Date   

Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Benjamin Hindman
 

+1

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

All New DC/OS 1.10 


Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Justin Cormack
 

+1 (non binding)

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Gomez, Emmanuel <Emmanuel.Gomez@...>
 

+1, non-binding

On Oct 2, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Jon Mittelhauser via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

+1
 
From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:11 AM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)
 
+1
 
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1
 
 
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:
 
The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.
 
Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38
 
Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
 
-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Solomon Hykes
 

+1


On Monday, October 2, 2017, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Jon Mittelhauser
 

+1

 

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:11 AM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

 

+1

 

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

+1

 

 

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

 

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

--

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

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 

_______________________________________________ cncf-toc mailing list cncf-toc@... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=LSrohUjRVWJ_ZB3WX4hfagBYNZgHw_zIDvNmFnO1u8M&m=u-fZ88UTyig6NOLsMFwpLVC36xVfDGMk--25XIefxqQ&s=4_iFNbz6MUu7f7TpgpmWeIL8GhsJ5T0u-Y3wqVnKMQU&e=


Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

+1

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

+1


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



[VOTE] Notary/TUF project proposal (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The TOC has decided to invite Notary (https://github.com/docker/notary) and the TUF (https://github.com/theupdateframework) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Solomon Hykes from the TOC:

The Update Framework (TUF) is a specification designed to solve specifically provenance and trust problems as part of a larger distribution framework. Notary is a content signing framework implementing the TUF specification in the Go language. The project provides both a client, and a pair of server applications to host signed metadata and perform limited online signing functions.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: TOC Agenda for 10/3/17

Chris Aniszczyk
 

...and of course I sent the email out early, here's the deck: https://goo.gl/nsYz4j

See everyone Tuesday.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for


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



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


TOC Agenda for 10/3/17

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the deck for


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


Re: Notary/TUF: marshalled and ready to activate

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Thanks Quinton for the detailed followup.

I plan on calling a vote by Monday at the latest.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Quinton Hoole via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think we’re good to go, with the caveat that the comparison matrices covering other update frameworks are still somewhat misleading and/or inaccurate (depending on your perspective), and should IMO be disregarded, and ultimately updated or deleted.

Most widely used trusted software update mechanisms can, in practice, check most of the boxes in the matrices, but TUF/Notary consolidates the required functionality into a single, well-defined, reviewed framework.

As long as we’re clear on that, I think that we have all of the info necessary to vote.  Thanks to the Notary folks (and @endophage in particular) for your diligence and patience attempting to address all of the questions and concerns expressed.

FYI to the voting TOC members as context, below are a few illustrative comments that have been made by the community regarding the comparison matrices:


FWIW, the YUM part above is not correct as such.

At SUSE we use GPG detach signed YUM repositories and it gives most if not all security features needed.

YUM has a root repomd.xml with sha256 hashes of dependend files all the way down. SUSE and likely others sign to repomd.xml with a trusted GPG key with detached signature.

  • freshness: at SUSE we have added an expiry tag to guarantee this
  • mix and match: is caught implicitly (the whole YUM repo is signed as a single blob)
  • endless data attack: needs to be caught by YUM processing stack, YUM format includes sizes everywhere
  • extraneous dependencies: implictly caught (whole YUM state is signed as a single blob)
  • fast forward: implicitly caught (whole YUM state is signed as a single blob)
  • indefinite freeze: caught by freshness attribute
  • malicious mirrors ... well, notary has the same trouble. the freshness will show this to the user.
  • rollback attacks: depends on how YUM is used, but RPM based installations usually only have increasing versions only.
  • slow retrieval: depends on YUM downloader, but with the sizes known ahead in YUM its at the same level as in TUF

What is a problem is that YUM is a bit RPM centric and does not support plain files, so a new XML part that handles generic files would need to be added.

I also admit that key handling is limited to a single GPG key signing the whole YUM repository instead of multiple roles/keys like in Notary, so some of the key attacks are present in YUM+GPG.

But its not as bad as your graphics makes it to be.


————————


https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38#issuecomment-329091834


I just spoke to one of the APT developers while at OSS and it appears that Debian/Ubuntu packaging also solves most of the problems you've marked as "not handled" (similarly to what @msmeissn has been describing for zypper/yumrepo). I would be also shocked to discover that RedHat's dnf and yum do not solve these problems (to the same degree as zypper/apt/etc) as well…


———————


https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38#issuecomment-329758267


…I agree however, that the comparison table should be updated to match how the actual package managers in distributions behave to mitigate individual risks.


