Re: [clouds] CloudApps BoF (IETF-80) proposal for your review and comments

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 31 January 2011 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9653A6847 for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.637
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h86+8KZIAUM3 for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2753A6C37 for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7E3B400F6; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:09:22 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:52:39 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vishwas Manral <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050007010400070600030902"
Subject: Re: [clouds] CloudApps BoF (IETF-80) proposal for your review and comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:49:27 -0000

On 1/31/11 11:49 AM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> I would not totally agree. For nearly every new protocol developed,
> that I have worked on there has been seperate  requirement documents,
> use cases as well as protocol extension documents - have a look at
> MPLS, TRILL and PCE. I do not think we should not consider the phase.

I think it's easy to get bogged down use cases, surveys, frameworks, and
requirements. A WG could easily spend years on those tasks and run out
of energy before doing the real engineering work.

> I however agree it should be a shorter phase to define requirements
> and use cases.

As short as possible, but not shorter. :)

> You are right some of the drafts are about VDI, however the others you
> mention are now directly related to it (the Yokota draft is more about
> resource management and mobility in the cloud).


I'm trying to be encouraging (some progress is being made) but realistic
(there's still a lot of work and focusing to do).


Peter Saint-Andre