►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Meeting - 2018-03-15
Description
Join us for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon in Barcelona May 20 - 23, Shanghai June 24 - 26, and San Diego November 18 - 21! Learn more at https://kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects.
A
A
D
A
E
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
About
YUM,
hey.
A
A
Right,
let's
see
we're
gonna
pick
on
Ben.
Are
you
there
good.
E
E
A
A
All
right
in
that
case,
why
are
we
going
to
get
started
for
past
the
hour?
Okay,
we
did
roll
call
just
a
reminder.
There
were
several
a
yeah
they're
outstanding,
just
try
to
get
those
and
getting
a
chance.
I'm
gonna
keep
going
unless
someone's
like
specifically
say
something
about
their
outstanding
AI.
A
A
A
All
right
not
hearing
any
moving
on
just
a
little
nagging
reminder:
we
have
fifteen
open
PRS,
you
can
see
and
then
in
notes
here,
three
have
Travis
check
errors.
You
have
unanswered
questions.
One
needs
to
be
signed,
three
need
rebasing.
Some
of
them
need
multiple
criteria
and
that
list.
So
just
a
nagging
reminder:
if
you
open
up
a
PR,
please
go
back
and
look
at
it,
so
we
could
try
to
get
some
of
these
resolved
granted.
A
Some
of
them
may
be
bought
for
other
reasons,
other
than
procedural
things
like
things
like
they're
blocked
by
agreeing
what
a
source
or
something
like
that,
but
in
terms
of
being
able
to
answering
questions
and
stuff
like
that,
try
to
get
to
those
as
soon
as
you
can
just
we
can
move
things
along
and
and
of
course,
things
like
rebasing,
a
stuff.
You
should
be
able
to
do
now,
and
so
with
that
we
can
now
jump
into
the
meat
of
the
agenda.
So
Sarah
you
want
to
talk
about
your
PR
102.
K
A
K
Super
so
I'm
gonna
talk
about
the
design
goals
that
are
now
part
of
the
spec.
First,
the
the
key
thing
that
I
think
we've
all
been
aligned
on
is
that
where
the
goal
is
to
allow
services
to
be
loosely
coupled
during
development
deployed
independently
and
later
can
be
connected
to
create
new
applications
where
those
could
all
be
done
by
different
people
with
different
entities
and
I.
K
Think
the
key
moving
forward
out
of
the
discussions
on
Monday
and
Tuesday
was
the
second
paragraph,
where
we
figured
out
a
way
to
talk
about
what
we're
trying
to
achieve,
without
using
some
of
these
words
that
imply
implementation
to
at
least
to
some
folks.
So
so
the
first
sentence,
I
think,
is
change,
which
is
the
goal
of
the
classification,
is
just
the
divine
defined
interoperability
of
event,
systems
that
allow
services
to
produce
or
consume
events
where
the
producer
and
consumer
can
be
developed
and
deployed
independently.
K
We
chose
to
use
the
word
producer
and
consumer
because
those
are
not
in
the
sect
and
they
we
felt
they
were
generic
terms
and
they
wouldn't
imply
any
definition
and
they
seem
to
be
a
sort
of
generally
accepted
high
level
of
devolution
and
then
the
second
sentence,
a
producer,
can
generate
event
before
a
consumer
is
listening
and
a
consumer
can
express
an
interest
in
event
or
class
of
event.
That
is
not
yet
being
produced.
Was
a
key
I.
K
Think
expression
of
what
many
people
in
the
working
group
would
like
to
call
a
topic,
but
then
seems
to
imply
a
particular
implementation
of
pub/sub
or
cosmo,
or
a
set
of
things
that
use
topic
and
then
a
number
of
other
folks
we
met
working
group
are
consider
triggers
and
event
types
and
those
kinds
of
things
we
classifications
and
want
to
move
towards
those
those
types
of
formalize
definitions.
And
so,
but
we
all
agree,
we
want
where
we're
advocating
for
those
different
things
in
order
to
achieve
these
properties.
K
So
I
think
that
that
allows
us
to
kind
of
frame
or
what
we're
doing
and
distinguishing
it
from
asynchronous
messaging.
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
I've
learned
in
working
with
these
technologies
over
the
last
year
is
that
when
you
say
event
in
the
industry,
it
can
mean
one
of
three
things.
Usually
one
is
any
kind
of
asynchronous
messaging.
It's
often
called
an
event,
and
this
is
a
specific
kind
of
messaging
where
we're
we're
we're
decoupling,
the
actual
getting
something
from
source
definition
from
the
event
generation.
K
You
talk
to
a
logging
person,
and
that
is
exactly
what
an
event
is
time.
Series
data
and
I
think
that
this
working
group
is
looking
at
a
lot.
It
wants
to
be
inclusive
system
where
things
might
not
be
ordered,
I
may
not
see
a
thing
and,
and
a
lot
of
people
feel
times
should
be
optional,
and
so
that's
like
a
completely
different
flat
or
took
different
concerns.
It's
overly
specific
to
what
we're
talking
about.
So
we.
B
K
To
capture
like
what
is
the
essence
of
the
kind
of
eventing
that
we're
talking
about,
and
then
lastly,
the
the
last
paragraph
in
the
design
goal
section
is
I
think
just
a
little
modified
from
before,
which
is
to
defend.
The
specification
will
include
common
metadata
attributes
of
an
event
that
facilitate
a
facility
where
the.
B
K
Does
not
contain
any
details
about
the
consumer
or
transports
that
might
be
used
to
send
the
event,
so
in
some
way
that's
restating
the
prior
paragraph,
but
it's
clarifying
some
of
the
things
that
we
generally
agreed
to
at
some
of
many
of
our
meetings,
and
the
idea
is
that
these
three
paragraphs
help
newcomers
to
the
specifications
to
understand.
You
know
what
category
of
event
can
you
were
talking
about
so
before
we
talk
about
non
goals,
I'd
love
to
get
feedback
about
my
goals,
particularly.
B
D
What
you
just
described
is
is
perhaps
the
most
succinct
description
of
what
kind
of
events
cloud
events
is
trying
to
describe
and
most
of
the
detail
you
just
said
in
describing
this
paragraph
is
not
actually
in
the
paragraph.
It
might
be
useful
not
to
have
it
there,
but
to
have
a
more
verbose
like
a
way
of
describing
all
of
those
things
that
you
just
said
that
is
maybe
linked
to
from
here.
Some
things
like
this
is
a
succinct
version.
D
This
is
the
the
concentrated
description
of
what
we're
going
for,
and
here
are
pages,
describing
sort
of
all
of
the
different
ramifications
of
this
and
the
way
it
sort
of
bubbles
out
into
the
rest
of
the
war
in
order
to
get
a
more
complete
sense
of
what
you're
trying
to
get
through.
With
this
paragraph.
K
D
I
I
really
appreciate
that
specificity
and
laying
out
you
know
here
are
three
different
examples
of
different
types
of
events
and
how
they
fall
into
this
spec
and
I
got
great
value
from
that.
I
just
wanted
to
call
it
out.
I,
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
part
of
this
PR
I.
Don't
think
it
should
be
part
of
this
paragraph,
but
I
think
it
will
be
incredibly
valuable
to
to
help
orient
people
that
are
coming
because
I
mean
the
flip
side
of
being
concise.
D
H
Hi
Sarah
I
think
this
looks
I
think
this
looks
very
helpful.
It's
concise
and
simple
and
I
think
it
will
mitigate
a
lot
of
confusion
for
for
newcomers
and
I
also
appreciate
what
Ben
said.
I
know
that
there's
discussion
of
an
A
and
About
section-
and
you
know
in
the
future,
could
link
out
to
the
About
section
where
you
could
explain
in
more
detail
all
the
things
that
you
just
described.
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
solution.
K
K
But
certainly
many
of
us
believe
could
be
enabled
for
accelerated
by
the
certification
and
then
there's
been
some
discussion
about
the
importance
of
figuring
out
some
kind
of
authorization
thing.
But
the
people
who
are
advocating
for
that
also
agree
that
it
is
a
we
do
not
want
to.
