►
From YouTube: CNF WG Meeting 2021-03-22
Description
CNF WG Meeting 2021-03-22
A
I'm
actually
going
in
about
like
just
over
a
month,
so
I'm
very
excited
to
be
going
home.
For
the
first
time
in
like
a
year
and
a
half.
B
A
A
Thanks
everybody
for
joining
today,
we'll
get
started
a
little
bit
after
the
hour
to
allow
people
time
to
join.
If
you
want
to
put.
C
A
D
D
D
Hi
all
we'll
give
until
five
after
the
meeting
notes
are
in
the
zoom
chat,
I'll
repost
for
those
who've
just
joined.
Oh
that's
my
name.
That's
not!
Let's
try
again
paste
there.
We
go
and
you
can
add
your
name
and
whatever
agenda.
D
D
A
Okay,
it's
five
after
thanks
everyone
for
joining
today.
In
case
you
got
lost
on
the
way
here.
This
is
the
weekly
meeting
of
the
cnf
working
group,
and
in
case
you
don't
have
the
meeting
notes
already,
I'm
going
to
put
it
in
the
chat
so
that
you
can
have
it
before
we
jump
in.
Is
there
anything
anyone
would
like
to
add
to
the
agenda.
A
Hearing
nothing
we
can
probably
jump
in
then
so
the
first
thing
is
the
use
case
template
that
book
put
together.
In
case
people
were
on
the
call.
Last
week
we
said
we
were
ready
to
merge
this
one.
Once
book
had
taken
out
his
use
case,
so
we
could
have
them
in
two
separate
pr's,
and
he
did
that.
So
thank
you
look
for
doing
that
earlier.
C
A
Cool,
so
I
know
I
saw
that
book
was
on
the
call,
so
thank
you
for
creating
the
use
case,
template
and
so
for
people
that
are
new
or
don't
remember
what
this
is.
A
A
The
second
question
I
had
for
a
book
is,
I
know,
you've
already
written
up
a
use
case.
Did
you
want
to?
Did
you
have
a
port
and
then
you
pulled
it
out?
Are
you
going
to
make
that
as
a
separate
pull
request
now.
E
Yeah,
actually,
I
was
looking
to
to
close
this
merge
request
and
remove
the
branch
and
I'll
create
a
new
branch
and
put
that
another
use
case
actually
example
as
a
new
pull
request.
Okay,
so
I
didn't
create
it.
Maybe
in
the
course
of
the
call
I
could
just
push
it
and
I
can
present
what
it
is,
but
I
didn't
prepare.
A
Cool,
thank
you
so
then
the
second
one
is,
we
talked
about
last
week
about
the
elections,
about
how
it'd
be
helpful,
to
have
some
type
of
deadline
for
legal
in
terms
of
getting
stuff
in
and
essentially
this
is
a
one-line
change
about
interested
parties,
so
interested
parties
can
be
out
at
any
time
but
must
be
added
at
least
one
week
before
in
the
elections
to
have
a
vote
and
so
right
now,
taylor.
I
saw.
D
Oh,
was
it
14
minutes
ago,
so
I
haven't
read
this
yet.
This
is
just
new
because
I'm
trying
to
catch
up
this
week
since.
D
I
was
reading
a
lot
of
the
slack
messages
and
it
seemed
like
there
was
still
a
discussion
around
what
individuals
versus
parties
and
how
that
affected
voting
and
all
the
other
things
and
it's
it
seems
like
we
may
have
other
areas
that
aren't
that
may
not
be
counted
anyways.
I'm
mainly
wanting
to
make
sure
we're
clear
if
this
section
is
really
going
to
be,
you
have
to
be
listed,
or
you
get
no
vote,
then
that
I
think,
is
really
important
for
everyone
to
have.
A
A
And
why
I
guess
maybe
to
give
the
context
about
this-
was
the
problem
that
some
people
are
running
into
is
in
like
larger
companies
they're
like
okay,
why
do
we
need
to
add
like
when's
the
deadline
for
like
doing
this?
You
know
if
there
isn't
any
deadline,
then
it's
not
going
to
get
done
and
so
it'd
be
easier.
If
there
is
hey,
you
need
to
be
in
by
this
time.
Otherwise
you
don't
get
a.
A
D
I
know
that
we
need
to
have
some
way
of
of
knowing
who's
eligible
to
vote
and
it
that
makes
sense.
I
I'm
just
not
clear
on
that,
for
this
being
the
way
to
do
it,
interested
party
and
other,
I
may
have
misread
or
misunderstood
other
cncf
and
kubernetes
groups
that
have
the
interested
party
section,
but
I
wasn't
attaching
that
to
voting
eligibility.
A
A
D
D
It
makes
sense
why
it's
listed
there
yeah-
I
I
guess
I'm
concerned
that
about
and
making
sure
that
we're,
including
everybody,
yeah
right
now
it
when
we
first
created
that
section
the.
I
think
the
main
purpose
was
around
communicating
the
interest
from
organizations
in
the
industry,
so
yeah
anyone.
You
know
other
companies
coming
in
that
go.
Oh,
I
see
that
they're
involved
and
what
is
this
about
and
they
get
involved
or
cncf
orgs
or
you
know
other
projects
they
go.
D
D
F
D
Right
yeah,
I
I
agree
with
you
so
the
I
guess
some
of
the
comments
and
the
slack
that
the
slack
channel
for
cnn
freaking
group
are
about
individuals
and
groups,
and
how
do
we
deal
with
all
these
things,
and
mainly
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
that's
involved
in
trying
to
contribute
we'll
have
a
vote
so
yes
to
tie
it
in
with
the
company
stuff
that
we
already
have
if
you're
part
of
the
same
company.
D
We
already
deal
with
that
in
the
charter,
but
if,
if
your
company
name
is
not
listed
and
somewhere
or
you
or
you're,
not
involved
with
a
company
directly
and
it's
you're,
an
individual,
it
seemed
we
need
to
make
sure
that
people
are
there.
So
if
it's
part
of
interested
parties,
fine,
let's
just
make
sure
everybody's
listed,
I
believe
we
have
a
potentially
a
subset
of
voters.
Right
now
is
my
main.
D
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
tried
to
kind
of
follow
up
with
everybody
last
week
that
has
been
on
the
call
to
add
them
as
an
interested
party,
but
if
other
people
would
like
to
add
themselves
we're
not
trying
to
discourage
participation,
I
guess
also
kind
of
related
to
this
discussion
is
this
issue
that
was
brought
up
last
week
of
what
does
it
actually
mean
to
be
an
interested
party,
because,
right
now
it
gives
you
voting
rights.
A
But
do
you
have
any
like
obligations
was
kind
of
the
question
because
some
people
are
struggling
to
get
it
through
their
legal
department?
Is
there
anything
you
have
to
worry
about?
If
you
have
your
name
listed
there.
G
A
I
guess
the
question
kind
of
once
we
get
like
off
the
ground.
A
I'm
certainly
happy
to
like
help
with
that
too.
I
think
kind
of
once
we
get
this
through
this
election
cycle.
I
think
the
co-chairs
will
be
in
a
good
position
to
help,
hopefully
like
lead
the
community
to
the
next
level
of
governance.
I
think.
A
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
great
content
in
the
cloud
native
community
already
stuff
like
this.
Maybe
I'll
add
these
to
like
the
issues
right
now
and
also
coming
out
of
sig
contributor
strategy
that.
D
We
can
look
at
and
bill
the
voters
markdown
that
you
have
is
related
to
the
steering
committee
just
to
make
that
clear
so
that
elections
md
is
the
process
and
the
2020
voters.
Markdown
actually
is
the
list
of
eligible
voters
so
that
I
guess
the
one
of.
D
To
point
out,
in
the
what
was
eligible
voters
for
the
kubernetes
steering
committee
yeah,
a
combination
of
things,
so
in
my
mind
this
would
maybe
be
similar
to
what
we
would
could
do.
Potentially
this
is
more
complex
than
just
doing
interested
parties
this
year.
That's
fine,
but
the
idea
would
be.
You
could
have
interested
parties
combined
with
contributors
that
have
been
making
pull
requests,
they're
not
listed
as
interested
parties,
but
we
want
to
accept
them
too.
D
Right
so
that
you
can
go
through
all
this,
but
on
that
voter's
md
it
it
kind
of
says
what
it
is.
So
you
have
this
list
of
of
people
that
were
doing
contributions
that
are
shown
with
death
stats.
So
that's
the
cncf
project
actually
looks
at
contributions
with
commits
and
then
a
list
of
other
eligible
voters
that
were
added
for
other
reasons
that
met
other
criteria.
A
Yeah,
I
guess,
is
there
anybody
on
the
call
that
feels
like
they
aren't
represented
right
now
in
the
interest
parties
and
would
like
to
have
a
vote
in
the
election
and
here's.
Here's
who
it
is
for
this.
The
only
person
I
don't
have
a
contact
for
is
someone
at
chiang
mai,
telecom
and
so
aiden
has
been
on
the
call
before
but
didn't
have
any
contact
info.
So
I
don't
have
any
contact
info
for
someone
there.
A
And
is
there
anybody
else
on
the
call
that
would
like
to
vote?
That's
not
on
this
list
right
now,
because
the
ballots
will
be
going
out
later
today.
A
D
H
I
think
metric
and
myself,
like
randolph.
I
think
we
are
joining
this
meeting
for
the
first
time
from
from
google,
so
happy
to
be
added
that
we're
just
observing.
A
J
A
Yeah,
it's
it's
out
of
alphabetical
order,
that's
correct!
It's!
Maybe
somebody
can
do
that
in
the
background
like
okay
and
once.
A
I
and
then
I
can
merge
that
at
the
end
of
this
meeting.
A
Okay,
is
there
anyone
else
on
the
call
that
would
like
to
be
added
so
in
case
you
missed
it.
We
added
vault,
co-op,
infracloud,
google
and
atnt.
F
Can
I
suggest
something
since
the
charter
is
going
to
be
static,
while
the
interested
parties
will
change?
You
may
want
to
keep
this
as
a
separate
addendum
yeah,
which.
G
G
A
A
A
A
K
K
A
K
C
K
Like
if
you
just
go
into
the
main
dock,
you'll
see
like
it's
just
a
few
things
tvd
based
on
what
we
know,
we
need
things
that
are
going
to
be
contentious,
which
is
probably
going
to
be
most
things
just
based
on.
Like
the
last
two
years
of
what
I've
seen
I
would,
I
would
do
definitions
for
things
that
are
new,
nebulous
or
people
assume
are
preexisting
as
either
issues
or
discussions
and
then
create
individual
prs
for
those
definitions
else.
We
will
have
an
empty
glossary.
K
I
think
for
like
the
next
eight
months,
so
yeah,
the
only
one
I
left
in
there
is
the
kubernetes
one
I
mean
if
people
really
want
to
argue
with
the
people
who
you
know
host
kubernetes.io,
I
guess
we
can
have
that
discussion,
but
I
figured
that
would
be
the
one
least.
K
One
yeah
I
stripped
everything
out,
so
we
can
get
the
template
and
people
can
start
starting
discussions
start
making
pull
requests.
So
my
pr
ended
up
becoming
pretty
lackluster
all
things
considered,
but
we
could
at
least
get
it
in
place
and
then
start
working
from.
There
is
kind
of
my
thought.
K
I
also
in
the
notes
I
linked
so
me
with
my
clairvoyance.
I
started
a
discussion
right
at
the
beginning
of
this
group,
saying
if
we
don't
define
this
we're
going
to
fight
about
it
later,
and
here
we
are
so.
F
K
Already
some
thoughts
in
there
for
people
to
continue
to
rehash
at
least
what
a
cnf
is,
and
then
you
know
we
can
move
on
to
things
like
cubenative,
etc.
A
D
Yeah
structure
sounds
good,
and
ideally,
we
can
focus
on
stuff,
like
that,
the
more
specific
things
where
we
can
agree
on
and
get
those
in
place
where
there
may
be
different
terms
that
have
been
using
across,
like
I
think
one
of
the
items
was
use
cases
that
were
using
different
terms,
but
they
actually
meant
the
same
thing.
They
were
just
different
terms,
so
dealing
with
those
early
on
with
new
with
new
pr's
would
be
good.
D
A
I
guess
maybe
in
the
interest
of
kind
of
getting
this
off
the
ground,
so
we
can
kind
of
start.
Those
discussions
is.
Does
anybody
have
any
major
concerns
about
merging
this
as
it
is
like?
A
K
I
just
hadn't
got
to
it
yet
so
I
don't
know
if
there
is
a
way
to
do
that,
but
we
just
we
can
remove
the
kubernetes.I
o
and
just
put
some
type
of
indicator
that
you
know
obviously
makes
a
connection
down
to
that
reference
down.
There.
J
No
no
bill
in
in
the
the
definition
after
the
definition
is
like
yeah,
the
last
class
part
yeah.
K
I
just
put
it
in
as
a
temporary
placeholder
to
like
kind
of
tag
it,
but
we
there
should
be
like
something
to
wear
like
if
we're
pulling
a.
What
have
you
directly
out
of
something
a
more
you
know
proper
citation
methodology?
I
just
did
that
quick,
keep
it
as
a
placeholder.
K
Well,
if
you
and
down
in
the
references
there
is,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
do
it,
because
the
link
is
down
in
the
references
we
just
need
like.
I
didn't
want
to
do
the
numbering
thing
yet,
because
these
are
going
to
change
a
bunch,
and
I
don't
want
to
have
to
constantly
update
like
the
numbering
order,
based
on
like
reference
some
stuff,
but
like
in.
C
K
K
Us
to
show,
because
I
think
we
should
do
small
citations
in
the
definitions
and
then
build
out
the
references
at
the
bottom.
That
way
people
can
go
like
yeah
down
there.
They
can
go.
A
A
D
The
same
and
if
someone
wants
to
come
back
through
and
go,
oh
here's
how
to
do
it
mark
down
like
saying
I
don't
he
didn't
know
how
to
do
superscript
or
whatever,
then,
if
someone
wants
to
put
something
in,
they
can
link
it.
A
A
Yeah,
I
guess,
does
anybody
have
a
problem
with
like
merging
the
like
the
glossary
as
it
is.
A
So
thanks
jeffrey
for
putting
that
together
and
I
look
forward
to
the
discussions
to
come
out
of
this.
A
Cool
yeah,
the
next
one
is
the
issue
that
created.
G
I
will
throw
it
into
I'll
put
that
as
a
section
in
the
charter
and
request
together,
but
not
the
only
pull
request.
I've
got
on
my
job
list,
but
yes,
indeed,
okay,
based
on
comments
so
far
I'll,
take
out
the
commentary
and
basically
leave
it
in
pretty
much,
as
is,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
need
to
change
the
wording.
Everybody's.
F
A
Cool,
I
guess
the
only
thing
we
really
have
left
is
the
elections,
but
before
we
jump
into
that,
I
guess
look.
Have
you
had
a
chance
to
make
your
pull
request.
E
You
use
kcm,
okay
cool.
Do
you
want
to
just
maybe.
C
E
Show
it
with
the
no
no
three
dots
click,
three
dots
on
the
on
the
right,
yeah
and
then
view
file.
I
think
that's
the
best
way
to
run
it
yeah.
I
I
don't
expect
this
to
be
merged
now,
but
would
use
the
chance
to
to
explain
a
little
bit
what
I
had
in
mind
behind.
E
So
that's
essentially
a
use
case,
which
I
am
in
my
function
very
much
close
to
and
I'm
seeing
every
day
of
frictions
coming
out
of
of
that
in
a
real
production
and
the
real
deployment
environment,
which
is
essentially,
how
do
you
you
know?
E
What's
the
relation
between
a
cloud
native
network
function
and
underlying
infrastructure,
and
the
expectation
of
that
is
normally
that
cloud
native
network
function
can
tolerate
a
lot
and
would
not
be
dependent
on
many
things,
and
this
is
actually
what
I
try
to
describe.
E
So
in
terms
of
involved
processes,
we
have
operations
and
life
cycle
management,
but
indirectly
it
is
going
to
give
a
feedback
to
the
development
and
the
deployment,
and
I
just
wanted
to
elaborate
the
use
case
in
its
core
and
not
to
to
touch
everything.
So
essentially,
here
we
have
a
two
roles
and
then
personas
involved
the
the
cnf
devops
team
at
the
at
the
csp
or
or
operator
side
and
cloud
native
platform.
E
I
know
that
it
is
going
to
create
some
discussion
intentionally
use
it
here
and
we
can
maybe
throw
it
for
the
definitions
to
the
to
the
jeffries
document,
but
I
I
said
intentionally
cloud
native
platform
devops.
So
this
is
a
team
that
manages
and
develops
and
operates
the
infrastructure
for
that
for
the
involvement
system
entities
we
have
a
platform,
meaning
infrastructure.
We
have
a
cnf,
we
have
a
ci
cd
and
then
monitoring
and
essentially
the
thing
is
that
there
are
certain
patterns
which
I
described
here.
E
I
would
call
everybody
to
to
take
some
time
to
to
read
it.
But
briefly
summarize
there
are
some
patterns
when
you
have
a
infrastructure
that
is
built
for
a
cloud
native
applications
and
cloud
native
workloads,
it
assumes,
or
it
behaves
in
a
certain
way.
It's
according
to
the
best
practices,
immutable
declarative.
E
It's
not
highly
available,
doesn't
pretend
to
be
but
offers
all
the
mechanisms
for
high
availability
to
be
realized
on
application
side.
E
And
then,
when
you
have
such
infrastructure,
there
are
certain
lifecycle,
events
that
are
happening
that
are
assuming
that
application
can
without
degraded
performance
or
degraded
function,
handle
those,
and
this
is
what
would
be
expected
behavior
if
you
scroll
down
a
bit,
so
the
expected
behavior
would
be
that
the
cnf
can
cope
well
with
all
situations
that
are
happening
in
the
infrastructure,
especially
on
the
node
level.
E
So
one
of
the
the
main
highlights
here
main
topic
here
is
when
one
or
more
nodes
in
the
kubernetes
clusters
are
away
going
away
and
then
being
drained,
and
then
reshuffled
left
and
right
cnf
should
be
capable
to
bear
it
without
visible
impact
on
that,
and
another
thing
is
the
the
cnf
should
be
able
to
say
if,
after
changing
the
infrastructure,
it
is
still
feeling
okay
or
not,
and
not
to
wait
like
whatever
certification
and
stuff
to
happen.
So
this
is
currently
what
would
be
expected
behavior.
E
E
Maybe
have
dependencies
on
the
hardware
on
the
particular
nodes
and
so
on,
and
this
is
not
what
I
would
consider
being
cloud
native,
at
least
in
respect
to
the
relation
of
application
to
infrastructure
and
the
cnfs
are
also
still
following
to
the
large
extent,
this
systems
integrated
approach
which
doesn't
leave
you
the
trends
when
you
change
your
infrastructure
on
a
weekly
or
bi-weekly
or
monthly
level,
doesn't
give
you
a
chance
to
still
be
sure
you
need
to
wait
the
certification
cycles
and
so
on.
E
So
that's
that's
a
situation
practices
I
didn't
deal
with,
and
I
just
put
here
so
because
we
now
need
to
to
probably
use
that
as
inspiration
to
discuss
about
some
best
practices,
and
then
we
can
refer
them
here
where
that
not
available.
Is
I
just
highlighted
in
this
last
part
of
the
template?
E
So
I
think
it
would
be
fair
to
say
that
it's
something
that
would
require
people
to
read
through
and
then
to
comment.
So
I
don't
know
how
much
of
the
discussion
we
can
have
now,
because
it's
very
fresh.
I
E
I
I
E
I
mean
this
is
now
you
are
going
into
into
a
particular
example
behind
this
use
case,
maybe
or
that's
related
to
use
case
with
a
specific
set
of
assumptions.
E
I
think
that
things
like
that
could
be
discussed
or
should
be
discussed.
Actually,
if
it's,
if
it's
and
it's
a
valid
input
or
valid
concern
from
from
your
side,
we
should
think
of
how
how
do
we
handle
those
in
terms
of
like?
E
Do
we
discuss
that
in
a
pr
or
do
we
have
some
breakout
sessions
or
something
because
there
are
a
couple
of
ideas
that
come
to
my
mind
where
your
question
is
coming
from
and,
for
example,
on
that
particular
case,
we
see
a
lot
of
today's
cnfs
are
simply
using
and
might
have
this
issue
with
the
accelerators
being
present
or
not
present,
because
they
rely
on
dpdk
and
sriv,
which
is
a
typically
the
the
the
virtualization
technology
that
got
ported
and
transported
into
the.
D
E
Native
world,
but
if
we
look
like
you
know
what
are
the
potential
alternatives?
What
are
more
cloud
native
alternatives?
We
might
come
to
xdp
to
ebpf
to
all
the
stuff,
but
this
is
all
going
into
already
going
into
into
best
practices,
which
is
not
the
the
purpose
of
of
use
case
use
case
should.
G
Trigger
the
discussion,
let
me
know
the
problems,
so
let
me
just
ask
a
couple
of
questions
which
might
help
here
a
bit.
One
is
right
if
we
imagine,
for
instance,
an
ip
second
point
right,
it
could
consume
a
an
accelerator
if
it
exists,
but
if
it
doesn't
exist
it
could
work
without
as
well.
So
that
would
be,
if
you
like,
two
flavors
of
that
ipsec
endpoint
and
there'll,
be
more
flavors,
there'll,
be
ones
that
run
you
know
higher
capacities
or
lower
capacities.
G
You
might
deploy
it
in
different
ways
depending
so
it
would
be
possible
to
say
well
a
solution
that
lets
you
run
with
or
without
an
accelerator.
If
an
accelerator
exists
is
more
flexible
to
us
than
one
that
that
exclusively
requires
you
can
only
run
with
an
accelerator
and
you
effectively
produce
another
accelerator,
another
cnf
for
the
without
use
case.
So
that's
one
thing,
but
then
the
other
thing-
and
I
haven't
read
this
yet
and
I
need
to
read
it-
is
the
important
thing
about
use
cases.
G
Is
they
don't
dictate
what
it
is
we
do
and
don't
do
they?
Let
us
score
what
we
should
and
shouldn't
be
doing
so
when
we
come
to
define
best
practices,
we
can
judge
them
by
the
use
case
saying
this
serves
this
use
case.
Well,
so
if
we
can
come
up
with
options
that
let
us
do
the
more
flexible
rather
than
the
less
flexible,
and
they
don't
have
significant
disadvantages,
then
that
might
make
them
a
best
practice
in
the
sense
that
it's
better
than
the
other
practices
that
we
can
think
of.
G
E
That's
that's
completely
right
and
if
bill
you
scroll
a
little
bit
down
not
up
down
yeah
these
challenges
so
essentially
the
best
practices
on
the
still
a
bit
up
on
the
next
chapter.
That's
not
visible
yeah,
so
I
think
the
use
cases
as
as
I
was
actually
working
on
it,
it's
a
subject
of
change,
but
it
is
a
situation
that
is
described
and
that
we
are
we
are
facing
and
then
the
challenges
and
limitations.
E
When
we
run
the
the
cnfs
in
kubernetes-
and
I
know
cumulative
we
need
to
discuss
still,
but
in
general
the
challenges
should
present
the
problem
for
best
practices
to
solve,
and
then
we
might
go
and
say:
okay,
how
do
we
address
this
challenge?
Number
one
and
challenge
number
one
of
use
case
number.
Seven,
you
know.
Is
there
a
best
practice
we
can
elaborate
on
that?
Is
that
really
best
practice,
or
can
we
have
a
consensus
and
so
on?
E
So
this
should
indeed,
as
jan
pointed
out,
stimulate
our
discussions,
and
I
think
I
could
say
that
there
is
no
even
reference
to
any
accelerator
in
in
this
one.
Maybe
there
is
if.
E
F
E
Is
essentially
what
it
refers
to
essentially
is.
Even
if
you
have
a
cluster
where
you
have
a
accelerators
on
each
node,
there
are
some
network
functions
that
would
do
a
node,
pinning
and
and
stick
to
one
node
for
them
to
function
properly
and
what
we
are
seeing
here
when
node
is
not
a
unit
of
availability,
when
node
could
be
like
rebooted
and
removed
out
of
the
cluster
every
like
a
couple
of
days.
E
How
is
application
making
sure
which
can
or
or
doesn't
need
to
use
accelerator
card
that
application
can
can
manage
this
ipsec,
for
example,
microservice
is,
let's
say,
horizontally
scaled
and
that
can
take
over
the
existing
sessions
that
we're
running
via
one
pod
by
another
pod,
which
is
still
healthy.
E
You
know
how
this
migration
could
happen
without
any
need
for
orchestration
from
top
or
or
dependency,
that
is
blocking
infrastructure
life
cycle
upgrades.
L
Yeah
so
one
paragraph
app,
you
do
say
that
the
application
should
continue
functioning
without
degradation
of
performance,
so
we
need
to
be
very
careful
in
the
use
case.
If
that's
the
requirement,
then
it
rules
out
a
lot
of
best
practices
yep.
Yes,
so
we
it's
important
that
we
agree
here
on
how
strict
we
want
the
use
cases
to
be.
L
L
Here
then,
it
really
limits
the
the
type
of
best
practices.
C
Up
for
more
best
practices
yeah,
I
was
going
to
bring
up
a
similar
thing
as
well
like,
and
this
depends
on
how
we
define
the
cnf.
So
in
order
to
avoid
the
definition
problem,
I'm
going
to
talk
about
a
specific
packet
treatment
or
specific
endpoint
that
is
handling
a
stream
of
data
for
this
particular
example.
C
As
a
as
a
thing
and
one
of
the
problems
that
we'll
run
into
is
that
there's
no
way
to
tell
it,
please
don't
reset
this
device
before
I
before
I
hand
it
off,
there's
also
issues
around
device
plug-in
in
terms
of
there's
no
easy
way
to
to
say
that
the
something
is
a
class
of
a
thing
like.
Maybe
you
have
a
bunch
of
100
megabit
nicks
and
you
want,
and
then
you
have
a
certain
set
that
are
one
gig
nicks.
They
all
connect
to
the
same
network.
C
You
want
to
consume
the
100s,
but
fail
over
to
the
one
gigs
which
are
more
expensive
if
you
run
out
of
out
of
100s
like
there's
no
easy
way
to
perform
these
type
of
tasks
within
the
device
plug-in
framework-
and
this
is
before
you
also
consider
the
the
relationship
or
the
lack
of
relationship
between
device
plug-in
and
the
cni.
C
So
we
want
to
be
careful
that
we
don't
conflate
the
overall
performance
of
the
system
with
any
given
endpoint
that
we
separate
these
two
things
out
into
two
separate
use.
Cases
like
I
might
say
I
have
a
kubernetes
cluster,
that's
acting
as
a
as
a
firewall
and
all
my
firewall
functions
are
distributed.
So
I
may
lose
a
pod,
and
maybe
I
have
some
slight
interruption
of
service
for
a
subset
of
my
of
my
systems
while
they
reconnect
but
in
the
product,
but
in
the
process.
I
still
have
my
uptime.
C
I
still
have
my
availability
for
most
of
my
applications
going
through
and
what
we
want
to
do
is
try
to
is
first
separate
these
things
out
and
then
simultaneously
provide
information
about
best
practices
like
if
you
want
to
achieve
the
capability
to
resume
the
sessions.
If
you
want
to
achieve
these
type
of
things,
then
we
can
dive
into
how
do
we?
How
do
we
achieve
that?
What
do
you
have
to
pay
in
order
to
achieve
those
particular
goals,
and
are
they
even
reasonable
goals
to
to
begin
with
in
this
particular
environment?
C
Maybe
maybe,
at
this
particular
point
with
the
current
kubernetes
infrastructure,
it
may
not
be
reasonable
to
hit
all
of
these
goals,
but
with
changes
per
maybe
in
or
out
of
kubernetes
or
things
that
are
associated
with
it.
Maybe
you
can
achieve
these
things
depending
on,
depending
on
future
advancements.
K
K
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
think
we
try
to
set
up
the
whole
three
different
like
domains
within
the
chairs
this,
and
that
is
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
conflicting
opinions.
There's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
divergent
requirements,
and
I
know
we've
gotten
a
little
bit
softer
on
the
whole,
whether
we're
grading
things
or
this
and
that,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
this
should
be
the
whole
entire
point
of
you
know.
K
Best
practices
is,
if
I
say
that
performance
you
know
has
to
meet
what
look,
but
in
expected,
behavior,
then
the
question
is:
is
it
a
feasible
requirement?
What
are
the
trade-offs
like?
Can
I
use
things
like
node
labels,
device,
plug-ins,
etc?
You
know
what
are
the
expectations
from
the
infrastructure,
but
if
we
have
something
that
like
doesn't
have
any
hard
stances
anywhere,
then
what
are
we
really
measuring
the
best
practices
against.
E
Good
situation
where
we
would
need
a
concrete
example,
because
this
is
now
very
very
high
level,
and
then
we
are
all
talking
from
certain
assumptions
that
we
have,
and
maybe
we
have
even
picture
when,
when
jeffrey
or
jan
are
talking,
maybe
they
have
even
picture
of
concrete
network
function,
concrete
situation
they
faced
and
that
they
see
difficulties
and
then
so
on.
E
So
this
is
where
the
discussion,
in
my
view,
could
get
very
tangible,
very,
very
specific,
and
this
is
why
we
need
also
those
examples
in
I
have
those
examples
as
well,
but
I'm
not
kind
of
the
owner
of
those
in
order
to
bring
them
like
specific
vendor
xyz
and
talk
about
them
here.
So
this
is
what
should
come
from
the
vendors
for
and
there
are
different
applications
or
sorry.
There
are
different
assumptions,
for
example,
when
I
say
we
need
to
unpack
it
when
I
say
without
degradation
of
performance.
E
I
have
something
specific
in
mind
and
I
didn't
detail
that
thing,
but
I'm
saying
if
you
have
a
cluster,
that's
comfortable
enough
that
this
planned
properly,
that
has
maybe
I
don't
know
10
nodes
or
or
enough
nodes.
E
You
should
be
able
to
to
reschedule,
and
you
have
a
possibility
to
reschedule
your
pods
on
another
node,
so
it's
not
blocked
it's
not
like
a
very,
very
limited
so
that
you
get
a
degradation.
So
under
this
assumption
I
expect
that
the
the
function
would
not
degrade.
But,
of
course,
if
you
lose
half
of
the
cluster
and
you
can
you
have
to
serve-
I
don't
know
thousands
or
hundreds
of
thousands
sessions
with
the
less
capacity.
Then,
of
course
that's
a
normal
case
for
degradation
yeah
better
than
the.
C
E
G
Yeah
that
one's
better
phrased
as
building
up
from
the
bottom
right
we're
trying
to
express
the
requirements
we
have
on
the
platform
rather
than
the
platform
design.
In
this
you
know
best
practices,
ideally
of
a
cnf
at
the
moment
at
least
we're
not
really
talking
about
best
practices
for
the
platform,
but
what
we
are
going
to
have
to
say
is
something
like.
G
We
expect
the
platform
to
tolerate
a
single
point.
Failure
single
point
failures
will
have
this
kind
of
consequence
like
lost
nodes,
and
we
expect
to
put
cnf
in
a
position
that
it
can
recover.
Based
on
that
and
exposed
functionality
of
the
platform.
Now
jeff
has
gone
into
design
considerations
in,
for
instance,
I
might
use
node
labels
as
some
part
of
doing
that,
and
you
would
have
to
argue
why
node
labels
are
sensible
and
also
who's
setting
them,
because
it's
not
obvious
to
me.
G
G
So
if
it
comes
down
to
setting
node
labels,
then
obviously
that's
the
operator
of
the
platform.
That's
setting
no
labels
and
you
would
have
to
determine
whether
node
labels
is
what
they
want
to
do,
because
presumably
they're
identifying
specific
places
to
run
cnf
pieces
and
also,
why
they're
doing
it
and
how
they
might
make
choices.
And
this
sort
of
thing
so.
K
You've
opened
account
to
be
fair,
though
ian
on
this
exact
point
right.
This
is
what
I
was
saying
like
we
have
like
the
different.
I
forget
what
you
call
them.
Well,
we
call
them
actors
right
and
we
don't
agree
with
those
are
yet
either.
But
this
is
the
whole
thing
right
is
vulcan.
K
I
K
K
And
so
but
then
that's
what
I'm
hoping
this
group
will
figure
out
is
cnf
developer
says.
Well,
you
know
I
need
deployment,
so
I
need
damage
instead
and
if
I
do
node
labels,
how
do
I
manage
all
that
metadata
like
these
are
the
type
of
discussions
I
would
hope
would
come
out
of
this?
Is
we
have
multiple
points
of
view
represented
in
these
use
cases
driven
by
what
the
different
requirements
are
for
the
different
actors,
and
then
we
can
actually
sit
down
because
there's
going
to
be
trade-offs,
there's
no
getting
around
that
there's
always
bottlenecks.
