►
From YouTube: Spec 3.0 meeting (October 26, 2022)
Description
C
B
A
C
B
B
D
No
okay,
yeah
sure
no.
B
C
B
D
B
A
B
B
D
D
And
this
one
here
this
one
actually
okay,
so
you
should
see
that
okay,
so
the
first
one,
the
update
on
the
my
pull
request
to
pull
a
request.
The
first
one
is
to
moving
the
tax
and
external
documentation
to
info
object
and
I,
see
that
the
the
front
accepted
as
I,
remember,
yeah
the
front
accepted
so
I
need
a
fast
two,
more
accepts,
probably
from
cash
on
the
dial.
D
D
Yeah
I
yeah
I
get
it,
but
it's
you
know
in
the
previous
changes
before
the
rebase,
so.
A
D
Pull
request
yeah,
you
have
it
there
or
there,
but
it's
very
strange
because
I
make
the
push
Force
yeah,
with
the
to
make
the
rebates.
A
But
probably
the
parts
of
the
code
that
we
made
suggestions
or
something
didn't
change.
C
A
A
C
C
D
D
A
D
D
D
B
B
D
C
D
Interviewing,
thank
you
very
much,
okay.
So
the
next
one
is
with
adding
the
missed
metadata
tools
in
the
server
Channel
operation
and
schema
object.
So
here
I've
wrote,
which
one
metadata
India
and
front
make
make
the
review
and
hit.
One
comment
very
important,
because
I
added
for
every
the
object
I
mean
this
main
object:
server,
Channel
operation
message
the
metadata
like
the
the
filter,
the
like
title
name,
summary
description,
stacks
and
external
documentation.
D
Yes,
of
course,
in
places
where
we
don't
have
it
and
front
row
that
if
the
server
ID
you
know
in
the
map
of
the
servers
already
is
already
a
machine
friendly
name
for
the
server.
So
it's
a
good
question
and
I
have
only
one
problem
with
that
that
we
shouldn't
treat
the
ID
as
this
machine
friendly
name
in
the
case
when
someone
want
to
make
the
reference
the
given
server
in
several
places
and
then,
for
example,
use
the
server
in
the
code
generation.
D
So
the
name
will
be
exactly
the
name
for
the
given
server
and
that
name
won't
change
yes
between
the
the
generated
application.
So
yeah,
that's
my
only
concern
about
it.
So
what
do
you
think
about
that?
Of
course
we
have
the
same
problem
in
the
message.
Id
in
the
message
object.
Sorry,
because
we
have
the
name
and
the
message
ID
and.
D
A
Machine
friendly,
okay,
human
friendlies
are
not
human
reason.
D
A
I
I'm
reading
this,
this
response
that
you
have
there,
which
I
don't
know
why
I
I
missed
it
and
I,
don't
fully
get
it
like
if
you
want
to
change
what
the
name
of
the
object,
but
for
code
generation,
for
instance,
but
you
want
to
the
ID
to
still
be
the
same.
That's
what
you
mean.
A
I
mean
by
I'm
saying
that
by
doing
this
I,
don't
we
introducing
name
which
is
just
for
code
generation
purposes.
I
cannot
think
of
any
other
case.
Okay,.
B
A
So
I'm
wondering
if
I
mean
it
makes
sense
if
it
will
be
human
friendly
in
this
case,
yes
for
documentation,
yeah.
A
B
A
So
so
don't
don't
mind
me
so,
but
that
is
like
very
code
generation
specific
right,
so
I'm
wondering
if
this
will
be
actually
an
extension
or
something
like
that
or
I.
Don't
know
like
or
maybe
not
maybe
can
be
there,
but
things
that
what
I
feel
is
that
it's
a
pain
in
that
in
most
of
the
cases,
what
I
feel
is
that
we'll
go
we're
gonna,
have
servers
and
then
development
and
then.
