1. posterid:556940
  2. Messages

Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Quinton Hoole
 

Would it make sense to also highlight “CNCF Member” projects, distinct from “CNCF Project”s?  The former much less prominently than the latter of course. 

For example:

Oracle Database
Amazon Kinesis
Etc.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 18:21
To: Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] New version of Cloud Native Landscape



On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
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.
In the next version, we'll rename Public cloud to cloud and put the bare metal category next to the public cloud one.
 
CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top.
That's done on 0.9.7, along with identifying Jaeger and Envoy as CNCF Projects.

"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.
That category is changed to Secure Images. Where would you put a Key Management category? What else would go there?




But I'm not very familiar with any of those. Most clouds offer them, too.

Hashi's comparisons:

I'll think more about the layering, but I don't think provisioning is egregiously wrong, as it's a service commonly offered by clouds, configuration management tools, orchestration systems, and so on, which applications usually need in order to be able to authenticate with any other services. 
 
 
Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.
OK. 

Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.
I think it might make sense to list as a CNCF project when it exits incubation. Or we could call it a CNCF sub-project, or something like that.

No CNCF projects have graduated incubation yet :-)
 
 
Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.