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

"Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <> Thu, 16 February 2012 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A34221F8891 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:09:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.649, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iTdYZjHnHrxo for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D7621F87D4 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:09:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329412188; x=1330621788; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=5Lc+WC84to0ch0cgsll6KHQs6+kDfWABTVimczyGxVA=; b=Bhg8lD8UjGM6rdlQ90jil7ukHyvr/J/1FSLjIQkgyU1w1+r8SW3Hvtv2 Xr+bau0+EeMDiSxdR4v5meCPq64bIw6bqUvSeS/AKgKOenrzxf3MpfRfg LrGYnvuscF7I+FIzvXHyGVWUqzjcolgdn/9Q5+IFiVlo/9Q3nOQtxyRe6 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,430,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217";a="5730395"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2012 17:09:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1GH9jKQ006738; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:09:45 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:39:45 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCECCD.C7FB377D"
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:39:44 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop -- ServiceOrchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services
Thread-Index: AczszQUBYlg39lZITcWs/++0DZJXRQAAFZvw
References: <><><><><><><><><><> <>
From: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <>
To: "Thomas Nadeau" <>, "Michael Hammer" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2012 17:09:45.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[C82A54D0:01CCECCD]
Cc:, Ping Pan <>
Subject: Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop -- ServiceOrchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:09:55 -0000



I would suggest to read the requirements draft, because number of
questions you and Ping are asking here about the goal, IETF-fit,
relationship to open-source are anticipated and discussed in that draft.
To your point about who needs it - inter-cloud is a service provider
need, hybrid-cloud is a provider and customer need, and
vendor-interoperability is both provider and customer need.


The requirements draft is here -


Thanks, Ashish


From: [] On Behalf Of
Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:34 PM
To: Michael Hammer
Cc:; Ping Pan; Ashish Dalela (adalela)
Subject: Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop --
ServiceOrchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services



On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Michael Hammer wrote:

For interoperability's sake across private and public clouds from
different network providers, we are looking for a protocol to be


            Is this a service provider requirement or one from equipment

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

Or that SIP should not have been done because there are open-source


            I am not arguing either way; I was asking the question to
the wider audience.







On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Nadeau
<> wrote:


Good point Ping. That is the question in my mind. Does this belong
somewhere else like where OpenStack is being done, or otherwise?





On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Ping Pan wrote:


	On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela)
<> 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


	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).





	sop mailing list


sop mailing list