IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: dc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D9321F86DF for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:43:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bKBLoQlROnF9 for <dc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A157E21F8572 for <dc@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <dc@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:43:39 -0700
Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:43:37 -0700
Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644771FF043C for <dc@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:40:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0HFeQrx3301396 for <dc@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:40:26 -0500
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0HFeQnM004730 for <dc@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:40:26 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-205-191.mts.ibm.com [9.65.205.191]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q0HFePj6004703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:40:26 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q0HFeNan008591; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:40:24 -0500
Message-Id: <201201171540.q0HFeNan008591@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Bhumip Khasnabish <vumip1@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <CANtnpwhFJ746ooi9GUCxfBqsOXu14hDka0D9inhh5pPq3U_ZTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH==cJxfmae0u0bSF4cn_haLgY1T-vnw2102PApzYtj5Aty=GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANtnpwhFJ746ooi9GUCxfBqsOXu14hDka0D9inhh5pPq3U_ZTA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Bhumip Khasnabish <vumip1@gmail.com> message dated "Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:07:33 -0500."
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:40:23 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12011715-7282-0000-0000-000005B0A69C
Cc: dc@ietf.org
Subject: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Data Center Mailing List <dc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dc>, <mailto:dc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dc>
List-Post: <mailto:dc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc>, <mailto:dc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:43:41 -0000

Bhumip,

I skimmed this document and am having trouble figuring out what it is
intended to do.

The draft name itself has "problem" in it, but there is no single (or
small set of) succinct problems listed. It's all very high level and
hand wavy. I need help making the connection to an IETF action that
could come out of this document.

For example, it talks about VM migration.

Is VM Migration a "problem" today? There are properietary approaches
that the market seems to like OK. 

What is wrong with the current approaches? What is "broken" that needs
fixing? Why should the IETF get involved in this space? What value
would the IETF bring?

Do you want to be able to do VM migration from one vendor's hypervisor
to another vendor's?  If so, please just say so. Then we can see
whether others here think that is an area the IETF (or some other SDO)
should get involved in.

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email