►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Meeting - 2018-02-15
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.
D
C
D
E
B
C
B
Yep,
okay,
then
alright
Henry.
C
B
B
C
Okay,
yeah
I
already
had
you,
let's
see
who
else
bar
waiting,
Matt
yeah
I'm
here
all
right.
F
B
Right
got
it
eat
it.
H
C
I
C
K
B
L
M
C
B
C
B
C
Okay,
your
honor
call.
B
C
C
Okay,
dude
roll
call
Austin
will
not
be
able
to
make
the
call
today
18
yesterday
was
yesterday
I
mentioned
he
is
actively
working
on
his
a
is
so
hopefully
those
will
get
finished
soon,
in
particular
on
the
transferred
domain
aspect,
he
did
send
all
the
emails
that
he
funded
to
send
over
to
the
CN
CF
guys,
so
they
should
all
the
information
they
need.
He
does
not.
He
does
not
have
just
not
had
confirmation
for
them,
yet
that
they've
actually
done
the
transfer,
but
hopefully
done
the
works.
C
I
have
a
lot
of
background
noises.
Can
people
call
mute
you're,
not
talking
all
right
cool?
Thank
you.
Let's
see
white
paper
static,
so
the
white
paper
was
officially
published
yesterday
day
before
anyway.
You
know
it's
just
recently
in
time
for
the
surplus
conference
in
Paris
in
Paris,
so
woohoo,
that's
all
done
good
job
guys.
So
I
can
finish.
I
could
say
we're
published
all
right,
so
we
can
remove
that
work
that
agenda
item
for
next
time.
Alright,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
open
the
TRS.
C
Now
we
actually
only
have
one
PR
that
I
think
is
technically
ready
for
merging.
So
let
me
put
out
a
reminder
there
that
one
try
to
get
all
comments
addressed
in
any
PR
that
you've
opened
addressed
before
two
days
for
the
meeting.
We
do
have
a
rule
that
says
any
substantive.
Substantial
change
made
to
a
PR
within
like
two
days
will
not
get
merged
on
the
weekly
call,
because
we
want
to
get
people
time
to
review
it
offline
because
since
not
everybody
can
make
the
phone
call.
C
So
that
doesn't
mean
you
need
to
get
your
your
your
any
any
textual
updates
mates.
Your
PR
has
done
at
least
two
days
in
advance
and
if
there
are
outstanding
comments
or
questions
on
your
PRS,
we're
probably
not
going
to
address
those
or
we're
not
probably
not
gonna
merge
your
key
R
until
those
have
been
addressed,
because
we
don't
want
people
to
feel
like
we're
just
ignoring
their
comments
or
questions,
so
try
to
get
to
your
PRS
earlier
in
the
week
rather
than
later
in
the
week.
If
you
can
okay.
So
with
that
another
way.
C
A
You
know
as
we're
just
looking
at
expanding
out
the
number
of
use
cases.
I
wrote
something
up
to
say
why
it
would
be
important
for
IOT
devices.
I
also
mentioned
that,
because
of
the
potential
CPU
memory
issues
with
with
smaller
form
format,
IOT
devices
that
it
may
result
in
the
binary
encode
coding,
as
opposed
to
textual,
to
try
to
elaborate
on
that
aspect
of
it
should
be
pretty
straightforward
and
you
know.
Obviously
we
could
accept
this
and
then
make
additional
edits
if
people
have
issues
with
it,
Doug
yeah.
I
I
P
That's
immediately
actionable
that
gets
raised
and
that
you
write
a
lambda
or
a
function
for
that
you
can
then
go
and
handle
telemetry
is
very
different
in
that
it
typically
is
cause,
is
interrelated
and
constitutes
time
series
data.
So
if
you're
talking
about
temperature
chamber
temperature
information,
you
will
typically
not
act
on
a
single
on
a
single
tick,
but
you
will
rather
go
and
collect
information
in
a
in
gesture
for
if
and
then
go,
and
do
it
do
action
based
on
the
intelligence
you
gather
over
that
event.
E
You
can
maybe
we
can
clarify
on
this
one.
This
is
Dan
is
the
intent
here,
just
the
event
that
says
to
change
the
temperature
or
this
including
the
temperature
readings
themselves
or
I
just
reading
this.
It
wasn't
totally
clear
to
me
as
long
as
the
scope
is
not
Lama
tree
I,
think
world
we're
less
dangerous.
We
just
need
to
make
them
more
clear,
yeah,
but.
Q
Isn't
the
line
between
telemetry
and
events
kind
of
blurry
I
mean
a
thermometer?
Okay,
it's
reading
all
the
time.
Maybe
a
hydrometer
is
sending
an
event
because
it
detected
water.
You
know
it's
still
essentially
telemetry,
but
that
is
clearly
an
actionable
event.
Maybe
you
need
to
you
know,
change
a
spigot
or
something
like
that.
I.
P
P
C
A
I
N
C
G
M
R
At
one
point,
this
is
somewhat
in
support
of
what
Mark
had
mentioned.
My
preference
would
be,
if
possible,
to
leave
it,
as
is
just
because
different
consumers
of
the
events.
It
could
be
a
point
in
time
and
could
be
time
series.
It
depends
on
the
situation
I've
been
in
both
experiences
where
a
single
event
can
cause
the
alert
action
of
some
sort
and
a
different
situation.
It
has
time
series,
so
it
depends
on
the
situation,
so
in
this
case
I'm.
C
Anything
else,
okay,
is
there
any
objection
to
merging
this
PR
and
keep
in
mind?
If
you
don't,
you
know
this,
doesn't
stop
you
from
opening
up
additional
PRS
later
to
tweak
wording
and
stuff.
This
is
just.
Is
it
more
correct?
Is
it
you
know
it's
more
correct
than
wrong?
Is
it
making
things
better
than
they
are
now
whatever
phrase
you
want
around,
there
were
just
time
to
make
for
progress,
but
I
don't
want
to
put
something
in
if
there
are
large
objections
to
it,
so
go
ahead.
Yeah.
C
C
C
So
this
PR
has
not
changed
since
last
week.
If
I
remember
correctly,
I
think
some
of
the
concerns
from
last
week
were
around
well.
Is
this
content
type
about
simply
what's
going
to
be
sort
of
kept
in
memory?
Is
it
what's
represented
on
or
how
the
event
is
transmitted
on
the
wire
or
things
along
those
lines?
Now,
since
last
week,
though,
to
try
to
address
that
I
had
made
a
comment
in
this
PR,
so
I
can
find
it.
C
Where
is
it
okay
right
here?
You
guys
look
at
this
text
that
I
started
to
highlight
here
the
as
of
text.
What
I
was
recommending
was
that
in
the
status
section
of
the
specification,
we
add
this
little
paragraph
here
that
basically
says
we're
talking
that
this
spec,
as
it
right
now
just
defines
the
abstract
definition
of
what
an
event
is
kind
of
like
just
the
in-memory
representation.
C
More
than
anything
else,
and
whether
or
not
this
group
defines
how
it's
going
to
look
on
the
wire
and
how
that's
represented,
how
we
deal
with
the
content
type
for
for
HTTP
header
as
an
example.
Writing,
like
that
or
the
other
end,
how
the
event
gets
presented
to
the
consumer
of
it,
meaning
the
functions
of
service
or
application
or
whatever
that
has
yet
to
be
determined.
C
So
the
goal
here
was
to
between
these
two
pr's
to
get
us
out
of
this
rat
hole
that
we
had
last
week,
but
a
fortunate.
We
can't
merge
my
PR
yet
because
it
hasn't
been
there
long
enough,
but
I
was
hoping
that
we
could
merge
Euron's
PR
the
assumption
that
you're
ok
with
this
general
direction
of
my
PR,
and
make
some
forward
progress
here.
So
they
pause
there
and
see
if
there
any
questions
or
comments.
P
P
Describe
the
data
in
Corning
format,
you
know
I
think
that's
so
I
think
the
way
Howard's
layers
is,
at
least
in
my
mind.
