- occi-wg - lists.ogf.org

OpenNebula and OCCI in Heise News Ticker
by Daniel Molina 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Hi all, OpenNebula and OCCI have been mentioned in heise-online, the most popular german IT News Ticker. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Freie-Cloud-Software-OpenNebula-mit-… Regards -- Daniel Molina, Cloud Technology Engineer/Researcher Major Contributor OpenNebula - The Open Source Toolkit for Cloud Computing www.OpenNebula.org | dmolina(a)opennebula.org

1 0

Re: [occi-wg] Fwd: NIST CCSRWG 9th Working Draft for your review and comments
by Thijs Metsch 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Somehow I miss a some texts highlighting that OCCI in a boundary protocol and can therefore be used for *aaS offerings...Also it should be addressed that we play well with others like Cloud Audit, CDMI and OVF... I can currently only second Andy's comments - those are the same as mine. Most important is the Bibliography sections. The updates for 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.8 should be very simple by just adding OCCI in there... Cheers, -Thijs -----Original Message----- From: Edmonds, AndrewX [mailto:andrewx.edmonds@intel.com] Sent: Thu 31.03.2011 13:29 To: Alan Sill Cc: Thijs Metsch Subject: RE: [occi-wg] Fwd: NIST CCSRWG 9th Working Draft for your review and comments Alan, Here are some of my comments relating to this document. I know Thijs is also reviewing the document so rather send off my comments perhaps we can coordinate our replies here. Comments: In 6.4.2 "Use Case: Moving VMs and virtual appliances between Clouds" This is missing the requirement of VM Control. If you can package up your VMs you will still need a common means to provision the resource on the new target cloud provider so those existing packaged VMs can be deployed. In 6.4.3 "Selecting the best IaaS vendor for private externally hosted Cloud" The means to discover available resource types is available in OCCI. There is however no means to discover the performance characteristics of those resources. Likewise for 6.4.8 "Discovering Cloud resources" In 6.4.4 "Portable tools for monitoring and managing Clouds" OCCI's availability should be marked as either "Reference Implementation" (by many parties) or "Testing" There is also a Bibliography section in the document and references to the OCCI v1.1 document series should be added if possible. HTH, Andy From: occi-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Sill Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:19 PM To: occi-wg(a)ogf.org Subject: [occi-wg] Fwd: NIST CCSRWG 9th Working Draft for your review and comments FYI - update to my previous mail - please see new versions and comment form below. PLEASE READ and if possible, respond! Thanks, Alan Begin forwarded message: From: "Sokol, Annie W." <annie.sokol(a)nist.gov> Date: March 28, 2011 5:18:31 PM CDT To: Multiple recipients of list <cc_standards(a)nist.gov> Subject: NIST CCSRWG 9th Working Draft for your review and comments Reply-To: "cc_standards(a)nist.gov" <cc_standards(a)nist.gov> March 28, 2011 Dear All: As per the timeline below, we are releasing the Ninth Working Draft of the NIST Cloud Computing Standards Roadmap for your review and comments. Please use the attached comment template to submit your comments on or before Monday, April 11, 2011. Both attachments are also available on the Twiki page http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-cloud-computing/bin/view/CloudComputing/St andardsRoadmap. We look forward to seeing you at the NIST Cloud Computing Forum and Workshop III, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland, April 7 & 8, 2011. VR, Annie Sokol Date Description Due Monday, March 28, 2011 9th Draft posted for NIST CCSRWG 14-day review April 11, 2011 Thursday, April 7, 2011 NO NIST CCSRWG meeting April 7 & 8 , 2011 NIST Cloud Computing Forum & Workshop III Friday, April 8, 2011 NIST briefing on work of the NIST CCSRWG based upon 9th draft Monday, April 11, 2011 Comments due on 9th draft Wednesday, April 13, 2011 NIST proposed disposition of comments 9th posted Thursday, April 14, 2011 NIST CCSRWG meeting reviews comment disposition on 9th draft

