►
From YouTube: CNCF CNF WG Meeting - 2021-02-08
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
it's
four
after
I
think
we
can
probably
get
started.
So
thanks
everybody
for
joining
this
enough
working
group
meeting
we
meet
every
monday,
1600
utc
in
case
you
missed
it,
there's
a
link
to
the
meeting
minutes
in
the
chat.
If
you
can
just
add
your
name,
that
would
be
great
and
then
before
we
get
started,
is
there
anything
that
anyone
would
like
to
add
the
ad
to
the
agenda.
B
A
B
Okay
sure
so
some
of
you,
maybe
even
all
of
you,
if
I'm
looking
at
the
list
here,
know
but
there's
a
there's.
A
new
slack
channel
on
cncf
called
tug.
B
Networking
orchestration,
so
the
discussions
have
been
in
the
context
of
the
tug,
but
it
was
clear
that
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
overlap,
both
in
things,
people
work
on
and
the
people
themselves,
and
I
think,
after
a
fruitful
conversation,
we
decided
that
best
place
to
start
the
work
would
be
under
the
cnf
working
group,
with
its
governance
and.
C
B
I
had
a
personal
meeting
with
taylor
and
we
worked
some
stuff
out,
and
hopefully
this
week
I'll
have
time
to
really
flesh
it
out
on
the
github
repo
and
we
can
start
to
work
so
not
a
lot
to
say
today
other
than
that,
and
maybe
the
next
cnf
work
group.
I
might
have
something
more
to
add
to
the
agenda
and
get
into
more
details,
but
for
now
probably
the
best
way
to
continue
working
is
on
slack.
B
C
C
And,
let's
see
all
right,
so
the
main
thing
that
we
were
trying
to
work
on
was
breaking
down.
What
are
all
the
different
parts
of
of
what
we
want
to
accomplish
across
in
the
orchestration,
but
then
looking
at
all
the
different
groups,
and
so
as
far
as
what
you
could
do
getting
started,
we
think
the
requirements,
definitions
and
gap
analysis
are
in
scope
for
the
cnf
working
group
when
we're
talking
about
either
current
or
new
kubernetes
technology
and
past
and
current
non-kubernetes.
So
that
would
be
thinking
anything
outside.
C
We
could
say
legacy,
but
not
all
of
it
there's
new
stuff
happening
and
then
specifically
like
presenting
solutions.
These
could
be
maybe
outside
maybe
inside
of
the
c
network
group.
Some
of
it
could
be
the
telecom
user
group,
but
the
parts
that
we
think
we
could
get
started
immediately.
As
far
as
the
github
repo
for
significant
group
would
be
around
requirements,
definitions
and
gap
analysis.
C
We
broke
a
lot
of
this
down,
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
it
and
that'll
be
something
I
think
you'll
see
as
we
move
forward,
but
that's
would
be
the
main
areas
and
tal,
and
would
you
agree
that
kind
of
covers
what
the
the
highlights
at
the
top.
B
Yeah
absolutely
the
reason
I
didn't
want
to
get
into
the
details
of
this.
C
B
This
could
easily
take
the
whole
agenda,
so
it's
a
starting
point.
I
I'll
I'll
put
something
on
the
slack.
Maybe
hopefully
this
week
more
people
can
look
at
this
provide
feedback
and
maybe
next
workgroup
meeting
we
could
do
something
more
productive
but
yeah.
This
is
this
is,
I
think,
a
really
great
opening
shot,
and
I
think
you
know
I
treat
these
things
as
buckets
of
work,
where
I
think
many
different
people
in
the
group
can
contribute.
So
I
I'm
optimistic.
B
I
think
this
could
be
a
very
productive
endeavor.
C
Absolutely
and
that's
the
idea
that
we're
trying
to
do
with
on
the
how
the
structuring,
specifically
on
the
cnf
working
group,
but
ideally
any
of
the
different
groups,
wherever
you're
passionate
about
working.
Hopefully
you
find
a
place.
You
can
just
focus.
You
will
not
just
focus,
but
you
can
focus
on
that
and
not
think
that
you
need
to
cover
all
the
things.
So
the
different
buckets,
I'm
going
to
hand
it
back
to
you
bill.
A
Well
thanks
taylor
and
thanks
tal,
so
looking
forward
to
the
prs
they're
going
to
be
incoming
and
if
you
want
to
dive
more
into
the
networking
orchestration
task
force
join
the
slack.
The
link
is
here
or
reach
out
to
tell
directly,
and
I
think
his
email
is
here
if
you
want
to
reach
out
to
him.
So
thank
you.
A
So
essentially,
this
is
just
saying
that
the
cnf
working
group
will
follow
the
cncf
code
of
conduct
pretty
straightforward.
A
Perfect,
so
thanks
for
that
taylor,
next
one
is
from
reuben.
Is
he
on
the
call
today?
A
I
don't
see
him
on
the
call
today,
but
essentially
what
this
pull
request
is
is
in
the
charter
also
adding
for
operations
of
cnf's,
adding
the
lifecycle
management
component,
so,
instead
of
just
deploying
and
managing
really
looking
at
the
whole
life
cycle
management,
so
deployment
configuration
management
upgrade
so
we
opened
this
last
week.
I
think
there's
quite
a
few
approvals
here
unless
there's
any
last
objections
on
this
call
I'll
also
merge
this
to
now
three
two
one:
okay
great.
So
thanks
everybody
who
took
the
time
to
review
that
too.
A
The
next
one,
I'd
like
to
point
out
as
taylor
said
earlier:
there's
multiple
ways
to
get
involved
in
the
project
beyond
just
some
of
the
core
stuff,
and
so
part
of
it
is
to
create
a
contributing
document.
And
I
know
taylor
has
started
doing
this.
But
if
there's
anybody,
that's
interested
in
working
on
this
with
him.
I
mark
this
as
a
good
first
issue.
A
A
Now-
or
you
can
also
add
your
name
later
so
there,
otherwise
I
know
taylor's
putting
something
together
right
now.
So,
okay,
last
week
we
talked
a
little
bit
just
like
as
a
refresher
is
that
we
need
to
update
the
template
around
the
user
stories
that
the
user
stories
should
not
be
marked
optional
and
saying.
A
If
there's
none,
you
should
start
a
github
discussion,
caveat
shouldn't
be
optional
and
there's
and
it
should
be
renamed
to
trade-offs,
and
so,
thanks
to
watson,
he's
made
a
pull
request
here,
just
giving
these
updates
send.
Essentially.
So
the
pull
request
is
linked
here,
just
essentially
so
changing
user
stories
from
optional.
Since
that's
going
to
be
a
category
for
us
changing
notes
to
trade-offs
constraints
and
like
caveats
yeah,
I
think
it's
a
pretty
straightforward
small
pull
request.
So
if
anybody
I
know
this
is
just
committed
three
hours
ago.
A
A
Okay,
so
I
added
both
of
you
as
reviewers
and
obviously
anybody
is
free
to
review
it.
So
thanks
we'll
leave
that
one
open
for
now,
but
I
think
we
can
probably
get
that
merged
pretty
easily
next
by
next
week.
It's
pretty
small
change
the
next
one.
Also
I
just
want
to
take
pause.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
on
what
we've
done
so
far.
A
So,
just
as
a
reminder,
last
week
we
merged
in
the
the
kind
of
you
could
think
of
like
the
table
of
contents
for
the
use
cases
document
and
one
of
the
comments
there
is
that
we
should
have
a
template
for
use
cases,
and
this
is
kind
of
the
discussion
out
of
there,
and
so
if
anybody
else
is
looking
for.
A
good
first
issue
to
jump
in
on
is
to
create
like
a
template
for
these
use
cases.
D
A
A
Unless
is
there
anything
you
want
to
discuss
about
it
right
now?
Are
you
happy
to
go
off
and
just
kind
of
create
an
initial
template
and
then
have
yeah.
D
I'll
I'll
create
initial
draft
template
based
on
some
ideas
and
then
practice
I
use
them
in
and
will
create
a
merge
request
to
be
reviewed
and
then
discussed.
C
That
I
follow
up
on
the
template
if,
if
before
we
have
a
template,
decided
on,
if
you
have
a
use,
a
use
case
or
a
user
story
which
is
higher
level
that
you
want
to
talk
about,
then
feel
free
to
create
a
discussion.
C
A
Yeah
and
maybe
that's
a
good
time
I'll
actually
go
a
little
bit
out
of
order
here-
is
actually
to
go
to
the
bgp
use
case,
because
this
is
one
of
the
use
case.
So,
if
is
ian
on
the
call.
E
Am
yes?
Okay,
I'm
not
by
the
way
terribly
proud
of
this.
I
wrote
it
in
an
hour
this
morning
and
got
up
especially
early,
so
it
was
ready
for
you,
but.
E
But
yeah
I
mean
it's
the
beginning
at
least
so
it
was
one
example.
I've
seen
this
before
and
the
reason
I've
used.
This
specific
example
is
because
it
requires
a
second
vrf
on
the
network,
which
highlights
a
a
shortcoming
that
we
run
into.
E
So
it's
just
an
example
of
how
I
might
put
a
bgp
speaker
on
and
what
I
want
it
to
do
is
talk
to
my
customers,
vpn
network,
so
a
network
that
I
have
access
to,
but
I
don't
want
its
manager
to
be
on
the
customer
network.
I
want
it
to
be
managed
independently.
It's.
E
Taylor's
telling
me
off
for
not
putting
this
in
as
a
discussion
and
he's
got
a
point,
because
it's
as
vague
as
anything
and
we
don't
have
a
a
use
case,
template
yet,
and
I
could
probably
have
waited
for
that
and
done
a
better
job
of
it.
But
the
thing
I
was
running
into
is
it
really
did
feel
like
it
needed
a
document
to
discuss
so
that
people
could
point
to
the
document
and
say
this
is
a
thing.
E
E
What
I
was
trying
to
say
with
this,
as
I
say
is
here,
is
a
straightforward
use
case
and
again,
arguably
not
the
right
place
for
it
here
are
set
reasons
why
it's
problematic
as
we
stand
where,
where
we
find
that
we're
getting
into
some
difficulty,
which
again,
arguably,
isn't
really
correct
for
putting
into
a
use
case.
But
I
assume
everybody.
That's
seen
it,
which
probably
about
two
people
at
this
point,
appreciates
that
it's
a
a
reasonable
problem
description,
that
it
is
a
thing
that
does
come
up.
A
Great
thank
you
for
creating
this.
So
look.
Do
you
mind
if
I
like,
add
you
as
a
reviewer
on
here,
just
so
that
as
you're
going
through
and
creating
the
template,
you
can
kind
of
see
what
you
think
is
good.
What
do
you,
what
you
think
is
missing
and
yeah?
I
think
you
can
kind
of
work
with
a
little
bit
on
this
kind
of
as
a
collaborate,
creating
the
template
and
actually
having
like
a
real
use
case.
D
D
E
If
you
can
give
a
better
example
of
this
or
a
different
example
that
comes
from
your
perspective,
I
strongly
encourage
you
to
do
that.
I
know
for
well:
we've
got
use
cases
where
we
want
more
than
one
vpn
as
well,
but
they
get
more
than
one
vrf,
but
they
get
complicated
to
explain.
So
I
thought
I'd
start
with
the
simple
one
which
points
out
a
shortcoming,
and
then
we
can.
E
D
Sure
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
it
is.
It
is
reality
and
one
aspect
or
one
way
to
look
at
it
is
how
can
you
resolve
it
on
kubernetes
level?
Another
is
what
we
are
trying
to
do
actually
is
how
we
can
resolve
it
on
data
center
fabric
and
the
integration
of
that
fabric
into
into
wide
area
network
level,
so
that
we
offload
everything
to
move
everything
from
kubernetes
clusters
into
into
the
fabric
as
much
as
possible,
but
yeah.
D
E
No,
I
agree
right
and
again.
Well,
so
that's
that's
where
this
document
has
a
problem,
because
one
half
of
that
is
a
use
case
and
one
half
of
that
is
implementation
problems.
But
I
absolutely
agree.
I
see
exactly
the
same
shortcoming
and
it's
a
thing
that
I
want
to
see
fixed,
so
anything
that
points
in
that
direction
is
going
to
help
us
kind
of
flesh
out
what
we
would
need
to
fix
it.
I
think
that's
great.
E
That's
an
interesting
question:
let's
see
what
happens
that
diagram
by
the
way
I
did
it
in
draw.io
and
it's
an
editable
draw.io
diagram.
It's
svg,
I'm
sure
it
would
work
as
png
as
well.
Just
think
of
it
as
another
experiment.
C
All
right
and
there,
the
discussion
forum
can
also
link
or
the
discussion
topic,
could
link
to
the
pull
request
and
then,
once
you
know,
if
we
get
it
merged,
then
it
can
link
to
the
document.
But
the
discussion
might
be
a
area
to
have
like
larger
conversations
about
that
document,
but
keep
it
in
the
get
repo.
A
F
I
have
a
question:
what
is
the
expectation
on
the
use
case,
I'm
asking,
because
I'm
I'm
at
this
point
a
bit
lost
as
to
as
to
where
to
start.
If
I
wanted
to
send
me
one
and
exactly
how
what
to
draw
out
of
that
use
case,
I
might
have
missed
that
from
earlier
meetings.
But
I
appreciate,
if
maybe
you
can
explain
again.
C
Are
you
asking
what
a
use
case
should
contain
or
what
is
the
purpose
that
were
for
the
cnf
working
group
like?
Why
are
we
trying
to
have
the
use
cases?
F
C
The
cnf
working
group,
so
the
it
ties
back
to
so
that,
right
now,
the
pre
the
focus
is
to
get
towards
best
practices
or
techniques.
How
are
you
going
to
utilize
if
you're
on
a
kubernetes
based
platform,
then
how
can
you
take
advantage
of
service
capabilities?
How
are
you
going
to
have
apps
networking
apps
that
can
utilize,
maybe
other
networking
applications.
So
what
are
best
practices
in
kubernetes?
That's.
D
C
C
An
even
simpler
one
would
be
like
a
bump
in
the
wall
firewall
bump
in
the
wire,
so
you
have
a
firewall
cnf,
that's
just
sitting
there
and
that
one
we
could
take
and
then
break
down.
What
is
the
behavior
and
features?
It's
small
enough
that
we
can
talk
about
how
we
would
expect
it
to
act
if
you're
deploying
it
and
break
those
features
down
to
a
point
where
we
can
say:
okay,
here's
here's
how
we
would
expect
to
manage
it
from
the
life
cycle
management.
What
are
the
different
aspects?
C
Here's
how
if
you're
a
developer
and
doing
developing
a
firewall,
that's
going
to
just
sit
in
the
wire,
transparent,
firewall,
passing
traffic.
Then
what
are
some
things
that
you
could
do
to
make
it
easier
to
develop
and
deploy
like
thinking
from
a
a
developer
standpoint,
so
that
if
we
have
the
use
case,
then
we
can
analyze
it
and
then
start
seeing
what
are
the
things
that
we
could
do
in
kubernetes?
That
would
be.
D
C
Okay,
of
course,
anything
these
use
cases
I
think,
are
going
to
be
useful
outside
of
that
focus,
and
you
know
there's
some
things
that
omega
this
should
go
to
the
tug
or
we
should
go
talk
to
the
network,
plumbing
group
and
and
kubernetes,
or
some
other
sig
or
the
multi-cluster,
whatever
it
may
be
within
the
cnf
working
group.
That
would
be
the
focus.
F
C
Arguably
it
could
go
either
way,
I'd
say
with
the
amount
of
content
that
he
has
and
we
don't
have
a
template.
But
if,
if
you
there's,
let's
see
there's
one
of
them,
networking
use
cases
and
user
stories
right
there.
So
this
one.
This
is
just
a
long
list.
Essentially
this
is
whatever
idea
that
you
have.
A
So,
okay,
we've
done
everything
else
up
above
next
thing.
That
is
quite
exciting,
is
the
governance
pr.
So
this
is
the
different
roles
of
people,
because
obviously
taylor-
and
I
have
helped
set
this
up-
but
we'd
really
like
this
to
be
the
community
led
and
governed
initiative
going
forwards,
and
so
just
to
kind
of
give
people
a
preview.
A
What
this
pr
is
is
setting
up,
basically
the
the
different
roles,
so
the
chairs,
the
technical
leads
and
everyone
else
so
basically
lays
out
what
the
chair,
the
technical
leads
and
what
other
people
do.
Yeah
I'm
going
to
open
this
up
for
conversation.
I
know
there's
quite
a
few
approvals
already,
but
if
anybody
wants
to
make
any
last
comments
on
this,
or
has
anything
else,
they'd
like
to
add
like,
please
feel
free
to
say
it.
A
A
Okay,
hearing
nothing,
I
think
it's
time
to
merge
this
also.
You
know
I
saw
that
you
out
of
this
year
and
we
discussed
it
unless
anybody
has
any
objections
like
I'd,
be
fine
with
also
committing
this,
rather
than
making
it
a
separate
pr,
unless
anybody
has
really
strong
objections
to
that
ian's,
just
adding
cisco
as
one
of
the
interested
parties.
So
this
is.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
know
it
could
be.
Another
poll
request,
it
just
didn't
seem
particularly
necessary
and
the
the
list
of
companies
there
clearly
jeff
and
daniel
got
to
this
first,
and
so
there
are
two,
but
I
I
think
the
other
thing
is:
if
there's
anybody
else
who
wants
adding
to
this
speak
now
or
if
I
have
a
wrongful
piece
and
then
we
can
just
basically
alter
this
right.
This
second.
A
Yeah,
so
this
is
just
a
reminder,
since,
as
we
are
trying
to
set
up
kind
of
more
formalized
governance
and
everything
we
like
to
go
to
the
like
the
toc
or
other
groups
and
say
these
are
all
the
interested
parties-
and
this
is
like
our
governance-
just
that
we're
kind
of
like
a
more
formal
body
kind
of
in
line
with
what
everybody
else
in
the
ecosystem
is
doing,
and
this
is
just
one
part
of
it.
So
if
your
company
is
interested,
please
feel
free
to.
B
Maybe
quick
question
about
this,
going
back
to
the
networking
orchestration
task
force
if
it
will
be
under
the
cnf
working
group
umbrella,
should
it
be
formalized
in
some
way
regarding
a
membership
here
as
a
tech
lead
or
for
a
specific
topic,
I'm
just
not
sure
what
what
the
best
way
to
handle
it
would
be.
C
Bill
if
you'll
click
on
the
other
view,
the
little
for
the
instead
of
the
diff,
do
the
other
view:
yeah,
okay
and
then
this
everyone
else,
members
I
yeah
there
we
go
so
I'd
say
for
right
now:
let's
just
keep
it
under
this
area,
so
there's
essentially
on
all
members.
C
C
We
we
say:
okay,
well,
you
know
tal
right
now,
you're
helping
to
lead
this
task
force
and
whoever
else
won't
step
up,
but
I
would
put
that
under
that
all
members
and
that
specifically,
that
second
bullet
point
under
all
members
and
we
can
have
other
roles
and
they're
just
not
a
defined
role
in
the
charter.
B
I
I
guess
yeah
I
I
wasn't
suggesting
that
we
need
additional
roles.
I
was
wondering
how
it
would
fit
in
the
roles,
so
I
you
know
I'll
stay
I'll
step
up
if
it's
needed
to
become
a
tech,
lead
or
something
else,
but
I'm
absolutely
fine
if,
if
it
could
be
just
in
everyone
else,
category
for
now.
C
If,
for
now
I
don't,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
define
that
and
the
tech
lead
I
mean
it
could
very
well
be
under
there.
But
you
know
if
the
the
goal
is
here
soon
we're
gonna
request
again
some
nominate
self
nominations
are
going
to
happen,
but
that's
tech
lead
for
all
of
the
cnf
working
group.
I
think
and
then
versus
the
task
force.
A
Okay
and
just
since
we
will
be
doing
self
nominations,
I'm
just
gonna
like
quickly
like
skim
through
the
different
roles
that
people
like
are
familiar
with
them.
So
the
chairs,
there's
gonna,
be
three
chairs
one
from
the
kubernetes
community,
one
from
the
service
provider
and
one
from
the
cnf
developer,
and
just
to
note,
like
the
primary
role
of
chairs,
is
to
run
the
operations
and
governance
of
the
groups.
That's
like
things
like
setting
and
just
agendas
managing
the
discussions,
starting
the
scheduling.
A
So
that's
kind
of
the
divide
between
the
two
roles,
and
so
the
tech
leads,
are
really
deeply
diving
into
like
the
project,
but
also,
I
guess
going
to
the
conversation
we
just
had
is
that
membership
is
self-declared.
There's
no
membership
requirements
to
be
part
of
it
and
it's
open
public
open
working
group.
So
if
you
want
to
contribute,
you
don't
need
to
be
in
one
of
these
roles
to
contribute
so
don't
feel
like.
