Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

Hi Jamal,

Yes, the IETF format is to describe requirements and/or problem
statements before you put out a solution. So, we have put both a problem
statement and a solution.

Thanks, Ashish

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi@mojatatu.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:52 PM
To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
Cc: Vishwas Manral; sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer
Subject: Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

Hi Ashish,

I will read the drafts and provide better comments. I guess
the point i was missing was you put out requirements to
look for a protocol and it turns out you already have a protocol
which suits your needs.

cheers,
jamal

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela)
<adalela@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> Please note that the resources we create and the names we assign them
> have to be DNS accessible. That's because from a user standpoint cloud
> and non-cloud services must work just the same. Hence, you don't want
to
> give a name like - abc.vm.someID. You want to give a name that will be
> resolved by a DNS server so that the user can reach that server in the
> same way, transparent to the fact that it is cloud created.

Ok - didnt realize that angle.

> To make cloud work incrementally, we need a separate name space for
> "types", and not mix it with existing names in DNS. So, we end up with
> two name spaces - one for types and another for instances. The
> properties of an instance are really properties of a "type" but
> referenced by an instance. The "type" can have a "name" attribute that
> references an instance, without loss of generality. That way, if we
> change the name, we are still consistent.
>
>>> Is the requirements one the best one to focus one (that is the one i
> have looked at).
>
> Requirements is certainly the place to start at. Many of the questions
> you have raise also touch upon architecture, and specifics are in the
> protocol draft. Look forward to your comments.
>
> Thanks, Ashish
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Jamal Hadi Salim
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:39 PM
> To: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> Cc: Vishwas Manral; sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer
> Subject: Re: [sop] SOP Requirements
>
> Hi Ashish,
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> <adalela@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand the ForCES background - the idea is aligned with ATCA
and
>> the notion that any node can be given any "personality". That may not
> be
>> true in general where certain types of devices are "capable" of doing
>> certain things. E.g. you can't trivially make a switch a firewall or
a
>> load-balancer. You certainly can't make a network device a storage
>> device or a server trivially. It is true for x86 servers maybe, but
as
>> you get a wide variety of hardware capabilities or move up the
> software
>> stack into a middleware or a specific type of application, the
>> generalized view disappears. Until we get to a point where a common
> type
>> of hardware can enact any type of functionality that view is limited.
>
> I dont need to know a node's "personality" - if it exists, it tells
me.
> The creation or booting of the node is considered a setup process.
> [Once create/booted - the node becomes part of my resource pool.
> I may not use it at all if i choose not to.]
> In your case, you may consider the creation aspect part of the
> process.
>
>> The reality with virtualized services is that the instance doesn't
>> *exist* when you ask for it. E.g. when I request a VM, the VM that I
>> will be allocated doesn't exist. It will be created on-demand. So,
> there
>> is no way I can request the specific "instance". I have to only
> request
>> a "type". The type has to be mapped to a capability source, and then
>> converted into an instance. Once you have an instance, sure, you
refer
>> to it both by type and instance.
>
> Then no conflict there.
> I presume theres an operation to say "create abc.vm" which
> returns me some ID. And going forward i can refer to that
> abc.vm.someID and be able to reference attribute
> abc.vm.someID.foo, no?
>
>> Sure, that can be clarified. I thought the definition was clear in
the
>> drafts, but if not, that can be clarified.
>
> I will read the drafts closely and comment. Is the requirements one
the
> best
> one to focus one (that is the one i have looked at).
>
> cheers,
> jamal
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop