Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@...>
On Sep 13, 2017 15:27, "Brian Grant via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:Yeah, there are a bunch of changes in this version that don't make sense. For example, why is Openstack at a layer above public cloud?We were making a distinction between software for provisioning a public (or private cloud) and providers offering public clouds.Coming back to this:Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer.
Big +1 on this request from Brian, particularly from the perspective of MAAS (Metal as a Service), as well as OpenStack, VMware, et al.
Those all definitely make more logical sense at the base level, bottom of the technology stack, and along side the public clouds.
CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top."CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity.Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.
cncf-toc mailing list