Re: [sop] SOP Requirements
Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 22:06 UTC
Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@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 AF5B811E8075 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.323, 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 BW3uU1rma6mG for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C73921F8862 for <sop@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so2693363ggm.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Y72CmHkkftszxGuksSUauH1MerfnPB1BPpiOiTesPKA=; b=Y6pUBpL6MA44cVUqUo3yzQuEBkXVgwRBFzwSdO40To+SfwZ4XDn0rG1X8tdKIXoSK+ /ZwSQctFdWDUuYjPY7O5tT8KlQjICp65G5+U4Vqks/idnNqPv62p1xzZIsS43aDVwDDU /HsdlB0K84Vt+nRI40fDZvEGzVlcrE41RFHBsPOpfh5MyijSvHkpx/VVN/fN3DGJWA/R jhU6a1FwXvGyxdIM4UCF944RSWS3xKb5VbNrcSou8GcMupC8SHHdYEfTznJepq6FTTao h1pXPb7ublghLcAEfaO7X1umnDkTZD16Wx9fshxpCPffDph69fcaj9bkakyrMDIX8zMK yqng==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.7.7 with SMTP id f7mr5598966oea.19.1331762802193; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.134.73 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA3wLqWPL_nH1uGbki4rnt7h81Vne3wf-pqd25XRsBAkquH2Tw@mail.gmail.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> <CAOyVPHTDaVXJTskXMxQ0MBr+4MbC1St6+YOhOpv6MUww+QbH8w@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC437@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHTgfyEDM5Xq9GF+zxcLCY6AAzTdn2s9c1z7529rDO8LGQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BC9CC@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHQLmndMyNmDqKFugyaL11T0p7Wi5vz9-z4WLH2ETfKHuQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C51031BCFC2@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHRY89Uo5Cd8JqxE=eDeoY8F95WzuQ99n-3Vx5Ba1PkYNQ@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C510329FBF4@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAA3wLqWPL_nH1uGbki4rnt7h81Vne3wf-pqd25XRsBAkquH2Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:06:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOyVPHQsGHqyGpEsE4+zFZiRrL-o8PsLq0gpbce9O=ebh=56BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1f2fcbff6f404bb3b30ae"
Cc: sop@ietf.org, "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:06:54 -0000
Thanks Mike. I am just eager that we have a clear cut set of requirements and problem statement defined, before we go ahead and write a solution. Ashish, sure let us look at the options and see what makes sense. On the DTCP/IP front we have both an encryption as well as a control plane AKE, which serves the purpose for digital content. -Vishwas On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com> wrote: > But, if you start with an existing protocol and add methods and tweaks for > every problem, > you may end up with SOP again in the end. :) > > Mike > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) < > adalela@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Vishwas,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> There are multiple problems. IKE is only key exchange. You can’t use it >> to encrypt packets because it will break policy routing (described in my >> email).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The multicast / discovery problem can be solved by moving from TCP to >> UDP. That alone isn’t enough because moving away from TCP means you lost >> transaction identity. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Sometimes what seems like a solution brings some other problems, which >> also need to be solved.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> If you want, we can draft up a list of enhancements needed to existing >> protocols. I’m open to enhancing existing protocols. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks, Ashish**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Vishwas Manral >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:43 AM >> >> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela) >> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer >> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Hi Ashish, >> >> Yes, I was talking about UPnP/ SSDP. For hijacking prevention, we used a >> protocol like IKE called AKE (though I am sure we could use IKE too). >> >> I am not trying to say the protocol you invented is wrong, but based on >> the top level information, it looks similar to what is achievable now. >> >> So if the problem is multicast for discovery, can we optimize the >> discovery part instead of doing the whole protocol itself. I think we need >> to propose a tighter problem statement. >> >> Thanks, >> Vishwas**** >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) < >> adalela@cisco.com> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Vishwas,**** >> >> **** >> >> I’m supposing that you are talking about SSDP ( >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Service_Discovery_Protocol)? Let me >> know if that is correct.**** >> >> **** >> >> In any large network, multicast isn’t the right way to scale. If every >> network element has to do a IGMP join to receive ADVERTISE then it becomes >> a scaling issue. It also becomes a security problem where some rogue >> element can start sending multicast ADVERTISE and hijack the orchestration >> sessions. **** >> >> **** >> >> Broadcast doesn’t scale either, but we can convert it to a directed >> unicast (like DHCP for example). There are other reasons as well, such as >> if there are multiple service specific controllers then you have to choose >> different multicast groups for each. It seems like we should use broadcast >> for this to be light-weight, and multicast could be an option in case of L3 >> networks, but with additional access controls.**** >> >> **** >> >> Regarding which existing protocol to extend, there are multiple options:* >> *** >> >> **** >> >> HTTP – has CRUD, but doesn’t support ADVERTISE, DISCOVER, REGISTER, >> NOTIFY, SUBSCRIBE, COMMIT, CANCEL etc. So, just adding a NOTIFY, as you >> suggest through SSDP, is still not going to be enough. Orchestration also >> needs “identities” such as device@provider.com, which HTTP doesn’t have.* >> *** >> >> **** >> >> XMPP – has PUBLISH, SUBSCRIBE, and identities, but not all of the above. >> Service requests will require a “VIA” and dynamic injection of path >> elements, especially when a request forks into multiple requests or is >> re-directed to a different provider / location.**** >> >> **** >> >> AMQP – this is designed for messaging and again lacks many of the >> constructs.**** >> >> >> **** >> >> So wherever we look, the extension curve is long. It seemed like the >> problem space is big enough to warrant a new protocol.**** >> >> **** >> >> The other issue is how easily we can implement the security for >> orchestration. E.g. if we use IPSec end-to-end then how do hops in the >> middle route the request differently (the nearest location, the cheapest >> location, location with capacity, the location allowed by law, etc.). The >> right model seems to be that we embed integrity within the protocol rather >> than into IPSec. Privacy can be implemented separately between the edges >> using IPSec. That security model requires another set of issues to be >> solved in the current protocols (if we extend them).**** >> >> **** >> >> Besides security, there are other types of issues. For instance, a >> network might use UDP internally to get broadcast but use TCP for unicast >> externally for higher reliability. That change between TCP and UDP causes >> loss of transaction identity, and transactions have to be built part of the >> protocol. Likewise, with overlays, and overlay translations, the location >> information could be easily lost. Hence, you need location in the >> orchestration protocol. NAT may obfuscate real topology, and we lose >> information about the actual distance between two end-points. **** >> >> **** >> >> Given these challenges, we choose to define a protocol that can be >> tweaked over time for orchestration specific needs without having to worry >> about backward compatibility, and/or how this gets broken by overlay, >> firewalls, or NAT’d networks. SIP already went over this hump and providers >> have learnt (somewhat painfully) on how to do this in a way that works. >> That entire learning can be leveraged for cloud.**** >> >> **** >> >> In any case, not sure if you have seen it, but there is a draft for SOP >> that describes just what I’m talking about.**** >> >> **** >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-sop-00**** >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-sop-flows-00**** >> >> **** >> >> Look forward to your comments.**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks, Ashish**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:30 AM**** >> >> >> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela) >> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer >> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements**** >> >> **** >> >> Hi Ashish, >> >> Thanks for the mail. >> >> So I looked at some of the reasons you mentioned you want to go in for >> SOP instead of HTTP. >> >> I however have worked in the past with the DLNA stack, where we extended >> HTTP and used protocols like SOAP to get behaviors you mention - like >> service discovery, transaction support etc. >> >> If that is what we want, we should look at the DLNA stack and see how we >> can leverage existing mechanisms for the same. >> >> I however think finalizing the requirements is a good start. >> >> Thanks, >> Vishwas**** >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) < >> adalela@cisco.com> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Vishwas,**** >> >> **** >> >> It is better if you comment on the drafts because there is a section >> dedicated to this very topic.