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

Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 16:58 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 245C721F887B for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:58:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.409, 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 Z+XMc2vbAZTY for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:58:38 -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 E0E3721F8845 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so3070714lah.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:58:36 -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=Ig0gfA4+wsLaIDpeSh7NKuUVl1S3fHM/CMVddxPdA8Q=; b=aU6qupz+5CWd49rqa4CxNvopm1Id+Ud3/ACwshAbM0tsO84GAG+w682q9yp5E0X4dg jzMU8o+gLj2sp3z696kMb+sFsk6uRwTk7QXfSJ4N8h7KHwDxTt1zPCR/ir4yKIw8+uAw 2E9NEalDRypbAQMyZyjRbXkezQRsFHEDBKJJU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.100.34 with SMTP id ev2mr1315100lbb.13.1329411516876; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:58:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.104.70 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:58:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F3D3361.4030802@raszuk.net>
References: <CB62CCB4.C846D%mmorrow@cisco.com> <470D91CE-5D54-48F8-8889-438DA873A3FA@lucidvision.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001E76@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L3EiCHutLEYHTCbPc0b439k_47mda1y1ONmwthKrQMiYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA3wLqVpK3pYtdFPiHz7YnBrswNQnOW8R91JXdq-3ndsoL9hkA@mail.gmail.com> <4F3D2F02.3020302@raszuk.net> <CAA3wLqVXujsafyD0MuSUrn8oPdooEtSpJJqxkODQipEBkvGv=A@mail.gmail.com> <4F3D3361.4030802@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:58:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA3wLqUVwhNzyB6TWf_H-D6g9oR-Kxeg7MqD3BrJps84Tq_7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
To: robert@raszuk.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9d2f3ca3947f704b917bdb0
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, sdnp <sdnp@lucidvision.com>, Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>, "Monique Morrow \(mmorrow\)" <mmorrow@cisco.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 16:58:43 -0000

Robert,

And that is the *only* open source project?  :)

Yeah, having more than one standard is an issue as well.
Would hope that we could converge early on one, but the IETF is what it is.
But that is not an argument against trying, or you might as well shut down
any effort.

Mike


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:

>
>  Yeah, except open source does not necessarily mean standardized.
>>
>
> Well history shows that "standardized" usually get's influenced by
> commercialization very quickly and turns into major vendor's battlefield.
>
> Is having two IGPs blessed by IETF as standard a feature or a bug ? Is
> having N ways to accomplish L2VPNs where major vendors do not interoperate
> something we would admire as great success of standardization process ? Or
> IPv6 "progress". I don't know ...
>
>
>  Whose open source project are we talking about?  :)
>>
>
> http://openstack.org/**community/companies/<http://openstack.org/community/companies/>
> http://www.eclipse.org/**membership/showAllMembers.php<http://www.eclipse.org/membership/showAllMembers.php>
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>