►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG - 2018-05-31
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.
Join us for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon in San Diego November 18 - 21. Learn more at https://bit.ly/2XTN3ho. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects.
A
A
A
A
A
D
Also,
the
original
I
think
I
had
one
AI
that
I
basically
ad
on
the
issue
I'm
filing
this
to
report.
My
findings,
that
was
my
a
I
I
think,
should
be
Auto
closed
at
a
later
time:
okay,
so
I'll
marketers,
ten
men.
The
ending
thing,
though,
is
I,
found
out
that
there's
a
separate
directory
under
the
open
tracing
spec.
That
has
something
that
might
come
back
again,
as
will
Avenue
for
correlation
ID.
So
you
can
track
turn
about
that.
A
little
later,
if
you'd,
like
okay.
B
B
A
F
H
A
A
J
A
A
A
L
Here
as
well
great.
A
A
M
Yeah
totally,
thank
you
for
the
reminder.
Actually,
first
of
all,
I
was
just
in
the
process
of
sending
an
email
and
I
got
I
guess
I
gotta
figure
out
which
email
ID
am
I
subscribed
to,
because
when
I
try
to
join
using
argu
at
amazon.com
it
says
that
is
already
part
of
the
working
group.
But
when
I
try
to
send
an
email
with
our
goo
from
our
Google
amazon.com,
it
says
the
message
was
rejected.
M
A
M
And
that's
what
I
meant
you
know:
I
mean
I,
don't
literally
went
over
there.
So
when
I
go
to
the
URL
that
okay
join,
this
user
group
join
this
working
group,
it
says
this
email
IP
address
is
already
registered
to
use
it
login
I,
guess
I
know
I
gotta
figure
out.
You
know
how
do
I
log
in
because
I
don't
remember
joining
it
from
yeah.
M
Network
yeah,
so
hopefully,
during
the
call
today,
I
should
be
able
to
go
through
that
process
and
send
the
email
right
away
and
in
the
email
I
have
mentioned
that.
What
is
the
kind
of
information
that
I
am
looking
at?
Essentially,
what
I'm
looking
at
is
we
want
to
see
the
customer
names
on
who
would
like
us
to
support
this
as
part
of
a
WS
lambda
I
this
matter?
What
problem
is
it
solving?
M
You
know
if
they
have
any
timelines
on
the
implementation
of
this
and,
more
importantly,
how
would
they
like
this
format,
to
be
supported
now?
Is
it
natively
supported?
Is
it
like,
you
know
as
a
lambda
function
or
is
it
consuming?
Is
it
generating?
Is
it
both?
Is
it
in
a
format?
So
that's
the
kind
of
detail
that
I'm
looking
for
yep.
M
More
on
the
related
topic,
I've
been
working
with
the
lambda
team,
quite
regularly
kind
of
giving
them
update
from
the
server
less
working
group.
Hopefully
starting
next
working
group,
Jane
Eyre
who's,
the
PM's
in
the
lambda
team.
You
should
be
able
to
start
attending.
This
working
group
calls
regularly
I've
been
constantly
raising
the
priority
of
this
working
group
to
the
lambda
T,
who
should
have
a
direct
representation
from
the
lambda
team
itself.
M
A
Right
that
sounds
wonderful.
Thank
you
all
right,
then,
moving
forward.
Let's
talk
about
the
face
to
face
of
vote.
So
much
checked.
There
was
a
slight
winner.
Oh
it
went
the
other
way
interesting
hopeless.
He
will
just
voted
completely
change
the
results.
Okay.
So
as
of
right
now
and
well,
he
did
say
the
boat
was
gonna
close
at
this
call.
So
as
of
right
now,
June
15th
is
the
date
for
the
face
to
face
which
completely
messes
up
my
other
document
that
I
created
it's
all
on
a
sec.
B
A
I
know
Clemens
will
be
very
happy
okay.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do,
though,
is
get
everybody
who's
planning
on
attending
to
add
their
name
to
this
list
as
soon
as
possible,
because
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
was
Clemens
I,
think
you
brought
up
the
question
of
how
many
do
we
need
to
actually
chorim,
because,
obviously
we
don't
have
quorum,
we
may
not
want
to
hold
the
meeting
I
mean
we
still.
