William Vambenepe's blog

I wasn’t at the OSCON Cloud Summit this past week, but I’ve spent some time over the weekend trying to collect the good bits. Via Twitter, I had heard echos of an interesting debate on Cloud standards between Sam Johnston and Benjamin Black. Today I got to see Benjamin’s slides and read reports from two audience members, Charles Engelke and Krishnan Subramanian. Sam argued that Cloud standards are needed, Benjamin that they would be premature.

Benjamin is right about what to think and Sam is right about what to do.

Let me put it differently: Benjamin is right in theory, but it doesn’t matter. Here is why.

Say I’m a vendor and Benjamin convinces me

Assume I truly believe the industry would be better served if we all waited. Does this mean I’ll stay away from Cloud standards efforts for now? Not necessarily, because nothing is stopping my competitors from doing it. In the IT standards world, your only choice is to participate or opt out. For the most part you can’t put your muscle towards stopping an effort. Case in point, Amazon has so far chosen to opt out; has that stopped VMWare and others from going to DMTF and elsewhere to ratify specifications as standards? Of course not. To the contrary, it has made the option even more attractive because when the leader stays home it is a lot easier for less popular candidates to win the prize. So as a vendor-who-was-convinced-by-Benjamin I now have the choice between letting my competitor get his specification rubberstamped (and then hit me with the competitive advantage of being “standard compliant” and even “the standard leader”) or getting involved in an effort that I know to be counterproductive for the industry. Guess what most will choose?

Even the initial sinner (who sets the wheels of premature standardization in motion) may himself be convinced that it’s too early for Cloud standards. But he has to assume that one of his competitors will make the move, and in that context why give them first mover advantage (and the choice of the battlefield). It’s the typical Tragedy of the Commons scenario. By acting in a rational and self-interested way, participants invariably end up creating a bad situation, one that they might all know is against everyone’s self interest.

And it’s not just vendors.

Say I’m an officer of a Standard-setting organization and Benjamin convinces me

If you expect that I would use my position in the organization to prevent companies from starting a Cloud standard effort there, you live in fantasy-land. Standard-setting organizations compete with one another just as fiercely as companies do. If I have achieved a position of leadership in a given standard organization, the last thing I want is to see another organization lay claims to a strategic and fast-growing area of the IT landscape. It takes a lot of time and money for a company to get elected on the right board and gets its employees (or other reliable allies) in the right leadership positions. Or to acquire people already in that place. You only get a return on that investment if the organization manages to be the one where the key standards get created. That’s what’s behind the landgrab reflex of many standards organizations.

And it goes beyond vendors and standards organizations

Say I’m an IT buyer and Benjamin convinces me

Assume I really believe Cloud standards are premature. Assume they get created anyway and I have to choose between a vendor who supports them and one who doesn’t. Do I, as a matter of principle, refuse consider the “standard-compliant” label in my purchasing decision? Even if I know that the standard shouldn’t have been created, I also know that, all other things being equal, the “standard-compliant” product will attract more tools and complementary solutions and will likely ease future integration problems.

And then there is the question of how I’ll explain this to my boss. Will Benjamin be by my side with his beautiful slides when I am called in an emergency meeting to explain to the CIO why we, unlike the competitors, didn’t pick “a standards-based solution”?

In the real world, the only way to solve problems caused by the Tragedy of the Commons is to have some overarching authority regulate the usage of the resource at risk of being ruined. This seems unlikely to be a workable solution when the resource is not a river to protect from sewer discharges but an IT domain to protect from premature standardization. If called, I’d be happy to serve as benevolent dictator for the IT industry (I could fix a few other things beyond the Cloud standards landgrab issue). But as long as neither I nor anyone else is in a dictatorial position, Benjamin’s excellent exposé has no audience for which his call to arms (or rather to lay down the arms) is actionable. I am not saying that everyone agrees with Benjamin, but that even if everyone did it still wouldn’t make a difference. Many of us in the industry share his views and rationally act as if we didn’t.

[UPDATED 2010/7/25: In a nice example of Blog/Twitter synergy, minutes after posting this I was having a conversation on Twitter with Benjamin Black about my interpretation of what he said. Based on this conversation, I realize that I should clarify that what I mean by "standards" in this post is "something that comes out of a standard-setting organization" (whether or not it gets adopted), in other words what Benjamin calls a "standard specification". He uses the word "standard" to mean "what most people use", which may or may not be a "standard specification". That's a big part of the disconnect that led to our Twitter chat. The other part is that what I presented as Benjamin's thesis in my post is actually only one of the propositions in his talk, and not even the main one. It's the proposition that it is damaging for the industry when a standard specification comes out of a standard organization too early. I wasn't at the conference where Benjamin presented but it's hard to understand anything else out of slide 61 ("standardize too soon, and you lock to the wrong thing") and 87 ("to discover the right standards, we must eschew standards"). So if I misrepresented him I believe it was in making it look like this was the focus of his talk while in fact it was only one of the points he made. As he himself clarified for me: "My _actual_ argument is that it doesn't matter what we think about cloud standards, if they are needed, they will emerge" (again, in this sentence he uses "standards" to mean "something that people have converged on").

More generally, my main point here has nothing to do with Benjamin, Sam and their OSCON debate, other than the fact that reading about it prompted me to type this blog entry. It's simply that there is a perversion in the IT standards landscape that makes it impossible for premature standardization *not* to happen. It's something I've written before, e.g. in this post:

Saying “it’s too early” in the standards world is the same as saying nothing. It puts you out of the game and has no other effect. Amazon, the clear leader in the space, has taken just this position. How has this been understood? Simply as “well I guess we’ll do it without them”. It’s sad, but all it takes is one significant (but not necessarily leader) company trying to capitalize on some market influence to force the standards train to leave the station. And it’s a hard decision for others to not engage the pursuit at that point. In the same way that it only takes one bellicose country among pacifists to start a war.

Benjamin is just a messenger; and I wasn't trying to shoot him.]

[UPDATED 2010/8/13: The video of the debate between Sam Johnston and Benjamin Black is now available, so you can see for yourself.]

Oracle recently published a Cloud management API on OTN and also submitted a subset of the API to the new DMTF Cloud Management working group. The OTN specification, titled “Oracle Cloud Resource Model API”, is available here. In typical DMTF fashion, the DMTF-submitted specification is not publicly available (if you have a DMTF account and are a member of the right group you can find it here). It is titled the “Oracle Cloud Elemental Resource Model” and is essentially the same as the OTN version, minus sections 9.2, 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10 (I’ll explain below why these sections have been removed from the DMTF submission). Here is also a slideset that was recently used to present the submitted specification at a DMTF meeting.

So why two documents? Because they serve different purposes. The Elemental Resource Model, submitted to DMTF, represents the technical foundation for the IaaS layer. It’s not all of IaaS, just its core. You can think of its scope as that of the base EC2 service (boot a VM from an image, attach a volume, connect to a network). It’s the part that appears in all the various IaaS APIs out there, and that looks very similar, in its model, across all of them. It’s the part that’s ripe for a simple standard, hopefully free of much of the drama of a more open-ended and speculative effort. A standard that can come out quickly and provide interoperability right out of the gate (for the simple use cases it supports), not after years of plugfests and profiles. This is the narrow scope I described in an earlier rant about Cloud standards:

I understand the pain of customers today who just want to have a bit more flexibility and portability within the limited scope of the VM/Volume/IP offering. If we really want to do a standard today, fine. Let’s do a very small and pragmatic standard that addresses this. Just a subset of the EC2 API. Don’t attempt to standardize the virtual disk format. Don’t worry about application-level features inside the VM. Don’t sweat the REST or SOA purity aspects of the interface too much either. Don’t stress about scalability of the management API and batching of actions. Just make it simple and provide a reference implementation. A few HTTP messages to provision, attach, update and delete VMs, volumes and IPs. That would be fine. Anything else (and more is indeed needed) would be vendor extensions for now.