You
have
data
which
is
arbitrary
payload,
which
can
be
binary,
and
then
you
have
content
side
which
says:
here's
how
how
you
interpret
that
binary
and
then
you
have
a
schema
URL,
which
says
now
that
you
have
a
content,
type
that
you
can
decipher.
May
that
be
JSON
or
XML
whatever
it
is.
Here's
a
schema
that
gives
you
further
information
about
it.
Okay,.
E
So
my
question
I
had
raised
on
that.
Is
one
schema
your
I
liked
the
discussion
about
this
being
for
things
like
JPEG.
This
makes
sense
if
you're
talking
about
unstructured
data,
JPEG
or
zip
or
something
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
makes
sense.
If
you
have
something
that
has
a
schema,
because
that
schema
can
tell
you
what
it
is
like
at
exome
yeah.
O
E
O
K
O
The
content
type
is
also
required
on
the
guide,
not
just
the
wire
protocol.
This
is
become
literally
assumed
for
all
languages
in
all
use
cases
that
the
language
API
will
go
and
deserialize
everything
just
for
you.
In
some
cases,
it's
a
pretty
acute
expenses,
especially
in
their
types
languages,
and
you
may
not
want
to
do
that
so
anyway,
yeah
for
both
use
cases,
the
in
memory
or
what
I
call
API
or
messaging.
You
would
probably
made
that
likewise
liked
your
subtle
distinction
between
API.
K
O
C
So
it's
a
Dan
is
a
corrective
to
to
restate
your
concern
that
while
you're
okay
with
the
text
is
being
proposed
here,
you
think
we
may
need
to
tweak
the
that
the
alright
phrase-
those
you
may
want
to
tweak
the
the
spec
slightly
to
say
that
one
or
both
or
only
one
may
be
needed
at
particular
times
right.
You
may
not
need
both.
Is
that
correct,
yeah
I
think
that's
correct.
Okay,
so
is
that
something
that
we
could
possibly
address
in
a
follow-on,
PR,
cuz
I
think
that's
sort
of
added
it
to
this.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I
still
my
fund.
My
real
real
concern
here
is
we
never
liked
your
new
PR
because
it
I
think
it's
simplified
things,
but
still
my
concern
is:
how
do
we
express
something
like
stuff?
That's
going
to
break
JSON
in
an
envelope
that
is
JSON.
So,
like
the
event
everything
we've
been
talking
about
so
far
has
been.
Even
if
we
haven't
explicitly
said
it,
we've
been
dancing
around
the
fact.
E
O
O
Why
would
you
mean
you
need
that?
Because
again,
if
we're
talking
about
the
API
definition
and
then
tender
or
appearances
are
all
flat
map
of
the
screen,
then
you
don't
need
a
description
of
its
education.
You
know
that's
the
API,
you
know
they
can
only
talk
to
the
powerful
and
they'll
do
that
on
the
back
end.
Where
could
be
not
not
defining
the
protocol.
E
O
O
Let's
assume
you
choose
to
have
a
date
on
to
define
your
envelope
and
then
another
day
some
to
define
your
document
then
once
gifted
API,
the
first
date
is
already
getting
this
year
like
I,
don't
know
if
that's
the
right
choice
or
writing
a
powerful
I
think
based
on
within
patient,
but
I
would
do
the
headers
in
a
different
way,
sinful
ways
and
writing
it
in
the
data.
But
if
that's
your
choice
and
say,
I
would
already
get
that
be
sterilized.
So
we're
not
talking
about
how
we're
serializing
the
header
in
the
message
this
nation.
E
P
P
You
may
quite
well
be
mapped
to
the
HTTP
body
and
if
we
map
this
syncope
it
may
quite
well
be
mapped
to
the
the
AMQP
body,
and
then
we
still
need
to
have
a
property
that
we
then
carry
in
an
HTTP
header
or
that
we
carry
into
in
AMQP
header
or
an
encode
ET
error,
and
that
describes
what
that
data
is
and
I.
Think.
That's
that's
how
this
this
is,
how
this
kind
of
resolves
into
a
mapping
so
effectively
the
way
the
way
I
look
at
this.
