Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop
>>
>>
>