Skip to content

Commit e39ae51

Browse files
carolynvs-msftcarolynvs-msft
authored
Merge pull request brigadecore#5 from jeremyrickard/meeting-archives
Migrating the existing meeting notes from the hackmd over to files in…
2 parents 6fb6c43 + 6933b96 commit e39ae51

30 files changed

+1483
-0
lines changed

‎meeting-notes/2019-01-30.md

+50
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
1+
## **January 30 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://youtu.be/a7cqHpTrDTY |
5+
| Attending | Matt Butcher, Michelle Noorali, Jeremy Riickard, Brain Redmond, Adnan Abdulhussein, Miguel Martinez, Radu Matei, Chris Crone, Gareth Rushgrove, Silvin Lubecki, Carolyn Van Slyck, Matt Fisher, Lachie Evenson, Phil Estes, Augustine Correa, Michele Buccarello, Peter Benjamin, nalla |
6+
| Note Taker | Jeremy Rickard |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
* Introductions
10+
* tldr; Everyone is pretty cool
11+
* The current proposals for storing CNAB in registries
12+
* Two approaches
13+
* Chris Crone is attending OCI meetings
14+
* Status report on spec
15+
* Made changes to how to specify images in the spec
16+
* Makes it easier to switch registry information
17+
* Merged
18+
* Part of larger story for getting OCI registry support
19+
* Spec evolution defined in [CNAB Spec Section 900](https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/blob/master/901-process.md)
20+
* The current proposal for switching from OpenPGP to TUF
21+
* The changes to the `images` section on the spec.
22+
23+
**NOTES**
24+
25+
* OCI Meeting today will discuss OCI spec adoption
26+
* https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec#meetings
27+
* https://www.uberconference.com/opencontainers
28+
* Can OCI dev open containers mailing list be used or will we use another
29+
* As spec changes, we need a way to have example bundles verified
30+
* Currently checks that duffle can install bundles
31+
* Can/should add schema validation
32+
* Should Claims be in the spec?
33+
* Possibly move toward a more componetized spec
34+
* Add to agenda next week: discuss decomposition of spec
35+
36+
* Michelle gave an update on Duffle
37+
* Doing some refactor of builder, split image and bundle
38+
* We've created a [waffle.io board](https://waffle.io/deislabs/duffle)
39+
40+
* Move TUF discussion to next week
41+
* If you have tooling demos, feel free to add to the agenda for upcoming weeks
42+
* Michelle: A useful thing as people start proposing/doing conference talks, we should make a repo somewhere that we can store collateral/images/etc for everyone to reuse
43+
* Should we put it in deislabs?
44+
* Let's make a community repo
45+
46+
**ACTION ITEMS**
47+
48+
* Matt Fisher and Radu Matei to start working document on how to store CNAB in OCI registries
49+
* Lachie add action item for Agenda next week for spec decomposition
50+
* Michelle and Carolyn to make a community repo in deislabs

‎meeting-notes/2019-02-06.md

+43
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
1+
## **February 6 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://youtu.be/_E1R3mip6aY |
5+
| Attending | |
6+
| Note Taker | |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
* Spec decomposition (claims, runtime, etc)
10+
* Storage of CNABs in registries
11+
* Common repository for test data (client conformance) - https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/90
12+
* Strategies for keeping the spec, bundles, and implementations in sync (for example https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/92)
13+
14+
* Tooling overview
15+
* [Duffle](https://github.com/deislabs/duffle/), [Porter](https://github.com/deislabs/duffle/)
16+
* [Docker App](https://github.com/docker/app)
17+
* [Python Client](https://github.com/garethr/pycnab), [.NET Client](https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-netstandard)
18+
* If you are working on something, please submit a PR and list it on https://cnab.io/community-projects/
19+
20+
21+
**NOTES**
22+
23+
* Introduction - everyone's awesome, again
24+
* spec decomposition
25+
* different stabilities for different parts
26+
* should x be part of the spec?
27+
* storage of CNAB bundles in registries
28+
* Gareth gives a quick background for the registry discussion
29+
* Steve L - it is agreed that we want to store additional artifacts in registris with the OCI folks, we are at the point where details are discussed.
30+
* how to let specific teams that are in charge of different artifacts own the specific artifact schema
31+
* anyone interested in this discussion, join the weekly OCI meeting, today (Wednesdays) at 2pm pst: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/linuxfoundation.org_i0sado0i37eknar51vsu8md5hg%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics
32+
* OCI mailing list conversation: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/oguystbnnw4
33+
34+
* additional repo with test data
35+
* we want to have a common place for test data to use with various implementations
36+
37+
* how to validate that a bundle is valid with a version of the spec?
38+
* the Python implementation already started some work on validation
39+
40+
**ACTION ITEMS**
41+
* create a repo for a bundle validator
42+
* create a common repo for test data
43+
* Rename the bundles repo to bundle-examples or something to indicate its purpose better (that they show what a bundle looks like with the raw CNAB spec, not duffle or porter, etc)

‎meeting-notes/2019-02-13.md

+54
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
1+
## **February 13 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://youtu.be/d3EOrtsCd7o |
5+
| Attending | Jeremy Rickard, Radu Matei, Matt Butcher, Ryan Moran, Urvashi Reddy, Chris Crone, Karen Chu, Lachlan Evenson, Carolyn Van Slyck, Vaughn Dice, Simon Ferquel, Swapnil Bawaskar, Silvin Lubecki, Adnan Abdulhussein, Nuno do Carmo, Sameer Adveni, Daniel Fein, Josh Dolitsky, Simon, Gabrielle, Glyn Normington|
6+
| Note Taker | Jeremy Rickard |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
10+
* Demo: Porter
11+
* What's chang(ed|ing) in the spec since last week
12+
* Metadata: License
13+
* Namespacing rules
14+
* Canonical JSON
15+
* Proposed: JSONSchema subset for params
16+
* Proposed: Remove CNAB_P_*
17+
* Commit on storing CNABs in registries
18+
* Explanation of chosen method
19+
* How and when should this be added to the spec?
20+
* Short update on TUF/In-Toto design
21+
22+
**NOTES**
23+
24+
**Lots of new people again, thanks for joining us!**
25+
26+
* Porter Demo
27+
* Links to Porter
28+
* https://porter.sh
29+
* https://github.com/deislabs/porter
30+
* Question from nuno:
31+
* currently testing the exec mixin, but will the other cnab “clients” be able to run it too? (and yes I would totally understand if I’m out of scope)

32+
* Answer:
33+
Hey Nuno, right now they are porter concepts. So they work w/ the Porter build / porter run flow. Once you build the bundle, you could run that in other tooling, but right now the porter runtime knows how to invoke them

34+
* Question from glyn:
35+
* How do people know how to use mixins
36+
* Answer: Mixins provide a schema that returns JSON schema
37+
* Canonical JSON
38+
* Moving to Canonical JSON for CNAB is preferred
39+
* One pro per Radu: "And a lot more language implementations for canonical JSON serializers..""

40+
* Proposed: JSONSchema subset for params
41+
* Ryan Moran has been working on a proposal. No PR yet.
42+
* Has been chatting with Matt about it.
43+
* Would introduce more strcture to parameters
44+
* CNAB in Registries
45+
* see repo below for example of what is the current thought
46+
* CNAB to OCI: https://github.com/docker/cnab-to-
47+
oci/blob/13c4adaaf091e6f996116aff5ecc3f0eb6a3dd20/README.md#example
48+
* Matt Fisher: thinks its a good idea
49+
* Chris Crone [10:51 AM]
50+
For those interested in how CNAB and other artifacts are stored in registries, there's a #artifact-registry channel now
51+
* Did not cover the TUF/In-Toto Design updates
52+
* We decided to extend the meeting for next week. The invite will get updated.
53+
54+
**ACTION ITEMS**

