[occi-wg] occi-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 13

[Sill, Alan]

Thanks for the positive reinforcement, Eugene!

As you know, the NIST working groups are totally open, and everyone is free to participate. The RA analysis team does not get to write a formal report, just analyze the architectures chosen earlier by that group from various points of view. The inter write-up that you saw was the result of that effort, and may or may not influence the final strawman model or make it into the roadmap report in the long run.

Over the past several weeks, I have tried to participate as much as possible in the various NIST group meetings, and it is my impression that OGF input has been welcome and very well received in these. Over the next two weeks, however, I will be traveling for the Cloudscape III and OGF 31 meetings, and I would appreciate it very much if others who are knowledgeable from OGF groups would participate and give voice to their opinions. Anything that moves the conversation along in a good direction would no doubt be useful.

The SAJACC and Reference Archtiecture/Taxonomy NIST groups would probably be the most productive in which to state your views. Feel free, everyone, to sound off directly there or send your input to someone in the US, like Gary and Eugene (when he gets back!), if the call logistics are inconvenient.

The link to the collaborative site is

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-cloud-computing/bin/view/CloudComputing/WebHome

Hope this helps and thanks to everyone for their input.

Alan

On Mar 12, 2011, at 4:00 AM, "Eugene Luster" <eugene.luster1 at gmail.com<mailto:eugene.luster1 at gmail.com>> wrote:


Hello all,

I agree with Gary.  <...prepare for a nano-rant...and one caveat>

Caveat: Bob and Cary persevered against a challenging timetable and incorporating many suggestions (and likely lost a bit of sleep) to submit this paper on time.  Under these circumstances, it is a job well done.

To reinforce, this paper is like a cloud computing RA shopping list.  It is a "melange" (I hope this means what I think it means) of reference architecture concepts from both SDOs and commercial bodies.   Though this paper is not as focused as I would desire, it attempts to present NIST with valuable ideas to ponder.

I would like NIST to consider modifying the diagram similar with Michael's suggestion though I differ a bit with regards to security.  My concept for security ideally, would be more pervasive.  Perhaps a blanket covering all aspects.

The OCCI wg holds enough independent SDO prestige that any suggestions would be well considered by NIST.  So if you have any recommendations, please send them to Alan (Mr. Sills has been working a very difficult path guiding NIST, if someone actually sees Alan, please pat him on the back for me) or this wg.

If I can get home from Japan, I will send in recommendations.

Take care,
  Eugene


On Mar 12, 2011 4:29 AM, <<mailto:occi-wg-request at ogf.org>occi-wg-request at ogf.org<mailto:occi-wg-request at ogf.org>> wrote:
_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg at ogf.org<mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org>
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg