Subject: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:26:45 -0400 (EDT)

We have had a large number of requests for short timeslots in the opsawg
session for IDs dealing with specific parts of the data center
management and virtual processor puzzle.  

There is not enough time during the session to let each of the
requesters give short presentations on their IDs and, even if there were
enough time, short talks presenting IDs is not an effective way for the
working group to understand just what each ID is proposing and where it
fits into a whole.

But, more importantly in this case, the working group has not developed
a common understanding concerning an operational model of the management
of virtual resources in a data center (including, for example, a
definition and a description of hypervisors and their role in the
management architectures) so it does not make much sense to have a
parade of presentations when we do not know how they all might fit
together or even if they would fit the same model.

We request that the ID authors and others working in this area get
together and select someone to provide a 15 or 20 min overview of a
proposed operational model to the working group in Quebec City.  The
presentation should include, at the end, a list of IDs and where each of
those IDs fits in the model.  

It is too late to produce an ID of this information before Quebec City
but it would be good to do so for publication after the meeting.

Please let us know if you think an ID that you have asked for time to
present and looks like it fits in the above group actually does not.

But, as we have said before, we are not much on presentations of IDs
that have generated no interest on the mailing list.

Scott & Chris

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:17:28 +0000

Scott and Chris,

I agree with your concerns.  I am willing to volunteer myself to help
with the ID consolidation effort since I have several drafts involved in
this area, and it is a very important area with real issues/problems to
solve for service providers.   However, I would like to hear some
suggestions, especially from IETF leadership, on the proper procedure
and avenue to do so, so we do not repeat any past mistakes.  

Given that the meeting is only two weeks away, is it possible to do
anything before the meeting?  Can we do something ad-hoc during the
meeting week without busting WG schedule/time?  I am all ears.     

Best regards,
 
Ning So
Network Evolution Planning
Verizon, Inc.
(office) 972-729-7905
(Cell) 972-955-0914
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Scott O. Bradner
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Scott & Chris

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Bhumip Khasnabish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:27:58 -0400

Thanks for this email.

I am willing to work with the authors of the data center/ process
virtulization IDs that have been submitted so far and have generated
discussion. I understand that the objective is to develop a common
understanding and operational model using the relevant work items.

Yes, can work on developing a draft describing how all of these
work items fit together, and how these can fit in the operational
model of an working group.

Look forward to further guidance.

Thanks again.

Best.

Bhumip

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:52:19 -0400

please work together - I've blocked off time on the agenda someone to provide the WG 
some guidance - there is not time for an ID but there should be time for you-all
to have a discussion on what you-all think is a model

thanks

Scott

On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Bhumip Khasnabish wrote:

> Thanks for this email.
>  
> I am willing to work with the authors of the data center/ process virtulization IDs that have been submitted so far and have generated discussion. I understand that the objective is to develop a common understanding and operational model using the relevant work items.
>  

Scott Bradner

Harvard University Information Technology
Security | Policy, Risk & Compliance
+1 617 495 3864
29 Oxford St., Room 407
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvard.edu/huit

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:52:22 -0800

> meeting week without busting WG schedule/time?  I am all ears.

This might be a good time for a reminder that the locus of the
work in the IETF is mailing lists and that meeting time is
for resolving questions (generally, but not always, from the mailing
lists) that would benefit from face-to-face discussion.  At the
risk of being more than a little bit blunt it's my impression that
the main problem that Bhumip is trying to solve is how to get his
name on an RFC, and I'm a little concerned that it might damage
the perception of related work.  There are several recent drafts,
such as the ones on "policy" migration, that do address actual
problems, that do have technical substance, and that are a better
use of time than "Hey, there might be a problem out there that could
possibly be interesting to the IETF, maybe."  There's no reason
that that particular fishing expedition couldn't continue through
the usual cycle of draft publication -> mailing list discussion ->
draft publication -> etc., until these guys finally figure out if
there's anything interesting and relevant in their subject matter
space.

Melinda

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:54:49 +0000

Melinda,

You helped to make my point precisely.  E-mail is useful, but it take a
long time to get feedbacks and get conversations going back and forth,
especially when multiple continents and time differences are taken into
consideration.  Answering e-mails late at night is hazardous to ones'
health and marriage :)  

As I am reading various IDs, I can see that we need to definitely clean
up on the definitions, and have a better understanding of the
operational model of how operator wanting future multi-tenant data
center to run.  In other words, we need to understand the requirements
before developing solutions.  The sequence of horse and wagon is not in
proper order, in my opinion.  

For example, Hypervisor is a fact of life today, but it is a terrible
thing, from my personally opinion.  Hypervisor is like Kleenex, only
much worse because Kleenex do not have to interwork between them.
Hypervisor creates highly segmented data center fragments, so the
server/storage hardware interworking becomes highly inefficient, often
impossible.  I would rather see the functionalities of hypervisor being
taken out and standardized instead of developing hypervisor APIs to
allow "very limited" interworking, but letting hypervisor itself still
staying as black box.  

In any case, we can start the conversation and debate.  

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:52 AM
To: So, Ning
Cc: Scott O. Bradner; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

> meeting week without busting WG schedule/time?  I am all ears.

This might be a good time for a reminder that the locus of the work in
the IETF is mailing lists and that meeting time is for resolving
questions (generally, but not always, from the mailing
lists) that would benefit from face-to-face discussion.  At the risk of
being more than a little bit blunt it's my impression that the main
problem that Bhumip is trying to solve is how to get his name on an RFC,
and I'm a little concerned that it might damage the perception of
related work.  There are several recent drafts, such as the ones on
"policy" migration, that do address actual problems, that do have
technical substance, and that are a better use of time than "Hey, there
might be a problem out there that could possibly be interesting to the
IETF, maybe."  There's no reason that that particular fishing expedition
couldn't continue through the usual cycle of draft publication ->
mailing list discussion -> draft publication -> etc., until these guys
finally figure out if there's anything interesting and relevant in their
subject matter space.

Melinda

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:11:27 -0800

On 7/11/11 9:54 AM, So, Ning wrote:
> consideration.

No, I didn't.  I don't think that the "cloud" fishing expedition should
be sucking up valuable meeting time until there's something of substance
to discuss.  There isn't, yet.  Anybody could make the same argument
that you're making about anything that interests them whatsoever ("email
is too slow, let's get on the meeting agenda").

I'll bet you guys can do a just fine job going off and working up
something concrete, and I'm not at all clear why you're so resistant
to doing so.  That laundry list draft is not improving with newer
revisions - why not take one item on that list and try to flesh it
out?

Melinda

---

From: Bhumip Khasnabish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:13:58 -0400

Thank you Scott. Yes, starting to work with Ning on this.

Best.

Bhumip

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:18:30 +0000

Melinda,

I prefer e-mail exchanges to stay away from emotional outburst and
personal attack and stay on facts.  I will try to walk the walk here as
well.

I have not had the time to read all the IDs yet, so let me just focus on
one draft that I have put in a lot of time personally, and see if it
fits in the "cloud fishing" category.  The draft is "Requirements and
Framework of VPN-oriented Data Center Services".   Many of those
requirements came from the multiple network/data center infrastructure
designs my team did at Verizon, and some of the products failed to sell
successfully.  Many requirements in the draft are based on the customer
feedbacks and issues encountered during the solution implementation.  I
sincerely welcome you to read that draft, which has a section dedicated
to data center management requirements,  and provide your feedbacks,
publically or privately.

On the other hand, I am fine with WG chairs' decision to put 15-20 min
slot for some IDs.  However, I want to point out the fact that the devil
is in the detail.  For those IDs got lumped together, the authors need
to be notified earlier that their presentation requests are rejected.  I
certainly hope that not all data center related draft presentation
requests are rejected, because the draft mentioned above is certainly
concrete.  The requirements in it are based on provider/operator needs,
and I thought IETF have always wanted operator inputs.

Even for those IDs that are not mature yet, having two weeks to put a
joint presentation together is extremely difficult at best.  Even using
your suggestion of selecting one item and flesh it out.  Which item to
select among all the IDs?  That alone is more than two weeks of work.  I
am not trying to resist the idea, but trying to be realistic.  That's my
nature of being an engineer.     
 
Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:11 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

On 7/11/11 9:54 AM, So, Ning wrote:
> You helped to make my point precisely.  E-mail is useful, but it take 
> a long time to get feedbacks and get conversations going back and 
> forth, especially when multiple continents and time differences are 
> taken into consideration.

I'll bet you guys can do a just fine job going off and working up
something concrete, and I'm not at all clear why you're so resistant to
doing so.  That laundry list draft is not improving with newer revisions
- why not take one item on that list and try to flesh it out?

Melinda

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:37:47 +0000

All,

I have only seen two volunteers, and I am very disappointed.  This
effort cannot be successful with only two people actively involved.  

Best regards,

Ning So

Verizon, Inc.

(office) 972-729-7905

(Cell) 972-955-0914

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Bhumip Khasnabish
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Scott O. Bradner
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Best.

Bhumip

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]>
wrote:

please work together - I've blocked off time on the agenda someone to
provide the WG  

some guidance - there is not time for an ID but there should be time for
you-all

thanks

Scott

Thanks for this email.

 

Thanks again.
 
Best.
 
Bhumip

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Scott & Chris

  

Scott Bradner

+1 617 495 3864 <tel:%2B1%20617%20495%203864> 

29 Oxford St., Room 407

Cambridge, MA 02138

www.harvard.edu/huit

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:28:02 +0900

Hi Ning,

Of course, I and all of the co-authors of our I-D are interested. I just
assumed that we have already been counted. So, don't get so
disappointed. I thought Bhumip will present all of the DC/process
virtulization I-Ds and initiate a discussion on the way forward in the
meeting. We can work together in advance. Just let us know about your
game plan.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/12 23:37), So, Ning wrote:
> All,
> 
> I have only seen two volunteers, and I am very disappointed. This effort 
> cannot be successful with only two people actively involved.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ning So
> 
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Bhumip Khasnabish
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:14 AM
> *To:* Scott O. Bradner
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> www.harvard.edu/huit <http://www.harvard.edu/huit>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:15:23 +0000

Hidetoshi,

Thank you for the reply.  I encourage all other data center virtual
resource management related draft co-authors to volunteer publically as
well.  IETF is individual contribution based, so please do not assume
anyone will/can speak for and/or represent you and your draft ;)  

I do not really have a game plan.  I am trying my best to do something
following WG chairs' directions.  I have found that all data center
related drafts in OPSAWG falls into three categories:

1.  Drafts that co-authors believe are clearly written and defined that
can stand on its own, and deserves presentation slot for meaningful
discussion during the meeting.  So far two drafts' authors have spoken
up in this category: my VPN-oriented Data Center Services draft
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-00.txt)  and Yingjie's Policies
and Dynamic Information Migration draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-00.txt).

2.  Drafts with unclear definitions and/or FYI type of drafts that can
use some further discussion outside of valuable IETF meeting time.
Those draft can be consolidated together and use a single time slot.
Hidetoshi, I assume, with your reply, that your draft falls into this
category (Managing Service Mobility for Virtualized Networks:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management-01.
txt).  Please let me know if my understanding is not correct.  I will
put two more drafts that I co-authored into this category, although I
have not yet get the agreement from all the co-authors.  They are
Security Framework for Virtualized Data Center Services
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-00.txt)
and  Cloud Reference Framework
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-01.tx
t).  

3.  Remaining data center related drafts that are waiting on co-author
direction and/or WG chair directions.  I have them listed below.

Cloud Industry Work Item Survey Results:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-
01.txt
Virtual Network Management Information Model:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt
Virtual Resource Management in Cloud:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management
-00.txt
Network Portability Requirements and Models for Cloud Environment:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shima-cloud-net-portability-reqs-and-mode
ls-00.txt
Cloud Service Broker:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-cloud-service-broker-00.txt
Policies and Dynamic Information Migration in DCs: Solution Survey:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-surve
y-00.txt
Survey and Gap Analysis For Policies and Dynamic Information Migrations
in DCs:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-opsawg-policies-migration-gap-analysis
-00.txt

We will try to see what can be done before the meeting through e-mails.
Please SPEAK UP if you have any different ideas and suggestions.

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Hidetoshi Yokota
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Hi Ning,

Regards,
--
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/12 23:37), So, Ning wrote:
> We have had a large number of requests for short timeslots in the 
> opsawg session for IDs dealing with specific parts of the data center 
> requesters give short presentations on their IDs and, even if there 
> were enough time, short talks presenting IDs is not an effective way 
> for the working group to understand just what each ID is proposing and

> where it fits into a whole.
> 
> But, more importantly in this case, the working group has not 
> developed a common understanding concerning an operational model of 
> the management of virtual resources in a data center (including, for 
> example, a definition and a description of hypervisors and their role 
> in the management architectures) so it does not make much sense to 
> have a parade of presentations when we do not know how they all might 
> fit together or even if they would fit the same model.
> 
> presentation should include, at the end, a list of IDs and where each 
> of those IDs fits in the model.
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:54:52 +0800

Hi Ning

Thanks for your coordinating the work in DC area. Actually, we all want to 
do is to help opsawg 
identify all those drafts concern engineer problems, to reach common 
understanding that those 
problems are related to operations and management area in data center 
environment, and need to 
be solved in opsawg.
We are working together on the target.

Thanks.

"So, Ning" <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2011-07-13 10:15

收件人
Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
抄送

主题
Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Hidetoshi,

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----

Hi Ning,

Regards,
--
Hidetoshi

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:05:38 +0900

Hi Ning,

> txt).  Please let me know if my understanding is not correct.  I will

Not actually. My reply was based on the e-mail from Scott, which
requested to select someone to provide a 15 or 20 min presentation. I
assumed Bhumip would represent us. Our draft has the clear motivation,
definitions and protocol to standardize, so it should be categorized
into 1. Please let us know if there is such unclear part that it should
not consume valuable IETF meeting time.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Scott O. Bradner<[email-masked]
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner<[email-masked]
>> Scott&  Chris
>> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>> Security | Policy, Risk&  Compliance
>>
>> +1 617 495 3864<tel:%2B1%20617%20495%203864>
>>
>> 29 Oxford St., Room 407
>>
>> Cambridge, MA 02138
>>
>> www.harvard.edu/huit<http://www.harvard.edu/huit>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:36:51 -0800

On 7/12/11 8:05 PM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
> into 1.

Hi, Hideshi:

After reading your draft I came away with some confusion about what
the mobile elements were.  You describe it as "service mobility" but
there seems to be substantial overlap in the document with VM
mobility/migration, and they're really not the same thing.  If
the VM is migrating and the address stays the same, the primary
issues seems to me to be moving network state with it so that
active network connections aren't disrupted.  Mobile IP provides
a mechanism for mobile addressing, etc.  That left me with a lot
of questions about what the manager actually does, and I think the
document would benefit from filling that in.

Also, minor nit but why do you want an ack on error messages?  I.e.
what do you expect to do if you don't receive an ack?  And what
does that mean given that you've specified running over a reliable
transport?

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:56:40 +0900

Dear Ning So,

I'm Toshiaki Suzuki from Hitachi, Ltd. and writing this e-mail
on behalf of Mr. Okita, Hideki. Unfortunately he won't attend 
the next coming meeting. I will take over his activities.

>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt

Let me explain our draft a little to categorize several IDs. 
for your convenience. Our draft includes a proposal on the DC OPS 
for defining an information model and its data model to make it easy 
to manage multiple virtual and physical network resoureces which 
connect several servers and network nodes in a data center.

In addition, it includes requirements for the above virtual network 
management information model. I believe these requirements are useful 
for starting the discussion of the data center management.

With best regards,
Toshiaki

***  Toshiaki Suzuki ([email-masked])
***  Network Systems Research Department
***  Hitachi, Ltd., Central Research Laboratory
***　TEL: +81-45-860-2177

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:06:02 +0000

Dear Toshiaki,

Thanks for your clarification.  I agree with your characterization of the draft.  Can I also assume that you would like to keep your separate presentation slot request instead of being lumped together into one presentation slot as a part of the DC Virtual Resource Management/FYI (DC related generic framework) effort (category #1)?   

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:57 AM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Dear Ning So,

I'm Toshiaki Suzuki from Hitachi, Ltd. and writing this e-mail on behalf of Mr. Okita, Hideki. Unfortunately he won't attend the next coming meeting. I will take over his activities.

Let me explain our draft a little to categorize several IDs. 
for your convenience. Our draft includes a proposal on the DC OPS for defining an information model and its data model to make it easy to manage multiple virtual and physical network resoureces which connect several servers and network nodes in a data center.

In addition, it includes requirements for the above virtual network management information model. I believe these requirements are useful for starting the discussion of the data center management.

With best regards,
Toshiaki

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:29:32 +0000

Dear Junsheng,

Thank you and I agree solving the engineering problems in data center/network is our common goal.   The next question is where and how ;)    I assume you are OK with consolidating your draft into a common presentation slot, right?    

Best regards,

Ning So

Verizon, Inc.

(office) 972-729-7905

(Cell) 972-955-0914

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:55 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Hidetoshi Yokota
Subject: 答复: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Hi Ning 

Thanks for your coordinating the work in DC area. Actually, we all want to do is to help opsawg 
identify all those drafts concern engineer problems, to reach common understanding that those 
problems are related to operations and management area in data center environment, and need to 
be solved in opsawg. 
We are working together on the target. 

Thanks. 

2011-07-13 10:15 

收件人

抄送

主题

		

Hidetoshi,

Best regards,

Ning So

-----Original Message-----

Hi Ning,

Regards,
--
Hidetoshi

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:22:17 +0900

Hi Melinda,

Thanks for your comments, which will help refine the draft very much.
Please see inline:

> document would benefit from filling that in.

Service mobility and VM migration are not the same and there is no
overlap between them in definition. Service mobility refers to movement
of function(s), one example of which is a call session control function
in IMS as described in the draft. When one or more sessions are
established, they will have to be moved as well. VM migration refers to
movement of a VM and this may or may not happen. The active sessions
maintain the IP addresses of those functions (e.g., CSCFs), so from the
perspective of such sessions, those IP addresses need to be preserved.
Mobile IP can do it, but any kind of tunneling protocol (e.g., GRE,
IPSec, etc) could do it as well since they have the capability to
maintain the inner address regardless of the change of the outer
address. The draft does not assume or mandate what kind of mechanism
should be used. More important thing is that if multiple functions are
related, those functions and the network (e.g., the tunneling part) must
be synchronized. Then, the Manager Node comes in. The Manager Node
synchronizes the movement of those functions and IP address
preservation. The main focus of this draft is defining the protocol
between the Execution Node and the Manager Node and the mechanism for
the movement is outside its scope. Maybe we should clarify this more in
the document.

> does that mean given that you've specified running over a reliable

This error message is not the type of packet loss. For example, if some
error condition on the Execution Node occurs such as resource
exhaustion, it reports to the Manager Node with this message. The
Manager Node sends Ack to that Execution Node and may initiate the
movement of the function(s) running on that Execution Node. If the
Execution Node does not receive Ack from the Manager Node, it will retry
for a certain number of times. The retry count is not defined in the
document yet and will be done in the later version.

We will update the draft based on your comments.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:34:57 -0800

On 7/13/11 8:22 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
> overlap between them in definition. 

Right, but what's in your document is not nearly as clear
as what you wrote here, and you might want to think about
including some of the text from your email in the draft.

Melinda

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:49:28 +0000

Dear Hidetoshi,

That's fine with me.  I assume that you have already requested a presentation slot, so it is up to WG chairs to decide.  

We are still waiting for several drafts' authors to respond if they want to consolidate their drafts' presentation requests.  In addition, I have not heard any objection on the way WG chairs' directive has been handled.  I will wait until this Friday to give all the co-authors who have not responded a chance to catch up.  We can then decide among all the consolidated presentation authors how to handle the presentation and select the presenter.    

WG chairs have to decide what to do with the drafts that falls into category #1 and #3.

Best regards,
 
Ning So
Verizon Corporate Technology
(office) 972-729-7905
(Cell) 972-955-0914

-----Original Message-----
From: Hidetoshi Yokota [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:06 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Hi Ning,

> txt).  Please let me know if my understanding is not correct.  I will

Not actually. My reply was based on the e-mail from Scott, which requested to select someone to provide a 15 or 20 min presentation. I assumed Bhumip would represent us. Our draft has the clear motivation, definitions and protocol to standardize, so it should be categorized into 1. Please let us know if there is such unclear part that it should not consume valuable IETF meeting time.

Regards,
--
Hidetoshi

> Survey and Gap Analysis For Policies and Dynamic Information 
> Migrations in DCs:
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Hidetoshi Yokota
> Of course, I and all of the co-authors of our I-D are interested. I 
> just assumed that we have already been counted. So, don't get so

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:46:59 +0800

Dear Ning

After consulting the co-author's opinions, we believe that the idea of the 
vrm (virtual resource management) 
draft is clear and it deserves presentation slot for meaningful discussion 
during the meeting. 

For your convenience, I briefly introduce our idea here.
The coexisting of multiple types of Hypervisors in one data centre 
environment creates highly segmented data 
center fragments, and a variety of Hypervisor APIs complicate the 
implementation of the unified resource 
management platform in DC. So we propose a unified resource management API 
to screen the influence of different
Hypervisors to the unified resource management platform, but still 
flexibily satisfy the service/application 
resource requirements in one Hypervisor environment.

Thanks.

2011-07-13 22:29

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked], [email-masked], Hidetoshi Yokota 
<[email-masked]>
主题
RE: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Dear Junsheng,
 
Thank you and I agree solving the engineering problems in data 
center/network is our common goal.   The next question is where and how ;) 
   I assume you are OK with consolidating your draft into a common 
presentation slot, right? 

Best regards,
 
Ning So
 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:55 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Hidetoshi Yokota
Subject: 答复: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in 
opsawg

Hi Ning 

Thanks. 

收件人

主题

Hidetoshi,

Best regards,

Ning So

-----Original Message-----

Hi Ning,

Regards,
--
Hidetoshi

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:17:40 +0900

Hi Melinda,

Thanks for your valuable suggestion. We'll clarify it more in the next
version.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:53:31 +0900

Dear Ning,

I believe that we need to clear what kinds of technologies or items
should be standardized at first. In this sense, how about  
categorizing proposed work items in the technology area such as 
requirements, migration, resource management model, and so forth.
Then maybe, we need one or more presentations from each technology area 
after consolidated multiple IDs which belong to the same technology area.

With regard to our ID, for example,
I would like to report our situation and progress as part of the 
resouce management model, if it would be possible.

Best regards,
Toshiaki

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:13:18 +0000

Dear Toshiaki,

Sure, I will categorize your draft as a part of the DC resource management effort.  

As for re-do the categories, since there are only two drafts so far in the area of DC resource management, and other drafts touches different and often multiple areas, it might be best to leave them where they are, especially in light of the fact that there is only 8 days left before the meeting start.

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:54 AM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Dear Ning,

I believe that we need to clear what kinds of technologies or items should be standardized at first. In this sense, how about categorizing proposed work items in the technology area such as requirements, migration, resource management model, and so forth.

Then maybe, we need one or more presentations from each technology area after consolidated multiple IDs which belong to the same technology area.

With regard to our ID, for example,
I would like to report our situation and progress as part of the resouce management model, if it would be possible.

Best regards,
Toshiaki

>>resource management related draft co-authors to volunteer publically 
>>as well.  IETF is individual contribution based, so please do not 
>>assume anyone will/can speak for and/or represent you and your draft 
>>;)
>>
>>1.  Drafts that co-authors believe are clearly written and defined 
>>that can stand on its own, and deserves presentation slot for 
>>meaningful discussion during the meeting.  So far two drafts' authors 
>>have spoken up in this category: my VPN-oriented Data Center Services 
>>draft
>>(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-00.tx
>>t
>>)
>>(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-01.
>>t
>>x
>>t).  
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-surve
>>y
>>-
>>01.txt
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-manageme
>>n
>>t
>>-00.txt
>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shima-cloud-net-portability-reqs-and-mo
>>d
>>e
>>ls-00.txt
>>Cloud Service Broker:
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-sur
>>v
>>e
>>y-00.txt
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-opsawg-policies-migration-gap-analys
>>i
>>s
>>-00.txt
>>

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:29:56 +0000

Dear Junsheng,

Personally I agree DC resource management is a valuable area of work with a lot of problems and issues that need to be addresses.  I see tremendous amount of inefficiency in data center today.  Quoting a study presented at last IETF meeting, the typical mega data center’s server utilization is at low end of 10-20%.  I listed many requirements in my VDCS draft to improve the virtual resource “traffic engineering” in data centers.  I am willing to work with anyone on the solutions needed to alleviate this problem, and this is an open cooperation invitation to everyone.

That being said, there are only two drafts concerning DC resource management so far (including yours) to use the consolidated slot of 20 min.   I might be able to persuade other co-authors on the generic framework co-authors to not present at this meeting.  That would give each of you 10 min.  Would that work?  Of course we always have the option of differing the problem to the WG chairs.  

I have no visibility into how many drafts are requesting presentation slots, or how crowed the WG agenda is.  I am helping this in good faith and trust.  Hopefully not upsetting too many people in the process.  

Best regards,

Ning So

(office) 972-729-7905

(Cell) 972-955-0914

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:47 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Hidetoshi Yokota
Subject: RE: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Dear Ning 

After consulting the co-author's opinions, we believe that the idea of the vrm (virtual resource management) 
draft is clear and it deserves presentation slot for meaningful discussion during the meeting. 

For your convenience, I briefly introduce our idea here. 
The coexisting of multiple types of Hypervisors in one data centre environment creates highly segmented data 
center fragments, and a variety of Hypervisor APIs complicate the implementation of the unified resource 
management platform in DC. So we propose a unified resource management API to screen the influence of different 
Hypervisors to the unified resource management platform, but still flexibily satisfy the service/application 
resource requirements in one Hypervisor environment. 

Thanks. 

2011-07-13 22:29 

收件人

[email-masked] 

抄送

[email-masked], [email-masked], Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]> 

主题

		

Dear Junsheng, 

Best regards, 
  
Ning So 

Hi Ning 

Thanks. 

"So, Ning" <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > 
发件人:  [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  

2011-07-13 10:15 

收件人

Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >, [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  

抄送

主题

  

Hidetoshi,

1.  Drafts that co-authors believe are clearly written and defined that
can stand on its own, and deserves presentation slot for meaningful
discussion during the meeting.  So far two drafts' authors have spoken
up in this category: my VPN-oriented Data Center Services draft
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-00.txt <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-00.txt> )  and Yingjie's Policies
and Dynamic Information Migration draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-00.txt <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-00.txt> ).

2.  Drafts with unclear definitions and/or FYI type of drafts that can
use some further discussion outside of valuable IETF meeting time.
Those draft can be consolidated together and use a single time slot.
Hidetoshi, I assume, with your reply, that your draft falls into this
category (Managing Service Mobility for Virtualized Networks:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management-01 <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management-01> .
txt).  Please let me know if my understanding is not correct.  I will
put two more drafts that I co-authored into this category, although I
have not yet get the agreement from all the co-authors.  They are
Security Framework for Virtualized Data Center Services
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-00.txt <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-00.txt> )
and  Cloud Reference Framework
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-01.tx <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-01.tx> 
t).  

Cloud Industry Work Item Survey Results:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey- <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-> 
01.txt
Virtual Network Management Information Model:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt> 
Virtual Resource Management in Cloud:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management> 
-00.txt
Network Portability Requirements and Models for Cloud Environment:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shima-cloud-net-portability-reqs-and-mode <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shima-cloud-net-portability-reqs-and-mode> 
ls-00.txt
Cloud Service Broker:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-cloud-service-broker-00.txt <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-cloud-service-broker-00.txt> 
Policies and Dynamic Information Migration in DCs: Solution Survey:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-surve <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-surve> 
y-00.txt
Survey and Gap Analysis For Policies and Dynamic Information Migrations
in DCs:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-opsawg-policies-migration-gap-analysis <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-opsawg-policies-migration-gap-analysis> 
-00.txt

Best regards,

Ning So

-----Original Message-----

Hi Ning,

Regards,
--
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/12 23:37), So, Ning wrote:
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] <mailto:[mailto:[email-masked]]>  *On 
> *Cc:* [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]%20%0b> 
> <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]%20%0b> 
> <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >> wrote:
> 

> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Bradner
> 
> +1 617 495 3864 <tel:%2B1%20617%20495%203864 <tel:%2B1%20617%20495%203864> >
> 
> 29 Oxford St., Room 407
> 
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> 
> www.harvard.edu/huit <http://www.harvard.edu/huit>  <http://www.harvard.edu/huit <http://www.harvard.edu/huit> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> 

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> 
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:56:55 +0900

Dear Ning,

>Sure, I will categorize your draft as a part of the DC resource management effort.

Thank you for categorizing our draft as the part of the DC resource management.

>As for re-do the categories, since there are only two drafts so far in the area of DC resource management, and other drafts touches different and often multiple areas, it might be best to leave them…

I understood your situation.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,
Toshiaki

---

From: Michael Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:14:51 -0700

Scott,

In response to your call for authors of IDs which do not fit in the category of "data center management and virtual processor puzzle" to let themselves be known, I am requesting a separate time slot to discuss our draft on the dynamic virtual network engine.

Our draft (draft-ko-dvn-problem-statement) examines the problems and challenges associated with the process of setting up network connections among authorized nodes.  It concludes that to handle the connectivity and security problems, it would be desirable to have a central repository to coordinate the connection process.  It also concludes that a protocol would be needed for the interaction between a central repository and a network node and potentially between the network nodes themselves.

In the draft titled "Policies and dynamic information migration in DC" (draft-gu-opsa-policies-migration), Yingjie Gu discussed the problem of "what" needs to be migrated in a VM migration, such as configuration data and operational state information.  A corollary problem of "where" it should be migrated to is not covered.  And in his companion draft titled "Policies and dynamic information migration in DCs: Solution Survey" (draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-survey), Yingjie concluded that a middle solution using a central repository (called "coordinator" in his draft) is a better solution than the other two alternatives (fully centralized or fully distributed).  The dynamic virtual network engine is such a central repository.  It provides all the functions need in a central repository called for in Yingjie's draft.  With the appropriate status informatin provided by the network nodes in its database, the central repository can also be used to answer the "where" part of the VM migration equation.  Hidetoshi Yokota raised the question on how to establish and maintain security among the network devices.  This can be facilitated by having a central repository to disseminate information such as accessing certificate fingerprint, key generation, security strategy, etc.  Yingjie stated that as a disvantage for the preferred solution, "New mechanism is needed to support [the] DI migration [of] asymmetric structure[s]."  My draft is a step in that direction.

Mike

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:24:41 +0000

Keiichi,

I think chairs concerns are two folds: one, there is not enough time to grand all presentation requests; two, there has been no discussion on the mailing list for most of the DC related drafts.  

Personally I saw the first one coming.  DC and WAN jointly offering carrier-style service and VM moving outside of DC are very new areas of work for IETF, so flood of new drafts are expected.  I am only surprised that we do not have more drafts, especially from more established companies in this area.

Mailing list discussion has improved a lot recently.  Hopefully it will continue to remain robust, because that is the only sign that people are actually interested in the work.  The downside of it is people are overwhelmed. 

I agree with you that requirements should come first, and then solutions.  The debate and discussion on requirements will also clear up the confusion on definition, because requirements have to address how and why something is required.  

I have no problem working with you and the co-authors of two drafts to present DC Resource management requirement only.  I have a section in the VDCS draft addresses the same issues, so I can merge that section into the same presentation.   

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: Keiichi SHIMA [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Keiichi SHIMA
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:49 AM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Hello Ning, all,

I'm not sure if it is a good idea or not that just presenting the current existing two drafts you categorized as DC resource management area.  It will not be enough to provide higher-level view of requirements for DC resource management.

At this moment, each author is trying to pick one specific problem he is focusing, and define requirements (of the specific topic) and provide solutions (of the specific topic).  But I think the chair's intention was to review/define the entire requirements and solutions specific to virtual resource management problems.  We can group current existing drafts to several categories even now, but, without total view of the requirements of virtual resource management, we cannot judge if our works can complete the requirements.

I think the categories that Toshiaki provided in his previous mail is a good starting point to review all the requirements of DC resource management.  How about starting to make such requirements list first rather than trying to tackle specific issues?

---
Keiichi SHIMA  <[email-masked]>
WIDE Project http://www.wide.ad.jp/

On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:13 PM, So, Ning wrote:

>>> I do not really have a game plan.  I am trying my best to do 
>>> something following WG chairs' directions.  I have found that all 
>>> data center related drafts in OPSAWG falls into three categories:
>>> 
>>> meaningful discussion during the meeting.  So far two drafts' 
>>> authors have spoken up in this category: my VPN-oriented Data Center 
>>> Services draft
>>> (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-00.txt)  and Yingjie's 
>>> Policies and Dynamic Information Migration draft 
>>> 2.  Drafts with unclear definitions and/or FYI type of drafts that 
>>> can use some further discussion outside of valuable IETF meeting time.
>>> Hidetoshi, I assume, with your reply, that your draft falls into 
>>> this category (Managing Service Mobility for Virtualized Networks:
>>> txt).  Please let me know if my understanding is not correct.  I 
>>> will put two more drafts that I co-authored into this category, 
>>> although I have not yet get the agreement from all the co-authors.  
>>> They are Security Framework for Virtualized Data Center Services 
>>> 3.  Remaining data center related drafts that are waiting on 
>>> co-author direction and/or WG chair directions.  I have them listed below.
>>>

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:45:07 +0000

Scott, Chris, and all,

So far two drafts volunteered to consolidate their presentation requests together.  Other drafts either did not request presentation slot (at least both framework drafts I co-authored, not to my knowledge), or the co-authors believe that they drafts are addressing a very different aspect of the DC issues that consolidation is not beneficial or possible.  

Seems a common set of DC resource management requirement is a good starting point for the consolidated work instead of a common operational model.   We will work on that and hopefully to produce something before the meeting.

Please speak up if my understanding of consensus is wrong.   

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

We have had a large number of requests for short timeslots in the opsawg session for IDs dealing with specific parts of the data center management and virtual processor puzzle.  

There is not enough time during the session to let each of the requesters give short presentations on their IDs and, even if there were enough time, short talks presenting IDs is not an effective way for the working group to understand just what each ID is proposing and where it fits into a whole.

But, more importantly in this case, the working group has not developed a common understanding concerning an operational model of the management of virtual resources in a data center (including, for example, a definition and a description of hypervisors and their role in the management architectures) so it does not make much sense to have a parade of presentations when we do not know how they all might fit together or even if they would fit the same model.

We request that the ID authors and others working in this area get together and select someone to provide a 15 or 20 min overview of a proposed operational model to the working group in Quebec City.  The presentation should include, at the end, a list of IDs and where each of those IDs fits in the model.  

It is too late to produce an ID of this information before Quebec City but it would be good to do so for publication after the meeting.

Please let us know if you think an ID that you have asked for time to present and looks like it fits in the above group actually does not.

But, as we have said before, we are not much on presentations of IDs that have generated no interest on the mailing list.

