Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 05:47 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 C8AAF21F848B for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, 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 O5-L82vcUghs for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:47:01 -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 B883121F848A for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so587843lah.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mphmmr@gmail.com designates 10.112.98.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.98.36;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mphmmr@gmail.com designates 10.112.98.36 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mphmmr@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=mphmmr@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.112.98.36]) by 10.112.98.36 with SMTP id ef4mr9013266lbb.55.1329803219604 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:46:59 -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=L/dqD/UIrfohMf0eZQvf0ehG6/EEdirbH1I5YTkcyoI=; b=bRpWO4M6wQ2PWxOsV8lMjBS8ZQy2wXd8WZW65d567Zv0hfaYwLr62oFOM/sQcswRAL Jb1WN6zr9XIzyW+SDQZ2bG1Mr7HXjLBaH1moZ3Sjw63cwL00kRj6/rEKMRW+/LXoBrlQ qrpmYy9OfGP/O0GxvwrawMEMBS+YahrdaDzTE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.98.36 with SMTP id ef4mr7521089lbb.55.1329803219495; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.104.70 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:46:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOyVPHQ-iESaD2osxsWguTw1Ru92JYacSsqbD+1rECPzy1eGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOyVPHQ-iESaD2osxsWguTw1Ru92JYacSsqbD+1rECPzy1eGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:46:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA3wLqV+YeGJH2pFQ80s=PgQC2RsodPMm8qUw3a-VtCzhETkOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d66484ec5604b972f005
Cc: sop@ietf.org
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:47:03 -0000

Vishwas,

Thanks for reviewing.  Inline...

Mike

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi authors,
>
> I did a first level pass through the SOP requirements document and my
> comments on the same are:
>
> 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.


> 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?


> 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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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
>
>