————————


It is clear that many of the Linux vendors have started to construct parts of a protocol set similar to TUF using GPG, but there does not appear to be a formal reviewed specification in the same way as TUF has defined, with detailed security review, at least as far as I can find. The discussion about which boxes in the table should be ticked, and the fact that no one can easily find definitive answers does suggest that the specification is ad hoc rather than formally specified like TUF, or the answers would be much easier to find.

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@....io> on behalf of Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Friday, September 22, 2017 at 06:33
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Notary/TUF: marshalled and ready to activate

I am ready

On Sep 22, 2017 1:16 AM, "Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi all

I think we are ready to start soliciting votes for Notary.  Please shout now if you disagree, especially if you have been a TOC Contributor carrying out DD.

There were questions about TUF.

My understanding from OCI is that container signatures are expected to be attached metadata that could be associated with any popular method eg gpg, tuf.  If the OCI standardise this then they will focus on making it possible to attach signatures, rather than on picking gpg vs tuf for example.

By the same token (no pun intended) the CNCF is not, I repeat not, blessing a standard.  We should make this clear beyond the possibility of confusion.  TUF is a spec.  But we are not saying it is a standard.  See the github thread for more.

I want to thank Dan and all the DD folks for help thus far.

Are we ready to start voting?


Alexis




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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


Re: Notary/TUF: marshalled and ready to activate

Quinton Hoole
 

I think we’re good to go, with the caveat that the comparison matrices covering other update frameworks are still somewhat misleading and/or inaccurate (depending on your perspective), and should IMO be disregarded, and ultimately updated or deleted.

Most widely used trusted software update mechanisms can, in practice, check most of the boxes in the matrices, but TUF/Notary consolidates the required functionality into a single, well-defined, reviewed framework.

As long as we’re clear on that, I think that we have all of the info necessary to vote.  Thanks to the Notary folks (and @endophage in particular) for your diligence and patience attempting to address all of the questions and concerns expressed.

FYI to the voting TOC members as context, below are a few illustrative comments that have been made by the community regarding the comparison matrices:


FWIW, the YUM part above is not correct as such.

At SUSE we use GPG detach signed YUM repositories and it gives most if not all security features needed.

YUM has a root repomd.xml with sha256 hashes of dependend files all the way down. SUSE and likely others sign to repomd.xml with a trusted GPG key with detached signature.

  • freshness: at SUSE we have added an expiry tag to guarantee this
  • mix and match: is caught implicitly (the whole YUM repo is signed as a single blob)
  • endless data attack: needs to be caught by YUM processing stack, YUM format includes sizes everywhere
  • extraneous dependencies: implictly caught (whole YUM state is signed as a single blob)
  • fast forward: implicitly caught (whole YUM state is signed as a single blob)
  • indefinite freeze: caught by freshness attribute
  • malicious mirrors ... well, notary has the same trouble. the freshness will show this to the user.
  • rollback attacks: depends on how YUM is used, but RPM based installations usually only have increasing versions only.
  • slow retrieval: depends on YUM downloader, but with the sizes known ahead in YUM its at the same level as in TUF

What is a problem is that YUM is a bit RPM centric and does not support plain files, so a new XML part that handles generic files would need to be added.

I also admit that key handling is limited to a single GPG key signing the whole YUM repository instead of multiple roles/keys like in Notary, so some of the key attacks are present in YUM+GPG.

But its not as bad as your graphics makes it to be.


————————


https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38#issuecomment-329091834


I just spoke to one of the APT developers while at OSS and it appears that Debian/Ubuntu packaging also solves most of the problems you've marked as "not handled" (similarly to what @msmeissn has been describing for zypper/yumrepo). I would be also shocked to discover that RedHat's dnf and yum do not solve these problems (to the same degree as zypper/apt/etc) as well…


———————


https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38#issuecomment-329758267


…I agree however, that the comparison table should be updated to match how the actual package managers in distributions behave to mitigate individual risks.