P
All
these
properties
that
were
defining
here
is
elements
of
an
info
set
that
we
didn't
go
and
project
out
onto
a
message.
That
then
goes
on
the
wire
in
in
the
appropriate
form
for
the
respective
protocol
and
then
also
in
the
appropriate
rendering
on
the
respective
protocol
as
we
need
it.
So
we're
just
talking
about
in
the
abstract
here
and
for
that
having
a
description
as
proposed
here
for
content
size
for
data
is
I,
think
right
choice
and
that
will
then
natively.
P
L
One
of
my
concerns
is
that,
like
a
content,
type
only
applies
to
a
an
array
of
bytes
once
it's
a
parsed
array
of
bytes
content,
type
number
one
replies
so
like
I
would
expect
to
have
content
type
application
JSON
if
I
have
an
unencoded,
JSON
stream,
but
once
I
decoded
it,
it's
no
longer
something
I'd
pass
to
a
party
based
in
that
content
type
and
in
fact
it
doesn't
even
need
to
stay
as
JSON
as
I
mentioned.
Last
week
we
create
actual
native
SDK
objects
based
on
the
included
format,
which
is
what.
P
C
C
Wait,
wait,
wait!
Thomas,
wait!
Just
let
me
finish
how
that
gets
serialized
or
the
rules
for
crystallizing
each
of
the
properties
in
here
into
the
appropriate
formats,
whatever
transport
you're
gonna
use
for
moving
it
across
the
wire
has
yet
to
be
written.
So
that's
not
part
of
what
we're
worrying
about
here,
nor
how
you
converts
this
stuff
into
the
data.
That's
going
to
be
handed
off
to
the
application
that
hasn't
been
yet
determined
either.
C
O
O
You
don't
want
to
say
like
maybe
there
will
be
a
second
type
of
API,
which
is
I,
don't
know
yet
filled
with
the
name
of
the
field
or
an
iterator
that
iterates
over
the
affair
like
Gmail
and
that's
far,
that's
going
to
be
part
of
the
API
definition,
which
is
also
probably
the
language-dependent
different
languages
will
have
different
ways
of
doing
those.
Yes,.
L
And
so
I
absolutely
agree
that,
like
we
will
at
some
point
care
about
how
things
go
across
the
wire
and
that
when
it
goes
across
the
wire,
it
would
be
great
to
conform
to
industry,
standard
content
types.
The
way
that
this
pull
request.
That's
on
the
screen
number
64
that
we're
looking
at
it
specifically
says
the
payload
it's
encoded
and
the
pipe
is
not
an
arbitrary
payload.
It
is
a
byte.
P
P
Let's
say:
I
go
and
choose
to
do
a
public
private
key,
the
cursor
scheme,
where
I
go
and
say
I'm,
gonna,
go
and
encrypt
that
payload
with
my
public,
with
my
private
key,
all
the
receivers
that
wants
it,
go
and
get
it
and
have
my
public
key
and
I'm
just
gonna
stuff
that
data
into
that
information
into
the
data
field
and
now,
with
the
content
type
field,
I'm
gonna
label
it
as
binary.
That's
encrypted,
probably
gonna
have
parameters
on
the
content
type
that
says
here's.
P
The
middleware,
if
it's
clever,
right
or
if
it's
being
put
in
the
know
it
can,
you
know
if
it
has
the
key,
it
can
go
and
start
cracking
the
data
and
then
it
can
go
and
start
interpreting
the
data
based
on
the
schema.
That's
that's
delivered
with
it,
but
there's
got
to
be
a
way
to
go
and
do
basically
a
pure
pass-through
of
an
event
through
middleware
infrastructure.
Without
touching
the
data.
E
E
H
C
H
C
C
G
C
That's
why
I'm
planning,
if
anybody
phrase
objections
I
mean
no
one
really
had
made
any
sense.
