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

Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org> Thu, 16 February 2012 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ping@pingpan.org>
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 5803121F8883 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Kq23l+p5OwRH for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B643021F8864 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTz0270h3JSXVvqAnGRgIIgthYfVnuhjl@postini.com; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:44 PST
Received: by obcwo16 with SMTP id wo16so5586262obc.27 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.162.40 with SMTP id xx8mr2500415obb.17.1329411823283; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.80.200 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAA3wLqW5mdKRpwheykEDXe2udjHsQBt5dHx7fsD62DhGGPaYLA@mail.gmail.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> <CAA3wLqW5mdKRpwheykEDXe2udjHsQBt5dHx7fsD62DhGGPaYLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHEV9L2Z-vOs8TvRAbp_ExzLcn0-c=RFr-4gkZYvzwy4O4NAGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6431487cae2e04b917cf4f
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNxs1+3KNr4S92vMB5ihXAFGE8hudjwWS6YaxyV+fHariujyLY2T9080PelgB/bRJtEiKk
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, sop@ietf.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 17:03:50 -0000

There are two issues here:

1. Open standard vs.open source code: we can argue all we want,
OpenStack/OpenFlow/OpenvSwitch/Hadoop/EC2 are making real impact. IMHO, any
standard without tight-coupling to the running implementation is nothing
but a waste of time - may that be open or close standard. Standards would
help the deployment of the technology, but it's the open source code that
has been the front runner in cloud computing.

You have mentioned SIP and IETF. During the same period of time Skype was
also around. It's not open source code, but free application. At the end of
the day, can anyone argue Skype is making less impact on VoIP because there
is no proper standardization? My point is, let's not put standard and
running code on the opposite side of a scale. Standard can only benefit
from the running code.

2. Layering: IP networking runs on many layers. My point was that anything
to do with IP networking would be investigated and worked on in IETF. But
the non-networking application should not. If we are to support scalable
filesystems in data centers, such as HDFS, should that be standardized in
IETF?

Regards,

Ping


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>; wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>