Re: [sop] SOP Requirements

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Tue, 28 February 2012 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.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 6097B21F86DB for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0tzR2R5yk2YG for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9845A21F86AB for <sop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so3514792obb.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of hadi@mojatatu.com designates 10.182.31.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.182.31.47;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hadi@mojatatu.com designates 10.182.31.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=hadi@mojatatu.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.182.31.47]) by 10.182.31.47 with SMTP id x15mr7009872obh.76.1330451329321 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.31.47 with SMTP id x15mr6214597obh.76.1330451329220; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.40.202 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:48:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC083@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
References: <CAOyVPHQ-iESaD2osxsWguTw1Ru92JYacSsqbD+1rECPzy1eGfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA3wLqV+YeGJH2pFQ80s=PgQC2RsodPMm8qUw3a-VtCzhETkOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOyVPHTXWPyt5aHL2ehd_upS-DEAcfugVMcUpUm_oO5Ov04rUw@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51030E1263@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAAFAkD-pheMmSQoUZzup_DHQceyXU=1Aq+oQZWEMXA_5pTNayg@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC083@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:48:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD94ODszZ4D=m0Kyco8CEfE0rs9aLGj36-A7Re2MMQGiZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlFRr4zaLKsUCGNTCvhxwtK8reV9kPf7pLzL6WSenW8zYNnorqR7x2s3+30YOV+FJhXggER
Cc: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>, sop@ietf.org, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
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, 28 Feb 2012 17:48:50 -0000

Hi Ashish,

You are probably more familiar with ForCES than i read in between
the lines in your response, but i just wanted to clarify to be sure.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela)
<adalela@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Jamal,
>
> The intent of ForCES is decomposition of a network element, and the goal
> of SOP is how to integrate network planes into a larger useful system.

If you look at ForCES from originally-intended-use, you are right.  That is
not what i meant since the architecture is more generic.
[Example we use it to configure/manage many non-network element specific
attributes across disparate NEs.]

> When we decompose, the intent is that the decomposed pieces can be built
> by anyone. That means a vendor is no longer a NE vendor but a component
> vendor. It plays out differently. E.g. if we look outside network, can
> we say that ForCES type of protocol could be used to separate the
> storage controller from the disk? Technically that is feasible, but the
> challenges in getting it done are high.

It shouldnt be hard: You would need to describe the disk attributes.
The protocol _never_ has to change.

> On the other hand, when we are trying to integrate already disparate
> systems, we are creating a new level of value. It allows every vendor to
> control the value in their product, but opening up a management
> interface - similar to how devices have been managed through MIBs.
>

ForCES allows you to do that. The XML definitions are equivalent to MIBS.
The general semantics of operation for forces are unix like:
command [path] [args]
path and args are specific on the object instance being referenced
and command is part of the few verbs defined (SET/GET/DEL etc)

> You don't lose anything by supporting a standard MIB, but there is a
> value in the network management system if it can manage many diverse
> devices (beyond the element manager). The goal of SOP is to meet that
> value point, which is addressing some real problems today.
>
> The complexity of the systems is becoming high, to the point that
> configuring / managing / monitoring these systems is becoming harder and
> much more expensive. The complexity is specially high for cloud. We need
> an approach that reduces the cost of provisioning and monitoring these
> islands and build a level of intelligence that sees these islands as
> part of a single system.
>
> SOP is basically service independent protocol. In that respect, we can
> compare it to SNMP, SIP, HTTP, SMTP, etc. It has the verbs and
> constructs we need for virtual services.

The only reason i brought up ForCES is because the verbs you need
look similar.

>But we don't want to bundle
> this with service-dependent things - counterparts of MIBs, Codecs, HTML
> or MIME in the earlier cases. If we look at this historically, HTML was
> done in W3C and Codecs in various places including ITU. Independent
> evolution of these things just makes it easier and more manageable. The
> goal is to separate service-independent and service-dependent pieces and
> do them separately.
>
> Many service-dependent pieces already exist - e.g. OVF for virtual
> machines done by DMTF or the effort that SNIA is putting to define
> virtual storage. My view is that cloud standards will not and cannot
> happen in one place. We need the right level of decoupling to allow
> different SDOs to do their part, and be able to integrate that. SOP is
> just a service-independent vehicle to carry service-dependent
> information.


So this is the part i may be missing, please help me understand.
You want a protocol that is capable of working with all above definitions
of a specific service?
i.e , if i defined a specific object blah using OVF definition or DMTF
definition or a MIB etc, that your protocol will be able to interop between
two service providers with two different languages used to define that
object?

cheers,
jamal