Substantial
comment
on
the
PR
since
last
week,
it's
a
little
concerning
and
I
want
to
nag
people
to
remember
to
please
don't
wait
for
these
phone
calls
to
speak
up,
because
if
I
don't
see
comments
on
PRS
I,
don't
know
whether
silence
means
everybody
agrees
or
no
one's
had
time
to
read
it,
and
these
these
calls
are
mainly
about
trying
to
merge
GRS
they're,
not
really
the
time
to
do
deep
discussions
about
design
sessions.
C
C
Going
once
going
twice
sold,
thank
you
guys
very
much
for
the
lively
conversation
now,
just
let
you
know
so.
We
proved
that
one,
the
other
one
that
I
mentioned
this
one.
We
are
not
going
to
merge
this
today,
but
I
do
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
it,
because
I
did
pointed
out
earlier
right.
It's
the
one
about
insects
of
the
status
section.
C
So
please
look
at
number
84
when
you
get
a
chance
just
to
remind
you're
there
all
right,
so
we
have
two
of
the
PRS
that
may
actually
be
ready
to
go.
I'm,
not
100%,
sure
there's
a
lot
of
back-and-forth
or
there
was
some
back-and-forth
and
some
open
questions.
But
let's
take
a
look
at
this
one
Thomas.
This
one
is
yours:
you
want
to
take
this
one
and
bring
people
up
to
speed
on
it.
Sure.
L
P
L
What
I'm
saying
is
I
have
found
it
repeatedly,
much
simpler
in
the
software
that
that
is
used
to
actually
like
create
the
entire
eventing
infrastructure
when
the
service
and
the
idea
are
separate,
keys.
Well,
I'm,
not
saying
that
URI
is
a
bad
idea.
I
think
that
the
region,
the
URI,
should
be
present,
show.
L
L
C
L
You,
okay,
sorry,
Thomas
go
ahead,
so
the
like
we
use
service
very
specifically,
because
we
key
off,
like
our
private
infrastructure,
for
actually
wiring
up
the
event
trigger
based
on
the
service.
Id
that
lets
us
know
the
private
instruction
you
need
to
contact
being
able
to
like
have
that
very
explicit
in
the
contract
makes
it
a
lot
clearer,
I'm,
very
against
magic
or
implicit
api's.
L
P
Yeah,
but
still
and
as
someone
understand
why
it's
necessary
to
break
out
the
information
that
you
have
together
in
a
URI
in
this
way
like
what
changes
through
you
breaking
that
apart.
Well,
your
well,
it's
totally
possible
with
every
language
and
every
one
time
to
go
and
extract
that
information
very
clearly
from
a
URI.
C
That
I'm
gonna
raise
my
hand
here.
That,
actually,
is
something
that
I
was
a
little
worried
about
worried
about
with
this
as
well
and
I
actually
put
a
comment
and
you
addressing
her
raising
this
and
that's.
It
seems
to
me
that
when
you
start
talking
about
identifying
the
source
of
the
event
itself,
different
people
are
gonna,
want,
in
essence,
different
bits
of
data
about
that
source.
Right,
there's,
some
people,
maybe
just
want
a
UUID.
Some
people
may
want
some
IP.
Some
people
may
want
a
host
name.
C
Some
people
may
want
three
is
Abel
here
no
service
well,
as
well
as
an
ID
and
the
the
number
of
different
ways.
People
to
break
up
this
data
is
probably
gonna,
vary
and
I.
Have
this
gut
sense
that
there's
no
way
we're
ever
going
to
be
able
to
define
all
the
various
ways.
People
gonna
break,
want
to
break
up
this
data,
and
so
I'm
wondering
whether
we
better
to
just
say
here's
a
single
string
that
represents
the
source
and
you
can
encode
that
string.
C
However,
you
want
whether
it's
a
single
URI,
a
single
UID
or
a
set
of
field
separated
by
colons,
or
something
like
that.
Let
the
source
decide
how
they
want
to
process
that
or
encode
things
in
there
yeah
is
you,
as
I,
see
where
this
you're
probably
gonna,
have
to
understand
the
source
anyway,
to
be
able
to
understand
all
the
various
fields
and
the
way
they
go
together?
