> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Chris Hoge <ch...@openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> At the upcoming board meeting in September, the Interop Working Group
> will be proposing a new trademark program to supplement the OpenStack
> Powered mark. This update formally defines two distinct types of programs.
> 
> 1) Platforms. This captures the three existing trademarks, OpenStack
> Powered Compute, OpenStack Powered Storage, and OpenStack Powered
> Platform. A platform can be thought of as a complete collection of
> OpenStack software to give a core set of functionality. For example,
> OpenStack Powered Storage provides Swift Object Storage and Horizon

Correction to above:
Swift and Keystone. Horizon is not required


> Identity. Compute offers Nova, Horizon, Glance, Cinder and Neutron.

Correction to the above:
Nova, Keystone, Glance, Cinder, and Neutron. Horizon is not required.


> 
> We are generalizing the idea of platforms to be able to capture other
> verticals within the OpenStack ecosystem. For example, we are currently
> working with NFV leaders to potentially build out an OpenStack Powered
> NFV guideline that could be used in a future trademark program.
> 
> 2) Extensions. This captures projects that provide additional
> functionality to platforms, but require certain core services to be
> available.  The intent is for an OpenStack Powered cloud to be able to
> advertise interoperable capabilities that would be nice for users to
> have but aren't strictly required for general interoperability. The
> first two extensions we are focusing on are Heat Orchestration and
> Designate DNS. If a public cloud were offering the Designate API,
> they could qualify to present themselves as "OpenStack Powered Platform
> with DNS".
> 
> We are seeking advisory status from the board at the September board
> meeting, with a goal to launch the new extension programs after the
> January board meeting. The Interop Working Group would also like to
> work with the TC on encouraging more projects to adopt the Interop
> Working Group schema to define what public-facing interfaces and code
> should be present for a deployed instance of that project to qualify
> as interoperable.
> 
> If you would like to see the new extension programs, I have reviews
> up for both Heat and Designate.
> 
> Heat: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490648/
> Designate: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/492635/
> 
> The new interop guideline schema format is also ready to be presented
> to the board:
> 
> 2.0 schema documentation:
>  
> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/interop/tree/doc/source/schema/2.0.rst
> 2.0 schema example:
>  
> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/interop/tree/doc/source/schema/next.2.0.json
> 
> The review for the 2.0 schema (merged):
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430556/
> 
> If you are the PTL of a project that would like to be considered for an
> extension trademark program, please don't hesitate to reach out to me or
> any other member of the Interop Working Group.
> 
> We're pretty excited about how we're planning on extending the trademark
> program next year, and are looking forward to working with the developer
> community to help guarantee the interoperability of OpenStack clouds
> through testing and trademark compliance.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Chris Hoge
> Interop Engineer
> OpenStack Foundation
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to