My concern is with the original wording “The suggested way forward there would
be to remove the "Security project team"”.
This seems like a move to instantly reduce investment in OpenStack security,
because the majority of members of the Security Project are corporately funded,
which will be s
Thanks for following up Steve, the sessions at the summit were extremely useful.
Both Rob and I have been caught up with the day-job since we got back from the
summit, but will discuss next steps and agree a plan this week.
Regards
Doug
From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" mailto:std...@cisco.com>>
The Vancouver core party was a fantastic opportunity to meet some very smart
people and learn a lot about the projects they worked on. It was probably one
of the most useful parts of the summit, certainly more so than the greasy
marketing party, and arguably a much better use of developer time.
Very lightweight, automatic certificate security policy enforcement.
Doug
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 18:48, Adam Young wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/2015 12:50 PM, Chivers, Doug wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> At a previous OpenStack Security Project IRC meeting, we briefly discussed
Hi All,
At a previous OpenStack Security Project IRC meeting, we briefly discussed a
lightweight traditional PKI using the Anchor validation functionality, for use
in internal deployments, as an alternative to things like MS ADCS. To take this
further, I have drafted a spec, which is in the sec
+1
As a current core I absolutely stand behind this nomination, Stans coding is
excellent and he has made huge contributions to this project.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Finnigan, Jamie
Sent: 08 July 2015 16:05
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject
