|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 non-binding
Thanks & Best Regards,
徐翔轩
----------------------------------------------------
上海得帆信息技术有限公司
SHANGHAI DEFINESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO.,
+1 non-binding
Thanks & Best Regards,
徐翔轩
----------------------------------------------------
上海得帆信息技术有限公司
SHANGHAI DEFINESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO.,
|
By
徐翔轩 <eleven.xu@...>
·
#2330
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 nb
On 2018-09-04 06:50, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
-- Randy AbernethyManaging PartnerRX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@...o 415-800-2922c 415-624-6447
+1 nb
On 2018-09-04 06:50, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
-- Randy AbernethyManaging PartnerRX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@...o 415-800-2922c 415-624-6447
|
By
Randy Abernethy
·
#2329
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 (non-binding)
I second Chase's statement.
+1 (non-binding)
I second Chase's statement.
|
By
Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
·
#2328
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 nonbinding
By
Justin Cappos
·
#2327
·
|
|
TOC Agenda 9/4/2018
Here's the agenda deck for today: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1umu-iT5ZXq5XsMFmqmVeRe-tn2y7DeSoCebhrehi7fk/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0
We will be hearing from the Dragonfly/OpenMessaging
Here's the agenda deck for today: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1umu-iT5ZXq5XsMFmqmVeRe-tn2y7DeSoCebhrehi7fk/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0
We will be hearing from the Dragonfly/OpenMessaging
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#2326
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 non-binding
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
By
Alban Crequy
·
#2325
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 non-binding
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm
+1 non-binding
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm
|
By
Doug Davis <dug@...>
·
#2324
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 (non-binding)
By
Xu Wang
·
#2323
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 non-binding
How awesome would it be to have common nomenclature and practices across similar methodology for CNCF projects. This in and of itself would be a huge value add CNCF can bring to the
+1 non-binding
How awesome would it be to have common nomenclature and practices across similar methodology for CNCF projects. This in and of itself would be a huge value add CNCF can bring to the
|
By
Chase Pettet
·
#2322
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 (non binding)
By
Justin Cormack
·
#2321
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 non-binding
By
ytijani@...
·
#2320
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 (non-binding)
--
Thomas Phelan
Chief Architect
650 533 6462Try BlueData on AWS: www.bluedata.com/AWS
+1 (non-binding)
--
Thomas Phelan
Chief Architect
650 533 6462Try BlueData on AWS: www.bluedata.com/AWS
|
By
Tom Phelan
·
#2319
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 binding
By
Ken Owens
·
#2318
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
+1 (non-binding)
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] SAFE
+1 (non-binding)
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] SAFE
|
By
Geri Jennings
·
#2317
·
|
|
[VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group
A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens):
https://github.com/cn-security/safe
Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and
A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens):
https://github.com/cn-security/safe
Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#2316
·
|
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
> why did you feel it necessary to add an additional layer of application flow control on top of what TCP already provides?
This is discussed in the FAQ of the project:
> why did you feel it necessary to add an additional layer of application flow control on top of what TCP already provides?
This is discussed in the FAQ of the project:
|
By
Ben Christensen
·
#2315
·
|
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
> Other than to support non-TCP transports (like UDP), which I would assume are fairly uncommon,
This is actually something we leverage in production:
- TCP for server-to-server
- WebSocket for
> Other than to support non-TCP transports (like UDP), which I would assume are fairly uncommon,
This is actually something we leverage in production:
- TCP for server-to-server
- WebSocket for
|
By
Ben Christensen
·
#2314
·
|
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
> How much interoperability testing have you done?
We use rsocket-cpp, rsocket-js, and rsocket-java together. C++ as both client and server. JS as a client against C++ and Java, and recently
> How much interoperability testing have you done?
We use rsocket-cpp, rsocket-js, and rsocket-java together. C++ as both client and server. JS as a client against C++ and Java, and recently
|
By
Ben Christensen
·
#2313
·
|
|
Re: TOC + Community Input: Cloud Native Buildpacks
Thanks Alexis, I let the folks know to put together an official proposal for the sandbox:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/122#issuecomment-416621975
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
Thanks Alexis, I let the folks know to put together an official proposal for the sandbox:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/122#issuecomment-416621975
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#2312
·
|
|
Re: TOC + Community Input: Cloud Native Buildpacks
I am happy to co-sponsor.
alexis
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
I am happy to co-sponsor.
alexis
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#2311
·
|