You
know:
select
a
single
identity
or
access
control
system,
we're
aligned
with
the
no
kingmakers
philosophy
of
CFCs.
K
So
we
just
want
to
call
that
out
like
that,
is
something
we're
doing
here
and
leaving
the
way
open
that
we
may
need
to
deal
with
authorization,
but
that
is
that
is
actually
that's
like
potential
follow-on
work
and
and
sort
of
related
to
that
I'm.
Going
to
zoom
up
to
the
working
group
process
where
we
took
out
authorization
because
I
think
that
generated
a
lot
of
discussion
and
instead
putting
this
placeholder
identify
like
one
of
the
things
we
will
do
is
identify
and
resolve.
Whatever
else
is
needed
for
interoperability,
so
we're
kind.
H
The
comments
I
put
this
in
on
the
diplay
are
not
sure
if
Sarah
seen
it
yet,
though,
there's
some
there's
some
legis
there's
like
this
legacy
status,
section
in
there
that
we
added
in
right
at
the
beginning
of
this
effort
and
I
I,
believe
the
roadmap
and
some
of
the
design
goals.
Kind
of
clicked
with
that
section
and
for
clarity's
sake,
I,
would
recommend,
probably
removing
that
maybe
within
this
PR
or
the
near
future,
one
yeah.
A
A
So
if
you
have
any
concerns,
don't
feel
like
you've
had
a
chance
to
fully
digest
this.
Please
speak
up,
but
I
am
gonna.
Ask
if
there's
anybody
who
would
object
to
adopting
this
so
I,
don't
think
it's
gone
through
any
substantial
changes
within
like
the
last
day
day
and
a
half.
So
it's
on
the
border
for
time
line
or
if
you
want
to
speak
for
someone
else
who
you
think
may
want
to
review
it
before
you
merge
it.
That's
fine
too,.
A
A
K
A
You,
sir,
alright,
so
the
next
topic,
I
think,
is
what
is
source
now,
and
so
we
don't
have
to
do
it
this
way.
This
is
my
initial
idea
when
I
was
thinking
about
this
on,
the
agenda
was
I'm,
not
sure
how
much
we
can
get
into
on
this
particular
call
right
now,
and
so
I
was
kind
of
wondering
what
you
guys
thought
about
having
additional
meetings
the
same
way,
we
did
for
the
goals
section
where
a
group
of
people
go
off
and
work
on
a
proposal
to
bring
back
to
the
group.
K
M
Think
we
had
already
touched
on
some
of
those
aspects
in
the
in
the
call
in
the
calls
this
week,
especially
when
we
were
talking
about
the
class,
the
class
of
events
and
basically
the
the
fact
that
a
classification
is
required
to
you
to
be
able
to
subscribe
to
it
and
if
we,
if
we
take,
if
we
do
another
round
of
discussions
on
that,
I
think
we're
gonna,
get
a
clarity,
I
think.
Ultimately,
what
this
touches
on
is
that
we
have.
M
M
On
that
particular
going
too
much
into
the
details,
because
that's
a
discussion,
I
can
probably
also
talk
about
for
like
half
an
hour.
I
think
there's
that
there's
reason
to
go
and
get
too
big.
You
ate
the
events
all
up
when
you
get
an
event
in
your
hand,
so
have
a
clear
notion
that
this
comes
from
a
juror,
or
this
comes
from
Google
Cloud
or
this
company
beyond
us
I
think
a
clear
indicator
of
whether
what
what
what
system
realm
that
event
originates
from.
M
K
D
D
K
Thank
you
for
saying
that,
so
what
I
was
suggesting
is
that
we
come
up
with
some
crisp
criteria
for
what
is
in
or
out
right.
Some
people
have
proposed
that
this
be
I
set
a
small
set
of
use
cases
right
like
IOT,
and
you
know
the
cloud
service.
You
know
you
know
the
sort
of
AWS
flash,
superclass
function,
kind
of
use
cases
and
AWS
Lamba.
K
Let
me
take
us
I
know:
Amazon
does
lots
of
things
Google
also
had
does
IOT
and
then
they
like
so
like
you
need
to
be
able
to
have
a
gateway,
and
we
need
to
be
able
to
support
protocols
like
there's
a
specific
context
where
we
we
think
that
this
specification
is
applicable
and
then
other
you
know.
We
also
had
a
whole
conversation
about
user
stories
like
that.
Maybe
the
user
stories
is
the.
If
we
can
come
up
with
a
small
set
of
user
stories,
then
we
can
attack
them.
K
One
user
story
at
a
time
perhaps
and
at
the
I'm
not
like,
believe
it
or
not,
I'm,
not
a
huge
process
long,
but
in
this
case
I
think
that
we
could
align
faster
on
the
criteria
than
we
could
on
the
set
of
attributes
and
that
might
help
so.
M
For
the
the
user
source
is
something
we're
gonna
have
next
week,
because
I'm
going
to
compile
them,
it
would
be
great
if
I
could
get
more
feedback
on
the
proposed
set
that
I
sent
around
to
the
mailing
list
and
just
from
IBM
and
and
I
hope
they
will
help
and
drive
it
in
terms
of
what
what
goes,
what
the
the
attributes
get
included
or
not
I
think
there's.
A
wonderful
criteria
is
which
of
the
attributes
is
actually
useful
for
the
majority
of
the
people
in
the
committee,
which
means
you
know
what
in.
K
L
K
So
that
meant
that
may
lead
us
faster
to
the
question
of
transport
than
and
we
may
bucket
things
that
we
believe
these
will.
We
have
to
first
do
the
require
use
cases,
and
then
we
do
that
I
mean
the
transport
is
going
to
like.
How
does
this
get
transported?
It's
going
to
be
necessary
operability,
I.
M
K
K
Yeah
I
mean
I,
do
think.
Yeah
I
mean
we
talked
about
like
urine
and
I
talked
offline
at
that
time.
Stamp
right
like
that's
like
it
may
be
optional
in
some
cases,
but
like
it's
really
really
high
value
too,
when
if
it
covers
multiple
use
cases
actually
picking
the
same
name,
so
yeah
I'd
be
aligned
with
that.
Okay.
A
So
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
is
agreement
to
potentially
have
the
working
as
this
extra
little
working
crews
go
off
and
look
at
two
different
things.
One
is
the
combination
of
at
least
those
four
attributes.
You
know
sores
to
then
type
namespace
came
over.
The
other
ones
were,
but
then
also
potentially
come
up
with
some
guiding
principles
for
when
we
include
or
exclude
properties
or
when
we
decide
they're
required
was
optional
and
other
things
like
that.
That
actually.
K
I'm,
supposing
I
think
Clemens
and
I
are
both
talking
about
like
let's
first
come
up
with
the
guiding
principles,
flash
criteria
or
for
deciding
and
and
that
may
lead
to
a
companion
proposal
as
the
attributes.
That
would
support
that,
but
doing
them
as
separate
PRS
I.
Think
then,
if
we
can
a
lot
like
it,
if
it
becomes
contentious,
we
can
align
on
the
criteria
in
the
next
meeting,
at
least
well.
A
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
disagree
with
two
separate
PRS
or
pieces
of
work.
I
think
that's
fine.
What
I
would
but
a
little
nervous
about
is
saying
they
were
going
to
serialize
it
because
I
don't
think
unis
I
have
to
get
agreement
on
the
guiding
principles
on
when
something
as
in
or
out
before.
You
start
the
discussion
or
how
to
reconcile
what
is
source.
K
K
D
M
And
I
well,
I've,
sent
out
I,
think
11
or
12
candidate
statements.
I
would
love
to
get
some
input
from
people
if
I
don't
get
any
further
input
until
well
end
of
the
week,
I'm
gonna
go
and
start
probably
condensing
them
on
Monday
and
turn
them
into
a
section
here
for
the
documents
or
more
input,
I
guess,
which
is
either
adding
to
those
statements
or
saying
my
product.
M
M
If
I
look
at,
there
were
services
that
we
run,
but
that
should
not
be
sufficient,
and
so,
even
if
you
think
your
everybody
on
the
call,
if
you
even
if
you
think
that
your
contribution
would
be
redundant,
you
should
not
think
of
them
as
being
redundant
but
helpful.
So
I
would
appreciate
it
responsibly
to
everybody.
Thank
you.
K
A
N
K
Be
to
review
Clemons
user
stories
and
see
if
those
capture
enough
detail
to
cover
your
youth
tape
and
if
they
don't
suggest
an
addition.
Yes
could.
M
J
K
A
N
K
Virtual
meeting
location
at
8:00
a.m.
Pacific
on
Monday
and
Tuesday,
and
the
idea
is
that
we
would
you
can
you
can
participate
asynchronously
and
in
fact
we
it
would
be
really
really
helpful.
It's
in
advance.
It's
today
tomorrow,
over
weekend,
whenever
people
have
time
to
add
in
to
you
know
the
discussion
about
your
use
cases
so
that
we
have
collected
as
much
as
possible
before
that
meeting
and
then
we'll
have
notes
after
the
meeting,
so
that
people
who
can't
come
at
that
time
can
pretty
basically.
N
N
A
A
Is
true,
okay,
so,
okay,
so
that
we're
going
to
8:00
a.m.
Monday,
9:00
a.m.
tuesdays
I
would
I'm
here
yep
any
objection
to
that
done.
All
right
cool!
Thank
you
guys
before
we
move
on
I'm
out,
hasn't
it
to
ask,
but
I
got
to
do
it
before
we
move
on.
Are
there
any
other
sort
of
clarifying
questions?
People
have
relative
to
this
topic,
otherwise
save
any
discussions
for
the
calls
on
Monday
and
Tuesday,
but
just
one
last
chance
for
someone
to
speak
up
in
case
they
may
not
be
able
to
make
it.
A
All
right
cool
in
that
case
there
are
number
of
the
PRS
that
are
out
there,
as
I
said,
have
a
little
bit
of
work.
That
needs
to
be
done,
but
I
did
think
there
was
one
that
we
might
be
able
to
discuss
right
now
because
it
has
been
untouched
in
a
while
and
uncommented,
and
it's
adding
a
log
level
to
the
attributes,
of
course,
and
I,
don't
remember
this
person,
who's.
A
K
J
E
A
To
block
all
full
of
progress
on
that,
but
if
people
want
to
okay
with
it
I
just
like
I,
said:
I
thought,
since
this
one
has
been
basically
uncomment
down
for
a
while,
and
maybe
people
could
look
at
it
independently
of
those
criteria
being
defined.
But
if
enough
of
the
group
one
oh
wait:
I'm!
Okay,
with
that
too,.
L
M
L
C
Log
level
is
not
necessary
Civic
to
a
solution
and
we
see
it
in
different
scenarios
as
well,
but
it's
when
we're
crossing
different
solutions
and
trying
to
have
some
sort
of
some
compliance
between
the
different
types
of
logs
and
that's
where
we
end
up
using
log
level.
We
see
other
people
who
use
it
as
well.
M
I
G
A
A
L
L
Can
certain
I
don't
want
to
do
it
necessarily
on
all
the
type
of
events,
because
certain
event
has
failed,
so
I
want
to
be
able
to
know,
for
example,
think
about
service
framework
when
you're
throwing
something
a
call
into
the
function,
and
you
want
to
test
this
specific
call,
because
all
the
other
is
passed
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
I.
Don't
want
I
have
system
in
in
production.
I
don't
want
to
turn
the
bug
level
on
all
the
different
types
of
events
is
going
to
the
system.
K
L
M
Find
this
rather,
this
is
unusual,
I
think
that's
a
very
and
I'm,
not
sure
I've.
Seen
at
all
ever
you
what
you're
trying
to
do
here
is
you're
trying
to
you
try
to
control
the
Diagnostics
pipeline
of
infrastructure
that
you
don't
own
using
a
left
message
level
flag,
that's
something
that
I,
so
I
can
tell
you
that
flag.
If
that
shows
up
in
our
in
our
system,
we
would
at
best
ignore
it.
We
would
probably
reject
the
message,
because
that.
L
M
K
At
minimum
we
need
to
clarify
this
is
not.
This
is
not
really
a
property
of
the
event
as
I'm
hearing
it
right.
This
is
not
like,
like
somebody
said
that,
like
there
was
a
confusion
about,
is
this
specific
to
the
event?
Is
a
log
event
versus
any
event
like
I
am
interested
in
this
particular
event,
event
type,
or
what
class
of
events
that
that
I
want
to
apply
logging
to
so
it
seems
like
it's,
it
doesn't
belong
with
the
event
specification,
but
rather
some
other
layer
that
would
be
in
the
event
systems
right.
Yes,.
K
A
A
I,
don't
think
we
need
that
level
of
clarity
and
then
I'm
what
I'm
hearing
is
almost
either
way
it's
either,
no,
not
in
our
spec,
because
you
don't
wanna
control
the
infrastructure
from
outside,
or
it
may
be
an
extension
if
if
it
falls
in
the
other
category,
that's
what
I'm
hearing
so
far.
So
it
sounds
like
you're
on.
Maybe
you
could
take
the
AI
to
respond
back
to
the
gentleman
who
opened
this
up
and
ask
him
for
clarity
on
what
exactly
he
was
proposing.
This
thing
be
and
then
basically.
L
A
So
maybe
you
can
comment
in
the
PR
and
they
can't
ask
for
that
clarity.
First,
then,
we
could
figure
out
the
next
steps.
That's
why
I
wanna
bring
it
up,
because
I
actually
did
not
think
we're.
Gonna
get
agreement
on
this
I
figured
was
gonna
cost
them
some.
Some
some
chatter
and
I
wanted
to
get
that
chatter
out
of
the
way
since
no
one's
come
at
the
other
PR.
So
I
appreciate
you
guys
taking
for
indulging
me
on
that
and.
A
You,
and
so
with
that,
just
a
reminder,
please
do
look
at
the
open,
PRS
and
comment
on
that.
We
shouldn't
end
this
that
the
way
to
tell
these
phone
calls
to
through
my
people
to
comment
because,
as
I
said,
that
one
should
have
been
an
easy
one
for
people
to
to
complain
about
I
thought
it
was
gonna
generate
a
lot
of
talk
like
that.
Yeah.
H
Yeah
I've
got
a
few
thoughts,
I
want
to
run
by
you
and
everyone
else.
First
off
in
the
specification
there
is
this
extensions
property
where
we
could
test
out
experimental
attributes
and
see.
You
know
the
market
will
tell
us
what
they
like
and
what
they
don't
like
here,
we
good
and
that
hopefully,
will
help
us
figure
out
what
to
add
in
to
the
course
Pesa
fication
over
time,
just
in
case.
Anyone
wasn't
aware
of
that.
M
G
M
G
F
A
I,
just
ain't,
just
a
follow-up
as
Mark
was
saying
there.
If
you
come
across
like,
for
example,
this
PR
or
this
attribute,
where
you
think
it's
needs,
it
should
be
at
best
pushed
out.
That's
an
extension
comment
on
that
inside
the
PR
in
for
enough
people
say
yes,
let's
talk
about
this
later
or
let's
defer
this
and
your
Perez,
an
extension
on
something
like
that.
That
then
becomes
the
proposal
that
we
can
very
quickly
in
essence,
vote
on
during
one
of
our
phone
calls
and
we
can
move
it
very
quickly.
A
M
The
user
stories
and
use
cases
saying
I
have
one
one
more
request
that
I'm
just
thinking
about
based
on
that
comment,
and
there
is,
if
you
are
using.
So
there
are
a
few
companies
here
which
are
building
infrastructure,
routing
event,
our
re
infrastructure
from
the
ground
up,
but
I,
don't
think
everybody
does
that,
so
some
of
you
will
use
existing
stuff
that
is
out
there
in
open
source
I
mean
if
you
do
that
it
would
be
very
interesting
to
also
learn
what
are
you
using
today?
M
A
A
A
lot
of
people
aren't
able
to
be
clear
that
there
is
some
additional
work
that
we
agreed
to
work
on
like
create
writing
up
personas
user
stories,
prioritizing
those
user
stories
and
then
making
sure
that
all
the
attributes
that
we
add
in
the
future
relate
back
to
those
user
stories
to
make
sure
we
don't
get
scope,
creeps
and
stuff
like
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
people
are
aware
of
that
comment
in
there
and
it
wasn't
missed
in
our
discussions.
A
I'll
leave
that
up
because
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
PR
it
and
get
that
into
our
set
of
documentation,
cool
all
right,
all
right
with
that,
as
I
said,
I,
don't
think
have
any
other
PRS
available
to
actually
talk
about
you
can
see
down.
Here
is
a
whole
bunch
of
them
that
have
little
comment
be
made
or
a
little
fixes
anything
made
mark.
Would
you
be
okay
with
bringing
up
that
topic?
We
talked
about
last
week
at
the
conference,
sure
sure.
F
The
there's
an
open
source
project
that
we
put
out
called
dispatch,
which
is
a
framework
for
doing
functions
and
as
part
of
that
we've
actually
implemented
part
of
the
cloud
events
back.
I
we
know
that
it's
not
a
full
specification
yet,
but
it
was
something
that
we
felt
was
a
correctional
that
we
want
to
at
least
start
that
the
implementation
with
a
with
cloud
vents.
So
this
is
an
open
discussion
around.
M
A
big
fan
of
us
trying
to
starting
to
put
some
heads
together
in
terms
of
different
work
and
trying
to
make
things
they
draw,
and
so
we're
more
or
obviously
always
keeping
an
eye
on
how
practical
the
the
specification
is.
So
we're
playing
and
making
one
thing
and
making
another
thing
talk
together
would
be
great,
I
think
one
the
thing
we're
missing.
M
So
we
I
think
of
us
here,
defining
the
the
properties
more
or
less
in
the
abstract,
so
it
works
for
many
different
transport
scenarios
and
that
we
then,
probably
in
the
first
stab
at
implementation,
go
and
do
something
around
HTTP.
That's
also
why
I
wrote
that
HTTP
strawman
in
the
as
an
issue
up
as
an
accent
as
an
example,
and
then
we
can
probably
get
together
and
help
me
being
good
hack,
something
together.
M
L
A
F
F
D
A
N
Before
that,
I
myself,
oh,
is
this
implementation
about
the
event
producer
or
even
consumer
or
both
or
is
it
like
a
summaries
platform?
So
what
is
this
open
source?
We
are
trying
to
the
purpose
of
project
we're
trying
to
work
on
I.
M
Yeah
I
think
of
this
I.
Think
of
this
as
a
all
interoperability
projects
have
plug
fests.
Yes,
where,
where
you
come
with,
whatever
you
got,
and
then
you
make
sure
that
it
all
works,
works
together
and
I
think
we
can
go
and
I
would
probably
stage
this
and
have
first
asset
group
discussion
to
see
hey.
M
We
need
to
have
communication
with
obviously
need
to
have
a
protocol
choice,
and
then
we
need
to
go
and
see
what
the
protocol,
what
the
base
protocol
is
going
to
look
like
for
the
purposes
of
trying
things
out,
not
for
the
purposes
of
really
writing
a
normative
document
in
the
beginning
and
then
go
back
and
and
figure
out
how
you're
going
to
go
and
plug
this
and
your
products.
And
then
we
can
figure
out
a
date
and
time
and
location
to
figure
out
how
we
can
go
and
plug
stuff
together.
A
So,
since
we're
running
low
on
time
mark,
would
you
take
the
exile
to
set
up
like
a
doodle
poll
or
something
to
see
who'd
be
interested
in
and
and
what
time
I'd
be
able
to
meet,
and
the
upcoming
days
or
weeks
to
have
a
discussion
about
this
yeah
will
do
excellent.
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
I
believe
we
don't
have
time
to
start
anything
deep.
So
let
me
before
I
adjourn,
go
back
to
the
agenda
and
the
exists
of
attendees
just
to
miss.