‎meeting-notes/2019-02-20.md

+52
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
1+
## **February 20 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://youtu.be/jG1N8QnYUjE |
5+
| Attending | Lachlan Evenson, Jeremy Rickard, Josh Dolitsky, Matt Butcher, Daniel Fein, Carolyn Van Slyck, Karen Chu, Chris Crone, Adnan Abdulhussein, Gabrielle, Nuno do Carmo, Radu Matei, Sameer Advani, Swapnil Bawaskar, Urvashi Reddy, Vaughn Dice, Simon Ferquel, Ryan Moran, Atlas |
6+
| Note Taker | Lachlan Evenson |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
10+
* Demos:
11+
* Short update on TUF/In-Toto design
12+
* alpha/beta releases of spec in run up to 1.0
13+
* Storage of CNABs in registries
14+
* Feedback on [CNAB to OCI](https://github.com/docker/cnab-to-oci/pull/19) update
15+
* Naming of common credentials
16+
* May not age well in the spec
17+
* Align tool builders on common credential names (i.e.: kubeconfig, etc.)
18+
* Would CNAB be an appropriate place to host a spec related to storing multiple content types over OCI? (Josh Dolitsky)
19+
* OCI maling list discussion: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/idUW9KWQsBo
20+
* Porter + Lua (Josh Dolitsky)
21+
* https://github.com/deislabs/porter/issues/173
22+
23+
**NOTES**
24+
25+
* Security currently direction switching from open pgp to [TUF](https://github.com/theupdateframework/notary) and [In-Toto](https://in-toto.github.io/)?
26+
* Proposal of third specification on security. Optionally implmentable without affecting cnab core compliance
27+
* Matt Butcher is working on the draft hopefully finished by the end of the week
28+
* Questions?
29+
* Will this tie into registries? Yes and with notary
30+
* Will all the specs go v1 at the same time? Currently not sure.
31+
* Identified security issue in Duffle "duffle docker driver mounts the docker socket for no apparent reason. That gives CNAB invocation images a wide open door to your machine.
(Will write an issue on Docker repo for this one)
"
32+
* We shouldn't have aplha and beta of the releases to stop fragmentation. When will the core part of the spec be v1.
33+
* Move fast on cnab core and get it to v1
34+
* What is the current rate of change and how many tools implement the specificiation
35+
* Chris proposing CNAB to OCI tool be used to store bundles in registries
36+
* Where should the CNAB registry storage conversation be had?
37+
* Discussion around tight coupling of image spec and distribution spec
38+
* Challenging to make changes to OCI distribution to make it a generic store because every tool has different use-cases
39+
* Annotations are the best way forward with custom types
40+
* Start with standard agreed upon key then move forward with the implementation
41+
* DECISION: Move forward with CNAB to OCI and continue discussion in OCI distribution. Agree on annotation across communities. Simon to help with pulling CNAB to OCI into Docker-app
42+
* CNAB to OCI doesn't currently support thin-bundles.Simon and Chris to raise issue to hash out the detail
43+
* Thin bundle = main OCI Index + config blob
44+
* Thick bundle = Thin bundle + deep copy of everything linked by the main OCI index

45+
* Well known custom actions - https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/blob/master/805-well-known-custom-actions.md
46+
* Porter mixin for CNAB that makes a single bundle from multiple bundles
47+
* As soon as the spec has any way to communicate outputs between bundles then we could compose bundles as you suggest. Until then I think it would be a bit clunky. Like you could run a bunch of bundles, but without being able to pass data between them, it wouldn’t be as useful as I would want, no?
48+
* Jeremy has proposal and will open PR
49+
50+
**ACTION ITEMS**
51+
* https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/blob/master/101-bundle-json.md#the-image-map -> refs and image map injection at runtime is redundant
52+
* https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/113

‎meeting-notes/2019-02-27.md

+29
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
1+
## **February 27 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://youtu.be/wlkoi5ga6V8 |
5+
| Attending | Jeremy Rickard, Ryan Moran, Nuno do Carmo, Urvashi Reddy, Gareth Rushgrove, Glyn Normington, Radu Matei, Lachie Evenson, Matt Butcher, Steve Lasker, Michelle Noorali, Carolyn Van Slyck, Karen Chu, Jason Stevens, Josh Dolitsky, Vaughn Dice, Matt Fisher, Gabrielle, Sameer Advani, Chris Green |
6+
| Note Taker | Lachlan Evenson |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
10+
* New Folks
11+
* Demos:
12+
* CNAB/porter wsl demo (Nuno)
13+
* CNAB push -> promote -> pull demo (simon) [Please schedule for next week instead]
14+
* [lupo](https://github.com/jdolitsky/lupo) - PoC of using Lua to build Porter bundles (Josh) [maybe next next week]
15+
* Tooling request for help (are you working on a CNAB tool and need help?)
16+
* CNAB core spec 1.0 progress
17+
* Release notes / summary of spec changes (jeremy)?
18+
* Spec proposal for JSON on STDIN - [deislabs/cnab-spec#114](https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/114)
19+
* Self-contained documentation for bundles (Radu) - [deislabs/cnab-spec#118](https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/118)
20+
21+
**NOTES**
22+
* Should we run things outside the invocation image but rather directly on the host operating system? We could build a rkt driver potentially that unbundles and image. (based off the details in Nuno's demo)
23+
* Have CNAB core-spec to stabilize by the end of the week
24+
* There are four specifications in cnab-spec repo. Core, Repository, Security, Claims. Also non-normative has been moved out to the 800 section.
25+
* Question - Core is the only mandatory specification. We want people to be able to say, we are cnab-spec compliant.
26+
* Are image drivers in or out of the spec? The drivers are part of the duffle implementation and are not part of the spec.
27+
* Spec proposal for JSON on STDIN - parse data over STDIN directly in to the run tool via "Stdin: true". What happens if you have that on two parameters? How do you know what parameter is what?
28+
* Discussion around support object, or array with declared schema and have JSON schema validate.
29+
* Documentation discussion - having a directory within the bundle that can be stored as an OCI layer and then parse by the repository. Updates to core-spec would be a refence to a directory and a description field. https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/118

‎meeting-notes/2019-03-06.md

+59
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
1+
## **March 6 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFOfyX7BSyg |
5+
| Attending | Carolyn Van Slyck, Michelle Noorali, Karen Chu, Josh Dolitsky, Chris Chrone, Glyn, Jeremy Rickard, Nuno do Carmo, Radu Matei, Steve Lasker, Urvashi Reddy, Gabrielle, Sameer Advani, Daniel Fein, Ryan Moran |
6+
| Note Taker | Jeremy Rickard |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
10+
* New Folks
11+
* Demos:
12+
* CNAB push -> promote -> pull demo (simon aka Chris :)
13+
* Authoring Porter bundles with Lua & MoonScript (Josh)
14+
* Source code: https://github.com/jdolitsky/porter-moon-demo
15+
* Please review:
16+
* https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/pull/123 (breaking change)
17+
* https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/pull/131
18+
* Summary of This Week's Changes: https://hackmd.io/s/SJxpDvTLN
19+
* Running invocation images as privileged containers with Duffle -- [deislabs/duffle#651](https://github.com/deislabs/duffle/pull/651) (Radu)
20+
* Add Maintainers
21+
* Require 2 LGTMs?
22+
* (If time) Discuss next steps for https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/issues/95
23+
24+
** NOTES **
25+
26+
- Chris Crone from Docker demoed cnab push -> promote -> pull
27+
- [Docker App](https://github.com/docker/app)
28+
- Push Pull with [CNAB-To-OCI](https://github.com/docker/cnab-to-oci)
29+
- Apache 2 license, feel free to use it
30+
- Question from Michelle: Do you calculate the hash locally or on push
31+
- Answer from Chris: On Push because it depends on the layers being archived in registry
32+
- Steve Lasker: still a burder on registry to understand how they are stored, registries may not have all info they need
33+
- Chris: We need to define annotations to define how to identify, later we can make a better solution
34+
- Question (from Radu): Is there a signed bundle story yet
35+
- Answer: We aren't doing signing yet
36+
- Question (from Radu): How do the artifacts arrive?
37+
- Answer: push referenced images first, then push invocation image, then push oci index
38+
- Josh Dolitsky demoed Lupo and Moopo
39+
- Build porter bundles using [Lua]([https://www.lua.org/) and [Moonscript](https://moonscript.org/)
40+
- Created issue in Porter [#207](https://github.com/deislabs/porter/issues/207) to investigate how to integrate lupo and moopo more tightly with porter.
41+
- Privileged invocation images - DO WE DO IT OR NOT
42+
- Duffle used to mount the socket all the time
43+
- We've removed that
44+
- Question: other than demo scenarios, real world scenarios where you'd want to run privlidged invocation images (i.e. modifying the same docker engine that you're running in)
45+
- Handle we support that with --privledge?
46+
- Chris: Don't do it by default, but you should have an option to tell the driver to run it as root, mount socket. Leave it up to the tooling.
47+
- Radu: do we have clear guidance on how to provide Docker URL and Certs for how to do production like things.
48+
- Chris: we've added docker context support for Docker CLI. It requires latest Docker app and docker CLi right now. You can specify contexts and it passes stuff in.
49+
- Chris: Hope to contribute this upstream to Duffle (PR is up: https://github.com/deislabs/duffle/pull/661)
50+
- Maineriners and LGTM+2
51+
- Michelle suggests the Helm policy for nominating maintainers
52+
- 2 LGTMs seems like a good idea now
53+
- Issue 95:
54+
- Follow up conversation needed
55+
- Michelle might propose adding an artifacts manifest for thick bundles so tooling can know where to place things
56+
57+
** ACTION ITEMS **
58+
59+
* Michelle will PR a maintainers governance document based on Helm to nominate new maintainers

