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

Ning Zong <zongning@huawei.com> Fri, 09 April 2010 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.com>
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 3D2FD3A6359 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 0iPKhJw6y2rC for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC6E3A69C1 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L0L00FQGPKVCC@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for clouds@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:43:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L0L00FK1PKUBV@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for clouds@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:43:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z63316 ([10.138.84.86]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L0L00I8VPKTVO@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for clouds@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:43:42 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:43:41 +0800
From: Ning Zong <zongning@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <317616CE96204D49B5A1811098BA895001A24F22@XMB-AMS-110.cisco.com>
To: "'Monique Morrow (mmorrow)'" <mmorrow@cisco.com>, 'Bhumip Khasnabish' <vumip1@gmail.com>, 'Linda Dunbar' <ldunbar@huawei.com>
Message-id: <001f01cad7c0$c1ccfd50$56548a0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_rbCFw928BGcy7uJXLYmCCA)"
Thread-index: AcrXNY56NlmO6QiMSF+9s8v3ZgFwIAAhi/d1AAERR8A=
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] Scope of the Cloud is too big
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: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:44:25 -0000

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: clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:18 PM
To: Bhumip Khasnabish; Linda Dunbar
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
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: clouds-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Bhumip Khasnabish
Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 9:07 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
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 <ldunbar@huawei.com> 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:gene@alertlogic.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:37 AM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar; carlw@mcsr-labs.org; 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
>
> *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:* clouds-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:clouds-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:16 PM
> *To:* carlw@mcsr-labs.org; 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
> *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:carlw@mcsr-labs.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:59 AM
> *To:* 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Mark Webb'; clouds@ietf.org
> *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:* 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
(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_gci1
332892,00.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:* 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<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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clouds mailing list
> clouds@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds
>
>


--
Best Regards.

Bhumip Khasnabish (Mobile:+001-781-752-8003, bhumip@acm.org)

© 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.