Could
it
just
won't
necessarily
be
a
binding
meeting
with
votes
or
anything
like
that.
A
So
if
people
are
planning
on
attending,
please
add
you
nee
to
the
list
as
soon
as
possible
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
the
right
number
is
to
mandate
there
or
to
say
we
have
quorum.
Hopefully,
when
we
get
there,
we'll
know
it
but
I'm
in
my
mind,
I'm
thinking
if
we
can
get,
you
know
at
least
eight
or
so
of
the
voting
companies
to
say
yes
they're
going
to
show
up.
That
might
be
the
right
number,
but
let
me
just
pause
there.
A
A
D
A
I
figure
he'll,
almost
any
company,
yeah,
hey,
let's
compile
a
host
if
you
need
to
Austin
jumped
in
there
first,
oh
okay,
cool
any
other
questions
comments
on
the
face
to
face,
then
all
right.
Excellent.
Thank
you
guys
very
much
and
thank
you
for
voting
all
right.
So
next
workstream
item.
As
of
the
last
time,
I
checked,
which
was
around
30
minutes
ago,
we
had
a
clear
winner,
which
was
this
workflow
functions,
composition,
one
which
got
the
most
votes.
A
We
did
have
one
person
I
think
it
might
have
been
Chad
who
voted
three
times,
I'm
gonna
asterisk
next
to
that,
but
even
even
if
you
try
to
figure
out
which
way
he
was
really
gonna
go,
it
doesn't
change.
The
vote.
Maybe
still
have
a
very
clear
winner
there.
So
the
question
that
I
have
is
two
things
one
is:
can
we
get
someone
to
answer
my
question
here
to
give
us
a
little
more
clarity
on
exactly
what
we're
gonna
be
producing
here
right?
Is
it
a
specification?
A
Is
it
a
paper
just
something
that
we
can
then
take
forward
with?
We
go
to
the
TOC
to
propose
this
next
work
item
because
we
need
to
get
their
approval,
since
this
is
falling
under
the
service
working
group
activity,
not
under
cloud
events,
which
is
a
separate
organization.
So
we
need
to
get
COCs
approval
for
this
other
work
item.
So
I
like
to
get
a
little
more
clarity
on
what
would
actually
be
producing
there.
Someone
could
help
answer
that
question.
Okay,.
A
A
Spec
has
reached
some
milestone,
for
example
1.0
before
we
start
our
work
and
the
reason
I'm
asking
is
because
if
we
start
before
we
reach
some
milestone
like
1.0,
we
then
run
the
risk
of
dividing
our
time
and
that
may
impact
our
forward
progress.
So
let
me
pause
there
and
see
if
there
any
comments
or
or
just
comments
in
general,
about
that
I
think.
E
G
I
think
so
also
at
the
beginning,
I
think
there
is
quite
some
I.
Can
you
know?
What's
a
functional
scope
like
you
know
the
question,
you
ask
the
specification,
those
need
to
be
sorted
out
and
then
you
know
when
we
sort
out.
You
know
the
some
some
going
deep.
We
might
find
out
yeah.
We
need
to
some
I
some
more
like
metadata
attributes
to
the
commitment.
D
A
G
So
so
I
think
the
conclusion
is:
we
will
go
for
like
kind
of
like
a
property
property
back
that
format,
so
we're
going
to
the
original
sender
will
specify
some
the
key
value
pair
in
the
property
under
that
property
was
at
that
scope,
and
then
you
know
the
if
that
event
goes
through
some
intermediate
routers
or
gateways
and
those
intermedia
entities
can
add
on
additional
properties.
On
top
of
that,
I
think
we
have
not
reached
a
conclusion
whether
the
additional
the
intermediate
gateways
or
entities
could
now
the
I
mean
it
could
modify.
G
You
know
the
regional
feel,
but
I
mean
original
key
value
pair,
but
we
haven't
made
a
decision
whether
you
know
those
modifications
should
be
put
into
the
on
top
of
the
original
pave
bag
or
just
you
know,
just
modify
the
original
key
value
pair
in
the
regional
pocket
bag.
Yeah,
that's
pretty
much.
It
is.
A
G
Yeah
I
think
we
kind
of
have
a
PR
for
that
and
then
the
whole
team
can,
you
know,
know
what
specific
details:
yeah.
Okay,.
G
D
G
D
There
it
says
correlation,
ID,
discussion,
summary
and
I
apologize.
I
missed
this
as
on
a
plane.
Yesterday,
the
there
exists,
a
header
I,
just
discovered
for
the
distributed
tracing,
spec
called
correlation
context.
It
might
fit
all
of
our
needs.
It
might
be
nice
to
use
that
same
name
and
specify
that
in
HTTP
it
has
the
same
value
that
when
we
get
to
a
line
with
more
specs,
okay.
G
A
H
H
G
G
G
Yeah
I
think
that
that
will
be
part
of
the
specification.
So,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
this
workflow
specification
should
include
like
to
specify
what
combination
of
events
triggers.
What
functions,
for
example,
is
it
like
why
event
trigger
that
function
or
is
like
coming
back
together?
Chieko
that
function
or
either
of
the
you
know,
two
events
of
the
three
events
could
trigger
that
function
and
then
also
is
a
trigger.
Does
it
just
I
mean?
Do
the
events
just
trigger
one
function
or
trigger
multiple
functions
if
you've
got
multiple
functions?
G
Are
those
multiple
functions
executed
in
parallel
or
in
sequence?
So
that's
one
aspect
and
another
oke.
It
could
be
some
cases.
You
know
the
in
the
workflow
right,
for
example.
The
second
step
could,
like
you
know
those
functions.
Some
additional
functions
might
not
be
need
to
be
triggered
by
any
event
it
just
you
know
when
they
reach
that
stage.
G
If
there
are
multiple
functions,
okay,
then
the
information
the
results
should
be
filtered
and
then
combined
with
the
other
functions
and
then
passed
to
the
next
function
or
next
sequences
of
functions.
So
I
think
you
know
to
Paris
wise.
You
specify
you
know
the
work
from,
though
what
you
want
triggers,
what
function,
how
the
function?
I,
security
in
sequence,
in
parallel
or
branching,
human
brontë,
you
could
have
some
switch
state
and
then
another
aspect
is
how
the
information
are
passing
between
even
from
events
to
functions
and
between
the
functions.
A
So
Kathy
Ducey
is
actually
producing
a
specification
that
says
this
is
what
phrase
it
differently.
I
understand
what
you
said
there,
but
it's
not
clear
to
me
is:
are
we
producing
some
sort
of
technical
specification?
It
says
here's
how
an
application
developers
specifies
the
list
of
functions
that
get
invoked
in
what
order
or
we
just
writing
a
white
paper
that
says
these
are
the
types
of
broad
functionality
or
broad
functional
features
that
a
platform
should
offer.
Okay.
G
Good
question:
I,
okay,
I
personally
think
we
should
have
both.
Why
is
you
know
what
kind
of
function
the
scope
of
functionalities
and
she
will
be
covered
by
the
workflow
and
another
is
if
we
cover
you
know
some
specification
which
will
be
uniform
across
you
know
any
platform
and
you
serve
this
platform
that
would
be
good
for
the
user
as
I
use.
If
I'm
a
user
right,
I
just
write
one,
you
know
workflow
specification
and
it
could
be
I
could
run.
You
know
Google
cloud
Amazon,
Microsoft
huawei
crowd.
M
E
Are
two
aspects
here:
one
is
the
you
know,
definition
of
the
workflow
you
know
like
like
in
step,
functions
the
JSON
that
describes
the
state
transition,
the
other
one
is.
You
know,
for
example,
the
message
that
traverse
the
cloud
events
with
sort
of
a
correlation,
ID,
workflow
ID.
You
know
other
things
that
need
to
be
passed
between
one
for
workflow
step
to
another,
so
Doris.
Those
are
two
separate
things
you
think
we
need
to
do
both
or
one
or
the
other,
but.
G
I
think
you
know,
correlation
ID
will
be
implicit
will
be
part
of
the
workflow
specification
because
for
any
workflow
right,
if
it
scales
out,
we
must
solve
the
problem.
How
to
you
know
how,
to
you
know
sake
how
to
send
those
event
to
the
appropriate
workflow
instances.
Then
we
need
a
correlation
mechanism
with
that.
Otherwise
you
could
send
if
that
workflow
it
triggered
by
three.
If
that
workflow
involves
three
events
right
and
there
are
many
instances
of
the
of
each
of
those
events
and
how
do
you
know
which
event
sent
to
which
workflow
instance?
E
G
We
defend
so
will
be
different
aspects
of
the
workflow,
the
user
need
to
specify
say
which,
which
key
value
pairs
or
which
combination
of
key
value
pairs
that
can
be
used.
I
mean
that
of
that
event,
that
can
be
used
for
the
work,
for
this
I
mean
I
mean
by
the
platform
or
any
entity
to
correlate
and
then
to
correlate
like
I.
Did
this
event
with
another
events
and
then
send
it
to
the
right
server.
G
I
mean
work,
for
instance
right,
because
the
server
is
problem
or
any
entity
handling
those
event
and
then
trigger
I,
mean
I,
mean
triggering
those
functions
or
how
to
say
host
of
the
instantiate,
whatever
contain
and
REM
tool
to
run.
Those
functions,
that's
also
varies
perform
do
not
know
because
it's
specific
to
each
each
use
case,
application
and
the
developer
of
that
service.
G
O
C
E
Yeah,
but
I
was
saying:
is
that
the
essentially,
let's
assume
you're,
going
to
standardize
the
work
flow
description,
but
there's
no
way
to
standardize
the
function
description,
so
evolution
wise,
the
first.
We
need
to
standardize
like
a
animals
back.
You
know
and
then
decide
how
those
are
sort
of
chained
together
in
a
workflow,
because
there's
not
much
value
in
describing
the
relations
between
functions
in
a
specification
language
without
being
able
to
define
specification
for
a
function
that
will
be
cross-platform.
P
P
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
would
love
to
actually
define.
You
know
well
take
some
limited
set
of
features
that
we
believe
are
important
for
workflows
and
actually
define
their
exact
meaning.
You
know
we
believe
filtering.
Isn't
you
must
be
able
to
filter
these
rules
equally,
the
joining
is
important.
A
system
should
consider
you
know
how
it
does.
D
When
doing
what
do
you
do
when
half
of
the
joins
drops,
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
I
think
we
can
come
up
with
a
spec
that
multiple
pieces
of
software
can
interact
with,
which
means
that
you
can
have
both
open
source
or
even
proprietary
solutions.
That
customer
can
feel
confident
that
the
semantic
meaning
of
their
product
doesn't
change
if
they
go
from
cloud
to
cloud.
H
Okay,
I
didn't
mean
to
hijack
the
whole
conversation,
but
there's
just
useful
to
to
you
know,
get
a
poll
of
what
people
are
thinking
on
this
subject,
because
there's
a
lot
of
excitement.
We
just
wanted
to
better
understand
if
we
were
all
thinking
along
the
same
lines
and
overall
I
think
this
is
an
exciting
initiative.
H
I
don't
know
if
this
is
coming
up
with
our
own
surplice
app
model,
our
own
workflow
spec,
our
own
open
API
for
event-driven,
workflows,
kind
of
spec,
but
there's
I
believe
that
there's
a
lot
of
user
problems
we
could
solve
here-
and
this
is
kind
of
what
servlets
is
all
about.
Defining
these
business
logic
workflows,
so
I
think
it's.
This
is
definitely
a
good
thing
for
the
working
group
to
tackle
and
it's
helpful
to
hear
everyone's
opinions
on
this,
and
hopefully
we
can
get
together
and
get
some
proposals
out
there.
Yeah.
A
And
I
think
I
think
once
Cathy
puts
together
a
crisper
definition
and
what
we're
actually
producing
and
Cathy.
If
you
can
also
include
in
that
the
notion
of
scope
puts
out
a
scope
like
that
in
the
proposal.
