Date   

Re: Notary/TuF & GPG (& Harbor)

Brian Grant
 

Follow-up questions on Notary:
  • What is the degree to which trust is tied to the distribution mechanism? Can image identity be asserted independent of the distribution mechanism and, if so, how is that identity expressed? As a concrete example, if an image were pushed to multiple image repositories, would it need to be signed multiple times, one for each repository? 
  • Could attributes other than identity (e.g., passage of certain types of validation/qualification tests) be attested by this mechanism? If so, could they be created by someone other than the image repository owner?
  • The main benefit compared to just signing an image digest is revocation?
  • Who owns https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf ? It's not clear from the readme or authors files.
  • Is there any doc that describes the important distinctions between the capabilities of TUF, Notary, and DCT?
Thanks.


FYI: Intro to Kubernetes course via edX.org

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Today, CNCF announced the availability of our new Intro to Kubernetes course. You can read more about the new course here: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/announcements/linux-foundation-cncf-and-edxorg-announce-new-free-intro-to-kubernetes-course

This free course is open for immediate enrollment at: https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-kubernetes-linuxfoundationx-lfs158x


Thanks!

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


IMPORTANT - TOC slides & meeting this week

alexis richardson
 

Hi all

Don't forget we have a TOC meeting tomorrow.  If you are a voting member and cannot attend, please see if a delegate can come.  If you are not a voting member, please do read this email carefully and make your views known in the call or in the docs.

Slides

@all -- 

The main item of business is to prepare for the GB working session on July 28th.  A key topic is "what can we do better?".

As TOC chair, I am asking for YOUR INPUT on the main topics to push for in this meeting.  This is a chance for us all to put forward some asks.  As a first step, carefully review the slides for tomorrow's TOC and check the Principles & projects docs (slide 6-7).

alexis




Re: Changes to the Marketing Committee

Lauri Apple <lauri.apple@...>
 

Hi all: I (agile coach/project manager+open source evangelist at Zalando) might be interested in joining this committee, or another on which I could be useful. If someone wants to take a look and give me a direct ping, would be great. — Lauri

2017-07-06 9:26 GMT+02:00 Mark Coleman via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>:

All,

I have spoken with many of you individually about the marketing committee. In summary:
  1. I received the feedback that there was a lack of insight and input into how marketing decisions are made
  2. Within the marketing committee some members felt it was unclear how they could contribute effectively and that often their time was wasted in our calls
Both of the above are, in my opinion, are valid concerns.

To address these concerns we have introduced changes into how the marketing committee is run.
  • The Marketing Committee calls have now been changed to monthly, instead of bi-weekly
  • During those calls we dedicate half the time to updates about current marketing activities and the other half to open discussion around various topics that have been submitted to us for consideration
  • If there are topics which require more in-depth conversation we can either a) use the now unused bi-weekly slot or b) spin off a working group to tackle the issue and report back
  • In case we cannot reach agreement during these discussions we fall back to Lazy Majority voting: https://guides.shiftbase.net/lazy-majority-vote/

The process is already working effectively. Last month a separate working group was spun off to discuss setting up a speaker bureau to help our meetup organizers get access to the best speaking talent. The first recommendations from the group were presented to the marketing committee yesterday. They were accepted and will be implemented by the CNCF marketing team.

We now have a process through which we can have timely discussions and make open decisions.

What does this mean for you?*

If you want to have input into the marketing committee process you can send topics or concerns to either me or Dan Kohn and we will feed them into the process.

If you want insight into the marketing committee process you can join the mailing list or one of our monthly calls.

If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out to either me or Dan Kohn.

Mark

* Please note that while the TOC is open to everyone, the Marketing Committee is only open to members. I am however very open to feedback from non-members.
--

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



Changes to the Marketing Committee

Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

All,

I have spoken with many of you individually about the marketing committee. In summary:
  1. I received the feedback that there was a lack of insight and input into how marketing decisions are made
  2. Within the marketing committee some members felt it was unclear how they could contribute effectively and that often their time was wasted in our calls
Both of the above are, in my opinion, are valid concerns.

