Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 15 March 2012 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB66E21F8495 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.314, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 FSaTdZrDUPPm for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA9E21F845C for <sop@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so2993710ghb.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ur6ksAFsvuCRfA/S6gdlPbiay8BSVokrf9qpeEjIk0Q=; b=0HOp03tt1usFuOdzqNwjrFjc3ck6KCwi9yvYfxUyyYtyNhnbv7LytEllpxOe+kYcbH u//RG9g5HrWGxPCx7Z1lwmQrT1rviwjEUQKva4ivWyU7UNDERRfHIb4h49kR+bx5JNY6 +zcbRFMRwe2IMKlUrY9cTqrpWRKSgATToAofxvX3p0R0cXtCvz2XPQXxqo3mHGW7AQ6H sZ4+1gGaAq4F7d3FS5M1M8KFek0u0O+Btm8QimNfz+yt9K9LxDIcJ4Qs7Liv1BIdpnpX S9r8VU5q2JqWJAFOm1mMvfRc5b7zZD7kpFNS5HQ0m7eOuY5zCshhYGFRCk2baTYB1McU FTfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.147.35 with SMTP id th3mr4425834obb.29.1331786639518; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.134.73 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51033839D0@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
References: <CAOyVPHQ-iESaD2osxsWguTw1Ru92JYacSsqbD+1rECPzy1eGfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA3wLqV+YeGJH2pFQ80s=PgQC2RsodPMm8qUw3a-VtCzhETkOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOyVPHTXWPyt5aHL2ehd_upS-DEAcfugVMcUpUm_oO5Ov04rUw@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51030E1263@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHTDaVXJTskXMxQ0MBr+4MbC1St6+YOhOpv6MUww+QbH8w@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC437@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHTgfyEDM5Xq9GF+zxcLCY6AAzTdn2s9c1z7529rDO8LGQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC9CC@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHQLmndMyNmDqKFugyaL11T0p7Wi5vz9-z4WLH2ETfKHuQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BCFC2@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHRY89Uo5Cd8JqxE=eDeoY8F95WzuQ99n-3Vx5Ba1PkYNQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C510329FBF4@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAA3wLqWPL_nH1uGbki4rnt7h81Vne3wf-pqd25XRsBAkquH2Tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOyVPHQsGHqyGpEsE4+zFZiRrL-o8PsLq0gpbce9O=ebh=56BQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51033839D0@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:43:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOyVPHR7gDOhF4tVpK7qtE3hWQnsvzHuwdfUKydgQDz0H7maQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444005490abe304bb40bdd8
Cc: sop@ietf.org, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [sop] SOP Requirements
X-BeenThere: sop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services <sop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sop>
List-Post: <mailto:sop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:44:06 -0000

Hi Ashish,

I think we are on the same page now. I agree we need the steps you define
below.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela)
<adalela@cisco.com>wrote:

> Vishwas,****
>
> ** **
>
> IETF works with specific problem statements, and we made the problem
> statement for cloud control plane w.r.t. HTTP, given that it is hugely
> deployed and used. There are other things that are far less deployed and
> used for a variety of reasons, so we did not add the problem statements
> w.r.t. those things.****
>
> ** **
>
> There are two things we can do: ****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       **Complete the problem statement with respect to HTTP (there
> are missing things – e.g. the need to separate identity and privacy, which
> are not addressed by TLS and HTTPS). ****
>
> **2.       **Add modified problem statements with respect to other HTTP
> enhancements or other protocols (XMPP ..). Will you be willing to write
> that section?****
>
> ** **
>
> Once we have a complete list of problem statements from different
> reference points, it will become clear whether to enhance existing
> solutions or go for new solutions. W.r.t. existing solution enhancements,
> an additional problem to keep in mind is what happens when firewalls and
> NAT are used. Lots of solutions are designed to operate within the firewall.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:37 AM
> *To:* Michael Hammer
> *Cc:* Ashish Dalela (adalela); sop@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks Mike.
>
> I am just eager that we have a clear cut set of requirements and problem
> statement defined, before we go ahead and write a solution.
>
> Ashish, sure let us look at the options and see what makes sense.
>
> On the DTCP/IP front we have both an encryption as well as a control plane
> AKE, which serves the purpose for digital content.
