►
From YouTube: CNCF CNF WG Meeting - 2023-09-25
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
D
No
worries
I
think
we're
just
gonna
get
started.
Are
you
available
to
lead
today?
Yeah
no
worries
and
we're
just
getting
going.
C
D
Does
anyone
have
anything
to
add
other
than
maybe
going
over
the
pull
requests
and
looking
at
the
latest.
A
I,
just
just
put
like
a
one
topic
that
all
right
I
put
my
attention
but
yeah.
C
Topic
of
the
the
co-chairs
and
the
voting
I
put
something
in
slightly
other
week,
I'm
going
to
struggle
to
make
this
time
regularly
due
to
a
new
project
commitment-
and
it's
been
over
a
year
since,
since
we
Victory
and
you
and
I
were
voted
as
the
co-chairs
and
I
think.
The
term
was
supposed
to
be
a
year.
D
All
right
and
put
up
another
I
think
we
tried
to
do
it.
Something
happened,
but
we
can
go
ahead
and
put
the
board
again.
It
seems
a
great
idea.
C
A
Well,
basically,
just
you
remove
the
the
open
source
event
right.
Like
the
last
week,
we
have
the
the
one
Regional
Summit
and
the
open
source
Summit
in
Bilbao
yeah
I
know
that
it
is
not
there.
A
A
That,
yes,
unfortunately
I
couldn't
attend
the
one
Summit,
but
I
had
the
protein
to
attend
the
the
rest
of
the
open
source.
Summit
quick
was
great
and
that's.
Why
I
agree
about
my
my
topic
in
the
in
the
agenda,
but
yeah
we
can
talk
later
about
that
I
haven't
seen
any
other
new
new
event
regarding
okay.
A
It
was
good
I
mean
I,
didn't
own.
Anything
like
different,
like
muscle.
Regular
topics
were
I,
guess,
books
and
security-
probably
that's
in
general,
but
yeah.
The
regular
attendance,
nothing,
nothing
huge,
nothing,
lower,
yeah,
I
guess,
as
as
usual.
C
C
Any
other
event
updates
trying
to
think
if
there
are
any
cfps
to
close
soon
I
think
yeah.
Okay,
coupon
Europe
cfps
are
open.
A
D
A
C
C
Okay,
no
open
pull
requests
so
yeah.
The
single
concern
for
container
one
was
merged,
which
is
good.
C
C
C
D
Yeah
I
think
so
we
had
Victor
Oliver
and
I
that
were
going
back
and
forth
and
trying
to
get
a
large
amount
of
the
content,
and
then
we
kept
getting
input
from
you
know,
there's
a
good
number
of
comments
and
suggest
edits
that
ended
up
pushing
it
over
the
Finish
Line
in
the
core
requests:
anyways,
Victor
or
Oliver.
Do
you
all
want
to
take
a
stab
at
summarizing?
What
we've
done.
A
Oh
well,
I
I,
don't
know
like
so
yeah.
Basically,
you
wanna
to
describe
like
provide
summary
about
what
what
is
is
best
practice
for
or
or.
D
Yeah,
just
summarize
it
since
I
mean
we
all
talked
individually,
but
we
didn't
have
anything
on
a
work
group
call.
So
just
what
what's
the
best
practice
in
the
end
and
any
highlights
on
I
think
there
was
some
note
caveats
and
then
just
some
notes
and
stuff
that
we
ended
up
merging
in
at
the
end.
A
Got
it
okay?
Well,
just
in
summary.
Well,
the
best
practice
is
trying
to
suggest
to
you
to
Define
like
put
in
just
single
a
single
process,
type
or
container
in
terms
like
a
design
of
the
CNF
application,
and
it's
highlighting
the
benefits.
A
We
have
detected
multiple
benefits
in
different
areas
like,
for
example,
on
the
way
to
upgrade
the
services
like
in
terms
of
security,
we're
reducing
the
attack
surface
and
controlling
the
the
observability
and
and
so
on.
Like.
A
Again,
like
it's
an
another
thing,
we're
not
trying
to
Define
exactly
the
the
way
to
Define
things
like
we,
we
left
some
room
for
architectures
Architects
do
to
Define
things,
but
General
is.
Is
that
that's
the
best.
A
Like
suggests
to
to
have
like
a
single
process
type
in
a
per.
A
There
is
also
a
good
references
at
the
bottom,
where
you
can
also
get
on
deep,
like
provide
them,
especially
Divine
athletes
in
terms
of
performance
like
what
else
how
others
in
the
industry
are
using
the
same
things
and
if
I
remember
like
two
weeks
ago,
someone
was
also
using
some
of
the
information
in
LinkedIn
for
providing
similar
thing
right.
I,
don't
remember
who
who
was
like
referring
that
one
in
one
of
the
articles,
but.
B
Not
so
much
about
the
the
the
best
practice
I
think
you
covered
that
pretty.
Well,
maybe
just
a
reflection
on
how
we
worked
I
think
you
know
we
I
don't
know.
If
we
can
replicate
that
I
mean
it
would
be
ideal,
I
think
I
know
we've.
B
We
tend
sometimes
to
be
more
than
more
than
three
people
in
this
in
this
call
and
I
think
you
know
if
we
could
figure
out
a
way
to
scale
that
a
little
bit
I
for
me
personally,
I'm
a
little
bit,
maybe
less
less
experienced
in
in
these
writing
these
best
practices,
so
I
found
it
very
useful
to
work
together
in
you
know,
having
a
couple
sessions
I
think
we
had
generally
one
session
per
week
where
we
tried
to
you
know
in
addition
to
the
MonDay
call,
which
I
think
is
you
know
we
cover,
we
cover
more
things
and
I
find
it.
B
You
know
people
need
to
have
an
interest.
Obviously
so
sometimes
people
are
here
to
listen,
but
if
they're
interested
in
driving
one
of
these
forward,
I
think
doing
that
alone
or
just
doing
that
sort
of
asynchronous
can
sometimes
be
a
bit
of
a
struggle.
I
I
found
us
having
lots
of
conversations
a
little
bit
of
it
was
wordsmithing,
but
I
think
it.
B
You
know
in
the
end,
it
also
helped
to
you
know,
allow
some
some
learning
of
areas
that
you
may
not
know
that
well
and
sort
of
then
from
there
be
able
to
contribute.
So
hopefully
we
can
do
something
similar
as
we
you
know
on
the
next
one
try
to
find
a
way
to
say
you
know,
there's
some
working
sessions
and
if
you
want
to
get
involved,
you
know
that
might
be
a
way
for
us
to
get
some
get
more
momentum.
B
B
A
Yeah
that
covers
a
lot
of
good
sessions.
The
work
incision
that
we
had
and.
A
A
good
trap-
and
we
polish,
like
it,
was
nice
to
receive
a
lot
of
feedback
from
others
like,
for
example,
Jeff
yeah,
just
give
us
some
additional
things.
B
D
I
think
part
of
it
is
just
familiarity
with
the
process
and,
like
you
were
saying,
Oliver
that
you
weren't
as
familiar
with
writing
in
best
practice,
but
I
think
it's
just
partly
the
format
in
general.
As
far
as
being
more
formal
and
everything
unless
you're
doing
that
type
of
documentation,
you
may
be
familiar
with
an
area
of
the
content
actually
trying
to
format
it,
and
you
know
we
did
this
on
purpose
at
one
point
trying
to
cover
different
areas.
It
is
more
formal
than
some
write-ups.
D
We
were
trying
to
cover
different
areas
where
we've
had
questions
in
the
past
in
the
music
group,
different
white
papers
so
trying
to
cover
all
those
areas.
We
if
we
decide
that
the
format
isn't
for
us.
That's
fine,
but
I,
think
the
content
that
we
covered
is
good.
D
D
So
that's
I
think
what
we
need
to
do.
Next,
we
have
this
one
related,
it's
more
general
practice,
I'd
say,
but
it's
currently
principle
of
a
single
concern
for
a
container
trying
to
it's
related
to
microservices.
It's
not
just
that
so
there's
the
microservice
architectural
stuff
in
there
and
then
that
principle
for
single
concern
is
could
be
applied
in
other
areas,
we're
applying
it
to
retainers
the
idea
of
having
a
focused
area.
So
your
team
can
work
on
it
and
all
the
other
benefits.
D
D
Root
in
the
processes
in
the
container
that
one's
like
a
more
specific
and
you
know
we
can
go
either
way,
but
does
anyone
have
any
specific
ideas
that
they
want
to
work
on
and
we
do
have
open
issues.
So
we
have
open
issues.
We
have
the
discussion
board
area
where
there's
a
lot
of
different
topics.
Some
of
the
things
are
more
multiple
best
practices
and
a
whole
discussion,
which
is
fine.
D
A
So
so
now
that
I
am
seeing
what
Tom
is
sharing,
maybe
I
think
that
we
can
close
the
best
practice.
I
mean
there's
practice,
which
is
referring
about
the
single
concern.
A
B
A
C
A
So
so,
regarding
the
the
topic
Taylor
well,
probably
I
can
share
what
what
I
heard.
Let's
read
about
the
topic
that
I
bring
in
that
into
agenda,
at
least
for
me
during
the
open
source
Summit.
They
there
were
several
sessions
talking
about
confidential
Computing.
A
Maybe
it's
not
a
new
concept
because
yeah,
it's
a
regular
practice
or
like
regular
technologies
that
has
been
existed
for
a
while,
like
from
Intel
sdx
technology
promoters,
so
but
yeah
I
just
captured
my
attention
like
multiple
people
talking
about
confidential
Computing,
like
sharing
like
benefits,
Pros
cons
and
Technologies
projects,
Elizabeth,
at
least
from
my
point
of
view.
My
main
takeaway
of
the
conference
was
a
little
around
confidential
computing
I.
Think
people
were
categorizing
confidential
Computing
in
three
different
pillars.
A
Obviously
the
first
one
is
storing
the
information
like
encrypting
hard
disk,
and
the
second
thing
is
about.
A
Is
in
transit
like
using
secure
protocols
to
to
change
information,
and
the
last
thing
was
more
referring
to
the
runtime
like
things
like
how
can
do
confusion,
Computing
the
CPU
and
the
different
technologies
that
they
can
use?
So
my
point,
or
at
least
the
point
that
I'm
trying
to
bring
to
the
table,
is
like
a
should:
we
have
any
best
practicing
confidential
Computing
or
like
do
we
have
any
anything
related
with
confidential
Computing?
Maybe
maybe
I
can
raise
the
topic
in
the
discussion
or
things
like
that.
A
A
I
just
include
like
a
regular
Wiki
entry,
because
but
I
guess
there
are
plenty
more
useful
links
or
like
information
about
this
particular
topic,
because
yeah
I
just
mentioned
the
the
concept
has
been
for
a
while,
but
he
was.
It
was
interesting
that
people
were
like,
like
multiple
tracks
were
like
or
sessions,
were
talking
about
the
same
topic
so.
C
A
Okay,
yeah,
but
before
crane,
like
any
issue
or
just
moving
forward,
the
thing
that
is
a
could
be
a
good
candidate
like
it's
a
good
idea
or
like.
Are
you
record
anything
about
conventional
Computing
and
all.
C
It's
still
something
I've
read
into
an
awful
lot,
but
I
think
security
is
a
key
human.
Functional
requirement
of
you
know
technology
in
general,
but
certainly
in
telcos
I
think
it
would
be
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
include
some
security
best
practices.
I,
don't
know,
are
a
bit
nervous
about
doing
that,
because
there
were
a
ton
of
other
security,
best
practice
sources
elsewhere.
A
Yeah
I
understand
about
the
topic
regarding
the
techniques
there
were
like
different
Technologies,
where,
like,
for
example
of
some
of
them,
were
like
securing
to
the
container
others
were
expanding
a
scope
like
a
not
only
the
container,
also
the
holes,
the
whole
bot,
another,
the
the
worker
mode
and
the
last
thing
was:
another
techniques
were
or
projects
was
considered.
A
Securing
all
the
the.
C
A
Like
of
course,
yeah,
there
are
a
few
open
source
projects
like
there
are
trying
to
tackle
these
particular
problem.
A
The
only
thing
that
came
to
my
mind
is
like,
for
example,
maybe
one
of
the
the
core,
the
Coronado
components.
It
could
be
I,
don't
know
if
UPF
or
one
of
them,
which
requires
some
security.
A
Addition
into
the
I
think
that
the
way
that
they
call
this
like
a.
A
I'm
not
sure
it's
secure
run
times,
runtime
secure
like
when
they
are
like
loading
things
registry
or
things
in
the
CPU
they
weren't,
showing
that
those
that
information
is
not
accessible
from
upside
like
that.
But
in
these
terms,
in
this,
in
this
particular
case
is
security
at
the
CPU
level,
but
not
like
a
so
I'm,
not
sure
if
one
of
the
core
Network
components
require
this
level
of
security.
D
The
diagram
to
mace
feels
weird
where
it
says
you:
if
you
use
a
confidential
Computing
library,
then
you're
you're,
safe
all
the
way,
but
otherwise
I
I
mean
it's
talking
about
trust
boundaries,
I
guess.
But
at
some
point
you
got
to
pass
it
up
the
stack
to
get
it
like
some
information
has
passed
up,
I
guess
it's
saying
that
you're
gonna
try
to
keep
everything
at
the
the
application
layer.
The
application
process
at
some
point
has
to
access
I,
don't
know
it
just
kind
of
feels
weird.
D
Let's
see
like
when
was
this
edited
and
who
is
wow?
There's
a
lot
of
references
in
this.
A
Yeah,
that's
why
I
guess
it's
not
a
new
topic!
Maybe
just
look
at.
D
So
all
of
the
providers
are
it's
just
talking
about
Hardware
providers,
I
I,
don't
know,
I
have
a
bias.
I
guess
to
feel
like.
Is
this
just
promoted
by
all
these
companies
that
are
trying
to
sell
their
chips
versus?
Why?
Why
aren't
we
just
saying
zero
trust
like
zero
trust
is
about
trying
to
it's
to
me.
Zero
trust
is
really
just
the
concept
that
some
security
people
have
been
pushing
for
a
long
time,
don't
trust
anything
at
any
any
part
of
the
pipeline
or
any
anywhere.
D
If
you
have
it
baked
in
at
all
layers,
then
you're
going
to
be
better
off
than
saying
we
got
it
covered
at
this
one
spot,
I,
I
haven't
looked
at
this
in
a
while
I
know
some
about
the
trusses
competing,
but
I
know
that
there
was
in
the
last
several
years,
there's
been
like
exploits
on
some
of
the
early
ones
like
intel
was.
You
know
one
of
the
first
doing,
yeah.
A
D
Hardware
and
if
you
gained
access
and
I
think
there
was
even
like
some
security
bugs
that
went
into
manufacturing
if
I'm,
recalling
correctly
but
the
like,
where
people
exploited
in
the
manufacturing
process.
But
there
was
some
other
stuff
that
made
it
out
into
production,
and
when
you
get
access,
then
you
can
you
get
everything
so
just
saying
that
it's
covered
as
I
don't
know:
I
have
a
bias
against
it.
It
I
think
it
makes
people
feel
like
we're
good.
D
Now
we
don't
have
to
think
about
it
instead
of
thinking
you
should
do
this
all
the
way
through
the
whole
stack
security
through
the
whole
stack.
You
know,
automation
through
the
whole
stack
development,
all
the
way
to
production.
You
should
in
my
mind
it
should
be
a
holistic
approach
for
everything.
D
D
I
could
definitely
see
it
as
part
of
it.
It
seems
like
it
would
be
one
part,
and
you
have
the
use
case,
and
you
say
we're
using
you
know
different
practices
from
competition
Computing,
along
with
other
things,.
D
A
One
of
the
solutions
is
Cara
containers.
It
seems
to
be
offering
like
a
part
of
one
of
the
solutions,
but
yeah.
D
So
it
looks
like
Cloud
providers
are
listed
along
with
the
folks
like
arm
Intel
Red
Hats.
There
Microsoft.
A
D
Recoups
well
Accenture
they're,
a
premier
member
at
the
top.
They
probably
have
a
lot
of
the
government
contracts
that
are
going
to
be
more.
If
you
click
on
about,
then
you
can
go
to
members
yeah.
So
Accenture
probably
has
a
lot
of
the
government
contracts
which
are
gonna
end
up
using
more
of
this
sort
of
type
of
security.
Just
have
it
built,
including
you
know,
systems
that
have
no
network.
B
C
Looking
at
the
projects
that
are
listed
from
what
you
were
saying
earlier,
it
feels
like
they're
part
of
the
zero
trust
idea.
So
how
can
you?
How
can
you
put
things
in
place
to
trust
certain
parts
of
the
stack?
C
A
I
I
can
try
to
find
like
a
use
case
if
I
can
rule
something
quick
later
like
and
just
in
case
that
you
want
to
consider.
But.
C
Yeah
I
think
that'll
be
good
because
it
I
guess
it's
it's
kind
of
tricky
because
things
like
Hardware
at
a
stationary.
You
know
it's
relevant
to
Telco,
it's
part
of,
for
example,
in
the
UK,
the
new
Telecom
Security
Act,
but
it's
hard
to
in
a
short
period
of
time.
We've
had
today
for
me
to
work
out
what
we
might
be
able
to
test
against
a
CNF
or
a
kubernetes
platform
layout.
C
C
D
What
about
some
other
ideas
for
areas
like
we've
been
talking
about
deployment,
automation,
yeah,
you
know
this
could
be
stuff
with
projects
like
nephil
flux,
CD
and
Argo.
Cd
are
being
used
for
automation
in
networking,
Telecom,
stuff
butcher,
Telecom
they're,
using
flux
with
get
Ops
patterns.
D
A
Oh
yeah,
that's
a
good
topic
like
the
deployment
is.
It
could
be
one
option
like
defining
best
practice
for
the
prime
CNF
I.
Don't
know
it
could
be
part
of
that
best
practice,
but
also
the
way
the
the
way
to
package
things
are
not
talking
just
like
putting
in
a
container,
because
there
is
like
a
a
good
discussion
about
using
Helm
charts
versus
other
things
like
especially
kpt
is
like
a
kind
of
a
new
approach
with
with
Google
is
pushing
too
hard
to
to
have
it.
A
A
Probably
the
question
is
like
Helm
is
still
a
good
way
to
package
or
like
what
is
the
best
practice
to
package,
an
application
like
how
to
over
dot
tnf
to
the
customers
and
consuming.
B
C
Yeah
I
think
that'd
be
a
good
one
to
cover,
because
we
could
then
either
include
in
that
we'll
link
to
something
around.
C
You
know:
custom
resources
and
operators
and
that
that
framework
and
that
concept
so
can
play
a
part
in
that.
But
it
could
be
part
of
a
kind
of
wider
maturity
scale
that
we
look
at.
A
A
Silver
product
as
well
has
a
proposal
to
define
a
hardware
related
things
in
in
the
CNF
and
eventually
navio
is
trying
to
do
similar
things
like
the
funny.
What
were
the
hardware
or
like
the
the
software
dependencies
as
well
of
them
CNF
application.
A
So
I,
don't
think
that
we
have
a
best
practice
in
that
area,
but
at
least
it's
a
topic
which
are
different
communities
are
trying
to
address
from
from
their
own
perspective.
C
C
D
Are
there
any
challenge,
Tom
that
you're,
seeing
at
Vodafone
where,
if
people
were
following
an
area
like
principles,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
specific
practices
or
specific
practices,
either
one
that
you
would
find
helpful.
D
C
Yeah
so
I
think
the
the
main
challenges
we
have.
We,
we
shared
in
Amsterdam
or
along
the
lines
of
there's
a
there's,
a
kind
of
different
set
of
delays
between
a
community
kubernetes
release
and
then
so.
A
community
of
kubernetes
release
happens
and
then
there's
a
different
timeline
between
a
platform
vendor
making
that
available
in
a
version
of
their
product
and
the
CNF
vendor.
C
C
Kind
of
the
automated
testing
of
validating
that
new
stack,
if
you
like
so
CNF
version
a
running
on
platform
version
B,
which
uses
kubernetes
version
Zed
and
you
know
cni
option
n,
and
how
do
we?
How
do
we
kind
of
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
automate
the
testing
of
that
validation
without
being
too
opinionated
about
what
each
of
those
version
numbers
are,
or
particular
choices
of
sub-components
of
a
platform?
C
That
that
feels
to
me
to
be
one
of
the
kind
of
the
main
challenges
there's
a
bunch
of
other
challenges.
We've
got,
but
many
of
those
are
organizational
and
you
know
modernization
things.
C
C
D
So
integration
testing
and
like
I
guess
in
the
individual
testing
you
need
both
for
those
different
options.
So
as
a
if
you
have
something
like
a
Calico
feature
for
some
type
of
network
setup
and
you
need
to
make
sure
that
that
keeps
working
and
then
you
need
to
make
sure
that
it
works
with
the
new
version
of
a
CNF.
D
So
there's
seems
like
there's
both
types
of
automated
testing,
the
individual.
Whatever
that's
going
to
be,
you
know,
unit
API
whatever
and
then
some
type
of
integration
type
testing
and
then
you.
D
D
There's
something
around
like
how
things
fit
together
as
far
as
like
the
API
apis
being
exposed
and
providing.
D
D
So
there's
got
to
be
something
around
that
where
we
can
talk
about
providing
like
some
capabilities,
so
something
Beyond,
just
your
liveness
and
Readiness
pings.
D
So
some
you
start
doing
something
else,
exposing
something
else
so
I'm
not
coming
up
with
like
a
specific
best
practice
right
now,
Tom
but
I
I
think
there's
something
there
where
we
could
look
in
like
how
do
you
make
this
possible
to
for
testing
and
then
maybe.
D
Just
the
testing
in
general
I
mean
like
there's,
it's
not
saying.
Testing
is
best
practice,
but
something
with
relating
it
to
your
test
cases
and
stuff.
We
should
be
able
to
run
those
in
the
pipeline
or
you
should
be
providing
test
results.
So,
if
you're
doing
like
a
complex
pipeline
where
passing
between
teams,
instead
of
you
know,
saying
here's
the
operations
team
with
their
pipeline,
we
take
it.
We
onboard
it,
but
you
may
have
like
development
to
production
teams
and
now
you,
you
have
to
say
exposing
the
results.
D
Well,
there's
some
companies
that
are
looking
at
taking
from
the
development
from
an
external
org.
So
now
you
need
to
have.
Did
you
do
you
have
test?
Are
you
doing
sign
off?
So
if
you're
saying
an
image
has
been
signed
off
as
secure
so
there's
this
sort
of
tests,
can
you
also
sign
off
here's
the
test
results
and
then,
as
a
consumer,
you
say
those
test
results
are
covering
what
we
want
and
it's
signed.
So
we
can
move
it
forward.
D
I,
don't
I,
don't
seems
like
there's
something
that
we
could
pull
out
of
this
practices.
C
Yeah
I
think
there
are
I'm
still
thinking
back
to
I,
think
I
shared
it,
and
it's
in
the
manifesto
thing
that
we're
working
on
what
elsewhere,
but
those
CNF
automation,
use
cases
and
they're
kind
of
always
the
starting
point
for
us
about
what's
important
and
how
do
we?
How
do
we
improve
what
we're
doing?
We
want
to
kind
of
automate
these
life
cycle
management
operations
and
then
I
guess
it's
trying
to
delve
into
each
of
those
and
think
what
is
it?
C
D
Was
the
first
challenge?
I
I
didn't
get
it
typed
into
this
before
you're
done,
I
was
hearing
it,
but
it
kind
of
got
on
since
then.
The
first
challenge,
before
the
automated
testing
like
to
summarize
that
one
so.
C
It's
the
it's.
The
the
difference
between
The
Matrix
of
kubernetes
versions
that
are
CNF
vendor
supports
for
a
given
CNF
version
and
the
Matrix
of
kubernetes
versions
that
are
platform
vendor
is
offering
at
any
given
in
time
at
any
given
point
in
time
from
the
Upstream
release.
C
So
you
know
one
month
after
a
kubernetes
release.
I'd
expect
neither
platform
vendor
or
cnfender
to
updated
anything
12
months
after
kubernetes
release,
you
know
a
platform,
some
platform
vendors
are
just
releasing
a
product
that
includes
that
version,
whereas
the
CNF
vendors
are
thinking
well,
we
wouldn't
start
removing
that
version
now.
D
Yeah
I
wonder
if
this
is
why
some
csps
are
starting
to
move
towards
move
back
to
towards
I.
Think
would
be
aware
of
saying
it
bare
metal
deployments
running
their
own
kubernetes
versions,
so
they
can
run
more
recently.
Production
supported,
Upstream
releases
of
kubernetes
and
get
the
benefits
there
and
then
have
the
cnfs
running
on
that
yeah.
C
C
B
D
D
So
if
you're
looking
at
you
know,
Amazon
and
Azure
Microsoft
Azure,
and
whatever
else
and
you're
running
you're
trying
to
run
on
multiple
clouds,
then.
B
A
Go
ahead,
Victor!
No!
No!
The
thing
that
I
was
saying
is
what
the
at
least
a
use
case
that
I
have
here
is
when
you
have,
for
example,
so
for
your
core
networks
and
you're
using
different
components
of
different
vendors
and
those
vendors
has
different
requirements.
A
So,
if
you're
using
AMF
from
one
vendor
and
the
SM
and
SMF
from
Ottawa
So,
eventually,
you
can
have
that
situation
when
you
have
some
level
incompatability,
even
if
they're
exchanging
messages
using
the
the
standards
and
all
the
protocols
and
following
that
see,
combines
and
everything
like
that,
so
so
having
those
requirements.
How
can
you
deal
with
that
and.
A
Now
that
you
have
like
a
kubernetes
enough
Cycles
that
also
increases
the
chances
to
to
to
run
in
those
particulars,
I.
A
I
guess
it's
not
mainly
by
technical
limitations
of
the
group,
is
mostly
compatibility
between
between
different
cnfs.
D
Let's
say
possible:
ashes
compatibility.
D
A
They're
going
to
work
on
that
in
this
particular
second
release
like
having
one
of
the
components
with
free
fire,
GC
and
the
rest
of
the
components
with
open,
AR
open,
oh
yeah,
because
it's
open
air
interface
I,
guess
that's
the
name
of
the
project.
C
You
know
what
one
instance
that
sticks
out
in
my
mind
is
you
know
two
different
products
from
the
same
vendor.
C
You
know
this
is
something
we've
seen
in
the
past,
where
one
of
the
products
uses
maltes
to
provide
multiple
interfaces
and
therefore,
because
because
those
secondary
interfaces
aren't
kind
of
first-class
citizens
and
kubernetes,
we
can't
use
Network
policies
and
therefore,
we've
got
to
use
some
kind
of
fireballing
technique
outside
the
kubernetes
cluster
to
protect
access
in
and
out
of
those
secondary
interfaces,
whereas
another
product
unit
in
the
same
company
would
would
achieve
the
communications
flow
via
a
different
route
and
and
sometimes
the
the
requirement
is
a
you
know:
internal
CSP
security
requirement
that
drives
one
or
other
of
those
behaviors,
and
so
you
know
some
of
the
challenges
we've
seen,
aren't
necessarily
compatibility
in
the
kind
of
sense
of
the
word
of
meaning
that
you
know
CNS
can't
run
on
one
or
other
of
the
platforms.
C
D
All
right,
awesome,
I,
wrote
down
this
and
the
notes
this.
B
D
I
think
that's
also
here:
there's
probably
some
get
up
stuff,
Matrix,
supported,
I,
don't
know
exactly,
but
I
think
there's
probably
get
UPS.
Okay,
those
are
like
relating
it
to
challenges
are
good
Victor
if
you
think
of
more
challenges
and
stuff
to
dig
into
the
use
cases,
so
maybe
Tom.
If
you
could
talk
and
talk
with
some
folks
and
we
get
some
specific
use
cases
on
either
of
these
areas
written
up,
then
maybe
that
would
be
something
to
do.
D
Yeah
all
right,
we
made
it
yeah
I
think
so.
Thanks
everyone,
okay,.