Date   

TOC Agenda for 8/15/17

Chris Aniszczyk
 

I hope everyone has been enjoying the summer, here's the agenda deck for 8/15:

In particular, we will be hearing from the Envoy (https://github.com/lyft/envoy) project and hearing a read out from the CNCF CI WG on their cross cloud testing efforts (https://github.com/cncf/cross-cloud). 

We will also be discussing the Notary project proposal (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38) and asking for any final comments on a CNCF project/maintainer survey.

Thanks and look forward to chatting with everyone!

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


Call for Action: CloudNativeCon + KubeCon call for papers 8/21 deadline

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Please reach out to colleagues and engineers in your company and push them to submit a talk for CloudNativeCon + KubeCon which will be in Austin from 12/6-8. The deadline is two weeks away: 8/21.

Submission is at https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudnativecon-and-kubecon-north-america/program/cfp but I'm including suggested topics below for inspiration.

2017 Suggested Presentation Topics:

Suggested KubeCon Topics:

  • Advanced scheduling use cases

  • Complicated networking at scale

  • Cool new tech and how it can be used with Kubernetes

  • Cutting-edge technical use cases

  • Deploying and using Kubernetes in production in the enterprise

  • Developer workflows using git push-to-service in production

  • Kubernetes + IoT

  • Load balancing

  • Managing persistence storage in Kubernetes

  • Orchestrating multi-host, multi-container, distributed applications

  • Running multi-site, hybrid, distributed applications

  • Unique use cases and how Kubernetes helped your team/company

  • Using Kubernetes to manage and secure your application infrastructure

  • Using Kubernetes with configuration management

  • Using Kubernetes with continuous integration, testing and continuous deployment

  • Using Kubernetes with software defined networking

 

Suggested CloudNativeCon Topics:

  • Cloud native technology in production

  • Containers: Use-cases, using containers in production, developing with containers

  • Developer workflows using containers and cloud native technology

  • Orchestration (e.g. Kubernetes, Mesos, Swarm, Nomad)

  • Stateful cloud native applications

  • Unique cloud native technology use cases

  • Microservices in production (e.g., gRPC)

  • Using cloud native technology to manage your infrastructure

  • Cloud native logging

 

Suggested Fluentd Topics:

  • Log aggregation patterns

  • Distributed logging in Production

  • Use cases of Fluentd or Fluent Bit

  • Best practices for better performance on logging

  • Fluentd internals and core development

  • Extending Fluentd or Fluent Bit

  • Log forwarding

  • Security

 

Suggested Prometheus Topics:

  • Integrating with Prometheus

  • Prometheus use case reports

  • Prometheus fundamentals and philosophy

  • Prometheus internals and core development

  • Using Prometheus

 

Suggested OpenTracing Topics:

  • Distributed tracing in production

  • Distributed tracing via OpenTracing and proxies like Envoy/linkerd

  • Going beyond single transactions: how to understand distributed traces in the aggregate

  • Tracer implementations (e.g., Zipkin, Appdash, Jaeger)

  • Tracing into web/mobile clients

  • Transparent tracing across user – container/kernel boundary (e.g., Sysdig)

  • Experiences / war stories with instrumentation of large existing codebases

  • Experiences with substantial OSS OpenTracing integrations (RPC frameworks, clients)

 

Suggested gRPC Topics:

  • Monitoring and Tracing of gRPC services

  • Large polyglot gRPC deployment experience

  • gRPC + IOT

  • REST and gRPC together with gateways

  • Use of streaming grpc apis

  • gRPC and load balancing: Experience with proxy based/client side lb and service discovery

  • Forward and Backward compatibility of APIs
     

Suggested Linkerd Topics:

  • Linkerd in production! Use cases, user stories, war stories

  • CNCF project glue! Linkerd + Prometheus, Linkerd + Kubernetes, Linkerd + Zipkin, Linkerd + Fluentd, Linkerd + gRPC

  • Linkerd for security! Cross-service TLS and cert management

  • Linkerd for integration! Bridge Kubernetes, Mesos, Amazon ECS, OpenStack, ZooKeeper, etc

  • Linkerd with Istio! Using Istio APIs to drive a Linkerd fleet

  • Linkerd everywhere: Ingress, egress, and intra-cluster traffic

  • Ultramodern system design: Linkerd, Kubernetes, and gRPC

  • Cloud smash: hybrid cloud, multi cloud, and failover-to-cloud with Linkerd

 