>
> -Vishwas****
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>; wrote:*
> ***
>
> But, if you start with an existing protocol and add methods and tweaks for
> every problem, ****
>
> you may end up with SOP again in the end.  :)****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <
> adalela@cisco.com>; wrote:****
>
> Vishwas,****
>
>  ****
>
> There are multiple problems. IKE is only key exchange. You can’t use it to
> encrypt packets because it will break policy routing (described in my
> email).****
>
>  ****
>
> The multicast / discovery problem can be solved by moving from TCP to UDP.
> That alone isn’t enough because moving away from TCP means you lost
> transaction identity. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Sometimes what seems like a solution brings some other problems, which
> also need to be solved.****
>
>  ****
>
> If you want, we can draft up a list of enhancements needed to existing
> protocols. I’m open to enhancing existing protocols. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vishwas
> Manral
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:43 AM****
>
>
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Ashish,
>
> Yes, I was talking about UPnP/ SSDP. For hijacking prevention, we used a
> protocol like IKE called AKE (though I am sure we could use IKE too).
>
> I am not trying to say the protocol you invented is wrong, but based on
> the top level information, it looks similar to what is achievable now.
>
> So if the problem is multicast for discovery, can we optimize the
> discovery part instead of doing the whole protocol itself. I think we need
> to propose a tighter problem statement.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas****
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <adalela@cisco.com>;
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Vishwas,****
>
>  ****
>
> I’m supposing that you are talking about SSDP (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Service_Discovery_Protocol)? Let me
> know if that is correct.****
>
>  ****
>
> In any large network, multicast isn’t the right way to scale. If every
> network element has to do a IGMP join to receive ADVERTISE then it becomes
> a scaling issue. It also becomes a security problem where some rogue
> element can start sending multicast ADVERTISE and hijack the orchestration
> sessions. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Broadcast doesn’t scale either, but we can convert it to a directed
> unicast (like DHCP for example). There are other reasons as well, such as
> if there are multiple service specific controllers then you have to choose
> different multicast groups for each. It seems like we should use broadcast
> for this to be light-weight, and multicast could be an option in case of L3
> networks, but with additional access controls.****
>
>  ****
>
> Regarding which existing protocol to extend, there are multiple options:**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> HTTP – has CRUD, but doesn’t support ADVERTISE, DISCOVER, REGISTER,
> NOTIFY, SUBSCRIBE, COMMIT, CANCEL etc. So, just adding a NOTIFY, as you
> suggest through SSDP, is still not going to be enough. Orchestration also
> needs “identities” such as device@provider.com, which HTTP doesn’t have.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> XMPP – has PUBLISH, SUBSCRIBE, and identities, but not all of the above.
> Service requests will require a “VIA” and dynamic injection of path
> elements, especially when a request forks into multiple requests or is
> re-directed to a different provider / location.****
>
>                                                                   ****
>
> AMQP – this is designed for messaging and again lacks many of the
> constructs.****
>
>
>    ****
>
> So wherever we look, the extension curve is long. It seemed like the
> problem space is big enough to warrant a new protocol.****
>
>                ****
>
> The other issue is how easily we can implement the security for
> orchestration. E.g. if we use IPSec end-to-end then how do hops in the
> middle route the request differently (the nearest location, the cheapest
> location, location with capacity, the location allowed by law, etc.). The
> right model seems to be that we embed integrity within the protocol rather
> than into IPSec. Privacy can be implemented separately between the edges
> using IPSec. That security model requires another set of issues to be
> solved in the current protocols (if we extend them).****
>
>  ****
>
> Besides security, there are other types of issues. For instance, a network
> might use UDP internally to get broadcast but use TCP for unicast
> externally for higher reliability. That change between TCP and UDP causes
> loss of transaction identity, and transactions have to be built part of the
> protocol. Likewise, with overlays, and overlay translations, the location
> information could be easily lost. Hence, you need location in the
> orchestration protocol. NAT may obfuscate real topology, and we lose
> information about the actual distance between two end-points. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Given these challenges, we choose to define a protocol that can be tweaked
> over time for orchestration specific needs without having to worry about
> backward compatibility, and/or how this gets broken by overlay, firewalls,
> or NAT’d networks. SIP already went over this hump and providers have
> learnt (somewhat painfully) on how to do this in a way that works. That
> entire learning can be leveraged for cloud.****
>
>                                                                   ****
>
> In any case, not sure if you have seen it, but there is a draft for SOP
> that describes just what I’m talking about.****
>
>  ****
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-sop-00****
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-sop-flows-00****
>
>  ****
>
> Look forward to your comments.****
>
>                         ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:30 AM****
>
>
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Ashish,
>
> Thanks for the mail.
