote:
>
>  Re. your comment on pursuing “storage API like Amazon's S3” in IETF. Why
> that is needed when storage networking SDO SNIA is working on one (SNIA
> CDMI)?
>
>
>
>
>
> --Masum
>
>
>
> 408 219 9713   Cell                  408 853 5926   Desk
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~masumz/
>
> http://wwwin-people.cisco.com/masum/ (Intranet)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>]
> *On Behalf Of *Sam Johnston
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:19 AM
> *To:* Gene Golovinsky
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big
>
>
>
> Gene,
>
>
>
> You're definitely not alone in thinking this would be a worthy topic for
> IETF and as co-conspirator (along with Cisco's Chris Hoff) and author of the
> existing CloudAudit draft spec I'd love to see IETF people starting to work
> with the group. We have weekly calls on Monday at 10am PST/1pm EST and
> discuss in the cloudaudit Google Group[1]. The goal for v1 is to create a
> trivial HTTP-based interface that can be implemented by uploading files
> rather than coding. Similarly, OGF's OCCI working group has produced a
> number of Internet-Drafts that could be picked up by IETF.
>
>
>
> Another area that I think would be very interesting for IETF to take on
> (moreso than virtualisation management) is a simple, HTTP-based storage API
> like Amazon's S3 - only without the potential patent problems[2]. I believe
> that HTTP already takes care of many/most of the issues (e.g.
> authentication, encryption, ranged GETs, etc.) and IETF has proven
> experience in the area (WebDAV).
>
>
>
> Another issue I ran into while writing cush[3] was how to remotely instruct
> servers to migrate (live?) resources - for example, moving a virtual
> machine, database, etc. from one location to another using a mobile device
> on a 3G connection. I believe WebDAV's COPY and MOVE verbs are a good start
> (this is what we're using for OCCI) but they could be reviewed and possibly
> promoted for more generic application.
>
>
>
> Considering that most of these APIs (at least the ones I'm involved in) are
> trying to be as close as possible to the "uniform interface" of HTTP,
> I believe there's benefit to be had in reviewing the relevant RFCs with
> these new applications in mind. For example, while HTTP has a perfectly good
> metadata channel (headers) and thus obviates the need for envelope formats
> (Atom, SOAP, etc), it lacks the ability to link, annotate and categorise
> resources. It also has some internationalisation problems (e.g. ASCII) and
> inefficient serialisation (e.g. SPDY). HTTP 1.1 has served us well for many
> years but perhaps it's time to start thinking about what HTTP 2.0 might look
> like?
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> --
> *Sam Johnston*
>
> *Technical Program Manager*
>
> Site Reliability Engineering
>
> Google Switzerland GmbH
>
>
>
> 1. http://groups.google.com/group/cloudaudit
> 2. http://tinyurl.com/s3patent
>
> 3. http://code.google.com/p/cush/
>
>
>
> On 8 April 2010 15:40, Gene Golovinsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> http://www.cloudaudit.org/ is an initiative, not a standard.
>
> The plan for the group is to submit proposal to the IETF:
>
>
> http://searchsecuritychannel.techtarget.com/news/interview/0,289202,sid97_gci1508024,00.html
>
>
>
> Which means I am not alone thinking this is a worthy topic for IETF to take
> on.
>
> When and if the proposal will be submitted there is still going to be a lot
> of work to make it a standard.
>
>
>
> At least two approaches are possible. 1. Do nothing while waiting for Cloud
> Audit proposal. 2. Start working with the group.
>
> Considering how fast Cloud technologies have been evolving and how critical
> Security is for the adoption of it I am for #2.
>
>
>
> --Gene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Webb [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:23 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Linda Dunbar; [e-mail]; Gene Golovinsky
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big
>
>
>
> Look at
>
>
>
> http://www.cloudaudit.org/
>
>
>
> For cloud audit.  It is difficult to specify audit when the services are so
> different today.
>
>
>
> The industry has not settled on a small set of services definitions of what
> "cloud" is. So, how does one audit SaaS, PaaS?  When the services offered in
> that space are so different?  IaaS is the most mature and perhaps the lcd of
> cloud.
>
>
>
> So, who here thinks that "IT functions as a service" or ITaaS is something
> that IETF can specify?  OK that was rhetorical.  My point is, the real
> opportunity is to look for elements that are mature enough to have some
> problem to be solved defined.  Then ensure you are not duplicating what
> other SDO or Forum are already working on.
>
>
>
> Mark Webb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
>
>