On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Alan Conley <aconley@...> wrote:
I'm referring mostly to large enterprises.
I find that startling.
Are you sure they are not just creating integration points around the 'edge' of Kubernetes or Docker Data Center or ...
Alan
________________________________ From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 8:50 AM To: Alan Conley Cc: cncf-toc@... Subject: Re: audience for "reference architecture" content
Alan,
Thank-you.
"anyone assembling a container management solution (orchestrator, control plane etc.) and anyone attempting to build a functional component that would fit within that architecture. Pretty much every company I've spoken with is currently rolling their own from a select set of open source projects and developing their own glue to fill gaps and stitch the pieces together"
Does this mean: - large enterprises - vendors - other..?
a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Alan Conley <aconley@...> wrote:
I think this goes back to what is the charter of the CNCF.
Taking a few short cuts in this narrative and avoiding some of the politics. Containers became mainstream when docker "standardized" their use. The industry saw this rapid adoption and suggested a forum should "govern" these standards which resulted in the OCP->OCI. From the OCI charter, "...industry participants may easily contribute to building a vendor-neutral, portable and open specification and runtime...". So we have both a spec and working code.
What was missing, was the equivalent for container management (orchestrator, control plane, monitoring) solutions. I believe this was the genesis of the CNCF, originated by Craig and why k8s was the initial project. The original reference architecture provided a simple view of these functional components. BTW, most would see the similarities between this and OpenStack for VMs. I personally have no interest in seeing the CNCF focused on one implementation.
Assuming I'm not completely off the path, the target audience for the ref arch is anyone assembling a container management solution (orchestrator, control plane etc.) and anyone attempting to build a functional component that would fit within that architecture. Pretty much every company I've spoken with is currently rolling their own from a select set of open source projects and developing their own glue to fill gaps and stitch the pieces together. (My company is doing that for our own SaaS solutions.) There are a few of us interested in extending what we see as one of the needed functional components. However, we are unclear on how others see that interfacing with other components and in some cases see overlapping capabilities. We can certainly just put it out there and see if there is adoption, but then that begs the question as to what value does the CNCF actually provide other than marketing.
I'll stop before this becomes too much of a ramble, for comments.
Alan
________________________________ From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:54 AM To: cncf-toc@... Subject: audience for "reference architecture" content
Hi all,
Yesterday we had our 2nd discussion about the 'marketecture' stack that Ken and I put out. One piece of feedback, from Doug Davis by email, and then eg from Alan Conley on the call, was that much more detail could help.
I believe this is a "target audience" issue. We may need different material for different audiences even if those audiences are all "technical". For example - I argued that for developer end users, less detail is good.
It would be very helpful to hear from the people advocating for more detail, regarding their target audience.