Of course IaaS goes beyond the scope of the Elemental Resource Model. We’ll need load balancing. We’ll need tunneling to the private datacenter. We’ll need low-latency sub-networks. We’ll need the ability to map multi-tier applications to different security zones. Etc. Some Cloud platforms support some of these (e.g. Amazon has an answer to all but the last one), but there is a lot more divergence (both in the “what” and the “how”) between the various Cloud APIs on this. That part of IaaS is not ready for standardization.

Then there are the extensions that attempt to make the IaaS APIs more application-aware. These too exist in some Cloud APIs (e.g. vCloud vApp) but not others. They haven’t naturally converged between implementations. They haven’t seen nearly as much usage in the industry as the base IaaS features. It would be a mistake to overreach in the initial phase of IaaS standardization and try to tackle these questions. It would not just delay the availability of a standard for the base IaaS use cases, it would put its emergence and adoption in jeopardy.

This is why Oracle withheld these application-aware aspects from the DMTF submission, though we are sharing them in the specification published on OTN. We want to expose them and get feedback. We’re open to collaborating on them, maybe even in the scope of a standard group if that’s the best way to ensure an open IP framework for the work. But it shouldn’t make the upcoming DMTF IaaS specification more complex and speculative than it needs to be, so we are keeping them as separate extensions. Not to mention that DMTF as an organization has a lot more infrastructure expertise than middleware and application expertise.

Again, the “Elemental Resource Model” specification submitted to DMTF is the same as the “Oracle Cloud Resource Model API” on OTN except that it has a different license (a license grant to DMTF instead of the usual OTN license) and is missing some resources in the list of resource types (section 9).

Both specifications share the exact same protocol aspects. It’s pretty cleanly RESTful and uses a JSON serialization. The credit for the nice RESTful protocol goes to the folks who created the original Sun Cloud API as this is pretty much what the Oracle Cloud API adopted in its entirety. Tim Bray described the genesis and design philosophy of the Sun Cloud API last year. He also described his role and explained that “most of the heavy lifting was done by Craig McClanahan with guidance from Lew Tucker“. It’s a shame that the Oracle specification fails to credit the Sun team and I kick myself for not noticing this in my reviews. This heritage was noted from the get go in the slides and is, in my mind, a selling point for the specification. When I reviewed the main Cloud APIs available last summer (the first part in a “REST in practice for IT and Cloud management” series), I liked Sun’s protocol design the best.

The resource model, while still based on the Sun Cloud API, has seen many more changes. That’s where our tireless editor, Jack Yu, with help from Mark Carlson, has spent most of the countless hours he devoted to the specification. I won’t do a point to point comparison of the Sun model and the Oracle model, but in general most of the changes and additions are motivated by use cases that are more heavily tilted towards private clouds and compatibility with existing application infrastructure. For example, the semantics of a Zone have been relaxed to allow a private Cloud administrator to choose how to partition the Cloud (by location is an obvious option, but it could also by security zone or by organizational ownership, as heretic as this may sound to Cloud purists).

The most important differences between the DMTF and OTN versions relate to the support for assemblies, which are groups of VMs that jointly participate in the delivery of a composite application. This goes hand-in-hand with the recently-released Oracle Virtual Assembly Builder, a framework for creating, packing, deploying and configuring multi-tier applications. To support this approach, the Cloud Resource Model (but not the Elemental Model, as explained above) adds resource types such as AssemblyTemplate, AssemblyInstance and ScalabilityGroup.

So what now? The DMTF working group has received a large number of IaaS APIs as submissions (though not the one that matters most or the one that may well soon matter a lot too). If all goes well it will succeed in delivering a simple and useful standard for the base IaaS use cases, and we’ll be down to a somewhat manageable triplet (EC2, RackSpace/OpenStack and DMTF) of IaaS specifications. If not (either because the DMTF group tries to bite too much or because it succumbs to infighting) then DMTF will be out of the game entirely and it will be between EC2, OpenStack and a bunch of private specifications. It will be the reign of toolkits/library/brokers and hell on earth for all those who think that such a bridging approach is as good as a standard. And for this reason it will have to coalesce at some point.

As far as the more application-centric approach to hypervisor-based Cloud, well, the interesting things are really just starting. Let’s experiment. And let’s talk.

Most APIs are like hospital gowns. They seem to provide good coverage, until you turn around.

I am talking about the dreadful state of fault reporting in remote APIs, from Twitter to Cloud interfaces. They are badly described in the interface documentation and the implementations often don’t even conform to what little is documented.

If, when reading a specification, you get the impression that the “normal” part of the specification is the result of hours of whiteboard debate but that the section that describes the faults is a stream-of-consciousness late-night dump that no-one reviewed, well… you’re most likely right. And this is not only the case for standard-by-committee kind of specifications. Even when the specification is written to match the behavior of an existing implementation, error handling is often incorrectly and incompletely described. In part because developers may not even know what their application returns in all error conditions.

After learning the lessons of SOAP-RPC, programmers are now more willing to acknowledge and understand the on-the-wire messages received and produced. But when it comes to faults, there is still a tendency to throw their hands in the air, write to the application log and then let the stack do whatever it does when an unhandled exception occurs, on-the-wire compliance be damned. If that means sending an HTML error message in response to a request for a JSON payload, so be it. After all, it’s just a fault.

But even if fault messages may only represent 0.001% of the messages your application sends, they still represent 85% of those that the client-side developers will look at.

Client developers can’t even reverse-engineer the fault behavior by hitting a reference implementation (whether official or de-facto) the way they do with regular messages. That’s because while you can generate response messages for any successful request, you don’t know what error conditions to simulate. You can’t tell your Cloud provider “please bring down your user account database for five minutes so I can see what faults you really send me when that happens”. Also, when testing against a live application you may get a different fault behavior depending on the time of day. A late-night coder (or a daytime coder in another time zone) might never see the various faults emitted when the application (like Twitter) is over capacity. And yet these will be quite common at peak time (when the coder is busy with his day job… or sleeping).

All these reasons make it even more important to carefully (and accurately) document fault behavior.

The move to REST makes matters even worse, in part because it removes SOAP faults. There’s nothing magical about SOAP faults, but at least they force you to think about providing an information payload inside your fault message. Many REST APIs replace that with HTTP error codes, often accompanied by a one-line description with a sometimes unclear relationship with the semantics of the application. Either it’s a standard error code, which by definition is very generic or it’s an application-defined code at which point it most likely overlaps with one or more standard codes and you don’t know when you should expect one or the other. Either way, there is too much faith put in the HTTP code versus the payload of the error. Let’s be realistic. There are very few things most applications can do automatically in response to a fault. Mainly:

• Ask the user to re-enter credentials (if it’s an authentication/permission issue)
• Retry (immediately or after some time)
• Report a problem and fail

So make sure that your HTTP errors support this simple decision tree. Beyond that point, listing a panoply of application-specific error codes looks like an attempt to look “RESTful” by overdoing it. In most cases, application-specific error codes are too detailed for most automated processing and not detailed enough to help the developer understand and correct the issue. I am not against using them but what matters most is the payload data that comes along.

On that aspect, implementations generally fail in one of two extremes. Some of them tell you nothing. For example the payload is a string that just repeats what the documentation says about the error code. Others dump the kitchen sink on you and you get a full stack trace of where the error occurred in the server implementation. The former is justified as a security precaution. The latter as a way to help you debug. More likely, they both just reflect laziness.

In the ideal world, you’d get a detailed error payload telling you exactly which of the input parameters the application choked on and why. Not just vague words like “invalid”. Is parameter “foo” invalid for syntactical reasons? Is it invalid because inconsistent with another parameter value in the request? Is it invalid because it doesn’t match the state on the server side? Realistically, implementations often can’t spend too many CPU cycles analyzing errors and generating such detailed reports. That’s fine, but then they can include a link to a wiki a knowledge base where more details are available about the error, its common causes and the workarounds.

Your API should document all messages accurately and comprehensively. Faults are messages too.

The VMforce announcement is a great step for SalesForce, in large part because it lets them address a recurring concern about the force.com PaaS offering: the lack of portability of Apex applications. Now they can be written using Java and Spring instead. A great illustration of how painful this issue was for SalesForce is to see the contortions that Peter Coffee goes through just to acknowledge it: “On the downside, a project might be delayed by debates—some in good faith, others driven by vendor FUD—over the perception of platform lock-in. Political barriers, far more than technical barriers, have likely delayed many organizations’ return on the advantages of the cloud”. The issue is not lock-in it’s the potential delays that may come from the perception of lock-in. Poetic.

Similarly, portability between clouds is also a big theme in Steve Herrod’s blog covering VMforce as illustrated by the figure below. The message is that “write once run anywhere” is coming to the Cloud.

Because this is such a big part of the VMforce value proposition, both from the SalesForce and the VMWare/SpringSource side (as well as for PaaS in general), it’s worth looking at the portability aspect in more details. At least to the extent that we can do so based on this pre-announcement (VMforce is not open for developers yet). And while I am taking VMforce as an example, all the considerations below apply to any enterprise PaaS offering. VMforce just happens to be one of the brave pioneers, willing to take a first step into the jungle.

Beyond the use of Java as a programming language and Spring as a framework, the portability also comes from the supporting tools. This is something I did not cover in my initial analysis of VMforce but that Michael Cote covers well on his blog and Carl Brooks in his comment. Unlike the more general considerations in my previous post, these matters of tooling are hard to discuss until the tools are actually out. We can describe what they “could”, “should” and “would” do all day long, but in the end we need to look at the application in practice and see what, if anything, needs to change when I redirect my deployment target from one cloud to the other. As SalesForce’s Umit Yalcinalp commented, “the details are going to be forthcoming in the coming months and it is too early to speculate”.

So rather than speculating on what VMforce tooling will do, I’ll describe what portability questions any PaaS platform would have to address (or explicitly decline to address).

Code portability

That’s the easiest to address. Thanks to Java, the runtime portability problem for the core language is pretty much solved. Still, moving applications around require changes to way the application communicates with its infrastructure. Can your libraries and frameworks for data access and identity, for example, successfully encapsulate and hide the different kinds of data/identity stores behind them? Even when the stores are functionally equivalent (e.g. SQL, LDAP), they may have operational differences that matter for an enterprise application. Especially if the database is delivered (and paid for) as a service. I may well design my application differently depending on whether I am charged by the amount of data in the DB, by the number of requests to the DB, by the quantity of app-to-DB traffic or by the total processing time of my requests in the DB. Apparently force.com considers the number of “database objects” in its pricing plans and going over 200 pushes you from the “Enterprise” version to the more expensive “Unlimited” version. If I run against my local relational database I don’t think twice about having 201 “database objects”. But if I run in force.com and I otherwise can live within the limits of the “Enterprise” version I’d probably be tempted to slightly alter my data model to fit under 200 objects. The example is borderline silly, but the underlying truth is that not all differences in application infrastructure can be automatically encapsulated by libraries.

While code portability is a solvable problem for a reasonably large set of use cases, things get hairier for the more demanding applications. A large part of the PaaS value proposition is contingent on the willingness to give up some low-level optimizations. This, and harder portability in some cases, may just have to be part of the cost of running demanding applications in a PaaS environment. Or just keep these off PaaS for now. This is part of the backward-compatible versus forward compatible Cloud dilemma.

Data portability

I have covered data portability in the previous entry, in response to Steve Herrod’s comment that “you should be able to extract the code from the cloud it currently runs in and move it, along with its data, to another cloud choice”. Your data in the force.com database can already be moved somewhere else… as long as you’re willing to write code to get it and perform any needed transformation. In theory, any data that you can read is data that you can move (thus fulfilling Steve’s promise). The question is at what cost. Presumably Steve is referring to data migration tools that VMWare will build (or acquire) and make part of its cloud enablement platform. Another way in which VMWare is trying to assemble a more complete middleware portfolio (see Oracle ODI for an example of a complete data integration offering, which goes far beyond ETL).

There is a subtle difference between the intrinsic portability of Java (which will run in any JRE, modulo JDK version) and the extrinsic portability of data which can in theory be moved anywhere but each place you move it to may require a different process. A car and an oak armoire are both “portable”, but one is designed for moving while the other will only move if you bring a truck and two strong guys.

Application service portability

I covered this in my previous entry and Bob Warfield summarized it as “take advantage of all those juicy services and it will be hard to back out of that platform, Java or no Java”. He is referring to all the platform services (search, reporting, mobile, integration, BPM, IdM, administration) that make a large part of the force.com value proposition. They won’t be waiting for you in your private cloud (though some may be remotely invocable, depending on how SalesForce wants to play its cards). Applications that depend on them will have to be changed, at least until we have standards interfaces for all these services (don’t hold your breath).

Management portability

Even if you can seamlessly migrate your application and your data from your internal servers to force.com, what do you think is going to happen to your management console, especially if it uses operating system agents? These agents are not coming along for the ride, that’s for sure. Are you going to tell your administrators that rather than having a centralized configuration/monitoring/event console they are going to have to look at cute “monitoring” web pages for each application? And all the transaction tracing, event correlation, configuration policy and end-user monitoring features they were relying on are unfortunate victims of the relentless march of progress? Good luck with that sale.

VMWare’s answer will probably be that they will eventually provide you with all the management capabilities that you need. And it’s a fair one, along the lines of the “Application-to-Disk Management” message at the recent launch of Oracle Enterprise Manager 11G. With the difference that EM is not the only way to manage a top-to-bottom Oracle stack, just the one that we think is the best. BMC and HP aren’t locked out.

VMWare and SpringSource (+Hyperic) could indeed theoretically assemble a full-fledged management solution. But this doesn’t happen overnight, even with acquisitions as I know from experience both at HP Software and currently at Oracle. Integration (of management domains across the stack, of acquired application management products, of support data/services from oracle.com) is one of the main advances in Enterprise Manager 11G and it took work.

And even then, this leads to the next logical question. If you can move from cloud to cloud but you are forced to use VMWare development, deployment and management tools, haven’t you traded one lock-in problem for another?

Not to mention that your portability between clouds, if it depends on VMWare tools, is limited to VMWare-powered clouds (private or public). In effect, there are now three levels of portability:

• not portable (only runs on VMforce)
• portable to any cloud (public or private) built using VMWare infrastructure
• portable to any Java/Spring Cloud platform

Is your application portable the way cash is portable, or the way a gift card is portable (across stores of a retail chain)?

If this reminds you of the java portability debates of the early days of Enterprise Java that’s no surprise. Remember, we’re replaying the tape.

The battle of the Cloud Frameworks has started, and it will look a lot like the battle of the Application Servers which played out over the last decade and a half. Cloud Frameworks (which manage IT automation and runtime outsourcing) are to the Programmable Datacenter what Application Servers are to the individual IT server. In the longer term, these battlefronts may merge, but for now we’ve been transported back in time, to the early days of Web programming. The underlying dynamic is the same. It starts with a disruptive IT event (part new technology, part new mindset). 15 years ago the disruptive event was the Web. Today it’s Cloud Computing.

Stage 1

It always starts with very simple use cases. For the Web, in the mid-nineties, the basic use case was “how do I return HTML that is generated by a script as opposed to a static file”. For Cloud Computing today, it is “how do I programmatically create, launch and stop servers as opposed to having to physically install them”.

In that sense, the IaaS APIs of today are the equivalent of the Common Gateway Interface (CGI) circa 1993/1994. Like the EC2 API and its brethren, CGI was not optimized, not polished, but it met the basic use cases and allowed many developers to write their first Web apps (which we just called “CGI scripts” at the time).