A
If
I
don't
get
one
of
these
roles,
I
there's
no
place
for
me
in
the
cno
working
group.
It's
absolutely
open
to
everyone,
and
so
these
are
just
a
little
providing
a
little
bit
structured
but
not
they're,
not
the
only
ways
you
can
work
within
this
group.
A
What's
going
to
happen
after
this,
is
we're
going
to
come
up
with
a
voting
pr
just
that
there's
a
structure
around
how
we're
voting
and,
in
the
meantime,
we'll
have
a
self
nomination
period,
and
so
this
will
be
opened
on
the
mailing
list.
So
anybody
can
nominate
them.
There
will
be
a
little
bit
of
a
structure
saying
like
who
you
are
what
you're
nominating
yourself
for
and
it'll,
be
open
until
march
1st,
then
we'll
probably
have
sorry
a
voting
period
for
two
weeks
after
that.
A
So
we
expect
to
have
our
new
governance
team
by
mid-march
just
bail
yeah.
What
mailing.
E
C
A
A
But
I'll
also
add
it
in
the
meeting
notes
too
sorry.
So
if
you
aren't
a
part
of
that,
I
encourage
you
to
join
it.
If
you
have
any
problems
joining
like,
please
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me.
Obviously
yeah,
so
that's
kind
of
the
rough
timeline.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
about
that.
A
Okay,
so
look
forward
to
that
pr
email
coming
in
later
this
week
and
we
do
have
23
minutes
left
I
just
wanted
to.
I
didn't-
have
a
ton
of
time
to
like
prep,
but
in
case
anybody
wanted
to
dive
into
any
of
the
discussions.
I
see
ian.
Thank
you
for
adding
the
discussion
so
quickly
and
taylor.
I
guess
this
is
how
it
looks
in
the
discussion
in
case
you're
wondering.
A
A
E
Fine
we've
got
template
the
template's,
not
finished,
so
it's
not
committed
to
the
template,
but
I
think
it
did
tell
me
a
couple
of
things
about
how
we
should
be
putting
it
together
if
yeah
I
might
get
ignoring,
because
you
know
we
need
to
get
ignored,
but
setting
that
aside,
the
one
thing
I
found
myself
doing
here
and
I
don't
know
whether
it's
the
right
thing
or
not-
is
the
use
case,
and-
and
this
is
a
use
case,
because
it's
describing
a
function,
not
a
person's
behavior.
E
It
basically
highlights
a
bunch
of
shortcomings
that
I've
expressed
in
terms
of
if
I
deployed
kubernetes
out
the
box
with
the
cni.
These
are
the
things
I
would
struggle
to
do.
I
don't
know
whether
that's
the
right
place
to
put
it
or
not.
Did
anyone
have
any
thoughts
on
how
we
might
want
to
organize?
This
seems
like
it's
a
good
thing
to
put
in,
but
it's
not
technically
the
use
case.
E
Yeah
the
thing
is,
it
seems
like
it's.
The
thing
you
want
in
the
main
document
in
the
sense
of
you
really
do
want
someone
to
basically
read
this
as
they're
reading
the
document
as
well.
Not
just
read
the
document
go
away,
happy
assuming
it's
all
gonna
work,
but
you
know
and
there's
two
parts
to
it.
One
is:
it
could
potentially
change
over
time
if
kubernetes
get
better.
The
other
is,
if
we're
measuring
this
up
against
a
platform
definition
of
some
variety.
E
Then,
if
our
platform
definition
changes,
if
we
say
well,
our
platform
is
not
based
kubernetes.
Obviously
it's
based
kubernetes
plus
these
features.
Then
that
would
change
the
change
the
results
slightly.
I
don't
know
I'm
I'm
asking
I
I
don't
have
a
great
answer
to
this
one,
but.
E
E
E
All
right:
well,
if
no
one's
got
a
comment,
then
it
will
stay
as
it
is
for
the
time
being,
and
we
will
work
on
the
assumption
that
that's
the
right
thing
to
do.
If
anyone
wants
to
pick
on
that,
then
again,
there
is
both
a
discussion
and
a
pull
request.
A
React
cool
yeah.
So
thanks
for
that,
and
obviously,
as
ian
said,
there's
a
discussion
on
the
pull
request.
So
add
your
thoughts.
Is
there
anything
anybody
else
wants
to
go
over
today.