Add initial roadmap #230

crosbymichael · 2015-10-22T19:02:34Z

This adds the initial roadmap for the project. I compiled this list from various weekly meetings, issues, and discussions on irc.

This is not meant to be an absolute list of things that we will or will not do, just a way for our project to convey what we want to focus on and work towards. I tried to add "owners" based on people who expressed interest in the various topics.

Let me know what you all think. We can use this overall list and break out topics for various milestones.

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby [email protected]

wking · 2015-10-22T19:05:39Z

ROADMAP.md

+Containers have a lifecycle and being able to identify and document the lifecycle of a container is very helpful for implementations of the spec.  
+The lifecycle events of a container also help identify areas to implement hooks that are portable across various implementations and platforms.
+
+**Owner: **  


@mrunalp has volunteered for this a few times, most recently here.

Yes but lets have those people comment for themselves and not just sign them up. There are also other people wanting to work on this.

Also lets let everyone review the content before we start nit picking on smaller things.

@crosbymichael We whiteboarded this yesterday and I will create a PR based on that.

@duglin You might want to help out here.

@mrunalp yup - been swamped since the f2f, starting to free up now...

tianon · 2015-10-22T19:14:52Z

On the high level, great big 👍 here.

wking · 2015-10-22T19:22:29Z

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:02:36PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:

This is not meant to be an absolute list of things that we will or
will not do, just a way for our project to convey what we want to
focus on and work towards. I tried to add "owners" based on people
who expressed interest in the various topics.

Also candidates for this list:

Separate config entries for device mknod and cgroups 1.
Document container ID charset and uniqueness domain 2.
Seccomp actions with arguments [3](revived via [4]).
Specifying a command-line API [5,6].

I'm happy to help with or take ownership of any of those. If we don't
want to list them in the roadmap, I'm also happy to just continue
discussion on the list.

mrunalp · 2015-10-22T19:24:15Z

ROADMAP.md

+
+**Owner: **  
+
+### Define Container Lifecycle


I can create a PR based on yesterdays discussions. (will be glad to have @crosbymichael to help out as well)

mrunalp · 2015-10-22T19:28:19Z

Good idea to have this to track the items 👍

mrunalp · 2015-10-22T19:34:23Z

We could probably have a section for exec.
cc: @vishh

vishh · 2015-10-23T00:33:12Z

ROADMAP.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+# OCI Specs Roadmap
+
+This document serves to provide both a long term roadmap on our quest to a 1.0 version of the OCI container specification.


nit: both seems to imply two goals. I see only one mentioned in this sentence.

hqhq · 2015-10-23T02:57:52Z

Great job 👍 , now we have more clearer view for what we are doing now.
Looking forward to see more detailed milestones. 😄

hqhq · 2015-10-27T09:19:54Z

Is there any plan about network in container?

duglin · 2015-10-27T15:42:15Z

ROADMAP.md

+### Digest and Hashing
+
+A bundle is designed to be moved between hosts. 
+Although OCI doesn't define a transport method we should have a cryptographic digest of the on-disk bundle that can be used to verify that a bundle is not corrupted and in an expected configuration.


Since I think there may be a difference between the "on-disk" bundle and the "archive" that we create when we try to move a bundle I think it might be best to remove the "on-disk" part of this sentence. For example, an incoming bundle might have the notion of layers, but if the implementation of OCI flattens its down to just a single dir I don't think we want to hash the flatten dir, we want to hash the original bundle and do verification of that.

duglin · 2015-10-27T15:51:55Z

It might be good to add a PR/Issue: ... field to each so that people can easily go from this doc to the issue/PR that has the design discussions.

wking · 2015-10-27T16:12:51Z

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:19:56AM -0700, Qiang Huang wrote:

Is there any plan about network in container?

I think the consensus is that Docker-style networking is out-of-scope
[1,2]. I also think an important part of scoping is collecting a list
of frequently requested but out of scope features somewhere
discoverable 3. Maybe we can add that to this roadmap?

 Subject: Do we have any plan for network and storage specs?
 Message-Id: <[email protected]>

 Subject: Re: Make the container spec unified for both native and virtual machine
 Message-ID: <[email protected]>

wking · 2015-10-27T16:21:50Z

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:51:57AM -0700, Doug Davis wrote:

It might be good to add a PR/Issue: ... field to each so that
people can easily go from this doc to the issue/PR that has the
design discussions.

I think the suggestion is to keep design discussion on the list [1](landed in #86), but +1 to linking to wherever the discussion is
happening.

RobDolinMS · 2015-10-27T22:54:28Z

ROADMAP.md

+
+Decide on a robust versioning schema for the spec as it evolves.
+
+**Owner: **  


I'm glad to help on the version schema.

crosbymichael · 2015-10-28T18:53:21Z

Updated based on initial comments. I think any more assignments can be added as PRs after we merge for people who want to work on a topic.

crosbymichael · 2015-11-02T19:51:22Z

ping

mrunalp · 2015-11-02T20:43:33Z

LGTM

vishh · 2015-11-02T21:53:54Z

LGTM. We can iterate starting with this.

vbatts · 2015-11-03T14:51:05Z

ROADMAP.md

+A bundle is designed to be moved between hosts. 
+Although OCI doesn't define a transport method we should have a cryptographic digest of the on-disk bundle that can be used to verify that a bundle is not corrupted and in an expected configuration.
+
+**Owner: ** philips


a nit on the formating. (view it here), this looks like it's intended to be bold, but it formats like floating asterisks

vbatts · 2015-11-03T14:52:20Z

This LGTM apart from the formatting nit.

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby <[email protected]>

crosbymichael · 2015-11-09T22:32:58Z

@vbatts fixed your formatting issue. I don't know how to markdown....

crosbymichael · 2015-11-09T22:34:05Z

i'll merge this now

Add initial roadmap

vbatts · 2015-11-09T22:36:54Z

Cool. Thanks.

I think this is resolved since 7713efc (Add lifecycle for containers, 2015-10-22, opencontainers#231), which was committed on the same day as the ROADMAP entry (4859f6d, Add initial roadmap, 2015-10-22, opencontainers#230). Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>

# digest/hashing target Most of this has spun off with [1], and I haven't heard of anyone talking about verifying the on-disk filesystem in a while. My personal take is on-disk verification doesn't add much over serialized verification unless you have a local attacker (or unreliable disk), and you'll need some careful threat modeling if you want to do anything productive about the local attacker case. For some more on-disk verification discussion, see the thread starting with [2]. # distributable-format target This spun off with [1]. # lifecycle target I think this is resolved since 7713efc (Add lifecycle for containers, 2015-10-22, opencontainers#231), which was committed on the same day as the ROADMAP entry (4859f6d, Add initial roadmap, 2015-10-22, opencontainers#230). # container-action target Addressed by 7117ede (Expand on the definition of our ops, 2015-10-13, opencontainers#225), although there has been additional discussion in a7a366b (Remove exec from required runtime functionalities, 2016-04-19, opencontainers#388) and 0430aaf (Split create and start, 2016-04-01, opencontainers#384). # validation and testing targets Validation is partly covered by cdcabde (schema: JSON Schema and validator for `config.json`, 2016-01-19, opencontainers#313) and subequent JSON Schema work. The remainder of these targets are handled by ocitools [3]. # printable/compiled-spec target The bulk of this was addressed by 4ee036f (*: printable documents, 2015-12-09, opencontainers#263). Any remaining polishing of that workflow seems like a GitHub-issue thing and not a ROADMAP thing. And publishing these to opencontainers.org certainly seems like it's outside the scope of this repository (although I think that such publishing is a good idea). [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec [2]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/xo4SQ92aWJ8/NHpSQ19KCAAJ Subject: OCI Bundle Digests Summary Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:09:15 +0000 Message-ID: <CAD2oYtN-9yLLhG_STO3F1h58Bn5QovK+u3wOBa=t+7TQi-hP1Q@mail.gmail.com> [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/ocitools Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>

wking reviewed Oct 22, 2015
View reviewed changes

mrunalp reviewed Oct 22, 2015
View reviewed changes

vishh reviewed Oct 23, 2015
View reviewed changes

hqhq mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2015

Port Mapping opencontainers/runc#356

Closed

duglin reviewed Oct 27, 2015
View reviewed changes

RobDolinMS reviewed Oct 27, 2015
View reviewed changes

crosbymichael force-pushed the roadmap branch from bb10ea3 to a4bd6f8 Compare October 28, 2015 18:52

vbatts reviewed Nov 3, 2015
View reviewed changes

Add initial roadmap

4859f6d

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby <[email protected]>

crosbymichael force-pushed the roadmap branch from a4bd6f8 to 4859f6d Compare November 9, 2015 22:32

crosbymichael added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 9, 2015

Merge pull request #230 from crosbymichael/roadmap

46d949e

Add initial roadmap

crosbymichael merged commit 46d949e into opencontainers:master Nov 9, 2015

crosbymichael deleted the roadmap branch November 9, 2015 22:34

wking mentioned this pull request Dec 4, 2015

use /etc/passwd in place of the User struct #191

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add initial roadmap #230

Add initial roadmap #230

crosbymichael commented Oct 22, 2015

wking Oct 22, 2015

crosbymichael Oct 22, 2015

mrunalp Oct 22, 2015

mrunalp Oct 22, 2015

duglin Oct 27, 2015

tianon commented Oct 22, 2015

wking commented Oct 22, 2015

mrunalp Oct 22, 2015

mrunalp commented Oct 22, 2015

mrunalp commented Oct 22, 2015

vishh Oct 23, 2015

hqhq commented Oct 23, 2015

hqhq commented Oct 27, 2015

duglin Oct 27, 2015

duglin commented Oct 27, 2015

wking commented Oct 27, 2015

wking commented Oct 27, 2015

RobDolinMS Oct 27, 2015

crosbymichael commented Oct 28, 2015

crosbymichael commented Nov 2, 2015

mrunalp commented Nov 2, 2015

vishh commented Nov 2, 2015

vbatts Nov 3, 2015

vbatts commented Nov 3, 2015

crosbymichael commented Nov 9, 2015

crosbymichael commented Nov 9, 2015

vbatts commented Nov 9, 2015

		@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
		# OCI Specs Roadmap

		This document serves to provide both a long term roadmap on our quest to a 1.0 version of the OCI container specification.


		Decide on a robust versioning schema for the spec as it evolves.

		Owner:

Add initial roadmap #230

Add initial roadmap #230

Conversation

crosbymichael commented Oct 22, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tianon commented Oct 22, 2015

wking commented Oct 22, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mrunalp commented Oct 22, 2015

mrunalp commented Oct 22, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hqhq commented Oct 23, 2015

hqhq commented Oct 27, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

duglin commented Oct 27, 2015

wking commented Oct 27, 2015

wking commented Oct 27, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

crosbymichael commented Oct 28, 2015

crosbymichael commented Nov 2, 2015

mrunalp commented Nov 2, 2015

vishh commented Nov 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vbatts commented Nov 3, 2015

crosbymichael commented Nov 9, 2015

crosbymichael commented Nov 9, 2015

vbatts commented Nov 9, 2015