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

Initial version of the object store taxonomy #135

Merged

Conversation

smendis-scottlogic
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@sshiells-scottlogic sshiells-scottlogic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, a couple of small comments about possible minor tweaks to the wording.

services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@AdrianHammond AdrianHammond left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @smendis-scottlogic @eddie-knight - LGTM - thank you Sonali

As a group I think we need to agree on standard for numbering the Taxonomy id's.

@sshiells-scottlogic
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @smendis-scottlogic @eddie-knight - LGTM - thank you Sonali

As a group I think we need to agree on standard for numbering the Taxonomy id's.

Once a number system is agreed upon I think it would be good to have this through the upper levels so it is easier to navigate. For example (just using the system @smendis-scottlogic has went with for now):

image

@smendis-scottlogic
Copy link
Contributor Author

smendis-scottlogic commented Mar 6, 2024

Yes I followed the pattern we did in RDMS and was not sure what to put in the place of RDMS. In here I have come up with this numbering system and hoping to present it to the team on the WG meeting.
first 2 digits - top level taxonomy
second 2 digits - second level taxonomy
last 2 digits - taxonomy id
Open for other suggestions.
I agree with what @sshiells-scottlogic has suggested. It should be added in the top level taxonomy page and second level taxonomy pages so it is clear how we derived with this numbering system and people can refer to any taxonomy by id instead of the name for more clarity. Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@rgriffiths-scottlogic rgriffiths-scottlogic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few comments (all minor!) from me.

services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
| CCC-020106 | Availability | High availability for stored objects through replication over multiple availability zones within a region. |
| CCC-020107 | Performance - Transaction Rate Limits | High throughput and low latency for read/write operations under given maximum transaction rate limits. |
| CCC-020108 | Performance - Querying | Ability to perform simple select queries to retrieve only a subset of objects from the bucket. |
| CCC-020109 | Storage Classes | Having different storage classes for frequently and infrequently accessed objects. |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This might imply there are only two classes of access: frequent and infrequent. However, there could be a few options between frequent and infrequent!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The 2 main category of classes should be hot (frequently accessed) and cold (infrequently accessed). We see more than 2 storage classes based on pricing. So it's ok?

services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Show resolved Hide resolved
services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
| CCC-020112 | Compliance and Governance | Ability to create locks on objects disabling modification or/and deletion of an object for a given period of time. |
| CCC-020113 | Event Notifications | Publish object level events for creation, deletion and modification of objects allowing users to trigger actions in response. |
| CCC-020114 | Encryption at Rest | Objects are encrypted when storing using encryption keys. |
| CCC-020115 | Encryption in Transit | Objects are encrypted in transit, using SSL/TSL. |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This appears to be "always on" - is that the case?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Best practice is to use https. But can use http urls. But it is essential for the object store to accept https requests as a core functionality ( thinking of new comers to the cloud service provider world)

services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
services/storage/object/taxonomy.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@eddie-knight
Copy link
Contributor

@AdrianHammond I'd like feedback on this review process. Here are my thoughts... building toward a suggestion on the final point.

  1. We are in a phase where we should be moving in quick iterations, so we shouldn't hamper this down with a long review process.
  2. We don't have a process right now to determine what the blessed controls are— but I daresay that we haven't blessed this repo as an official set of controls yet.
  3. We need to get more input from folks at diverse institutions, but that part could be done through an iterative review and ongoing refinement of the controls in the repo
  4. Beyond the scope of accuracy in the definitions, we will also need to refine the entire repo (likely in an ongoing effort) to adhere to a corporate voice in things such as control descriptions
  5. Are we happy merging this in an iterative state, so long as issues are created or updated for the subsequent refinement work?

@AdrianHammond
Copy link
Contributor

@eddie-knight - I am happy to merge on basis we are iterating on this. @mark-rushing FYI

Copy link
Contributor

@AdrianHammond AdrianHammond left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

approved and merge - likely to require further iteration but a great start by @smendis-scottlogic

@AdrianHammond AdrianHammond merged commit f3d9824 into finos:main Mar 6, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants