►
From YouTube: CNCF CNF WG Meeting - 2021-02-22
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,
I
think
we
can
probably
get
started
so
thanks
everybody
for
joining
today.
This
is
a
cnf
working
group.
We
meet
weekly
on
mondays
at
1600
utc,
so
the
link
to
the
meeting
minutes
is
in
the
chat.
If
you
want
to
add
your
name
at
the
top
just
so
we
can
keep
track
of
who's
here.
That'd
be
great
before
we
jump
in.
Is
there
anything
that
anyone
wants
to
add
to
the
agenda.
A
Okay,
hear
nothing
we'll
just
dive
right
in
so
the
first
one
is
a
idea
that
ian
brought
up
in
the
slack
channel
and
basically
he
would
like
to
have
some
basic
ground
rules
for
like
pull
requests.
Basically,
rather
than
having
things
languish
and
kind
of
having
some
rules,
and
if
there's
no
major
disagreements,
then
we
should
be
able
to
merge
things.
A
Obviously,
I
think
this
will
allow
us
to
kind
of
move
forwards
faster
and
and
make
people
feel
like
they
can
edit
things
because
things
will
get
merged
and
approved.
So
ian
is
there
anything
else
you
want
to
add
to
that?
A
Think,
okay,
I
guess,
does
anybody
have
any
thoughts
on
this
or
like
ideas
on
how
we
could
frame
this.
A
C
Yeah,
this
is
watson
yeah.
We
we
did.
We
have
had
a
problem
in,
I
want
to
say
the
group
or
some
other
groups
where
there
were
some
rules.
Definitions
actually
pushed
through
ran
through
really
quickly
when
there's
like
low
attendance,
so
I'd
rather
not
do
the
like
one
or
two
weeks
or
something
probably
make
use
it
as
like
a
something
that
it's
not
caught
in
a
longer.
It's
probably
some
other
problem.
D
Say
yeah,
so
I
think
the
question
is:
how
long
is
a
good
idea,
the
idea
being
that
if
you've
got
something
worth
committing,
then
or
you
know
that
you're
proposing
to
commit
that
it
can
always
be
edited
after
the
fact
this
you
know
to
say
that
it's
in
the
repository
does
not
mean
to
say
that
it's
part
of
anything.
We
would
necessarily.
D
B
And
are
you
talking
about?
Do
we
have
a
real
example
that
we
can
look
at?
Are
there
ones
that
have
zero
approvals
yet.
D
No,
we
don't,
but
we
don't
have
ones
that
are
ever.
We
rarely
have
ones
that
are
fully
approved
by
every
reviewer.
We've
asked
to
look
at
it
as
well,
so
that,
I
think,
is
more
the
question.
B
Okay,
yes,
so
that
maybe
that's
something
we
could
say
like
it
needs
at
least
two
approvers.
Usually
the
list
is
just
to
get
someone's
attention
that
it.
When
we
have
eight
people
on
we're,
not
saying
we
want
all
of
them
to
approve,
we
want
some
number
of
them
and
they're,
usually
just
here's
some
interested
parties
so
a
minimum,
and
I
think
that
would
address
what
you're
saying
watson
that
we're
not
going
to
let
just
anything
through.
B
But
when
there's
only
a
small
number
of
attendees,
it
could
be.
C
C
Oh
I'm
going
to
say
if
the
problem
is,
if
the
problem
is
things
being
hard
to
edit
in
you
know,
pull
requests,
and
maybe
it
could
be
marked
as
draft
or
whatever
as
we
edit
it,
and
we
can
approve
it
into
a
draft
and
as
draft
as
the
name
and
then
the
final
approval
takes
draft
out
of
the
name.
C
A
Yeah,
I
guess
I
would
be
in
favor
of
keeping
things
fairly
lightweight
rather
than
having
a
lot
of
rules
and
requirements
on
how
and
when
pull
requests
can
be
merged.
I
think
I
agree
with
ian
like
we
should
have
like
some
things
that
things
don't
just
sit
around
forever,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
make
it
really
laborious.
Otherwise,
I
think
it's
going
to
really
slow
down
the
work
of
the
group.
F
B
B
We
could
come
up
with
some
number
and
then
shift
it
if
it,
if
it
doesn't
work
like
the
chart,
charter
updates
probably
should
have
more
people
and
then
other
things
as
they're
coming
in
adding
use
cases
and
other
things
could
probably
have
a
smaller
number
and
then
it
we
can
shift
those
if
it
if
it
doesn't
feel
like
we
have
enough
representation
within
the
group.
A
Yeah,
maybe
I
can
take
a
stab
at
a
pull
request
around
this
by
next
week.
A
And
then
we
can
kind
of
once
maybe
it'll
be
easier
once
we
have
like
something
like
a
little
bit
more.
B
How
about
this
proposal
bill
to
talk
about
in
the
group?
You
know
we
can
drop
it
in
as
a
google
doc
or
whatever
to
discuss
all
right.
Actually,
a
github
discussion,
yeah.
G
G
A
G
A
A
Okay,
so
is
there
anything
that
anyone
else
wants
to
add
on
that
before
we
kind
of
move
to
the
next
topics?
So
I
think
we
could
probably
go
on
this
topic
for
the
rest
of
the
meeting,
but
until
I
think
we
have
something
more
concrete,
I
don't
know
if
it'll
be
really
productive
or
as
productive
as
going
on
to
other
topics.
I
Bill
this
is
oliver.
I
have.
I
just
have
a
quick
comment
and
I
would
suggest
we
don't
actually
discuss
it,
but
maybe
it's
something
you
can
just
kind
of
throw
into
your
thinking.
If
you,
if
you
try
to
put
an
attempt-
and
that
would
just
be
around
the
point
of
of
reviewers
and
how
those
reviewers
are
selected-
I
mean
we-
we
have
a
list
each
week
that
everyone's
signing
up
saying
I
was
attending
this
meeting.
I
mean
perhaps
there's
a
way
that
we
can
sort
of.
A
A
A
Great,
and
so
I
think
ian,
maybe
the
comment
that
led
to
this
discussion
was
around
like
this
pull
request
around
enterprise
vpn
use
cases,
because
it
has
been
sitting
here
for
a
little
while
it
to
be
it.
It
is.
D
D
It
suddenly
occurred
to
me
that
I
didn't
know
what
would
make
it
move
forward,
and
maybe
we
should
answer
that
question
before
we
get
to
something
we
agree
less
clearly
on
but
yeah
I
mean
it's,
it's
an
example
of
something
that
eventually
wants
committing,
so
that
people
can
propose
their
own
independent
changes
on
it
rather
than
again
fighting
about
it
in
its
poll
request.
So.
A
So
I
don't
know,
do
we
want
to
dive
into
it
now?
Do
people
have
people
have
time
to
look
at
it?
Are
there
comments
about
this
specific
pull
request
that
ian
made
now.
A
And
so
for
everyone,
that's
not
familiar
with
it.
Ian
made
a
kind
of
like
a
first
use
case
document
and
just
wrote
out
a
route
bgp
on
a
customer
network.
F
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
I've
been
obviously
keeping
an
eye
on
the
discussion
and
it's
another
example
of
what
I
mean,
which
is
actually
it's
been
in
there
a
little
longer
than
I
thought
it
had
it.
It's
got
the
comments
on.
It
are
now
10
days
old,
so
it
must
have
been
in
actually
more
than
one
week.
So
my
mistake
on
that,
but
I
don't
think,
there's
a
comment
that
anyone
has
put
in
there
that
desperately
needs
fixing.
At
this
point,
there's
been
some
useful
discussion.
D
I
guess
I've
been
arguing
that
it's
good
enough
as
it
is.
It's
got
a
couple
of
approvals
as
well.
Actually,
so
it's
not
like
it's
getting
any
disagreement
to
speak
of.
I
don't
know
what
to
do
with
the
discussion
that
remains.
You
know,
because
there's
been
some
useful
points
that
came
up
in
in
that
discussion,
but
no
particular
actions
proposed
from
them.
So
there's
maybe
it's
worth
reviewing
that
to
make
sure
there's
not
something
we're
missing.
