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

[DISCUSSION]: Granularity of SaaS data passing through CSP exports #640

Open
shawnalpay opened this issue Nov 6, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
Assignees
Labels
csp Cloud service providers discussion topic Item or question to be discussed by the community needs backlog review Items to review with members and confirm whether to close or carry forward saas SaaS-centric concepts scopes Beyond the public cloud

Comments

@shawnalpay
Copy link
Contributor

shawnalpay commented Nov 6, 2024

Description

The practitioner needs visibility of granular usage data from their providers in order to unlock a whole host of use cases: cost allocation, charge back, recommendations, rightsizing, etc. We have recently heard from multiple practitioners that SaaS cost and usage data when provided through the marketplace of a cloud service provider is often very highly aggregated. Here is a quote from one practitioner:

In one of our use cases, we are utilizing Databricks on GCP via the marketplace, and we are facing challenges in accurately determining the cost breakdown for each component used by both GCP and Databricks in order to calculate the total cost of ownership. We are actively seeking a solution to address this issue and are eager to contribute towards finding a resolution.

While that particular example is potentially an issue between the SaaS provider and the CSP, and while it would be ideal for the practitioner to consume more granular data from the SaaS provider, the CSP generator is perfectly conformant with the FOCUS spec as currently authored.

Proposed Approach

Augment the FOCUS specification to either suggest or require usage data to be provided at a certain granularity that would unlock a certain quality of data to facilitate various practitioner use cases. The various suggestions or requirements are TBD and would require further analysis and discussion.

GitHub Issue or Reference

#616

Context

No response

Data Submission for Discussion

No response

@shawnalpay shawnalpay added the discussion topic Item or question to be discussed by the community label Nov 6, 2024
@shawnalpay shawnalpay self-assigned this Nov 6, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Triage in FOCUS WG Nov 6, 2024
@shawnalpay shawnalpay added saas SaaS-centric concepts csp Cloud service providers scopes Beyond the public cloud needs backlog review Items to review with members and confirm whether to close or carry forward labels Nov 6, 2024
@jpradocueva
Copy link
Contributor

Action Items from TF-2 call on Nov 6:

  • [#640] Andrew @aqu-erp : Investigate current data granularity capabilities across major CSPs and SaaS providers to determine potential guidelines for the FOCUS specification.
  • [#640] Shawn @shawnalpay : Draft a proposal outlining possible FOCUS guidelines for SaaS data granularity for discussion in an upcoming meeting.

@jpradocueva
Copy link
Contributor

Action Items from the Members' call on November 7:

  • [#640] Irena @ijurica : Draft a preliminary guideline for the recommended granularity of SaaS data in CSP exports, covering key data points such as itemized services, tax details, and purchase records.
  • [#640] All Members: Review and provide feedback on the preliminary guideline and identify any additional data elements or considerations that would be beneficial for SaaS granularity in CSP data exports.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
csp Cloud service providers discussion topic Item or question to be discussed by the community needs backlog review Items to review with members and confirm whether to close or carry forward saas SaaS-centric concepts scopes Beyond the public cloud
Projects
Status: Triage
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants