Subject: Where at IETF is done: cloud computing, small cells, base station?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:01:09 +0100

Where at IETF is done: cloud  computing, small cells, base station?

Hello IETFers,

I am trying to identify where at IETF are works related to cloud
computing, small cells, base stations?

I could think of some of the groups in the Internet Area which relate to
mobility management and a 3GPP stance.

I could think of an old BoF 'clouds', but not sure what did it give?

Thanks in advance,

Alex

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:23:08 -0500

> computing, small cells, base stations?

Cloud Computing:
      http://ogf.org/

OGF, as I recall, started a group of high-energy physics people who wanted
computing, but felt that the IETF didn't need to participate.  I recall they
came to a meeting and basically said, "do you mind if we use RFC2026 and your
formats in another body", and they went and did that.

Small Cells:
      layer one/two issue.
      We do layer three :-)

Base stations:
     layer two issue.

You shouldn't assume that the IETF does everything.
The IETF is not the SDO to rule them all...

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:50:57 +0200

> formats in another body", and they went and did that.

Implications of small cells on IETF protocols is what we can discuss in relevant WGs.
Alex, do you have specific items in mind?

Alper

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:38:23 -0800

Hi Alex,
>I could think of an old BoF 'clouds', but not sure what did it give?

See 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds/current/msg00209.html  I 
suggest looking in why past efforts were mitigated successes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:18:06 -0700

On 11/15/13 12:38 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Alex, At 08:01 15-11-2013, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> I could think of some of the groups in the Internet Area which
>> relate to mobility management and a 3GPP stance.
>> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds/current/msg00209.html
> I suggest looking in why past efforts were mitigated successes.

Or outright failures. See:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds/current/msg00272.html

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:42:44 +0100

Alex,

let me select cloud computing.

It is a marketing term that does not immediately relate to any specific 
technology as such. When you look at some service offerings that claim 
to offer cloud computing functionality then you will see that it is 
mostly Web-related stuff. So, all the good stuff the IETF had done on 
HTTP, TLS, TCP, OAuth, etc. is relevant.

Having said that there will be other folks who have a different 
understanding of cloud computing and then other IETF protocols will be 
relevant.

So, it really depends what you have in mind (which is also what Alper 
asks).

The IAB regularly gets similar questions in liaison statements from the 
ITU-T, and similiar organizations and we are in general a hard time to 
answer them.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:11:38 -0800

On 11/15/2013 12:42 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> technology as such.

That's true for the term now, but it came out of a meaningful technical 
enhancement.

Specifically, it originally referred to very rapidly increased and 
potentially very large-scaled remote computing.

The capability of calling on vastly larger amounts of remote computer 
extremely quickly was a significant innovation, over historical models 
of remote computing.

But yeah, today it just means "somebody else runs the machine."

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:33:29 -0500

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

Quite.

Cloud computing is not really an idea of how to do computing at all. It is
simply a gap that appeared on a lot of people's Powerpoint slides that
essentially means 'I am not going to be the one thinking about this'.

And that is an OK thing to do. It is perfectly OK to say that the problems
of deployment, security, yadda yadda are going to be handled magically by
someone else and there are a lot of competent companies who can do that.

But the fact that we have all those people doing different things and
calling them 'cloud computing' does not mean that they are all the same. We
have software as a service all the way down to infrastructure as a service.

And even if everyone was talking about the same thing that is not the same
as being able to turn that thing into a fungible commodity which is what a
standard is for.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 14:01:36 +1300

>> formats in another body", and they went and did that.

Not quite right.

Firstly, OGF was formed by the the merger of GGF (Global Grid Forum) which was
always a technical organisation and OGA (Open Grid Alliance) which was mainly
a marketing organisation.

GGF was not started by high-energy physicists, but it did grow out of Big Science
requirements for distributed data handling and computing. Several suites
of grid computing software appeared from the Big Science community and one of
them became the LHC Computing Grid, which is where the high-energy physicists
came in.

GGF did model its procedures to a considerable extent, but not entirely,
on the IETF. There were overlapping people, including me.

The point is that real operational software suites and real computing
grids came out of GGF/OGF and associated activities. And they are trying
to do the same for clouds. They have published an "Open Cloud
Computing Interface (OCCI) Specification" recently:

http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.183.pdf
http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.184.pdf
http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.185.pdf

    Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:45:05 +0100

Le 15/11/2013 20:38, SM a écrit :
> See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds/current/msg00209.html

Thanks for the pointer.

Anyone knows what a subsequent Cloud AMRD BoF gave? ("Address Resolution
for Massive amount of hosts in one broadcast Domain")

Alex

> Regards, -sm

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:46:55 +0100

> formats in another body", and they went and did that.

Maybe it's even lower than 0 layer, because it is often a matter of 
planning prior to deployment.

>       layer two issue.

Right, they should call it "IP Networking old Base Station" == Access 
Router.

> The IETF is not the SDO to rule them all...

I agree with you Michael.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:49:17 +0100

> Alex, do you have specific items in mind?

Not quite sure.  I am asking on behalf of a colleague involved in a 2nd 
year collaborative project ("TROPIC").  They may be interested in what 
IETF is doing in this space.  She asked me details about IETF and I 
didnt know what to answer.

Alex

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:18:48 +0000

Hi Alex,

I believe that you mean ARMD - which led to the creation of a WG which was concluded - see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/armd/

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Alexandru Petrescu
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:00:29 -0800

Hi Alex,
>for Massive amount of hosts in one broadcast Domain")

A working group was formed and it was a failure.  The NVO3 working 
group was formed after that.

For what it is worth the first working group I was formally involved 
in was a failure.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:35:21 -0900

On 11/18/13 6:18 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I believe that you mean ARMD - which led to the creation of a WG
> which was concluded - see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/armd/

The "cloud" effort was pretty misguided and for the most part
took the form of a fishing expedition to try to figure out
whether or not there was anything there to work on.  It was
far too top-down and heavily orchestrated to be successful in the
IETF, and so it wasn't.  It did, however, lead to a flood of
data center-related drafts in the ops area, a few of which
were interesting.  The data center stuff has now dispersed into
more appropriate areas/working groups.

But that's the "cloud"history - can't speak to the other two
topics.

Melinda