>
> So I looked at some of the reasons you mentioned you want to go in for SOP
> instead of HTTP.
>
> I however have worked in the past with the DLNA stack, where we extended
> HTTP and used protocols like SOAP to get behaviors you mention - like
> service discovery, transaction support etc.
>
> If that is what we want, we should look at the DLNA stack and see how we
> can leverage existing mechanisms for the same.
>
> I however think finalizing the requirements is a good start.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas****
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <adalela@cisco.com>;
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Vishwas,****
>
>  ****
>
> It is better if you comment on the drafts because there is a section
> dedicated to this very topic.****
>
>  ****
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-orchestration-00#section-8 ****
>
>  ****
>
> This describes what you can’t do with web-services (assuming that’s what
> you mean by APIs). This is **not** the shortcoming of the APIs, but that
> of the underlying **protocol** (HTTP). So, if you changed the underlying
> protocol to fix issues with HTTP, then the APIs would be more powerful.
> That protocol we propose to be SOP.****
>
>  ****
>
> You are mistaking me in pitching API against protocols. I’m pitching
> protocol (HTTP) against protocol (SOP). Unfortunately, application
> developers abuse the term API to mean HTTP web-services, and the discussion
> is then messed up into thinking protocol against API.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vishwas
> Manral
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:19 AM
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Ashish,
>
> My point was very simple.
>
> You had talked about cases where protocol is more flexible than an API,
> and I was trying to help you understand that anything that can be done in
> an East West manner (with protocols), can be done in North-South manner
> with API's. If you say we can do something with protocols with only X
> packets, we can do the same with just X API's too. That was my point and
> not the fact that we have only 1 API or more.
>
> Also API's on which base services sit and ones which end users use could
> be different.
>
> Am I missing the point altogether?
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas****
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <
> adalela@cisco.com>; wrote:****
>
> Hi Vishwas,****
>
>  ****
>
> What everyone calls API today uses a protocol – HTTP. APIs survive on the
> interoperability provided by that protocol, and I don’t think anyone can
> get away from that. The real question is – what is the right protocol on
> top of which to build APIs? That’s the question SOP is raising. Once you do
> that, then we can talk of one or many APIs.****
>
>  ****
>
> Limitations of using HTTP as the underlying protocol for any API have been
> described in detail in the requirements draft. I would like to hear your
> comments on that. That section describes what APIs can’t do. Some of the
> limitations are because API is always unicast, and there are many things
> for which you need a manycast and broadcast. Other limitations because APIs
> are synchronous and you need to be asynchronous in some cases. Yet other
> issues because APIs are single complete transaction, but some transactions
> will spread over multiple such APIs. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The total amount of information in a message is unchanged whether you put
> it inside a protocol header or the content body. Putting some things in the
> protocol header saves you having to reinvent them in the content for every
> type of service. In other words, a protocol saves you from increasing
> information across various services. As an example in SIP, we put From and
> To in the protocol header. Could we not put it in the body? Sure we could.
> In that case we would be repeating that for voice and video and chat
> content. ****
>
>  ****
>
> To your point, you can have a single API for doing anything. As the
> service evolves and complexity grows, the number of parameters to that API
> increases. And yes, you can make that backward compatible in terms of
> implementation. But, nobody does that – especially when the interface is
> end-user facing. If this was an acceptable design, then we would not have
> object inheritance and there won’t be hundreds of APIs being opened up by
> cloud providers today. You might want to suggest one API to Amazon or other
> cloud providers. ****
>
>  ****
>
> A practical operational issue with APIs is that users don’t understand all
> the details. A user understands a server memory and CPU, but don’t
> understand VLAN and LUN, and zillions of other complicated things. Exposing
> them through APIs is useless because they can’t use it. Why would a user
> buy an expensive TV when they can’t use most of the features, because the
> remote is too complicated? The need is to reduce complexity through
> automation, not expose it all to the user via APIs. In other words, you
> need a more sophisticated policy engine not a sophisticated API system. **
> **
>
>  ****
>
> For any problem there is a cure and there is a prevention. Building API
> bridges is a cure to diverse APIs, it’s not a prevention. Once you
> recognize a problem, you build a short-term cure and a long-term prevention
> (at least ideally). Then, a single API is neither a cure nor prevention;
> its side-effects are so severe that we might be living with the original
> problem as well. ****
>
>  ****
>
> APIs have always existed and will continue to exist. The goal is to
> interoperate diverse APIs without a translation bridge. That happens all
> the time with network protocols, when one vendor’s APIs works with another
> vendor’s APIs without a translation bridge. I think not having a bridge is
> always better than having a bridge. Agree?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:45 PM
> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Cc:* Michael Hammer; sop@ietf.org****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Ashish,****
>
>  ****
>
> As the number of services increase or the complexity in a given service
> grows, this becomes very hard. Assume there is a service with N tunable
> parameters. You need at least N APIs that modify these parameters
> individually. Then permutations and combination of these parameters create
> hundreds of more APIs. That’s just API bloat. And if you have to
> interoperate multiple instances of these APIs through bridges, it’s just
> inviting more complexity. Another limitation is that when APIs have
> semantic incompatibilities, it becomes even harder to interoperate (syntax
> incompatibility is easier).****
>
> Not true at all.For N parameters you can have one API. The API can be made
> forward compatible by using simple things like unions. Having worked in a
> software company, where we have to extend our software without breaking
> previous API's I am well aware of the fact.
