Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop -- Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services

Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 16:48 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 66FD821F841B for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:48:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.490, 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 YuLsfzgs9+bb for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:47:58 -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 D575A21F8565 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so3058037lah.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:47:43 -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=IPdXG/rKzBsdhsvW/eqKumf4K9lFCzncBV3b9SF9f2A=; b=aTqHqX7rAvd3KWxCwvJRziZAqJ8nnW3Pdmp1SN0wRsjlM2/mcYUnTy16CuIAktmlPa aVNM7SuNqHI7iFGypuMr9IE9/ZwCAw7YttLLMkqNX8zjAZDu1WpGNqszqNpNiyrV8umw GkqolkYgctIV4t4MmihysOdftk2xXAW8rixWI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.104.143 with SMTP id ge15mr2569698lab.26.1329410863725; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.104.70 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:47:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8BEA2A9F-98D2-4828-BD68-5D980BD81EFE@lucidvision.com>
References: <CB62CCB4.C846D%mmorrow@cisco.com> <470D91CE-5D54-48F8-8889-438DA873A3FA@lucidvision.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001E76@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L3EiCHutLEYHTCbPc0b439k_47mda1y1ONmwthKrQMiYw@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001E8E@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L0wgfFt_j6JPgb36vRSj0-LF3bS+NjUuKcTyKwoeVq3Sg@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001EA3@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L0w-E_Ejvbu=3DHo6kt4ssXmrZKZqzJe6NLCSrgak-cUg@mail.gmail.com> <8BEA2A9F-98D2-4828-BD68-5D980BD81EFE@lucidvision.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:47:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA3wLqW5mdKRpwheykEDXe2udjHsQBt5dHx7fsD62DhGGPaYLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040838ff4afc0304b91796cc
Cc: sop@ietf.org, Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>, "Ashish Dalela \(adalela\)" <adalela@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop -- Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services
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, 16 Feb 2012 16:48:02 -0000

For interoperability's sake across private and public clouds from different
network providers, we are looking for a protocol to be developed.

The analogy we are making is that on-demand provisioning of a voice/video
 network circuit between two points is done with SIP.  Without interferring
with that effort, and working in parallel, what is the difference with the
on-demand provisioning of network/compute/storage over IP?

Would you also argue that all the SIP work should not have been done in
IETF?
Or that SIP should not have been done because there are open-source
projects?

Mike


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>wrote:

>
> Good point Ping. That is the question in my mind. Does this belong
> somewhere else like where OpenStack is being done, or otherwise?
>
> --Tom
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <
> adalela@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
>> This isn’t just about the network resources and SOP isn’t only about
>> provisioning network resources. The protocol definition is generalized to
>> support any kind of service – network included.
>
>
> Be careful. Others have brought up similar proposal before. IETF stands
> for Internet Engineering TF... Networking is the name of the game. ;-) If
> not networking, I fear it would be wrong place to do the work.
>
> In SDN, our focus is on networking. Further, we are trying to
> distance ourselves from the actual DC network fabric design (all
> vendor-specific so far).
>
> Regards,
>
>  Ping
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop
>
>