**** >> >> **** >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-orchestration-00#section-8 **** >> >> **** >> >> This describes what you can’t do with web-services (assuming that’s what >> you mean by APIs). This is **not** the shortcoming of the APIs, but that >> of the underlying **protocol** (HTTP). So, if you changed the underlying >> protocol to fix issues with HTTP, then the APIs would be more powerful. >> That protocol we propose to be SOP.**** >> >> **** >> >> You are mistaking me in pitching API against protocols. I’m pitching >> protocol (HTTP) against protocol (SOP). Unfortunately, application >> developers abuse the term API to mean HTTP web-services, and the discussion >> is then messed up into thinking protocol against API.**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks, Ashish**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Vishwas Manral >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:19 AM >> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela) >> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Michael Hammer**** >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements**** >> >> **** >> >> Hi Ashish, >> >> My point was very simple. >> >> You had talked about cases where protocol is more flexible than an API, >> and I was trying to help you understand that anything that can be done in >> an East West manner (with protocols), can be done in North-South manner >> with API's. If you say we can do something with protocols with only X >> packets, we can do the same with just X API's too. That was my point and >> not the fact that we have only 1 API or more. >> >> Also API's on which base services sit and ones which end users use could >> be different. >> >> Am I missing the point altogether? >> >> Thanks, >> Vishwas**** >> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) < >> adalela@cisco.com> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Vishwas,**** >> >> **** >> >> What everyone calls API today uses a protocol – HTTP. APIs survive on the >> interoperability provided by that protocol, and I don’t think anyone can >> get away from that. The real question is – what is the right protocol on >> top of which to build APIs? That’s the question SOP is raising. Once you do >> that, then we can talk of one or many APIs.**** >> >> **** >> >> Limitations of using HTTP as the underlying protocol for any API have >> been described in detail in the requirements draft. I would like to hear >> your comments on that. That section describes what APIs can’t do. Some of >> the limitations are because API is always unicast, and there are many >> things for which you need a manycast and broadcast. Other limitations >> because APIs are synchronous and you need to be asynchronous in some cases. >> Yet other issues because APIs are single complete transaction, but some >> transactions will spread over multiple such APIs. **** >> >> **** >> >> The total amount of information in a message is unchanged whether you put >> it inside a protocol header or the content body. Putting some things in the >> protocol header saves you having to reinvent them in the content for every >> type of service. In other words, a protocol saves you from increasing >> information across various services. As an example in SIP, we put From and >> To in the protocol header. Could we not put it in the body? Sure we could. >> In that case we would be repeating that for voice and video and chat >> content. **** >> >> **** >> >> To your point, you can have a single API for doing anything. As the >> service evolves and complexity grows, the number of parameters to that API >> increases. And yes, you can make that backward compatible in terms of >> implementation. But, nobody does that – especially when the interface is >> end-user facing. If this was an acceptable design, then we would not have >> object inheritance and there won’t be hundreds of APIs being opened up by >> cloud providers today. You might want to suggest one API to Amazon or other >> cloud providers. **** >> >> **** >> >> A practical operational issue with APIs is that users don’t understand >> all the details. A user understands a server memory and CPU, but don’t >> understand VLAN and LUN, and zillions of other complicated things. Exposing >> them through APIs is useless because they can’t use it. Why would a user >> buy an expensive TV when they can’t use most of the features, because the >> remote is too complicated? The need is to reduce complexity through >> automation, not expose it all to the user via APIs. In other words, you >> need a more sophisticated policy engine not a sophisticated API system. * >> *** >> >> **** >> >> For any problem there is a cure and there is a prevention. Building API >> bridges is a cure to diverse APIs, it’s not a prevention. Once you >> recognize a problem, you build a short-term cure and a long-term prevention >> (at least ideally). Then, a single API is neither a cure nor prevention; >> its side-effects are so severe that we might be living with the original >> problem as well. **** >> >> **** >> >> APIs have always existed and will continue to exist. The goal is to >> interoperate diverse APIs without a translation bridge. That happens all >> the time with network protocols, when one vendor’s APIs works with another >> vendor’s APIs without a translation bridge. I think not having a bridge is >> always better than having a bridge. Agree?**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks, Ashish**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Vishwas Manral [mailto:vishwas.ietf@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:45 PM >> *To:* Ashish Dalela (adalela) >> *Cc:* Michael Hammer; sop@ietf.org**** >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements**** >> >> **** >> >> Hi Ashish,**** >> >> **** >> >> As the number of services increase or the complexity in a given service >> grows, this becomes very hard. Assume there is a service with N tunable >> parameters. You need at least N APIs that modify these parameters >> individually. Then permutations and combination of these parameters create >> hundreds of more APIs. That’s just API bloat. And if you have to >> interoperate multiple instances of these APIs through bridges, it’s just >> inviting more complexity. Another limitation is that when APIs have >> semantic incompatibilities, it becomes even harder to interoperate (syntax >> incompatibility is easier).**** >> >> Not true at all.For N parameters you can have one API. The API can be >> made forward compatible by using simple things like unions. Having worked >> in a software company, where we have to extend our software without >> breaking previous API's I am well aware of the fact. >> >> If you give an exact example I can try to help you see how we can make an >> extensible API for the same. >> >> Thanks, >> Vishwas **** >> >> **** >> >> From an operational standpoint, every new API introduction requires >> software upgrades to the controllers. That eventually hinders the rate of >> service creation.**** >> >> **** >> >> >> I know as services proliferate there could be a proliferation of >> distict API's but the same is true of the protocol layer too. >> **** >> >> That won’t happen if we separate service-independent and >> service-dependent pieces. An example of that is SNMP. SNMP is >> device/service independent. MIB defines the specific service/device. If you >> have a standard protocol to manage a device, then you just have to add a >> new MIB to start managing it. You don’t need to upgrade all the >> intermediate systems – hardware or software. **** >> >> **** >> >> BTW, I’m not advocating SNMP here because SNMP has many shortcomings in >> terms of network discovery, capability discovery, advertisements, >> transactions, etc. But, we need to keep in mind that API proliferation is >> inevitable as services proliferate. Protocol proliferation is not >> inevitable. Similar separation has been done in the past in SIP/SDP, >> HTTP/HTML, SMTP/MIME. That separation allows anyone to send any content in >> email to anyone. Or download any web-page, or have any type of codec (voice >> or video) use the same protocol.**** >> >> **** >> >> If you compare the success and widespread use of above mentioned >> protocols the value of separation between service-independent and >> service-dependent seems pretty convincing.**** >> >> **** >> >> >> Correct but the draft seems to differ.**** >> >> **** >> >> Service and instance of service are (and can be) interchangeably used. Is >> bandwidth a service or an instance of a service? I think this is more >> semantics.**** >> >> **** >> >> >> The requirement seems contradictory to what we agree. Similar for >> points below.**** >> >> **** >> >> The requirement is really that services are portable across providers. I >> think it is fair to say (as you also agree) that a user must know where >> they are going for a service. After all, they will have to pay for the >> service and they ought to know in advance who are they going to receive a >> monthly check from. **** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks, Ashish**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Vishwas Manral >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:26 AM >> *To:* Michael Hammer >> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [sop] SOP Requirements**** >> >> **** >> >> 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 >> sop@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> > >
- [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Michael Hammer
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Michael Hammer
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Michael Hammer
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Michael Hammer
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Ashish Dalela (adalela)
- Re: [sop] SOP Requirements Vishwas Manral