From replogle at ogf.org Mon Feb 1 08:12:22 2010 From: replogle at ogf.org (Joel Replogle) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:12:22 -0500 Subject: [scrm-wg] Reminder SCRM/Cloud Standard meeting Monday 2/1 In-Reply-To: <4B666357.40406@sun.com> References: <4B666357.40406@sun.com> Message-ID: <52E33C65-0D05-42DA-A2A0-20723D2EF52C@ogf.org> FYI: Four OCCI specs are now in public comment; feel free to review and comment on these at: http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/?public_comment Also the OCCI use cases and requirements document is published as GFD.162 at: http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs Thanks, Joel On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Mark A. Carlson wrote: > 6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST > > Call info: > > (866)5455227 code: 6300276# > International: (215) 446-3648 > > Agenda: > > Cloud Wiki Updates? > > SCRM Wiki Updates? > > Events updates? > > > Topics Page: > http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Topics > > SDO specific terms and pictures? > > Demo Page: > http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Demos > > Separate weekly meeting on demo planning and organization > Please take this doodle poll if interested: > > http://doodle.com/wi6h4wkid67qcqch > > -- > scrm-wg mailing list > scrm-wg at ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/scrm-wg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Replogle Executive Director, Open Grid Forum replogle at ogf.org http://www.ogf.org From Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM Mon Feb 15 07:51:28 2010 From: Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM (Mark A. Carlson) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:51:28 -0700 Subject: [scrm-wg] Reminder SCRM/Cloud Standard meeting Monday 2/15 In-Reply-To: <4B666357.40406@sun.com> References: <4B666357.40406@sun.com> Message-ID: <4B795160.2070500@sun.com> 6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST Call info: (866)5455227 code: 6300276# International: (215) 446-3648 Agenda: Cloud Wiki Updates? SNIA update SCRM Wiki Updates? Events updates? Separate weekly meeting on demo planning and organization http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo 8am PT every Wednesday - same call info From dromasca at avaya.com Wed Feb 17 03:06:25 2010 From: dromasca at avaya.com (Romascanu, Dan (Dan)) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:06:25 +0100 Subject: [scrm-wg] FW: [IRTF-Announce] New IRTF research group on virtual networks (VNRG) Message-ID: This information is probably interesting for the community. Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: irtf-announce-bounces at irtf.org [mailto:irtf-announce-bounces at irtf.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Falk Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:28 PM To: IRTF Announcements Subject: [IRTF-Announce] New IRTF research group on virtual networks (VNRG) A new IRTF research group on virtual networks has been created. Charter included below. --aaron IRTF Chair ----------------------------------------------------------- Virtual Networks Research Group (VNRG) Chairs Joe Touch touch at isi.edu Martin Stiemerling stiemerling at nw.neclab.eu Mailing List The email list is vnrg at irtf.org . You need to be a list member to send mail to the list. To subscribe, visit the VNRG mail page or send an email to vnrg-request at irtf.org . An archive of the email list is available at VNRG mail archive . Wiki Site See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/vnrg. Charter A recent trend in networking is the concurrent use of a single physical network for multiple variants or instances of networks, e.g., IPv4 and some experimental protocol suite, or VLANs. These networks, called Virtual Networks, provide isolation between network instances or types and support shared use of the same infrastructure for different purposes. Virtual networks attempt to better utilize networking infrastructure by reusing individual routers or links (i.e., either physical or logical networking resource) for multiple concurrent network instances, or to aggregate multiple such resources to obtain increased capabilities. These resources can be any network component, including routers, hosts, links, and services, (e.g., name mapping services). Increased capability can refer to aggregate capacity provided by bundles of links or groups of routers, or increased fault tolerance of a cluster of primary and backup service systems. Important properties of Virtual Networks (VNs) are i) that each resource can be used concurrently by multiple VN instances, ii) the clear isolation of any VN from all others, and iii) abstraction, in which a given virtual resource (host, link, router, service) need not directly correspond to its component resources. These properties need to be supported down to each physical component, such that each router, host, and link supports concurrence, isolation, and abstraction. In the network community, "Virtual Networks" is a very broad term, including running multiple wavelengths over a fiber, MPLS, virtual routers, and overlay systems. VN technologies are widely used in parts of the Internet and other IP-based networks, but the community lacks a common understanding of the impact of virtualized networks on IP networking, or how VNs are best utilized. As a result, virtualization has been difficult to integrate across various systems, such as network operators, vendors, service providers and testbed providers (e.g. GENI, FEDERICA, etc). One current challenge with existing VN systems is the development of incompatible or competing networking techniques in the Internet, causing deployment issues in the future (or even now). For instance, there are numerous ways to virtualize routers and their internal resources (e.g., multiple, isolated