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.
>>
>> alexis
>>
>>
>>
