Re: Serverless Work Group

Kehoe, Ben <bkehoe@...>

Moving to TOC list as asked.


One of the items that came out of the discussion I had with Cathy and Mark:

Serverless is bigger than FaaS; it's about FaaS + the ecosystem of SaaS that it's usable with. Since serverless architectures are event-oriented, one thing that could be useful is enabling easier interchange of events between providers. To make it easier, to, say, write an event to a Kinesis stream in AWS and read it from an Event Hub in Azure. That would reduce the "network effects" that Amazon (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the other big players) have over smaller FaaS/SaaS providers.


From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:08 AM
To: Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: Kehoe, Ben <bkehoe@...>; Brian Grant <briangrant@...>; Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>; Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang@...>; Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>; Mark Peek <markpeek@...>
Subject: Re: Serverless Work Group


Ok, further discussion onto TOC list please !


On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, 00:10 Yaron Haviv, <yaronh@...> wrote:

Right, instead of “s” we can put a goal to “find ways to enable code portability across implementations”  😊


From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:00 AM
To: Yaron Haviv <
Cc: Alexis Richardson <
alexis@...>; Ben Kehoe <bkehoe@...>; Brian Grant <briangrant@...>; Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>; Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang@...>; Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>; Mark Peek <markpeek@...>

Subject: RE: Serverless Work Group


I would suggest that we be a bit careful with our terminology around this effort. My guess is that if we use the "s" word some people will immediately push back. I think we may have better luck if we start with smaller less controversial goals, like describing the space, common terminology, usecases, etc... then let the work naturally drift into looking for areas of interop/harmonization across the popular implementations. This will also give us time to talk with the leaders from those implementations and, hopefully, get agreement on where they would like to see common ground.

STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 |
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Yaron Haviv ---04/29/2017 03:25:16 PM---Alexis, The highest priority is to standardize some call semantics (Events, Context, Response), foll

From: Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>, "Kenneth Owens (kenowens)" <kenowens@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang@...>, Ben Kehoe <bkehoe@...>
Date: 04/29/2017 03:25 PM
Subject: RE: Serverless Work Group


The highest priority is to standardize some call semantics (Events, Context, Response), followed with CI/CD tools integration
I believe anything we do can be implemented in a way where a small shim maps existing AWS/Azure/IBM APIs to the common model, this can drive user adoption
Some new or OpenSource projects may adopt that mode natively, and if it gets traction cloud providers may do it as well

AWS is the biggest player by far, I don’t see them running to adopt any standard (not just Serverless), but we can build something that is not too far from Lambda, just fixes things like a common Event schema and keep the rest optional

Challenge with things like (trying to solve this problem) is it address a very narrow API gateway use case, and use the lowest common denominator which doesn’t leverage many native provider capabilities


From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis@...]
Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:25 PM
Mark Peek <
markpeek@...>; Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>; Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>; Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
dug@...; Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang@...>; Ben Kehoe <bkehoe@...>
Re: Serverless Work Group

Mark - thanks! That looks like a helpful input.

Is there a plan to get buy in from the most popular oss projects, cloud services, etc? Why do we think they would find this useful?

(Among numerous other questions & issues)

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, 15:09 Mark Peek, <markpeek@...> wrote:
Cathy, Ben, and I met in person at serverlessconf this week in Austin. The event was well attended (400-500 people?) for the early stages of serverless. In talking amongst ourselves and other people in attendance there does seem to be support for ensuring portability of functions and services across serverless implementations. We agreed we don’t know what really should be standardized (or perhaps nothing at this time) but would like to discuss further as a CNCF WG.

There is already the notes document with details:

And I just put together a couple quick slides that could be used for discussion in the next TOC meeting:


From: "Kenneth Owens (kenowens)" <kenowens@...>
Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 5:04 AM
Alexis Richardson <
alexis@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
dug@..." <dug@...>

Re: Serverless Work Group


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: 4/29/17 6:19 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "Kenneth Owens (kenowens)" <kenowens@...>, dug@...
Subject: Re: Serverless Work Group

I would like to create a WG too. But I feel we to have to properly involve the TOC, and at least have a discussion. I'd be happy to NOT create a WG if difficulties are identified.

One key concern for me is that a WG creates documents that diminish the standing of the CNCF, by being substantially ignored by the community of popular open source implementations. There is also the issue of organisation. Quite a few people have volunteered to help organise it, not all of whom work for platinum seats and I do not want to exclude them.

Chris, can you table this as a major item for the next TOC meeting please?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

I've created a repo here:

For WGs, all we've said is we need one TOC sponsor so this should be good.

Alexis, any issues? Do we want to formally propose the creation of this at the next TOC call.

I do recall BrianG having an issue with having a specific WG on this topic.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...> wrote:

Can you please create a workgroup repo for the effort here. I will take this on and get us organized based on the way Network and Storage are going.




Kenneth Owens
Tel: +1 408 424 0872

Cisco Systems, Inc.
16401 Swingley Ridge Road Suite 400
United States


Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here for Company Registration Information.

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Join to automatically receive all group messages.