routing and forwarding tables) and to virtualize core networks (e.g. MPLS, LISP), but end host virtualization has not been addressed (e.g., beyond the need for virtual interfaces). Few virtual network systems allow a particular virtual machine in an end host to control its attachment to a specific private network. The end host virtualization architecture also determines whether virtualization is per virtual machine, per process, or per connection -- and this difference can determine exactly how the end host can participate in VNs. Similar issues arise for virtual services, virtual links, etc. The VNRG will consider the whole system of a VN and not only single components or a limited set of components; we will identify architectural challenges resulting from VNs, addressing network management of VNs, and exploring emerging technological and implementation issues. Initial set of work items: * concepts/background/terminology * common parts of VN architectures * common problems/challenges in VN * descriptions of appropriate uses * some solutions (per-problem perhaps) The RG will initially focus on VNs but at a later stage the RG will also be open to related topics, such as system virtualization. Organization The Virtual Networks Research Group (VNRG) provides a forum for interchange of ideas among a group of network researchers with an interest in network virtualization in the context of the Internet and also beyond the current Internet. The VNRG will encourage the organization of the work in smaller design teams focused on specific areas of research. The design teams will use the general mailing list in order to allow the broader community to follow the evolution of their topics. Most of the communication inside the VNRG will be done through use of mailing lists, however, the group will hold regular physical meetings at least once a year in conjunction with IETF meetings. Additional meetings may be held at IETF or other venues, such as in conjunction with related conferences and workshops. Related meetings may include research conferences and workshops, such as ACM CONEXT ReArch, IEEE Globecom FutureNet, NSF GENI Engineering Conferences, ACM Sigcomm VISA; national research efforts, such as NSF's Find, Japan's Akari, and the EU's Trilogy, 4WARD, and Euroview, and related summer schools. The VNRG will produce Informational and Experimental RFCs in order to document the activity of the group and to formalize the outcome of the research topics carried by the group. In addition, such documentation could become input to IETF working groups. The VNRG will also encourage prototyping of virtual network technologies to validate this exploration. Membership The VNRG operates in an open fashion (meetings & mailing list). _______________________________________________ IRTF-Announce mailing list IRTF-Announce at irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce From Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM Fri Feb 26 11:28:06 2010 From: Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM (Mark A. Carlson) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:28:06 -0700 Subject: [scrm-wg] Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 Message-ID: <4B8804A6.6060902@sun.com> 6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST Call info: (866)5455227 code: 6300276# International: (215) 446-3648 Agenda: Reuven Cohen has offered to turn over the CCIF google group forum for use by this group. Here are the resources that he has accumulated: 1. 1170 members on the Google Group 2. #1 result for cloud interoperability among others. 3. Linkedin Groups, 1,375 Members 4. Twitter Account, @CloudForum > 4931 followers 5. www.cloudforum.org > SEO Page rank of 5 (which is really good) 6. Attendee & sponsorship Lists from the events in New York and San Franciso We will discuss if it makes sense to use this as a broader discussion group around open cloud standards. Cloud Demo update - Mark Cloud Wiki Updates? http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page SCRM Wiki Updates? https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1479 Events updates? http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=CloudStandards:Current_events Cloud Standards Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards Cloud Demo Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-wg/attachments/20100226/16411329/attachment.html From wbumpus at vmware.com Fri Feb 26 16:57:58 2010 From: wbumpus at vmware.com (Winston Bumpus) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:57:58 -0800 Subject: [scrm-wg] Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 In-Reply-To: References: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D5C3@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> Message-ID: Mark, Thanks for bringing this forward to the group. I think this is a generous offer. I also believe it is an important collection of folks who care about Cloud Interoperability. If we do take this on, we need to think about how to use this megaphone. I think there is an opportunity to be a win-win for all. I will think on this over the weekend and look forward to exploring this with folks on Monday morning. Thanks, Winston Bumpus President, DMTF www.dmtf.org Director of Standards Architecture VMware, Inc. 650.427.2787 | Voice 650.644.7968 | Mobile www.VMware.com/standards From: cloudstandards at googlegroups.com [mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Warner Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 10:53 AM To: cloudstandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG Cc: Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen Subject: Re: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 Laboring in anonymity? Why not just disband all together as that will provide the ultimate cloak of invisibility. Successful standards aren't those with superior technical meat. A standard gains mainstream adoption because people think "everyone else" is using it. To that end, Reuven has compiled an impressive cadre of followers. Why would anyone want to turn them away? What would be the reason to soldier on in a bunker when we can bring many others into the fold? Jim Warner On 2/26/10 12:35 PM, "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" wrote: With due respect to Reuven and his work, I do *not* think this group should anything with CCIF. Let us labor in anonymity and attract membership (and mindshare) by our work and demos. Just my ~$0.02. Cheers From: cloudstandards at googlegroups.com [mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark A. Carlson Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:28 AM To: CloudStandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG Cc: Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen Subject: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST Call info: (866)5455227 code: 6300276# International: (215) 446-3648 Agenda: Reuven Cohen has offered to turn over the CCIF google group forum for use by this group. Here are the resources that he has accumulated: 1. 1170 members on the Google Group 2. #1 result for cloud interoperability among others. 3. Linkedin Groups, 1,375 Members 4. Twitter Account, @CloudForum > 4931 followers 5. www.cloudforum.org > SEO Page rank of 5 (which is really good) 6. Attendee & sponsorship Lists from the events in New York and San Franciso We will discuss if it makes sense to use this as a broader discussion group around open cloud standards. Cloud Demo update - Mark Cloud Wiki Updates? http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page SCRM Wiki Updates? https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1479 Events updates? http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=CloudStandards:Current_events Cloud Standards Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards Cloud Demo Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cloudstandards" group. To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-wg/attachments/20100226/8c4b83e5/attachment.html From Craig.A.Lee at aero.org Fri Feb 26 17:43:18 2010 From: Craig.A.Lee at aero.org (Craig.A.Lee at aero.org) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:43:18 -0800 Subject: [scrm-wg] Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 In-Reply-To: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D7D4@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> References: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D5C3@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D7D4@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> Message-ID: All, What a lively debate -- hopefully it will generate more light than heat ;-> What has always struck me about any standards process is that there is a technical kernel of a problem wrapped in a maelstrom of social and market processes. I find myself trying to do what amounts to social engineering in an effort to move the technical ball forward. I'd be more than happy to discuss how we can move the technical ball forward through whatever set of demos that address major stakeholder requirements, and recruit all those that would like to participate and sponsor. Demos can be a forcing function that gets us past the powerpoint engineering and perhaps facilitate an emergent dominant practice. We only need to decide where, when, how, etc. (All trivial decisions ;->) --Craig At 3:03 PM -0800 2/26/10, Krishna Sankar (ksankar) wrote: >Good, let us start buying mailing lists and marketing materials. >That is a good way to start interoperability. What exactly is this >followers crap ? Are we buying into a cult ? > >Cheers > > >From: cloudstandards at googlegroups.com >[mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Warner >Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 10:53 AM >To: cloudstandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG >Cc: Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen >Subject: Re: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 > >Laboring in anonymity? Why not just disband all together as that >will provide the ultimate cloak of invisibility. > >Successful standards aren't those with superior technical meat. A >standard gains mainstream adoption because people think "everyone >else" is using it. To that end, Reuven has compiled an impressive >cadre of followers. Why would anyone want to turn them away? > >What would be the reason to soldier on in a bunker when we can bring >many others into the fold? > >Jim Warner > > >On 2/26/10 12:35 PM, "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <<>ksankar at cisco.com> wrote: >With due respect to Reuven and his work, I do *not* think this group >should anything with CCIF. Let us labor in anonymity and attract >membership (and mindshare) by our work and demos. >Just my ~$0.02. >Cheers > > > >From: <>cloudstandards at googlegroups.com >[mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com] >On Behalf Of Mark A. Carlson >Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:28 AM >To: <>CloudStandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG >Cc: Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen >Subject: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 > >6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST > >Call info: > >(866)5455227 code: 6300276# >International: (215) 446-3648 > >Agenda: > >Reuven Cohen has offered to turn over the CCIF google group ><http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum> > forum >for use by this group. Here are the resources that he has accumulated: > >1. 1170 members on the Google Group >2. #1 result for cloud interoperability among others. >3. Linkedin Groups, 1,375 Members >4. Twitter Account, @CloudForum > 4931 followers >5. www.cloudforum.org ><http://www.cloudforum.org> > SEO Page >rank of 5 (which is really good) >6. Attendee & sponsorship Lists from the events in New York and San Franciso > >We will discuss if it makes sense to use this as a broader discussion group >around open cloud standards. > >Cloud Demo update - Mark > >Cloud Wiki Updates? >http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page > >SCRM Wiki Updates? >https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1479 > >Events updates? >http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=CloudStandards:Current_events > >Cloud Standards Google Group: >http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards > >Cloud Demo Google Group: >http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo > >This message contains confidential information and is intended only >for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you >should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please >notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this >e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail >transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as >information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive >late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does >not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of >this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If >verification is required please request a hard-copy version. >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "cloudstandards" group. >To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com. >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "cloudstandards" group. >To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com. >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-wg/attachments/20100226/d5fee2ba/attachment-0001.html From samj at samj.net Fri Feb 26 21:48:38 2010 From: samj at samj.net (Sam Johnston) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:48:38 +0100 Subject: [scrm-wg] Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 In-Reply-To: References: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D5C3@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D7D4@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> Message-ID: <21606dcf1002261948g3112c7eer8b235a731deb2d7e@mail.gmail.com> Morning, I'm of mixed minds about this and while I was initially well and truly with Krishna ("*I do *not* think this group should anything with CCIF.*") there may be ways we can handle this which do not involve disbanding the CCIF altogether nor snuffing out the good work being done here. As I discussed with Mark today, I think the best thing to do is to keep the CCIF list separate from this group and use it as a "*broader discussion group around open cloud standards*". We can either import the CCIF members into this list and move to another or import the CCIF members into a new list (like cloudstandards-discuss), but whatever we do we should move it to a new home. Conversely, if we were to dump everyone in the same pot I think we'll achieve nothing but the loss of this functional (if toothless) communication channel, which would be literally killing two birds with one stone. If we can't nut something sensible out then let's not take any chances - inter-SDO communication channels are few and far between and we can always buy eyeballs! Sam -- *Sam Johnston* *Technical Program Manager* Site Reliability Engineering Google Switzerland GmbH On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:43 AM, wrote: > > All, > > What a lively debate -- hopefully it will generate more light than heat ;-> > > What has always struck me about any standards process is that there is a > technical kernel of a problem wrapped in a maelstrom of social and market > processes. I find myself trying to do what amounts to social engineering in > an effort to move the technical ball forward. I'd be more than happy to > discuss how we can move the technical ball forward through whatever set of > demos that address major stakeholder requirements, and recruit all those > that would like to participate and sponsor. Demos can be a forcing function > that gets us past the powerpoint engineering and perhaps facilitate an > emergent dominant practice. We only need to decide where, when, how, etc. > (All trivial decisions ;->) > > --Craig > > > At 3:03 PM -0800 2/26/10, Krishna Sankar (ksankar) wrote: > > Good, let us start buying mailing lists and marketing materials. That is a > good way to start interoperability. What exactly is this followers crap ? > Are we buying into a cult ? > > > > Cheers > > > > > > *From:* cloudstandards at googlegroups.com [mailto: > cloudstandards at googlegroups.com]* On Behalf Of* Jim Warner > *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2010 10:53 AM > *To:* cloudstandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG > *Cc:* Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen > *Subject:* Re: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 > > > > Laboring in anonymity? Why not just disband all together as that will > provide the ultimate cloak of invisibility. > > Successful standards aren't those with superior technical meat. A standard > gains mainstream adoption because people think "everyone else" is using it. > To that end, Reuven has compiled an impressive cadre of followers. Why > would anyone want to turn them away? > > What would be the reason to soldier on in a bunker when we can bring many > others into the fold? > > Jim Warner > > > On 2/26/10 12:35 PM, "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" wrote: > > With due respect to Reuven and his work, I do **not** think this group > should anything with CCIF. Let us labor in anonymity and attract membership > (and mindshare) by our work and demos. > Just my ~$0.02. > Cheers > > > > *From:* cloudstandards at googlegroups.com [ > mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com ]*On Behalf Of > * Mark A. Carlson > *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2010 9:28 AM > *To:* CloudStandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG > *Cc:* Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen > *Subject:* Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 > > 6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST > > Call info: > > (866)5455227 code: 6300276# > International: (215) 446-3648 > > Agenda: > > Reuven Cohen has offered to turn over the CCIF google group < > http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum> forum > for use by this group. Here are the resources that he has accumulated: > > 1. 1170 members on the Google Group > 2. #1 result for cloud interoperability among others. > 3. Linkedin Groups, 1,375 Members > 4. Twitter Account, @CloudForum > 4931 followers > 5. www.cloudforum.org > SEO Page rank of 5 > (which is really good) > 6. Attendee & sponsorship Lists from the events in New York and San > Franciso > > We will discuss if it makes sense to use this as a broader discussion group > around open cloud standards. > > Cloud Demo update - Mark > > Cloud Wiki Updates? > http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page > > SCRM Wiki Updates? > https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1479 > > Events updates? > http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=CloudStandards:Curre > nt_events > > Cloud Standards Google Group: > http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards > > Cloud Demo Google Group: > > http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo > > > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the > individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete > this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be > secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender > therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the > contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If > verification is required please request a hard-copy version. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "cloudstandards" group. > To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "cloudstandards" group. > To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "cloudstandards" group. > To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-wg/attachments/20100227/7f10d6c9/attachment.html From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Fri Feb 26 23:40:38 2010 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:40:38 +0900 Subject: [scrm-wg] Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 In-Reply-To: <21606dcf1002261948g3112c7eer8b235a731deb2d7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D5C3@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0998D7D4@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> <21606dcf1002261948g3112c7eer8b235a731deb2d7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B88B056.8000907@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi Sam, > As I discussed with Mark today, I think the best thing to do is > to keep the CCIF list separate from this group and use it as > a "/broader discussion group around open cloud standards/". I like your idea. Two lists should not be mixed. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[scrm-wg] Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 From: Sam Johnston To: cloudstandards at googlegroups.com Cc: Bob Marcus , Reuven Cohen , Mailing List for SCRM-WG Date: 2010/02/27 12:48 > Morning, > > I'm of mixed minds about this and while I was initially well and truly > with Krishna ("/I do *not* think this group should anything with > CCIF./") there may be ways we can handle this which do not involve > disbanding the CCIF altogether nor snuffing out the good work being done > here. > > As I discussed with Mark today, I think the best thing to do is to keep > the CCIF list separate from this group and use it as a "/broader > discussion group around open cloud standards/". We can either import the > CCIF members into this list and move to another or import the CCIF > members into a new list (like cloudstandards-discuss), but whatever we > do we should move it to a new home. Conversely, if we were to dump > everyone in the same pot I think we'll achieve nothing but the loss of > this functional (if toothless > ) communication channel, which > would be literally killing two birds with one stone. > > If we can't nut something sensible out then let's not take any chances - > inter-SDO communication channels are few and far between and we can > always buy eyeballs! > > Sam > > -- > *Sam Johnston* > /Technical Program Manager/ > Site Reliability Engineering > Google Switzerland GmbH > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:43 AM, > wrote: > > > All, > > What a lively debate -- hopefully it will generate more light than > heat ;-> > > What has always struck me about any standards process is that there > is a technical kernel of a problem wrapped in a maelstrom of social > and market processes. I find myself trying to do what amounts to > social engineering in an effort to move the technical ball forward. > I'd be more than happy to discuss how we can move the technical ball > forward through whatever set of demos that address major stakeholder > requirements, and recruit all those that would like to participate > and sponsor. Demos can be a forcing function that gets us past the > powerpoint engineering and perhaps facilitate an emergent dominant > practice. We only need to decide where, when, how, etc. (All > trivial decisions ;->) > > --Craig > > > At 3:03 PM -0800 2/26/10, Krishna Sankar (ksankar) wrote: >> Good, let us start buying mailing lists and marketing materials. >> That is a good way to start interoperability. What exactly is this >> followers crap ? Are we buying into a cult ? >> >> Cheers >> >> >> *From:* cloudstandards at googlegroups.com >> >> [mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com >> ]* On Behalf Of* Jim Warner >> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2010 10:53 AM >> *To:* cloudstandards at googlegroups.com >> ; Mailing List for SCRM-WG >> *Cc:* Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen >> *Subject:* Re: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 >> >> Laboring in anonymity? Why not just disband all together as that >> will provide the ultimate cloak of invisibility. >> >> Successful standards aren't those with superior technical meat. A >> standard gains mainstream adoption because people think "everyone >> else" is using it. To that end, Reuven has compiled an impressive >> cadre of followers. Why would anyone want to turn them away? >> >> What would be the reason to soldier on in a bunker when we can >> bring many others into the fold? >> >> Jim Warner >> >> >> On 2/26/10 12:35 PM, "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" >> wrote: >> With due respect to Reuven and his work, I do **not** think this >> group should anything with CCIF. Let us labor in anonymity and >> attract membership (and mindshare) by our work and demos. >> Just my ~$0.02. >> Cheers >> >> >> >> *From:* cloudstandards at googlegroups.com >> [mailto:cloudstandards at googlegroups.com]* On Behalf Of* Mark A. >> Carlson >> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2010 9:28 AM >> *To:* CloudStandards at googlegroups.com; Mailing List for SCRM-WG >> *Cc:* Bob Marcus; Reuven Cohen >> *Subject:* Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 >> >> 6am PDT, 7am MDT, 9am EDT, 10 pm JST >> >> Call info: >> >> (866)5455227 code: 6300276# >> International: (215) 446-3648 >> >> Agenda: >> >> Reuven Cohen has offered to turn over the CCIF google group >> forum >> for use by this group. Here are the resources that he has accumulated: >> >> 1. 1170 members on the Google Group >> 2. #1 result for cloud interoperability among others. >> 3. Linkedin Groups, 1,375 Members >> 4. Twitter Account, @CloudForum > 4931 followers >> 5. www.cloudforum.org >> > SEO Page rank of 5 (which is really >> good) >> 6. Attendee & sponsorship Lists from the events in New York and >> San Franciso >> >> We will discuss if it makes sense to use this as a broader >> discussion group >> around open cloud standards. >> >> Cloud Demo update - Mark >> >> Cloud Wiki Updates? >> http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page >> >> SCRM Wiki Updates? >> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1479 >> >> Events updates? >> http://cloud-standards.org/wiki/index.php?title=CloudStandards:Current_events >> >> >> Cloud Standards Google Group: >> http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards >> >> Cloud Demo Google Group: >> http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo >> >> This message contains confidential information and is intended >> only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee >> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please >> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this >> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail >> transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as >> information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, >> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender >> therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in >> the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail >> transmission. If verification is required please request a >> hard-copy version. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "cloudstandards" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> CloudStandards at googlegroups.com >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "cloudstandards" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> CloudStandards at googlegroups.com >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "cloudstandards" group. > To post to this group, send email to CloudStandards at googlegroups.com > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > CloudStandards+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/CloudStandards?hl=en. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > scrm-wg mailing list > scrm-wg at ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/scrm-wg -- Hiro Kishimoto From Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM Sat Feb 27 10:24:07 2010 From: Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM (Mark A. Carlson) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:24:07 -0700 Subject: [scrm-wg] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Cloud Standards/SCRM meeting Monday 3/1 and expanded CCIF] Message-ID: <4B894727.7050303@sun.com> Forward for Bob Marcus. -- mark -------- Original Message -------- ============================== I believe that the CCIF resources that Reuven created could be very valuable and synergistic with Cloud-standards.org . I think that a representative of Cloud-standards.org should assume ownership. Multiple managers could be created representing individual standards organizations and contributors (e.g. Reuven). I think the focus of the expanded CCIF group should be dialogs among Cloud standards groups, customers, and providers. The existing Cloud Standards group could be used for standards groups focused discussions. Cloud customer and provider participation should be solicited for the CCIF. If Cloud-standards.org is interested, I could publicize the expanded CCIF at the Cloud Connect Conference . I organized a Track on customer-driven standards that fits into the proposed. focus. Let me know the feedback from Monday's meeting on maintaining the CCIF. Thanks. Bob Marcus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-wg/attachments/20100227/fb54fffe/attachment.html