From dave.shield@googlemail.com Fri Apr 1 04:53:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D303A6826 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 04:53:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.811 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgSS0RZP3ypM for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 04:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94A33A6821 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 04:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so3242593wyb.31 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EhO0SLMqDSfrgYIm/dDlkgF2k13D9CmnLrac2Z12UhQ=; b=GV5GAcBKYgk3ZkVWP9TjX50e9nCwrseIPO5Gs7/2hU6SKeyBDS7pwr9BahOfmJmhj9 3z/2j5IbS0fOn40fPK926ssMBBP+StY/kqhG1r9Owx+Q5Tc8dheh9EnwtkckuC5cDewg 3nSBAyOeMWTEe+E5v/MueVX9JnOeFfzPQiTxM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=QCL+zzy3nibVkBeuaxot6E0azzUVq/P6SrIHpscM+lu5drT045OsGvuQ/oHv79E4cM 5HiFHHcJKtyFEcQ3aSGVRbRfDeDrndE6MQ7ios/QyQ/7luI3CfBzv7yugsc5cY8YZpCT 7s6NcF7mmbz5PZO1rOT+ksrcToRRg3L9wsfM4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.69.7 with SMTP id m7mr3746287wed.73.1301658900182; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dave.shield@googlemail.com Received: by 10.216.52.147 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 04:54:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110331122844.7503ed87@ispx.vb.futz.org> References: <3D50A761-7279-4564-A8EA-6CBAAD62CC84@cdl.asgaard.org> <4CD5A6BA-7C3C-42ED-9CBB-9ACDB3F7F77B@quittek.at> <20110331122844.7503ed87@ispx.vb.futz.org> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:54:59 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dldlhfZ4DE6-4Gn7I-qK90f7fF0 Message-ID: From: Dave Shield To: Juergen Quittek , Robert Story Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:53:23 -0000 On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:15:58 +0200 Juergen wrote: JQ> I have read the draft and have only one question: JQ> Would the byte order (endianness) in the octet arrays be obvious to an JQ> implementor? Or could there be incompatibilities between big-endian and JQ> little-endian implementations? On 31 March 2011 17:28, Robert Story wrote: RS> I asked about this back in December Given that two (more-than-averagely-clueful) readers of the draft have come up with the same question, perhaps this is an indication that the answer could do with being a little clearer. On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:07:18 -0800 Randy wrote: RP> I specifically said "interchange format" RP> for IEEE floats, since that *does* specify that the sign bit comes RP> first. For a freely-available secondary reference, see RP> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754-2008#Interchange_formats I can't help feeling that I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure whether this actually answers the question. That wikipedia reference says "The encoding scheme for these binary interchange formats [of floating point data] is the same as that of IEEE 754-1985: a sign bit, followed by w exponent bits that describe the exponent offset by a bias, and p-1 bits that describe the significand. " So the sign bit comes first, followed by the exponent and finally the significand. But are the exponent and significand bits in LSB or MSB order? Or is this implementation specific? As far as I can tell from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness#Floating-point_and_endianness the IEEE spec is ambiguous here: "..the widespread IEEE 754 floating point standard does not specify endianness. Theoretically, this means that not even standard IEEE floating point data written by one machine may be readable by another." If the intention is that floating point values should be represented in network byte order (which seems the most natural approach), then shouldn't this document say so explicitly? Dave From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Apr 5 13:31:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2A23A692F for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FvnaoBQbiSL for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA433A68E8 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlgHAFMtcU2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACYaY18dKR5ApkWhWEEkAw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,306,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="273242525" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2011 16:33:24 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,306,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="635456362" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2011 16:33:23 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:33:21 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Test to opsawg list Thread-Index: Acvz0KZvwERZL8iGQMyTt2Ju/91e6Q== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Cc: Glen Subject: [OPSAWG] Test to opsawg list X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:31:43 -0000 Test - please disregard.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Apr 5 13:33:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D583E3A67C2 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zcfCfjZH1cYl for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FF23A67AB for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:33:55 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlgHAFMtcU2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACYaY18dKR5ApkWhWEEkAw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,306,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="273242852" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2011 16:35:39 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,306,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="635457058" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2011 16:35:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:35:37 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposal to advance RFC 5343 from Proposed to Draft Thread-Index: AcvzzReKL2LqzZ5tS/epJiJTIbojvw== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Cc: Sean Turner Subject: [OPSAWG] Proposal to advance RFC 5343 from Proposed to Draft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:33:56 -0000 Hi,=20 The ISMS WG plans to progress RFC 5343 together with RFC 5590, 5591, and 5953 from Proposed to Draft. The interoperability report is available at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoenw-isms-interoperability-repo rt/. Their recommendation is advancing the four documents at once, without changes and republication. As RFC 5343 came from the OPSAWG I would like to ask whether anybody has any concern with this proposal. Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 11:00:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB15928C110; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTvTXXOIH+ik; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7906128C124; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:00:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.15 Message-ID: <20110406180002.5691.82813.idtracker@localhost> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:00:02 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:00:06 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : "Guidelines for the use of the OAM acronym in the IETF" Author(s) : L. Andersson, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2011-04-06 At first glance the acronym "OAM" seems to be well known and well understood. Looking at the acronym a bit more closely reveals a set of recurring problems that are revisited time and again. This document provides a definition of the acronym OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) for use in all future IETF documents that refer to OAM. There are other definitions and acronyms that will be discussed while exploring the definition of the constituent parts of the OAM term. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-04-06105938.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Wed Apr 6 12:42:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E791B3A69AD; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqMyaWQVjuLv; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263343A6978; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.15 Message-ID: <20110406194210.351.21919.idtracker@localhost> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:42:10 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Last Call: ("Guidelines for the use of the OAM acronym in the IETF") to BCP X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:42:11 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - '"Guidelines for the use of the OAM acronym in the IETF"' as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Sun Apr 10 20:59:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CE03A6A51 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:59:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.898, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7nXfhNO93RiW for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614DD3A6A43 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:59:46 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=GQ9sfDK1XhQHCVELdalh3KdOYuYbSmF+R5m3LxTw+X2sse6PW/3zai1iG7NklJCq; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.23.162.161] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Q98Hx-0002Uw-V1 for opsawg@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:59:46 -0400 Message-ID: <000401cbf7fd$1b8b6d60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <3D50A761-7279-4564-A8EA-6CBAAD62CC84@cdl.asgaard.org><4CD5A6BA-7C3C-42ED-9CBB-9ACDB3F7F77B@quittek.at><20110331122844.7503ed87@ispx.vb.futz.org> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:01:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888cc964a8bf633b382ede041c08516f254910cce1831d0057a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.23.162.161 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:59:50 -0000 Hi - As editor, I'd like to propose the following text to address the comments about endianness, to be added at the end of section 1: All of these textual conventions employ the binary interchange format defined in . Specifically, this means that for all of them, the highest-order bit of the first byte is the sign bit, with the remaining bits of the octet string corresponding to the exponent and fraction parts, in network byte order. As a technical contributor, I'd like to propose the following addition to the end of the bullet list in section 3: Whenever these textual conventions are used in a MIB mopdule, the associated DESCRIPTION clause MUST clearly specify whether denormalized numbers, NaNs ("not a number") or infinities are permitted, along with any special semantics associated with these cases. This is especially important for writeable objects. Comments? Randy From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Wed Apr 13 12:10:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AECE07FF for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:10:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5pGZrVkF3R4 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74162E07CC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:10:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=PH7MhMm/Dvtp8gSetnjeEAZWauG4HlYx2ZLFVpV455LfN6FBD9eh9L1+FZltJsVR; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.23.162.161] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QA5Cu-0003Te-39 for opsawg@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:54:28 -0400 Message-ID: <001a01cbfa0c$72904480$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <3D50A761-7279-4564-A8EA-6CBAAD62CC84@cdl.asgaard.org><4CD5A6BA-7C3C-42ED-9CBB-9ACDB3F7F77B@quittek.at><20110331122844.7503ed87@ispx.vb.futz.org> <000401cbf7fd$1b8b6d60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:56:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888cc964a8bf633b38296b5caa17d29f61cb9e41fae55c85660350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.23.162.161 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:10:59 -0000 Hi - We've reached the end of the time allocated for WG last call on this document. Two changes (see below) were proposed. Are there any objections to including these two changes in an update to draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats- at this time? I do not believe that either of these changes would necessitate a second WG last call, and that we should then be ready for hand-off to the IESG. (I've already noted the need for the editorial correction of "mopdule" to "module" :-) Randy ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randy Presuhn" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:01 PM > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats > > Hi - > > As editor, I'd like to propose the following text to address the comments > about endianness, to be added at the end of section 1: > > > All of these textual conventions employ the binary interchange format > defined in . > Specifically, this means that for all of them, the highest-order bit of > the first byte is the sign bit, with the remaining bits of the octet string > corresponding to the exponent and fraction parts, in network byte order. > > > As a technical contributor, I'd like to propose the following addition > to the end of the bullet list in section 3: > > Whenever these textual conventions are used in a MIB mopdule, the > associated DESCRIPTION clause MUST clearly specify whether > denormalized numbers, NaNs ("not a number") or infinities are > permitted, along with any special semantics associated with these > cases. This is especially important for writeable objects. > > > Comments? > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From rstory@tislabs.com Wed Apr 13 19:52:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3707E07CC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4xTY1dJd-y5 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2740E07C7 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D15928B0040; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ispx.vb.futz.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E761A1F8051; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:52:35 -0400 From: Robert Story To: "Randy Presuhn" Message-ID: <20110413225235.3a9edf63@ispx.vb.futz.org> In-Reply-To: <001a01cbfa0c$72904480$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> References: <3D50A761-7279-4564-A8EA-6CBAAD62CC84@cdl.asgaard.org> <4CD5A6BA-7C3C-42ED-9CBB-9ACDB3F7F77B@quittek.at> <20110331122844.7503ed87@ispx.vb.futz.org> <000401cbf7fd$1b8b6d60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <001a01cbfa0c$72904480$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> Organization: SPARTA X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/uazzumjt4Ja7FkUQ7hbcOzc"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:52:41 -0000 --Sig_/uazzumjt4Ja7FkUQ7hbcOzc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:56:06 -0700 Randy wrote: RP> We've reached the end of the time allocated for WG last call RP> on this document. RP>=20 RP> Two changes (see below) were proposed. RP>=20 RP> Are there any objections to including these two changes in an RP> update to draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats- at this time? RP> I do not believe that either of these changes would RP> necessitate a second WG last call, and that we should RP> then be ready for hand-off to the IESG. I support both changes. -- Senior Software Engineer SPARTA (dba Cobham Analytic Soloutions) --Sig_/uazzumjt4Ja7FkUQ7hbcOzc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2mYXcACgkQ7/fVLLY1mnioNQCggNBRmDQcuF73XAUlyEwpHP2u tLEAnjlCr4N4WbPtVuVNFz7zYzHDOM4h =8URn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/uazzumjt4Ja7FkUQ7hbcOzc-- From vumip1@gmail.com Sat Apr 16 14:11:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF97E06FE for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ypuikHvR9vLe for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D05FE06E2 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1776539gwb.31 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:10:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SJCR70R4c7APRRt2DFBojbDZSksn+U6cQNNPUS9tdnI=; b=WTPjt5hgx+6FDTonoH3qY5vnFjAD0AzMECtsMLUtuVygPj8Zfiu4q5Mh+FbM70lnUt dXm9zXirbCs+2f1arM5CgKVE/NMFJu5e14POPIEQcIEqdjdTBSKz3YaSsE8sfhIY6OvP 6ppmSHpGQ8TL5hTFT12mfInAr+QLIXE9b1oHo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=AHu7ApHvB9O0ZjRYpN0cKXzYYgLPQ/sj39Nx09KXuURTSDnkfcghBcAhMRwDylwUyo Sp2piprT6IQNjoSIGgykasS2KtbjT6kHtTYM8yLbZ/LPAQtlxJUKwe55pp1yzo2u8pd3 3joHlUiIqkTFyWIaXHqssXOzP5MqvQ/MHQse4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.78.102 with SMTP id f66mr1878285yhe.264.1302988258729; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300faf2b4ee0ac04a10f9847 Subject: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:11:00 -0000 --20cf300faf2b4ee0ac04a10f9847 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 *FYI and comments, if any.. Thanks.* ** *===================================================================* - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org - *Subject*: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt - *From*: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org - * * ------------------------------ A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Cloud Industry Workitem Survey Results Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, et al. Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt Pages : 164 Date : 2010-12-31 At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. The objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap analysis. This document is that survey on industry work items. At the end of this survey a section on work item analysis is presented. A URL for this Internet-Draft is:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --20cf300faf2b4ee0ac04a10f9847 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FYI and comments, if any.. Thanks.
=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Dra=
fts directories.

	Title           : Cloud Industry Workitem Survey Results
	Author(s)       : B. Khasnabish, et al.
	Filename        : draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt
	Pages           : 164
	Date            : 2010-12-31

At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet
draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are
focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared.  The
objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to
cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap
analysis.  This document is that survey on industry work items.  At
the end of this survey a section on work item analysis is presented.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.=
ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-0=
0.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
<ftp:= //ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-su= rvey-00.txt>

--20cf300faf2b4ee0ac04a10f9847-- From rbonica@juniper.net Mon Apr 18 10:07:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3D7E0670 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.374 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s+ursMLIaWBL for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E87AE0684 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTaxv3TOLTnag975NWt0U7qMsVld9cuUl@postini.com; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:07:44 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:03:50 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:05:53 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Bhumip Khasnabish , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:05:52 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt Thread-Index: Acv8eswvjdXiuKD4T7yPwfpEbWufDwBYoA1A Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46EMBX01WFjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:07:47 -0000 --_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bhumip, In the abstract, you say: At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF insi= ght regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clouds wor= k. However, I don't see mention of another SDO in the body of the document.= I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the real purpose= of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising specific v= endors? (At the risk of ignoring others?) In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the work items associated with= the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not = for the reasons that you would expect. I think that it would be very helpfu= l if a group of cloud operators were to get together to determine which of = those items were proper object of standardization and which were best left = for proprietary innovation. In any event, in its current state, I don't think that this draft is in goo= d enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item. = Ron = / speaking as individual contributor --_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bhumip,

 

In the abstract, you say:

 

  At the= IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet

  draft on survey of standard organizations and working grou= ps that are

   focusing= on cloud-based systems and services be prepared.

 

That would have been a = laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF insight regarding SDOs with= which the it needs to interact regarding clouds work. However, I don’= ;t see mention of another SDO in the body of the document. I do, however, s= ee mention of many cloud vendors. What is the real purpose of this document= ? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising specific vendors? (At the r= isk of ignoring others?)

 

In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the= work items associated with the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very int= eresting, but probably not for the reasons that you would expect. I think t= hat it would be very helpful if a group of cloud operators were to get toge= ther to determine which of those items were proper object of standardizatio= n and which were best left for proprietary innovation.

 

In any event, in i= ts current state, I don’t think that this draft is in good enough con= dition to be adopted as a WG work item.

=  

     &nb= sp;             = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;     Ron

&n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;           / speaking= as individual contributor

 

= --_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46EMBX01WFjnprn_-- From vumip1@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 10:45:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC83E07F7 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gL-gGShlabWr for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FECE06B5 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so2222202gwb.31 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wdYrrQfAgr/bZx7gct7mRliIhojI5Nr5h1xuSCTYko4=; b=P6XjW2YTDsAD+vEJWcXqzol86UTERO+txn/ss/bCImx5Zb2J6NFn0plhpzVVPeUImO tM7OsyTDdMDTIltIiddAtZN13LYCGAJSAO6fxnT6oT2oRc6cDBHQzmwnlnX0zHS7rGrX Nrte8fFcjSZhoOec8cqHzBWf2f3kVoPST3F1s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=QxvDmz31of9SdRPloTbr9QU49UpMKMsvwGOY5grwm7/47eUpJQfu1bhN9MDFDMqKym hP65HXdnfAyOA3hmo4O5QFpCjg1QeDAADer1YAHfTTI5GIcN9Lb0XjDomVvzxrOd7irL 999lBRro+MEXbAcfM3RoGPlOU3/K4lbmMIgNk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.78.102 with SMTP id f66mr3371456yhe.264.1303148700159; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:45:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Ronald Bonica Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300faf2b5ccf6f04a134f37e Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:45:02 -0000 --20cf300faf2b5ccf6f04a134f37e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ron, Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft surveyin= g the other clouds related SDOs ( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.tx= t ) I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier. PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud suppliers or operators. We'll update the document based on comments and inputs. We are just trying to capture the major relevant work items and issues. Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org - *Subject*: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt - *From*: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org - * * ------------------------------ A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2010-12-30 At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. The objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap analysis. This document is that survey. At the end of this survey a section on gap analysis is presented. A URL for this Internet-Draft is:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00= .txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Bhumip, > > > > In the abstract, you say: > > > > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet > > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are > > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. > > > > That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF > insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clou= ds > work. However, I don=92t see mention of another SDO in the body of the > document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the r= eal > purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising > specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?) > > > > In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the work items associated wi= th > the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not > for the reasons that you would expect. I think that it would be very help= ful > if a group of cloud operators were to get together to determine which of > those items were proper object of standardization and which were best lef= t > for proprietary innovation. > > > > In any event, in its current state, I don=92t think that this draft is in > good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item. > > > > > = Ron > > > / speaking as individual contributor > > > --20cf300faf2b5ccf6f04a134f37e Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ron,
=A0
Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft sur= veying
the =A0other clouds related SDOs
( http://www.ietf.org= /internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt=A0)
I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier.
=A0
PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud supp= liers or operators.
We'll update the document based on comments and inputs.=A0
We are just trying to capture the major relevant work items and issues= .
=A0
Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions= .
=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on=
-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis
	Author(s)       : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng
	Filename        : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt
	Pages           : 49
	Date            : 2010-12-30

At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet
draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are
focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared.  The
objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to
cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap
analysis.  This document is that survey.  At the end of this survey a
section on gap analysis is presented.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/intern=
et-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/= internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt>=20

=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica <= span dir=3D"ltr"><rbonica@juniper= .net> wrote:

Bhum= ip,

=A0<= /span>

In t= he abstract, you say:

=A0<= /span>

=A0 At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an= internet

=A0 draft on survey of standard organizations and working g= roups that are

=A0=A0 focusing on cloud-based systems and services = be prepared.

=A0

That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft w= ould give the IETF insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to intera= ct regarding clouds work. However, I don=92t see mention of another SDO in = the body of the document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors.= What is the real purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated = to advertising specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?)

=A0

In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the wor= k items associated with the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interes= ting, but probably not for the reasons that you would expect. I think that = it would be very helpful if a group of cloud operators were to get together= to determine which of those items were proper object of standardization an= d which were best left for proprietary innovation.

=A0

In any event, in its current state, I don=92t think = that this draft is in good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item= .

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Ron

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 / speaking as ind= ividual contributor

=A0<= /span>


=A0 --20cf300faf2b5ccf6f04a134f37e-- From rbonica@juniper.net Mon Apr 18 11:55:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C55E0776 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:55:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XXYe3ZUm0-hU for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B02E0715 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTayJI4QJQUbIsPoEEUuOLCNuXZ1vaYGO@postini.com; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:55:33 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:51:14 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:53:17 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Bhumip Khasnabish Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:53:15 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt Thread-Index: Acv98FiYpGBH31JQSlO38AeE0Ja6AgAB3oXQ Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318BEMBX01WFjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:55:37 -0000 --_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318BEMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bhumip, In that case, what is the goal of the industry-workitems-survey. It is very= odd for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the vendors working in a specifi= c area. I think that this draft would make more sense if you did the following: - Expand Section 3 to describe what each work item is. - Delete Section 4, with all of its references to vendors - Write a new Section 4, which discusses whether each work item sh= ould be the object of standardization. = Ron = /still speaking as an indivi= dual contributor From: Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workit= ems-survey-00.txt Ron, Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft surveyin= g the other clouds related SDOs ( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.= txt ) I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier. PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud suppliers= or operators. We'll update the document based on comments and inputs. We are just trying to capture the major relevant work items and issues. Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D * To: i-d-announce at ietf.org * Subject: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt * From: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org * ________________________________ A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2010-12-30 At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. The objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap analysis. This document is that survey. At the end of this survey a section on gap analysis is presented. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.tx= t Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica > wrote: Bhumip, In the abstract, you say: At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF insi= ght regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clouds wor= k. However, I don't see mention of another SDO in the body of the document.= I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the real purpose= of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising specific v= endors? (At the risk of ignoring others?) In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the work items associated with= the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not = for the reasons that you would expect. I think that it would be very helpfu= l if a group of cloud operators were to get together to determine which of = those items were proper object of standardization and which were best left = for proprietary innovation. In any event, in its current state, I don't think that this draft is in goo= d enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item. = Ron = / speaking as individual contributor --_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318BEMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bhumip,

 

In that case, what is the goal of the industry= -workitems-survey. It is very odd for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the= vendors working in a specific area.

 

I think= that this draft would make more sense if you did the following:=

 

-       &nbs= p;  Expand Section 3 to describe= what each work item is.

-          Delete Section 4, with all of its references to v= endors

- &n= bsp;        Write a new Section 4, which discusses whether each work item sho= uld be the object of standardization.

 

 

            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;          Ron

      &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;   /still speaking as an individual contributor

 

 

= From:= Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April= 18, 2011 1:45 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org=
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-indu= stry-workitems-survey-00.txt

 

Ron,

<= div>

 

Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft surve= ying

the  other clouds = related SDOs

I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier.

<= /div>

 

PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud = suppliers or operators.

We'll= update the document based on comments and inputs. 

We are just trying to capture the major relevan= t work items and issues.

&nbs= p;

Once again thanks and look= fwd to you further comments and suggestions.

 

=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Interne=
t-Drafts directories.
 
&nbs=
p;       Title     &=
nbsp;     : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis
        Author(s)&nbs=
p;      : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng
        Filename  &nbs=
p;     : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt<=
/o:p>
        Pages  =
;         : 49
        Date    &nb=
sp;       : 2010-12-30
<=
o:p> 
At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested =
that an internet
draft on survey of standard organizat=
ions and working groups that are
focusing on cloud-bas=
ed systems and services be prepared.  The
objecti=
ve is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to
= 
cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap
analysis.  This document is that survey.  At the en=
d of this survey a
section on gap analysis is presente=
d.
 
A URL for this Internet=
-Draft is:
http://www.=
ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt<=
/o:p>
 
Internet-Drafts are also availa=
ble by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
Below is the data which =
will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementatio=
n to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
I=
nternet-Draft.

<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-s= urvey-00.txt>

 <= /p>

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 a= t 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica= @juniper.net> wrote:

Bhumip,

 

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>In the abstract, you say:

 

  At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested= that an internet

  draft on survey of standard organizati= ons and working groups that are

   fo= cusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared.

 

That would have been a laudable goal. S= uch a draft would give the IETF insight regarding SDOs with which the it ne= eds to interact regarding clouds work. However, I don’t see mention o= f another SDO in the body of the document. I do, however, see mention of ma= ny cloud vendors. What is the real purpose of this document? Why are so man= y bits dedicated to advertising specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring = others?)

 

In Section 3 of y= our document, you enumerate the work items associated with the clouds effor= t. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not for the reasons t= hat you would expect. I think that it would be very helpful if a group of c= loud operators were to get together to determine which of those items were = proper object of standardization and which were best left for proprietary i= nnovation.

 

In any event, i= n its current state, I don’t think that this draft is in good enough = condition to be adopted as a WG work item.

 =

          &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp; Ron

       = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;     / speaking as individual contributor

 <= /o:p>


 

<= /div>= --_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318BEMBX01WFjnprn_-- From vumip1@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 15:57:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4E1E084C for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.827 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tz3X+PdVkTy9 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF3CE088A for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so1789173ywi.31 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6XdeHr0U+LfJdy9+ZXemYQSck0uYbepxV6fMf00KOSY=; b=SFT4Y2ffdmabFPTH31SCh8Zd0GafiFzDNnxJuNJ/83SqNgq17oaqxFmIpINWvlfjH8 Ht/XWBGqP9iG7+uxu2i8dDiHDhR+hnnBIi9tJBGiyqinkH7Hvr//Ry69PpDXiLQAgLS1 p/sP6I+8BaEAQ6MWDSIX8fTO1XlUsZJUbGd/U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=GgSoaiRjVq887dX3tDn3TfY9/b+h8sTkFytUfn9tpqbw8hbwNrI39OoxHlOTredJCj Qpgbt6n1FsDjB+uEaUccpNpS+96rWjhxkldX/uw8sfC7rDQC8T8mgOuAyTWaOqXj+LdQ VonZFdKE2zTEqmf0nLy6jLWEF31h0C8XRKyQQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.78.102 with SMTP id f66mr3611602yhe.264.1303167420727; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:57:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Ronald Bonica Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300faf2b32025c04a1394fea Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:57:02 -0000 --20cf300faf2b32025c04a1394fea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ron, Thanks for this suggestion. Sure, in the new version of the workitem draft, we'll expand Sec.3 descibin= g each proposed/potentail work item in details,and will put info on advantage= s of standarizing these items in the new Sec.4. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Bhumip, > > > > In that case, what is the goal of the industry-workitems-survey. It is ve= ry > odd for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the vendors working in a specif= ic > area. > > > > I think that this draft would make more sense if you did the following: > > > > - Expand Section 3 to describe what each work item is. > > - Delete Section 4, with all of its references to vendors > > - Write a new Section 4, which discusses whether each work item > should be the object of standardization. > > > > > > > Ron > > > /still speaking as an individual contributor > > > > > > *From:* Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM > *To:* Ronald Bonica > *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D > Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt > > > > Ron, > > > > Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft > surveying > > the other clouds related SDOs > > ( > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.= txt ) > > > I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier. > > > > PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud supplie= rs > or operators. > > We'll update the document based on comments and inputs. > > We are just trying to capture the major relevant work items and issues. > > > > Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions. > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org > - *Subject*: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt > - *From*: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org > - * * > > ------------------------------ > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > > > > Title : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis > > Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng > > Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt > > Pages : 49 > > Date : 2010-12-30 > > > > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet > > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are > > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. The > > objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to > > cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap > > analysis. This document is that survey. At the end of this survey a > > section on gap analysis is presented. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.= txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > > Internet-Draft. > > > > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica > wrote: > > Bhumip, > > > > In the abstract, you say: > > > > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet > > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are > > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. > > > > That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF > insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clou= ds > work. However, I don=92t see mention of another SDO in the body of the > document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the r= eal > purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising > specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?) > > > > In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the work items associated wi= th > the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not > for the reasons that you would expect. I think that it would be very help= ful > if a group of cloud operators were to get together to determine which of > those items were proper object of standardization and which were best lef= t > for proprietary innovation. > > > > In any event, in its current state, I don=92t think that this draft is in > good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item. > > > > > = Ron > > > / speaking as individual contributor > > > > > > --20cf300faf2b32025c04a1394fea Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ron,
=A0
Thanks for this suggestion.
=A0
Sure, in the new version of the workitem draft, we'll expand Sec.3= descibing each proposed/potentail work item in details,and will put info o= n advantages of standarizing these items in the new Sec.4.
=A0


=A0
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Ronald Bonica <= span dir=3D"ltr"><rbonica@juniper= .net> wrote:

Bhum= ip,

=A0<= /span>

In t= hat case, what is the goal of the industry-workitems-survey. It is very odd= for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the vendors working in a specific ar= ea.

=A0<= /span>

I th= ink that this draft would make more sense if you did the following:<= /p>

=A0<= /span>

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Expand Section 3 t= o describe what each work item is.

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Delete Section 4, = with all of its references to vendors

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Write a new Sectio= n 4, which discusses whether each work item should be the object of standar= dization.

=A0

=A0<= /span>

=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ron<= /p>

=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /still speakin= g as an individual contributor

=A0<= /span>

=A0<= /span>

From:<= span style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com]
Sent:= Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-= D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt

=A0

Ron,

=A0

Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is= another draft surveying

the =A0other clouds related SDOs

( http://www.ietf.or= g/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt=A0)

I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earli= er.

=A0

PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any s= pecific Cloud suppliers or operators.

We'll update the document based on comments and = inputs.=A0

We are just trying to capture the major relevant wor= k items and issues.

=A0

Once again thanks and look fwd to you further commen= ts and suggestions.

=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Draf=
ts directories.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Title=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Author(s)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : B. Khasnabish, C. Ju= nSheng 
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Filename=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : draft-khasnabish=
-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Pages=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : 49
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Date=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : 2010-12-30
=A0
At the IETF 77 Clou=
ds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet
draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are<=
/pre>
focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared.=A0 The<=
/pre>
objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to=



cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap
analysis.=A0 This document is that survey.=A0 At the end of this survey =
a
section on gap analysis is presented.
=A0
A=
 URL for this Internet-Draft is:


http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr=
aft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt
=A0
Internet=
-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:


ftp:=
//ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
=A0
Below is the da=
ta which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation =
to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the


Internet-Draft.


<ftp://ftp.ietf.or=
g/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt> 


=A0

=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica <<= a href=3D"mailto:rbonica@juniper.net" target=3D"_blank">rbonica@juniper.net= > wrote:

Bhum= ip,

=A0<= /span>

In t= he abstract, you say:

=A0<= /span>

=A0 At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an= internet

=A0 draft on survey of standard organizations and working g= roups that are

=A0=A0 focusing on cloud-based systems and services = be prepared.

=A0

That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft w= ould give the IETF insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to intera= ct regarding clouds work. However, I don=92t see mention of another SDO in = the body of the document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors.= What is the real purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated = to advertising specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?)

=A0

In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the wor= k items associated with the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interes= ting, but probably not for the reasons that you would expect. I think that = it would be very helpful if a group of cloud operators were to get together= to determine which of those items were proper object of standardization an= d which were best left for proprietary innovation.

=A0

In any event, in its current state, I don=92t think = that this draft is in good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item= .

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Ron

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 / speaking as ind= ividual contributor

=A0<= /span>


=A0



=A0 --20cf300faf2b32025c04a1394fea-- From cdl@asgaard.org Mon Apr 18 17:25:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93070E06EC for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:25:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.706 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3bm-3i6Sgr78 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C96E0692 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FA721C2D5; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:25:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ux2TQG5A48yp; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:25:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.185.235.148] (unknown [1.148.199.244]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2433F21C2C8; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:25:02 +0000 (UTC) References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-595469908 Message-Id: <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: Christopher Liljenstolpe Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:24:50 -0500 To: Ronald Bonica Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:25:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail-5-595469908 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Greetings, I agree with Ron here. The number of vendors entering and leaving this spac= e would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg item woul= d have a very short relevance period. Couple that with the fact that the ie= tf does not work with vendors but with concepts and individuals, and no othe= r draft I can remember enumerating vendors, would lead to the existing secti= on 4 being lethal. Other operators on this list, please speak up if I am of= f base Chris Sent from a slightly less silly keyboard. On 18 Apr 2011, at 13:53, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Bhumip, >=20 > =20 >=20 > In that case, what is the goal of the industry-workitems-survey. It is ver= y odd for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the vendors working in a specifi= c area. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I think that this draft would make more sense if you did the following: >=20 > =20 >=20 > - Expand Section 3 to describe what each work item is. >=20 > - Delete Section 4, with all of its references to vendors >=20 > - Write a new Section 4, which discusses whether each work item s= hould be the object of standardization. >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > = Ron >=20 > = /still speaking as an indivi= dual contributor >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > From: Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-worki= tems-survey-00.txt >=20 > =20 >=20 > Ron, >=20 > =20 >=20 > Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft surveyi= ng >=20 > the other clouds related SDOs >=20 > ( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00= .txt ) >=20 > I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier. >=20 > =20 >=20 > PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud supplier= s or operators. >=20 > We'll update the document based on comments and inputs.=20 >=20 > We are just trying to capture the major relevant work items and issues. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions. >=20 > =20 >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > To: i-d-announce at ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt > From: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org > =20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directo= ries. > =20 > Title : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis > Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng > Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt > Pages : 49 > Date : 2010-12-30 > =20 > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. The > objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to > cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap > analysis. This document is that survey. At the end of this survey a > section on gap analysis is presented. > =20 > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.t= xt > =20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > =20 > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote= : >=20 > Bhumip, >=20 > =20 >=20 > In the abstract, you say: >=20 > =20 >=20 > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet >=20 > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are >=20 > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. >=20 > =20 >=20 > That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF ins= ight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clouds wor= k. However, I don=E2=80=99t see mention of another SDO in the body of the do= cument. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the real p= urpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising speci= fic vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?) >=20 > =20 >=20 > In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the work items associated wit= h the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not f= or the reasons that you would expect. I think that it would be very helpful i= f a group of cloud operators were to get together to determine which of thos= e items were proper object of standardization and which were best left for p= roprietary innovation. >=20 > =20 >=20 > In any event, in its current state, I don=E2=80=99t think that this draft i= s in good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item. >=20 > =20 >=20 > = Ron >=20 > = / speaking as individual contributor >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg --Apple-Mail-5-595469908 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Greetings,

I a= gree with Ron here.  The number of vendors entering and leaving this sp= ace would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg item wo= uld have a very short relevance period.  Couple that with the fact that= the ietf does not work with vendors but with concepts and individuals, and n= o other draft I can remember enumerating vendors, would lead to the existing= section 4 being lethal.  Other operators on this list, please speak up= if I am off base



Chr= is

Sent from a slightly less silly keyboard.


On 18 Apr 2011, at 13:53, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

Bhumip,

 

In that case, what is the goal of the industry= -workitems-survey. It is very odd for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the v= endors working in a specific area.

 

I think that this draft would make more sense= if you did the following:

 

-          Expand Section 3 to describe what e= ach work item is.

-          = Delete Section 4, with all of its reference= s to vendors

-          Write a new Section 4, which discusses whether e= ach work item should be the object of standardization.

=

=  

 

    &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;   /still speaking as an individual contributor

 

 

From: Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, Ap= ril 18, 2011 1:45 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org=
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-i= ndustry-workitems-survey-00.txt

 

Ron,

 

Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draf= t surveying

the  other= clouds related SDOs

=

I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft e= arlier.

 

PLS note that there is no intention to e= xclude any specific Cloud suppliers or operators.

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">We'll update the document based on comments and inputs= . 

We are just trying t= o capture the major relevant work items and issues.

 

Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions.

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on=
-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 
        Title   &n=
bsp;       : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and A=
nalysis
        Auth=
or(s)       : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng<=
/o:p>
        Filename &nb=
sp;      : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt=

        Pages =
          : 49
=

        Date    =
        : 2010-12-30
 
At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested=
 that an internet
draft on survey of standard organizat=
ions and working groups that are
focusing on cloud-base=
d systems and services be prepared.  The
objective=
 is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to
cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap<= /pre>
analysis.  This document is that survey.  At the end of t=
his survey a
section on gap analysis is presented.=

 
A URL for this Internet-Draft i=
s:
http://w=
ww.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt=

 
Internet-Drafts are also a=
vailable by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
Below is the data which will enable a MIME com=
pliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retr=
ieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

<= ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt<= /a>>

 

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, R= onald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

Bhumip,<= o:p>

 <= /span>

= In the abstract, you say:

 

  At the IE= TF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet

   focusing on cloud-based systems= and services be prepared.

 

=

That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IE= TF insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clou= ds work. However, I don=E2=80=99t see mention of another SDO in the body of t= he document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the r= eal purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising s= pecific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?)

&nb= sp;

In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the w= ork items associated with the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very intere= sting, but probably not for the reasons that you would expect. I think that i= t would be very helpful if a group of cloud operators were to get together t= o determine which of those items were proper object of standardization and w= hich were best left for proprietary innovation.

 =

In any event, in its current state, I don=E2=80=99t t= hink that this draft is in good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work i= tem.

 

   &n= bsp;             = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;      Ron

  = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;        / speaking as individual con= tributor

 


&= nbsp;

_______________________________________________
OPSAW= G mailing list
OPSAWG@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
= --Apple-Mail-5-595469908-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 17:50:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AF6E06ED for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MYM10ONxirCF for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C23E06EC for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so4922886vxg.31 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Tsm0Dyx0KPpFt9bVDf2JV2kNtEedTT9PRvAQOwKhCTM=; b=Jh9jvAk6stUk5KQG3GHprsAEsE4PDNiM5kQXNx2ao1nlv8673v9Tn3zesfloPa1hlB 4GSvfN29018HgZgvQohluXf3U4LCmeJ1Tz7+sv7FazquoEqJzFsoWXcCHLJOXuJVS8kK /a1waiB/YGTI4aAnKtkZOKIq5z7DAkf+YAnDw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=OSOBOPfm722Gbqz0d48pkUkAxCbLQnPMOrn9ZgLr4JBWwvBfxqzQJx64+CC1sYI37w nuwbTXkrLl1jpoI9K/9JgN7awuFQ8qi791tNunjDahibgyvS7qswfeJHFdTmR1eVf6Ww /S70K5AsOxC/VK2mLTTwspPTYxK+jz/dAbewk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.173.108 with SMTP id bj12mr3958745vdc.177.1303174213616; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.182.3 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:50:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: Melinda Shore To: Christopher Liljenstolpe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:50:14 -0000 On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Liljenstolpe wrote: > Greetings, > I agree with Ron here. =A0The number of vendors entering and leaving this > space would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg it= em > would have a very short relevance period. I'm having a hard time with the entire document. With the whole project, to be honest. It seems like a fishing expedition to try and figure out something that somebody can work on to get a document published, rather than being driven by a problem that someone's identified and wants to solve collaboratively. Section 4 is obviously not something that belongs in an IETF document, but Section 3 could use significant refinement (and a pair of scissors) as well. You'd think that some sort of architecture with defined interfaces would drive the work, or that at least there'd be some reference to the work bein= g done out of NIST, but there's really nothing, just a massive amount of text with a distinctly marketing-ish tone. If this is intended to lead to cloud standards/BCPs/whatever being developed in the IETF I think it really needs= to ditch the marketing-speak, identify an architecture and interfaces, and focus, focus, focus. Melinda From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 08:58:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F185E06E6 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9cpdfsdDLguz for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580A3E0794 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so2016790ywi.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jP80CZtvdlMvG3lRFraJZAO0VSICR+zdXEjTjguqe2s=; b=nX1qNL32jECgN8NzW2Xc4ADfO6L48sOrYi5Rwc0yR9KO/IQTW88vUdVpYRXQWkROC7 zb5k9rIW43cEzJXBqApqsRHmnHriBK/7CjiiwgUm2i2Y1d2Lu5fGjPdCIOAkpeTQ5WiG K6FmNxCcwOxikxXFQ+vf+VDjBUNtzrfiJpNkg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FrWThAsGZAjwltKpGa5NRgUQz5b2zOBrVudTusafpTn5M7gKGwRhKC0CAIPhflPTlg /psybVuLwNi0HbJpKUyQgqQVmhoREB/B43BAuNTYG1D+3Qgo7Z7NUuET4OsdERj5cD6P rpEwQUN/kdOVHRspiKIfQvkBttRbJVTSBAg/s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.192.197 with SMTP id i45mr5076073yhn.63.1303228678036; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:57:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:57:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Christopher Liljenstolpe Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305643076a5b9704a1479275 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:58:52 -0000 --20cf305643076a5b9704a1479275 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Chris. Yes, planning to update the doc. using Ron's suggestions (update sec 3 and new Sec. with relevance to IETF). We look forward to both suggestions and contributions from others (supplier= s and operators in this effort. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Christopher Liljenstolpe wrote: > Greetings, > > I agree with Ron here. The number of vendors entering and leaving this > space would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg it= em > would have a very short relevance period. Couple that with the fact that > the ietf does not work with vendors but with concepts and individuals, an= d > no other draft I can remember enumerating vendors, would lead to the > existing section 4 being lethal. Other operators on this list, please sp= eak > up if I am off base > > > > Chris > > Sent from a slightly less silly keyboard. > > > On 18 Apr 2011, at 13:53, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > Bhumip, > > > > In that case, what is the goal of the industry-workitems-survey. It is ve= ry > odd for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the vendors working in a specif= ic > area. > > > > I think that this draft would make more sense if you did the following: > > > > - Expand Section 3 to describe what each work item is. > > - Delete Section 4, with all of its references to vendors > > - Write a new Section 4, which discusses whether each work item > should be the object of standardization. > > > > > > > Ron > > > /still speaking as an individual contributor > > > > > > *From:* Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM > *To:* Ronald Bonica > *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D > Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt > > > > Ron, > > > > Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is another draft > surveying > > the other clouds related SDOs > > ( > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.= txt ) > > > I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earlier. > > > > PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any specific Cloud supplie= rs > or operators. > > We'll update the document based on comments and inputs. > > We are just trying to capture the major relevant work items and issues. > > > > Once again thanks and look fwd to you further comments and suggestions. > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org > - *Subject*: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt > - *From*: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org > - * * > > ------------------------------ > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > > > > Title : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis > > Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, C. JunSheng > > Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt > > Pages : 49 > > Date : 2010-12-30 > > > > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet > > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are > > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. The > > objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to > > cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap > > analysis. This document is that survey. At the end of this survey a > > section on gap analysis is presented. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.= txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > > Internet-Draft. > > < > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.t= xt > > > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica > wrote: > > Bhumip, > > > > In the abstract, you say: > > > > At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet > > draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are > > focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared. > > > > That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft would give the IETF > insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to interact regarding clou= ds > work. However, I don=92t see mention of another SDO in the body of the > document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors. What is the r= eal > purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated to advertising > specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?) > > > > In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the work items associated wi= th > the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interesting, but probably not > for the reasons that you would expect. I think that it would be very help= ful > if a group of cloud operators were to get together to determine which of > those items were proper object of standardization and which were best lef= t > for proprietary innovation. > > > > In any event, in its current state, I don=92t think that this draft is in > good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item. > > > > > = Ron > > > / speaking as individual contributor > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > --20cf305643076a5b9704a1479275 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Chris. Yes, planning to update the doc. using Ron's suggest= ions (update sec 3 and new Sec. with relevance to IETF).
We look forward to both suggestions and contributions from others (sup= pliers and operators in this effort.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Christopher Lil= jenstolpe <cdl@asga= ard.org> wrote:
Greetings,

I agree with Ron here. =A0The number of vendors entering and leaving t= his space would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg = item would have a very short relevance period. =A0Couple that with the fact= that the ietf does not work with vendors but with concepts and individuals= , and no other draft I can remember enumerating vendors, would lead to the = existing section 4 being lethal. =A0Other operators on this list, please sp= eak up if I am off base



Chris

Sent from a slightly less silly keyboard.=20


On 18 Apr 2011, at 13:53, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

Bhum= ip,

=A0<= /span>

In t= hat case, what is the goal of the industry-workitems-survey. It is very odd= for an IETF draft to enumerate all of the vendors working in a specific ar= ea.

=A0<= /span>

I th= ink that this draft would make more sense if you did the following:<= /p>

=A0<= /span>

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Expand Section 3 t= o describe what each work item is.

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Delete Section 4, = with all of its references to vendors

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Write a new Sectio= n 4, which discusses whether each work item should be the object of standar= dization.

=A0

=A0<= /span>

=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ron<= /p>

=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /still speakin= g as an individual contributor

=A0<= /span>

=A0<= /span>

From:<= span style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Bhumip Khasnabish [mailto:vumip1@gmail.com]
Sent:= Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: opsaw= g@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-kha= snabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt

=A0

Ron,

=A0

Thanks for looking into this. PLS note that there is= another draft surveying

the =A0other clouds related SDOs

I agree that I should have sent that doc/draft earli= er.

=A0

PLS note that there is no intention to exclude any s= pecific Cloud suppliers or operators.

We'll update the document based on comments and = inputs.=A0

We are just trying to capture the major relevant wor= k items and issues.

=A0

Once again thanks and look fwd to you further commen= ts and suggestions.

=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Draf=
ts directories.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Title=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Author(s)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : B. Khasnabish, C. Ju= nSheng 
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Filename=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : draft-khasnabish=
-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Pages=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : 49
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Date=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : 2010-12-30
=A0
At the IETF 77 Clou=
ds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an internet
draft on survey of standard organizations and working groups that are<=
/pre>
focusing on cloud-based systems and services be prepared.=A0 The<=
/pre>
objective is to take a snapshot of industry activities related to=



cloud features and functions for the purpose of creating a gap
analysis.=A0 This document is that survey.=A0 At the end of this survey =
a
section on gap analysis is presented.
=A0
A=
 URL for this Internet-Draft is:


http:/=
/www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt<=
/a>


=A0
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:<=
/pre>
ftp://ft=
p.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


=A0
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mai=
l reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII versi=
on of the
Internet-Draft.


<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo=
-survey-00.txt> 



=A0

=A0

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Ronald Bonica <<= a href=3D"mailto:rbonica@juniper.net" target=3D"_blank">rbonica@juniper.net> wrote= :

Bhum= ip,

=A0<= /span>

In t= he abstract, you say:

=A0<= /span>

=A0 At the IETF 77 Clouds Bar BoF, it was suggested that an= internet

=A0 draft on survey of standard organizations and working g= roups that are

=A0=A0 focusing on cloud-based systems and services = be prepared.

=A0

That would have been a laudable goal. Such a draft w= ould give the IETF insight regarding SDOs with which the it needs to intera= ct regarding clouds work. However, I don=92t see mention of another SDO in = the body of the document. I do, however, see mention of many cloud vendors.= What is the real purpose of this document? Why are so many bits dedicated = to advertising specific vendors? (At the risk of ignoring others?)

=A0

In Section 3 of your document, you enumerate the wor= k items associated with the clouds effort. In my mind, this is very interes= ting, but probably not for the reasons that you would expect. I think that = it would be very helpful if a group of cloud operators were to get together= to determine which of those items were proper object of standardization an= d which were best left for proprietary innovation.

=A0

In any event, in its current state, I don=92t think = that this draft is in good enough condition to be adopted as a WG work item= .

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Ron

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 / speaking as ind= ividual contributor

=A0<= /span>


=A0

_______________________________________________
= OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail= man/listinfo/opsawg


=A0 --20cf305643076a5b9704a1479275-- From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 09:06:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D688CE0799 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sMyW8e6anoD7 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EF0E071E for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so2547888yxk.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kQumROUS78zNBKIVJt7QaxxtTIg215mIC7KJ0flNS/I=; b=oEqyN1pxZ4xGDkB1i3v15RarIePwjX3Rcp4L8Q2A2jfRkNtTYcp+o5hTxTkEGrF0ms hufWt6KisBCpyLG3Hf5YAT6gTrNZ59d+zlteY3veqKoFMX9oBJkyzdqRA2UNYtY+4gYw X7gAMG4qFRtKby/Ne/sxlwW6KTqzSVMav0ztw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=wPqfy+GbBGZVTZFj/ne3l9DR0HsTI/Ww/zWEpbw7AWXbvyGnF8DQuDVjZ0Zj2mxc7N j0TR7AV2BC2XI/i5kPaLp+rB3QwGb7izYeUA9MvsNvkHKFIBvxCp2ftvXwbHmmM+nE8S 7WPQ264NVFms3p1JOV3beI3nnlwCaHTieyj3Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.78.200 with SMTP id g48mr2499307yhe.465.1303229194207; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:06:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb3072e83cb04a147b130 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , Christopher Liljenstolpe Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:06:36 -0000 --20cf300fb3072e83cb04a147b130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 We look forward to you contributions in this effort Melinda. Kindly note that *we recently prepared and published a document related to Cloud reference architecture *(see below for details). We look forward to your *contributions* to take it to the next level.. (by the way NIST refers to this doc as well). ============================================================== *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org - *Subject*: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-00.txt - *From*: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org - * * ------------------------------ A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Cloud Reference Framework Author(s) : B. Khasnabish, et al. Filename : draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-00.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2010-12-31 During IETF 78 Clouds Bar BoF, it was observed that there is no standard reference framework for Cloud Services. Based on the survey of Cloud-based systems and services (draft-Khasnabish-cloud-sdo- survey-00, draft-khasnabish-cloud-Industry-workitems-survey-00), intra-cloud and inter-cloud reference frameworks are developed and presented in this document. The requirements of each layer are also identified and discussed. A URL for this Internet-Draft is:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ================================================================ On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Liljenstolpe > wrote: > > Greetings, > > I agree with Ron here. The number of vendors entering and leaving this > > space would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg > item > > would have a very short relevance period. > > I'm having a hard time with the entire document. With the whole project, > to be honest. It seems like a fishing expedition to try and figure out > something that somebody can work on to get a document published, rather > than being driven by a problem that someone's identified and wants to > solve collaboratively. Section 4 is obviously not something that belongs > in an IETF document, but Section 3 could use significant refinement (and > a pair of scissors) as well. > > You'd think that some sort of architecture with defined interfaces would > drive the work, or that at least there'd be some reference to the work > being > done out of NIST, but there's really nothing, just a massive amount of text > with a distinctly marketing-ish tone. If this is intended to lead to cloud > standards/BCPs/whatever being developed in the IETF I think it really needs > to > ditch the marketing-speak, identify an architecture and interfaces, and > focus, focus, focus. > > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > --20cf300fb3072e83cb04a147b130 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We look forward to you contributions in this effort Melinda.
=A0
Kindly note that we recently prepared and published a docu= ment related to Cloud reference architecture (see below for d= etails). We look forward to your contributions to take it to the n= ext level.. (by the way NIST refers to this doc as well).
=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=
 Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Cloud Reference Framework
	Author(s)       : B. Khasnabish, et al.
	Filename        : draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-00.txt
	Pages           : 27
	Date            : 2010-12-31

During IETF 78 Clouds Bar BoF, it was observed that there is no
standard reference framework for Cloud Services.  Based on the survey
of Cloud-based systems and services (draft-Khasnabish-cloud-sdo-
survey-00, draft-khasnabish-cloud-Industry-workitems-survey-00),
intra-cloud and inter-cloud reference frameworks are developed and
presented in this document.  The requirements of each layer are also
identified and discussed.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.o=
rg/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
<ftp://ftp.= ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-00.txt&= gt;
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Melinda Shore <= span dir=3D"ltr"><melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Liljenstolpe
<cdl@asgaard.org> wro= te:
> Greetings,
> I agree with Ron here. =A0The number of vend= ors entering and leaving this
> space would makemany such list immediately dated, and therefore the wg= item
> would have a very short relevance period.

I'= m having a hard time with the entire document. With the whole project,
to be honest. =A0It seems like a fishing expedition to try and figure outsomething that somebody can work on to get a document published, ratherthan being driven by a problem that someone's identified and wants to=
solve collaboratively. =A0Section 4 is obviously not something that belongs=
in an IETF document, but Section 3 could use significant refinement (an= d
a pair of scissors) as well.

You'd think that some sort of = architecture with defined interfaces would
drive the work, or that at least there'd be some reference to the work = being
done out of NIST, but there's really nothing, just a massive a= mount of text
with a distinctly marketing-ish tone. =A0If this is intend= ed to lead to cloud
standards/BCPs/whatever being developed in the IETF I think it really needs= to
ditch the marketing-speak, identify an architecture and interfaces, = and
focus, focus, focus.

Melinda
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list=
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg


=A0=20 --20cf300fb3072e83cb04a147b130-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 09:33:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EE2E079A for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:33:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iI6gPETgwkDK for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-px0-f182.google.com (mail-px0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0733FE0764 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pxi20 with SMTP id 20so4202971pxi.27 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+1JqSuupRjyXP6uAJWS7q9zELN1hchEt+ZqeNcKyTRI=; b=IRzpF3RoXWJORSdcvOCpUGHfWOx9P9Z10FgizUyLCM7AS6svYzAxWq755NB5i2uhYP d4HwJNgoq9TCp/6veqzgom7acQRXTwGLiUj+rxaKF6SAqUjPQvHRrITvdqxgklYMSKb6 x/iTe/CbsfD9eY9vdhfxFkeSl/vvs5MaV9XfY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=m9jDMnrHdEspOJm3yyN6T4KWl3W2w5+RWVDP4cwVzKpUFV5O3UJFL9KamS8V5J9TTe 7BHL0osHJwEoIPcZrZgKAP136nWeU9iGW1zx3K4vorlf1aWAaTHT10rZgSICoqoYZx9F 9mTliCRVDip9r+APocprJupy1CbhnlgHj0ig8= Received: by 10.68.48.163 with SMTP id m3mr8676037pbn.236.1303230829555; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-81-171-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.81.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s7sm40635pba.18.2011.04.19.09.33.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:33:46 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bhumip Khasnabish References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:33:50 -0000 On 4/19/11 8:06 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > Kindly note that /*we recently prepared and published a document related > to Cloud reference architecture*/ Good! Put a reference to it into your other documents, and figure out how to turn the "work items" document into a technical document (or drop it in favor of a problem definition/statement). I note that your framework draft contains no references, either, and given the work being done by/with NIST that seems like a serious oversight, particularly since your premise appears to be (??) that there's work needed on cloud standards that's being unaddressed elsewhere. > We look forward to you contributions in this effort Melinda. Honestly, I'm not sure that there's that much here that's appropriate for the IETF. As I mentioned the ARP problem looks relevant but you've buried it in a lot of random stabbing around. Maybe it would be a good idea to find someone with more IETF experience to help you get the documents narrowed, scoped, and focused. Melinda From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 09:43:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9BBE079F for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.213 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhiVdBmzcrxn for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B8CE07A0 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so2559747gxk.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6oqTLRhZID15IasS5sBRBcx/5ashiSNGcGXajS7HVjk=; b=mskc6iqrDLed+qp9jUhrHE1eLrHuErvFLv9jNNsBvw7JL1IdjDmgiS/AQrFB+O9MyF ssp+UkH/a0rsL2NoLN6JbLXKTqjH5fOMvjQtvU9lbQPm9OQuwhs8Hvo6qFc4cEWT23eU BVL6sWkr/nQNIAVyBYBV4QHa85uiuolnRQ43M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=M9Iha5JDK2l5vD4YHljyQIG6YIbl3Y1RERKZ16mTaS2W0K0+SZbkbvcOWTUv5m4/hn 28yM+gTZxNzI/H0LHGeCVds4fBYGhuyFtEipsyzH5B1B3X/2pIn6BFenIcsDcQAbGRP+ vhP4A3UPm8b1n8Z6vXkvE3xrYDz4NHp0EY38s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.195.98 with SMTP id o62mr2795510yhn.178.1303231426771; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:43:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:43:46 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305e243940b94004a14836cb Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:43:48 -0000 --20cf305e243940b94004a14836cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks for your comments, suggestion, and inputs. Yes, NIST is aware of these drafts, and they continue to monitor what we are doing in IETF in this area. We are working on 'getting the documents narrowed, scoped, and focused." Your contributions would be highly appreciated. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 4/19/11 8:06 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > >> Kindly note that /*we recently prepared and published a document related >> to Cloud reference architecture*/ >> > > Good! Put a reference to it into your other documents, and figure out > how to turn the "work items" document into a technical document (or > drop it in favor of a problem definition/statement). I note that your > framework draft contains no references, either, and given the work > being done by/with NIST that seems like a serious oversight, > particularly since your premise appears to be (??) that there's work > needed on cloud standards that's being unaddressed elsewhere. > > > > We look forward to you contributions in this effort Melinda. > > Honestly, I'm not sure that there's that much here that's appropriate > for the IETF. As I mentioned the ARP problem looks relevant but you've > buried it in a lot of random stabbing around. Maybe it would be a good > idea to find someone with more IETF experience to help you get the > documents narrowed, scoped, and focused. > > Melinda > --20cf305e243940b94004a14836cb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for your comments, suggestion, and inputs. Yes, NIST is aware of the= se drafts, and they continue to monitor what we are doing in IETF in this a= rea. We are working on 'getting the documents narrowed, scoped, and foc= used." Your contributions would be highly appreciated.


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Melinda Shore = <melinda.sh= ore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/19/11 8:06 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote:
Kindly note that /*we recently prepared and published a d= ocument related
to Cloud reference architecture*/
=
Good! =A0Put a reference to it into your other documents, and figure ou= t
how to turn the "work items" document into a technical document (= or
drop it in favor of a problem definition/statement). =A0I =A0note tha= t your
framework draft contains no references, either, and given the wor= k
being done by/with NIST that seems like a serious oversight,
particularl= y since your premise appears to be (??) that there's work
needed on = cloud standards that's being unaddressed elsewhere.=20


> We look forward to you contributions in this= effort Melinda.

Honestly, I'm not sure that there's t= hat much here that's appropriate
for the IETF. =A0As I mentioned the= ARP problem looks relevant but you've
buried it in a lot of random stabbing around. =A0Maybe it would be a goodidea to find someone with more IETF experience to help you get the
doc= uments narrowed, scoped, and focused.

Melind= a


=A0 --20cf305e243940b94004a14836cb-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 09:53:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE8FE0774 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qOjHtoJ+5SV3 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5F3E0764 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so3774468pwi.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OYwF6b1HdIKiLwVlBemJY4stbC6PBL6AxSAP7qxUi9w=; b=MCFn157pesN35M+C1sBajK6WfzcrItXK+00dZiwB/LqZ3k1gTsP9eqsmundCtMXTDq rRLkvBAp5Lu/HxqTzSy2AIO7w34XRdpZLpiBaQOctzO5QtUAVhLL/rW+bwiXGFnI8Trq 19AJAMZQRyxRfOQ8PtCTNWUrZhTnZRutCN1as= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jZ1dgVe6Wl4GsLXFiKVhpXkO5C9ekEWdXZF3S2b7yC0DU01KbtzKHx8ywwZQ+GXcPV Qqu0LKCrrOG01c0Jbxfuo5psxgP/h124huzEN6ZbvCXAp8qNDLXhSn8AGt2lXGAE2Fkh aCfaOnWD0A9FnrUplQb8VWueqCqiRaGq3IPkA= Received: by 10.68.19.193 with SMTP id h1mr9206523pbe.507.1303231979899; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-81-171-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.81.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l8sm46578pbg.54.2011.04.19.09.52.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DADBDE8.1010203@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:52:56 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bhumip Khasnabish References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:53:01 -0000 On 4/19/11 8:43 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > Thanks for your comments, suggestion, and inputs. Yes, NIST is aware of > these drafts, [ ... ] No, no. What I wrote: "I note that your framework draft contains no references, either, and given the work being done by/with NIST that seems like a serious oversight, particularly since your premise appears to be (??) that there's work needed on cloud standards that's being unaddressed elsewhere." There's nothing in your documents to either point the reader at other work or to suggest that you're familiar with other ongoing work, let alone any attempt to describe a relationship between work being done elsewhere and what you're apparently thinking about. Melinda From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 10:03:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5031E07D2 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHeRNkJ6dUkA for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE55AE07CF for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so2569095yxk.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HqqGWm3GYvoE0wWCOZ4tIDgBE6Wi9+x85OO/K4V/V9o=; b=cxpKgU8vBxvLSjYw8QE3GgGWo4WOzGdqD1Ux9pD/WFsadOoBSXm+cDZwAsEfYcoNKz fu8qVmNUKmlQFKzSsIVCVrz3ImhC7aPJvbQunl39w9XbS01Aq+LAKF8inkJ1WH/cwszU FjbZovTl7CWT333XOVV45G8EldyDm3GOZtEas= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=CXKnFwMrjpx1bwPCKI+kYwXmFfWR3EnUTviNxEbHvNEpTQni8NJT4lpNiufZeEBHRs mo6FtrcYKa7Bn3gPyEA/s2JpLacB70c3LznPyB2aGCyCrqc8Fh3U1Sm6HS+QnJvRqv3l lrOLJx2PZK0PfpW3Zn7QbFP2sXndX6COcX+/0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.190.226 with SMTP id e62mr5305587yhn.130.1303232584491; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DADBDE8.1010203@gmail.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> <4DADBDE8.1010203@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:03:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3054a0a542221204a1487bd8 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:03:07 -0000 --20cf3054a0a542221204a1487bd8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There are other drafts/work-in-progress-docs that describe these... PLS see the following email in this distribution list *http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01593.html * ** and the follwing *http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt* On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 4/19/11 8:43 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > >> Thanks for your comments, suggestion, and inputs. Yes, NIST is aware of >> these drafts, [ ... ] >> > > No, no. What I wrote: > > "I note that your > framework draft contains no references, either, and given the work > being done by/with NIST that seems like a serious oversight, > particularly since your premise appears to be (??) that there's work > needed on cloud standards that's being unaddressed elsewhere." > > There's nothing in your documents to either point the reader at > other work or to suggest that you're familiar with other ongoing > work, let alone any attempt to describe a relationship between work > being done elsewhere and what you're apparently thinking about. > > Melinda > --20cf3054a0a542221204a1487bd8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are other drafts/work-in-progress-docs that describe these... PL= S see the following email in this distribution list
=A0
=A0
and the follwing
http://tools.ietf= .org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-00.txt=20
=A0

=A0
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Melinda Shore = <melinda.sh= ore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/19/11 8:43 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote:
Thanks for your comments, suggestion, and inputs. Yes, NI= ST is aware of
these drafts, =A0[ ... ]

No, no. =A0What I wrote:

"I =A0note that = your
framework draft contains no references, either, and given the work<= br>being done by/with NIST that seems like a serious oversight,
particul= arly since your premise appears to be (??) that there's work
needed on cloud standards that's being unaddressed elsewhere."
=
There's nothing in your documents to either point the reader = at
other work or to suggest that you're familiar with other ongoing<= br> work, let alone any attempt to describe a relationship between work
bein= g done elsewhere and what you're apparently thinking about.