1 0

Re: [occi-wg] Current drafts and comments on "pre-9th" draft for Standards Roadmap document; meeting schedule
by Sill, Alan 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Hi Jin, Thanks for your questions. My not-very-well-educated answers (I'm more on top of the document process than the actual implementations themselves) are embedded inline below; beyond this I invite the OCCI-WG members to comment themselves. On Mar 30, 2011, at 7:07 PM, "Tong, Jin" <jin.tong(a)nist.gov> wrote: > Alan, thanks for sharing your comments. I have a few questions about OCCI adoption and implementation status after going through the presentation materials linked from your email: > > * My understanding is OpenNebula has OCCI implemented, as functional equivalent to EC2 interface for VM management, correct? Yes. We have definite commitments from the primary project leader for OpenNebula for full implementation of all current OCCI features - their present product includes support for an older version - and in his words, to "build an ecosystem" of OpenNebula functionality around OCCI. > And the implementation of OCCI in OpenStack and Eucalyptus are still under way and not released, correct? I have seem a screenshot of a login window from an OpenStack implementation claiming to offer OCCI services. Beyond this and some email confirming it is on the roadmap for the bexar release, I don't know any details on progress in OpenStack. The Eucalyptus implementation is being paid for by a UK-funded project that includes some other significant enhancements for use of Eucalyptus in science infrastructure projects; my impression is that it is underway but still perhaps a few months off. > * Is there any implementations of OCCI to offer PaaS service management? Of the implementations I have taken the time to look at, the SSF one by SLA@SOI seems to me to be the closest to offering connections to services at the PaaS and actual application level. Here I really don't want to stray into territory where I'm not an expert, though, and invite the developer community to respond. Note that several products that have implemented OCCI or are committed to doing so, like OpenNebula for example, could themselves be considered as PaaS products. > * In OCCI process, is there ever any consideration of delivering some reference implementation? OGF as an SDO itself never delivers software, but concentrates on the process of developing communities that develop work products (documents), and encouraging implementations to be developed, then documented themselves as part of the experience process and refinements if ant to the original proposed recommendation before promotion to a full OGF Recommendation. The latter category requires at least two independent implementations and an extended period of practical use (at minimum, 6 months) plus an experience document comparing implementation experiences in the field before promotion to a full REC. As we already have so many implementations to compare before even full publication of the OCCI P-REC specs, I am not worried at this point about having enough material for the subsequent steps! So while we do not have the official process in OGF of providing official reference implementations, I have asked the group to help provide some test code that can be run against a demo instance of an OCCI-interfaced service that could be used, for example, in SAJACC. Among the options to get something going quickly for one such implementation (with quite a general package name, but just one option among many) would be to type "easy_install occi" to get Ralf Nyren's pypi OCCI package. https://github.com/nyren/occi-py#readme The availability of the libvirt implementation by TU-Dortmund and popularity of libvirt as an underlying layer for IaaS products should make other implementations easy to produce for libvirt-based products. At this point, however, I want to get out of the way as quickly as possible and invite any OCCI group members to comment, especially if they have answers to your questions or want to correct any mistakes I have made! Take care and best wishes, Alan > Thanks! > --Jin > ________________________________________ > From: cc_standards(a)nist.gov [cc_standards(a)nist.gov] On Behalf Of Alan Sill [Alan.Sill(a)ttu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:55 PM > To: CC_STANDARDS > Subject: Current drafts and comments on "pre-9th" draft for Standards Roadmap document; meeting schedule > > Hi Mike and Annie, > > First of all, thank you both very much for your great leadership and > coordination in the NIST Standards Roadmap working group. Thanks also > to the group for their great work so far. > > Due to travel, I have not had the opportunity to participate in recent > meetings, but see that there has been great progress on the document. > The text and graphical descriptions have gotten much better, and I see > that there is movement in filling out some information on the > available standards. > > As you know, OGF is close to final release of the Core and > Infrastructure components of the OCCI specification set, and I see > that it has already been incorporated into the tables as what I expect > it will be by the time of the NIST meeting, as an Approved Standard. > (This is correct; OGF terminology for a newly released standard is > "Proposed Recommendation" (P-REC), two implementations plus documented > feedback from extensive actual use in the community for an extended > period are required to promote a GFD document to a full REC.) > > I have asked the OCCI working group to review your current draft and > to provide feedback on the comment template form for any alterations > they would like to suggest. At this point I have only asked them for > suggested changes in the interest of accuracy. As you know, we have > had a tremendous uptake of OCCI by several open source projects and > now two commercial ones; this is probably due to its simplicity as an > extended set of features to http headers, and its consequent explicit > platform neutrality and language independence leading to a great ease > of implementation. (My last count was 18 OCCI implementations either > completed or in advanced states of work, and growing fast.) > > We certainly want to document this progress adequately and hope to > provide a proper set of comments to the draft roadmap soon, with > earnest hope for their incorporation. > > I note that there is not a meeting listed in the schedule for the > Roadmap group for this week, which would normally be tomorrow (March > 31). In light of the possible availability of the comments mentioned > above, and to give the group another chance to look over the draft > document, can I suggest that we meet, either as a group or just as a > sub-group to look a these comments, at the usual Standards Roadmap > meeting time of 1 pm Eastern tomorrow to discuss these? > > Let me know. > > Finally, please note that OGF has more standards of interest to clouds > and other large-scale distributed computing infrastructures than just > OCCI. Since this type of work is the focus of our organization as an > SDO, we have many other specifications that have good uptake in > industry; in particular, the secured transport-level data transfer > specifications SRM and GridFTP, the WS-* based Basic Execution > Services family of specs including those in the OGSA series, and our > WS-Agreement and WS-AgreementNegotiation series oriented toward > automated service level agreement negotiation, license management, > etc. are probably also of interest. The last one mentioned (WS- > Negotiation for short) is in final public comment until May 15, 2011 > at http://ogf.org/gf/docs/?public_comment or directly at http://ogf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/2011-03/WS-Agreement-Negotiati… > and is due to be released shortly thereafter, pending final OGF > Standards Council review upon completion of this public comment period. > > Thanks, > Alan > > P.S.: As a reminder to the group, the European SIENA roadmap current > document corresponding to this NIST one has been released; please see http://sienainitiative.eu > where you can create a free account to download this or other > relevant documents. In particular you may be interested in the > presentations at the recent CloudScape III meeting, which was well- > attended by European distributed computing infrastructure projects and > government representatives, as well as by Dawn Leaf. I include below > a couple of direct links to the roadmap document and to the OCCI > presentation at that workshop, in case these might be useful. > > SIENA Roadmap document: > > http://tinyurl.com/4az6f6y > > OGF OCCI Presentation: > > http://tinyurl.com/4owlrwg > > Bonus link: OGF 31 Standards Plenary summary talk (March 23) > summarizing status of recently released documents: > > http://tinyurl.com/4gaugsk > > Alan Sill, Ph.D > Senior Scientist, High Performance Computing Center > Adjunct Professor of Physics, TTU > Vice President of Standards, Open Grid Forum > > ==================================================================== > : Alan Sill, Texas Tech University Office: Drane 162, MS 4-1167 : > : e-mail: Alan.Sill(a)ttu.edu ph. 806-742-4350 fax 806-742-4358 : > ==================================================================== > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > If you would like to unsubscribe from cc_standards, please send > an email to listproc(a)nist.gov with a message body of: > > > > unsubscribe cc_standards > > > > Please note: you must send the message from the account that you are subscribed. > > >

4 3

Re: [occi-wg] HTTP rendering doc out of public comment
by Ralf Nyren 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

> @Ralf: Can you handle 4, 6? np, will do. > 6. For consistency OCCI Core attributes should be rendered with "occi.core." prepended. For example 'summary' would be rendered as 'occi.core.summary'. The attributes in question would be: occi.core.title (defined by Entity) occi.core.summary (defined by Resource) occi.core.source (defined by Link) occi.core.target (defined by Link) Any attrib I missed? Using occi.core. prefix for Link.source/target doesn't feel perfect but I guess it could be okay. > I'm not sure about the following: > * Only show mutable attributes in the query interface This I feel to be very important indeed. Without this change an OCCI client _cannot_ use the query interface to determine the requirements for a successful POST request! To understand the issue you must think from a OCCI client perspective. The "attributes" listed for each Category is used by a client to determine which attributes to submit when doing a POST of a new resource instance. A well-behaved OCCI service impl will return a Bad Request error if a client tries to change an immutable attribute. Therefore the "attributes" list must only include mutable attributes. Example: - Client queries /-/ and finds the "compute" resource. - The "attributes" parameter includes occi.compute.state, occi.compute.speed, etc - Client presents the attributes found for "compute" to (in this example) an end-user - The end-user sets desired values for all attributes and asks the OCCI client to create a new compute resource instance. - The dutiful OCCI client then sends occi.compute.state in the POST request to the OCCI service implementation. - Since occi.compute.state is immutable the well-behaved OCCI service will return a Bad Request. - The spec does not define how to interpret the cause of a particular Bad Request error so now the OCCI client doesn't know why the POST request failed. The best solution would be to somehow include the mutability of all attributes in the query interface. The quick and dirty solution is to only include mutable attributes in the query interface. regards, Ralf

4 6

3.8 VM Control: Manage Virtual Machine Instance State
by Alan.Sill＠ttu.edu 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Please review this NIST instance of a use case and suggest andy working implementations against which we can test it for OCCI. Also browse others using for example the breadcrumb links on this page; we want to test many of the NIST SAJACC cases. http://www.nist.gov/itl/cloud/3_8.cfm --- This message was sent by Alan.Sill(a)ttu.edu via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses. Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar: http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em To unsubscribe, visit http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=InVC407pAPdKwELnS65C8ko in your web browser.

