 Taylor Watson can, and then there's one more person on. Can you announce yourself? This is Hippie Hacker. Hey, Hippie. Hey, Chris. And then I think we also have Lucina connecting from the Volk thing, which is confusing. Hi, I'll rename her. No, I don't care. But since a lot of you are contractors for the CNCF, then I definitely think we can get a supermajority vote for whatever I want to ram through. I mean, basically, I'd love to just get 10 or 15 minutes of your time can to think about that reference architecture. And I'll go ahead and lay my cards on the table ahead of time, which is I'd really rather not make significant changes to it. I think the documents work great. I think the landscapes working great. I don't, by any means, mean to claim, oh, this is like obviously the correct reference architecture and should never be changed. But it's just not clear to me that some meaningful amount of work is going to move things around. And then suddenly everybody's going to say, oh, now it's clearer. Right. No, I agree. Okay, well, my ideal then I guess would be to just try and reach consensus on a few of the kind of noisier categories that sort of have too much junk shoved together in them and maybe look at breaking them out. But otherwise not making a ton of changes. But if there's sort of things that you feel are broken and you want to go back and fix now, this would definitely be the time to do it. No, I didn't think there's anything really broken. I think some groupings might help clear things up a little bit. Yeah, we should definitely have that be one of our first action items then to do that. I think we could probably... Do you have the static landscape in front of you? I can pull it up real quick. Let me just paste it into Zoom here in case if you don't. But I would love to just sort of get your initial reactions what some of the things are that you think are confusing. I just click on the current version from get, right? Yeah, exactly. Are you there? Do you have it loaded? Looking at it. Okay. So, yeah. Let me go ahead and just again, sort of put my cards on the table. And I'm specifically focused around what are the biggest categories? Because it's something like, I don't know, container registries has a bunch of stuff in it, but they're all container registries. It doesn't seem to me like it needs a bunch of work on it. But so like a few ones like database and data warehouse is really big, but there's not an obvious breakup to me. There's not, it's not like clear that you can just say, oh, well let's do sequel versus no sequel or let's do clustered versus non-clustered. But there's so many sort of grays in there that I think that category probably needs to stay relatively close to where it is. The one that Chris is eager to add is he has a new category he wants to do on chaos engineering. And you know, we're looking to start this working group around it if we get the, that needs to get scheduled for a TFC vote. And I'm, I argued to him that that would be a natural thing to put under the observability and analysis because the chaos engineering tends to go across all the other categories. So that would be one new one. And then as I think in my email my sort of biggest complaint or unhappiness right now is with service management with the title secure images because I don't think that's quite describes what it is. And then with the three categories at the bottom left host management, tooling, infrastructure automation and private cloud all seem a little, those don't seem like the right three groupings for you. I agree. Nope, those are the areas I was looking at as well. Okay. I guess maybe we could start on the service management. So we had that email exchange and I suggested breaking out RPC as being a separate category. I'm curious if you feel like RPC remote procedure calls would go under orchestration and management or did they belong up in app definition and development? Yeah, I was thinking orchestration and management but now that you mentioned app definition and development I could see what RPC would be beneficial. What's strange about it is that people use RPC both for their application and it's a functionality built into Docker and Kubernetes and lots of other stuff. Right. And again, I don't mean to imply there's any magic here in those. It's something we definitely try to figure out, right? So RPC definitely fits somewhere. It's a question of where and which of those would you pull out into the RPC category? So the it's Apache Thrift, Avro, GRPC and Netflix Riven are the four RPC projects as far as I can tell. I sent an email, oh, it's 12 days ago. Yeah, I saw it. I remember looking at it. How to reorganize service management. And what I pointed out is that there's a group of ones that are sort of traditional load balancers. So this is sort of one of my many questions which is, is a load balance different than a service mesh? Right, and do we call our proxies differently than load balancers? Yeah, I mean, I see proxies as load balancers but service meshes are both service meshes and load balancers. Right, I mean, I just, yeah. Can you give me just one second for me? And Lucien, I don't know if you