Stage 2

But the limitations became soon apparent. In the CGI case, it had to do with performance (the cost of the “one process per request” approach). Plus, the business potential was becoming clearer and attracted a different breed of contenders than just academic and research institutions. So we got NSAPI, ISAPI, FastCGI, Apache Modules, JServ, ZDAC…

We haven’t reached that stage for Cloud yet. That will be when the IaaS APIs start to support events, enumerations, queries, federated identity etc…

Stage 3

Stage 2 looked like the real deal, when we were in it, but little did we know that we were still just nibbling on the hors d’oeuvres. And it was short-lived. People quickly decided that they wanted more than a way to handle HTTP requests. If the Web was going to be central to most programs, then all aspects of programming had to fit well in the context of the Web. We didn’t want Web servers anymore, we wanted application servers (re-purposing a term that had been used for client-server). It needed more features, covering data access, encapsulation, UI frameworks, integration, sessions. It also needed to meet non-functional requirements: availability, scalability (hello clustering), management, identity…

That turned into the battle between the various Java application servers as well as between Java and Microsoft (with .Net coming along), along with other technology stacks. That’s where things got really interesting too, because we explored different ways to attack the problem. People could still program at the HTTP request level. They could use MVC framework, ColdFusion/ASP/JSP/PHP-style markup-driven applications, or portals and other higher-level modular authoring frameworks. They got access to adapters, message buses, process flows and other asynchronous mechanisms. It became clear that there was not just one way to write Web applications. And the discovery is still going on, as illustrated by the later emergence of Ruby on Rails and similar frameworks.

Stage 4

Stage 3 is not over for Web applications, but stage 4 is already there, as illustrated by the fact that some of the gurus of stage 3 have jumped to stage 4. It’s when the Web is everywhere. Clients are everywhere and so are servers for that matter. The distinction blurs. We’re just starting to figure out the applications that will define this stage, and the frameworks that will best support them. The game is far from over.

So what does it mean for Cloud Frameworks?

If, like me, you think that the development of Cloud Frameworks will follow a path similar to that of Application Servers, then the quick retrospective above can be used as a (imperfect) crystal ball. I don’t pretend to be a Middleware historian or that these four stages are the most accurate representation, but I think they are a reasonable perspective. And they hold some lessons for Cloud Frameworks.

It’s early

We are at stage 1. I’ll admit that my decision to separate stages 1 and 2 is debatable and mainly serves to illustrate how early in the process we are with Cloud frameworks. Current IaaS APIs (and the toolkits that support them) are the equivalent of CGI (and the early httpd), something that’s still around (Google App Engine emulates CGI in its Python incarnation) but almost no-one programs to directly anymore. It’s raw, it’s clunky, it’s primitive. But it was a needed starting point that launched the whole field of Web development. Just like IaaS APIs like EC2 have launched the field Cloud Computing.

Cloud Frameworks will need to go through the equivalent of all the other stages. First, the IaaS APIs will get more optimized and capable (stage 2). Then, at stage 3, we will focus on higher-level, more productive abstraction layers (generally referred to as PaaS) at which point we should expect a thousand different approaches to bloom, and several of them to survive. I will not hazard a guess as to what stage 4 will look like (here is my guess for stage 3, in two parts).

No need to rush standards

One benefit of this retrospective is to highlight the tragedy of Cloud standards compared to Web development standards. Wouldn’t we be better off today if the development leads of AWS and a couple of other Cloud providers had been openly cooperating in a Cloud equivalent of the www-talk mailing list of yore? Out of it came a rough agreement on HTML and CGI that allowed developers to write basic Web applications in a reasonably portable way. If the same informal collaboration had taken place for IaaS APIs, we’d have a simple de-facto consensus that would support the low-hanging fruits of basic IaaS. It would allow Cloud developers to support the simplest use cases, and relieve the self-defeating pressure to standardize too early. Standards played a huge role in the development of Application Servers (especially of the Java kind), but that really took place as part of stage 3. In the absence of an equivalent to CGI in the Cloud world, we are at risk of rushing the standardization without the benefit of the experimentation and lessons that come in stage 3.

I am not trying to sugar-coat the history of Web standards. The HTML saga is nothing to be inspired by. But there was an original effort to build consensus that wasn’t even attempted with Cloud APIs. I like the staged process of a rough consensus that covers the basic use cases, followed by experimentation and proprietary specifications and later a more formal standardization effort. If we skip the rough consensus stage, as we did with Cloud, we end up rushing to do final step (to the tune of “customers demand Cloud standards”) even though all we need for now is an interoperable way to meet the basic use cases.

Winners and losers

Whoever you think of as the current leaders of the Application Server battle (hint: I work for one), they were not the obvious leaders of stages 1 and 2. So don’t be in too much of a hurry to crown the Cloud Framework kings. Those you think of today may turn out to be the Netscapes of that battle.

New roles

It’s not just new technology. The development of Cloud Frameworks will shape the roles of the people involved. We used to have designers who thought their job was done when they produced a picture or at best a FrameMaker or QuarkXPress document, which is what they were used to. We had “webmasters” who thought they were set for life with their new Apache skills, then quickly had to evolve or make way, a lesson for IaaS gurus of today. Under terms like “DevOps” new roles are created and existing roles are transformed. Nobody yet knows what will stick. But if I was an EC2 guru today I’d make sure to not get stuck providing just that. Don’t wait for other domains of Cloud expertise to be in higher demand than your current IaaS area, as by then you’ll be too late.

It’s the stack

There aren’t many companies out there making a living selling a stand-alone Web server. Even Zeus, who has a nice one, seems to be downplaying it on its site compared to its application delivery products. The combined pressure of commoditization (hello Apache) and of the demand for a full stack has made it pretty hard to sell just a Web server.

Similarly, it’s going to be hard to stay in business selling just portions of a Cloud Framework. For example, just provisioning, just monitoring, just IaaS-level features, etc. That’s well-understood and it’s fueling a lot of the acquisitions (e.g. VMWare’s purchase of SpringSource which in turn recently purchased RabbitMQ) and partnerships (e.g. recently between Eucalyptus and GroundWork though rarely do such “partnerships” rise to the level of integration of a real framework).

It’s not even clear what the right scope for a Cloud Framework is. What makes a full stack and what is beyond it? Is it just software to manage a private Cloud environment and/or deployments into public Clouds? Does the framework also include the actual public Cloud service? Does it include hardware in some sort of “private Cloud in a box”, of the kind that this recent Dell/Ubuntu announcement seems to be inching towards?

Integration

If indeed we can go by the history of Application Server to predict the future of Cloud Frameworks, then we’ll have a few stacks (with different levels of completeness, standardized or proprietary). This is what happened for Web development (the JEE stack, the .Net stack, a more loosely-defined alternative stack which is mostly open-source, niche stacks like the backend offered by Adobe for Flash apps, etc) and at some point the effort moved from focusing on standardizing the different application environment technology alternatives (e.g. J2EE) towards standardizing how the different platforms can interoperate (e.g. WS-*). I expect the same thing for Cloud Frameworks, especially as they grow out of stages 1 and 2 and embrace what we call today PaaS. At which point the two battlefields (Application Servers and Cloud Frameworks) will merge. And when this happens, I just can’t picture how one stack/framework will suffice for all. So we’ll have to define meaningful integration between them and make them work.

If you’re a spectator, grab plenty of popcorn. If you’re a soldier in this battle, get ready for a long campaign.

In a recent blog post, Don Ferguson (CTO at CA) describes CA Catalyst, a major architectural overhaul which “applies enterprise application integration patterns to the problem of integrating IT management systems”. Reading this was fascinating to me. Not because the content was some kind of revelation, but exactly for the opposite reason. Because it is so familiar.

For the better part of the last decade, I tried to build just this at HP. In the process, I worked with (and sometimes against) Don’s colleague at IBM, who were on the same mission. Both companies wanted a flexible and reliable integration platform for all aspects of IT management. We had decided to use Web services and SOA to achieve it. The Web services management protocols that I worked on (WSMF, WSDM, WS-Management and the “reconciliation stack”) were meant for this. We were after management integration more than manageability. Then came CMDBf, another piece of the puzzle. From what I could tell, the focus on SOA and Web services had made Don (who was then Mr. WebSphere) the spiritual father of this effort at IBM, even though he wasn’t at the time focused on IT management.