Melinda


=A0 --20cf3054a0a542221204a1487bd8-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 10:19:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5646DE082A for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rmiQu0XCjKAV for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D4EE079D for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so3616086pvh.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tQvw5Rp0pZsdZSvqBmDurvskkCVJNz+VBrh9MeRe7YY=; b=do9o5uua2Niuj2SQF2TEsbvRgggyo/DqbZ2o8jxZEWVmBr1yQ390yMzAL9tpoSlSYN W+YAHD8iMLWQhqLWdS95yujaAZY0oYGU5AhcpKX1eLub2HJMvT6CTtsUVYu4PoqbmTgW LloctrlAwnde/o9UeA8eJ1ey+bWRUCDYs2/JY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ivyN2qgKbKmzZQvnkU3GxSoJ2gvy5eOVO4UBVblH/Xnsl8KE5uR78HZNIMXQTQjj7z E/eV+IiA1jaoJEGL4JKEYpATVhCPe1qMayphnEg5K/Q2fyuyh7XptlMEjOIay/v7zgy5 DbunhfILTYjc7VGp5hmWPnnJ7RDgRMbQZc8Ls= Received: by 10.68.10.6 with SMTP id e6mr7757203pbb.292.1303233543543; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-81-171-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.81.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w9sm56811pbw.80.2011.04.19.10.19.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DADC403.50206@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:18:59 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bhumip Khasnabish References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> <4DADBDE8.1010203@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:19:05 -0000 On 4/19/11 9:03 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > There are other drafts/work-in-progress-docs that describe these... PLS > see the following email in this distribution list > _http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01593.html _ All I'm asking is that you provide references/citations in your documents, both to provide some context and to suggest that there is, in fact, some familiarity and even possibly some relationship to other ongoing work. There's no way you're going to get these published without references, anyway, but assuming that what you're trying to do here is make a case for the work, you need to actually try to make a case for the work, and that includes providing context. Melinda From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 13:10:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E600E0730 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:10:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UmeCDBGaYBPm for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC44E072F for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so22907ywi.31 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pNFM60P2qYJcq/E9kg0pZhLgLp8/NvNa4/NwEE/Z6hE=; b=TJe2kSkF4xkOylC21lBK60yTFGLd97USjJmLvxLSsI6fDSOUCovqcDDgtxZ2xutw/U Qf3O3aMOon+JG5icx3HnptTEmBF/ar1D7jEtQ3morZsDMfwVJiZRXALTHFr4SlOzt9t1 E/0s/jSjxyW8mHJi5cwNlnmEera/SBKBSHRig= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=uboGZnGWtk7rdmfu7qhwPzzQ3vnJdbWWiHjd7L4+3HfV8IKGmM8ZOFny2t0baDhS1t s3j281Aa0yyOOdyfJEvQM2wGeSaU5iJ/QiBxBYtwHtgdauJTC80z15BxWbwrtIg1gSO1 wmRkqdS4bMBT/tQUjK7/eu6wd20xMEIfc+AAg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.77.132 with SMTP id d4mr5350172yhe.398.1303243849968; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.111.20 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:10:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DADC403.50206@gmail.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D342422F46@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D34242318B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <2E0B5DBE-ED36-4C6C-B3CB-65921062184D@asgaard.org> <4DADB96A.6090703@gmail.com> <4DADBDE8.1010203@gmail.com> <4DADC403.50206@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:10:49 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30051246bbada104a14b1a6d Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: I-D Action:draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:10:54 -0000 --20cf30051246bbada104a14b1a6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sure, will do this (that is add ref/citations) in the next version of this draft. Other suggestions are also welcome. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 4/19/11 9:03 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote: > >> There are other drafts/work-in-progress-docs that describe these... PLS >> see the following email in this distribution list >> _http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01593.html _ >> > > All I'm asking is that you provide references/citations in your > documents, both to provide some context and to suggest that there > is, in fact, some familiarity and even possibly some relationship > to other ongoing work. There's no way you're going to get these > published without references, anyway, but assuming that what > you're trying to do here is make a case for the work, you need to > actually try to make a case for the work, and that includes > providing context. > > Melinda > --20cf30051246bbada104a14b1a6d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sure, will do this (that is add ref/citations) in the next version of this = draft. Other suggestions are also welcome.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore <= span dir=3D"ltr"><melinda.sho= re@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/19/11 9:03 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote:
There are other drafts/work-in-progress-docs that describ= e these... PLS
see the following email in this distribution list
_http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current= /msg01593.html _

All I'm asking is that you provide references/citation= s in your
documents, both to provide some context and to suggest that th= ere
is, in fact, some familiarity and even possibly some relationship to other ongoing work. =A0There's no way you're going to get these<= br>published without references, anyway, but assuming that what
you'= re trying to do here is make a case for the work, you need to
actually t= ry to make a case for the work, and that includes
providing context.

Melinda


=A0 --20cf30051246bbada104a14b1a6d-- From wwwrun@ietfc.amsl.com Tue Apr 19 14:39:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietf.org Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id A21C0E06FF; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20110419213936.A21C0E06FF@ietfc.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Last Call: rfc5343 (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:39:36 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the opsawg WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery ' RFC 5343 as a Draft Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5343.txt Implementation Report can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation.html IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=5343&rfc_flag=1 From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Mon Apr 25 19:59:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C38E06B7 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:59:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnsVwAj+cDQ7 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E47E069E for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:59:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=AzCNetzGeo9d8HaIdZiz6QCPVXyZQ6vWco908NcCzJo+3jJ5Q6pJFNL7H0aIue5s; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.60.7.19] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QEYUP-0006cQ-4E for opsawg@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:59:01 -0400 Message-ID: <006f01cc03be$2e846580$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 20:01:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888cc964a8bf633b3827c7a1c6e7c0bedc444565c67fb9ec2eb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.60.7.19 Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats-01 posted X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:59:05 -0000 Hi - I've posted an updated draft. The announcement should soon appear. I believe this is ready to be taken to the IESG, since all WG last call comments have been resolved. Randy From vumip1@gmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:13:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352ACE0712 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5sNopyNnN86 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD96E06C3 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so2482030wwa.13 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=yHQUILr4gjEe6/8Ld7WsBLn0gkH+yfYC++qJtm2NtNw=; b=MJVcwgMGXdSBFVFWuFU1qx5lsUI73tCBv2qFI2K0/h92VW/IwojqCD4hO3jrd1FpP+ 366tbanVojgsc70Q9I8xVNv+k8Ipmfj4nPVFYmCjdidgtU/6+yjkqlF9vGBlZE3gYKQi I2BPWI+/x1BWntDN6fGvM27IVX8bRgs6MBXqQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Z1fPeoT9cqPn1B57otcXObMqigsDxdoKiHnwlZO270gtHWKJ6di8UWIHaY+L7pHgoD 8jLtIJk7oSLjFREtZ8WgwtNKyLTUspiNN9Mwzs4enm8R40Thh5foIEyD3caIcD9gQgRt 2fYAhJC3vF+No/yKOPI66dYrx7bMtcgBSD6OQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.62.137 with SMTP id y9mr7670132wec.107.1304028687346; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.25.11 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:11:27 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6668eafbe8304a201d6a1 Subject: [OPSAWG] Conf call to discuss Data Center operations and management (DCOPS) work items X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:13:27 -0000 --000e0cd6668eafbe8304a201d6a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Based on our previous discussion on Data Center operations and management (DCOPS) in this list (e.g., pls see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01594.html ), presentations during IETF-80 ( http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/opsawg.html ), and lunch-time discussion on Tuesday-29March2011, we are planning to continue working on further developing the drafts/work-in-progress documents. We are also looking for reports on best practices and implementation experiences on Data center operations and management related topics. *Start Time:* 10 AM ET (NY/USA time), Friday 29 April 2011 *Conf bridge:* US Toll-free +1-866-710-5490 If the toll-free number does not work, pls use +001-203-875-8973, *Passcode:* 204 1744# We plan to hold this conf call once every two weeks until further notice. (next mtg will be held on at 10 AM ET on 13May2011) General Agenda - Progress/Status-update of the drafts/work-in-progress (discussed during IETF-80) docs. [ http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01593.html ] - Any other new topics Note: All of the drafts and presentations are available at the following Website: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/Clouds Many thanks. Bhumip and Ning --000e0cd6668eafbe8304a201d6a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Based on our previou= s discussion on Data Center operations and
management (DCOPS)=A0in this list
(e.g., pls see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01594.html=A0),
presentations during IETF-80 ( http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/opsawg.html=A0= ),
and lunch-time discu= ssion on Tuesday-29March2011, we are planning to continue
working on further developing the drafts/work-in-progress doc= uments.=A0
=A0
We are also looking for reports on best practices and impleme= ntation experiences
on Data center operations and management related topics.
=A0

Start Time: 10 AM ET (NY/USA time), Frida= y 29 April 2011

Conf bridge: US Toll-free +1-866-710-5490

If the toll-free number does not work, pls use +001-203-875-= 8973,

Passcode: 204 1744#

=A0
We plan to hold this conf call once every two weeks until fur= ther notice.
(next mtg will be held on at 10 AM ET on 13May2011)
=A0
General Agenda

- Progress/Status-update of the drafts/work-in-progress (discu= ssed during IETF-80) docs.
[ http://www.ietf.org/ma= il-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg01593.html ]
- Any other new topics

=A0

Note: All of the drafts and presentations are available at the= following Website:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/= trac/wiki/Clouds
=A0
Many thanks.
=A0
Bhumip and Ning
=A0
=A0
--000e0cd6668eafbe8304a201d6a1--