cloud computing

What is Wrong With the NIST Definition of Cloud Computing?

by  •  • 7 Comments

I am getting so sick of the continual bickering over definitions of cloud computing. Even more frustrating is the hype from all the vested interests – vendors and analysts, mostly – trying to define cloud computing in ways that they imagine will best contribute to their own commercial success. And I know that I am not alone.

What is wrong with the definition that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – a division of the US Department of Commerce – uses?

You can read the entire definition online [link updated 8/12/11]. It is only 2 pages. Here, for the unaware, is the meat of it:

“Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.”

Does this suck so badly that every [insert your preferred expletive epithet here] needs a new definition?

It goes on to include:

  • Five essential characteristics: On-demand self-service; Broad network access; Resource pooling; Rapid elasticity; and Measured Service.
  • Three service models: Software as a Service (SaaS); Platform as a Service (PaaS); and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
  • Four deployment models: Private cloud; Community cloud; Public cloud; and Hybrid cloud.

So what exactly is wrong with that?! Why does every man and his dog feel the need to throw their own definition of could computing into the ring?

Don’t get me wrong. Definitions are important. Definitions enable a common understanding of terminology, essential when talking about complex technologies. And I have pushed my own definitions before (like my definition for virtualization, widely adopted after Wikipedia picked it up in 2006).

But why fight city hall (in this case, almost literally)? NIST has a very elegant definition that is:

  • Intelligent – it has been through (to date) 15 iterations, and has accepted input from many of the brightest minds in cloud computing (while presumably ignoring some dimmer bulbs)
  • Independent – it is from a mature, well-established, and exceptionally talented US government agency, which is both apolitical, and science-based
  • Commercially agnostic – it does not specify that anyone needs to be making money, nor does it preclude it, allowing cloud to be B2B, B2C, B2G, G2C, or any other model
  • Accommodating – all established cloud vendors (like Amazon, Google, Rackspace, Salesforce, and others) fit into this definition, as well as private and government models.
  • Clear – it is not full of jargon or ‘cloudwash’, but rather has easily understood, plain English concepts that are not only unambiguous but also usefully prescriptive
  • Comprehensive – it includes all the important core concepts such as self-service, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, accessibility, usage costing, multiple use cases, and more
  • SMART – it does not try to create anything exceptional or outrageous, but does define a set of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timely objectives

We trust NIST to define the official time for all of the United States. We trust it to calibrate instruments for NASA. We trust it to supply “industry, academia, government, and other users with over 1100 reference materials“.

Moreover, this is what the US government is using to define cloud computing, as noted by Vivek Kundra (the US Federal CIO). Indeed, Kundra has strongly indicated that the US government will be one of the strongest, largest, and most important proponents, providers, and consumers of cloud computing (cf. sites like apps.gov and data. gov). Other levels of government – and even other nations – will almost certainly follow their lead, and the NIST definition of cloud computing.

So why can’t people trust NIST with the definition of cloud computing, and just get on with the job of solving real problems for their customers? Bickering and chest-beating over self-enriching definitions is not needed, it is not useful, and it is not helpful.