As far as I know, neither IBM nor HP got there. I covered some of the reasons in this post-mortem. The standards bickering. The focus on protocols rather than models. The confusion between the CMDB as a tool for process/service management versus a tool for software integration. Within HP, the turmoil from the many software acquisitions didn’t help, and there were other reasons. I am not sure at this point whether either company is still aiming for this vision or if they are taking a different approach.

But apparently CA is still on this path, and got somewhere. At least according to Don’s post. I have no insight into what was built beyond what’s in the post. I am not endorsing CA Catalyst, just agreeing with the design goals listed by Don. If indeed they have built it, and the integration framework resists the test of time, that’s impressive. And exciting. It apparently even uses some the same pieces we were planning to use, namely WS-Management and CMDBf (I am reluctantly associated with the first and proudly with the second).

While most readers might not share my historical connection with this work, this is still relevant and important to anyone who cares about IT management in the enterprise. If you’re planning to be at CA World, go listen to Don. Web services may have a bad name, but the technical problems of IT management integration remain. There are only a few routes to IT management automation (I count seven, the one taken by CA is #2). You can throw away SOAP if you want, you still need to deal with protocol compatibility, model alignment and instance reconciliation. You need to centralize or orchestrate the management operations performed. You need to be able to integrate with complementary products or at the very least to effectively incorporate your acquisitions. It’s hard stuff.

Bonus point to Don for not forcing a “Cloud” angle for extra sparkle. This is core IT management.

Yesterday’s panel session on the future of Cloud standards at Cloud Connect is still resonating on Twitter tonight. Many were shocked by how acrimonious the debate turned. It didn’t have to be that way but I am not surprised that it was.

The debate was set up and moderated by Bob Marcus (ET-Strategies CTO and master standards coordinator). On stage were Krishna Sankar (Cisco and DMTF Cloud incubator), Archie Reed (HP and CSA), Winston Bumpus (VMWare and DMTF), a gentleman whose name I unfortunately forgot (and who isn’t listed on the program) and me.

If the goal was to glamorize Cloud standards, it was a complete failure. If the goal was to come out with some solutions and agreements, it was also a failure. But if the goal, as I believe, was to surface the current issues, complexities, emotions and misunderstandings surrounding Cloud standards, then I’d say it was a success.

I am not going to attempt to summarize the whole discussion. Charles Babcock, who was in the audience, does a good enough job in this InformationWeek article and, unlike me, he doesn’t have a horse in the race [side note: I am not sure why my country of origin is relevant to his article, but my guess is that this is the main thing he remembered from my presentation during the Cloud Connect keynote earlier that morning, thanks to the "guillotine" slide].

Instead of reporting on what happened during the standards discussion, I’ll just make one comment and provide one take-away.

The comment: the dangers of marketing standards

Early in the session, audience member Reuven Cohen complained that standards organizations don’t do enough to market their specifications. Winston was more than happy to address this and talk about all the marketing work that DMTF does, including trade shows and PR. He added that this is one of the reasons why DMTF needs to charge membership fees, to pay for this marketing. I agree with Winston at one level. Indeed, the DMTF does what he describes and puts a fair amount of efforts into marketing itself and its work. But I disagree with Reuven and Winston that this is a good thing.

First it doesn’t really help. I don’t think that distributing pens and tee-shirts to IT admins and CIO-wannabes results in higher adoption of your standard. Because the end users don’t really care what standard is used. They just want a standard. Whether it comes from DMTF, SNIA, OGF, or OASIS is the least of their concerns. Those that you have to convince to adopt your standard are the vendors and the service providers. The Amazon, Rackspace and GoGrid of the world. The Microsoft, Oracle, VMWare and smaller ones like… Enomaly (Reuven’s company). The highly-specialized consultants who work with them, like Randy. And also, very importantly, the open source developers who provide all the Cloud libraries and frameworks that are the lifeblood of many deployments. I have enough faith left in human nature to assume that all these guys make their strategic standards decisions on a bit more context than exhibit hall loot and press releases. Well, at least we do where I work.

But this traditional approach to marketing is worse than not helping. It’s actually actively harmful, for two reasons. The first is that the cost of these activities, as Winston acknowledges, creates a barrier for participation by requiring higher dues. To Winston it’s an unfortunate side effect, to me it’s a killer. Not necessarily because dropping the membership fee by 50% would bring that many more participants. But because the organizations become so dependent on dues that they are paranoid about making anything public for fear of lowering the incentive for members to keep paying. Which is the worst thing you can do if you want the experts and open source developers, who are the best chance Cloud standards have to not repeat the mistakes of the past, to engage with the standard. Not necessarily as members of the group, also from the outside. Assuming the work happens in public, which is the key issue.

The other reason why it’s harmful to have a standards organization involved in such traditional marketing is that it has a tendency to become a conduit for promoting the agenda of the board members. Promoting a given standard or organization sounds good, until you realize that it’s rarely so pure and unbiased. The trade shows in which the organization participates are often vendor-specific (e.g. Microsoft Management Summit, VMWorld…). The announcements are timed to coincide with relevant corporate announcements. The press releases contain quotes from board members who promote themselves at the same time as the organization. Officers speaking to the press on behalf of the standards organization are often also identified by their position in their company. Etc. The more a standards organization is involved in marketing, the more its low-level members are effectively subsiding the marketing efforts of the board members. Standards have enough inherent conflicts of interest to not add more opportunities.

Just to be clear, that issue of standards marketing is not what consumed most of the time during the session. But it came up and I since I didn’t get a chance to express my view on this while on the panel, I used this blog instead.

My take-away from the panel, on the other hand, is focused on the heart of the discussion that took place.

The take away: confirmation that we are going too fast, too early

Based on this discussion and other experiences, my current feeling on Cloud standards is that it is too early. If you think the practical experience we have today in Cloud Computing corresponds to what the practice of Cloud Computing will be in 10 years, then please go ahead and standardize. But let me tell you that you’re a fool.

The portion of Cloud Computing in which we have some significant experience (get a VM, attach a volume, assign an IP) will still be relevant in 10 years, but it will be a small fraction of Cloud Computing. I can tell you that much even if I can’t tell you what the whole will be. I have my ideas about what the whole will look like but it’s just a guess. Anybody who pretends to know is fooling you, themselves, or both.

I understand the pain of customers today who just want to have a bit more flexibility and portability within the limited scope of the VM/Volume/IP offering. If we really want to do a standard today, fine. Let’s do a very small and pragmatic standard that addresses this. Just a subset of the EC2 API. Don’t attempt to standardize the virtual disk format. Don’t worry about application-level features inside the VM. Don’t sweat the REST or SOA purity aspects of the interface too much either. Don’t stress about scalability of the management API and batching of actions. Just make it simple and provide a reference implementation. A few HTTP messages to provision, attach, update and delete VMs, volumes and IPs. That would be fine. Anything else (and more is indeed needed) would be vendor extensions for now.

Unfortunately, neither of these (waiting, or a limited first standard) is going to happen.

Saying “it’s too early” in the standards world is the same as saying nothing. It puts you out of the game and has no other effect. Amazon, the clear leader in the space, has taken just this position. How has this been understood? Simply as “well I guess we’ll do it without them”. It’s sad, but all it takes is one significant (but not necessarily leader) company trying to capitalize on some market influence to force the standards train to leave the station. And it’s a hard decision for others to not engage the pursuit at that point. In the same way that it only takes one bellicose country among pacifists to start a war.

Prepare yourself for some collateral damages.

While I would prefer for this not to proceed now (not speaking for my employer on this blog, remember), it doesn’t mean that one should necessarily stay on the sidelines rather than make lemonade out of lemons. But having opened the Cloud Connect panel session with somewhat of a mea-culpa (at least for my portion of responsibility) with regards to the failures of the previous IT management standardization wave, it doesn’t make me too happy to see the seeds of another collective mea-culpa, when we’ve made a mess of Cloud standards too. It’s not a given yet. Just a very high risk. As was made clear yesterday.