A
Production
name,
production
and,
and
then
it's
like
I,
don't
know
it's
weird,
because
you
have
to
maintain
the
same
name,
usually
the
same
name
in
two
places:
yeah.
A
A
For
example,
sorry,
if
you
copy
paste
the
definitions,
for
instance
like
I,
have
development
and
I
want
to
copy
the
server
definition
and
paste
it
and
then
start
staging
and
then
cop
paste
it
again
and
and
do
production,
then
I
will
have
to
go
through
all
of
them
and
change
the
ID
and
the
name
right
so
I
don't
know
it
seems
to
be
more
work.
A
For
me,
I'm
not
sure
like
the
thing
here
is
that
I
see
where
when
it
could
be
used,
but
the
thing
is
that
will
it
be
used
right
so
or
is
it
something
that
we're
just
like?
A
Maybe
someone
needs
it
because
then,
if
if
someone
requests
it,
then
it
will
be
easy
to
edit
right
yeah
I'm
just
trying
to
keep
it
simple
like
okay,
we
don't
add
it
and
and
then,
if
someone
says
that
hey
I
have
a
problem
I'm
generating
code,
blah
blah
blah
whatever
we
can
encourage
them
to
use
an
extension
for
instance,
and
then
we
see
if
many
people
are
using
this
extension
all
over,
then
we
incorporate
it
to
the
spec
or
if
someone
opens
an
issue
that
and
many
people
think
that
it
should
be
included.
A
I,
don't
know
trying
to
approach
it
from
a
different
angle,
like
start
simple
and
then
grow
which
will
not
produce
any
breaking
change.
No.
A
D
A
But
again
this
this
is
something
that
modelina,
for
instance,
is
co-generation,
so
same
case
modelina
will
use
dollar
ID
for
Json
schema,
we'll
use
other
fields
for.
D
A
We
need
to
get
rid
of
I
mean
we
need
to
unify
like.
If
we
make
a
decision
here,
we
probably
should
apply
the
same
thing
to
message
and
to
other
objects
of.
A
B
Right,
why
was?
Why
was
it
that
we
changed,
that
we
changed
the
messages
to
have
an
object
or
a
map
of
messages,
but
ID
and
a
message,
instead
of
just
being
an
array
still.
D
E
A
Yeah
I
was
also
thinking
that
maybe
we,
that
is
something
that
is
yet
another
proposal
that
I
will
make
at
some
point,
but
but
maybe
I
know
that
we're
applying
dollar
ref
everywhere,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
it
makes
sense
to
to
also
use
dollar
ref
inside
the
operation.
Messages
keyword,
assuming
that
we
add
a
messages
keyword
to
to
operations
of.
D
D
A
In
that,
in
that
case,
we
probably
can
just
say,
like
these
messages
will
be
a
list
of
message
IDs
with
a
dollar
ref
or
anything
right,
and
it
will
have
to
be
found
following
the
channel.rev
messages
and
then
resolve
in
there.
So
not
perfect,
but
I
think
it
will
be
easier
to
maintain.
A
D
The
message
ID
should
be
unique
across
all
operations
and
channels.
Yes,
so
it
means
that
okay,
but
if
we
read
off
and
only
use
the
key
of
the
channel
messages
object,
you
can
have
the
a
case
when
someone
use
the
given
message
by
the
reference
in
two
channels
and
that's
the
problem,
because
you
know
the
people
can
name
it
name
the
message
by
the
identity
in
different
way.
D
Don't
think
that's
a
problem
so
so
then
we
probably
also
yeah
sorry.
So
the
message
I
did
probably
should
be
unique
across
the
channels.
Not
the
you
know
the
list
of
the
channels
in
inside
application
yeah.
So
we
also
changed
that
behavior.