>
> If you give an exact example I can try to help you see how we can make an
> extensible API for the same.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas ****
>
>  ****
>
> From an operational standpoint, every new API introduction requires
> software upgrades to the controllers. That eventually hinders the rate of
> service creation.****
>
>  ****
>
> >> I know as services proliferate there could be a proliferation of
> distict API's but the same is true of the protocol layer too.
>  ****
>
> That won’t happen if we separate service-independent and service-dependent
> pieces. An example of that is SNMP. SNMP is device/service independent. MIB
> defines the specific service/device. If you have a standard protocol to
> manage a device, then you just have to add a new MIB to start managing it.
> You don’t need to upgrade all the intermediate systems – hardware or
> software. ****
>
>  ****
>
> BTW, I’m not advocating SNMP here because SNMP has many shortcomings in
> terms of network discovery, capability discovery, advertisements,
> transactions, etc. But, we need to keep in mind that API proliferation is
> inevitable as services proliferate. Protocol proliferation is not
> inevitable. Similar separation has been done in the past in SIP/SDP,
> HTTP/HTML, SMTP/MIME. That separation allows anyone to send any content in
> email to anyone. Or download any web-page, or have any type of codec (voice
> or video) use the same protocol.****
>
>  ****
>
> If you compare the success and widespread use of above mentioned protocols
> the value of separation between service-independent and service-dependent
> seems pretty convincing.****
>
>  ****
>
> >> Correct but the draft seems to differ.****
>
>  ****
>
> Service and instance of service are (and can be) interchangeably used. Is
> bandwidth a service or an instance of a service? I think this is more
> semantics.****
>
>  ****
>
> >> The requirement seems contradictory to what we agree. Similar for
> points below.****
>
>  ****
>
> The requirement is really that services are portable across providers. I
> think it is fair to say (as you also agree) that a user must know where
> they are going for a service. After all, they will have to pay for the
> service and they ought to know in advance who are they going to receive a
> monthly check from. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vishwas
> Manral
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:26 AM
> *To:* Michael Hammer
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Sounds like we agree on most of the things, though I see the draft
> contradicting what we agree on.****
>
> 1. Do we really see incompatibilities in the API's soar for say IaaS? The
> AWS API's seem to be the default standard adopted by most providers. From
> the little I know OpenStack based API's may be the alternative way and
> companies have built bridging layers to inter-operate between the same.***
> *
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Seem?  May be?  Bridging layers?  I think you are making the case for us.