C
K
C
F
I
mean
you
have
to
have
I
mean
if
you're
trying
to
what
would
you
include
sources
for
identification
and
most
people
on
there,
Kevin
you're
I
identify
where
that
what
that
resource
is
or
you
are
in
so
people
can
define
the
best
way.
Protocol
prefix
exists
in
your
eyes,
so
you
could
actually
know
how
to
interpret
the
rest
of
the
string
right,
so
that
allows
us
in
the
future
to
actually
want
to
you
or
others
if
they
choose
to
define
their
own
protocol
prefixes
that
that
dictate
how
the
string
gets
interpreted.
F
Additionally,
people
are
accustomed
to
in
terms
of
sharing
resources
across
different
domains,
using
a
URI
and
using
their
already
established
domain
name
so
that
they
can
clearly
identify
one
domain
versus
another.
So
you
know
you
have
to
know
where
it
came
from
it's
for
it
to
be
actionable.
You
really
do
so.
C
F
P
I
think
if
we
were
writing
the
URI,
the
the
MVP
spec
today,
we
would
clearly
make
it
a
URI
because
we're
defining
a
URI
format,
and
that
has
proven
to
be
we're
doing
quite
a
bit
of
work
right
now
on
that
in
terms
of
routing
etc,
and
that
the
URI
basically
holds
up
to
even
the
most
complicated
routing
patterns
that
we're
trying
to
establish.
So
so
that's,
that's
just
you
know
anecdote
from
from
the
AAP
standardization
work
that
I'm
involved
in,
and
the
same
is
true
for
for
other
rounds
as
well.
P
So
having
a
URI
having
a
single
expression
is
quite
handy
and
it's
universally
supported.
So,
instead
of
splitting
the
source
URI
for
it
being
more
palatable
to
individual
implementations,
I
would
rather
go
and
consolidate
and
flow
a
single
field,
and
then
I
would
also
be
okay
with
just
making
mandating
and
that
it
is
your
I.
L
F
F
Q
Q
A
P
F
Choose
use
URL
identifiers
that
mean
that
that's
your
choice,
it's
not
interpret
but
and
I
assume
people
here
are
gonna,
be
more
expansive
and
he's
your
full
uri.
Not
just
you.
Let
me
tell
you
the
URL,
it's
like
dinner
fire.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
accessible.
Yes,
it's
not
you're
not
going
to
hit
that
source.
It's
basically
identify
the
source.
You.
P
L
P
F
C
L
C
Thing
I
think
that
may
be
missed
here
at
least
may
not
be
clear
to
everybody.
Is
that
whatever
this
value
is
right,
whether
it's
a
URI
URL,
just
a
string
or
whatever
it's
really
just
for
identification
purposes,
meaning
just
to
sort
of
uniquely
identify
it
from
everything
else
in
the
world.
It
does
not
mean
that
it's
accessible
via
any
kind
of
network
connection,
it's
just
a
unique
string.
In
essence,
you
really
want
to
dumb
it
down.
C
O
Like
I've
done,
we
wanted
no,
we
want
it
to
be
sort
of
namespace
with
sort
of
like
you
know,
just
like
in
kubernetes,
you
have,
like
company
name
place
something
on
their
location,
though,
if
I,
if
I,
want
to
add
my
own,
my
of
my
own
is
at
random
they're
only
back
cereth
and
they're
perfect.
It
would
let's
say
amazon.com.
Yeah.
C
I'm
not
talking
about
how
yeah
you're
on
I'm
not
talking
about
how
people
go
about
making
that
that
value,
unique
that
that's
a
different
discussion.
That's
why
I
make
sure
Thomas
understands
that
string
here.
Doesn't
that
mean
you
have
to
have
some
end
points
somewhere,
that's
accessible
by
the
receiver
disadvantage,
be
able
to
reach
balance.
O
P
The
name
spacing
the
name
spacing
is
really
given
by
the
available
scheme
City,
so
there's
an
RFC
for
your
eyes
and
how
they're
built
and
how
you
register
schemes
in
the
typical
way.
How
this
has
been
done
in
other
other
realms,
for
instance,
in
XML,
is
that
you
are
taking
an
HTTP
or
I
with
domain
that
you
own,
and
then
you
have
a
namespace
for
yourself.