Scott & Chris

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:21:24 -0400

what I was looking for was a roadmap so maybe calling it a common operational model was
not the right thing to do - I'd like to see one presentation and discussion that says how 
the various IDs fit on a map (even if they are in the next city) - there needs to be
some sort of map of the problems being solved that can be presented

just to be clear - we will not be providing a bunch of slots for people to present individual IDs but will
be providing a extended slot to talk about such a map if someone is ready to do that

Scott

Scott Bradner

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:13:12 +0000

WARNING: contains banned part

Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg
From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:13:12 +0000

All,

Based on Scott's latest instruction, here is my view of the plan of
actions.  I have made three drawings depicting generic data center
oriented infrastructure from three different levels. (Attached in the
e-mail).   I think those drawings covered most of the work areas the
drafts addressed.   Please review the drawings and send me the
modifications suggestions to me as you see fit.  

After the modification and agreement to the drawings, all IDs can be
given a number and marked on the drawings on the areas of work it
covers.   In the case where multiple IDs addressing the exact same areas
of work, they can be grouped together into the same number.  I will send
out the grouping number later.

Both drawings and groups are subject to changes and consensus, as usual.
I will serve as the editor for now.  Please feel free to send me any
suggestion privately or publically.  

Best regards,

Ning So

(office) 972-729-7905

(Cell) 972-955-0914

From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 7:21 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

what I was looking for was a roadmap so maybe calling it a common
operational model was

not the right thing to do - I'd like to see one presentation and
discussion that says how 

the various IDs fit on a map (even if they are in the next city) - there
needs to be

just to be clear - we will not be providing a bunch of slots for people
to present individual IDs but will

be providing a extended slot to talk about such a map if someone is
ready to do that

Scott

Scott, Chris, and all,

So far two drafts volunteered to consolidate their presentation requests
together.  Other drafts either did not request presentation slot (at
least both framework drafts I co-authored, not to my knowledge), or the
co-authors believe that they drafts are addressing a very different
aspect of the DC issues that consolidation is not beneficial or
possible.  

Seems a common set of DC resource management requirement is a good
starting point for the consolidated work instead of a common operational
model.   We will work on that and hopefully to produce something before
the meeting.

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----

Scott & Chris

Scott Bradner

+1 617 495 3864

29 Oxford St., Room 407

Cambridge, MA 02138

www.harvard.edu/huit

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:50:44 +0000

Thank you Melinda and Bhumip for pointing out that PowerPoint is not the universal standard :)  Here is the pdf and JPG version (3 files).  

Best regards,
 
Ning So

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:00:01 +0000

All,

Not sure what happened to my 1st e-mail's content.  I am sending it out again.  It is important because it contains the plan of actions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,

Based on Scott's latest instruction, here is my view of the plan of actions.  I have made three drawings depicting generic data center oriented infrastructure from three different levels. (Attached in the e-mail).   I think those drawings covered most of the work areas the drafts addressed.   Please review the drawings and send me the modifications suggestions as you see fit.  

After the modification and agreement to the drawings, all IDs can be given a number and marked on the drawings on the areas of work it covers.   In the case where multiple IDs addressing the exact same areas of work, they can be grouped together into the same number.  I will send out the number assignment later.

Both drawings and group numbers are subject to changes and consensus, as usual.  I will serve as the editor for now.  Please feel free to send me any suggestion privately or publically.  

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Best regards,
 
Ning So

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:47:40 +0900

Hello Ning

Thank you for drawing the initial draft of the top level view of components related to DC resource management.  I think it is a good starting point.

I want to add one thing to your slide.

* Inter-DC technology components and its functions
By virtualizing DC components, it is becoming much easier than before to relocate resources between DCs.  Currently we sometimes do that in the same DC (like vm migration, storage migration, etc), but we may need to consider such operation between different DCs.  Our draft (draft-shima-clouds-net-portability-reqs-and-models-00) is focusing one of the problems of this area.

Regards,
---

On Jul 19, 2011, at 4:13 AM, So, Ning wrote:

> All,
>  
> Based on Scott’s latest instruction, here is my view of the plan of actions.  I have made three drawings depicting generic data center oriented infrastructure from three different levels. (Attached in the e-mail).   I think those drawings covered most of the work areas the drafts addressed.   Please review the drawings and send me the modifications suggestions to me as you see fit. 
>  
> After the modification and agreement to the drawings, all IDs can be given a number and marked on the drawings on the areas of work it covers.   In the case where multiple IDs addressing the exact same areas of work, they can be grouped together into the same number.  I will send out the grouping number later.
>  
> Both drawings and groups are subject to changes and consensus, as usual.  I will serve as the editor for now.  Please feel free to send me any suggestion privately or publically. 
>  
>  
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Ning So
> <Generic Data Center and Network Drawing.pptx>

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:01:40 +0000

Keiichi,

Yes, I agree with your statement.  Inter-DC VM/Storage migration, DC restoration (to other DCs), global load balancing (among multiple DCs), and the related topics are very important issues for DC service providers and operators.  

What Scott proposed to do is to mark the drawings on the areas that individual draft addresses.  It is difficult to illustrate the mobility, so perhaps we can draw a dotted line linking the draft marking (a number) to indicate it is the relationship between the two parts that matter.   

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: Keiichi SHIMA [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Keiichi SHIMA
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:48 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: Keiichi SHIMA; Scott O. Bradner; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Hello Ning

* Inter-DC technology components and its functions By virtualizing DC components, it is becoming much easier than before to relocate resources between DCs.  Currently we sometimes do that in the same DC (like vm migration, storage migration, etc), but we may need to consider such operation between different DCs.  Our draft (draft-shima-clouds-net-portability-reqs-and-models-00) is focusing one of the problems of this area.

Regards,
---

On Jul 19, 2011, at 4:13 AM, So, Ning wrote:

> All,
>  
> Based on Scott's latest instruction, here is my view of the plan of actions.  I have made three drawings depicting generic data center oriented infrastructure from three different levels. (Attached in the e-mail).   I think those drawings covered most of the work areas the drafts addressed.   Please review the drawings and send me the modifications suggestions to me as you see fit. 
>  
> operational model was not the right thing to do - I'd like to see one 
> presentation and discussion that says how the various IDs fit on a map 
> (even if they are in the next city) - there needs to be some sort of 
> map of the problems being solved that can be presented
>  
> just to be clear - we will not be providing a bunch of slots for 
> people to present individual IDs but will be providing a extended slot 
> to talk about such a map if someone is ready to do that
>  
> Scott
>  
> Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
> Harvard University Information Technology Security | Policy, Risk & 
> Compliance
> +1 617 495 3864
> 29 Oxford St., Room 407
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> www.harvard.edu/huit
>  
> 
> 
>

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:12:35 +0000

All,

My original e-mail was truncated due to the PowerPoint attachment.   Although I sent out the drawing in pdf and JPG files later, I was told that the PDF file was slightly corrupted as well.  It might be easier for authors to make the modifications to the drawing and to mark the drafts on a good powerpoint and/or pdf file.  Thanks to Bhumip for helping me uploading the files into the following wiki site.  The drawings are the last two files.

