►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless Working Group - 2018-04-19
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.
B
Not
today,
oh
just
curious,
when
I
share
my
screen
like
this,
what
do
you
actually
send
your
side
does?
Do
you
see
just
the
window
or
is
are
lots
of
like
white
space
around
that
I
can
never
tell
how
you
will
view
it.
I
see.
C
C
C
B
Okay,
okay,
go
and
make
sure,
because
a
lot
of
times
when
I'm
watching
other
people
to
share
their
screen,
especially
if
they
have
like
4k
monitors,
I,
end
up
seeing
a
very
small
little
window
of
the
actual
content
and
then
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
white
space
around
it
and
I
can't
figure
out
when
that
happens.
Yeah.
D
E
E
D
D
A
B
Please
miss
about
your
name
on
women,
Jim
Curtis,
hello,.
A
B
B
G
H
B
H
A
B
Unfortunately,
the
dog
doesn't
tend
understand:
Neely's
pose
the
kids
Dan
Barker
get
them
here.
Excellent.
Thank
you.
B
E
D
D
D
B
Okay,
is
there
anybody
in
the
agenda
that
I,
missed
I,
think
I?
Have
everybody
sotae
what
why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
get
started
to
this
page?
All
right
just
reminder:
koukin
coming
up
nothing
much
there
to
say
other
than
what
we
say
every
week
got
two
sessions
there.
Let's
talk
about
the
planning
for
the
entire
event
around
I'm.
Sorry
planning
for
the
coupe
count,
events,
especially
around
the
arab
demo.
Mark
you
want
to
bring
people
to
you
know
what
happened
on
monday's
call.
E
E
E
E
G
E
Okay,
yeah,
and
which
case
you
know
anything
that
we
can
do
to
have
producers
of
cloud
events
I
think
that
we
have
plenty
of
consumers.
You
know
with
serverless,
comms,
vent
gateway,
dispatch,
work
with
huawei,
etc
that
we
can
consume
them,
but
it's
really
producing
in
the
ensuring
that
we
know
what
the
interoperability
is
between
them,
that
we
can
actually
decode,
etc.
So
I
don't
know
that
I
can
talk
to
Austin's
proposal
the
demo
proposal
for
e-commerce.
E
B
Right
so
at
this
point
in
time,
I'd,
like
not
said,
actually
discussed,
cost
austin's
proposal
because
I
think
most
people
have
any
chance
to
or
ease
issue,
and
I
just
really
read
it
yet.
But
our
people-
okay,
with
scheduling
another
kook
on
prep
events
for
monday
a.m.
I'm,
sorry
Monday,
7
a.m.
Pacific.
B
Okay,
not
hearing
any
objections
we'll
go
with
that
I
did
edit.
This
topic
vote
to
the
agenda
later
on.
If
we
do
want
to,
if
we
have
time
and
if
you'll
want
to
do
a
deeper
dive
into
it,
but
I
figured
people
want
to
talk
about
PRS
more
right
now
in
this
call,
if
everybody's
okay
with
that
agenda,
okay,
are
there
any
questions
from
mark
relative
to
what
we
discussed
on
monday's
call,
his
summary
or
Austin's
issue
just
quickly,
I.
E
B
Yep,
thank
you.
Alright,
not
hearing
any
keep
moving
forward.
Then
thank
you
mark
very
much.
So,
let's
get
into
the
PRS
now
this
one
well,
technically,
we
didn't
tell
you
to
0.1.
It
is
more
of
a
syntactical
thing,
cleanup
thing:
if
we
can
resolve
it
quickly,
that's
great!
If
it's
going
to
lead
to
a
bigger
discussion,
I'm
going
to
defer
it,
but
this
one
I
noticed
that
we
had
a
TBD
in
the
spec
itself.
B
It's
right
here,
I
thought
we
could
remove
that
now,
because
I
think
this
is
already
being
covered
by,
in
particular,
Clemmons
PR
around
how
we're
going
to
serialize
events,
in
particular
for
late
HC,
P
and
Jason,
and
he
talks
about
what
they
do
with
extensions
there
in
particular
adding
the
C
e
X
prefix,
so
I
figured.
We
don't
need
this
TVB
anymore.
I
need
serialization,
we'll
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
So
I
just
propose.
We
remove
that
bit
of
text.
Are
there
any
questions
on
that?
B
H
D
G
There
was
plenty
of
time,
I
hope
for
people
to
find
this
and
look
at
it,
because
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
explain
that
whole
thing
in
all
details
on
this
call,
and
it
should
also
not
be
the
goal.
So
what
this
does
is
effectively
creates
an
HP
transport,
binding
I
just
want
to
explain
the
architecture
behind
this
and
thinking
behind
this,
and
these
these
are
two
documents.
This
is
the
HP
transport
binding.
What
this
does
is
it
takes
to
the
cloud
event
and
binds
it
to
http
it.
G
G
I
think
your
owns
inputs
on
the
we
I
made
two
different
mappings
that
are
one
is
the
one
Maps
the
event
kind
of
into
one
single
JSON
object,
the
other
one
is
Maps,
the
the
the
metadata
into
the
HTTP
headers
and
then
keeps
the
event
payloads
independence.
So
this
here
is
what
we're
looking
at
is
the
this
adjacent
mapping.
So
that's
a
self-contained
Jason
cloud
event,
and
here
this
also
illustrates
how
the
content-type
functions,
because
that
was
in
the
objection,
I
think
from
Thomas.
It's
like,
we
don't
need
the
content
type
in
here.
G
Okay,
so
we
have
a.
We
have
a
lot
of
cases
where
we
need
to
care
in
events
that
is
raised
by
some
existing
application
that
encodes
its
event
data
in
some
existing
format,
because
that's
something
that's
being
distributed
to
a
target
system
that
understands
that.
So
we
need
to
be
able
to
express
that
in
some
way,
so
heavy
have
an
XML.
Payload
is
legitimate
right.
I
G
G
That,
then,
is
defines
the
web
protocol
and
the
web.
So
this
is
kind
of
the
this
lays
the
groundwork
for
it
and
the
web
protocol
and
don't
think
we're
going
to
go
and
get
to
the
well
there.
It
is
yes
that
is
actually
no
specific
to
to
how
you
know
how
the
event
is
being
delivered.
So
it
defines
you
have
a
post
and
how
you
deliver
notifications.
It
talks
about
authorization
and
talks
about
an
abuse
protection
feature
that
is
leaning
on
it's.
G
So
this
weapon
specification
is
something
that
is
kind
of
gets
born
here.
I
would
love
for
us.
You
know
as
many
as
we
can
to
go
and
take
that
actually
to
IETF
and
make
that
a
proper
RFC
and
the
nice
thing
about
so
and
the
way
it
is
designed
is
that
it
composes
nicely
obviously
with
the
HTTP
mapping.
So
though
that
could
be
so
the
the
web
book
spec
and
our
HTTP
transport
mapping
expect.
G
Could
be
one
spec
theoretically,
I
just
want
to
I
just
want
to
keep
them
separate,
because
I
believe
that
the
web
hook
spec
per
se,
is
universally
useful.
So
that's
that's.
Why
I've
done
that
way?
The
JSON
document
is
separate
because
there
will
be
other
there
will
be
the
need
for
other
type
system
mappings.
That
is
for
that
reason,
I
have
already
filed
and
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
in
several
weeks.
G
To
show
that
you
know,
there's
a
Jason
there's
a
Jason
event,
event
format
and
there's
an
ATP
event
format
into
base
to
show
how
those
compose
so
so
back
to
the
current
PR
that
that
we're
talking
about
this
is
really
the
laying
the
groundwork
for
all
of
this,
the
the
Jason
event
type,
the
Jason
event.
Format
is
required
for
everybody
to
implement
and
the
HDP
message
format
is
effectively
foundational
for
being
able
to
send
an
HTTP
request
in
whatever
form
you
want.
G
G
If
the
way
how
you
deliver
events
is
having
someone
pick
them
up
using
again,
because
this
defines
the
mapping
that
works
for
a
response,
and
you
can
also
go
in
a
deliver
event
with
a
put
if
you
want
to
so
I,
don't
want
to
go
into
constrain
any
of
that,
but
then
the
once
you
layer,
the
webhooks
tag
on
top
of
that.
That's
exactly
when
you
snap
to
a
common
in
Rob
model,
so
I
want
to
make
it.
You
know
as
flexible
as
possible
for
for
people
who
want
to
who
want
to
be.
