[Capi-bof] Charter - last call for changes

[Sam Johnston]

+1

Sam on iPhone

On 3/24/09, Alexis Richardson <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Further, I think that for marketing/branding reasons having a general
> name "open cloud computing" is good - easier for the max # of folks to
> buy into.  Putting INTERFACE at the end makes it clear this is about
> delivering a thing - an interface.
>
> I agree with Sam that focussing on infra is good.  It is vital to
> choose an approach that can succeed.  Success breeds buy-in, traction
> and more success. Let's start simple -- so my suggestion is to put
> that "infra focus" into the initial "mission statement" of the group.
> Then, as the industry evolves, so will the mission statement.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Alexis Richardson
> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> OCCI is easier to pronouce and remember the spelling of ;-)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Thijs Metsch <Thijs.Metsch at sun.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your reply! see the inline comments :-)
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 10:52 +0100, Sam Johnston wrote:
>>>> Thanks Thijs.
>>>>
>>>> I think we've still got a bit of work to do on the charter so perhaps
>>>> we can finalise for Friday, pushing the last call out to
>>>> Monday/Tuesday for Wednesday's steering committee meeting? Otherwise
>>>> we've essentially got until tomorrow to get it tightened up.
>>>
>>> Okay we can shift it out till monday evening 5pm CET.
>>>
>>>>  - The group name is important (e.g. for SEO) and CAPI clashes not
>>>> only with the ISDN stuff but also Microsoft's Cryptography API and a
>>>> bunch of commercial interests. It should also be obvious what we're
>>>> doing - "Cloud API" is meaningless and IaaS-API is too "aas"y. CIA has
>>>> obvious problems so how about CIAPI, CI-API or CCI-API?
>>>
>>> I like Alexis's proposal of OCCI or from you OCII. Any other thoughts?
>>>
>>>>  - The focus is still on virtual machines when there are actually
>>>> three types of "containers" we're wanting to control:
>>>>  * Physical machines
>>>>  * Virtual machines
>>>>  * Lightweight virtual machines (zones, vservers, slices, etc.)
>>>> I would suggest adopting the term "workload" in place of "virtual
>>>> machine" (which could come in the form of a physical server image,
>>>> virtual machine, tgz chroot, etc.) and using "container" in place of
>>>> hypervisor, server, zone, chroot, etc.
>>>
>>> I'll try to take that into account and rewrite the parts.
>>>
>>>>  - Networking is a bottomless pit - I was thinking about this
>>>> yesterday after the call and given work F5, VMware, Cisco and others
>>>> are doing in this area I think it may not be necessary for us to get
>>>> too involved. Having worked on the Netscaler APIs at Citrix I can
>>>> assure you there is more to this area than meets the eye. All a VM
>>>> needs is a connection to the outside world - it doesn't care about
>>>> firewalling, load balancing, failover, etc.
>>>>
>>>>  - Ditto for storage - a workload just (optionally) needs pool(s) of
>>>> storage to be mounted for it... it doesn't care whether it's RAID etc.
>>>
>>> Any ideas on howto proceed here? Drop it? Point to existing solutions,
>>> Take it in account?
>>>
>>>> I would personally like to see a tight, clean API developed which is
>>>> easy to consume on the user side (think curl/wget) and easy to
>>>> implement on the provider side (minimal calls, as close as possible to
>>>> the "consensus" of what exists today).
>>>
>>> that would be nice :-)
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> -Thijs
>>>
>>>> I should hope that we can get something like this churned out in short
>>>> order (even to have an implementable draft for the next meeting) and
>>>> have set aside some time to assist.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> 2009/3/24 Thijs Metsch <Thijs.Metsch at sun.com>
>>>>
>>>>         hi @all,
>>>>
>>>>         find attached the current version of the charter. Please send
>>>>         in all
>>>>         your comments till Friday (03/27/09 - 3pm CET). I would like
>>>>         to finalize
>>>>         it by then and send it to the OGF steering committee - they
>>>>         need to
>>>>         approve it very soon, wo we can finally get an official
>>>>         working group in
>>>>         OGF :-)
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks for the help,
>>>>
>>>>         -Thijs
>>>>
>>>>         --
>>>>         Thijs Metsch                        Tel: +49 (0)941 3075-122
>>>>         (x60122)
>>>>         http://blogs.sun.com/intheclouds
>>>>         Software Engineer Grid Computing
>>>>         Sun Microsystems GmbH
>>>>         Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Str. 7
>>>>         mailto:thijs.metsch at sun.com
>>>>         D-93049 Regensburg                  http://www.sun.com
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         Capi-bof mailing list
>>>>         Capi-bof at ogf.org
>>>>         http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/capi-bof
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Capi-bof mailing list
>>>> Capi-bof at ogf.org
>>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/capi-bof
>>> --
>>> Thijs Metsch                        Tel: +49 (0)941 3075-122 (x60122)
>>> http://blogs.sun.com/intheclouds
>>> Software Engineer Grid Computing
>>> Sun Microsystems GmbH
>>> Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Str. 7               mailto:thijs.metsch at sun.com
>>> D-93049 Regensburg                  http://www.sun.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Capi-bof mailing list
>>> Capi-bof at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/capi-bof
>>>
>>
>