|
Chris Aniszczyk
Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before):
This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote!
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc < cncf-toc@...> wrote: Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before):
This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote!
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
|
|
|
Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management?
From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:15 AM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Brian Grant [mailto:briangrant@...]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Ram, J [Tech]
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management?
Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"? [JRAM] to reiterate this maybe outside the scope of this discussion. My observation, is that there is no consistent standard for any client to search, lookup and find service providers in the global network in a consistent fashion. DNS is the closest adopted standard and is not really designed for the level of dynamism we need in this new Cloud Based model. Lack of this is clearly emphasized by trickery played in networking stack and DNS stack. Another observation is that there is no global catalogue of all services that are available in the network at internet scale. Every seems to be having their own version of “directory” implementation. In our case, we have DNS, Zookeeper, url router, etc to just name a few… The question for us to answer minimally is: do we want to address this problem architecturally and as a standard ? From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:15 AM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote!
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
|
|
|
A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" then it presupposes an "HTTP but for cloud native apps". Such as a service broker protocol for discovery, binding and monitoring.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, 18:24 Ram, J via cncf-toc, < cncf-toc@...> wrote: From: Brian Grant [mailto:briangrant@...]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Ram, J [Tech]
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management?
Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"? [JRAM] to reiterate this maybe outside the scope of this discussion. My observation, is that there is no consistent standard for any client to search, lookup and find service providers in the global network in a consistent fashion. DNS is the closest adopted standard and is not really designed for the level of dynamism we need in this new Cloud Based model. Lack of this is clearly emphasized by trickery played in networking stack and DNS stack. Another observation is that there is no global catalogue of all services that are available in the network at internet scale. Every seems to be having their own version of “directory” implementation. In our case, we have DNS, Zookeeper, url router, etc to just name a few… The question for us to answer minimally is: do we want to address this problem architecturally and as a standard ? From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:15 AM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote!
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Overall it looks good. Just two things that jumped out at me that are missing:
1 - multi-tenancy. I don't think we need to say much, other than its an issue, and while it could appear on several charts, perhaps the "Orchestration & Management Layer" one might be the best single spot for it.
2 - clustering. Probably on the same slide too. While its implied, I just want to be clear that people need to think about how to scale and cluster many many nodes and this arch isn't just for small/single node envs.
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 via cncf-toc ---10/26/2016 01:41:40 PM---A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" th
From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: "Ram, J" <j.ram@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 10/26/2016 01:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...
A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" then it presupposes an "HTTP but for cloud native apps". Such as a service broker protocol for discovery, binding and monitoring.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, 18:24 Ram, J via cncf-toc, < cncf-toc@...> wrote: From: Brian Grant [mailto:briangrant@...]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Ram, J [Tech]
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management? Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"? [JRAM] to reiterate this maybe outside the scope of this discussion. My observation, is that there is no consistent standard for any client to search, lookup and find service providers in the global network in a consistent fashion. DNS is the closest adopted standard and is not really designed for the level of dynamism we need in this new Cloud Based model. Lack of this is clearly emphasized by trickery played in networking stack and DNS stack. Another observation is that there is no global catalogue of all services that are available in the network at internet scale. Every seems to be having their own version of “directory” implementation. In our case, we have DNS, Zookeeper, url router, etc to just name a few… The question for us to answer minimally is: do we want to address this problem architecturally and as a standard ? From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:15 AM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): http://drive.google.com/open?id=1uMw2wkK0ubmc3khxqIuxK_rLK_wN89tNCnK7gDmTGR8 This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote! -- 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_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Doug Davis via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Overall it looks good. Just two things that jumped out at me that are missing:
1 - multi-tenancy. I don't think we need to say much, other than its an issue, and while it could appear on several charts, perhaps the "Orchestration & Management Layer" one might be the best single spot for it.
2 - clustering. Probably on the same slide too. While its implied, I just want to be clear that people need to think about how to scale and cluster many many nodes and this arch isn't just for small/single node envs.
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 via cncf-toc ---10/26/2016 01:41:40 PM---A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" th
From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: "Ram, J" <j.ram@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 10/26/2016 01:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...
A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" then it presupposes an "HTTP but for cloud native apps". Such as a service broker protocol for discovery, binding and monitoring.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, 18:24 Ram, J via cncf-toc, < cncf-toc@...> wrote: From: Brian Grant [mailto:briangrant@...]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Ram, J [Tech]
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc < cncf-toc@...> wrote: Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management? Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"? [JRAM] to reiterate this maybe outside the scope of this discussion. My observation, is that there is no consistent standard for any client to search, lookup and find service providers in the global network in a consistent fashion. DNS is the closest adopted standard and is not really designed for the level of dynamism we need in this new Cloud Based model. Lack of this is clearly emphasized by trickery played in networking stack and DNS stack. Another observation is that there is no global catalogue of all services that are available in the network at internet scale. Every seems to be having their own version of “directory” implementation. In our case, we have DNS, Zookeeper, url router, etc to just name a few… The question for us to answer minimally is: do we want to address this problem architecturally and as a standard ? Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): http://drive.google.com/open?id=1uMw2wkK0ubmc3khxqIuxK_rLK_wN89tNCnK7gDmTGR8 This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 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
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:15 AM
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Doug Davis via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Overall it looks good. Just two things that jumped out at me that are missing:
1 - multi-tenancy. I don't think we need to say much, other than its an issue, and while it could appear on several charts, perhaps the "Orchestration & Management Layer" one might be the best single spot for it.
2 - clustering. Probably on the same slide too. While its implied, I just want to be clear that people need to think about how to scale and cluster many many nodes and this arch isn't just for small/single node envs.
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 via cncf-toc ---10/26/2016 01:41:40 PM---A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" th
From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: "Ram, J" <j.ram@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 10/26/2016 01:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...
A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" then it presupposes an "HTTP but for cloud native apps". Such as a service broker protocol for discovery, binding and monitoring.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, 18:24 Ram, J via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
From: Brian Grant [mailto:briangrant@...]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Ram, J [Tech]
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management? Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"? [JRAM] to reiterate this maybe outside the scope of this discussion. My observation, is that there is no consistent standard for any client to search, lookup and find service providers in the global network in a consistent fashion. DNS is the closest adopted standard and is not really designed for the level of dynamism we need in this new Cloud Based model. Lack of this is clearly emphasized by trickery played in networking stack and DNS stack. Another observation is that there is no global catalogue of all services that are available in the network at internet scale. Every seems to be having their own version of “directory” implementation. In our case, we have DNS, Zookeeper, url router, etc to just name a few… The question for us to answer minimally is: do we want to address this problem architecturally and as a standard ? Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): http://drive.google.com/open?id=1uMw2wkK0ubmc3khxqIuxK_rLK_wN89tNCnK7gDmTGR8 This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 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
|
|
|
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 27 October 2016 at 15:14, Doug Davis via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Overall it looks good. Just two things that jumped out at me that are missing:
1 - multi-tenancy. I don't think we need to say much, other than its an issue, and while it could appear on several charts, perhaps the "Orchestration & Management Layer" one might be the best single spot for it.
2 - clustering. Probably on the same slide too. While its implied, I just want to be clear that people need to think about how to scale and cluster many many nodes and this arch isn't just for small/single node envs.
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 via cncf-toc ---10/26/2016 01:41:40 PM---A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" th
From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: "Ram, J" <j.ram@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 10/26/2016 01:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...
A global service catalogue is an interesting idea. If it is "like DNS but for cloud native apps" then it presupposes an "HTTP but for cloud native apps". Such as a service broker protocol for discovery, binding and monitoring.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, 18:24 Ram, J via cncf-toc, < cncf-toc@...> wrote: From: Brian Grant [mailto:briangrant@...]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Ram, J [Tech]
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc < cncf-toc@...> wrote: Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides: a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition. Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail. b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management? Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"? [JRAM] to reiterate this maybe outside the scope of this discussion. My observation, is that there is no consistent standard for any client to search, lookup and find service providers in the global network in a consistent fashion. DNS is the closest adopted standard and is not really designed for the level of dynamism we need in this new Cloud Based model. Lack of this is clearly emphasized by trickery played in networking stack and DNS stack. Another observation is that there is no global catalogue of all services that are available in the network at internet scale. Every seems to be having their own version of “directory” implementation. In our case, we have DNS, Zookeeper, url router, etc to just name a few… The question for us to answer minimally is: do we want to address this problem architecturally and as a standard ? Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): http://drive.google.com/open?id=1uMw2wkK0ubmc3khxqIuxK_rLK_wN89tNCnK7gDmTGR8 This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 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
|
|
|
