Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 16 February 2011 19:51 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 D25553A6CFF for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:51:23 -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 XpHbBwKZasCg for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9F43A6A00 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:51:20 -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 3FEC2400F6; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:09:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4D5C2AD3.6020601@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:51:47 -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: Bhumip Khasnabish <vumip1@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinm925CP5KDCDqyXEOKVbd5g0QQx1AdTeHt0qFQ@mail.gmail.com> <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060006933C32@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> <4D55956D.7050201@it.uc3m.es> <62B843A2D44446C2B7C8B187F47A957F@china.huawei.com> <AANLkTinCyjko2ZJm5ApAfmBjMMV4a1MGD-r=CsmGvOF=@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinCyjko2ZJm5ApAfmBjMMV4a1MGD-r=CsmGvOF=@mail.gmail.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="------------ms070408010208040406040307"
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
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 19:51:24 -0000
I see no reason to delay closing of this list. In fact, I suggest that it might be more productive for folks who are interested in these topics to self-organize on lists hosted elsewhere, instead of continuing to consume IETF bandwidth (both electronic and mental). On 2/16/11 10:29 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > I am requesting Peter to keep this mailing list up and running until > cloudops@ietf.org <mailto:cloudops@ietf.org>or dcops@ietf.org > <mailto:dcops@ietf.org> and cloudApps@ietf.org > <mailto:cloudApps@ietf.org>or vdi@ietforg <mailto:vdi@ietforg>are > created. > > Ron, Pls let me know what we need to do to get cloudops@ietf.org > <mailto:cloudops@ietf.org>or dcops@ietf.org > <mailto:dcops@ietf.org>created. > > Peter, Is it possible to keep clouds@ietf.org > <mailto:clouds@ietf.org> for CloudApps (with focus on VDI) > discussion. If not pls consider my request to create vdi@ietf.org > <mailto:vdi@ietf.org>, and may be we can keep the same WiKi website > to keep the contributions.. PLS let me know what you think and how > we should proceed. Thanks again. Best. Bhumip > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Spencer Dawkins > <spencer@wonderhamster.org <mailto:spencer@wonderhamster.org>> > 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 <mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es>> To: <clouds@ietf.org > <mailto: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> > [mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <http://gmail.com/> <mailto:vumip1%20at%20gmail.com > <mailto:vumip1%2520at%2520gmail.com>>) > http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhumipkhasnabish >
- [clouds] Conf call on Friday [11-February-2011] a… Bhumip Khasnabish
- [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS So, Ning
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS So, Ning
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS Bhumip Khasnabish
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on ClooudOPS Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [clouds] Thoughts on CloudOPS david.black