could, I'll be right back actually. Okay. Okay. I was looking for CNCF, reference architecture, mailing list and how to reorganize. I just pasted it into the chat window. So the RPC seems separate enough. And I guess I would kind of make the argument for the API gateways that those four, the open service broker API doesn't really belong there as Chip pointed out, but that those four are all API gateways, which is like a real category. I don't know, I guess I might be up for just keeping service mesh and load balancer separate. And I mean, the argument of combining them is that people are probably only gonna choose one from that whole group. You're not gonna do both on boy and the load balancer. And then we still have these last, there's now gonna be four and other, which is open policy agent, reactive interaction gateways stolen and the open service broker API. I think this makes a lot of sense. When I saw this email, I thought it made perfect sense. Great. Okay. So then I might just call other. Do we wanna have like a policy? Term. Do we wanna have like a policy category? You know what, the only thing in the others, I'm not happy with this OPA because I kind of feel like OPA and this whole field of policy might become a lot more critical. Oh, I'm totally happy with it being, my rule has sort of been, I think the smallest category we have right now is four, which is source code management. So I've sort of been hesitant to create a category with just one thing in it. But changing subject a little, if you go down to key management and to secure images, those aren't, some of those are semi-policy related. I haven't, I mean, Grafayus is maybe the closest one to it. But you know, a simpler one would just be to call it security, to rename secure images to security, and then throw OPA in there. And then, you know, I'm totally open to splitting up security or calling it, you know, breaking it out more in the future. Right. What do you think? I think that makes perfect sense. Okay. I just need to make a couple of notes here as we're going along. Grafayus. So my takeaway here, Ken, is that any thing that we change will generate criticism from someone. And also not changing anything will generate criticism from someone. But my suggestion is that we go ahead and go forward with these changes. And then when people complain, we ask them to come back to the mailing list. Exactly. And propose an alternative. And I mean, we're just, we're literally trying to publish a new version of this every month. So we're just not that locked in to any of these decisions. And I mean, I know some people feel this way, but I just don't see the categorization or taxonomy question as being life or death. I don't either. Okay. So if we moved OPA down, I guess, are you familiar with either the stolen or the reactive interaction gateway and where those might go? I'm looking them up right now. Yes. I was thinking about those as well. And I do not know if they would see if I can figure out where they would go. Yeah. The stolen is cloud native Postgres QL, high availability. I'm going to just throw that one over in the, well, no, I was going to say the database one. Database one, yeah. Cause that's where Rook is. Yeah, it goes with Rook. And then the last one, yeah, was the reactive interaction gateway. And I think that can just go in the service mesh one. Yeah. I think it's essentially an API for service mesh. Okay. So that actually solves it. I mean, I'm going to do an email and announce that change. Oh, sorry. And then the last one that's tricky is the open service broker API. And we've been looking at that as like a, Shall I go ahead? No, it's not very helpful here. He says open service broker API isn't an API gateway. I was going to suggest service discovery, but it doesn't do runtime service discovery or even touch data path. Looking at the other categories, it feels like other may be the best option that or service catalog becomes a category. See, everybody always wants their own category because everyone's a snowflake. Every project is a snowflake. No, I'll special. I, okay. How about if we throw it in application definition and image build because it's a way of defining applications. Yep. Great. And integration to applications. Yeah. And actually now that I look, it's already there. So we're not, no, no, that's open API. Sorry, that's different. Helm is very simple. It has some similar capabilities to open service broker API too. Okay. So this is utterly fantastic. So I'm going to go ahead and, yeah, announce this to the list and see how much pushback we get and then try and have it in the next and then look at pushing it on the next version. Well, I have you for a few more minutes though and also for the, for the bulk and other folks on the call, I'd love for you to look down at the host management tooling, infrastructure automation and private cloud. So the host management slash tooling, isn't that really just config management? That's how it's normally described with the caps of chef-answerable puppets, salt stack. Right. But the question is, isn't Bosch sort of the same thing, isn't AWS cloud permission the same thing? Yeah, I don't know if this