You
that
you
can
go
and
define
in
the
story.
P
Here
is
exactly
the
same
as
with
XML
namespaces,
in
that
the
XML
namespace
identifiers,
the
HTTP
URL
was
basically
never
meant
to
go
and
resolve
to
an
actual
document.
Sometimes
it
did,
but
mostly
it
didn't,
and
it
just
was
there.
We,
we
just
all
used
the
domain
names
to
make
sure
that
things
were
reasonably
unique.
We
can
end
we
can
land
at
a
convention
like
this
I.
Don't
I,
don't
even
think
there
was
ever
a
formal
convention
xmlns,
which
was
arguably
over
defined
for
how
the
name
is
busier.
I
should
really
look
so
I.
C
But
I'll
go
back
to
Thomas
because
you
keep
focusing
on
you:
don't
want
to
be
forced
to
pick
a
particular
scheme
and
I'm
telling
you
it
doesn't
matter.
That's
fine!
Then.
Okay,
this
scheme
is
almost
irrelevant,
except
in
terms
of
interpreting.
They
don't
arrest
the
string
kind
of
stuff,
okay,
so
I
so
Thomas
I
think
this
is
your
PR.
What
we'd
like
to
do
next
I'm,
getting
the
sense
that
there's
a
there's
a
fairly
large
push,
not
include
this
and
potentially
merge
other
fields.
So
we
just
have
a
single
source
value.
I.
L
C
O
O
O
C
C
C
L
I
was
just
trying
to
offer
some
language
I
think
some
other
people
have
better
suggestions
as
well.
Possibly,
but
just
there
was
some
concern
about.
Like
is
the
source,
the
end
user
on
my
web
browser
we're
trying
to
codify
that
this
is
actually
a
piece
of
software
that
first
identified.
So
it's
not
an
end
user.
It's
not
a
relay.
It
is
the
actual
originating
source
where
the
occurrence
happened.
C
H
I
have
a
question
on
this.
You
know
the
source,
for
example,
if
like
just
give
it
example,
if
there's
a
like
a
motion
detection
sensor,
so
that
sensor,
you
know
triggers
the
event
right,
that
image
being
downloaded
and
through
maybe
some
gateway
and
then
go
into
the
storage
in
the
crowd,
and
then
that
triggers
you
know
a
function
to
process
that
image
or
that
picture.
So
it's
a
source
that
sensor
and
that
I
mean
whatever
video
camera
or
the
source
is
a
gateway,
the
API
gateway.
H
L
H
So
you
are
saying,
depending
on
how
we
define
how
the
user
defined
the
event
type,
the
source
will
need
to
be
specified
to
be
consistent
with
the
event
type
specification.
Is
that
what
you
mean
effectively.
L
Because
I
think
you
know
in
the
process
of
handling
an
event
or
doing
some
other
software,
you
can
cause
another
event
to
happen.
So
in
your
example,
you
specifically
said
the
image
was
uploaded
ps3
well
as
three
already
exposes
an
event
type
or
you
know
an
object
upload,
so
that
already
does
exist,
but
there
is
use
and
saying
okay
on
the
IRT
bender
I
want
to
do
something
with
IOT
and
in
most
the
itq
use
cases.
It
makes
sense
that
the
individual
sensor
should
be
a
source.
L
Q
Interpretation
of
Kathy's
question:
please
correct
me:
if
this
is
wrong,
there
are
actually
a
couple
events
going
on
there
right.
There's
a
motion
sensor,
detecting
an
event,
taking
a
picture
uploading
that
so,
if
the,
if
we're
talking
about
the
camera,
uploading
a
picture
as
the
event,
then
the
camera
is
obviously
the
source.
If
you're
talking
about
triggering
the
function
as
the
event.
Well,
then
s3
is
the
source,
because
it's
creating
an
event
that
said:
I
just
had
an
object
upload.
Q
If
you're
then
talking
about
the
function
itself,
creating
an
event
that
perhaps
somebody
else
reacts
to
I
mean
each
one
of
those
can
be
considered
an
event
and
each
one
has
a
different
source.
