Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Standardize security groups #51

Closed
1 of 7 tasks
rix0rrr opened this issue Dec 13, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed
1 of 7 tasks

Standardize security groups #51

rix0rrr opened this issue Dec 13, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
aws-construct-library Cross cutting features in the AWS Construct Library (across L2s) status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale.

Comments

@rix0rrr
Copy link
Contributor

rix0rrr commented Dec 13, 2019 •
edited by MrArnoldPalmer
Loading

PR Champion
#

Description

The behavior right now is haphazard and not well thought-out. Needs to be standardized.

  • Provided SGs vs. created SGs: people seem to be expecting that provided SGs are treated as immutable.
  • One SG vs multiple SGs: it does not make sense to mutate all SGs in a connections object, 1 would have been enough.
  • Should we add a mutable flag, just like for roles?

Progress

  • Tracking Issue Created
  • RFC PR Created
  • Core Team Member Assigned
  • Initial Approval / Final Comment Period
  • Ready For Implementation
    • implementation issue 1
  • Resolved
@eladb eladb added the aws-construct-library Cross cutting features in the AWS Construct Library (across L2s) label Dec 15, 2019
@MrArnoldPalmer MrArnoldPalmer added the status/proposed Newly proposed RFC label Jan 3, 2020
@markussiebert markussiebert mentioned this issue Nov 25, 2021
Closed
2 tasks
@mrgrain
Copy link
Contributor

mrgrain commented Oct 27, 2023

Marking this RFCs as stale since there has been little recent activity and it is not currently close to getting accepted as-is. We appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal. Marking an RFCs as stale is not a one-way door. If you have made substantial changes to the proposal, please open a new issue/RFC. You might also consider raising a PR to aws/aws-cdk directly or self-publishing to Construct Hub.

@mrgrain mrgrain closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Oct 27, 2023
@mrgrain mrgrain added status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale. and removed status/proposed Newly proposed RFC labels Oct 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
aws-construct-library Cross cutting features in the AWS Construct Library (across L2s) status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@mrgrain @rix0rrr @eladb @MrArnoldPalmer