2 1

Fwd: NIST CCSRWG 9th Working Draft for your review and comments
by Alan Sill 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

FYI - update to my previous mail - please see new versions and comment form below. PLEASE READ and if possible, respond! Thanks, Alan Begin forwarded message: > From: "Sokol, Annie W." <annie.sokol(a)nist.gov> > Date: March 28, 2011 5:18:31 PM CDT > To: Multiple recipients of list <cc_standards(a)nist.gov> > Subject: NIST CCSRWG 9th Working Draft for your review and comments > Reply-To: "cc_standards(a)nist.gov" <cc_standards(a)nist.gov> > > > > > > March 28, 2011 > > Dear All: > > As per the timeline below, we are releasing the Ninth Working Draft > of the NIST Cloud Computing Standards Roadmap for your review and > comments. Please use the attached comment template to submit your > comments on or before Monday, April 11, 2011. Both attachments are > also available on the Twiki page http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-cloud-computing/bin/view/CloudComputing/S… > . > > We look forward to seeing you at the NIST Cloud Computing Forum and > Workshop III, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland, April 7 & 8, 2011. > > VR, > > Annie Sokol > > Date > Description > Due > Monday, March 28, 2011 > 9th Draft posted for NIST CCSRWG 14-day review > April 11, 2011 > Thursday, April 7, 2011 > NO NIST CCSRWG meeting > > April 7 & 8 , 2011 > NIST Cloud Computing Forum & Workshop III > > Friday, April 8, 2011 > NIST briefing on work of the NIST CCSRWG based upon 9th draft > > Monday, April 11, 2011 > Comments due on 9th draft > > Wednesday, April 13, 2011 > NIST proposed disposition of comments 9th posted > > Thursday, April 14, 2011 > NIST CCSRWG meeting reviews comment disposition on 9th draft > > >

1 0

Important: OCCI contributions for NIST Standards Roadmap document
by Alan Sill 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Dear OCCI group, Due to travel, I have missed the past two meetings of the NIST Standards Roadmap group, which has drafted a document in which OCCI should be highlighted. I have followed the activities of the group and made several text and verbal contributions, but have not had time to edit or suggest alterations yet to this NIST document. It is important that we get comments in right away for them to have a chance to be included in the current draft of the document that is to be presented in the upcoming workshop at NIST April 7-8. It may in fact be late to get comments in, but if they are correct, targeted, and formatted for suitable entry into the document, they may still be accepted. Apologies for not having followed this process more closely, but it is basically due to a lack of time. Can I ask you QUICKLY (now, today) to look over the attached 9th draft, make any suggestions for alterations using the attached comment template form, and submit them either directly back to the NIST cc_standards(a)nist.gov e-mail group or back to me for immediate submission to the group? It is important to respond ASAP if we want to be well-represented in the upcoming NIST document. Thanks, Alan Alan Sill, Ph.D Senior Scientist, High Performance Computing Center Adjunct Professor of Physics, TTU Vice President of Standards, Open Grid Forum ==================================================================== : Alan Sill, Texas Tech University Office: Drane 162, MS 4-1167 : : e-mail: Alan.Sill(a)ttu.edu ph. 806-742-4350 fax 806-742-4358 : ====================================================================

1 0

Reminder: concall in 3h
by Thijs Metsch 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Hi, with all countries being back to summer time we can continue our weekly concalls. Please join here: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.occi-wg/wiki/Teleconferen… We'll have some demos today of OCCI implementations - going to be interesting :-) Cheers, -Thijs

1 0

OCCI Security Considerations
by alexander.papaspyrou＠tu-dortmund.de 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Folks, during the week (and in the general discussion before), concerns have been raised regarding the overly simple security considerations in the OCCI family of specifications. This aspect also came up as part of the group discussion in this week's sessions. Andre Merzky and I tried to sum up those concerns and create a more elaborate text for the "Security Considerations" sections of the three documents. Please find the current draft of these sections attached to this email. We additionally have them online in a Google Docs document for easier collaborative editing. Please let me know if you want access to it. Feedback would be very welcome; please reply ASAP so that we can close the tracker items and finally get a P-REC! Best, Alexander

3 2

Cloud Standards Plug Fest - April 19th-21st, Planning meeting next Tuesday 1/11
by Mark Carlson 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

The CSI is sponsoring a CDMI plug fest at the SNIA Technology Center April 19-21st. This meeting is the kick off of planning for that event. Please plan to attend to find out more information and help us plan, even if you don't think you will be ready with your implementation by then. -- mark *Event Title*: CDMI Plug Fest Kickoff Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Date*: Tuesday, 11 January 2011, 10:00am - 11:00am PT *Description* Kick off meeting to start planning the April CDMI Plugfest 800-482-3251 719-457-5113 Participant Passcode: 195238 Webex Info: http://snia.webex.com Meeting Password: cloud2011 Meeting Name: CDMI Plug Fest ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Agenda* Logistics Budget Test Matrix Recruiting participation Draft participation agreement

8 10