►
From YouTube: CNCF Kubernetes Conformance WG Meeting - 2018-07-16
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
A
A
A
But
I'd
love
to
sort
of
open
up
the
agenda.
If
there's
some
other
areas,
folks
would
like
to
discuss
I
think,
unfortunately,
we're
missing,
Asifa
and
William
and
folks
I
presume
that
their
heads
down
a
preparation
for
Google
next,
and
so
that's
we're
not
going
to
get
the
update
this
month
on
how
we're
doing
with
globins
and
the
testing
and
such
although
I
guess
from
what
I
see
on
email,
it's
progressing
well,
anybody
else
want
to
speak
up.
Brad
deepak.
B
Not
much
I
did
make
a
submission.
I
know
you
mentioned
to
me
to
make
a
submission
for
Shanghai,
because
I'm
going
to
be
there
helping
out
with
a
food
box
for
it,
so
Sweeney
and
I
did
did
make
a
submission
there.
I
don't
know
if
it'll
get
in
or
not,
but
if
not
we'll
use
as
an
opportunity.
That's
right
the
possible.
My
friend.
A
D
We'll
do
I've
been
to
cigar
and
Sega
and
they'll
be
attending
testing
this
week
to
you
an
introduction
to
the
cap
and
request
feedback
and
sponsorship
after
I'd.
Do
so
I'll
send
Donna
an
email
to
the
list,
get
the
discussion
going
and
that's
some
pretty
positive
feedback
so
far,
we've
also
simplified
the
client
go
and
user
agent
audit
logging
PR.
So
it's
simple
to
understand
it's
not.
D
D
Oh,
we
did
that
as
well.
There
was
some
some
minor
glitches
to
the
UI
and
we've
also
grayed
out
some
of
the
prototyping
areas
that
are
that
are
still.
We
need
to
get
the
more
data
in
and
I'm
the
focus
has
kind
of
been
on
getting
the
kept
to
a
point
where
people
who
are
interacting
with
it.
So
this
this
next
few
weeks
will
be
bringing
in
more
of
those
features
and
datasets
within
the
API
Snooky
line.
E
A
A
Okay
folks
I
mean
the
you
know.
The
program
over
overall
has
61
vendors
included
now
I
guess
I
should've,
given
that
update
before
that,
we
did
also
just
decertify
a
small
number
of
folks
who
didn't
had
gotten
the
original
1.7
certification
in,
but
then
had
done
a
new
update.
Since
then
we
didn't
lose
any
vendors
on
it,
but
there
are
a
couple
vendors
who
had
more
than
one
implementation,
and
presumably
just
hadn't
hadn't
gone
forward
with
the
other
one
so
that,
but
that
expiration
part
of
our
process
is
working
today,
as
it
was
intended
to.
F
Comment,
this
is
training.
Basically,
if
you
regarding
the
documentation
of
day
tests,
there
are
set
of
peers
that
has
submitted
their
being
there
for
a
while.
These
are
to
document
the
tests.
We
generate
a
document
for
every
release
of
the
tests
that
are
part
of
the
conformance
wait.
It's
checked
in
under
CN
CF,
so.
F
G
As
a
contributor
core
lead
across
the
number
of
SIG's,
just
poke
the
cigs
that
are
responsible,
they
may
like
Erin
and
I,
are
both
in
this
call.
So
if
you
want
to
get
review
cycles,
you
know
just
poke
the
appropriate
at
group
inside
of
the
github,
to
make
sure
that
it's
going
further.
We
do
review
that
periodically,
as
well
as
the
I
often
rely
on
goober
nadir
to
be
my
source
of
truth,
because
there's
so
much
inbound
from
the
Cabernets
project
that
it's
almost
impossible
to
manage
just
by
email
alone.
F
Yeah
I'm
trying
to
do
that.
Yeah!
That's
given
that
if
once
these
PR
cesare
are
all
merged,
I
would
like
to
generate
the
new
document,
probably
with
one
nine,
this
head
of
the
test
list
for
the
one
nine
relays
or
110
whatever,
so
we
we
don't,
have
the
document
updated
for
a
while.
That's
my
concern:
are
you
going
to
automate
the
updates
with
the
sig
knoxville
so
that
they
can
publish
this
as
part
of
the
release?
G
Did
have
an
agenda
topic
that
I
hadn't
and
which
was
with
regards
to
the
CRE
implementation
and
what
it
means
to
be
conformance.
We
don't
necessarily
have
a
user.
These
are
extension
points
and
distributions
can
do
whatever
they
want
to
do,
but
I
think
I
think
it
might
be
beneficial
for
us
to
have
I
know.
G
We
talked
about
profiles
about
having
some
level
of
profiling
for
things
like
CRI
or
CNI,
and
start
to
think
about
that,
maybe
a
little
bit
sooner,
because
there's
a
lot
of
marketing
that
goes
into
some
of
these
publish
statements
that
go
out
and
there's
not
there's
there's
some
issues
along
with
that
right.
So
an
example.
This
is
the
publish
the
publishing
that
came
on
the
the
kubernetes
site
with
regards
to
support
for
container
D
and
the
mismatch
of
what
that
means,
with
the
actual
testing
and
signal
that
has
been
given
to
the
broader
ecosystem.
G
So
it
causes
a
bunch
of
issues
and
I
think
this
fits
into
the
profile
space
kind
of
nicely,
and
it
might
be
a
forcing
functions
for
vendors
to
get
onto
the
train.
Once
we
once
we
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
profiles,
so
that
way
they
can
actually
get.
You
know.
X
CRI
has
been
validated
for
this
release
or
something
like
that.
A
So
I
guess
what
freaks
me
a
little
bit
odd
about
it
is
that
it
seems
like
you're
trying
to
jump
over
the
API
where
you're,
not
just
saying
oh
I,
want
to
make
sure
that
CRI
is
validated,
which
is
definitely
a
core
kubernetes
api,
but
your
it
sounds
like
you're
saying
well,
I'd
also
like
to
see
that
container
d
or
an
alternative
is
valid.
Editor
you'd.
G
Want
to
make
sure
the
the
the
you'd
want
to
make
sure
that
an
implementation
certifies
against
a
well-defined
set
of
things
in
the
API
right,
because
it's
one
of
those
things
where
it
falls
into
the
profile
category.
We're
like
we
hit.
We
called
storage
like
one
our
abstraction
layer
previously
was
based
upon
cloud
provider,
and
we
said
storage
was
a
good
place
for
us
to
delineate,
but
the
CRI
and
C&I
are
also
good
places
for
us
to
start
to.
G
A
G
Are
there's
a
couple
sets
of
tests?
You'd
obviously
run
the
standard
conformance
test
for
API
verification,
but
there
would
probably
be
also
a
set
of
tests
that
exercise
the
node
to
CRI
integration
more
rigorously
and
I
know
that
the
Google
folks
are
working
on
pieces
of
this
and
I
think
over
time.
Expanding
the
set
of
tests
to
make
sure
that
it's
you
know
fully
functional.
It
makes
a
ton
of
sense.
A
Like
what
I'm
getting
it,
what
I
don't
quite
understand,
it's
just
that
it
sounds
like
you're.
Just
saying,
I'm
very
excited
are
you
just
saying?
Oh,
we
could
have
way
better
test
for
CRI
and
I'm
sure.
The
answer
is
yes,
that
it's
not
remotely
comprehensive
enough
and
that
they
should
just
get
added
in,
and
you
know
accepted
by
it,
signaled
and
and
sig
architecture
and
such
or
are
you
trying
saying
something
more
with
the
profiles
of
oh
and
maybe
we
should
have
a
container
D
profile
versus
a
cotta
profile.
I
think
CRI.
G
Profile,
we've
talked
a
little
bit
about
things
like
storage
layers,
but
we
know
we
haven't
talked
about
some
of
the
extension
points.
So
if
we
were
to
say
like
a
CNI
certified
profile
or
CRI
certified
profile,
that
makes
that
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
That
means
that
providers
that
want
to
meet
the
spec
have
to
go
through
a
set
of
tests
to
make
sure
that
they're
adhering
to
that
spec
and
it
passes
for
that
version.
A
G
There's
we
don't
have
a
structure
for
testing
and
validating
that,
like
that's,
not
currently
done
so,
there's
there's
the
conformance
test
which
no
again
currently
have
a
bunch
of
holes
in
them.
So
if
I'm,
a
person
were
to
swap
providers
and
go
from
like
cryo
to
cata
like
container
to
you
to
kind
of
like
your
previous
example
there,
there
could
be
a
bunch
of
gaps
in
coverage
to
verify
that
that
you
have
met
all
of
the
CRI
spec
right.
A
A
B
G
G
A
Way
of
just
sorry,
just
another
way
of
saying
it
would
be,
it
would
be
really
nice
to
run
the
API
snoop,
for
example,
on
some
code
that
is
exercising
that
and
seeing
the
different
API
calls
that
caught
overages
Korea
versus
container
D
news
and
in
that
might
help
us
prioritize,
which
tests
we
want
to
be
writing
sooner.
Yeah.
G
A
B
A
Well,
yeah
I
I've
actually
been
surprised
that
we've
been
able
to
hold
off
on
profiles
so
long,
I'm,
I'm
thrilled
that
we
we've
been
able
to
get
this
kind
of
base
of
adoption
without
needing
them,
because
I
do
think.
It
really
complicates
things
well,
particularly
for
application
developers
and
and
just
regular
users
just
having
to
try
and
figure
out
what
this
stuff
means.
Yeah.
G
That
is
nowhere
near
comprehensive
enough
I'm
having
conversations
with
the
what's.
It
called
with
a
node
folks
about
a
lot
of
the
gaps
and
then
I'm
actually
gonna
bring
it
up
to
steering
this
week.
With
regards
to
some
of
the
issues
that
we
are
seeing
in
the
wild
with
seer
eyes
and
the
the
gap
difference
between
what
people
have
stated
and
where
the
world
was
that.
G
H
A
Okay,
well,
I
mean
I
I.
Don't
think
this
is
totally
done,
but
we
can
definitely
come
back
to
it
if
we
decide
that
we
do
want
to
spend,
spend
more
effort
on
it.
What
was
the
thing
that
came
up,
I
think
on
the
mailing
list
or
on
a
call.month
ago
that
was,
we
thought
was
going
to
be
the
first
area
we
would
do
profiles
in
storage,
yeah
and
I
guess
I
haven't
heard
anything
more
about
that
I.
C
B
C
A
C
I
Hey
Dan:
this
is
Hollis
for
employment,
just
to
clarify.
We
were
mentioning
at
the
beginning,
which
is
making
progress
as
usual,
and
what
we'll
be
sharing
on
on
emails
and
I've
just
heard
like
a
there's,
how
priority
you
guys
want
us
to
onboard
we'll,
be
happy
to
do
that,
just
to
confirm
with
eyes
and
around
what
will
be
our
priority,
so
we'll
be
glaring
to
jump
on
anything.
I
You
want
us
to
work
on
basically
we're
working
on
persistent
volumes
and
we
have
some
PRS
a
pending
for
you
guys
to
approve
in
order
to
complete
end-to-end
conformance
process.
So
if
you
guys
help
us
with
that
will
be
great,
I
will
be
sending
the
the
service
reporters
every
week,
so
you
can
guys
target
the
PRS
IDs.
So
we
need
to
your
approval
to
move
forward
on
those.