one is. Somebody doesn't care for them the same thing. They separate them, you know? Yeah. So I mean, I guess I would throw out the idea of coming up with some general category for all of them and then smushing together both of these and the private cloud ones underneath. And I guess you could say like automation and configuration, right? Automation and configuration sold. I'm not sure if we really need, I was, I was, I'd forgotten when we added cloud to this I don't know if we really need like cloud in here. The fact that the public cloud is here. Yeah, public and private in there. I'm not sure if we really. Well, the private ones, I'm arguing, all belong up in the same category. So I'm suggesting that we just eliminate the private cloud or merge it in. The public cloud, bluntly, is just a soft to our members. Right. They really like to move all the, I think it's, five out of private and move them up to the new category above. I think that would be perfect. Great. Then, okay, well, that's actually spectacular. So I'm going to go ahead. It's like open stack, but that's just because it's open stack. Yeah. To be honest, it sort of does. I mean, you can actually install open stack and then put Kubernetes on top of it. It's such pain. You'll want to shoot yourself in the head, but it is an actual option you could, you could go do. Okay, so. I like that. That makes it a lot cleaner. So I think we could actually stop there. I don't think I have any other ones that I'm particularly eager to change right now. And like the serverless work, the serverless one we just redid a month or two ago and people there seem relatively happy with it. Yeah, they were. So I would love to be able to just move this to the mailing list and go forward with it. But I mean, the key thing that I'm going to be looking for is for people to suggest concrete alternatives, not saying, oh, I don't like that. Taylor, Chris, do you guys want to interject anything here? The only thing that comes to mind, I remember when a company package cloud reached out, there were kind of the managed binaries and all this other crazy stuff and we said no to them. I don't remember that, to be honest. Let me just see if I can find their issue. We're up to. I'm just trying to remember all the people that we said, said no to 720. Yeah, 721 issues now. So I have trouble. Remembering everyone. Taylor's clients and compliance management is interesting too. Yeah. Okay, but be more specific now, Chris. So if we had a compliance, we could move. So remember we're going to rename secure images to security. Yeah. And so then Grafayus gets better there. Yeah. And I mean, we're just somewhat arbitrarily splitting out key management from security on the theory that there's enough key management projects to deserve its own category. And I'm kind of fine with the idea that we can keep splitting out new things out of, out of security over time. But I'm sorry. And then we're moving open policy agent down into security. But are there other changes you'd like to see? And Chris, you heard earlier that we talked about putting chaos underneath tracing underneath. Yeah. Okay. And the observing analysis. Yeah, I'm more open to that now. It makes sense because it spans network storage, blah, blah, blah. So yeah. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, the one that I'd love to keep coming back to is, are there existing categories we can split up in an intelligent way into subcategories? But I'm not immediately seeing one. Like the database one is huge now, but there's just not an obvious split in it. And the streaming one is big. CICD is a bit of a mess. Yeah. So, can you please give us your official pronouncement on the RPC question where we're going to have Apache Thrift, Avro, RPC and Netflix ribbon. Should it go on the app definition development? Um, row or on the orchestration and management row? I'm still thinking orchestration and management, but I'm willing to have my opinion changed. That's great. I don't agree. Yeah. I just don't think there's anything magic about it. Chris, do you have a view? I'd leave it for it where it is now. Great. Okay. Well, I'm going to write up this right now before I forget it all and send it to the list and give it a week or more to percolate. But this is actually everything I was hoping to accomplish with this working group. And so I'd really just, or it's not even a working group. This mailing list. So I'd really like to just keep it open and allow people to come back and complain and say how we're doing it all wrong and need to, to move it around. But, um, we can even see if we need to do, if we have enough new stuff piled up to do this call next month. Sure. I might take a tour. We'll get some of these other categories. And if we want to try to break them down to your, you know, to your point, some of the categories that have a lot in them, there's any way we can segment them into, you know, not one or two, but, you know, if we have a grouping of like four or five, we can group into a certain subcategory, which we can take a look at that. Yeah. Sure. But it's often not the end of the world to have a big category. Um, I mean, I do think the. It works. Okay. So let me try again. Taylor Watson, Chris. So the only one that I was saying was at some type of compliance category where you could put OPA and, um, all the other ones, I listed a few open what else besides OPA open SCAP, the Oracle policy automation, which is under key management, um, could be moved under a compliance area and sort of keep. It's, it's a compliance type of thing as their, their bigger deal turned enforcement. And then black duck is a license enforcement. That could be moved from secure images to a compliance. Those four. Um, I haven't gone through all of them. Yeah. Well, but we're going to rename secure images to security. And so then the question is just, is it worth splitting out a compliance from security? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, but we're going to rename secure images to security. So then the question is just, is it worth splitting out a compliance from security? And also if we do call it security, Oracle policy also does key management, right? I believe so. Okay. So you're saying OPA, um, open SCAP, OPA, black duck, black duck Oracle policy. I'm sure there's others under there. I'd need to go through and. Yeah. And core maybe also potentially fits there because they do, they're registry plus policies. I would think of, um, compliance as. A compliment to security versus security. So like chef, you can. Yeah. That's a configuration compliance thing, which is. Yeah. What's left in here after we, we pull out all the compliance ones. So notary and tough aren't compliance. Um, Twist lock is, is image scanning. And so is Claire. And so is Aqua. Okay. I think I'm going to need to go do some research to, uh, To follow up on that one, but it's a fair question. Um, And then potentially the service management, there may be some stuff to break out. Uh, So we could potentially have something that's if someone's just looking at protocols for integrating between. Yeah. We're going to create a new category called RPC. Okay. You might have missed that where it's going to be a patchy thrift, Avro, GRPC and Netflix. I did. I missed that. Okay. RPC. What do you think Watson? We got any thoughts on other communication costs? Sorry. The one other question was, um, Uh, Of service mesh and load balancer. Should we combine the two of them together? And my justification for combining them is that people are likely only going to choose one. You're not going to use engine X and on boy. The argument. But then there's also the question of what do we call it then. For example, should we call it service mesh and load balancers? Any views? I don't really think of this as the same, but I'm just trying to think of it from both sides. Because I'm dealing with the NSM stuff on the CNF. It doesn't really. I don't think load balancer that my view may be bad bias right now. In the. Some of the wording where they separate things by ingress. I'm saying. The communications are coming in. And the service mesh kind of handles all the load balance. It's kind of like ingress. So if it was like service mesh. Um, Ingress and low load balance goes under that or something like that. They do seem to me more of the same than separate. Okay. I didn't get the thought you're proposing. So you're saying service mesh would be an ingress. Would be two separate subcategories. Something like that. Or so service mesh and what it. The subcategory under service mesh could be how the community ingress being one. So we'll balance handling that. And then it's kind of like. Separating by the problem that it solves. Or words. Right. The challenges that envoy tends to solve all everything. Right. And they're just servicemen. Right. So. 10 Chris. Yeah, I think we talked about it earlier. I like separating them out, but that's just open to pulling them back together. That's great. Let's keep them separate. They can people can have fights on what they are. Sounds good to me. And someone. I'm going to be different. That's great. Yeah. I'm looking at the policy agent and I'm not seeing anything about key management. Yeah. That's why we're going to put it under security. Not under security. I'm not going to put it under security. I'm not going to put it under security. I'm not going to put it under security. I'm not going to put it under security. Not under key management. I think it belongs under security. I'll just double checking it for you. But it arguably would go under compliance. If we had a separate compliance. Yeah. And it's that was the debate. That was a debate. That makes perfect sense. Okay. Let's stop there. Really appreciate getting the feedback. Cool. Yeah. Take care. Is it possible to have subsets of these categories? So like the compliance, you were saying that's kind of under security and stuff. If, if we add those. We just don't want to add a third sub category, a third tier. We can have, we can do secure image security. Yeah. Security. And then next to it have compliance, but we don't want to subdivide even further. I mean, obviously anything's possible, but just in the interest of trying to keep things clean and easy to work with. Yeah. Sounds good. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Bye bye.