Date   

RFC: What do projects need to succeed?

Matt Klein
 

Hi TOC community and GB,

Over the past several weeks I have been working with Michelle and Brandon to create an overview document that aims to clarify both what services projects need to succeed as well as the different funding options available to obtain those services.

Our goal is to start a community and GB discussion that will allow us to:

  • Prioritize project needs to enable better tracking by the TOC, GB, and community.

  • Create a shared perspective on how project funding is prioritized and evaluated by the foundation/GB.

  • Establish a plan to ensure graduated projects have all their P0 needs met by the end of 2019.

  • Discuss the cost of P0 services in 2019 to plan for covering P1 and P2 services in 2020.

The first step to set the foundation for these discussions is to agree on a set of needs for each project which we’ve laid out in the overview document with feedback from the maintainers of the CNCF projects. We request that you review the overview document and add your input. We look forward to your discussion and comments over the coming weeks as well as in-person at OSLS next week for those present.

Thanks,

Matt, Michelle, and Brandon



Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Brendan Burns
 

Xiang,
Please do file these issues on the gatekeeper project, it is part of the OPA repository as people mentioned.

--brendan



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cncf.Io <caniszczyk=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:14 AM
To: Li, Xiang
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request
 
re: gatekeeper, it was moved into OPA a couple months ago: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper + history: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/issues/1093

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:12 AM "Li, Xiang <x.li@...> wrote:
Thanks Brendan for the information. I gave a look at the project this week, and agree on most of the feedbacks azure engineers provided.

Since you mentioned the gatekeeper project, do you know if it is part of OPA (the sandbox project) or a separate project?

I took a look at OPA Kubernetes example (https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/kubernetes-admission-control.html), and found some potential issues:
1. require cache Kubernetes resources into OPA agent, which can be pretty expensive. Is there a cheaper way to do it? Can the agent obtain the base JSON data on demand?
2. the policy agent runs on the eventual consistent cache. This might cause wrong evaluation if previous change has not yet propagated back. 



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


Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Chris Aniszczyk
 

re: gatekeeper, it was moved into OPA a couple months ago: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper + history: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/issues/1093


On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:12 AM "Li, Xiang <x.li@...> wrote:
Thanks Brendan for the information. I gave a look at the project this week, and agree on most of the feedbacks azure engineers provided.

Since you mentioned the gatekeeper project, do you know if it is part of OPA (the sandbox project) or a separate project?

I took a look at OPA Kubernetes example (https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/kubernetes-admission-control.html), and found some potential issues:
1. require cache Kubernetes resources into OPA agent, which can be pretty expensive. Is there a cheaper way to do it? Can the agent obtain the base JSON data on demand?
2. the policy agent runs on the eventual consistent cache. This might cause wrong evaluation if previous change has not yet propagated back. 



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


Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Li, Xiang
 

Thanks Brendan for the information. I gave a look at the project this week, and agree on most of the feedbacks azure engineers provided.

Since you mentioned the gatekeeper project, do you know if it is part of OPA (the sandbox project) or a separate project?

I took a look at OPA Kubernetes example (https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/kubernetes-admission-control.html), and found some potential issues:
1. require cache Kubernetes resources into OPA agent, which can be pretty expensive. Is there a cheaper way to do it? Can the agent obtain the base JSON data on demand?
2. the policy agent runs on the eventual consistent cache. This might cause wrong evaluation if previous change has not yet propagated back. 


Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Brendan Burns
 

Here's some verbatum feedback from one of my engineers who lead the azure policy controller and is helping lead gatekeeper (opa + admission control), I'll do my own look too, but I thought I'd pass this along.

--brendan

Vision

At the heart of the OPA’s premise is to decouple the definition of policy from the enforcement of it providing ability to define fine-grained policy control at various levels of the stack. At the basics it is JSON document store with Rego as the query-able language. The design of it being a general open policy engine allows easily building platform specific policy controllers Gatekeeper to be successful.


Quality

The project is well structured and is maintainable, follows good design patterns. I had a chance to add the contribute and enhance the query method in OPA core project. It was easy to make changes i.e. straightforward to satisfy new requirements, and add new test cases in existing test infrastructure. The project has clear and good documentation. The code review process is thorough.  The project has does good performance test and security analysis. The github issues are well documented for fresh developers to start making contributions.


Community Support

The support is awesome and growing (supported by folks at Styra). Questions get answered in a near real time. The Gatekeeper project would not have been successful without the help of the level of support (special mention Torin and Tim)


Adoption

In my last several months of closely working and monitoring this project I see fast growing adoption and interest in the project. With the Gatekeeper project we see interest from all major clouds expecting this project to make it to large number of test and production environments. I am already see products and teams within organization like Microsoft e.g Office, AAD, IOT  solving policy problems where OPA would be a natural fit.


Improvements

There are always this that we are striving to improve, in that spirit arguably there is a learning curve associated with writing new policies in Rego, and sizable portion of questions on Slack channel are related to policy syntax and bugs . The project has done incredible work it making it debuggable and testable to tooling (e.g. vs code extensions). There is work going on via Gatekeeper project to build a constraint framework a higher level  abstraction on top of Rego to make policies more reusable.





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brendan Burns via Lists.Cncf.Io <bburns=microsoft.com@...>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 12:06 PM
To: Quinton Hoole; caniszczyk@...
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request
 
I'll volunteer, unless Quinton wants it 🙂



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cncf.Io <caniszczyk=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request
 
no but I look forward for someone from the TOC to volunteer, feel free to comment on the PR

On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

Thanks Chris

Has anyone been assigned yet to lead the technical due diligence?

Thanks

Q


From: cncf-toc@... [cncf-toc@...] on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk [caniszczyk@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 6:17 PM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Just an FYI, OPA! They are close to their 1 year anniversary for their annual review as a sandbox project and also want to request a move to incubation:


We look forward to comments from the TOC and wider community.

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


Re: [RESULT] containerd moving to graduation (PASSED)

Joe Beda
 

Awesome! Congrats to the project and the team.  Thanks for the update Phil!


On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:40 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Thanks Phil, always nice to see a project evolve its governance after community feedback.

Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/containerd/project/pull/16

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:33 PM Phil Estes <estesp@...> wrote:
Because it came up during the graduation comment period for containerd, and specifically on this TOC email list, I wanted to close the loop and note that today by agreement of at least a 2/3rds majority of maintainers, the removal of Moby TSC governance language from the containerd project governance structure was finalized. The discussion was actually unanimous based on the view that containerd project maturity has rendered a separate TSC governance structure unnecessary going forward.

Thank you,
- Phil Estes

Chris Aniszczyk wrote on 2/28/19 1:06 PM:
The vote for containerd moving to the graduation maturity level has been approved:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165
https://www.cncf.io/announcement/2019/02/28/cncf-announces-containerd-graduation/

+1 binding TOC votes (8/9):
Jeff: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2900
Joe: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2914
Matt: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2915
Xiang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2916
Brian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2924
Brendan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2931
Quinton: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2933
Alexis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2934

+1 non-binding community votes:
Ihor Dvoretskyi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2874
Richard Hartmann: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2875
Phil Estes: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2876
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2877
Doug Davis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2878
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2879
Davanum Srinivas: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2880
Bob Killen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2881
Sonya Koptyev: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2883
Yassine Tijani: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2884
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2885
Suresh Krishnan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2886
Feilong Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2887
Randy Abernethy: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2889
郑淮城: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2890
Allen Sun: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2891
徐翔轩: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2894
Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2895
Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2897
Christian Jantz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2898
Xu Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2901
Dan Shaw: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2903
Haining Zhang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2906
Philippe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2911
Sebastiaan van Stijn: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2912
Ayrat Khayretdinov: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2913
Jia Zou: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2917
Heng Du: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2918
Abdul Aziz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2921
Erin Boyd: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2926
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2927
Justin Cappos: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2928
Gilbert Song: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2929
Dan Wilson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2930
Xing Yang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2932
Pengfei Ni: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2935

0 non-binding community votes:
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2882
Ruben Orduz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2893

Thanks all for voting!

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



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


Re: [RESULT] containerd moving to graduation (PASSED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Thanks Phil, always nice to see a project evolve its governance after community feedback.

Here's the PR for reference: https://github.com/containerd/project/pull/16


On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:33 PM Phil Estes <estesp@...> wrote:
Because it came up during the graduation comment period for containerd, and specifically on this TOC email list, I wanted to close the loop and note that today by agreement of at least a 2/3rds majority of maintainers, the removal of Moby TSC governance language from the containerd project governance structure was finalized. The discussion was actually unanimous based on the view that containerd project maturity has rendered a separate TSC governance structure unnecessary going forward.

Thank you,
- Phil Estes

Chris Aniszczyk wrote on 2/28/19 1:06 PM:
The vote for containerd moving to the graduation maturity level has been approved:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165
https://www.cncf.io/announcement/2019/02/28/cncf-announces-containerd-graduation/

+1 binding TOC votes (8/9):
Jeff: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2900
Joe: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2914
Matt: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2915
Xiang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2916
Brian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2924
Brendan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2931
Quinton: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2933
Alexis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2934

+1 non-binding community votes:
Ihor Dvoretskyi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2874
Richard Hartmann: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2875
Phil Estes: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2876
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2877
Doug Davis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2878
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2879
Davanum Srinivas: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2880
Bob Killen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2881
Sonya Koptyev: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2883
Yassine Tijani: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2884
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2885
Suresh Krishnan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2886
Feilong Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2887
Randy Abernethy: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2889
郑淮城: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2890
Allen Sun: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2891
徐翔轩: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2894
Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2895
Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2897
Christian Jantz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2898
Xu Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2901
Dan Shaw: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2903
Haining Zhang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2906
Philippe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2911
Sebastiaan van Stijn: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2912
Ayrat Khayretdinov: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2913
Jia Zou: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2917
Heng Du: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2918
Abdul Aziz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2921
Erin Boyd: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2926
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2927
Justin Cappos: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2928
Gilbert Song: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2929
Dan Wilson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2930
Xing Yang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2932
Pengfei Ni: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2935

0 non-binding community votes:
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2882
Ruben Orduz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2893

Thanks all for voting!

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



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


Re: [RESULT] containerd moving to graduation (PASSED)

Phil Estes
 

Because it came up during the graduation comment period for containerd, and specifically on this TOC email list, I wanted to close the loop and note that today by agreement of at least a 2/3rds majority of maintainers, the removal of Moby TSC governance language from the containerd project governance structure was finalized. The discussion was actually unanimous based on the view that containerd project maturity has rendered a separate TSC governance structure unnecessary going forward.

Thank you,
- Phil Estes

Chris Aniszczyk wrote on 2/28/19 1:06 PM:

The vote for containerd moving to the graduation maturity level has been approved:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165
https://www.cncf.io/announcement/2019/02/28/cncf-announces-containerd-graduation/

+1 binding TOC votes (8/9):
Jeff: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2900
Joe: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2914
Matt: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2915
Xiang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2916
Brian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2924
Brendan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2931
Quinton: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2933
Alexis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2934

+1 non-binding community votes:
Ihor Dvoretskyi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2874
Richard Hartmann: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2875
Phil Estes: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2876
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2877
Doug Davis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2878
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2879
Davanum Srinivas: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2880
Bob Killen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2881
Sonya Koptyev: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2883
Yassine Tijani: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2884
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2885
Suresh Krishnan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2886
Feilong Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2887
Randy Abernethy: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2889
郑淮城: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2890
Allen Sun: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2891
徐翔轩: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2894
Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2895
Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2897
Christian Jantz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2898
Xu Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2901
Dan Shaw: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2903
Haining Zhang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2906
Philippe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2911
Sebastiaan van Stijn: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2912
Ayrat Khayretdinov: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2913
Jia Zou: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2917
Heng Du: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2918
Abdul Aziz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2921
Erin Boyd: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2926
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2927
Justin Cappos: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2928
Gilbert Song: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2929
Dan Wilson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2930
Xing Yang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2932
Pengfei Ni: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2935

0 non-binding community votes:
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2882
Ruben Orduz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2893

Thanks all for voting!

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


Re: [E] [cncf-toc] TOC Agenda for 3/5/2019

Toy, Mehmet
 

Dan, 
You are correct. I was able to open it up in my personal computer!
Thanks
Mehmet

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:39 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
You can get access if you open them in an incognito window.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:31 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The slides are public, please don't spam the main list.

This is a verizon setting, your employer is blocking you from accessing the deck for some insane reason.

image.png

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:28 PM Toy, Mehmet <mehmet.toy@...> wrote:


Below is what I get when I click on the url.

You need permission

Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with permission. Learn more

You are signed in as mehmet.toy@....

Request accessSwitch accounts


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:48 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for tomorrow:


We will be doing an annual review for OPA since it's been a year in the sandbox (they also requested a move to incubation), announcing a new meeting specifically for project presentations, end user community update, CNCF SIGs finalization and CNF testbed discussion.

See everyone tomorrow!

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



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


Re: [E] [cncf-toc] TOC Agenda for 3/5/2019

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

You can get access if you open them in an incognito window.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:31 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The slides are public, please don't spam the main list.

This is a verizon setting, your employer is blocking you from accessing the deck for some insane reason.

image.png

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:28 PM Toy, Mehmet <mehmet.toy@...> wrote:


Below is what I get when I click on the url.

You need permission

Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with permission. Learn more

You are signed in as mehmet.toy@....

Request accessSwitch accounts


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:48 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for tomorrow:


We will be doing an annual review for OPA since it's been a year in the sandbox (they also requested a move to incubation), announcing a new meeting specifically for project presentations, end user community update, CNCF SIGs finalization and CNF testbed discussion.

See everyone tomorrow!

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



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


Re: [E] [cncf-toc] TOC Agenda for 3/5/2019

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The slides are public, please don't spam the main list.

This is a verizon setting, your employer is blocking you from accessing the deck for some insane reason.

image.png

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:28 PM Toy, Mehmet <mehmet.toy@...> wrote:


Below is what I get when I click on the url.

You need permission

Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with permission. Learn more

You are signed in as mehmet.toy@....

Request accessSwitch accounts


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:48 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for tomorrow:


We will be doing an annual review for OPA since it's been a year in the sandbox (they also requested a move to incubation), announcing a new meeting specifically for project presentations, end user community update, CNCF SIGs finalization and CNF testbed discussion.

See everyone tomorrow!

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



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


Re: [E] [cncf-toc] TOC Agenda for 3/5/2019

Toy, Mehmet
 



Below is what I get when I click on the url.

You need permission

Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with permission. Learn more

You are signed in as mehmet.toy@....

Request accessSwitch accounts


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:48 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for tomorrow:


We will be doing an annual review for OPA since it's been a year in the sandbox (they also requested a move to incubation), announcing a new meeting specifically for project presentations, end user community update, CNCF SIGs finalization and CNF testbed discussion.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


TOC Agenda for 3/5/2019

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the deck for tomorrow:


We will be doing an annual review for OPA since it's been a year in the sandbox (they also requested a move to incubation), announcing a new meeting specifically for project presentations, end user community update, CNCF SIGs finalization and CNF testbed discussion.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Brendan Burns
 

I'll volunteer, unless Quinton wants it 🙂



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cncf.Io <caniszczyk=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request
 
no but I look forward for someone from the TOC to volunteer, feel free to comment on the PR

On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

Thanks Chris

Has anyone been assigned yet to lead the technical due diligence?

Thanks

Q


From: cncf-toc@... [cncf-toc@...] on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk [caniszczyk@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 6:17 PM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Just an FYI, OPA! They are close to their 1 year anniversary for their annual review as a sandbox project and also want to request a move to incubation:


We look forward to comments from the TOC and wider community.

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


Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Chris Aniszczyk
 

no but I look forward for someone from the TOC to volunteer, feel free to comment on the PR

On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

Thanks Chris

Has anyone been assigned yet to lead the technical due diligence?

Thanks

Q


From: cncf-toc@... [cncf-toc@...] on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk [caniszczyk@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 6:17 PM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Just an FYI, OPA! They are close to their 1 year anniversary for their annual review as a sandbox project and also want to request a move to incubation:


We look forward to comments from the TOC and wider community.

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


Re: RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Quinton Hoole
 

Thanks Chris

Has anyone been assigned yet to lead the technical due diligence?