B
A
D
D
A
Enforcing
enforcing
uniqueness
now,
if
we
don't,
which
I
think
it
makes
sense
like
I,
might
want
to
call
it
something
different
in
a
different
channel
for
whatever
reason
I
don't
know,
but
in
the
case
of
in
the
case
of
having
a
message
ID,
for
instance,
it
will
mean
that
this
message
will
have
this
ID
independent
independently
on
where
you
use
it,
and
that
is
prone
to
have
the
problem
that
you
might
have
this
message.
A
Id
repeated
somewhere
else
in
another
message,
right
and
I
mean
unless
the
parser
is
catching
this
problem,
I,
don't
think
it's
a
huge
problem,
but
it
it
makes
it
makes
it
harder
to
spot
this.
These
errors
right
to
to
debug
these
errors.
Like
you
have.
It
reminds
me
a
lot
to
the
ID
property
of
HTML.
It's
exactly
the
same
thing
right
like.
A
Why
are
why
we
long
ago
discourage
people
from
using
ID
on
HTML
elements
right,
because
of
that,
because
you
can
have
the
same
ID
on
different
HTML
elements
and
yeah,
you
might
have
some
I
mean
in
the
case
of
the
browser.
It
doesn't
fail,
it's
still
valid
HTML
document,
but
if.
D
A
E
A
We
have
such
a
okay,
so
if
it's
covered
by
departure,
then
it
it's
different,
because
the
parser
here
will
be
like
Indiana.
In
the
analogy,
the
parser
will
be
the
browser
right.
So
if
the
browser
is
failing
right,
if
the
parser
is
failing,
then
it's
and
it
tells
you
like
hey.
This-
is
repeated.
This
message,
ID
is
duplicated.
D
A
D
A
D
But
but
message
ID
can
be
also
used
to
you
know
to
some
governance
in
the
company
yeah.
So
of
course
the
people
can
make
some
storage
of
the
messages
use
it
in
the
your
system,
your
company,
the
message
ID,
you
exactly
add
some
ID.
So
it
means
that
if
you
try
to
write
another
message
but
you've
write
the
same
ID,
so
it
means
that
probably
you
make
something
wrong.
Yes
in
your
system,
because.
A
A
I,
don't
know
what
do
you
mean
by
because.
D
A
E
A
E
D
D
A
So,
independently
of
the
decision
that
we
take
here
well,
I
mean
I'm,
not
so
I'm
I'm
now
pushing
for
let's
get
rid
of
this
Fields,
because
I'm
trying
to
force
myself
into
a
lean
approach
here
right
and
it's
simplistic-
maybe
I,
don't
know
approach
here
or
so
that
we
start
again
on
version
three,
we
start
like.
We
don't
need
that.
We
assume
that
we're
not
gonna
need
that
right
and
only
when
we
need
it
or
if
we
know
now
that
we
need
it,
we
will
need
it.
Then
we
add
it.
A
A
D
D
Yeah
yeah,
but
the
same
way
because
okay,
one
thing
because
we
sorry
not
here-
oh
my
God,
my
internet,
so
we
have
something
like
that
somewhere
and
descriptions.
Yes
and
to
be
honest,
I,
don't
know
why
we
have
two
these
two
fields.
If
descriptions
can
also
include
the
summary,
so
maybe
you
should
answer
it
up
the
summer.
A
D
A
It
has
a
purpose
it's
for
it's
mainly
for
documentation
purposes,
actually,
which
I
mean.
If
we
get
back
to
what
I
said,
like
case
specific
like
it's,
if
it's
only
for
documentation,
then
probably
it
will
be
an
extension
I.
B
A
D
A
Yeah,
so
you
can,
you
can
explain
whatever
you
want
there
right.
So,
for
instance,
summary
will
be
the
channel
summary.
For
instance,
Channel
summary
could
be
used
for
navigation,
so,
instead
of
having
send
or
publish
slash
users
you
could
have
instead
of
instead
of
that,
you
can,
you
can
have
I,
don't
know
the
the
summary
like
create
an
user
right.
Yeah.
A
D
A
Summary
is
useful
for
these
cases
when
you.
D
A
To
have
a
single
short,
simple
short.
D
D
D
A
A
A
So
yeah,
but
that
said,
Json
scheme
of
thing-
that's
not
an
amazing,
kpi,
right
or
well
I
think
it's
sold
it.
We
already
agreed
I
already
committed
the
mistake
of
having
three
custom
fields:
foreign.
B
E
More
question
could
blacks
become,
as
you
say,
from
an
extension
but
could
could
be
included
in
the
extensions
catalog.
Will
it
make
sense
anything
from.
A
C
A
A
A
What
is
it
called
event?
Bridge
specific
extension
that
might
be
useful
for
many
community
members,
so
it's
it's
still
valuable
that
it
is
on
the
event
on
the
extension
catalog,
but
it
the
purpose
is
not
to
make
it
into
this
into
the
course
pack
ever,
but
it's
still
valuable
that
it's
on
the
on
the
extensions
catalog
right,
so
many
people
can
can
benefit
from
it
right.
A
D
A
D
D
B
A
But
don't
close
the
issues
stuff
or
or
create
separate
issues
so.
A
A
A
D
B
D
B
No,
so
this
is
a
pretty
big
discussion,
so
I'm
planning
to
do
a
little
section
at
a
time
so
for
this
meeting,
I'm
focusing
on
this
use
case
and
I
want
feedback
based
on
that
alone,
okay,
I'm
gonna,
send
you
a
I
hope.
Youtube
is
picking
that
up.
So
it's
probably
enough.
Let's
see
if
I
can
write
it
I'm,
sending
you
a
link
to
the
specific
discussion
about
this
specific
use
case.
So
at
the
moment
we
I
decided
to
say
that
this
is
has
a
known
Behavior.
So
this
is
something
that
we
currently
say.
B
And
what
I
mean
by
this
is
that
yes,
this
one
so
in
Json
schema
they
have
something
called
bundling
with
references.
This
means
that
when
you
load
up
or
when
you
use
references,
it
would
automatically
match
references
to
this
URL
to
the
ID
of
the
schema
without
you
having
to
explicitly
say
that
this
is
a
local
reference
to
schemas
a
user
signed
up.
So
a
reference
library
should
automatically
understand
that
you
want
that.
You
want
to
reference
to
this
specific
schema.
A
B
The
prop
the
problem
is
that
this
is
not
something
that's
allowed
or
is
specified
in
the
Json
reference
specification,
which
this
is
part
of.
That's
actually
a
lie.
No,
it's
true!
So
when
we
say
reference
here,
it's
not
a
Json
schema
reference.
This
is
an
async
API
reference,
yeah
yeah
and
in
that
standard,
there's
nothing
that
says
that
it
should
automatically
match
this
with
this
schema,
like
nothing,
says
it
yeah.
B
So
this
is
very
but
and-
and
this
is
my
issue
with
it-
that
if
we
allow
this
in
official
tooling,
it
all
of
a
sudden
become
a
feature
that
you
might
rely
on
to
always
work,
but
if
the
standard
doesn't
Define
that
behavior
other
tooling,
that
say
they
support
async
API
could
have
a
different
approach
and
say
well.
This
should
never
automatically
match
this,
and
this
is
my
kind
of
my
problem
with
the
standard
behind
it
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
or
one
of
the
drivers
for,
and
new
standards
for
references.
A
A
I
mean
confusing
in
the
sense
that
am
I
the
only
one
that
that
feels
that
this
payload
dollar
ref
right
on
the
message
will
actually
go
to
this
URL
to
grab
them.
The
message.
A
I,
don't
know
anything
about
dollar
ref
or
anything
which
is
actually
the
case
and
in
my
whole,
life
I
will
ever
imagine
that
this
is
gonna
match
the
one
below.
So
this
is
like
super
intricate.
E
There
is
one
detail
here:
Jonas.
This
is
actually
how
Jason's
schema
reference.
Json
schema
until
I'm
telling
Jason
Kima
how
the
references
work
in
not
in
draft
7,
but
in
I,
don't
remember,
yeah.
B
B
E
Way
they
they
well
I,
don't
know
if
it's
in
the
documentation
but
I.
Remember
perfectly.
We
had
a
meeting
with
Ben
at
some
point
like
months
ago
and
the
way
he's
playing
it.
It's
like
I'm
telling
this
just
to
think
about
it
like
the
way
it
references
are
treated.
It's
like
they
are
just
identifiers,
doesn't
care
about
protocols
or
whatever,
yes,
pure
plane
strings,
let's
call
it.
Yes,
they
are
just
plain
strings
and
depending
on
the
tooling,
it
will
behave
in
one
way
or
another,
but
they
always
talk
about
kind
of
I.
E
D
E
Like
a
a
set
or
a
map
whatever,
so
all
the
work
of
getting
this
from
the
https,
my
schema
registry,
whatever
it's
done
on
tool
inside,
doesn't
have
to
do
with
the
with
the
with
the
reference
or
with
a
spec.
You.
E
A
E
A
A
That
is
yes,
so
then,
adding
this
to
the
fact
that
we
were
saying
like
let's
unify
all
our
references
in
V3
right
and
we
decided
to
use
dollar
ref
everywhere
right
because
using
plain
text,
IDs
seemed
like
a
bad
idea
right,
but
by
this.
If,
if
we
follow
this
approach,
then
we
will
be
actually
doing
the
plain
text:
ID
approach,
just
with
the
dollar
ref
in
in
the
beginning,
but
but
yeah
the
URL
will
actually
be.
A
This
could
be
something
else,
I
don't
know
just
the
word
user
signed
up
without
anything
else,
just
the
word,
because
it's
a
playing
ID,
it's
a
plain
text,
ID
right,
so
so
we
we
will
actually
be
merging
the
two
right.
The
plain
text
IDs
with
the
dollar
ref
IDs,
which
yeah
I
don't
know,
I.
E
Say
I
find
it
super
useful
yeah.
A
E
D
But
in
this
example
you,
you
can
only
use
the
reference
to
the
schema,
but,
for
example,
if
I
want
to
make
the
reference
in
the
next
major
version,
of
course,
not
in
this
spec
to
the
channels
and
then
I
make
want
to
make
something
like
the
plain
text,
not
the
exactly
the
local
reference
tool
to
the
given
General,
but
by
this
ID.
So
the
channel
object
need
also
this
dollar
idea
to
recognize
that
you
wanna
make
the
reference
to
this
channel.
B
B
It's
it's
only
relevant
in
in
this
specific
use
case.
If
we
have
to
keep
on
track,
it's
it's
very
specifically
for
when
you
define
or
with
your
reference
payload
that
and
especially
if
it's
a
Json
schema,
because
because
those
schemas
can
define
an
ID,
for
example
Avro.
D
D
A
D
I,
don't
remember
where,
but
I
found
one
example,
maybe
in
our
case
or
maybe
in
another
Repository,
but
if
you
name
the
given
scheme
minus
with
some
domain
in
this
case
my
schema
registry
Arc,
then
probably
you
need
this
domain
for
every
IDs,
because
some
tooling,
as
I
remember,
don't
support
the
separate
and
the
domain
name.
D
So
it
means,
for
example,
if
you
have
two
schemas
with
different
domain
names
and
if
tool
yeah
check,
you
know
Traverse
or
schemas,
and
check
that
the
IDS
and
and
check
the
first
ideas
it
treats
the
first
domain
as
important.
So
probably
the
second
one
or
the
second
reference
to
the
another
schema
is
another
domain
probably
doesn't
work
as
I.
