metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otto Fowler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Getting to a 1.0 release
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:39:19 GMT
Secure storage off the top of my head

On August 15, 2018 at 14:49:26, ( wrote:

So, as has been discussed in a few


recent dev list threads, I would like to discuss what a Metron 1.0 release
looks like.

In order to kick off the conversation, I would like to make a few
suggestions regarding "what 1.0 means to me," but I'm very interested to
hear everybody else's opinions.

In order to go 1.0 I believe we should have:
1. A clear, supported method of upgrading from one version of Metron to the
next. We have attempted
<> to make this
easier in the past, but it is currently not


2. Authentication for all of the UIs and APIs should be secure and support
SSO. I believe this is in progress via METRON-1663
3. Each of our personas

be well documented, understood, and supported.
- The current state of documentation is, in my opinion, inadequate and I
admit I am partially to blame for this. I suggest we define a strict
approach for documentation, align to it (such as perhaps migrating all
useful wiki documentation to git), and enforce it.
- I would consider METRON-1699
<> as a critical item for
a Security Data Scientist, but it is currently not clear to me where the
line exists between some of the other personas, or that each persona has
been sufficiently implemented.
4. A performance tuning guide should be available for all of the main
components, whether as an independent document or as a part of a larger
5. Simple data ingest.
- Similar to the ongoing conversation for NiFi integration

we should be able to say that we have broken down the barriers to getting
data into a Metron cluster in easy and efficient ways. In addition to
NiFi, having support for other popular tools such as beats
<>, fluentd <>,

- Parsers should be pluggable, with independent tests and the ability to
make versioned modifications with roll-backs.

What else? Are any of these items not necessary for a 1.0?



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message