To address these concerns we have introduced changes into how the marketing committee is run.
  • The Marketing Committee calls have now been changed to monthly, instead of bi-weekly
  • During those calls we dedicate half the time to updates about current marketing activities and the other half to open discussion around various topics that have been submitted to us for consideration
  • If there are topics which require more in-depth conversation we can either a) use the now unused bi-weekly slot or b) spin off a working group to tackle the issue and report back
  • In case we cannot reach agreement during these discussions we fall back to Lazy Majority voting: https://guides.shiftbase.net/lazy-majority-vote/

The process is already working effectively. Last month a separate working group was spun off to discuss setting up a speaker bureau to help our meetup organizers get access to the best speaking talent. The first recommendations from the group were presented to the marketing committee yesterday. They were accepted and will be implemented by the CNCF marketing team.

We now have a process through which we can have timely discussions and make open decisions.

What does this mean for you?*

If you want to have input into the marketing committee process you can send topics or concerns to either me or Dan Kohn and we will feed them into the process.

If you want insight into the marketing committee process you can join the mailing list or one of our monthly calls.

If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out to either me or Dan Kohn.

Mark

* Please note that while the TOC is open to everyone, the Marketing Committee is only open to members. I am however very open to feedback from non-members.
--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: openmetrics next steps

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey Richard, just following up here to see how things have progressed.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

> Please talk to the GH project owner who has "openmetrics".

Those requests are proxied by GH these days, but I will try.


> For help & next steps, you can follow up with Lee & Ken via email - ccd.

Will do.


> You can find the Kubernetes Instrumentation SIG at
> https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-instrumentation

Fabian is listed as a lead and he's in on this effort as well. Still,
I will make them officially aware.


Richard



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


Re: Zoom

Shawn Preissner <spreissner@...>
 

Hi Brian and all,

Sorry - quickly read and thought this request was again for the Marketing Committee call happening now.

Please use ZOOM for the next TOC call.

Thanks,
Shawn


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:06 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The next TOC meeting is on the 11th, not sure what's up with the phantom calendar invite for today.

Sorry for the confusion.

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Shawn Preissner via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Are we on uberconference or zoom today?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I'm not sure what the problem was Camille on your end but I'll investigate why you couldn't un mute yourself.

Thanks for your patience, we are still learning the ins and outs of Zoom.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:56 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Zoom is cool but I need something phone-only that doesn't mute me in a fashion where I don't control it myself. Can we fix config default or move to something else?

C
_______________________________________________
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
--

Shawn Preissner
Integrated Marketing Manager

The Linux Foundation

Cell: +1 (919)257-9591

Web: cncf.io and cncf.io/events

Sign up for our newsletter to get inspiration in your inbox: https://www.cncf.io/newsroom/newsletter


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




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

Shawn Preissner
Integrated Marketing Manager

The Linux Foundation

Cell: +1 (919)257-9591

Web: cncf.io and cncf.io/events

Sign up for our newsletter to get inspiration in your inbox: https://www.cncf.io/newsroom/newsletter


Re: Zoom

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The next TOC meeting is on the 11th, not sure what's up with the phantom calendar invite for today.

Sorry for the confusion.

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Shawn Preissner via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Are we on uberconference or zoom today?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I'm not sure what the problem was Camille on your end but I'll investigate why you couldn't un mute yourself.

Thanks for your patience, we are still learning the ins and outs of Zoom.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:56 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Zoom is cool but I need something phone-only that doesn't mute me in a fashion where I don't control it myself. Can we fix config default or move to something else?

C
_______________________________________________
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
--

Shawn Preissner
Integrated Marketing Manager

The Linux Foundation

Cell: +1 (919)257-9591

Web: cncf.io and cncf.io/events

Sign up for our newsletter to get inspiration in your inbox: https://www.cncf.io/newsroom/newsletter


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




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


Re: Zoom

Shawn Preissner <spreissner@...>
 


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Are we on uberconference or zoom today?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I'm not sure what the problem was Camille on your end but I'll investigate why you couldn't un mute yourself.

Thanks for your patience, we are still learning the ins and outs of Zoom.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:56 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Zoom is cool but I need something phone-only that doesn't mute me in a fashion where I don't control it myself. Can we fix config default or move to something else?