Suggested CoreDNS Topics:

  • Experience with production deployments of CoreDNS:

  • For Kubernetes service discovery

  • As a Kubernetes federation DNS provider

  • In non-Kubernetes environments

  • Use cases for CoreDNS in K8s and other Cloud Native environments

  • Discussions of use cases for specialized middleware

  • How to Build a CoreDNS Middleware

  • CoreDNS integration with Prometheus, OpenTracing, gRPC and other CNCF projects

 

Suggested Containerd Topics:

  • Using containerd directly to manage containers

  • How containerd is used in Docker

  • How containerd is used in Kubernetes via CRI

  • Building specialized container based systems with containerd, Moby and LinuxKit

 

Suggested rkt Topics:

  • pod-native patterns and production workloads reports

  • Kubernetes and rkt: rktnetes, CRI and other sig-node topics

  • rkt internals, architecture and design analysis

  • rkt beyond namespaces (KVM, Xen, etc.)

  • integrating rkt with external supervisors and orchestrators

  • Linux containers security aspects (seccomp, selinux, virtualization, etc.)

 

Reminder: This is a community conference — so let's try to avoid blatant product and/or vendor sales pitches.

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


Re: WG-Serverless - draft whitepaper

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

yup - we have a placeholder for that type of topic and its on our todo list - but I don't think we have anything in the doc yet. So, watch this space.... :-)


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson ---08/07/2017 10:49:15 AM---Thanks Doug Main ask on call last week was to zoom in more on Interoperability. How

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>, cncf-toc@...
Date: 08/07/2017 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] WG-Serverless - draft whitepaper





Thanks Doug

Main ask on call last week was to zoom in more on Interoperability.  How can cncf add value here?

A


On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, 05:41 Doug Davis via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:



Re: WG-Serverless - draft whitepaper

alexis richardson
 

Thanks Doug

Main ask on call last week was to zoom in more on Interoperability.  How can cncf add value here?

A


On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, 05:41 Doug Davis via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

All,
sorry I missed the call last week, was on vacation. Ken mentioned that I should send out a link to the latest version of the whitepaper, so here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UjW8bt5O8QBgQRILJVKZJej_IuNnxl20AJu9wA8wcdI/edit?ts=59831b77#heading=h.yiaul8is1ki
There are still quite a few things that need to be cleaned-up but any early comments/feedback are welcome.


thanks
-Doug Davis
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

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


WG-Serverless - draft whitepaper

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

All,
sorry I missed the call last week, was on vacation. Ken mentioned that I should send out a link to the latest version of the whitepaper, so here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UjW8bt5O8QBgQRILJVKZJej_IuNnxl20AJu9wA8wcdI/edit?ts=59831b77#heading=h.yiaul8is1ki
There are still quite a few things that need to be cleaned-up but any early comments/feedback are welcome.


thanks
-Doug Davis
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog


Final RFC on Notary project proposal

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey TOC and wider CNCF community, the Notary/TUF project (sponsored by Solomon) is looking for final feedback before we formally call for a vote: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/38

Please comment on their project proposal on GitHub, if there are no formal objections to calling a vote, I plan on doing it late next week.

Thanks!

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


Re: FYI: CNCF Project "Service Desk"

Brian Grant
 

This sounds great. Looking forward to it. Thanks!

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
At the CNCF Governing Board strategy offsite on 7/28, Alexis presented the following slides on behalf of the TOC: https://goo.gl/8QLjK6

The Governing Board and CNCF staff was very supportive of his request for more transparency in regards to the services CNCF offers (and which projects use those), along with a consistent process for projects to request services (a service desk potentially via GitHub issues).

We plan to roll this out over the next month and will discuss this more at the TOC meeting today too if there any questions.

Thanks!

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

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



FYI: CNCF Project "Service Desk"

Chris Aniszczyk
 

At the CNCF Governing Board strategy offsite on 7/28, Alexis presented the following slides on behalf of the TOC: https://goo.gl/8QLjK6

The Governing Board and CNCF staff was very supportive of his request for more transparency in regards to the services CNCF offers (and which projects use those), along with a consistent process for projects to request services (a service desk potentially via GitHub issues).

We plan to roll this out over the next month and will discuss this more at the TOC meeting today too if there any questions.

Thanks!