Thanks

Q


From: cncf-toc@... [cncf-toc@...] on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk [caniszczyk@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 6:17 PM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] RFC: OPA is up for Annual Review + Incubation Request

Just an FYI, OPA! They are close to their 1 year anniversary for their annual review as a sandbox project and also want to request a move to incubation:


We look forward to comments from the TOC and wider community.

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


Re: Anyone know what this is?

Russell Bryant <rbryant@...>
 

Thanks, Chris!  That channel just got archived on slack, unfortunately.  We are in #cluster-api as well, though. 

we can set up a mailing list for metalkube too if that helps. 

Russell Bryant

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 1:24 PM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
That's great Xuan!  I agree, Kube is very promising for a variety of edge and other usecases in the network.

Jump on #wg-onprem in Kubernetes Slack, visit http://metalkube.org/, or ping Russell (Cc'd) if you need any other pointers.

thanks,
-chris

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 2:45 AM Xuan Jia <jason.jiaxuan@...> wrote:
Hi Chris, i am very interested in this project.  It may have some value in edge computing. 
We are finding if community have any solution to solve the bare metal machine management problem .
MetalKube is the one.  How can we do together ? 

From my point of view, the resource in Edge Computing Data Center is limited.   CNF is a very good chose in Edge. 

Xuan Jia
Edge Computing Architect 
China Mobile Research Institute 

Chris Wright <chrisw@...> 于2019年3月2日周六 上午12:01写道:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 2:37 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The statement about competing with openstack is especially unfortunate.

I agree, I'm very disappointed by that statement.

And all solutions have noisy neighbor challenges. It's workload dependent.

Indeed. Similarly all solutions have security challenges. And then pointing to microvms as interesting after describing Kata as FUD is minimally confusing and maximally reads as just bad mouthing another project.

Having said the above, that's mostly about messaging concerns. I do see real value in Kubernetes on bare metal for a number of usecases including network functions.

So I'm curious to see who is interested in Kubernetes on bare metal?  For those interested, we're working on a project called metalkube: 


Feel free to jump on slack and learn what's going on there.

thanks,
-chris



On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:09 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
If so then I assume this article is all a set of misquotes by the journalist:




On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, 15:58 Dan Kohn, <dan@...> wrote:
Definitely, there's a lot more to come. We're also hoping to get a bunch of telcos and their vendors engaged and making improvement to the Testbed so that it becomes a real, collaborative open source project.

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:49 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Fwiw I think this is pretty cool, but I suspect a lot of parties interested in this comparison would also want to see latency & jitter info added to slide 9. Is that in the pipeline Dan?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:18, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:13 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation  https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000  https://www.dankohn.com

--
Russell Bryant


Re: Anyone know what this is?

Rob Hirschfeld
 

> "So I'm curious to see who is interested in Kubernetes on bare metal?  "

If the TOC is interested in Kube on bare metal... there's also KRIB on Digital Rebar which uses KubeAdm and has a wide range of options including HA.  

We've done work for a ClusterAPI Machine Controller which allows the ClusterAPI to treat metal like a cloud: https://github.com/galthaus/machine-controller

Rob Hirschfeld

Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, RackN

(512) 773-7522




On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 10:01 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 2:37 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The statement about competing with openstack is especially unfortunate.

I agree, I'm very disappointed by that statement.

And all solutions have noisy neighbor challenges. It's workload dependent.

Indeed. Similarly all solutions have security challenges. And then pointing to microvms as interesting after describing Kata as FUD is minimally confusing and maximally reads as just bad mouthing another project.

Having said the above, that's mostly about messaging concerns. I do see real value in Kubernetes on bare metal for a number of usecases including network functions.

So I'm curious to see who is interested in Kubernetes on bare metal?  For those interested, we're working on a project called metalkube: 


Feel free to jump on slack and learn what's going on there.

thanks,
-chris



On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:09 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
If so then I assume this article is all a set of misquotes by the journalist:




On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, 15:58 Dan Kohn, <dan@...> wrote:
Definitely, there's a lot more to come. We're also hoping to get a bunch of telcos and their vendors engaged and making improvement to the Testbed so that it becomes a real, collaborative open source project.

