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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 31 January 2011 18:49 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 9E9653A6847 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.637
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h86+8KZIAUM3 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2753A6C37 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-234.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-234.cisco.com [64.101.72.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7E3B400F6; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:09:22 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4D4704F7.80500@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:52:39 -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: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qm3rSzkx4uoNt7XL2999DotMpC0+LAaKoDpZi@mail.gmail.com> <4D47015E.1010905@stpeter.im> <AANLkTikgt5Mw1d-b2Eo5LEq7sS54L3vn-Ahx3gsUijRo@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgt5Mw1d-b2Eo5LEq7sS54L3vn-Ahx3gsUijRo@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="------------ms050007010400070600030902"
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] CloudApps BoF (IETF-80) proposal for your review and comments
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: 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).

Correct.

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

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/