[Capi-bof] Charter - last call for changes

[Ignacio Martin Llorente]

>

Hi Sam,
>
>
>
> You're still focusing on VMs - I'd be interested to hear your  
> explanation as to how catering for everyone's needs (as proposed by  
> a number of us) will be any more complex than restricting the spec  
> to your own requirements.

Yes, my position is that if we want the group to succeed we should  
only focus on virtual machines (virtual execution environments,...).   
Not in "virtualized resources", because resource could mean not only  
"machine" but also network, storage... In fact I think that the first  
step (after gathering requirements form use cases) should be to create  
a document clearly defining entities to be managed, their life-cycle  
and the associated processes to manage the life-cycle. I think that  
the management of physical resources or light-weight VMs should be out  
of the scope of the group, because that has different implications in  
the life-cycle and processes, and, as far as I know, there are other  
groups working on this (at least for physical resources).

There are many organizations and projects interested in VMs, not only  
Sun or OpenNebula:

- IaaS providers: Amazon EC2, ElasticHosts, GoGrid, Flexiscale, Sun  
Cloud....
- Research projects: Reservoir, Eucalyptus, Nimbus, SLA at SOI...
- Users (service management offerings): CohesiveFT, RightScale...

>
>
> Aside from that the "network tag" suggestion I made before would  
> allow for the creation of private networks (two interfaces with the  
> same tag would obviously be wired together) but assigning meaning to  
> those tags (subnet details, etc.) would be left to the fabric. The  
> vast majority of workloads don't care, so long as they can talk to  
> each other and their clients (assuming they have any which is not  
> always the case).


Fully agree with you on this,

Regards

Igancio

>
>
> Sam
>