|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF TOC Principles
+1
By
alexis richardson
·
#1380
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF TOC Principles
+1 non-binding
By
Erin Boyd
·
#1379
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF TOC Principles
+1 (And sorry for the delay!)
- Bryan
+1 (And sorry for the delay!)
- Bryan
|
By
Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
·
#1378
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF TOC Principles
+1
By
Camille Fournier
·
#1377
·
|
|
Call to Action: Project Proposal Due Diligence
Hey CNCF TOC and wider community, we currently have 4 project proposals in flight:
Istio: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/70
Rook: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57
SPIFFE:
Hey CNCF TOC and wider community, we currently have 4 project proposals in flight:
Istio: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/70
Rook: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57
SPIFFE:
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1376
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
anyone else want to chip in?
anyone else want to chip in?
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#1375
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
I've been reading it this morning. I think SPIFFE/SPIRE, OPA, and Vault fit nicely within that framing. Frankly, I think proxies fit within the AAA category, too.
Maybe we're even talking about "AAA"
I've been reading it this morning. I think SPIFFE/SPIRE, OPA, and Vault fit nicely within that framing. Frankly, I think proxies fit within the AAA category, too.
Maybe we're even talking about "AAA"
|
By
Sunil James <sunil@...>
·
#1374
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
I am ok with that. Wonder what others think?
Is that an offer? ;-)
a
I am ok with that. Wonder what others think?
Is that an offer? ;-)
a
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#1373
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
Tough one, but I'd say "yes."
FWIW, we should probably read through RFC 2989 (specifically the agreed-upon terminology) for historical context.
---
SJ | sunil@... | Scytale & SPIFFE
Tough one, but I'd say "yes."
FWIW, we should probably read through RFC 2989 (specifically the agreed-upon terminology) for historical context.
---
SJ | sunil@... | Scytale & SPIFFE
|
By
Sunil James <sunil@...>
·
#1372
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
would you suggest moving key management to AAA?
would you suggest moving key management to AAA?
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#1371
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
+1 to this framing, particularly to its cross-cutting nature. While I agree 'security' is a natural starting bucket, the value propositions these (and other) projects address go beyond this (over
+1 to this framing, particularly to its cross-cutting nature. While I agree 'security' is a natural starting bucket, the value propositions these (and other) projects address go beyond this (over
|
By
Sunil James <sunil@...>
·
#1370
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
+1 to the Authentication (SPIFFE, spire), Authorization (OPA), Audit (?). Classically these are part of Security, but there's no box for that.
AAA is typically cross-cutting. OPA, for example, has
+1 to the Authentication (SPIFFE, spire), Authorization (OPA), Audit (?). Classically these are part of Security, but there's no box for that.
AAA is typically cross-cutting. OPA, for example, has
|
By
Tim Hinrichs
·
#1369
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
Similar functions have often been classified as "AAA" in traditional systems (Authentication, Authorization, Accounting). I agree that no box really captures these well today - the closest are likely
Similar functions have often been classified as "AAA" in traditional systems (Authentication, Authorization, Accounting). I agree that no box really captures these well today - the closest are likely
|
By
Guru Chahal <guru@...>
·
#1368
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
That was where I was going...
Do others agree?
That was where I was going...
Do others agree?
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#1367
·
|
|
Re: landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
I think OPA belongs in the top layer but I don't think it fits in any of the existing subcategories. In fact I feel that way about all three.
---- Nick
I think OPA belongs in the top layer but I don't think it fits in any of the existing subcategories. In fact I feel that way about all three.
---- Nick
|
By
Nick Chase
·
#1366
·
|
|
landscape, spiffe, opa, vault
All,
Question about the landscape.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cncf/landscape/master/landscape/CloudNativeLandscape_latest.jpg
- do we want to put OPA in the top layer, either inside, or next to
All,
Question about the landscape.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cncf/landscape/master/landscape/CloudNativeLandscape_latest.jpg
- do we want to put OPA in the top layer, either inside, or next to
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#1365
·
|
|
Re: SPIFFE Presentation - TOC Agenda 11/7/2017
Thanks Andrew, I really appreciate your detail answers to my questions I raised earlier. Let me digest all these details and get back to you in case I need more clarity etc. In the meanwhile, thanks
Thanks Andrew, I really appreciate your detail answers to my questions I raised earlier. Let me digest all these details and get back to you in case I need more clarity etc. In the meanwhile, thanks
|
By
Deepak Vij (A) <deepak.vij@...>
·
#1364
·
|
|
Open Policy Agent
Hello!
Here are extra materials that were requested on the call.
You can find out more about OPA at openpolicyagent.org. We have a number of tutorials with examples across Kubernetes, Terraform, SSH,
Hello!
Here are extra materials that were requested on the call.
You can find out more about OPA at openpolicyagent.org. We have a number of tutorials with examples across Kubernetes, Terraform, SSH,
|
By
Torin Sandall
·
#1363
·
|
|
Re: SPIFFE Presentation - TOC Agenda 11/7/2017
Hi Deepak - great to hear from you! Some answers to your questions inline.
Istio has implemented the X.509-SVID as its identity token. This is part of the SPIFFE specification. We’re working
Hi Deepak - great to hear from you! Some answers to your questions inline.
Istio has implemented the X.509-SVID as its identity token. This is part of the SPIFFE specification. We’re working
|
By
Andrew Jessup <andrew@...>
·
#1362
·
|
|
Re: CNCF TOC - F2F in Austin
we'll find something for folks who want to take the call F2F too, thanks for the reminder
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
we'll find something for folks who want to take the call F2F too, thanks for the reminder
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1361
·
|