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/attachment/wiki/Clouds/

I highly recommend all DC draft co-authors to look through the drawings and send me the modification/improvement suggestions as soon as possible.    

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

All,

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Best regards,
 
Ning So

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:29:11 +0000

All,

Below are the active data center related drafts currently submitted under OPSAWG, and my proposed group number assignment to be used to mark the drawings sent out earlier.  I intentionally kept most of the IDs with separate number assignments as long as they do not have identical work area coverage.   The only exceptions are Group #10, where four generic IDs that covers the entire work space, and group #9, where three IDs supplementing each other.  

Please note it is the responsibility of each draft authors to mark the drawings with the number assigned to your draft, since you know what's in your draft the best.  Again, I will serve as the editor for now to compile everyone's input together.  Please send your marked drawings to me privately (NOT through WG mailing list), so the files won't be corrupted.  I will do my best to keep everyone informed of the progress on the WG mailing list.  

1.	Requirement and Framework for VPN-Oriented Data Center Services ( http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-00.txt )
2.	Virtual Resource Management in Cloud ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management-00.txt )
3.	Managing Service Mobility for Virtualized Networks ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management-01.txt )   
4.	Virtual Network Management Information Model ( http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt )
5.	Network Portability Requirements and Models for Cloud Environment ( http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shima-cloud-net-portability-reqs-and-models-00.txt)
6.	Cloud Service Broker ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-cloud-service-broker-00.txt )  
7.	Problem Statement for Setting Up Dynamic Virtual Network ( http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ko-dvn-problem-statement-00.txt )
8.	Syslog Extension for Cloud Using Syslog Structured Data ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-golovinsky-cloud-services-log-format-00.txt )
9.	Policies and dynamic information migration in DCs (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-00.txt ) 
	Policies and dynamic information migration in DCs: Solution Survey  (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-survey-00.txt ) 
	Survey and Gap Analysis for Policies and Dynamic Information Migration in Data Center ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-opsawg-policies-migration-gap-	analysis-00.txt ) 
10.	Cloud Industry Workitem Survey Results ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey-01.txt )  
	Cloud SDO Activities Survey and Analysis ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey-01.txt )
	Cloud Reference Framework ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-01.txt)
	Security Framework for Virtualized Data Center Services ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-00.txt )

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

All,

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

All,

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Best regards,
 
Ning So

---

From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:33:18 +0000

Hi all,
Maybe I missed some decision announcement. Will none of the data center related topic gets a slot?
I will send Ning my marked drawings. But I still hope the wg chairs could assgin a separated slot for the policies migration topic, because we think the topic has raised some discussions and is concrete enough to be discussed in valuable wg session time. 
Thank you very much.

________________________________________
发件人: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] 代表 So, Ning [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2011年7月19日 22:29
到: [email-masked]
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

All,

Best regards,

Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

All,

Best regards,

Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

All,

Best regards,

Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of So, Ning
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Best regards,

Ning So

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:34:34 -0800

> I will send Ning my marked drawings. But I still hope the wg chairs could assgin a separated slot for the policies migration topic, because we think the topic has raised some discussions and is con…

I really think the stuff on service migration is distinct from much of
the the other "data center" topics (FWIW I don't like the "data center"
rubric - too broad, too general) in that there's a technical framework and
actual technical content and a specific piece of work to discuss.  I'd be
sorry to see meeting time taken up with just a presentation of what's
in the documents, though.

Melinda

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:55:54 +0900

Dear Ning,

Thank you for depicting the initial draft for mapping the all IDs.

>4. Virtual Network Management Information Model 
>  (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt )

I would like to inform you of a relation between your slides and 
our draft. Our proposal mainly relates to a network management 
system in the Data Center A of the slide 3. Especially, the 
draft proposes an integrated management framework, which is
composed of an information model and data model, to control 
both physical and virtual network resources.

And also, I would like to propose an enhancement on the figure 3.
How about adding a key-word "Management System" in the 
"Data-Center Core/Gateway Tier"? The reason is that 
the figure seems mainly to focus on a network architecture and 
to lack the viewpoint of the management.

Best regards,
Toshiaki Suzuki and Hideki Okita

***?TEL: +81-45-860-2177

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:00:38 +0000

Dear Toshiaki and Hideki,

In today's typical data center the data center management function is performed by two entities:  one is hypervisor manages the VMs and physical servers, another is what I call functional servers, performs the traditional network management functions such as provisioning, billing, and so on (it is attached to Data center Core/Gateway switch already in the drawing as you pointed out).  

I agree with your proposal, which is to have a unified DC management model.  For now, since we do not have a commonly agreed next generation DC framework drawing, can I mark your draft on both Hypervisor and the Functional Servers?

Best regards,
 
Ning So

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:56 PM
To: So, Ning
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] data center/ process virtulization IDs in opsawg

Dear Ning,

>  (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-04.txt )

I would like to inform you of a relation between your slides and our draft. Our proposal mainly relates to a network management system in the Data Center A of the slide 3. Especially, the draft proposes an integrated management framework, which is composed of an information model and data model, to control both physical and virtual network resources.

And also, I would like to propose an enhancement on the figure 3.
How about adding a key-word "Management System" in the "Data-Center Core/Gateway Tier"? The reason is that the figure seems mainly to focus on a network architecture and to lack the viewpoint of the management.

Best regards,

>	Security Framework for Virtualized Data Center Services ( 
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-00.txt 
>)
>
> 
>Best regards,
> 
>Ning So