There is always a temptation, when facing a hard design decision in the process of creating an interface or a protocol, to produce two (or more) versions. It’s sometimes a good idea, as a way to explore where each one takes you so you can make a more informed choice. But we know how this invariably ends up. Documents get published that arguably should not. It’s even harder in a standard working group, where someone was asked (or at least encouraged) by the group to create each of the alternative specifications. Canning one is at best socially awkward (despite the appearances, not everyone in standards is a psychopath or a sadist) and often politically impossible.

And yet, it has to be done. Compare the alternatives, then pick one and commit. Don’t confuse being accommodating with being weak.

The typical example these days is of course SOAP versus REST: the temptation is to support both rather than make a choice. This applies to standards and to proprietary interfaces. When a standard does this, it hurts rather than promote interoperability. Vendors have a bit more of an excuse when they offer a choice (“the customer is always right”) but in reality it forces customers to play Russian roulette whether they want it or not. Because one of the alternatives will eventually be left behind (either discarded or maintained but not improved). If you balance the small immediate customer benefit of using the interface style they are most used to with the risk of redoing the integration down the road, the value proposition of offering several options crumbles.

[Pedantic disclaimer: I use the term "REST" in this post the way it is often (incorrectly) used, to mean pretty much anything that uses HTTP without a SOAP wrapper. The technical issues are a topic for other posts.]

CMDBf

CMDBf v1 is a DMTF standard. It is a SOAP-based protocol. For v2, it has been suggested that there should a REST version. I don’t know what the CMDBf group (in which I participate) will end up doing but I’ve made my position clear: I could go either way (remain with SOAP or dump it) but I do not want to have two versions of the protocol (one SOAP one REST). If we think we’re better off with a REST version, then let’s make v2 REST-only. Supporting both mechanisms in v2 would be stupid. They would address the same use cases and only serve to provide political ass-coverage. There is no functional need for both. The argument that we need to keep supporting SOAP for the benefit of those who implemented v1 doesn’t fly. As an implementer, nobody is saying that you need to turn off your v1 services the second you launch the v2 version.

DMTF Cloud

Between the specifications submitted directly to DMTF, the specifications developed by DMTF “partner” organizations and the existing DMTF protocols, the DMTF Cloud effort is presented with a mix of SOAP, RESTful and XML-RPC-over-HTTP options. In the process of deciding what to create or adopt I am sure that the temptation will be high to take the easy route of supporting several versions to placate everyone. But such a “consensus” would be achieved on the back of the implementers so I very much hope it won’t be the case.

When it is appropriate

There are cases where supporting alternatives options is worth the cost. But it typically happens when they serve very different use cases. Think of SAX versus DOM, which have clearly differentiated sweetspots. In the Cloud world, Amazon S3 gives us interesting examples of both justified and extraneous alternatives. The extraneous one is the choice between REST and SOAP for the S3 API. I often praise AWS for its innovation and pragmatism, but this is an example of something that only looks pragmatic. On the other hand, the AWS import/export mechanism is a useful alternative. It allows you to physically ship a device with a few terabytes of data to Amazon. This is technically an alternative to the S3 programmatic interface, but one with obviously differentiated use cases. I recommend you reserve the use of “alternative APIs” for such scenarios.

If it didn’t work for Tiger Woods, it won’t work for your Cloud API either. Learn to commit.

[CLARIFICATION: based on some of the early Twitter feedback on this entry, I want to clarify that it's alternative versions that I am against, not successive versions (i.e. an evolution of the interface over time). How to manage successive versions properly is a whole other debate.]

When I lamented, in a previous post, that I couldn’t tell you about recent submissions to the DMTF Cloud incubator, one of those I had in mind was a submission from HP. I can now write this, because the author of the specification, Nigel Cook, has recently blogged about it. Unfortunately he is isn’t publishing the specification itself, just an announcement that it was submitted. Hopefully he is currently going through the long approval process to make the submitted document public (been there, done that, I know it takes time).

In the blog, Nigel makes a good argument for the need to go beyond a hypervisor-centric view of Cloud computing. Even at the IaaS layer there are cases of automated-but-not-virtualized deployment that have all the characteristics of Cloud computing and need to be supported by Cloud management APIs. Not to mention OS-level isolation like Solaris Containers.

Nigel also offers a spirited defense of SOAP-based protocols. I don’t necessarily agree with all his points (“one could easily map the web service definition I described to REST if that was important” suggests a “it’s just SOAP without the wrapper” view of REST), but I am glad he is launching this debate. We need to discuss this rather than assume that REST is the obvious answer. Remember, a few years ago SOAP was just as obvious an answer to any protocol question. It may well be that indeed REST comes out ahead of this discussion, but the process will force us to be explicit about what benefits of REST we are trying to achieve and will allow us to be practical in the way we approach it.

Events/alerts/notifications have been a central concept in IT management at least since the first SNMP trap was emitted, and probably even long before that. And yet they are curiously absent from all the Cloud management APIs/protocols. If you think that’s because “THE CLOUD CHANGES EVERYTHING” then you may have to think again. Over the last few days, two of the most experienced practitioners of Cloud computing pointed out that this omission is a real pain in the neck. RightScale’s Thorsten von Eicken was first to request “an event based interface instead of a request-reply based interface”, pointing out that “we run a good number of machines that do nothing but chew up 100% cpu polling EC2 to detect changes”. George Reese seconded and started to sketch a solution. And while these blog posts gave the issue increased visibility recently, it has been a recurring topic on the AWS Forum and other similar discussion boards for quite some time. For example, in this thread going back to 2006, an Amazon employee wrote that “this is a feature we’ve discussed recently and we’re looking at options” (incidentally, I see a post by Thorsten in that old thread). We’re still waiting.

Let’s look at what it would take to define such a feature.

I have some experience with events for IT management, having been involved in the WS-Notification family of specifications and having co-chaired the OASIS technical committee that standardized them. This post is not about foisting WS-Notification on Cloud APIs, but just about surfacing some of the questions that come up when you try to standardize such a mechanism. While the main use cases for WS-Notification came from IT (and Grid) management, it was supposed to be a generic mechanism. A Cloud-centric eventing protocol can be made simpler by focusing on fewer use cases (Cloud scenarios only). In addition, WS-Notification was marred by the complexity-is-a-sign-of-greatness spirit of the time . On this too, a Cloud eventing protocol could improve things by keeping IBM at bay simplicity in mind.

Types of event

When you pull the state of a resource to see if anything changed,  you don’t have to tell the provider what kind of change you are interested in. If, on the other hand, you want the provider to notify you, then they need to know what you care about. You may not want to be notified on every single change in the resource state. How do you describe the changes you care about? Is there an agreed-upon set of states for the resource and you are only notified on state transitions? Can you indicate the minimum severity level for an event to be emitted? Who determines the severity of an event? Or do you get to specify what fields in the resource state you want to watch? What about numeric values for which you may not want to be notified of every change but only when a threshold is crossed? Do you get to specify a query and get notified whenever the query result changes? In WS-Notification some of this is handled by WS-Topics which I still like conceptually (I co-edited it) but is too complex for the task at hand.

Event formats

What format are the events serialized in? How is the even metadata captured (e.g. time stamp of observation, which may not be the same as the time at which the notification message was sent)? If the event payload is a representation of the new state of the resource, does it indicate what field changes (and what the old value was)? How do you keep event payloads consistent with the resource representation in the request/response interactions? If many events occur near the same time, can you group them in one notification message for better scalability?

Subscription creation

Presumably you need a subscription mechanism. Is the subscription set in stone when the resource is created? Or can you come later and subscribe? If subscription is an operation on the resource itself, how do you subscribe for events on something that doesn’t exist yet (e.g. “create a VM and notify me once it’s started”)? Do you get to set subscriptions on a per-resource-basis? Or is this a global setting for all the resources that you own? Can you have two different subscriptions on the same resource (e.g. a “critical events only” subscription that exist throughout the life of the resource, plus a “lots of events please” subscription that you keep for a few hours while troubleshooting)?

