Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Service Mesh Interface (SMI) proposal #336

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Mar 16, 2020
Merged

Conversation

@lachie83
Copy link
Contributor

lachie83 commented Jan 16, 2020

fixes #337

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Evenson <lachlan.evenson@microsoft.com>

Co-authored-by: Bridget Kromhout <bridget@kromhout.org>
Co-authored-by: Lachlan Evenson <lachlan.evenson@microsoft.com>
@lachie83 lachie83 force-pushed the lachie83:add-smi-proposal branch from 10e14ca to e011a49 Jan 16, 2020
@caniszczyk caniszczyk added the sandbox label Jan 17, 2020
@caniszczyk caniszczyk added this to In progress (due diligence/presentation) in Initial Project Triage & Sandbox Projects Backlog via automation Jan 17, 2020
@caniszczyk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

caniszczyk commented Jan 17, 2020

@mattklein123 agrees to sponsor as a TOC member for the sandbox

Copy link
Contributor

sdake left a comment

recommend change for accuracy.

proposals/smi.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@sergiopozoh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

sergiopozoh commented Jan 20, 2020

Thank you. @sdake @caniszczyk yes, Hamlet is a living project. As @sdake described, Hamlet aims to interoperate service discovery and related topics in single-vendor and multi-vendor meshes, which includes the automated configuration management of the involved meshes. Hamlet has been presented in the Istio Environments WG and we discussed an integration with Istio that would be eventually contributed.

My personal opinion is that Hamlet and SMI are compatible and complementary. Hamet does not make assumptions of the underlying service mesh. Which means that either vendor-native APIs or SMI APIs (if supported) can be used to configure each federated mesh.

In addition to that, I imagine that since SMI imagines a multi-vendor world, it would at some point need these multi-vendor meshes to interoperate (service discovery, service to service secure communication, etc.).

@caniszczyk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

caniszczyk commented Jan 21, 2020

Any other @cncf/toc members open to sponsoring SMI?

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Evenson <lachlan.evenson@microsoft.com>

Co-authored-by: Bridget Kromhout <bridget@kromhout.org>
Co-authored-by: Lachlan Evenson <lachlan.evenson@microsoft.com>
@michelleN

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

michelleN commented Jan 21, 2020

Any other @cncf/toc members open to sponsoring SMI?

I'm happy to sponsor

@michelleN

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

michelleN commented Jan 21, 2020

Looks like @mattklein123 is also willing to sponsor #337 (comment)

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Evenson <lachlan.evenson@microsoft.com>
@quinton-hoole

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

quinton-hoole commented Jan 22, 2020

nit: Which of the several implementations is considered to be "the reference implementation". We've previously had a policy of not admitting specs without reference implementations.

My apologies if the answer is buried in there somewhere, but I didn't see it during my skim-read.

@lachie83

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lachie83 commented Jan 22, 2020

nit: Which of the several implementations is considered to be "the reference implementation". We've previously had a policy of not admitting specs without reference implementations.

My apologies if the answer is buried in there somewhere, but I didn't see it during my skim-read.

Given that SMI has a stated non-goal of: Implement a service mesh offered by the SMI project. Here's what I would consider reference implementations:

In addition, the following service meshes natively implement SMI:

  • Linkerd: linkerd.io
  • Rio: rio.io
  • Maesh: mae.sh

Along with ecosystem tooling that supports SMI:

  • Flagger: flagger.app
  • SuperGloo: supergloo.solo.io
@amye amye moved this from In progress (due diligence/presentation) to SIG Review in Initial Project Triage & Sandbox Projects Backlog Jan 22, 2020
@sergiopozoh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

sergiopozoh commented Jan 22, 2020

@lachie83 is SuperGloo a Service Mesh? From their own definition, it doesn't seem to: "SuperGloo, an open-source project to manage and orchestrate service meshes at scale. SuperGloo is an opinionated abstraction layer that will simplify the installation, management, and operation of your service mesh, whether you use (or plan to use) a single mesh or multiple mesh technologies, on-site, in the cloud, or on any topology that best fits you."

@lachie83

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lachie83 commented Jan 22, 2020

@sergiopozoh appreciate the feedback. I've updated my original comment to hopefully make this clearer.

@sergiopozoh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

sergiopozoh commented Jan 22, 2020

@lachie83 that's ok. Would you like to add Consul? I believe they support part of the SMI spec cc @nicholasjackson

@lachie83

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lachie83 commented Jan 22, 2020

@sergiopozoh - At this point it's probably worth mentioning that you can refer to slide 8 of the proposal deck. Consul is there. Feel free to let me know if we've missed any other implementations.

@sergiopozoh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

sergiopozoh commented Jan 22, 2020

@brewer531

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brewer531 commented Feb 6, 2020

Any other @cncf/toc members open to sponsoring SMI?

I'm happy to sponsor

I am happy to sponsor as well.

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Evenson <lachlan.evenson@microsoft.com>
@mattklein123 mattklein123 removed their assignment Feb 17, 2020
@amye amye added the sig-network label Feb 18, 2020
@amye

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

amye commented Feb 27, 2020

@leecalcote: Checking in on SIG-Network's progress on review

@lachie83

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lachie83 commented Mar 10, 2020

@amye - It has been brought to my attention that the CNCF doesn't currently accept any licensing other than Apache v2. We are willing to have the specification relicensed to Apache v2 as part of the process to donate this to the CNCF.

@leecalcote

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

leecalcote commented Mar 10, 2020

@lachie83 very good. I'm noting this change. Thank you for this update.

@lachie83

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lachie83 commented Mar 11, 2020

Hey @leecalcote, can you kindly confirm the next steps in the process and provide an approximate timeline? We would like to complete this donation and are ready to assist with anything that needs to happen to finish it.

@michelleN michelleN mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2020
@leecalcote

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

leecalcote commented Mar 13, 2020

All, for reference, please see SIG-Network's review and recommendation of this project proposal - https://github.com/cncf/sig-network/blob/master/recommendations/smi.md. We consider SMI a great fit for Sandbox and a very welcomed addition. SMI advances the adoption and interoperability of services meshes as a prominent, and soon to be ubiquitious, layer of cloud native infrastructure.

SIG-Network recommends SMI for Sandbox. 👍

@michelleN michelleN moved this from Needs SIG Review & Recommendation to Need Sponsors in Initial Project Triage & Sandbox Projects Backlog Mar 14, 2020
@michelleN michelleN moved this from Need Sponsors to Needs SIG Review & Recommendation in Initial Project Triage & Sandbox Projects Backlog Mar 14, 2020
@michelleN michelleN moved this from Needs SIG Review & Recommendation to Need Sponsors in Initial Project Triage & Sandbox Projects Backlog Mar 16, 2020
@michelleN

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

michelleN commented Mar 16, 2020

@amye -- this proposal has gone through all the steps in the sandbox process and has the necessary sponsors, so I'm marking them as done. I'll leave it to you and @caniszczyk from here to get them over the line with any final steps including merging the proposal

@caniszczyk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

caniszczyk commented Mar 16, 2020

@michelleN it was on my TODO list for today, you're official now and will be added to devstats shortly, we need to work on migrating the SMI repos over to github.com/servicemeshinterface

https://github.com/cncf/artwork/blob/master/examples/sandbox.md#service-mesh-interface-logos

@caniszczyk caniszczyk merged commit ce4bcf4 into cncf:master Mar 16, 2020
@tomkerkhove

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

tomkerkhove commented Mar 16, 2020

Awesome! 🎉

@Pothulapati

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Pothulapati commented Mar 16, 2020

This is really exciting! 🎆

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

You can’t perform that action at this time.