G
B
Which
one
would
you
like
to
start
with?
First?
Actually,
let
me
back
the
me
to
ask
a
question:
high-level
first,
can
we
first
focus
on
the
ones
that
people
consider
to
be
showstoppers?
In
other
words,
if
you
made
a
comment
in
there,
but
it's
just
a
minor
thing
and
it's
not
to
say
a
blocker
for
getting
to
zero
point
one
and
we
can
perhaps
fix
it
in
a
follow-on
PR.
B
G
Have
a
procedural
comment
before
we
get
to
this:
okay
go
for
it,
so
the
procedural
comment
is
these,
so
so
all
of
that
work
has
been
around
for
so
this
has
been
around
for
what
14
days
the
subsequent
specifications
have
been
done
have
been
out
of
also
art
for
a
week.
I
find
it
deeply
problematic
when
we
get
comments
like
the
day
or
the
night
before
this
call
I
find
this
a
little
disrespectful,
so
I
would
and
like
the
first
ever
little
voice
of
commentary
happening
shortly
before
the
call.
G
B
I
Can
start
with
a
less
controversial
one
I
wanted
to
just
expand
the
rules
on
where
we
use
percent-encoding,
because,
like
none
of
the
examples
actually
percent
in
code
slashes,
what
my
number
should
have
wrote
in.
Let
me
double
fine
or
double
check,
but
for
ASCII
us-ascii,
it's
I
think
it's
a
fine
201
yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
expand
the
set
of
non
non
principled,
ASCII
characters,
non-ascii
characters
and
percents
themselves
must
be
first
encoded.
That's
the
only
way
to
make
sure
that
this
thing
is
an
actual
versatile,
encoding,
yeah.
G
I
I
need
to
point
to
I
need
to
do
a
better
job
here
and
point
you
to
3986,
probably
because
I
I
actually
don't
want
to
define
percent-encoding
here,
because
I
think
percent-encoding
per
se
in
3986
is
actually
specifying
that
rule
because
I
what
I,
what
I
want
to
avoid
is
us
having
requiring
a
special
implementation.
So
I
want
to
point
to
prior
arts
and
the
prior
art
should
should
do
the
work
like
I
want
to
leverage
like
you
should
be
able
to
call
the
function.
G
That's
called
percent-encoding,
that's
actually
implementing
implementing
the
standard,
and
they
should
be
able
to
use
that
so
I'm,
just
not
pointing
to
it
right
so
so,
and
I
think
so.
I
was
quoting
effectively
that
rule
more
or
less
from
the
from
the
uriah
spec,
and
so
I
should
do
it.
I
need
to
do
a
bit
of
a
better
job
in
in
point
into
it,
and
that's
something
that
I
already
noted
so.
B
I
Sure
I,
my
requirement
would
be
that
a
expect
compliant
decoder
must
be
able
to,
like
correctly
handle
some
of
the
asset
cases.
I
gave
yes
so
because,
unfortunately,
like
I
end
up
having
to
deal
with
strings
that
have
semantically
different
slashes
and
%
to
else
and
I
need
to
make
sure
that
they
actually
will
decode
correctly
into
the
original
string.
I'm.
G
Gonna
I'm
gonna
take
care
to
point
to
the
right
place
in
the
specification
that
refers
to
the
implementations
that
you
will
be
using
because,
if
we're
using
none
of
us
is
writing
a
new
percent
encoder
code,
we're
all
using
stuff.
That's
in
the
frameworks,
I
just
need
to
go
and
find
point
to
the
right
place
that
all
the
reference
to
all
of
frameworks
point
to.
So
let
me
just
let
me
just
fix
that.
Okay,
okay
right.
D
G
I
This
goes
back
to
the
fact.
Like
you
know,
I
I
fully
accept
that
I
have
been
speaking
past
people,
the
number
of
times
with
you
or
I
constraints.
Requirements
like
a
my
goal
would
be
that
there
is
some
way
to
know
a
context
or
interpretation
of
the
you
or
I
when
I
misspoke
last
week
about
your
eyes
allowing
no
scheme.
I
was
talking
about
you,
I
references,
I,.
I
G
B
It's
well,
let
me
ask
this
so
the
DES
spec
right
now
it
just
says,
URI
and
I-
believe
Clemens
has
here
in
the
mapping-
is
a
correct
interpretation
of
that.