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


TOC Agenda for 8/1/17

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the TOC deck for tomorrow at 8am PT: https://goo.gl/ehtgts

We will be hearing from the Jaeger project (https://github.com/uber/jaegerand the Serverless WG (https://github.com/cncf/wg-serverless) along with some updates from the last strategy offsite help by the CNCF GB.

Thanks and see everyone tomorrow!

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


Call for Action: One month to become a Founding Kubernetes Certified Service Provider

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

In early September, CNCF will be announcing the founding class of Kubernetes Certified Service Providers (KCSPs). If your company provides professional services to support Kubernetes deployments, please consider signing up to become part of the founding class.

The main benefits of becoming a KCSP are:
* Placement in a new section at the top of https://kubernetes.io/partners/ 
* Monthly private meetings with cloud native project leaders, TOC members, and representatives from the CNCF Governing Board
* Access to leads from end users looking for support

Requirements are:
* Three or more engineers who pass the Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) exam
* Demonstrable activity in the Kubernetes community including active contribution
* A business model to support enterprise end users, including putting engineers at a customer site

The CKA exam is about to enter early release beta testing prior to the public release in September. It is an online, proctored, performance-based test that requires solving multiple issues from a command line. It takes 3 to 4 hours to complete, and costs $300, though a discount is available for beta testers to $100.

If your company is interested in becoming a KCSP, please do the following 4 things:

1. Ensure that your company is listed at https://kubernetes.io/partners/ and if not (or if the listing should be updated), please do so via the link at the top of that page.

2. Have 3 or more of your Kubernetes experts sign up for the beta test at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9-6nL5L3SzWIddCSPoKeuX_Pdq_KHI8C4mQzcUryP-gu0dQ/viewform . Please have them use their company email so we can properly associate them. Within a week, we will send beta test dates, a discount coupon code, and instructions to register and schedule.


4. If you are not already on it, and want to track progress of the certification program over time, please subscribe to the Kubernetes Certification Working Group list: https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-kubernetescertwg

Questions or issues? Please email cncf-kcsp-support@... .
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000


Re: openmetrics next steps

Richard Hartmann
 

Lee,

it's every 14 days, Tuesday 1900 CEST; not sure if we will follow
summer/winter or UTC once we get there.

You will get an invite to the address you sent from. If you could send
a short bio or something, that would be helpful. Long-term, we will
document the people involved on https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics
along with everything else, I suspect.

Reading through the files and issues in that repo will get you up to speed.


RIchard

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
Richard,

I wasn’t aware of the call on 7/18 (and missed it). When is the next call scheduled for?

- Lee

On Jul 19, 2017, at 5:26 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

Yes, carefully increasing participation is good. At the current stage,
I wouldn't want to be an artificial blocker in selection as I don't
know most people (yet), anyway. "Does this person have relevant
knowledge/experience and will they contribute positively" is the only
hard consideration at this point. We are currently seeing some
bikeshedding and feature creep; while that's always expected,
overloading discussions is my main concern, atm.

The Google people are networking and stackdriver with some
Borgmon/Monarch experience mixed in; Fabian said he will toss the repo
address and purpose into his k8s sig, but I didn't follow up on that
and/or verify, yet. I shall do so, but Fabian's on holiday atm.


Given the holiday season, these issues will collect and simmer for at
least a few weeks before I will make a call for Rough Consensus.


Richard

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+stuart+brian fyi


Richard

IMO this planning process would benefit from *slightly* wider CNCF-TOC
involvement. Do you want to select & invite people or ask Ken & Lee to do
so?

BTW, are the google reps in your notes also from the k8s instrumentation
sig?

a





On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

Hi Chris,

sorry for being so late in replying. We didn't have the July 4th call
for obvious reasons, but we had our call just now; even if quite a few
people are on holiday.

The GDoc is still

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7HSZyRv4Ay4hTlva4uy8WPh5WlYv9S0Yy-xQS2vKo4/edit#
but I am splitting out most questions into
https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/issues so we have better
exposure and tracking for those questions. Again, if you want to
bounce these discussion to carefully hand-chosen people, you are more
than welcome to do so. Part of my intention behind the issues is to
get out of the echo chamber if whoever hapens to be in a particular
call.


Richard


Re: openmetrics next steps

Lee Calcote
 

Richard,

I wasn’t aware of the call on 7/18 (and missed it). When is the next call scheduled for?