But
aside
from
that
I
mean
it's
not
getting
dissent
in
any
meaningful
form.
B
And
this
taylor,
I'm
personally
okay
with
the
use
cases
moving
forward
quicker
than
say
a
best
practice
which,
if
we
stan
have
a
stamp
of
approval,
would
affect
rfps.
As
you
pointed
out,
and
some
of
these
things
I
think,
when
we
get
to
the
poor
polar
crest
process,
we
can
label
you
know,
charter
would
become
a
bigger
deal
like
you
said
this
one
doesn't
have
dissent,
so
that's
probably
the
biggest
thing
on
any
poor
quest.
B
Did
we
address
all
the
items
and
and
probably
go
through,
and
if
someone
isn't
available
like
we
waited
on,
I
think
robbie
for
one
on
a
month
or
two
ago
there
was
stuff
waiting
for
people
that
had
comments
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
discuss
in
this
call.
If,
if
it's
not
getting
addressed,
would
be
good.
The
only
thing
on
this
particular
number
60,
pr
that
I
saw
as
you
were
scrolling
by
bill
was,
I
think,
victor
is
one
or
two
up.
B
D
A
A
D
I
put
a
comment
on
there,
which
he's
read
so
I
think
he's
read
hang
on.
I
need
to
check
that.
I
think
he's
on
the
call.
E
Yeah,
I'm
here
yeah,
so
yeah
I
can
probably
I
can
approve
it
because
my
point
was
regarding
the
multiplexers
probably,
but
I
open
another
discussion
where
we
can
talk
about
what
what
is
going
to
be
or
how
looks
like
the
kubernetes
based
deployment
if
the
human
space
deployment
could
include
those
multiplexers,
but
my
point
is
yeah.
Probably
my
discussion
point
is
not
going
to
be
discussed
here,
so
I
guess
the
use
case
is
fine.
Let
me
just
abroad.
D
Yeah
one
thing
I'm
asking
myself
because
I
was
writing
a
deployment
use
case
out
last
night.
Someone
doesn't
do
his
homework
very
early.
I'm
sorry
about
that,
but
and
that
one
as
I'm
writing
it
is
ending
up
with
a
bunch
of
reasoning
in
about.
We
should
do
it
this
way,
and
I
don't
like
that
very
much.
It
should
describe
the
problem,
not
the
solution.
D
This
one,
I
think
multiplexers,
are
a
potential
solution
for
the
problem
that
it
highlights
and
that's
the
point
you're
making-
and
I
don't
know
where
those
proposed
solutions
go
because
I
think
they're
worth
committing.
Even
if
we
don't
accept
them,
I
don't
think
they
have
to
turn
into
a
best
practice,
but
I
because
I
think
they
want
their
discussion
recording
as
we
you
know,
we
do
use
multiplexes
or
we
don't
use
multiplexes
for
these
reasons
and
there's
no
obvious
place
to
put
that
stuff
yet
so
that
might
be
a
topic.
A
Okay,
yeah
thanks.
So
unless
there's
any
last
raging
descents
on
this
call,
I
think
we
can
merge.
This
pull
request
can.
B
So
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
you
point
out
was
make
sure
and
approve
if
you've
gone
through,
the
discussion
use
the
pr
approval
process.
Click
do
the
review
and
click
approve
at
the
top
whenever
you're
interacting
and
if
you're
adding
comments
about
the
that's
specific
to
the
content
on
the
pr.
B
Yeah,
I
think
a
lot
of
people
have
been
doing
that
and
then
once
it's
done,
then
ian
or
whoever's
on
the
pull
request
can
mark
those
as
approved
or
resolved
and
and
then
we
know
it's
completed
at
the
end.
Yep
any
objections
to
merging
that
one.
A
So
yeah,
I
think
so
thanks
for
thanks
to
ian
for
putting
together
our
first
use
case
getting
that
across
the
line.
So
I'm
looking
forward
to
see
how
this
kind
of
move
forwards,
and
hopefully
we
can
have
more
standards
around
how
we
can
improve
things
going
forwards.
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
for
people
that
missed
it.
A
There
is
the
self
nominations
went
out
to
the
list
on
friday,
so
if
you're
looking
to
be
either
a
coacher
or
a
tech
lead,
the
nomination
period
will
end
on
monday
march
8th.
Basically,
you
need
to
send
a
brief
pitch,
which
includes
your
name,
contact
information,
seat,
you're
interested
in
and
basically
a
supporting
statement
for
either
the
co-chair
or
the
tech
lead.
So
just
a
reminder
for
anyone.
That's
interested!
D
B
Probably
more
part
of
the
election
part.
So
if
you're
saying
I'm
good
at
all
tech,
it's
not
going
to
be
as
useful
as
I
I
work
on
a
lot
of
use
cases
and
in
this
area
and
I'd
really
like
to
help
drive
the
deployment
use
cases
and
or
something
like
that
or
I'm
familiar
with
kubernetes
specific
networking.
And
I
want
to
help
bridge
the
gap
for
the
knowledge
there
or
something.
B
B
We're
moving
forward
with
the
higher
level
topics
and
and
people
are
getting
their
ideas
across
and
whatever
else,
and
then
that
the
tech
leads
are
helping
to
make
sure
that
we're
going
into
enough
details.
If
we're
saying
do,
we
know
enough
on
a
certain
area
to
start
adopting.
This
is
a
solid
set
of
use
cases
so
that
we
can
break
it
down
or
here's
a
best
practice.
Have
we
covered
enough
in
the
areas
so
to
help
help
with
all
that,
before
a
best
practice
is
put
forward.
G
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
this
specificity
of
the
tech
leads
right
which
part
of
the
project.
We
don't
really
have
a
comprehensive
list
right.
We
don't
really
have
a
scope
of
all
the
parts
of
this
project
and
would
be
applied
to
each.
I
I
kind
of
feel
like
at
this
stage.
At
least
it's
probably
best
that
the
tech
leads
would
be
untitled
beyond
the
fact
that
they're
tech
leads,
because
we
have
people
with
a
lot
of
different
experiences
in
different
realms.
It's
it's
not
like.
D
Your
nominee
yeah,
I'm
wondering
whether
we
tie
this
back
to
what
we
were
talking
about
earlier
with.
Who
is
who
do
we
draw
our
approvers
for,
for
you
know,
try
and
get
things
in
within
a
handful
of
weeks,
so
you
might
argue
that
what
we've
got
here
is
we
want
a
list
of
approvers
from
which
we
draw
tech
leads,
and
that
would
work
better.
G
D
As
a
specialized
approver
of
some
variety-
yes,
you
know
we'd
expect
them
to
specialize
and
then
they
would
lead
in
a
certain
area.
Once
we
worked
out
what
those
areas
are,
but
right
now
we
just
need
them
to
sign
up
to
be
approvers,
that
you
know
they're,
they
are
gatekeepers
and
they
give
their
attention
to
the
backlog.
G
I
I
feel
uncomfortable
even
with
a
word
gatekeeper
here.
I
think
everybody
is
a
group
here,
and
even
people
who
don't
have
time
maybe
to
become
tech
leads,
would
also
like
to
be
involved
in
and
have
a
say.
I
think
I
think,
as
a
whole,
we're
gatekeepers.
D
D
G
Bill,
maybe
you
can
clarify
more
what
you
mean
by
by
tech,
leads
what
role
you
think
they'll
serve.
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
those
are
the
people
in
the
community
that
we
look
to
that.
Have
the
deep
technical
knowledge
and
like
to
dive
into
things,
and
I
think,
potentially,
how
that
could
tie
into
our
conversation
from
earlier.
Is
that,
like
you'd
need
at
least
like,
like
one
approval
from
a
tech
lead
and
like
a
couple
from
like
the
community,
and
so
like?
Those
are
the
people
on
the
project
that
have
like
the
diamond
expertise
to
dive
into
like?
Is
this
like
a
really
a
best
practice
or
not.
B
Area,
I
think
that,
just
when
you're
saying
off
the
cough,
I'm
just
off
the
top
of
my
head
right
now,
it's
that
sounds
like
a
an
area
that
would
be
okay,
just
saying
I
have
experience
in
this
case
in
network
orchestration
side
and
whatever
else,
and
I
think
this
would
be
a
good
area
for
us
to
make
sure
that
we've
covered
and
we
can
go
into
this
like
if
you,
let's
see
the
wording
here,
it's
a
little
bit
harder.
B
B
So
this
is
just
a
general
sig
level
and
you
can
see
them
all
slight
variations
on
on
the
different
ones
like
sig,
security
and
stuff.
Of
course,
there's
six.
But
it's
the
same
idea.
So
what
you're
saying
tal
in
my
mind
could
fit
so
we're
saying
orchestration
is
important.
B
B
I
wouldn't
say
it's
the
lead
of
the
task
force.
It
would
probably
be
tech
lead
for
network
orchestration,
kubernetes
network
orchestration
right
task
force
is
an
informal
name.
Well
the
task
force.
I
would
just
say
that
happens
to
be
there,
but
if
the
task
force
went
away,
we
would
still
care
about
network
orchestration.
G
Well,
I
feel
like
I
have
to
think
about
this.
I
I
regarding
network
orchestration,
specifically,
I
kind
of
feel
cnf
working
group
is
a
temporary
place
for
it,
while
we
figure
out
better
what
we
want
to
do
so
for
me,
maybe
committing
to
this
role
and
responsibility
here.
G
Anyway,
I'm
thinking
out
loud,
but
what
do
you
guys
think
do
you
think
it
would
be
important
to
have
a
tech
lead
dealing
with
orchestration
in
the
group.
D
I
I
think
you
need
to
use
a
more
clear
word
than
simply
orchestration
exactly
we.
We
said
more
before
that,
there's
the
orchestration
of
the
cnf
and
the
way
the
cnf
uses,
whatever
the
platform
provides
to
it.
But
the
point
about
this
is
for
this
sort
of
thing.
You
need
to
be
working
holistically.
You
you
need
to
understand
the
consequences
for
the
rest
of
this,
that
isn't
orchestration
so
until
we've
kind
of
got
through
that
process.
D
If
I
ask
you
how
I
start
cnf,
then
obviously
you
will
talk
to
me
about
how
it
needs
to
plumb
itself
into
the
network
and
what
implications
that
has.
But
what
you
don't
necessarily
get
from
that
is.
There
are
101
ways
of
doing
that
without
respecting
boundaries
between
cnfs.
You
know
I
can
just
dive
in
and
do
dangerous
things
and
and
holistically.
D
While
that
gets
you
past
the
orchestration
problem,
it
doesn't
take
account
of
the
other
areas
that
it
might
affect.
So
that's
a
reason
why
I
think
this
needs
to
be
looked
at
with
the
viewpoint
of
actually
I
don't
much
care
about
orchestration.
I
just
care
the
whole
system
works
before
you
start
saying:
here's
the
orchestration
task.
We
need
to
go
off
and
fix.
G
Sure
yeah
it's
a
big
category
and,
as
you
know,
I
I
very
specifically
want
to
focus
on
one
specific
area
right.
The
networking
part
orchestrating
cns
as
a
whole
and
network
services
is
a
huge
component
too,
and
but
I
think
it's
separate,
but
but
I
think
I
tend
to
agree
with
you.
I
think
if
we
start
right
now
delineating
all
the
various
topics
that
we
should
have
a
tech
lead.
That's
basically
defining
the
scope
of
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here.
It's
equivalent.
B
Tell
wheat,
I
would
refer
back
to
the
notes
when
I
had
the
discussion
about
the
task
force
and
breaking
it
down
into
smaller
parts
and
what
could
be
more
directly
applicable
right
now
in
the
cnf
working
group
and
then
just
think
about
the
areas
where
you
think
we
need
to
cover
and
dive
into.
So
what
are
areas
that
we're
going
to
miss
in
this
group?
B
If
we
don't
take
some
time
in
it
and
if
you
think
those
are
in
an
area
that
you
want
to
contribute,
then
that
would
be
where
I
would
you
could
put
it
forward
and
say
this
is
good,
I'm
already
looking
at
it.
I
have
a
passion
for
this
and
I'd
like
to
help
make
sure
that
we
go
deeply
enough
and
look
at
enough
options
that
we're
making
good
informed
decisions.
G
B
Yeah-
and
it
could
also
absolutely
so
if
you
have
a
passion
about
something,
it's
better
to
do-
that
than
say
you're
being
assigned
to
this
area
that
you
don't
like
at
all
and
don't
think
is
important.
So
for
sure
that,
and
the
other
part
in
this
is
we
may
have
multiple
tech
leads
in
an
area
that
are,
you
may
be
researching
on
one
topic.
Someone
else
may
say:
I'm
really
want
to
cover
like
victor's,
been
mentioning
the
multis
and
other
things.
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
can
go
over
to
the
voting
pr
now,
and
so
this
is
how
it's
like
this
is
my
first
idea
of
how
it
could
happen.
A
A
Is
to
have
organizational
voting,
so
this
came
out
of
the
fluentd
project
just
so
that
people
kind
of
have
the
background
where
each
company
organization
has
one
vote,
and
you
feel
like
this
leads
to
unbalanced
representation.
D
D
D
F
D
D
F
A
Yeah
so
you're
saying
the
cncf
voting
member.
D
Well,
the
other
thing
I
mean
about
this
aside
from
that,
and
I
I
see
the
logic
here
right.
It
means
you
can't
be
overwhelmed
by
numbers
from
a
given
organization
and
I'm
not
saying
that's
a
bad
thing.
I
think
that's
quite
sensible,
but,
conversely,
it
seems
to
give
a
very
peculiar
power,
dynamic
anybody
who's
from
a
a
startup
or
an
individual
contributor
who's,
not
currently
working
for
an
involved
company
suddenly
has
equivalent
power
of
any
large
company
whose
you
know
lifeblood
and
day.
D
A
D
The
other
proposal
I
would
have
is
you
get
rid
of
the
you:
ignore
the
organization
side
of
things
and
instead
you
to
deal
with
people
individually
and
you
measure
them
by
what
they're
doing
that
they're
doing
something
that
they're
contributing.
B
F
B
Or
they
just
say:
okay,
this
is
how
much
it'll
cost
us
right.
Exactly
that's
what
that
works,
trying
to
say
that
taylor
without
I'm
gonna,
go
ahead
and
put
it
forward.
Yeah
thanks,
though,
for
setting
it
up,
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
so
one
thing
that
we're
going
to
have
to
do
this
isn't
going
to
be
only
free
form
what
we
want.
We
want
to
be
aligned
with
the
tfc
cncfts,
and
there
are
rules
about
that.
J
J
Yeah
there
isn't,
there
is
no
exact
voting
system
that
will
give
us
all
the
that
will
unearth
all
the
intentions
that
we
that
we
want
as
a
community
there.
Every
single
voting
system
has
its
problems,
so
this
actually
comes
down
to
is
which
one
minimizes
as
much
as
possible.
Some
of
the
outliers
all
at
the
same
time
ensuring
a
legitimacy
of
of
the
of
the
group
and
it's
it's
a
hard
balance.
F
J
A
Yeah,
so
if
anybody
has
a
better
idea
of
how
we
should
do
this
or
they
think
they
have
an
idea
of
how
we
can
make
this
more
fair
to
the
community
or
create
a
better
democracy,
I
would
be
very
happy
to
hear
it.
E
Well,
probably,
it's
it's
something
related,
but
do
we
have
a
number
of
positions,
or
at
least
or
like
how
many
techniques
are
going
to
consider
for
for
these.
B
C
A
H
J
Yeah,
we
may
have
the
exact
opposite
problem
of
not
having
enough
people,
and
then
this
type
of
conversation
could
be
possibly
postponed,
and
I-
and
I
think
the
the
more
important
question
is-
is
to
make
sure
that
we
scope
down
the
the
powers
properly
like
we.
We
don't
want
these
people
to
be
king
makers.
We
want
them
to
be
facilitators,
and
this.
J
This
also
means
that
we
want
that
they
they
should
not
be
there
in
a
role
to
basically
squash
things
that
are
that
are
not
aligned
with
their
company
and
not
that.
I
would
expect
people
to
here
to
do
that,
but
we
have
to
take
this
type
of
things
into
consideration
for
the
long-term
health
of
the
of
the
project,
so
it
it
becomes
some.
J
A
A
A
A
A
Okay
and
then
ian
do
you
want
to
this
is
the
kind
of
discussion
from
earlier
so.
A
D
D
We
have
best
practices
that
say
this
is
our
personal
preference
or
you
know
industry-wide
recognit
recommendation
for
how
it
should
be
done,
which
might
well
be
simply
you
do
this
and
it
will
cost
you
less
to
do
or
I
in
many
of
these
areas
is
obviously
going
to
be
you
do
it
this
way,
because
we
need
everybody
to
do
it
the
same
way
in
order
to
get
the
most
benefit,
but
there's
the
bit
in
the
middle,
which
is,
I
could
do
it
this
way.
Is
that
a
good
idea?
D
D
Maybe
it's
perfect,
maybe
it's
imperfect.
Maybe
it
needs
a
ton
of
changes.
Maybe
it's
not
the
only
thing
you
need.
Where
do
I
put
that
down
so
that
it's
on
record.
B
We
already
have
a
docs
directory
and
I
I
think
we
could
put
any
type
of
documentation
that
helps
bring
context
into
there
if
nothing
else.
If
it's,
if
you
think,
there's
additional
context,
it's
more
specific
to
a
use
case,
but
it
isn't
required
for
the
use
case.
B
You
could
put
it
in
a
the
use
case,
folder
like
within
within
the
subfolder
of
your
use
case
in
the
in
the
use
case:
folder
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
where
you
want
to
get
in
and
talk
about
like
here's,
a
here's,
a
implementation
that
I'm
wanting
to
talk
about
and
maybe
examine
how
it
would
work.
Then
I
would
say
boot
those
completely
out
and
my
first
suggestion
would
be
the
cnf
testbed,
which
is
it
was
designed
for
that.
B
So
you
could
have
three
or
four
implementations
of
an
idea
using
different
multiplexers
or
using
different
transport
protocols
like
we
had
some
using
mm-if
and
different
kernel
interfaces
and
flat
network
and
bridge
networks.
They're
all
the
same
top
level
idea
of
a
use
case
but
implemented
differently,
and
those
are
we
have
it
broken
up.
Like
is
this
kind
of
the
workload
infrastructure
pieces
or
the
main
part
was
going
into
the
use
case
folder
there
and
that
it
was
designed
for
that
and
then,
if
we
get
down
to
a
very,
very
specific
best
practice
test.
B
That's
what
the
test
suite
the
cnf
test
suite
is
for,
but
I
would
say
right
now:
those
would
be
the
two
areas
for
code
and,
if
you
click
on
the
use
case,
bill
go
and
like
that
top
one,
three
c2
in
three
chains,
two
nodes.
I
think
this
one
yeah
so
michael
from
intel.
This
is
one
that
he
helped
build
and
you
you
have
the
communication.
What
is
this
test
case
that
was
built?
You
know
around
the
use
case
idea
and
what
is
the
actual
implementation
that
was
used
talking
about
a
more?
B
This
was
a
more
specific
area,
not
a
big
big
use
case,
but
in
a
very
small
set
than
what
what
was
a
test
case,
and
there
was
other
test
cases
that
implemented
this
in
different
ways,
and
you
can
see
it
talks
all
about
it.
How
is
it
done?
How
do
you
actually
test
it?
It
used
nfv
bench
to
run
and
do
the
packet
generation.
B
B
B
D
Okay,
I
think
the
answer
is.
We
will
need
these.
There
is
no
point
in
giving
them
a
place
of
their
own
just
yet
they
might
get
one
in
the
future.
It
doesn't
matter
terribly
much
if
they
do
or
they
don't,
and
we
can
attach
them
either
to
the
user
stories
in
the
user
story
directory
or
we
can
attach
them
in
general,
in
the
docs
to
the
docs
directory,
and
if
we
decide
to
move
them
around
in
the
future.
We'll
just
do
a
bit
of
a.