If
you
could
put
all
that
into
a
Google
Talk,
your
people
can
review
it
and
and
work
on
it
and
we
did
isn't
necessary.
I
have
a
feeling
it's
going
to
take
several
iterations
for
us
to
get
the
sum
that
the
entire
group
agrees
with.
D
C
And
and
if
we
can
include
something
so
that
as
a
user
I
can
understand
why
I
should
find
this
valuable,
because
there's
a
what
I
have
seen
in
other
enterprises
that
a
lot
of
what
we're
doing
is
writing
a
function
and
we're
not
really
streaming
a
lot
of
things
together.
Yet
we're
not
at
that
level
and
a
lot
of
companies.
I,
don't
see
as
much
value
in
this
I'd
like
to
know
where
that
value
prop
is.
L
Again,
it's
probably
you're-
probably
about
right.
It
might
be
for
those
that
have
built
large
portions
of
their
application
functionality
into
functions
and
then,
having
that
peace
of
mind
that
you
import,
like
one
of
the
benefits,
is
having
that
peace
of
mind.
That
should
they
need
to
migrate
the
whole
components
of
their
application,
which
would
be
functions
out
of
one
system
and
that
it
could
be
important
to
the
next
that
it
makes
the
work
he
ingested.
Those
workflow
definitions,
then.
G
So
I
will
give
some
examples,
and
you
know
some
workflow
examples
so
that
people
can,
you
know,
can
see
the
usage
scenario,
application
scenario,
because
I
think
you
know
when
we
really
go
down
the
sub-race
path,
we're
going
to
find
out
many
usage.
Many
service
use
applications
are
actually
not
just
a
simple
event:
sugars,
a
simple
function.
There
will
be.
You
know
it
will
involve
multiple
events
and
multiple
functions.
G
H
H
A
All
right
cool,
thank
you
with
that.
I
think
is
probably
move
on.
I
think
we're
gonna
go
back,
I,
guess
and
I
think
we're
gonna
go
back
and
forth
a
lot
once
kathy
clarifies
or
puts
down
a
paper.
What
we're
gonna
be
doing
here,
all
right,
so
cool.
Thank
you
guys,
I'm
moving
forward,
then
PR
reviews
so
the
first
one
in
the
list.
I
actually
don't
want
to
review.
Today.
A
It's
the
net
transfer
binding
I,
just
trying
to
bring
this
up,
because
the
NASA
team
could
not
make
the
call
today
and
it
was
on
the
agenda,
so
I
just
want
to
bring
those
other
people's
attention
that
please
review.
But
you
get
a
chance.
It's
a
it's
a
fairly
lightweight
document
but
we'd
like
to
see
if
we
could
try
to
get
that
one,
maybe
reviewed
and
approved
next
week.
Unless
there's
some,
you
know
large
issues
with
it,
but
it's
fairly
straightforward.
A
So
just
this
reminder
to
please
review
that
one
when
you
get
a
chance
all
right
next
up,
Clements
your
MQTT
d1
and
just
remind
people.
We
talked
about
this
one
last
week
giving
people
one
more
week
to
review
it.
Since
it
seemed
like
the
discussions
had
died
down,
some
is
there
anything
you
want
to
mention
this.
One
I,
don't
think
it's
changed.
As
I
said
last
week,
I
love
it
I.
K
K
Q
Q
A
Think
so,
Alex
I
think
that's
a
great
question
and
I
think
that
might
be
a
broader
question
for
before
we
reach
1.0,
which
of
our
specifications
do
we
feel
comfortable
taking
1.0,
because
I
probably
should
not
assume
that
all
of
them
go
to
1.0.
At
the
same
time,
some
may
require
more
reviews,
or
somebody
require
implementations
before
they
go.
1.0
I
think
that's
the
next
in
question,
but
I
don't
think
holding
up
this
one
to
a
high
or
holding
this
up
to
a
higher
bar
than
we
did
for
the
other
ones
would
really
be
appropriate.
Q
N
What
wasn't
wasn't
that
part
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
around
when
we
get
to
say
is
0.9?
We
need
to
let
bake
for
some
period
of
time.
Have
people
implement
us
pod
events
across
it
before
we
can
officially
call
it
at
one
point?
Oh
so,
if
there
there's
no
implementation
of
mqtt
that
people
have
agreed
on,
we
could
hold
up
being
able
to
certify
there's
a
1.0
specification.
Yes,
the.
K
H
A
A
Comments
in
there
I
think
the
only
ounce
to
anyone
was
actually
no
I'd
know
there
are
no
us
addressed
them
all
one
just
in
vanished,
because
I
did
actually
change
the
line
of
text,
but
are
there
any
questions
or
comments
on
this
and
keep
in
mind
either
with
a
together
document?
We
can
always
change
the
world
map
itself.
This
is
just
to
provide
us
a
very
high-level
guideposts
for
our
next
set
of
work.
A
Q
Q
K
K
Well,
the
HP
header
is
for
the
we
do.
We
use
the
HTTP
header
and
the
HTTP
headers
for
the
for
the
overall
payload
and
then
the
content
type
is
inside
of
the
payload
is
for
the
data
element
and
we
omit
that,
because
in
there
we
omit
that,
because
it's
it's,
it's
only
significant.
If
the
it's
the
paler,
if
the
data
payload
differs,
if
it's
not,
if
it's
inline
Jason,
then
that's
interesting.
Q
K
K
Yes,
we
don't
be
clear
the
the
data,
the
data
payloads
any
further,
because
then
you
don't
need
to
be
coded.
You
don't
need
to
have
a
hint.
You
need
to
have
a
hint
it's
the
base.
If
the.
If
data
is
a
field,
that's
a
string
that
contains
basics
before
then,
you
kind
of
need
to
have
a
hint.
Otherwise
you
don't.
I
A
Others
to
be
there
so
Clemens
did
you
want
to
talk
to
this
one
at
all
or
you
think
it's
pretty
self-explanatory.
A
B
K
The
content
type
deserves
always
always
about
the
data
payload,
okay.
So
the
point
the
point
that's
being
made
here
is
that
if
it's
known
to
be
adjacent
I,
if
it's
known
to
be
adjacent
type,
but
it
doesn't
follow
it's
not
either
application
JSON
or
doesn't
use
the
+
ji-sun,
but
it
uses
it's
one
of
these
other
types.
Then
you
should
still-
and
it's
known
to
be
Jason.
You
should
still
treat
it
as
Jason.
That's
the
point
so
I
and
and
I
agree
with
that
point.
D
I
might
make
it
clear
that
that
we're
just
not
mentioning
JSON,
because
you
don't
have
to
specify
it
when
you're
not
crossing
coding.
So,
for
example,
if
you
had,
if
we
define
an
HTTP
XML
envelope,
then
you
obviously
would
need
to
it's.
Not
that
JSON
is
special.
It's
that
having
the
same
encoding
for
envelope
and
data
is
special.
That's
correct!.
A
Issue,
though,
isn't
it
isn't
that
almost
saying
if
content-type
is
missing
hold
on
a
minutes
come
to
take
required
or
optional
I
thought
it's,
let's
just
double
check,
because
if
it's
optional
that
I
agree,
we
probably
need
to
clarify
that,
but
it's
required
then
I,
don't
think
what
you
guys
are
saying.
It's
necessary,
accurate.
A
A
A
D
A
G
That's
fun,
I
think
we
I
think
we
said
we,
okay,
I,
think
college
contacts
you
that's
good
for
me.
Yeah
hang.
Q
E
So,
just
to
clarify
again
at
the
face-to-face,
we
talked
about
two
types
of
labels,
one
which
are
source,
tagged
and
and
couldn't
be
modified,
the
other
ones
that
are
serve.
Let's
call
it
transport
or
routing
tagged
and
could
be
added
along
the
way.
So
a
are
we
going
to
specify
both
and
I
assume
that
this
one
is
the
first
honestly,
unless.
D
A
A
little
confused
because
I
could
have
sworn
on
yesterday's
phone
call.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
different
types
of
attributes.