C
_______________________________________________
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
--

Shawn Preissner
Integrated Marketing Manager

The Linux Foundation

Cell: +1 (919)257-9591

Web: cncf.io and cncf.io/events

Sign up for our newsletter to get inspiration in your inbox: https://www.cncf.io/newsroom/newsletter


Re: Zoom

Brian Grant
 

Are we on uberconference or zoom today?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I'm not sure what the problem was Camille on your end but I'll investigate why you couldn't un mute yourself.

Thanks for your patience, we are still learning the ins and outs of Zoom.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:56 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Zoom is cool but I need something phone-only that doesn't mute me in a fashion where I don't control it myself. Can we fix config default or move to something else?

C
_______________________________________________
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: first CSI example implementation

alexis richardson
 



On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Bernstein, Joshua <Joshua.Bernstein@...> wrote:
Of course. Wouldn't leave them out! 

:-)




 

-Josh

On Jul 1, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Josh

How about people from docker and kubernetes?  Are they in the loop?

Alexis


On Sat, 1 Jul 2017, 06:48 Bernstein, Joshua, <Joshua.Bernstein@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,

I'm not sure exactly the number of people, but it's been a large effort from everyone around the community between the folks at Mesosphere, those of us at Dell, and all of the rest of the folks in the community and companies that provided feedback and made the 0.1 spec come together so quickly. 

-Josh

On Jun 30, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

this looks like very quick progress; impressive

how many people are involved?


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clinton Kitson <clintonskitson@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Subject: first CSI example implementation
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@googlegroups.com>


Hello team,

Lots of great progress being made re the CSI specification.

On today's call Andrew Kutz of {code} by Dell EMC provided a first working example of the CSI specification written in Go. At this current time there is a single pull request that includes the different components that make all sides (server/client) of it work. This PR and future submitted code will mutate based on discussions, but for now it is a partially working example with AWS EBS!


There were specific goals in generating this:
- Generate a simple and pure CSI server side plugin endpoint in Go
- Pragmatically work through specification to identify gaps
- Create tools and tests that can assist with CI against the specification
- Discover if there are things that can be done to make it easier for plugin implementers
- Collect feedback about project desires as compared to examples and tools

He was able to show a few really cool things today.

1) a standalone AWS EBS plugin process (csp) that serves the CSI endpoints. This implementation has absolute minimal code and is intended to be a pure CSI implementation.

2) the client (csc) that is a tool that can be used to speak with the CSI endpoints. It provides functionality similar to what a CO would implement and thus makes it practical to truly test the specification and understand limitations.

3) the daemon (csd) that could possibly make it easier for plugin developers. We have identified input validation, logging, etc as common features that can possibly be shared across plugins. This was implemented by using Go plugins, where the csd is able to dynamically load the standalone csp's (same exact package as mentioned in #1). The csd actually exposes gRPC upward, and uses gRPC to speak in-memory via Go io.pipe package to any of the pure CSI plugin packages.

Both 1 & 3 are able to provide a mechanism to further test and actually have discussions around packaging and build process for the plugins since it is a real process now that serves as endpoints.

Looking forward to feedback on how the project might see these examples and tools fitting moving forward.


--
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/5c0bd689-fff0-4b81-8faf-edd389ce7d98%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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: first CSI example implementation

Bernstein, Joshua <Joshua.Bernstein@...>
 

Of course. Wouldn't leave them out! 

-Josh

On Jul 1, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Josh

How about people from docker and kubernetes?  Are they in the loop?

Alexis


On Sat, 1 Jul 2017, 06:48 Bernstein, Joshua, <Joshua.Bernstein@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,

I'm not sure exactly the number of people, but it's been a large effort from everyone around the community between the folks at Mesosphere, those of us at Dell, and all of the rest of the folks in the community and companies that provided feedback and made the 0.1 spec come together so quickly. 

-Josh

On Jun 30, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

this looks like very quick progress; impressive

how many people are involved?


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clinton Kitson <clintonskitson@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Subject: first CSI example implementation
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@...>


Hello team,

Lots of great progress being made re the CSI specification.

On today's call Andrew Kutz of {code} by Dell EMC provided a first working example of the CSI specification written in Go. At this current time there is a single pull request that includes the different components that make all sides (server/client) of it work. This PR and future submitted code will mutate based on discussions, but for now it is a partially working example with AWS EBS!


There were specific goals in generating this:
- Generate a simple and pure CSI server side plugin endpoint in Go
- Pragmatically work through specification to identify gaps
- Create tools and tests that can assist with CI against the specification
- Discover if there are things that can be done to make it easier for plugin implementers
- Collect feedback about project desires as compared to examples and tools

He was able to show a few really cool things today.

1) a standalone AWS EBS plugin process (csp) that serves the CSI endpoints. This implementation has absolute minimal code and is intended to be a pure CSI implementation.

2) the client (csc) that is a tool that can be used to speak with the CSI endpoints. It provides functionality similar to what a CO would implement and thus makes it practical to truly test the specification and understand limitations.

3) the daemon (csd) that could possibly make it easier for plugin developers. We have identified input validation, logging, etc as common features that can possibly be shared across plugins. This was implemented by using Go plugins, where the csd is able to dynamically load the standalone csp's (same exact package as mentioned in #1). The csd actually exposes gRPC upward, and uses gRPC to speak in-memory via Go io.pipe package to any of the pure CSI plugin packages.

Both 1 & 3 are able to provide a mechanism to further test and actually have discussions around packaging and build process for the plugins since it is a real process now that serves as endpoints.

Looking forward to feedback on how the project might see these examples and tools fitting moving forward.


--
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@....
To post to this group, send email to cncf-wg-storage@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cncf-wg-storage/5c0bd689-fff0-4b81-8faf-edd389ce7d98%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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: first CSI example implementation

alexis richardson
 

Josh

How about people from docker and kubernetes?  Are they in the loop?

Alexis


On Sat, 1 Jul 2017, 06:48 Bernstein, Joshua, <Joshua.Bernstein@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,

I'm not sure exactly the number of people, but it's been a large effort from everyone around the community between the folks at Mesosphere, those of us at Dell, and all of the rest of the folks in the community and companies that provided feedback and made the 0.1 spec come together so quickly. 

-Josh

On Jun 30, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

this looks like very quick progress; impressive

how many people are involved?


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clinton Kitson <clintonskitson@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Subject: first CSI example implementation
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@...>


Hello team,

Lots of great progress being made re the CSI specification.

On today's call Andrew Kutz of {code} by Dell EMC provided a first working example of the CSI specification written in Go. At this current time there is a single pull request that includes the different components that make all sides (server/client) of it work. This PR and future submitted code will mutate based on discussions, but for now it is a partially working example with AWS EBS!


There were specific goals in generating this:
- Generate a simple and pure CSI server side plugin endpoint in Go
- Pragmatically work through specification to identify gaps
- Create tools and tests that can assist with CI against the specification
- Discover if there are things that can be done to make it easier for plugin implementers
- Collect feedback about project desires as compared to examples and tools

He was able to show a few really cool things today.

1) a standalone AWS EBS plugin process (csp) that serves the CSI endpoints. This implementation has absolute minimal code and is intended to be a pure CSI implementation.

2) the client (csc) that is a tool that can be used to speak with the CSI endpoints. It provides functionality similar to what a CO would implement and thus makes it practical to truly test the specification and understand limitations.

3) the daemon (csd) that could possibly make it easier for plugin developers. We have identified input validation, logging, etc as common features that can possibly be shared across plugins. This was implemented by using Go plugins, where the csd is able to dynamically load the standalone csp's (same exact package as mentioned in #1). The csd actually exposes gRPC upward, and uses gRPC to speak in-memory via Go io.pipe package to any of the pure CSI plugin packages.

Both 1 & 3 are able to provide a mechanism to further test and actually have discussions around packaging and build process for the plugins since it is a real process now that serves as endpoints.

Looking forward to feedback on how the project might see these examples and tools fitting moving forward.


