@@ -20,21 +20,20 @@ users and CSPs.
20
20
21
21
# Motivation
22
22
23
- This proposal is motivated by use cases in which CSPs would like to offer SCP-compliant
23
+ This proposal is motivated by use cases in which CSPs would like to offer
24
24
private container registries to their customers. The specific use cases should be
25
25
discussed, but overall CSP could offer a private container registry as a service or
26
26
CSP could offer a recipe for customers to deploy the private registry themselves
27
- utilizing CSP infrastructure. In both cases, the private container registry should
28
- be SCS-compliant and should fulfill a set of needed requirements e.g. for security and
29
- privacy.
27
+ utilizing CSP infrastructure. In both cases, the private container registry
28
+ should fulfill a set of needed requirements e.g. for security and privacy.
30
29
31
30
The idea and purpose of this document is to specify what requirements a
32
31
specific technical container registry implementation (i.e. software solution) needs to
33
32
fulfill in the context of SCS.
34
33
35
34
Another purpose is the selection of an appropriate container registry
36
35
implementation that meets all defined requirements to make architectural
37
- decision on what implementation is fully SCS-compliant and will be used by the SCS.
36
+ decision on what implementation will be used by the SCS.
38
37
39
38
# Design considerations
40
39
@@ -58,8 +57,8 @@ Note: Keep in mind that at the time of writing this document, we’ve made our b
58
57
## OSS health check
59
58
60
59
This section evaluates the health of the open-source projects that were selected from
61
- the currently available solutions. SCS-compliant software must fulfill all OSS health
62
- checks defined by the [ OSS-Health] ( https://github.com/SovereignCloudStack/standards/blob/main/Design-Docs/OSS-Health.md )
60
+ the currently available solutions. The container registry software must fulfill all OSS
61
+ health checks defined by the [ OSS-Health] ( https://github.com/SovereignCloudStack/standards/blob/main/Design-Docs/OSS-Health.md )
63
62
document. The main health checks are:
64
63
- Four Opens (code is fully open source, community is open and diverse, development
65
64
process is open, design process is open)
@@ -197,8 +196,8 @@ Refer to the list of evaluated projects with their classified categories and com
197
196
198
197
This section provides an overview of the feature set of open source container registry
199
198
implementations (which passed the OSS health stage above) and map out requirements
200
- (and nice-to-haves) against it. SCS-compliant software must be robust enough, to be able
201
- to operate under heavy load (e.g. high availability (HA) mode, federation, etc.) and
199
+ (and nice-to-haves) against it. The container registry software must be robust enough,
200
+ to be able to operate under heavy load (e.g. high availability (HA) mode, federation, etc.) and
202
201
the crucial feature is security.
203
202
We defined a set of required features that the container registry implementation must
204
203
have and also a set of desirable (nice to have) features are defined and evaluated here.
@@ -278,7 +277,7 @@ Keppel, Portus, Kraken, etc.) has been carefully evaluated based on the two main
278
277
factors: the open-source health and range of supported features.
279
278
280
279
The open-source software health is crucial and container registry implementation should
281
- pass it to be SCS-compliant . The OSS health check evaluates several important metrics
280
+ pass it. The OSS health check evaluates several important metrics
282
281
of an open source software like whether the code/community/development/design is
283
282
fully open or whether the project's maturity, security, and activity are on the desired
284
283
level. This check also evaluates the lock-in risk due to possible single points of
@@ -352,7 +351,7 @@ integration of p2p solutions like Kraken and Dragonfly.
352
351
# Decision
353
352
354
353
Based on the research and conclusion above we've decided to use the ** Harbor** project
355
- as an SCS-compliant container registry implementation.
354
+ as a container registry implementation for the SCS ecosystem .
356
355
357
356
358
357
<!-- Frequently used references -->
0 commit comments