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:49 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Fwiw I think this is pretty cool, but I suspect a lot of parties interested in this comparison would also want to see latency & jitter info added to slide 9. Is that in the pipeline Dan?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:18, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:13 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation  https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000  https://www.dankohn.com


Re: Anyone know what this is?

Chris Wright
 

That's great Xuan!  I agree, Kube is very promising for a variety of edge and other usecases in the network.

Jump on #wg-onprem in Kubernetes Slack, visit http://metalkube.org/, or ping Russell (Cc'd) if you need any other pointers.

thanks,
-chris


On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 2:45 AM Xuan Jia <jason.jiaxuan@...> wrote:
Hi Chris, i am very interested in this project.  It may have some value in edge computing. 
We are finding if community have any solution to solve the bare metal machine management problem .
MetalKube is the one.  How can we do together ? 

From my point of view, the resource in Edge Computing Data Center is limited.   CNF is a very good chose in Edge. 

Xuan Jia
Edge Computing Architect 
China Mobile Research Institute 

Chris Wright <chrisw@...> 于2019年3月2日周六 上午12:01写道:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 2:37 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The statement about competing with openstack is especially unfortunate.

I agree, I'm very disappointed by that statement.

And all solutions have noisy neighbor challenges. It's workload dependent.

Indeed. Similarly all solutions have security challenges. And then pointing to microvms as interesting after describing Kata as FUD is minimally confusing and maximally reads as just bad mouthing another project.

Having said the above, that's mostly about messaging concerns. I do see real value in Kubernetes on bare metal for a number of usecases including network functions.

So I'm curious to see who is interested in Kubernetes on bare metal?  For those interested, we're working on a project called metalkube: 


Feel free to jump on slack and learn what's going on there.

thanks,
-chris



On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:09 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
If so then I assume this article is all a set of misquotes by the journalist:




On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, 15:58 Dan Kohn, <dan@...> wrote:
Definitely, there's a lot more to come. We're also hoping to get a bunch of telcos and their vendors engaged and making improvement to the Testbed so that it becomes a real, collaborative open source project.

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:49 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Fwiw I think this is pretty cool, but I suspect a lot of parties interested in this comparison would also want to see latency & jitter info added to slide 9. Is that in the pipeline Dan?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:18, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:13 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation  https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000  https://www.dankohn.com


Re: Anyone know what this is?

Xuan Jia <jason.jiaxuan@...>
 

Hi Chris, i am very interested in this project.  It may have some value in edge computing. 
We are finding if community have any solution to solve the bare metal machine management problem .
MetalKube is the one.  How can we do together ? 

From my point of view, the resource in Edge Computing Data Center is limited.   CNF is a very good chose in Edge. 

Xuan Jia
Edge Computing Architect 
China Mobile Research Institute 

Chris Wright <chrisw@...> 于2019年3月2日周六 上午12:01写道:

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 2:37 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The statement about competing with openstack is especially unfortunate.

I agree, I'm very disappointed by that statement.

And all solutions have noisy neighbor challenges. It's workload dependent.

Indeed. Similarly all solutions have security challenges. And then pointing to microvms as interesting after describing Kata as FUD is minimally confusing and maximally reads as just bad mouthing another project.

Having said the above, that's mostly about messaging concerns. I do see real value in Kubernetes on bare metal for a number of usecases including network functions.

So I'm curious to see who is interested in Kubernetes on bare metal?  For those interested, we're working on a project called metalkube: 


Feel free to jump on slack and learn what's going on there.

thanks,
-chris



On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:09 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
If so then I assume this article is all a set of misquotes by the journalist:




On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, 15:58 Dan Kohn, <dan@...> wrote:
Definitely, there's a lot more to come. We're also hoping to get a bunch of telcos and their vendors engaged and making improvement to the Testbed so that it becomes a real, collaborative open source project.

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:49 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Fwiw I think this is pretty cool, but I suspect a lot of parties interested in this comparison would also want to see latency & jitter info added to slide 9. Is that in the pipeline Dan?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:18, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

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


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:13 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation  https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000  https://www.dankohn.com

4381 - 4400 of 7342