--
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@....
To post to this group, send email to cncf-wg-storage@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cncf-wg-storage/5c0bd689-fff0-4b81-8faf-edd389ce7d98%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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: first CSI example implementation

Bernstein, Joshua <Joshua.Bernstein@...>
 

Hi Alexis,

I'm not sure exactly the number of people, but it's been a large effort from everyone around the community between the folks at Mesosphere, those of us at Dell, and all of the rest of the folks in the community and companies that provided feedback and made the 0.1 spec come together so quickly. 

-Josh

On Jun 30, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

this looks like very quick progress; impressive

how many people are involved?


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clinton Kitson <clintonskitson@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Subject: first CSI example implementation
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@googlegroups.com>


Hello team,

Lots of great progress being made re the CSI specification.

On today's call Andrew Kutz of {code} by Dell EMC provided a first working example of the CSI specification written in Go. At this current time there is a single pull request that includes the different components that make all sides (server/client) of it work. This PR and future submitted code will mutate based on discussions, but for now it is a partially working example with AWS EBS!


There were specific goals in generating this:
- Generate a simple and pure CSI server side plugin endpoint in Go
- Pragmatically work through specification to identify gaps
- Create tools and tests that can assist with CI against the specification
- Discover if there are things that can be done to make it easier for plugin implementers
- Collect feedback about project desires as compared to examples and tools

He was able to show a few really cool things today.

1) a standalone AWS EBS plugin process (csp) that serves the CSI endpoints. This implementation has absolute minimal code and is intended to be a pure CSI implementation.

2) the client (csc) that is a tool that can be used to speak with the CSI endpoints. It provides functionality similar to what a CO would implement and thus makes it practical to truly test the specification and understand limitations.

3) the daemon (csd) that could possibly make it easier for plugin developers. We have identified input validation, logging, etc as common features that can possibly be shared across plugins. This was implemented by using Go plugins, where the csd is able to dynamically load the standalone csp's (same exact package as mentioned in #1). The csd actually exposes gRPC upward, and uses gRPC to speak in-memory via Go io.pipe package to any of the pure CSI plugin packages.

Both 1 & 3 are able to provide a mechanism to further test and actually have discussions around packaging and build process for the plugins since it is a real process now that serves as endpoints.

Looking forward to feedback on how the project might see these examples and tools fitting moving forward.


--
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@...om.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cncf-wg-storage/5c0bd689-fff0-4b81-8faf-edd389ce7d98%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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: first CSI example implementation

alexis richardson
 

this looks like very quick progress; impressive

how many people are involved?


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clinton Kitson <clintonskitson@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Subject: first CSI example implementation
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@googlegroups.com>


Hello team,

Lots of great progress being made re the CSI specification.

On today's call Andrew Kutz of {code} by Dell EMC provided a first working example of the CSI specification written in Go. At this current time there is a single pull request that includes the different components that make all sides (server/client) of it work. This PR and future submitted code will mutate based on discussions, but for now it is a partially working example with AWS EBS!


There were specific goals in generating this:
- Generate a simple and pure CSI server side plugin endpoint in Go
- Pragmatically work through specification to identify gaps
- Create tools and tests that can assist with CI against the specification
- Discover if there are things that can be done to make it easier for plugin implementers
- Collect feedback about project desires as compared to examples and tools

He was able to show a few really cool things today.

1) a standalone AWS EBS plugin process (csp) that serves the CSI endpoints. This implementation has absolute minimal code and is intended to be a pure CSI implementation.

2) the client (csc) that is a tool that can be used to speak with the CSI endpoints. It provides functionality similar to what a CO would implement and thus makes it practical to truly test the specification and understand limitations.

3) the daemon (csd) that could possibly make it easier for plugin developers. We have identified input validation, logging, etc as common features that can possibly be shared across plugins. This was implemented by using Go plugins, where the csd is able to dynamically load the standalone csp's (same exact package as mentioned in #1). The csd actually exposes gRPC upward, and uses gRPC to speak in-memory via Go io.pipe package to any of the pure CSI plugin packages.

Both 1 & 3 are able to provide a mechanism to further test and actually have discussions around packaging and build process for the plugins since it is a real process now that serves as endpoints.

Looking forward to feedback on how the project might see these examples and tools fitting moving forward.