Subscription management

Do you get to come back and update/pause/delete a subscription? Do you get to change what filter the subscription carries? Or is it set in stone until the subscription expires? Can you change the delivery endpoint? What if events fail to be delivered? Does the provider cancel your subscription? After how many failures? Does it just pause it for a few hours? Keep trying?

Subscription expiration

Who sets the expiration period? The subscriber? Can the provider set a max duration? Do you get a warning message before the subscription expires? Can you renew a subscription or do you have to create a new one? Do you get a message telling you that it has expired? Where are these subscription-lifecycle messages sent? To the same endpoint as the regular messages? What if your subscription is being killed because your deliver endpoint is down, clearly it makes no sense to send the warning message to that same endpoint. Do you provide a separate “subscription management” endpoint (different from the event delivery endpoint) when you subscribe? Alternatively, does an email message get sent to the registered user who set the subscription?

Delivery reliability

How reliable do you want the notifications to be? Should the emitter retry until they’ve received a confirmation? How long do they keep messages that can’t be delivered? Some may have a very short shelf life while others are still useful weeks later. If you don’t have a reliable mechanism but you really “need to know about a lost server within a minute of it disappearing” (the example Georges gives) then in reality you may still have to poll just to make sure that an event wasn’t lost. If you haven’t received an event in a while, how can you test if the subscription is still working? Should subscriptions send a heartbeat message once a while?

Delivery mechanism

How do you deliver notifications? Do you keep HTTP connections open through tricks similar to how self-updating web pages work (e.g. COMET, long polling and soon WebSockets)? Or do you just provide a listener endpoint to which the notifier tries to connect (which, in the case of public cloud deployments, means you need to have a publicly-addressable listener, but hopefully not on the same Cloud infrastructure). Do you use XMPP? AMQP? Email? Can I have you hold my events and let me come pull them?

Security

Do you need to verify the origin of the events you receive? Or do you assume they may be forged and always initiate a connection to the provider to double-check? And on the other side, what are the security requirements for event delivery? If a user looses some of their privileges, do you have to go and cancel the still-active subscriptions that they created?

Throttling

Is there a maximum event rate? Do you get charged for the events the Cloud provider sends you? How do you make sure that someone doesn’t create a subscription pointing to the wrong endpoint (either erroneously or maliciously, e.g. DoS). Do you send a test message at registration asking the delivery endpoint to acknowledge that they indeed want to receive these notifications?

Conclusion

My goal is not to argue that we cannot have a simple yet good enough notification system or to scare anyone from attempting to define it. It’s just to show that it’s not as simple as it may seem at first blush. But there probably is a sweetspot and people like Thorsten and George are very well qualified to find it.

[UPDATED 2010/4/7: Amazon releases AWS Simple notification Service. Not just as an eventing feature for the Cloud API, as a generic notification service. Which can, of course, also carry Cloud management events. Though at this point you're on your own to publish them from your instances, it doesn't look like the AWS infrastructure can do it for you. Which means, for example, that you're not going to be able to publish an event for a sudden crash.]

Then: Web services standards

One of the most frustrating aspects of how Web services standards shot themselves in the foot via unchecked complexity is that plenty of people were pointing out the problem as it happened. Mark Baker (to whom I noticed Don Box also paid tribute recently) is the poster child. I remember Tom Jordahl tirelessly arguing for keeping it simple in the WSDL working group. Amberpoint’s Fred Carter did it in WSDM (in the post announcing the recent Amberpoint acquisition, I mentioned that “their engineers brought to the [WSDM] group a unique level of experience and practical-mindedness” but I could have added “… which we, the large companies, mostly ignored.”)

The commonality between all these voices is that they didn’t come from the large companies. Instead they came from the “specialists” (independent contractors and representatives from small, specialized companies). Many of the WS-* debates were fought along alliance lines. Depending on the season it could be “IBM vs. Microsoft”, “IBM+Microsoft vs. Oracle”, “IBM+HP vs. Microsoft+Intel”, etc… They’d battle over one another’s proposal but tacitly agreed to brush off proposals from the smaller players. At least if they contained anything radically different from the content of the submission by the large companies. And simplicity is radical.

Now: Cloud standards

I do not reminisce about the WS-* standards wars just for old time sake or the joy of self-flagellation. I also hope that the current (and very important) wave of standards, related to all things Cloud, can do better than the Web services wave did with regards to involving on-the-ground experts.

Even though I still work for a large company, I’d like to see this fixed for Cloud standards. Not because I am a good guy (though I hope I am), but because I now realize that in the long run this lack of perspective even hurts the large companies themselves. We (and that includes IBM and Microsoft, the ringleaders of the WS-* effort) would be better off now if we had paid more attention then.

Here are two reasons why the necessity to involve and include specialists is even more applicable to Cloud standards than Web services.

First, there are many more individuals (or small companies) today with a lot of practical Cloud experience than there were small players with practical Web services experience when the WS-* standardization started (Shlomo Swidler, Mitch Garnaat, Randy Bias, John M. Willis, Sam Johnston, David Kavanagh, Adrian Cole, Edward M. Goldberg, Eric Hammond, Thorsten von Eicken and Guy Rosen come to mind, though this is nowhere near an exhaustive list). Which means there is even more to gain by ensuring that the Cloud standard process is open to them, should they choose to engage in some form.

Second, there is a transparency problem much larger than with Web services standards. For all their flaws, W3C and OASIS, where most of the WS-* work took place, are relatively transparent. Their processes and IP policies are clear and, most importantly, their mailing list archives are open to the public. DMTF, where VMWare, Fujitsu and others have submitted Cloud specifications, is at the other hand of the transparency spectrum. A few examples of what I mean by that:

• I can tell you that VMWare and Fujitsu submitted specifications to DMTF, because the two companies each issued a press release to announce it. I can’t tell you which others did (and you can’t read their submissions) because these companies didn’t think it worthy of a press release. And DMTF keeps the submission confidential. That’s why I blogged about the vCloud submission and the Fujitsu submission but couldn’t provide equivalent analysis for the others.
• The mailing lists of DMTF working groups are confidential. Even a DMTF member cannot see the message archive of a group unless he/she is a member of that specific group. The general public cannot see anything at all. And unless I missed it on the site, they cannot even know what DMTF working groups exist. It makes you wonder whether Dick Cheney decided to call his social club of energy company executives a “Task Force” because he was inspired by the secrecy of the DMTF (“Distributed Management Task Force”). Even when the work is finished and the standard published, the DMTF won’t release the mailing list archive, even though these discussions can be a great reference for people who later use the specification.
• Working documents are also confidential. Working groups can decide to publish some intermediate work, but this needs to be an explicit decision of the group, then approved by its parent group, and in practice it happens rarely (mileage varies depending on the groups).
• Even when a document is published, the process to provide feedback from the outside seems designed to thwart any attempt. Or at least that’s what it does in practice. Having blogged a fair amount on technical details of two DMTF standards (CMDBf and WS-Management) I often get questions and comments about these specifications from readers. I encourage them to bring their comments to the group and point them to the official feedback page. Not once have I, as a working group participant, seen the comments come out on the other end of the process.

So let’s recap. People outside of DMTF don’t know what work is going on (even if they happen to know that a working group called “Cloud this” or “Cloud that” has been started, the charter documents and therefore the precise scope and list of deliverables are also confidential). Even if they knew, they couldn’t get to see the work. And even if they did, there is no convenient way for them to provide feedback (which would probably arrive too late anyway). And joining the organization would be quite a selfless act because they then have to pay for the privilege of sharing their expertise while not being included in the real deciding circles anyway (unless there are ready to pony up for the top membership levels). That’s because of the unclear and unstable processes as well as the inordinate influence of board members and officers who all are also company representatives (in W3C, the strong staff balances the influence of the sponsors, in OASIS the bylaws limit arbitrariness by the board members).