Remember,
yeah,
that's
I
mean
it's
very
very
hard
to
explain
that
yeah
yeah
I
need
to
to
probably
I
have
to
write
some
examples
that
you
can
understand,
but
yeah.
B
D
A
A
A
B
D
D
B
So
yeah,
that's,
let's
finish
on
that
note.
What
an
interesting
discussion
only
10
more
use
cases
to
go
through
with
references
so.
A
E
A
A
I
would
say
the
value
it's
in
in
many
cases.
It's
like
you
want
you.
If
you
use
URLs,
you
will
have
uniquely
identified
messages,
for
instance,
so
you
will
have
Uris
right
as
as
identifiers
like,
like
Sergio,
said
before
that
you
can
have
in
schemas.
You
can
have
some
kind
of
cash
because
they
they
are
URLs
they
don't
have
to.
But
if
you
make
them
URLs
it's
easier
to
make
it
unique
across
multiple
documents
as
well.
A
So
you
don't
have
this
problem
that
I
found
users
signed
up
defined
into
different
documents,
with
different
messages
with
different
schemas,
or
something
like
that,
because
yeah
it's
it's
harder
because
well,
actually,
I
don't
know
if
it's
harder,
but
I
mean
it.
It
seems
easier
to
me
that
they,
the
ideas,
become
normalized
I,
would
say
right.
B
A
And
also,
if,
if
they
are
defined
on
the
schemas,
they
don't
have
to
go
to
internet
right
to
resolve
them
so
important.
D
A
Your
system,
but
the
thing
is
here,
is
that
so
right
now
what
we're
proposing
people
is
that
they
do
hashtags,
less
components,
key
mass
and
the
name
of
the
schema,
which
is
referencing.
A
schema
by
its
location
like
where
is
it
defined,
is
inside
components
schema
whatever
and
with
the
ID
it
can
be
defined
anywhere
right
anywhere
else.
That
is
always
going
to
be
the
same
ID
right,
the
same
URL
independently.
A
If
you
move
it
here
or
there
or
you
or
like
magic,
was
saying
like
I
changed
the
the
the
with
the
previous
discussion
right,
if
I,
what,
if
I
change
the
the
key
on
the
components
right
component
schemas
I,
have
the
key
user
signed
up
with
the
schema
definition?
What
if
I
change
user
sign
up
to
I?
Don't
know
all
lowercase
or
something
like
that?
A
In
this
case,
it
will
not
break
right
because
yeah,
the
key
is
one
thing
and
and
and
the
message
definition
and
the
message
ID
is
a
different
one.
Right,
I,
just
don't
think
it's
providing
any
value.
Press
I
understand
the
value
for
some
people,
but
yeah.
B
A
B
B
That's
where
it
gets
tricky,
that's
for
next
time.
Okay,.
C
B
C
No
sorry
I
I,
I
I,
don't
get
it
like,
maybe
because
I
I
just
did
not
read
the
feature
but
like
it
for
me,
it's
super
confusing
I,
see
definitions
and
I
look
into
definitions,
but
there
it's
in
there
and
the
tooling
fails.
D
B
D
B
Have
we
have
a
request
reply
for
next
time,
an
update
there,
so,
let's,
let's
see
how
many
we
make
yeah
we're,
probably
gonna,
have
to
bet
again
how
many
issues
we
are,
but.
D
A
I
will
only
be
able
to
join
if
we
keep
the
same
schedule.
I
will
only
be
able
to
join
one
like
every
two
weeks
like
now.
B
A
C
Because
we
have
to
fix
our
schemas
now,
just
because
of
this
ID
like
we
want
to
be
perfect,
so
we
have
this,
but
now
GS
code
tooling
doesn't
support
it,
so
we
have
to
work
around
it.
B
B
Because,
as
far
as
I
could
tell
we
got
regarding
the
vs
code,
it
was,
it
was
only
part
of
it
where
references
didn't
work,
something.