> :)****
>
> I'm sure Ashish will have more to say about APIs, but I would prefer there
> be a de jure than a default, which in the long run is likely to change at
> the whim of a single company, and perhaps not in a direction that everyone
> would like.****
>
> What I am saying is we have 2 sets of API's and there are layers used to
> bridge the same. I know as services proliferate there could be a
> proliferation of distict API's but the same is true of the protocol layer
> too.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 2. Instead of the term customer/ user can we instead use the term
> "consumer". Something like "cloud subscriber" etc could be used. All I am
> saying is can we use standard terms here.****
>
>  ****
>
> We can settle on specific terms to use, just so long as we keep the
> distinction between the entity (enterprise?) that provisions the software
> in the cloud, and the user of that software, which could be an employee or
> a user in the general public.  Using a SIP Proxy as a Service, the operator
> of the Proxy provisions it with a CREATE, but the user is the one sending
> INVITEs through it.  Make sense?****
>
> The NIST document uses terms and we should try to use similar terms as far
> as possible.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 3. Is orchestration about creating services (from the cloud providers
> perspective), or an instance of a service (for a particular user)? I think
> it is the latter, but doesn't sound so from the definition.****
>
>  ****
>
> Orchestration is about the on-demand provisioning of the
> compute/storage/network/XaaS in the cloud by the subscriber/customer.  Once
> provisioned, the service can provide services to the intended user.  We are
> trying to be general here.  Need to keep provisioning and operations
> distinct.  "Service" is occurring in levels.****
>
> Correct but the draft seems to differ.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 4. How is Service Domain Name different from a URI? Aren't they the same?*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> There is a distinction here between a class of services and running
> instantiations of those services.  Either may be hierarchically named.****
>
> Hmm.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 5. Is Scenario -1 talking about all providers should provide the same
> services? I guess not. I think the idea should be the same set of services
> should be accessible from a cloud provider the same way. It however does
> not mean that all providers need to provide the same services, as it seems
> from the requirement.****
>
>  ****
>
> Agree.  All providers may not provide the same set of services.  ****
>
> But, if two providers offer the same service, it should not require a new
> customer protocol stack to do so.****
>
> And users should not know that they may be going to one provider or the
> other when using the same service.****
>
> The requirement seems contradictory to what we agree. Similar for points
> below.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 6. It seems for most purposes you are talking about users, but as such a
> user in an enterprise should be unaware of where the service is coming
> from. It is the role of the customer to actually provide clear demarcation
> so a user is unaware of the same. Interoperability with virtual provider is
> how companies achieve the same.****
>
>  ****
>
> Agree, and we would like that to be true for multi-provider cases as well.
> ****
>
> I would go further to say that even a user not in the enterprise should be
> unaware where the service is coming from.****
>
>  ****
>
> 7. I don't think you should mention providers should inter-operate with
> each other. That is a business decision. I think what you mean here is that
> providers should have a clear interoperable means should they wish to
> inter-operate.****
>
>  ****
>
> Yes.  We want them to be able to inter-operate.  Whether they want to is a
> business decision.****
>
>  ****
>
> 8. Is it really a requirement for the Orchestration to allow
> inter-operation for all models? I would have thought we are focusing on the
> IaaS alone.****
>
>  ****
>
> We don't see a reason to limit it to just IaaS.  We are looking several
> years down the road here.****
>
>  ****
>
> 9. S-5 and S-3 sound like similar services to me. How are they different -
> vendor versus provider?****
>
>  ****
>
> We were considering cases where multiple companies are involved in
> providing all the capabilities needed.  One involved coordination within an
> administrative domain, while the other involves independent administrative
> domains.  We didn't want to limit this to single company operations.  Large
> global providers may involve many companies.****
>
>  ****
>
> 10. I think one of the key requirements for SOP, is the ability to work
> across only a sub-set of the base services and allow for extensible
> services on top. There could be so many variants of the SaaS or even PaaS I
> am not sure how you would make every service inter-operate.****
>
>  ****
>
> There needs to be several layers of standards involved.  This is an onion
> not a single layer orange-peel.****
>
> Here we are trying to provide structure that allows easy extension,
> substitution, and innovation at the more service-specific granular levels.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> 11. I think when a VM is moved the biggest issue is the ability to move
> the storage along with it. All other state is minor and minimal.****
>
>  ****
>
> I would say the networking is the biggest issue, but that is my bias.  :0*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> 12. Section 6 seems to be relevent within a cloud too and not just between
> clouds.****
>
>  ****
>
> Agree.  Internal to a cloud and from the customer to the cloud are the
> simple cases.  ****
>
> We emphasize the inter-cloud cases to test the architecture for the worst
> cases.****
>
>  ****
>
> 13. Doesn't CDN provide the ability to separate address and ability
> already?****
>
>  ****
>
> Probably needs more discussion.  I see content as a specific scenario.
>  There you don't care which copy of data is accessed so long as you reach
> it.  In other types of services, a lot more control over who accesses what
> is needed.****
>
>  ****
>
> 14. For Service discovery. management we wrote something quite a while
> back
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management/
> .****
>
> Will take a look.  Thanks.  Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>