There
isn't
like
one
unifying
thing
that
you
know,
because
a
long
chain
of
different
pieces
of
software
chose
to
process
data
in
different
ways.
There
has
to
be
a
single
event
that
tracks
the
whole
thing.
Yeah.
O
C
So
can
ask
a
question
here:
just
for
clarity's
sake
is
Kathy's
question
or
this
this
train,
or
this
line
discussion,
is
this
directly
related
to
the
textual
changes
that
Thomas
made
here
or
were
they
more
of
an
abstract
question,
because
I'm
wondering
whether
the
the
questions
are
being
raised
because
they
have
because
people
have
concerns
with
his
text
here
or
because
they
were
asking
a
tangent
question.
I.
H
H
So
I
think
we
need
more
clarification
on
this.
You
know
just
give
like
you
know
if
they're
that
event,
an
action
that
even
goes
through
a
lot
and
agenda
of
you
know
on
devices
and
they
eventually
triggers
the
action.
So
where
is
the
the
event
source?
Is
it
at
the
very
beginning,
or
is
it
isn't
at
the
end
which
add
vapor,
beginning
will
be
the
camera
right
at
the
end,
could
be
the
s3
for
some
that
storage
and,
of
course,
in
the
middle.
H
P
Maybe
maybe
I
could
give
some
help
with
some
clarity
here
so
I've
been
working
on
the
OPC
UA
pops
of
specification,
which
is
for
industrial
automation,
industrial
devices
and
were
that's
being
read.
The
specification
is
being
wrapped
up
right
now
and
so
the
way
how
this
works
in
industrial
in
industrial
devices.
That
is
that
really
you
have
a
you,
have
a
bus
that
sits
inside
of
the
machine
and
then
you
have
effectively
an
interface
or
multiple
interfaces
towards
I
would
say:
IT
and
OPC.
P
Ua
is
one
of
the
leading
interoperability
standards
for
that,
so
the
the
sensor
will
go
and
rays
and
events
on
the
local
local
real
time
bus
typically,
the
sensor
may
also
be
its
own
source.
That
raises
the
event
kind
of
unto.
An
internal
communication
link
involves
some
other
sorts
and
then
that
you
will
have
an
outside
gateway
that
will
go
and
publish
that
events
then
out
to
an
IT
system,
which
means
this
is
where
this
here
this
and
would
come
to
pass.
P
The
source
of
that
will
likely
be
the
machine
itself,
so
the
OPC
UA
server
per
se
that
will
take
ownership
and
will
take
effect.
They
speak
for
the
machine
and
then
in
the
past
section
of
the
your
I,
it
may
go
and
further
qualify.
What
part
that
comes
from
there's
a
whole
notion
of
identification
of
subdivisions
inside
of
an
OPC
waste
server,
which
is,
as
it
goes,
hierarchical
so
you're
a
year
I
to
the
to
identify
both
the
machine
as
well
as
the
part
that
emitted
the
event
is
possibly
using
your
I
Clemens.
G
If
someone
else
feel
like,
if
that
does,
it
seem
like,
because
I
think
there
are
a
few
different
models
going
on
and
I
would
like
to.
I
would
like
to
hear
each
of
them
and
kind
of
iron
out
that
just
like,
where
they
are
different.
So
I'd,
like
I,
would
really
like
to
set
aside
time
for
each
person
to
walk
through
their
model
of
events
how
they
like.
Where
is
the
action?
Where
is
the
source?
What
is
triggering
if
you're,
if
you're
training
together
actions?
How
are
you
doing
that
so.
C
C
C
K
C
B
N
T
C
R
C
C
Yep
and
with
that
we're
one
minute
over
time,
I
apologize
for
going
over,
but
this
was
a
great
lively
discussion
and
reminder.
Please
look
at
those
PRS
before
this
call
and
please
address
the
comments
in
your
PR
at
least
two
days
in
advance,
so
we
can
try
to
get
them
merged
and
with
that.
Thank
you
guys
very
much.