Re: [sop] [Sdnp] Fwd: SOP and SDN Question

Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mphmmr@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 CF1C821F87A4 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:58:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, 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 BAMl7RSznK+J for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866E521F86EB for <sop@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so3497368lah.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mphmmr@gmail.com designates 10.112.24.162 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.24.162;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mphmmr@gmail.com designates 10.112.24.162 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mphmmr@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=mphmmr@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.112.24.162]) by 10.112.24.162 with SMTP id v2mr1199352lbf.21.1330099072603 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VmwNUZ0X5AKxtOFjy4V5rjYLrGuvwLCxX60EfMLFxmY=; b=JP+p8TORIiLpRgwqCGpC9NIqDUxDztQQjnyyKUyFTpdQL5eqDL+vpfMLHeJytlnfOI tYbkEYXnaNfhRAMi13loiR6OZlLYTpiX8H/sLIZatH/KTjBFvM1x/22bg4MxZyjcD0q9 3lfjWCiBT5M3zV5hqY/maRCzr4dhH12cSkquQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.24.162 with SMTP id v2mr992223lbf.21.1330099072527; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.104.70 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2FB85049-EE2C-4D28-80A3-D2364B2FDB42@lucidvision.com>
References: <CAA3wLqUZNK1XpMm8bZuXK4UcLxy4fKbjLvYK6iX537bWWEfqpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA3wLqW3y5_ucz+P5+be1+Js-56TnbJGNRQ=sB1p=SWyVZZt3Q@mail.gmail.com> <353D9CCB-2576-4A88-AAFC-DCE82FAF1101@lucidvision.com> <CAA3wLqWTkjx4ongiRoK887yOCKB-sMBRLZbVRq8VeUTzz+s_mQ@mail.gmail.com> <C9AE5879-FD8A-46FA-B08E-D1A2DDB010F3@lucidvision.com> <4F47B03C.8070301@raszuk.net> <2FB85049-EE2C-4D28-80A3-D2364B2FDB42@lucidvision.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:57:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA3wLqVxweeQov8nphWS8vvba=aSnWasY+=HTEF-OMV57sY78Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b390f7d40bbee7204b9b7d29d
Cc: sdnp@lucidvision.com, sop@ietf.org, robert@raszuk.net
Subject: Re: [sop] [Sdnp] Fwd: SOP and SDN Question
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:58:01 -0000

Agree there is confusion.

Also, we need more discussion on APIs versus protocols, along with security
implications.
We attempted to address that in the IDs.

Mike


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> >>> You seem to suggest that Open Flow can be expanded to include services
> >>> besides networking.
> >>
> >> I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Software Defined Networks (i.e.:
> >> OpenFlow) is targeted at working at the hardware abstraction level only.
> >
> > That's completely inaccurate.
>
>         Not completely. *)
>
> > SDN is all about network applications. You perhaps are confusing it with
> ONF which indeed at this point is focused on defining OpenFlow protocol.
>
>         Software DRIVEN Networks is all about network applications *and*
> their interaction with network services and elements, of which a
> subset is Software *defined* Networks (I.e.: OpenFlow).   We really need
> to pick a different term for Software Driven Networks because
> it is confusing everyone. People seem to equate "SDN" with OpenFlow
> without being clear about the "D".
>
>        --Tom
>
>
>
> > But protocols are not defined just by bunch of hardware enthusiasts.
> They are defined to address specific software defined applications.
> >
> > Best,
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> > Software *Driven* Networks is
> >> targeted at services and network elements.
> >> There is a clear difference.
> >>
> >> --Tom
> >
> >
>
>