MTA-7036: adding requirements for ISO-42001#374
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 58 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new AsciiDoc topic documents IP/data privacy considerations for ChangesIP Protection and Model Hosting Documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/topics/developer-lightspeed/con_ip-protection-model-hosting.adoc (1)
25-36: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueConsider expanding "AI" on first general use.
Line 30 uses "AI platforms" as a general term. Red Hat documentation style typically expands "artificial intelligence (AI)" on first use unless it appears in a product name. Consider:
-Organizations with strict intellectual property (IP) protection requirements, regulatory constraints, or air-gapped network environments should deploy a self-managed LLM instance and configure {mta-dl-plugin} to route all queries to that private endpoint. This approach ensures that source code snippets never leave your controlled infrastructure. +Organizations with strict intellectual property (IP) protection requirements, regulatory constraints, or air-gapped network environments should deploy a self-managed LLM instance and configure {mta-dl-plugin} to route all queries to that private endpoint. This approach ensures that source code snippets never leave your controlled infrastructure. -Red{nbsp}Hat supports the following on-site and self-managed AI platforms for this purpose: +Red{nbsp}Hat supports the following on-site and self-managed artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for this purpose:🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/topics/developer-lightspeed/con_ip-protection-model-hosting.adoc` around lines 25 - 36, Expand the first general use of “AI” in the “Recommended mitigation: Self-managed model hosting” section so it reads “artificial intelligence (AI)” before using the abbreviation, while leaving product names like {ocp-name} AI and RHEL AI unchanged. Update the surrounding prose in the developer-lightspeed topic so the term is introduced in a style-consistent way without altering the product-specific names or links.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/topics/developer-lightspeed/con_ip-protection-model-hosting.adoc`:
- Around line 25-36: Expand the first general use of “AI” in the “Recommended
mitigation: Self-managed model hosting” section so it reads “artificial
intelligence (AI)” before using the abbreviation, while leaving product names
like {ocp-name} AI and RHEL AI unchanged. Update the surrounding prose in the
developer-lightspeed topic so the term is introduced in a style-consistent way
without altering the product-specific names or links.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fb57f172-34a2-4640-af05-c45bdaa10fa2
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/topics/developer-lightspeed/assembly_configuring_llm.adocdocs/topics/developer-lightspeed/con_ip-protection-model-hosting.adoc
Signed-off-by: A.Arnold <anarnold@redhat.com>
3b0e893 to
e76083b
Compare
mpershina
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left some suggestions, mostly based on the concept content requirements. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns.
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
…ng.adoc Co-authored-by: Mariya Pershina <53339200+mpershina@users.noreply.github.com>
JIRA
DESCRIPTION
The module covers:
A disclosure that Developer Lightspeed transmits source code snippets intact to the configured LLM provider, with no automatic sanitization
An [IMPORTANT] advisory on the IP and data privacy risks of using public SaaS-based LLM endpoints (such as public OpenAI or Azure OpenAI) with proprietary codebases
Recommendations to use Red Hat OpenShift AI or Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI (RHEL AI) as self-managed, on-premise alternatives for organizations with strict IP policies, regulatory constraints, or air-gapped environments
Guidance on configuring a private endpoint in both standalone and centralized configuration management modes
The module is included in assembly_configuring_llm.adoc ahead of the provider configuration reference so users see the advisory before selecting an endpoint.
PREVIEW
Summary by CodeRabbit