————————


It is clear that many of the Linux vendors have started to construct parts of a protocol set similar to TUF using GPG, but there does not appear to be a formal reviewed specification in the same way as TUF has defined, with detailed security review, at least as far as I can find. The discussion about which boxes in the table should be ticked, and the fact that no one can easily find definitive answers does suggest that the specification is ad hoc rather than formally specified like TUF, or the answers would be much easier to find.

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: Friday, September 22, 2017 at 06:33
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Notary/TUF: marshalled and ready to activate

I am ready

On Sep 22, 2017 1:16 AM, "Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi all

I think we are ready to start soliciting votes for Notary.  Please shout now if you disagree, especially if you have been a TOC Contributor carrying out DD.

There were questions about TUF.

My understanding from OCI is that container signatures are expected to be attached metadata that could be associated with any popular method eg gpg, tuf.  If the OCI standardise this then they will focus on making it possible to attach signatures, rather than on picking gpg vs tuf for example.

By the same token (no pun intended) the CNCF is not, I repeat not, blessing a standard.  We should make this clear beyond the possibility of confusion.  TUF is a spec.  But we are not saying it is a standard.  See the github thread for more.

I want to thank Dan and all the DD folks for help thus far.

Are we ready to start voting?


Alexis




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: Notary/TUF: marshalled and ready to activate

Brian Grant
 

I am ready

On Sep 22, 2017 1:16 AM, "Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi all

I think we are ready to start soliciting votes for Notary.  Please shout now if you disagree, especially if you have been a TOC Contributor carrying out DD.

There were questions about TUF.

My understanding from OCI is that container signatures are expected to be attached metadata that could be associated with any popular method eg gpg, tuf.  If the OCI standardise this then they will focus on making it possible to attach signatures, rather than on picking gpg vs tuf for example.

By the same token (no pun intended) the CNCF is not, I repeat not, blessing a standard.  We should make this clear beyond the possibility of confusion.  TUF is a spec.  But we are not saying it is a standard.  See the github thread for more.

I want to thank Dan and all the DD folks for help thus far.

Are we ready to start voting?


Alexis




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: TOC Principles pull request

alexis richardson
 

Dan,

Thank-you.   I think the TOC & community could probably get to voting soon.  It would be even better if the broader CNCF was +1 too.  Eg: GB, EUC, ...

Would it be possible for you and Todd (cc'd) to rally round some of the GB and make sure they are ok with the text?  For example Ike (cc'd) had some questions about governance that were in the g/doc comments.  

alexis


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
The pull request has been open for 5 days, but the original document that the wording is taken from was published months ago.

Alexis, I think it's appropriate for you to call for a vote on approving the TOC principles if you're ready.

--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

GovOps? GitGov?


On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, 06:33 Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Thanks. LGTM. There don't appear to be any comments. I'm itching to click the merge button. :-)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Thanks Dan

All, please do take a last look over the g/doc comments.  If you see discussion there that you feel is not in GH or still unresolved, please update the GH doc.

Alexis


On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, 04:01 Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:

1. Converted it to markdown.
2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget.

The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks.

For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request.

Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well.

Rendered version

Pull request (comments welcome)

TOC Principles (i.e., the original document)

Thanks.
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc





Re: TOC Principles pull request

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

The pull request has been open for 5 days, but the original document that the wording is taken from was published months ago.

Alexis, I think it's appropriate for you to call for a vote on approving the TOC principles if you're ready.

--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

GovOps? GitGov?


On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, 06:33 Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Thanks. LGTM. There don't appear to be any comments. I'm itching to click the merge button. :-)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Thanks Dan

All, please do take a last look over the g/doc comments.  If you see discussion there that you feel is not in GH or still unresolved, please update the GH doc.

Alexis


On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, 04:01 Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:

1. Converted it to markdown.
2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget.

The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks.

For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request.

Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well.

Rendered version

Pull request (comments welcome)

TOC Principles (i.e., the original document)

Thanks.
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@linuxfoundation.org>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




Notary/TUF: marshalled and ready to activate

alexis richardson
 

Hi all

I think we are ready to start soliciting votes for Notary.  Please shout now if you disagree, especially if you have been a TOC Contributor carrying out DD.

There were questions about TUF.

My understanding from OCI is that container signatures are expected to be attached metadata that could be associated with any popular method eg gpg, tuf.  If the OCI standardise this then they will focus on making it possible to attach signatures, rather than on picking gpg vs tuf for example.

By the same token (no pun intended) the CNCF is not, I repeat not, blessing a standard.  We should make this clear beyond the possibility of confusion.  TUF is a spec.  But we are not saying it is a standard.  See the github thread for more.

I want to thank Dan and all the DD folks for help thus far.

Are we ready to start voting?


Alexis




Re: TOC Principles pull request

alexis richardson
 

GovOps? GitGov?


On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, 06:33 Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Thanks. LGTM. There don't appear to be any comments. I'm itching to click the merge button. :-)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Thanks Dan

All, please do take a last look over the g/doc comments.  If you see discussion there that you feel is not in GH or still unresolved, please update the GH doc.

Alexis


On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, 04:01 Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:

1. Converted it to markdown.
2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget.

The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks.

For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request.

Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well.

Rendered version

Pull request (comments welcome)

TOC Principles (i.e., the original document)

Thanks.
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: TOC Principles pull request

Brian Grant
 

Thanks. LGTM. There don't appear to be any comments. I'm itching to click the merge button. :-)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Thanks Dan

All, please do take a last look over the g/doc comments.  If you see discussion there that you feel is not in GH or still unresolved, please update the GH doc.

Alexis


On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, 04:01 Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:

1. Converted it to markdown.
2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget.

The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks.

For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request.

Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well.

Rendered version

Pull request (comments welcome)

TOC Principles (i.e., the original document)

Thanks.
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@linuxfoundation.org>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: CNCF SWG Agenda for 9/20 8 AM PT

Benjamin Hindman
 

To be determined in the SWG meeting this week! ;-)

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

Chris/Ben,

 

What do you include in “Cloud Native Storage Landscape” is it just Block & File (CSI scope) ?

Or include Object, Scale-out Databases, Etc. (which IMO are a more natural fit for Cloud apps)

 

Yaron

 

From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@lists.cncf.io] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:03 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Fwd: CNCF SWG Agenda for 9/20 8 AM PT

 

FYI for wider awareness

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:35 PM
Subject: CNCF SWG Agenda for 9/20 8 AM PT
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@googlegroups.com>

For the CNCF SWG on 9/20 I've added two topics based on email threads and discussions that have come from the last SWG meeting and Clint and Steve's presentation to the POC:

 

Agenda:

  • Clarification on role, responsibilities, and expectations of SWG (e.g., should we write a white paper?)
  • Cloud Native Storage Landscape

I've also updated the meeting minutes. Looking forward to discussing this all with you!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cncf-wg-storage" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cncf-wg-storage+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cncf-wg-storage@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cncf-wg-storage/CADcAm2vRfTLw035kNM56oct29RvdGnsy79H3VBJhuxZ79CH9zQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



 

--

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




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

All New DC/OS 1.10 


Re: my cncf contributor volunteer seems to have been missed

Chris Aniszczyk
 

sorry about that, added, but I expect people to make a comment on the sheet moving forward


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris L

Thank-you for raising this.

I must gracefully step aside and gesture at my colleague, Chris A, who had volunteered to populate that list with the names from the email thread ;-)

a


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl@...> wrote:

Greetings Alexis,

I just thought I would check-in on the CNCF TOC Contributors spreadsheet, and I see that I am not on it. Did you miss my volunteer for the contributors list?

Christopher



On 23 Aug 2017, at 10:02, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE via cncf-toc wrote:

Greetings,

Tigera as a company, and I, personally, are very supportive of this formalization of a contributor role. Please add me to the potential contributors list.

Christopher


On 22 Aug 2017, at 14:39, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc wrote:

To all TOC community,

People have been asking "how can the TOC get more help to get things done?".  The TOC welcomes help from people who are both capable and willing.  Specifically we could use hands-on help with things like WGs, technical DD and content creation.

We believe that recognition is important for many reasons, and so it is proposed that "TOC Contributors" be a thing.  A sketch of this idea is here:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3c5K0S8d4iHPScFHUEEY9cIzffWfJj-mhtN8fsd570/edit?ts=5992e231

As with similar proposals we can iterate towards a vote.  Feedback via the draft doc is now solicited from the community.  Or just comment on this list: "+1", "yay, but ..", "over my dead body", etc.  

alexis

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


--
李柯睿
Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio
Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf
keybase: https://keybase.io/liljenstolpe

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


--
李柯睿
Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio
Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf
keybase: https://keybase.io/liljenstolpe





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

6081 - 6100 of 7339