A
correct
example
of
that
it
sounds
like
perhaps
Thomas.
What
you
want
to
do
is
open
up
a
separate
issue
to
go
back
to
the
spec
and
say:
should
we
constrain
it
to
be
smaller
than
just
a
URI?
That's.
I
F
I
I
am
personally
fine,
like
my
use.
Cases
are
easier
off
if
relative
uri
references
are
allowed,
because
that's
how
we
reference
things
in
Google,
but
I,
just
I
feel
like
I've,
been
gas
lit
a
number
of
times
in
these
meetings
and
I
want
to
at
least
like
ground
in
technically
correct
descriptions
right.
So
it
seems
to
me
at
this
point.
B
G
F
D
G
If
I
now
pick
take
a
transport,
your
ride
and
all
hell
breaks
loose,
yeah
I
don't
want
to
apply
this
to
B.
So
if
I
use
HTTP
that
this
is
this
is
the
this
is
the
jail
that
that
the
XML
people
broke
into
when
they,
when
they
did
the
namespace
thing
that
they
started
using
HTTP
URLs
arise
for
everything,
and
then
everybody
believed
that
it
was
addison
and.
I
G
I
think
your
references
from
my
perspective,
your
references
will
be
fine,
mm-hmm
and
and
I.
Think
having
these
to
be
full,
your
eyes
will
be,
will
be
more
powerful
and
you
always
have
that
option,
but
I
think
having,
because
what
we
value
is
really
the
the
structure
of
the
URI
and
having
you
know,
a
base
specification
for
what
that
structure
needs
to
be,
and
if
you
don't
really
care
about
the
hostname,
and
if
you
don't
care
about
them
being
transport,
then
it's
not
clear
that
you
really
need
to
have
them
to
be
fully
qualified.
Yeah.
I
F
H
I
Ahead,
I
think
we
can
finally
get
to
so
I
absolutely
understand
that
we
can
create
a
demo
sample
that
has
mixed
content
type
encoding.
I
think
that
the
idea
of
the
binary
encoding
versus
the
structure
encoding
is
very
elegant
and
I.
Think
that
when
you
use
the
binary
encoding,
you're
free
to
use
any
content
type,
you
want
you
don't
have
to
invent
anything
new.
You
use
the
HTTP
content,
type
header
structured,
encoding,
I
would
person
prefer
we
just
say
hey.
I
B
G
So
I
can
I
can
give
you
I
can
give
you
feedback
on
that
one.
So
the
structure
encoding
has
and
I'm
actually
mentioning.
It
mentioned
that
in
the
documents
by
where
I'm,
not
contrasting
them,
the
the
the
binary
encoding
is
really
there
for
efficiency,
and
it's
it's
really
meant
for
cases
where
you
care
about
it.
G
This
is
necessarily
for
everything
and
and
and
where
the
goal
is
really
to
push
some
existing
arcane,
weird
event,
data
that
comes
out
of
an
existing
device
and
just
push
that
over
to
the
other
side,
but
in
a
standardized
way
using
some
common
infrastructure.
The
reason
for
the
the
structured
event
is
that
is
actually
routable.
So
you
can
go
and
push
that
you,
and
this
is
practice
in
our
in
in
our
systems,
so
a
an
event
shows
up
in
event
grid.
It
froze
her
event.
G
It
actually
gets
handed
off
to
an
event
hub
from
an
event
hub.
It
goes
through
a
complex
event,
processing
pipeline
potentially
and
then
then
gets
archived.
So
there
is
like
four
different
hops
and
the
nice
thing
about
that
self-contained
Jason
is
that
it's
completely
routable,
because
everything
you
have
it
about
that
event
is
in
there,
but
the
in
that
in
that
model
the
event
payload
might
quite
well
be
XML
and
that's
a
that's
perfectly
legit.
The
the
real
event
is
XML
and
our
in
our
colony
vents
format.
G
And
if
you,
if
you
using
the
bite
of
this
binary
format,
for
that,
obviously,
then
you
are
you
need
to.
You
need
to
carry
all
these.
These
transport
headers
out
of
bands,
so
the
binary
format
is
really
just
meant
for
a
single
hop
and
the
the
structured
format
is
really
meant
for
multiple
Hopf
routing
of
that
exact
same
event.
I
Don't
know
I
guess
in
some
sense
I
recognized
that
we
may
go
through
some
untrusted
or
not
untrusted
I
guess
non-compliant
proxy
I!
Guess
I,
don't
know
if
I
really
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
much
I
buy
the
idea
that
this
format,
that
is,
that
nicely
separates
data
in
context
that
doesn't
invent
new
double
encoding
formats.
Why
it
is
necessary,
yet
not
good
for
everything
like
I
honestly
expected
that
this
spec
was
going
to
end
up
with
one
encoding
format
that
looked
a
lot
like
the
e
binary
encoding
format.
G
Routable
because
because
if
you
have
HTTP
headers
yet
you
have
an
HTTP
header
that
comes
in
on
one
side
and
you
have,
and
now
you
need
to
go
and
route
that
off
to
while
some
other
place,
that's
using
mq
PE,
that's
using
MQTT,
then
all
of
a
sudden
now
you're
doing
transfer
protocol
mapping,
transfer
protocol,
header
mapping
the
transfer
protocol.
How
do
mapping
and
the
reality
of
that
is
that
you
will
have
a
gateway
that
does
your
external
protocol
handling
and
now
you're
kind
of
dragging
transport
context
through
your
entire
implementation.
G
I
G
Is
not
that's
not
a
theory
we're
actually
having
that
in
production
just
with
a
different
format
with
our
own
format,
and
this
is
exactly
what
we're
doing
we
events
come
in,
they
get
pushed
or
events
it
through
event
grid.
They
land
an
event
table
they'll,
then
land
in
sometimes
in
in
every
whatever
containers
get
picked
up
by
a
Hadoop
and
then
get
processed
I
mean
this
is
something
that
just
happens.
Those
those
those
events
even
go
to
disk
and
then
get
three
hibernated
from
this.
I
Get
the
in
one
place,
my
fear
is
that
we're
eventually
going
to
ossify
that
JSON
is
the
best
transport,
because
other?
What
like
the
elegance
of
the
HTTP
header
solution
is
that,
regardless
of
like
what
encoding
someone
wants
to
choose
for
the
overall
and
an
envelope
that
they're
going
to
have
one
way
that
they
know
how
to
access
and
route
based
on
a
particular
feature.
If.
G
G
But
the
point
is
the
the
reality
in
the
reality
of
an
implementation
is,
if
you
don't
keep
the
data
together,
then
you
have.
You
have
simply
proprietary
framework
over
here
context
and
proprietary
framework
over
your
context
that
you
know
needs
to
go
and
map
to
each
other
instead
of
just
putting
it
all
into
a
single
JSON
object
be
happy
with
it,
and
it's
not
precluded
that
you
arbitrary
data,
you
just
need
basically,
four
encoded.
G
I
G
B
B
If
the
data
itself
is
encoded
in
some
way,
let's
say:
base64
encoded
yeah
as
the
receiver
of
that
I,
don't
know
how
to
decode
that
into
something
else
like
XML
or
something
that
yeah
I
just
don't
know
how
to
decode
it
or
what's
trying
to
decode
it
into
without
the
additional
content
type
property
sitting
right
next
to
it
is
that.
B
G
Well,
but
but
what
it
does
is
it
takes
the
exact
content
type
field.
The
content
type
field
from
the
binary
respect
originates
right
in
our
called
events
in
our
cloud
event
specification.
So
it
is
the
same
field
that
I'm
mapping
into
the
Jason
is
the
same
field
that
I'm
mapping
on
to
an
HTTP
header
in
the
in
the
binary
version.
It
is
the
same
field,
it's
just
different
map
differently
and
the
spec
actually
says
that
so
so
it
so.
Yes,
it
is.
I
B
Okay,
let
me
ask
this
question,
then:
is
this
something
that
you
feel
has
to
be
resolved
before
we
get
to
zero
point?
One?
No,
okay
are
there
are
other
topics
or
questions
about
this
PR
from
anybody,
not
just
Thomas,
but
anybody
on
the
call
who
they
like
that
they'd
like
to
discuss,
because
they
feel
like
it's
a
blocker,
to
accept
this
PR
40.1.
B
I
About
I
was
actually
not
overjoyed
with
making
a
the
new
content
type
for
application
cloud
event
and
then
plus
encoding,
largely
because
it
just
breaks
off
the
shelf
waters
or
off
the
shelf
frameworks,
though,
for
example,
will
have
to
come
up
with
a
new
like
Google
Cloud
functions
will
break
I,
suspect
something
like
Glenda
would
break.
They'd
all
have
to
learn
how
about
our
new
content
type
and
that,
oh,
it's
actually
JSON.
Well,.
G
We,
but
that's
what
the
the
extension
that
I'm,
so
the
plus
Jason,
the
extension
or
the
extensibility
of
media
types,
is
something
that's
and
that's
a
that's
an
RFC
and
it's
pretty
widely
used
already
and
what
we're
defining
a
media
type
I
mean
that's
what
we
do
here
right.
So
why?
Wouldn't
we
not
declare
it
media
type,
because
we
actually
have
the
exact
case
here
where
we
were
defining
a
media
type,
and
then
we
have
multiple
renderings
for
that
media
type.
So
the
exact
case
for
which
the.
G
I
G
Do
this,
let's
try
so
I
want
I,
want
I
want
to
have
a
registration
for
our
own
media
type
which,
because
it
also
makes
the
standard
legit,
and
if
we
find
out
that
the
media
type
turns
out
to
be
a
real
blocker
and
that's
something
we'll
find
out
the
interrupt
testing.
Then
we
should
go
and
figure
out
what
the
rule
ought
to
be
and
whether
we
need
to
go
and
revert
it,
but
I
think
I
think
it
should
I'm.
G
Not
sure
I
would
be
surprised
if
it
really
broke
a
lot
of
stuff,
because
that's
how
media?
How
media
types
work
is
that
you,
if
you
define
a
format
of
that
sort,
then
you
are
introducing
a
media
tab
for
so
I
would
like.
I
would
like
to
make
this
make
this
kind
of.
If
we,
if
interrupt
testing
proves
that
were
we're
causing
pain
with
that,
then
we
should
go
and
revert.
It.
I
B
I
B
B
G
B
B
B
B
B
B
G
Yeah,
so
the
reason
why
I
even
needed
the
type
system
is
because
I
broke
out
the
Jason
sterilization
and
also
the
same
computerization
kind
of
as
a
proof
point
and
then
realized
as
I
was
as
I
was.
Writing
the
Jason
specification
that
I
really
had
no
no
types
to
refer
to.
We
had
we
had
use
types
or
were
using
types
in
the
in
the
document,
but
we
hadn't
really
said
what
they
are.
So
this
is
basically
just
summarizing
what
they
are
and
the
yeah.
G
And
the
thing
as
any
other
changes
and
we
had
it
and
then
you
only
change,
it
was
there's
object.
The
object
type
is
newly
introduced
and
that's
really
meaning
to
be.
We
have
a
bit
of
a
discussion
in
here.
We
have
a
the
object.
Type
is
in
JavaScript
is
different,
because
Java
doesn't
have
an
any
type
in
a
in
Java
and
in
C,
sharp
and
F
sharp
and
Python.
Whatever
object
is
really
the
can
be
anything
object
and
that's
the
and
that's
the
meaning
of
that,
and
it's
really
just
trying
to
be
a
variant.
G
But
if
I
call
this
variance,
then
it
becomes
weird
in
more
places
so
for
the
kind
of
the
mainline
uses
of
what
object
is
in
most
languages
and
being
a
variant
type.
That's
really
what
that
means
to
be,
and
it's
really
just
meant
to
be
a
an
abstract
type
system
where
I
need
to
have
one
word.
That's
then
stands
for
either
a
string
or
a
map
or
a
binary.
That's
really
what
that.
What
that
is
for
so
I
don't
want
to
make.
Don't
want
to
be
more
scientific
about
same
thing
with
with
map.
G
That
is
a
list
of
is
a
list
of
things
and
I.
Think
if
you
only
need
to
have
a
map
of
strings
you
can
you
can
write
this
I,
don't
want
to
go
and
introduce
kind
of
the
templating
mechanism
just
for
the
for
that
purpose.
So
I
want
to
keep
this
super
simple.
I
just
want
some
clarity
on
what
I
can
refer
to
from
the
mapping
specs.
Okay,.
B
I
I
B
G
Can
have
a
debate
about
this
later
we
could
go
and
probably
do
an
edit
on
it.
