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: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:48 AM
To: 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
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 (
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_gci1
358983,00.html> IaaS),

p  Platform-as-a-Service (
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1332892
,00.html> PaaS) and 

p  Software-as-a-Service (
<http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid201_gci1
170781,00.html> SaaS)

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: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark Webb
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:09 AM
To: clouds@ietf.org
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: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:48 AM
To: clouds@ietf.org
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
clouds@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds