On 4/28/15, 00:31, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote:
>
>>On 4/27/15, 05:39, "Kuvaja, Erno" wrote:
>>
>>>The spec bluntly states that
>>>there is no security impact from the implementation
>>> and the concerns should have been brought up so reviewers would have
>>>had
>>>better chance to catch possible
>On 4/27/15, 05:39, "Kuvaja, Erno" wrote:
>
>>The spec bluntly states that
>>there is no security impact from the implementation
>> and the concerns should have been brought up so reviewers would have had
>>better chance to catch possible threats.
>>
>>
>>I would like you to look back into tho
On 4/27/15, 05:39, "Kuvaja, Erno" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>As you probably know CIS was expanded from Juno metadefs work this cycle
>based on spec [1] provided. The implementation was merged in quite a rush
>just before feature freeze.
>
>During the spec review [2] for client functionality for CIS it
nic fixing before final.
- Erno
From: Rykowski, Kamil [mailto:kamil.rykow...@intel.com]
Sent: 27 April 2015 13:10
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Call to action, revisit CIS state
Hi,
I'm responsible for the sp
within it and what can be
retrieved from it.
From: Kuvaja, Erno [mailto:kuv...@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 12:39 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [glance] Call to action, revisit CIS state
Hi all,
As you probably know CIS was
Hi all,
As you probably know CIS was expanded from Juno metadefs work this cycle based
on spec [1] provided. The implementation was merged in quite a rush just before
feature freeze.
During the spec review [2] for client functionality for CIS it came to our
attention that the implementation ex