I,
don't
care
mom
I,
don't
care
as
much
about
names
as
it
seems
so
in
the
end,
this
can
be
if
this
can
be
any
I.
Think
it's
just
this
with
that.
You
pick
up
c-sharp
and
JavaScript
developers
and
a
bunch
of
other
people
easier.
Then,
if
you're
introducing
something,
that's
that's
kind
of
artificial
and
doesn't
show
up
anywhere
at
button.
Typescript
I'm.
G
I
G
G
B
B
C
B
B
G
H
D
B
I
Was
just
curious,
I
wasn't
in
the
impression
that
0.1
was
something
that
like
I
was
in
depression.
That
last
week
we
had
made
a
comment
that
at
at
0.1,
things
will
start
to
solidify
in
the
course
back,
in
which
case
I
was
not
necessarily
sure.
I
was
comfortable
with
some
of
the
things
that
we've
not
really
talked
about
how
they
can
be
used.
I
What
like
they
just
kind
of
were
grandfathered
into
this
spec
and
I
just
either
getting
clarity
that
these
will
not
be
final
and
they're
still
just
as
volatile
before
or
saying
hey
if
they
haven't
actually
gone
through
scrutiny.
Yet
let's
cut
them
until
we
actually
have
the
ability
to
screw
scrutinizing.
I
B
My
assumption
and
people
could
please
correct
me
if
you
have
different
opinion.
My
assumption
is
that
tagging
this
is
0.1
has
no
meaning
relative
to
the
permanency
of
anything
in
any
of
our
documents
and
everything's
still
changeable,
and
there
is
no
guarantee
of
backwards
compatibility.
That's
correct
if
there's
a
simpie,
my
opinion.
This
is
simply
to
have
something
that
people
can
point
to
as
they
code
up
for
the
era
of
events
that
we're
hoping
to
do
it
at
coop
gun,
and
we
could
all
be
looking
at
the
same
document
and
not
looking
at
something.
G
G
I
B
Is
that
a
comment
you'd
like
to
see
just
in
your
issue
or
is
that
something
you'd
like
to
see
in
the
speck
in
the
issues
line?
Okay,
I
can
take
that
action
item.
Okay,
in
that
case,
I
believe
with
that
we've
resolved
all
the
open
issues
and
pull
requests
that
are
tagged
is
zero
point
one.
So
let
me
ask
this
question:
are
there
other
issues
of
PR
that
that
I
forgot,
or
they
will
know
about
that?
We
should
be
looking
at
before
we
think
about
tagging.
This
is
zero
point.
One.
B
B
Now
I
did
have
question
offline
about
the
Monday
meeting
that
we
agreed
to
have
at
7:00
a.m.
Rob.
Dolan
was
wondering
whether
we
could
possibly
push
it
out
one
hour
to
8
a.m.
because
there
are
some
folks
on
his
side
who
may
not
be
able
to
make
it
what
people
think
is
there
any
work
section?
Is
there
any
objection
to
moving
at
the
8
a.m.
Pacific
instead
of
7
a.m.
Pacific
I'd.
E
B
D
B
Well,
that's
what's
gonna
suggest
was
what,
if
we
tend
to
leak
over
8:00
a.m.
I'll,
take
the
action.
I
have
to
reach
out
to
Austin
and
if
he
cannot
make
8:00
a.m.
but
he
can
make
7:00
a.m.
then
we'll
switch
it.
But
if
he's
okay
with
8:00
a.m.
then
we'll
stick
with
8:00
a.m.
so,
basically
we're
gating
or
blending,
Austin
decides
7:00
or
8:00
a.m.
basically.
Does
that
sound,
fair
everybody?
B
G
B
J
B
B
David
States
in
chat
that
he
doesn't
have
a
mic.
Oh
good
enough.
Okay,
he's
at
least
alive
enough
to
hear
me
hands
gonna,
okay,
so
we
have
a
whole
two
minutes
left.
Is
there
any
topic
in
a
bid
like
to
bring
up
at
all
that
we
can
cover
in
two
minutes
or
at
least
start
the
collection?
Can
you
post
the
time
of
the
decision
of
the
time
from
of
is
meeting
it's
8:00
a.m.
Monday
8:00
a.m.
Pacific
time
Monday,
depending
Austin's
availability?