What we are missing out on

Many in the standards community have heard me rant on this topic before. What pushed me over the edge and motivated me to write this entry was stumbling on a crystal clear illustration of what we are missing out on. I submit to you this post by Adrian Cole and the follow-up (twice)by Thorsten von Eicken. After spending two days at a face to face meeting of the DMTF Cloud incubator (in an undisclosed location) this week, I’ll just say that these posts illustrate a level of practically and a grounding in real-life Cloud usage that was not evident in all the discussions of the incubator. You don’t see Adrian and Thorsten arguing about the meaning of the word “infrastructure”, do you? I’d love to point you to the DMTF meeting minutes so you can judge for yourself, but by now you should understand why I can’t.

So instead of helping in the forum where big vendors submit their specifications, the specialists (some of them at least) go work in OGF, and produce OCCI (here is the mailing list archive). When Thorsten von Eicken blogs about his experience using Cloud APIs, they welcome the feedback and engage him to look at their work. The OCCI work is nice, but my concern is that we are now going to end up with at least two sets of standard specifications (in addition to the multitude of company-controlled specifications, like the ubiquitous EC2 API). One from the big companies and one from the specialists. And if you think that the simplest, clearest and most practical one will automatically win, well I envy your optimism. Up to a point. I don’t know if one specification will crush the other, if we’ll have a “reconciliation” process, if one is going to be used in “private Clouds” and the other in “public Clouds” or if the conflict will just make both mostly irrelevant. What I do know is that this is not what I want to see happen. Rather, the big vendors (whose imprimatur is needed) and the specialists (whose experience is indispensable) should work together to make the standard technically practical and widely adopted. I don’t care where it happens. I don’t know whether now is the right time or too early. I just know that when the time comes it needs to be done right. And I don’t like the way it’s shaping up at the moment. Well-meaning but toothless efforts like cloud-standards.org don’t make me feel better.

I know this blog post will be read both by my friends in DMTF and by my friends in Clouderati. I just want them to meet. That could be quite a party.

IBM was on to something when it produced this standards participation policy (which I commented on in a cynical-yet-supportive way – and yes I realize the same cynicism can apply to me). But I haven’t heard of any practical effect of this policy change. Has anyone seen any? Isn’t the Cloud standard wave the right time to translate it into action?

Transparency first

I realize that it takes more than transparency to convince specialists to take a look at what a working group is doing and share their thoughts. Even in a fully transparent situation, specialists will eventually give up if they are stonewalled by process lawyers or just ignored and marginalized (many working group participants have little bandwidth and typically take their cues from the big vendors even in the absence of explicit corporate alignment). And this is hard to fix. Processes serve a purpose. While they can be used against the smaller players, they also in many cases protect them. Plus, for every enlightened specialist who gets discouraged, there is a nutcase who gets neutralized by the need to put up a clear proposal and follow a process. I don’t see a good way to prevent large vendors from using the process to pressure smaller ones if that’s what they intend to do. Let’s at least prevent this from happening unintentionally. Maybe some of my colleagues  from large companies will also ask themselves whether it wouldn’t be to their own benefit to actually help qualified specialists to contribute. Some “positive discrimination” might be in order, to lighten the process burden in some way for those with practical expertise, limited resources, and the willingness to offer some could-otherwise-be-billable hours.

In any case, improving transparency is the simplest, fastest and most obvious step that needs to be taken. Not doing it because it won’t solve everything is like not doing CPR on someone on the pretext that it would only restart his heart but not cure his rheumatism.

What’s at risk if we fail to leverage the huge amount of practical Cloud expertise from smaller players in the standards work? Nothing less than an unpractical set of specifications that will fail to realize the promises of Cloud interoperability. And quite possibly even delay them. We’ve seen it before, haven’t we?

Notice how I haven’t mentioned customers? It’s a typical “feel-good” line in every lament about standards to say that “we need more customer involvement”. It’s true, but the lament is old and hasn’t, in my experience, solved anything. And today’s economical climate makes me even more dubious that direct customer involvement is going to keep us on track for this standardization wave (though I’d love to be proven wrong). Opening the door to on-the-ground-working-with-customers experts with a very neutral and pragmatic perspective has a better chance of success in my mind.

As a point of clarification, I am not asking large companies to pick a few small companies out of their partner ecosystem and give them a 10% discount on their alliance membership fee in exchange for showing up in the standards groups and supporting their friendly sponsor. This is a common trick, used to pack a committee, get the votes and create an impression of overwhelming industry support. Nobody should pick who the specialists are. We should do all we can to encourage them to come. It will be pretty clear who they are when they start to ask pointed questions about the work.

Finally, from the archives, a more humorous look at how various standards bodies compare. And the proof that my complaints about DMTF secrecy aren’t new.

Lots of communities think of Cloud Computing as the realization of a vision that they have been pusuing for a while (“sure we didn’t call it Cloud back then but…”). Just ask the Grid folks, the dynamic data center folks (DCML, IBM’s “Autonomic Computing”, HP’s “Adaptive Enterprise”,  Microsoft’s DSI), the ASP community, and those of us who toiled on what was going to be the SOAP-based management stack for all IT (e.g. my HP colleagues and I can selectively quote mentions of “adaptation mechanisms like resource reservation, allocation/de-allocation” and “management as a service” in this WSMF white paper from 2003 to portray WSMF as a precursor to all the Cloud APIs of today).

I thought of another such community today, as I ran into older OMG specifications: the Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) community. I have no idea what people in this community actually think of Cloud Computing, but it seems to me that PaaS is a chance to come close to part of their vision. For two reasons: PaaS makes it easier and more rewarding, all at the same time, to practice model-driven design. More bang for less buck.

Easier

My understanding of the MDA value proposition is that it would allow you to create a high-level design (at the level of something like an augmented version of UML) and have it automatically turn into executable code (e.g. that can run in a JEE or .NET container). I am probably making it sound more naive than it really is, but not by much. That’s a might wide gap to bridge, for QVT and friends, from UMLish to byte-code and it’s no surprise that the practical benefits of MDA are still to be seen (to put it kindly).

In a PaaS/SaaS world, on the other hand, you are mapping to something that is higher level than byte code. Depending on what types of PaaS containers you envision, some of the abstractions provided by these containers (e.g. business process execution, event processing) are a lot closer to the concepts manipulated in your PIM (Platform-independent model, the UMLish mentioned above). Thus a smaller gap to bridge and a better chance of it being automagical. Especially if you add a few SaaS building blocks to the mix.

More rewarding

Not only should it be easier to map a PIM to a PaaS deployment environments, the benefits you get once you are done are incommensurably greater. Rather than getting a dump of opaque auto-generated byte-code running in a regular JVM/CLR, you get an environments in which the design concepts (actors/services, process, rules, events) and the business model elements are first class citizens of the platform management infrastructure. So that you can monitor and set policies on the same things that you manipulate in you PIM. As opposed to falling down to the lowest common denominator of CPU/memory metrics. Or, god forbid, trying to diagnose/optimize machine-generated code.

We shall see

I wasn’t thinking of Microsoft SQL Server Modeling (previously known as Oslo) when I wrote this, but Doug Purdy’s tweet made the connection for me. And indeed, one can see in SQLSM+Azure the leading candidate today to realizing the MDA vision… minus the OMG MDA specifications.

[Note: I wasn't planning to blog this, but after I tweeted the basic idea ("Attempting MDA (model-driven architecture) before inventing model-driven deployment and mgmt was hopeless. Now possibly getting there.") Shlomo requested more details and I got frustrated by the difficulty to explain my point in twitterisms. In effect, this blog entry is just an expanded tweet, not something as intensely believed, fanatically researched and authoritatively supported as my usual blog posts (ah!).]

[UPDATED 2009/12/29: Some relevant presentations from OMG-land, thanks to Jean Bezivin. Though I don't see mention of any specific plan to use/adapt MOF/XMI/QVT/etc for the Cloud.]