- Lee

On Jul 19, 2017, at 5:26 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

Yes, carefully increasing participation is good. At the current stage,
I wouldn't want to be an artificial blocker in selection as I don't
know most people (yet), anyway. "Does this person have relevant
knowledge/experience and will they contribute positively" is the only
hard consideration at this point. We are currently seeing some
bikeshedding and feature creep; while that's always expected,
overloading discussions is my main concern, atm.

The Google people are networking and stackdriver with some
Borgmon/Monarch experience mixed in; Fabian said he will toss the repo
address and purpose into his k8s sig, but I didn't follow up on that
and/or verify, yet. I shall do so, but Fabian's on holiday atm.


Given the holiday season, these issues will collect and simmer for at
least a few weeks before I will make a call for Rough Consensus.


Richard

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+stuart+brian fyi


Richard

IMO this planning process would benefit from *slightly* wider CNCF-TOC
involvement. Do you want to select & invite people or ask Ken & Lee to do
so?

BTW, are the google reps in your notes also from the k8s instrumentation
sig?

a





On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

Hi Chris,

sorry for being so late in replying. We didn't have the July 4th call
for obvious reasons, but we had our call just now; even if quite a few
people are on holiday.

The GDoc is still

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7HSZyRv4Ay4hTlva4uy8WPh5WlYv9S0Yy-xQS2vKo4/edit#
but I am splitting out most questions into
https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/issues so we have better
exposure and tracking for those questions. Again, if you want to
bounce these discussion to carefully hand-chosen people, you are more
than welcome to do so. Part of my intention behind the issues is to
get out of the echo chamber if whoever hapens to be in a particular
call.


Richard


Re: openmetrics next steps

Richard Hartmann
 

Yes, carefully increasing participation is good. At the current stage,
I wouldn't want to be an artificial blocker in selection as I don't
know most people (yet), anyway. "Does this person have relevant
knowledge/experience and will they contribute positively" is the only
hard consideration at this point. We are currently seeing some
bikeshedding and feature creep; while that's always expected,
overloading discussions is my main concern, atm.

The Google people are networking and stackdriver with some
Borgmon/Monarch experience mixed in; Fabian said he will toss the repo
address and purpose into his k8s sig, but I didn't follow up on that
and/or verify, yet. I shall do so, but Fabian's on holiday atm.


Given the holiday season, these issues will collect and simmer for at
least a few weeks before I will make a call for Rough Consensus.


Richard

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+stuart+brian fyi


Richard

IMO this planning process would benefit from *slightly* wider CNCF-TOC
involvement. Do you want to select & invite people or ask Ken & Lee to do
so?

BTW, are the google reps in your notes also from the k8s instrumentation
sig?

a





On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

Hi Chris,

sorry for being so late in replying. We didn't have the July 4th call
for obvious reasons, but we had our call just now; even if quite a few
people are on holiday.

The GDoc is still

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7HSZyRv4Ay4hTlva4uy8WPh5WlYv9S0Yy-xQS2vKo4/edit#
but I am splitting out most questions into
https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/issues so we have better
exposure and tracking for those questions. Again, if you want to
bounce these discussion to carefully hand-chosen people, you are more
than welcome to do so. Part of my intention behind the issues is to
get out of the echo chamber if whoever hapens to be in a particular
call.


Richard


Re: openmetrics next steps

alexis richardson
 

+stuart+brian fyi


Richard

IMO this planning process would benefit from *slightly* wider CNCF-TOC involvement.  Do you want to select & invite people or ask Ken & Lee to do so?  

BTW, are the google reps in your notes also from the k8s instrumentation sig?

a





On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
Hi Chris,

sorry for being so late in replying. We didn't have the July 4th call
for obvious reasons, but we had our call just now; even if quite a few
people are on holiday.

The GDoc is still
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7HSZyRv4Ay4hTlva4uy8WPh5WlYv9S0Yy-xQS2vKo4/edit#
but I am splitting out most questions into
https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/issues so we have better
exposure and tracking for those questions. Again, if you want to
bounce these discussion to carefully hand-chosen people, you are more
than welcome to do so. Part of my intention behind the issues is to
get out of the echo chamber if whoever hapens to be in a particular
call.


Richard


Re: openmetrics next steps

Richard Hartmann
 

Hi Chris,

sorry for being so late in replying. We didn't have the July 4th call
for obvious reasons, but we had our call just now; even if quite a few
people are on holiday.

The GDoc is still
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7HSZyRv4Ay4hTlva4uy8WPh5WlYv9S0Yy-xQS2vKo4/edit#
but I am splitting out most questions into
https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/issues so we have better
exposure and tracking for those questions. Again, if you want to
bounce these discussion to carefully hand-chosen people, you are more
than welcome to do so. Part of my intention behind the issues is to
get out of the echo chamber if whoever hapens to be in a particular
call.


Richard


Re: Infrakit Questions

Zachary Smith
 

Thanks Solomon!

I also mis-used LinuxKit instead of InfraKit below.  Very much still catching up with the terms right now.

I also see this as very broad and there is so much that can be done with InfraKit, so I need to learn more and tinker more.  Looking forward to further conversation on this.

Thanks!

-Zac



Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:27 PM
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.


Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:32 PM
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




--
Zachary Smith, CEO of Packet
Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:27 AM
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


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:56 AM
+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




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:51 AM
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

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

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


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

--
Zachary Smith, CEO @ Packet
+1 212.812.4178
zac@...


Recording/Notes from 7/11/17 TOC Meeting

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the recording from today's meeting, it will eventually live/trimmed down on the CNCF Youtube channel but we're dealing with some issues there: https://goo.gl/PJPRNj

As a quick summary, we formally invited Notary/TUF, rook and Vitess to submit project proposals that will be voted upon by the TOC on a future date.

The next TOC meeting will happen on August 1st where Jaeger (https://github.com/uber/jaeger) and Envoy (https://github.com/lyft/envoy) will present.

Thanks!

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


Re: Infrakit Questions

Rob Hirschfeld
 

Sorry... I keep doing that!   InfraKit.


On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
do you mean Linuxkit or Infrakit, Rob?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Solomon,

Sorry for the delay - ToC meeting tomorrow reminded me that this was pending....

The Docker team has done a good job answering questions.  My point is that this area has a lot of churn right now and the scope of LinuxKit is huge and evolving.  Since it's very pluggable, it appears to be a "do anything."

My expectation would be that narrowly defined components would be faster to bring into CNCF and something with a large scope would move slower.   I'd have similar reservations about Digital Rebar in it's integrated form which is why I offered to demo it.

Note: I do agree that LinuxKit and our Digital Rebar efforts are collaborative. especially on the metal provision side. 

Rob


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:27 PM Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...> wrote:
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


--
Rob Hirschfeld
RackN.com, CEO & Founder
@zehicle, 512-773-7522

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


--
Rob Hirschfeld
RackN.com, CEO & Founder
@zehicle, 512-773-7522


Re: Infrakit Questions

alexis richardson
 

do you mean Linuxkit or Infrakit, Rob?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Solomon,

Sorry for the delay - ToC meeting tomorrow reminded me that this was pending....

The Docker team has done a good job answering questions.  My point is that this area has a lot of churn right now and the scope of LinuxKit is huge and evolving.  Since it's very pluggable, it appears to be a "do anything."

My expectation would be that narrowly defined components would be faster to bring into CNCF and something with a large scope would move slower.   I'd have similar reservations about Digital Rebar in it's integrated form which is why I offered to demo it.

Note: I do agree that LinuxKit and our Digital Rebar efforts are collaborative. especially on the metal provision side. 

Rob


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:27 PM Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...> wrote:
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


--
Rob Hirschfeld
RackN.com, CEO & Founder
@zehicle, 512-773-7522

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



Re: Infrakit Questions

Rob Hirschfeld
 

Solomon,

Sorry for the delay - ToC meeting tomorrow reminded me that this was pending....

The Docker team has done a good job answering questions.  My point is that this area has a lot of churn right now and the scope of LinuxKit is huge and evolving.  Since it's very pluggable, it appears to be a "do anything."

My expectation would be that narrowly defined components would be faster to bring into CNCF and something with a large scope would move slower.   I'd have similar reservations about Digital Rebar in it's integrated form which is why I offered to demo it.

Note: I do agree that LinuxKit and our Digital Rebar efforts are collaborative. especially on the metal provision side. 

Rob


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:27 PM Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...> wrote:
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


--
Rob Hirschfeld
RackN.com, CEO & Founder
@zehicle, 512-773-7522

6121 - 6140 of 7171