[Fiware-cloud] IMPORTANT: Next Steps

[Alex Glikson]

Below is my initial input for highlights and action items. Please, augment 
with your input (please, use a different color). Thanks.

Regards,
Alex



From:   Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL
To:     fiware-cloud at lists.fi-ware.eu
Date:   19/09/2011 10:36 PM
Subject:        [Fiware-cloud] IMPORTANT: Next Steps
Sent by:        fiware-cloud-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu



Hi All, 

It was great to see many of you in Turino last week. 

First, I'm out of office tomorrow, so there will be no weekly call. 
However, I would like us to make progress offline, as follows. 

1. Highlights and action items from the F2F at Turin 
Please, send me your notes regarding highlights (main accomplishments and 
issues) and action items from the F2F discussions last week. I will 
consolidate them and will send to Juanjo (per his request). 
For your convenience, here is a list of sessions: 
General -- main accomplishments:
Socializing among team members, including additional team members which 
did not attend the kick-off in May. Improved team atmosphere and trust.
Gained common understanding of the architecture, main assets, interfaces, 
potential integration challenges and gaps -- for the entire WP as a whole, 
as well as for individual GEs
Identified several significant gaps (see below), some of which may become 
topics for open calls
Conducted highly productive joint sessions with other WPs (see more 
details below)
Met in person key representatives of other teams, thus improving future 
collaboration
Gained better understanding of what other WPs are doing
Identified and verified potential integration points and assets/GEs that 
can be leveraged
Cloud Edge, Cloud Edge RM [Serge, Alex] 
Reviewed the architecture of the Cloud Proxy
Reviewed end-to-end scenario of provisioning of an application hosted in 
the cloud, having a component designed to run close to the end-user (on a 
Cloud Proxy)
Refined WP architecture to address the distinction between the Cloud Proxy 
device (running outside of the centralized cloud infrastructure) and the 
management component that would typically run within the centralized 
infrastructure and act as a proxy between the centralized cloud management 
stack and the numerous Cloud Proxy devices located close to the end-uses.
Identified a gap in providing the above management component. 
Action Item [Serge]: find out whether this gap can be contained (e.g., by 
re-balancing the Cloud Proxy related work between WP4 and WP7).
Note: this issue was discussed at the PCC, and it was mentioned that the 
chances to be able to handle this gap via the open calls mechanisms are 
not high (as this is a mandatory component to provide the end-to-end 
functionality of Cloud Proxy, which should have been taken into account in 
the original plan)
IaaS Service Management [Fernando] 
TBD
It should be possible to design services that comprise components that run 
on Cloud Proxy (and potentially also end-devices -- see comment from I2ND 
interlock), as well as object storage resources. This should be reflected 
in service manifest, as well as handled during provisioning and life cycle 
management of services.
A service composition tool should be part of the ecosystem provided to the 
application developer/provider. Should be considered for the Open Call.
Scalability and security aspects of Claudia should be considered.
PaaS [Fernando] 
TBD
The current approach for PaaS provisioning is to install middleware 
components into an existing running OS (with Chef), which has been 
installed separately (in our case -- as part of the provisioning of the 
corresponding VM). A unified approach should be considered, in which the 
VM images already include the middleware components pre-installed, and 
they just need to be customized during provisioning. 
It is not clear whether OVF-based manifest would be a good fit to describe 
PaaS-level services. Other alternatives should be considered.
IaaS DataCenter Resource Management [Alex, Andy] 
Reviewed WP architecture, mapped assets and gaps
A need for common monitoring infrastructure was stressed
The resource management layer should provide capability of orchestrating 
operations across groups of VMs -- e.g., in a scenario of service 
snapshot.
We should consider supporting non-virtualized workloads
Object Storage [Andy] 
Self-Service Interfaces [Juaquin] 
A collaboration-driven approach to Cloud Portal was presented
Action Item [Alex, Joaquin]: assess whether this can be contained within 
the existing funding. It might make sense to focus on have a 
fully-functional cloud portal as a subject for an Open Call.
Monitoring [Andy] 
Security [Andy] 
Interlock with I2ND 
It was mentioned that in some cases a cloud application may include a 
component designed to run at the end-user device (e.g., a mobile phone) -- 
either within the Web browser, or as a 'rich client' component. In a way, 
this can be considered as another 'tier', besides the centralized cloud 
infrastructure and the cloud proxy. This should be taken into account when 
designing the service manifest, as well as during provisioning and service 
life cycle management.
Interlock with Security [Andy] 
Reviewed security considerations which might apply to Cloud Hosting
Action Item [Andy to coordinate]: need to refine our security 
considerations in the HLD (once transferred to the Wiki)
It was noted that the security WP is interested in leveraging the common 
infrastructure for monitoring and CMDB. Cloud Hosting does not intend 
having a centralized CMDB, but having a single monitoring system which can 
be augmented with security probes definitely makes sense.
Action Item [Alex] need to follow-up on monitoring infrastructure, across 
GEs and WPs
Interlock with Apps [David] 
In order to drive business processes related to applications deployed in 
the cloud (e.g., SLAs), resource-related metrics produced by Cloud WP 
components must be accessible by the components of the Apps WP.
Mashup execution engines might be hosted on the cloud (PaaS would probably 
make more sense than IaaS)
Interlock with Data [Andy, David]
In order to develop a common monitoring system, 3 components have been 
identified that will be provided by the Data Management WP: pub/sub 
broker, Big Data and Complex Event Processing. Need to follow-up on 
architecture, requirements, interfaces, schedule, etc.
Of course, not only the people mentioned above can contribute. Please, 
send me your input by EOD Wednesday. Make it brief (concise bullets). 

2. Epics spreadsheets 
As you know, we need to come up with a list of Epics for each GE, 
outlining the main areas of work we envision in the project (focusing on 
the first release). 
Please, send me by the end of the week your initial lists, with some 
details for each Epic. Let's follow the format in the attached Excel -- it 
is an 'optimized' version of the original template (I've copied few of 
Fernando's epics into the new table format, as an example). 
Please, remember that the work items should focus on work that is still to 
be done, by our team. So, when considering various assets, the work items 
should only refer to their integration and enhancements -- and not to 
features which are already there, or are developed by someone else. 
There are many cool features in Excel that can potentially make the usage 
of Excel to manage the Epics rather convenient, but let's wait until the 
Agile tooling topics becomes more clear (I'm not sure Tracker is better 
than Excel, for our internal use). 

Let's discuss both topics in our next week's call, following the input 
that each of us provides. 

Thanks! 
Alex 

[attachment "Backlog entries description v0.1 TID - Alex.xls" deleted by 
Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________
Fiware-cloud mailing list
Fiware-cloud at lists.fi-ware.eu
http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-cloud

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-cloud/attachments/20110921/1186c468/attachment.html>