--
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@...om.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cncf-wg-storage/5c0bd689-fff0-4b81-8faf-edd389ce7d98%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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

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



first CSI example implementation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clinton Kitson <clintonskitson@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Subject: first CSI example implementation
To: cncf-wg-storage <cncf-wg-storage@...>


Hello team,

Lots of great progress being made re the CSI specification.

On today's call Andrew Kutz of {code} by Dell EMC provided a first working example of the CSI specification written in Go. At this current time there is a single pull request that includes the different components that make all sides (server/client) of it work. This PR and future submitted code will mutate based on discussions, but for now it is a partially working example with AWS EBS!


There were specific goals in generating this:
- Generate a simple and pure CSI server side plugin endpoint in Go
- Pragmatically work through specification to identify gaps
- Create tools and tests that can assist with CI against the specification
- Discover if there are things that can be done to make it easier for plugin implementers
- Collect feedback about project desires as compared to examples and tools

He was able to show a few really cool things today.

1) a standalone AWS EBS plugin process (csp) that serves the CSI endpoints. This implementation has absolute minimal code and is intended to be a pure CSI implementation.

2) the client (csc) that is a tool that can be used to speak with the CSI endpoints. It provides functionality similar to what a CO would implement and thus makes it practical to truly test the specification and understand limitations.

3) the daemon (csd) that could possibly make it easier for plugin developers. We have identified input validation, logging, etc as common features that can possibly be shared across plugins. This was implemented by using Go plugins, where the csd is able to dynamically load the standalone csp's (same exact package as mentioned in #1). The csd actually exposes gRPC upward, and uses gRPC to speak in-memory via Go io.pipe package to any of the pure CSI plugin packages.

Both 1 & 3 are able to provide a mechanism to further test and actually have discussions around packaging and build process for the plugins since it is a real process now that serves as endpoints.

Looking forward to feedback on how the project might see these examples and tools fitting moving forward.


--
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/5c0bd689-fff0-4b81-8faf-edd389ce7d98%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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


Re: Infrakit Questions

Solomon Hykes
 

Rob, Zach, to clarify: do you have specific concerns about InfraKit that we should ask Dave to address?

My understanding is that 1) InfraKit is OS-agnostic and does not require LinuxKit 2) InfraKit does not impose an immutable operating system pattern.


Rob, you suggest more review: specifically what should we review? I think we should aim to get to "yes" or "no" in a timely fashion.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Zachary Smith via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I'd agree with Rob here.  LinuxKit is certain a component, but I think that the full hardware and network lifecycle associated with booting "all the things" is a pretty broad and messy space right now, particularly across private datacenters vs public clouds.

-Zac

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Responding to request from TOC meeting last week...

I think that Day 1 and Day 2 provisioning is key area for CNCF to cover; however, I think that the space is transforming in several different ways so I would suggest more review by the TOC.  Obviously, I have an interest in this since I'm a lead on Digital Rebar.  For that reason, I'm reluctant to push against or pull for related projects.

For LinuxKit specifically, I think the emphasis on immutable operating systems should be considered carefully.  There are many benefits to this approach but they cannot be applied generally to legacy workloads and management tooling.  I believe that operational adoption is accelerated when tooling fits well with both new and existing ops models.

Again - I'm happy to show how we solve this problem with Digital Rebar at a TOC.  It's not just about physical provisioning - managing server life-cycle in multiple infastructures is a key design requirement.  Tooling that does not address the full life-cycle may actually make management harder over time.

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Alex Baretto <axbaretto@...> wrote:
+1 to Alexis and Rob.

I'd really like to see a good breakdown comparison between Infrakit and digital rebar, bosh, cloudformation, fog,and others

Alex Baretto



On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:51 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc > wrote:
All,

I'd be happy to present / demo Digital Rebar to provide another cloud native perspective on how to address hybrid infrastructure automation.  I believe that would help provide a helpful perspective on operational concerns and how to address them in a way that fits the CNCF community.  As you know, we've been heavily involved in the Kubernetes community and have been showing an approach that uses the community Ansible for Kubernetes.  We've also done demos also showing LinuxKit integration.

Rob

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


Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.