Labels
correlation
IDs
were
able
to
call
them,
and
we
wouldn't
and
weren't
necessarily
going
to
define
the
exact
meanings
of
these
various
things.
All
we
knew
that
all
we
knew
was
there
was
going
to
be
a
bag
to
put
stuff,
and
sometimes
they
made
meant
for
correlation.
Sometimes
it
may
be
for
source
identification.
We
weren't
nurse
they're
going
to
get
into
defining
what
that
meant.
A
Q
G
G
Yeah,
so
we
we
discuss
if
they
have,
the
middleware
has
additional
additional
key
by
repair.
They
would
like
that
you
know
would
like
to
put
that
I
don't
talk
about
that,
but
if
it's
existing,
you
know
like,
if
that
key
value
pair
is
or
they
in
the
regional
centers
context,
bag
or
party
back
then
just
modify
there.
That's
that
part.
We've
had
not
reached
a
quiet
consensus,
but
I'm
gonna,
just
put
it
out
like
that,
and
then
people
can
comment.
O
Q
Q
A
Q
Happen
if
a
general
concern
about
the
the
labels
and
I
think
it's
slightly
stung
with
trying
to
put
characters
into
Kiba
Nettie's
labels,
and
they
they
have
quite
a
strict
and
thing
about
what
you
can
add.
They're
like
you,
can't
have
spaces
I
guess
we
should,
if
we
do
have
these
in
Kiba,
netizen
need
to
be
in
annotations.
Instead,
they've
got
a
freer
specification.
What
does
that
regex
allow
for?
Does
it
allow
spaces?
I
tried.
D
Q
D
Q
A
B
Q
E
O
G
How
about
how
about
we
do
this?
Because
in
last
meeting
we
did
not
really,
you
know
kind
of
trusted
to
discuss
everything
I
reached
for
consensus,
how
about
I
do
or
do
the
poor
for
another
meeting?
I
think
that's
what
we
we
set
in
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
then
you
know
we
joined
that
meeting
and
then
we
reached
for
consensus
and
then
I'm
going
to
write
the
PR.
How.
G
A
All
right
cool,
so
watch
for
another
doodle
poll
come
out.
Thank
you
guys
very
much,
but
we
have
five
minutes
left.
Tell
you
what
I
don't
think
we
can
this
like
deep
dive
in
anything?
So
let
me
do
this.
Clemens
has
a
PR
out
there
for
the
AMQP
transport
and
bindings
or
mat
system
mapping
a
type
mapping
thing
I
think
that
Pierre
has
been
out
there
for
a
while
I,
don't
believe
there
have
been
any
major
controversial
points
raised
clemens.
A
K
Well,
you
can
do
this
with
the
NPP
protocol.
You
can
express
message
bodies
in
the
Inca
p-type
encoding,
it's
something
that
we
in
practice
in
the
community
don't
really
encourage,
because
the
Inca
PE
encoders
are
typically
tied
into
the
messaging
stacks,
which
means,
if
you
want
to
go
and
route
the
messages
further,
then
you
have
to
go
and
unpack
them,
which
is
not
true
for
Jason
like
you,
can
go
and
take
a
Jason
and
forwarded
on,
and
then
you
know
down
the
light
somewhere
decode
it.
K
K
K
K
E
A
K
A
A
Thank
you
all
right,
so
please
everybody
a
chance
to
review
this
PR
with
the
hopes
of
merging
in
this
again
draft
specification
so
that
we
can
get
it
into
there.
So
go
the
review
and
start
influencing.
Hopefully
we
get
that
done
next
week
and
with
that
I
think
we're
pretty
much
done.
Let
me
just
quickly
go
through
the
agenda.
I
mean
that's
a
gender,
the
list
of
attendees
Joe
Sherman.
You
there
all
right,
Stanley
you
there
yep
Glenn
block,
yep,
Evan,
I,
don't
know
your
last
name.
Unfortunately,
Anderson.
A
Q
A
A
Q
A
Q
A
O
A
I
Hey
Doug
Michael
Payne
here
I'm,
not
a
voting
member
but
I'd
like
to
attend,
is
that
okay,
I
can
put
my
name
name
down
of
course
of
course
course.