‎meeting-notes/2019-03-13.md

+50
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
1+
## **March 13 Agenda**
2+
| | |
3+
| -------- | -------- |
4+
| Recording | https://youtu.be/rss-Npo9h8A |
5+
| Attending | Chris Crone, Caroyln Van Slyck, Ryan Moran, Karen Chu, Urvashi Reddy, Matt Butcher, Radu Matei, Nuno do Carmo, Chris Green, Josh Dolitsky, Silvin Lubecki, Michelle Noorali, Swapnil Bawaskar, Vaughn Dice, Gareth Rushgrove, Jeremy Rickard |
6+
| Note Taker | Jeremy Rickard |
7+
8+
**AGENDA**
9+
10+
* New Folks
11+
* Demos
12+
* Carolyn: Porter + JSON Schema
13+
* Please Review and Comment:
14+
* https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/pull/133
15+
* https://github.com/deislabs/cnab-spec/pull/137
16+
* Summary of Changes: https://hackmd.io/s/SJxpDvTLN
17+
* Proposal: Relax MUST use Canonical JSON to SHOULD use Canonical JSON
18+
* Plans for duffle rewrite or similar?
19+
* Should custom extensions be exposed to invocation images?
20+
21+
**NOTES**
22+
23+
* Porter and it's mixins present JSON schema now, that drives IntelliSense for VS Code
24+
- If you install other mixins, will they get incorporated?
25+
- Mixins *can* expose schema but they aren't required right now
26+
- How can you generate the mixin?
27+
- Right now we did it by hand, but there is a wide range of tooling but different versions aren't compatible with different tooling
28+
* We'd like to merge 133 and 137 soon. Additive but useful.
29+
* Relax MUST use Canonical JSON?
30+
* Collectively discovering Canonical JSON isn't terribly well supported
31+
* Might limit the support of libraries in other languages
32+
* Chris: sounds reasonable, checking signature after decoding binary feels wrong
33+
* From chat: should we change images back to array from a map
34+
* would be a breaking change need to decide soon
35+
* check with Silvin or Simon from Docker as to why that is the form (check with them in cncf slack)
36+
* tooling can have their own manifest files that represent in different ways
37+
* Start a discusison in #cnab channel in CNCF slack
38+
39+
* Plans for Duffle Rewrite:
40+
* Pivotal asked
41+
* Current plans probably should be in the invocation images themselves
42+
43+
* Follow up from last week docker socket: docker is making that change, we should add to best practices for runtimes
44+
45+
* Consider the spec in _slushy_ state and try not to make breaking changes between now and June.
46+
47+
**ACTION ITEMS**
48+
49+
Jeremy:
50+
* Add _Should custom extensions be exposed to invocation images?_ to next week's agenda

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)