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




--
Zachary Smith, CEO of Packet

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



Re: Infrakit Questions

Zachary Smith
 

I'd agree with Rob here.  LinuxKit is certain a component, but I think that the full hardware and network lifecycle associated with booting "all the things" is a pretty broad and messy space right now, particularly across private datacenters vs public clouds.

-Zac

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Responding to request from TOC meeting last week...

I think that Day 1 and Day 2 provisioning is key area for CNCF to cover; however, I think that the space is transforming in several different ways so I would suggest more review by the TOC.  Obviously, I have an interest in this since I'm a lead on Digital Rebar.  For that reason, I'm reluctant to push against or pull for related projects.

For LinuxKit specifically, I think the emphasis on immutable operating systems should be considered carefully.  There are many benefits to this approach but they cannot be applied generally to legacy workloads and management tooling.  I believe that operational adoption is accelerated when tooling fits well with both new and existing ops models.

Again - I'm happy to show how we solve this problem with Digital Rebar at a TOC.  It's not just about physical provisioning - managing server life-cycle in multiple infastructures is a key design requirement.  Tooling that does not address the full life-cycle may actually make management harder over time.

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Alex Baretto <axbaretto@...> wrote:
+1 to Alexis and Rob.

I'd really like to see a good breakdown comparison between Infrakit and digital rebar, bosh, cloudformation, fog,and others

Alex Baretto



On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:51 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc > wrote:
All,

I'd be happy to present / demo Digital Rebar to provide another cloud native perspective on how to address hybrid infrastructure automation.  I believe that would help provide a helpful perspective on operational concerns and how to address them in a way that fits the CNCF community.  As you know, we've been heavily involved in the Kubernetes community and have been showing an approach that uses the community Ansible for Kubernetes.  We've also done demos also showing LinuxKit integration.

Rob

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


Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.




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




--
Zachary Smith, CEO of Packet
+1 212.812.4178


Re: Infrakit Questions

Rob Hirschfeld
 

Responding to request from TOC meeting last week...

I think that Day 1 and Day 2 provisioning is key area for CNCF to cover; however, I think that the space is transforming in several different ways so I would suggest more review by the TOC.  Obviously, I have an interest in this since I'm a lead on Digital Rebar.  For that reason, I'm reluctant to push against or pull for related projects.

For LinuxKit specifically, I think the emphasis on immutable operating systems should be considered carefully.  There are many benefits to this approach but they cannot be applied generally to legacy workloads and management tooling.  I believe that operational adoption is accelerated when tooling fits well with both new and existing ops models.

Again - I'm happy to show how we solve this problem with Digital Rebar at a TOC.  It's not just about physical provisioning - managing server life-cycle in multiple infastructures is a key design requirement.  Tooling that does not address the full life-cycle may actually make management harder over time.

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Alex Baretto <axbaretto@...> wrote:
+1 to Alexis and Rob.

I'd really like to see a good breakdown comparison between Infrakit and digital rebar, bosh, cloudformation, fog,and others

Alex Baretto



On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:51 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc > wrote:
All,

I'd be happy to present / demo Digital Rebar to provide another cloud native perspective on how to address hybrid infrastructure automation.  I believe that would help provide a helpful perspective on operational concerns and how to address them in a way that fits the CNCF community.  As you know, we've been heavily involved in the Kubernetes community and have been showing an approach that uses the community Ansible for Kubernetes.  We've also done demos also showing LinuxKit integration.

Rob

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


Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.




CSI regular community sync

Chris Aniszczyk
 

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jie Yu <jie@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:57 AM
Subject: CSI regular community sync
To: container-storage-interface-community@...
Cc: cncf-wg-storage@...


Hi folks,

We'll be starting regular community sync on CSI. The goal is to use that forum for open issue discussions and getting feedbacks from the community. All the details about the meeting can be found here:

Feel free to suggest agenda items in the doc! Our first meeting will be 7/13/2017 (see details in the doc). Let us know if you have any question!

- Jie

--
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/CAMHxVRFvSshhDv23N6KZY0bdd-jOttgWNQPdYmqaiHQaOV9Kdg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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

5941 - 5960 of 6969