...
ZOOM Meeting Information:
Monday, July 10, 2023, at 9am at 11:30am PT/12pm 2:30pm ET.
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 790 499 9331
.png?version=1&modificationDate=1672639538625&cacheVersion=1&api=v2&height=400)
Attendees:
- Ken Sayers (AAIS)
- Josh Hershman (openIDL)
- Jeff Braswell (openIDL)
- Peter Antley (AAIS)
- Ash Naik (AAIS)
- David Reale (Travelers)
- Faheem Z (Hanover)
- Joseph Nibert (AAIS)
- Tsvetan Georgiev (Senofi)
- Yanko Zhelyazkov (Senofi)
Agenda:
- Update on openIDL Testnet/Workshops (SeanB)
- IWG update (YankoZ)
- Update on RRDMWG and internal Stat Reporting with openIDL (Peter Antley)
- AWG Goals:
- document architecture to identify ingress and egress ports and content
- identify technologies that cause issues (cognito, ses, postgreSQL)
- discuss ci/cd technologies and containerization strategies
- configuration options (SaaS, Multi-Tenant, Split, Whole Enchilada)
- AOB:
Notes:
- RRDMWG
- Demoing table with multiple filters on OLGA at net AWG
- Cognito doesn't pass spec with Hartford, would like to find auth service everyone likes
- AWG Goals
- Consider setting goals, open questions, using Architecture Decisions to guide it
- Couple tech components are challenging for diff carriers (Hanover + AWS, Hartford + Cognito)
- Goal of this team - define arch of the 1.0, does or doesn't take into account these concerns
- Carriers concerned about whats going in and out of their clouds
- whats inside, what has to go out, what ports, what do we need to know about ingress and egress points
- high level doc/diagram to represent it
- need a doc that clearly answers question
- One of the more challenging areas to deploy, "Whole Enchilada", installing whole node into carrier cloud - lot of CI/CD and IOC involved
- while maybe same tools, maybe using open source vers and carriers use enterprise vers, config is an issue
- seems like there is concern on IAC and CICD tech
- supporting inside a carrier
- Configuration options/ deployment options
- whole enchilada vs split
- adapter that listens for request for EP and then returns results
- System as a service approach, everything hosted
- multi-tenant approach
- Step back and redefine some things our arch is founded on
- get diagrams AND OPTion analysis
- best place to start, goal of arch doc telling what ingress/egress are, ID tech causing issues, CI/CD, config options
- goals this team could establish and work towards, sense of moving forward and it is time to establish to guide us in our work
- too much reporting out and not enough moving forward
- What do we think about setting goals, are these good goals?
- Point about access is the right thing - multi level/multi layer
- Cognito vs Olga - a lot of cognito is for AWS space to get access - would OLGA be managed interface for data
- OLGA as alt to cognito?
- Validation in OLGA is validating data coming in
- Cognito logs into OLGA
- Cognito also for logging into AWS? No that's IAM (services in console), Cognito for app access, services underneath
- Cognito gets you user access to certain roles, give you access to specific resources
- On OLGA, going into this, season of building, idea - pretty much cloud agnostic app from user perspective, have button and modal to upload file, no dirext access to AAIS
- GUI to send files, anything that requires access - app auth
- intent of looking at OLGA as app to provide access, seems like carrier orgs would have other reasons for access to their AWS spaces
- Way we will set up Cognito, no auth to do random things for AWS
- Carriers use other tools than Cognito, not done that they wont allow Cognito at Hartford, but they dont want to, point there - ID tech causing issues, if 20 of them, then that tells you one thing, 4-5 is something else
- Extra effort to make them abstract, openAPI (like OAuth)
- OAuth recognized enterprise standards (instead of 20 diff things across carriers)
- Broader Objective - und diff types of access to services and roles in the scope of what we are doing
- AWS access: Kub, Fabric, etc.
- often with access to DB apps, diff people have logins and inside the db there are logins, one of the issues to explore - where creds are verified and where others are group creds
- Take the 4 configs on the bottom (SaaS, Multi-Tenant, Split, Whole Enchilada) what is in vs out for the carriers cloud?
- because there is a lot of security, sec teams need to be able to und what is coming in and out
- Picturing 4 diagrams with some lines that go in and out of the carrier cloud, documenting whats going across
- Travelers documented pain points
- retro of some kind on nodebuilder
- list of places where things are difficult
- place to get the first level of identifying technologies that cause issues
- if things like AWS or Cognito cause trouble, this needs to be a pure SaaS offering
- simple or it doesn't work
- feels like a more general statement
- get it defined and why it is like that
- "install in your cloud" - not that easy
- thinks we still have a lot of challenges there, try to bring into a cohesive statement
- "this is why SaaS makes so much sense"
- new wrinkle - not old tech, will have bifurcations of Azure vs AWS, OKTA vs ?, so many it will have to be, no stack amenable to more than a few people at any given time
- gotta be packaged, how to articulate it
- all have issues
- even if biz folks on board, still having an internal challenge going to arch org to get an exception
- so much easier to say "here is a SaaS platform"
- Goal of ent control of their own data, objective
- want a variety of diff ways of connecting to a network like system so there is choice (not all or nothing)
- aggregate makes sense, but any given carrier that optionality isn't a value, only want to do it one way (their way)
- in theory - over indexing how valuable
- get to point where all see where risks and probs are
- first and last bullet - optional footprints, level of ID where ins and outs are
- meat on these bones, have opinions but need to substantiate them
- if you are going to be a SaaS offering, who offers it?
- if standard was established, not single SaaS, implementation diff from deciding how it would happen
- model has been to have a senofi, chainyard, be avail
- AAIS and LF dont run infra, build, setup and maintain nodes on behalf of carriers
- depends which parts of value prop want to maintain
- standardize SaaS or set of standards?
- how much of original value prop you want to maintain
- Pictured the split - a hybrid - everything you dont want in your cloud is SaaS, rest in carrier node (adapter)
- "why do i trust another entity any more than AAIS, what did I just solve?"
- AAIS needs to find another model, feeling comfortable with raw data, where trust moves
- very few times run their own cloud environments for corp data outside of workloads
- most of the time, when time to productionalize, will be in carrier-owned pub cloud or pure saas offering
- referring to carrier-owned cloud where IP are helping to maintain, providers with skillsets to make it easier
- even though a carrier might use IP, having them work within their cloud infra need to go thru tech governance, security and setup
- if you dont you are letting them live in their environment
- doesnt save much to outsource the work b/c still needs to support in their cloud
- diff ways to access diff services
- our specific issue for T, looking at it from an Arch perspective, have concerns
- dont think in the long run they wil be the only ones, more we get ahead and think through, easier to talk to other carriers
- gonna run into similar issues with other Carriers
- make it cleaner, dont go with a laundry list, "how to I set this up?" they want a clean answer, SaaS is cleaner
- need a yardstick, how are we doing convincing a carrier -
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
Documentation:
...