F
K
G
Agreed
I
mean
the
the
point
is
to
work
out
something
where
a
cnf
developer
can
get
their
job
done
and
a
cnf
operator
can
actually
make
use
of
the
results.
So
that's
completely
you're
not
wrong
in
this,
and
this
is
where
those
things
should
come
together
and
then
the
implementation
should
drop
out
the
bottom
of
it.
E
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
chosen
to
put
this
kind
of
use
case
first,
because
it's
one
that
is
connecting
a
lot
of
players
and
pcs,
because
cnf
developers
are
developing
the
cnfs
in
order
for
them
to
be
deployed
and
if
it
cannot
be
deployed
or
if
it
cannot
run
in
the
environment
where
it
is
operated
or
it
doesn't
present
the
options
to
make
it
run.
Then
it's
it's.
E
E
This
is
very
much
different
than
in
in
a
let's
say,
classical
setup,
where
we
got
this
proprietary
network
functions
and
and
hardware
then
also
in
vnf,
was
very
much
prescriptive
by
the
cnf
and
in
the
cloud
native
world.
You
don't
have
a
control
over
the
platform,
so
you
cannot
specify
it.
You
can
just
say
what
capabilities
you
you
need
and
when
the
application
will
run
properly,
okay,
but
yeah,
that's
for
the
dedicated
time.
I
guess
yeah.
A
Clearly
this
is
a
very
inspired
discussion
today
and
I
think
it's
going
to
lead
to
some
good
discussions
down
the
road
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
those.
We
do
have
three
minutes
left,
so
I
do
want
to
kind
of
circle
back
and
make
sure
we
kind
of
have
everything
covered
in
case
people
missed.
It
shane
put
himself
up
for
the
service
provider
chair
and
also,
like,
I
said
before,
I'm
missing
a
contact
for
chong
wei
telecom.
A
The
other
thing
that
we
discussed
last
week
is
there's
the
current
nominations
for
the
tech
lead.
It
closes
tonight
at
midnight
if
you're
interested.
These
are
the
people
that
have
currently
nominated
themselves,
and
one
suggestion
last
week
is
people
that
don't
win
the
co-chair
election
could
also
be
rolled
over
to
the
tech
lead
nomination.
G
G
G
At
least
I
assume
we're
not
limiting
the
number
of
tech
leads.
So,
as
things
stand,
it's
basically
majority
well
60,
as
things
are
documented.
A
D
Yeah,
so
I
would
just
take
some
clarity
around
on
the
chairs,
who
who
would
be
a
chair
like
the
who
you're
representing
and
where
you're
coming
from.
D
The
so
the
s
teacher
I
get,
I
guess
a
little
bit
of
the
confusion,
maybe-
and
I've
heard
comments,
so
I'm
trying
to
bring
this
up
over
the
last
month
at
least
shane
you're
with
red
hat
and
then
so.
That
would
seem
more
like
not
a
service
provider
unless
you're
thinking
open
shift,
maybe
that
well,
that
would
still
be
a
platform,
not
a
service
provider.
D
G
G
G
Be
anyone
can
stand
if
they
feel
they
can
argue
that
they're
going
to
do
a
good
job
of
representing
that
community?
So
shane
wants
to
say
I
can
represent
the
service
provider
community
and
he
can
persuade
everybody.
That's
more
true
than
you
know,
everybody
else
standing.
Then
it's
good
on
him
honestly.
A
Yeah
exactly
so
in
case
people
missed
it
on
the
mailing
list.
Shane
is
nominating
himself
for
the
service
provider
co-chair
based
on
his
in-depth
experience
with
network
virtualization
at
verizon.
I
think
he
was
there
for
summer
between
10
and
20
years.
So
that's
the
clarification
from
the
mailing
list
from
him.
D
A
D
Think
he's
even
been
a
year
at
red
hat,
just
trying
to
bring
clarity
to
it.
So
I
I
I
think
I
I
understand
and
maybe
agree
and
like
what
you
said
anne
if
you're
interested,
then
you
could
put
your
name
up.
So
I
I
suppose
this
means.
If
you
have
no
experience
in
any
of
this,
you
still
put
your
name
up
and
then
people
can
decide
if
they
want
you
to
represent.
G
Yeah
and
I'll
just
make
a
call
to
the
voters
to
make
sure
that
they're
choosing
bearing
in
mind
that
they're
speaking,
we
all
get
to
vote
for
all
the
chairs.
As
things
stand,
I
believe
so
bear
in
mind
we're
looking
for
someone
who
will
best
represent
that.
A
Community,
okay,
yeah
and
the
ballot
should
be
coming
out
later
today
and
if
you
think
you
should
be
getting
one,
but
you
haven't
yet
please
contact
me.
A
So
that's
all
I
have
for
today
thanks
everyone
for
joining
sorry
we're
three
minutes
over,
but
thanks
for
staying
with
us,
if
you
did
and
yeah,
I
look
forward
to
seeing
the
results
from
the
election.