> Our experience is that vendor should make the new upgrade available and notify the customer, customer can run its change-control pipeline and approve the vers

> Our experience is that vendor should make the new upgrade available and notify the customer, customer can run its change-control pipeline and approve the version, the control plane automates rollout/health-check/rollback, etc. As it stands today, we have an AWS-only product (for better or worse) so we can accomplish this already with CloudFormation. It's not the best "control plane" as far as updates and rollbacks go, but it works pretty well for our needs. Obviously, trying to do the same across multiple cloud providers, would mean bringing in a different tool. At that point, the vendor's architecture would need to be neutral as well. > I am not sure if simplifying the application removes the need for this tooling as much of the complexity lies with establishing the enterprise trust boundary across accounts with things like identity, networking, permissions, artifact approval, upgrades, drift, auditability, governance controls, and eventually exit. This website tries to cover it in detail: https://byocanywhere.org/ https://byocanywhere.org/, WDYT? I think that website is a solid resource. Those are certainly important issues to solve that all surround the actual vendor code itself, and I can see value in making an attempt to solve it. It's just my experience that every customer wants to do it differently. I'm just not sure how much slower and painful our contract negotiation would have been if we had to also sell them on a particular process other than "you provision these things with your own tools, and we'll hand you CloudFormation templates". Maybe other companies offering BYOC are better at selling the whole package, not just the "platform" itself.