►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Meeting - 2019-03-14
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
A
D
E
D
Oh,
what
so
one
thing
with
the
SDK
is
that
I've
added
tracing
and
analytics
to
the
go
SDK
so
out
of
the
box,
you
can
well
you
you,
you
opt
in
to
expose
those
metrics
using
an
exporter
using
open
census,
and
so
now
you
can
do
like.
If
you
want
to
expose
it
to
like
Prometheus,
you
could
get
metrics
on
how
many
times
like
you
get
a
error
response
and
things
like
that
from
all
your
endpoints.
So
that's
pretty
cool
and
I'll
have
a
cool
que
native
demo.
D
Of
that
you
can
also
expose
it
to
like
the
the
other,
analytic
tracking
things
like
google
cloud
users.
So
we
can
do
tracing
all
the
way
through
your
application
and
the
the
trace
boundary
doesn't
stop
at
your
code.
It
will
go
through
in
the
SDK
and
come
back
out,
that's
cool,
so
it's
gonna
be
sick.
E
D
That
go
ahead,
Scott
go
ahead,
Doug
sits
on
a
tower
of
misconception.
There
you
go
much
better
okay,
so
so,
let's
say
we
have
the
project
that
is
going
to
expose
cloud
events
from
a
an
event
producer
that
does
not
produce
cloud
events
who
the
the
reverse
DNS
name
of
the
entity
that
emitted
that
event
should
be
a
github.
Well.
E
E
D
Like
white
yeah,
we,
you
can't
create
it.
So
there
is
a
there's.
An
adapter
in
can
a
t'v
that
takes
in
a
generic
event
and
produces
a
cloud
event
right
and
then
and
then
sends
that
new
cloud
event
on
into
the
cluster
Kay
native
took
the
opinion
that
we
created
that
event,
because
it's
not
from
the
originator
and
therefore
it
is
our
event
and
we
need
to
its
reverse
DNS,
with
like
dev
Kay
native
that
event
ik,
that
github
right.
E
Now
my
opinion
is
that
the
the
entity
that
is
in
essence
wrap
rank
wrapping
this
event
from
github
to
turn
it
into
a
cloud
event
is
more
like
a
proxy
to
me
just
a
piece
of
middleware.
It's
not
really
pertinent
to
the
flow
of
this
message
other
than
it
happens
to
be
the
one
that
represent
and
that
the
receiver
of
this
event
does
not
care
that
the
entity
that
wrappers
in
a
cloud
event
was
a
Kay
native
thing.
E
E
D
B
D
F
D
E
D
E
Type
so
I
wanna
make
sure
I
understand
you're,
saying
that
from
the
exact
same
potentially
github
issue,
this
event
goes
through
two
different
pieces
of
middleware.
You
know,
okay,
I
think
it's
kind
of
a
weird
setup,
but
if
so,
then
that's
the
environment.
The
user
has
chosen
to
install
and
they're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
some
way
to
deal
with
it.
Ultimately,
like
I
said
I,
don't
think
the
end
user
should
know
that
Kay
native
is
in
the
picture.
It's
well,
and
maybe
you
just.
F
E
D
F
Know
just
being
a
good
internet
citizen,
you
don't
you
don't
use
someone
else's
namespace,
even
though
it
is
coming
from
from
that
from
from
that
service.
Now
you
can
say
well
what
should
it
be
named
and
is
it
that
the
person
that
is
creating
that
you
know
it
has
the
event
driver
that
they
might
say
it's
come
back.
You
have
got
my
organization
that
my
repo
that
contains
the
event
driver
that
might
be
something
that
would
be
more
palatable,
but
that's.
D
E
E
My
point
here
is:
if
you
have
a
piece
of
middleware
that
is
wrapping
an
event,
I,
don't
believe
it's
necessarily
appropriate
for
that
piece
of
middleware
to
show
up
in
the
event
type
itself.
Another
thing
it
can't
ever
happen
if
I
don't
ever
say
that,
but
in
case
like
this,
it
is
not
it's
not
middleware.
D
F
Okay,
what
we
have
stated
about
mill:
where
is
it?
It
should
not
touch
the
thing
if
it
passes
it
on
as
is,
but
if
it
is,
if
it,
but
the
middleware
can
be
both
a
consumer
and
a
producer.
So
if
it
is
consuming
an
event
and
then
producing
an
event,
then
when
it's
producing
it
should
put
a
different
event
event
information
into
it,
because
it
is
a
new
event.
Yeah.
E
D
The
one
producing
the
event,
it
is
an
application
that
is
hosted
by
your
cluster
that
is
going
to
take
in
a
web.
A
web
hook
request
from
github.
That's
its
own
format,
make
some
choices
about
how
it
takes
that
piece
and
then
forwards
on
more
metadata
about
that
that,
in
that
web
hook,
request
right,
I
think
that's
a
fundamental
dependent
on
the
version
of
the
library
that
we're
using
to
consume
the
github
webhook,
because
they're
super
complicated
and
really.
D
E
So
I
thought
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and
I
think
is
I.
Think
this
factually
may
be.
The
real
crux
of
the
difference
of
opinion
is
you're
viewing
Kay
native
as
like.
It's
like
you
said
the
event
producer.
The
fact
that
the
the
original
data
that
we're
talking
about
came
from
someone
else
is
actually
irrelevant
to
you.
It's
almost.
E
Native
is
producing
it.
Let
me
just
finish
weak
because
to
me,
I
would
like
to
get
it
to
be
more
the
situation
where,
if
I
write
a
piece
of
code
and
I'm
receiving
an
event
from
github
directly,
if
I
turn
around
and
drop
that
code
into
K
native
and
I'm,
getting
it
from
Cain
now
getting
it
from
a
key
native
infrastructure.
If
both
K
native
and
github
can
both
produce
cloud
events
I'd
want
the
same
code
to
work
in
both
places
as
best
as
possible.
D
E
Events
well,
but
but
this
goes
back
to
a
question-
I
asked
her
on
slack.
If
github
were
to
produce
a
cloud
event,
I
asked
you:
if
you
would
have
the
tainted
infrastructure,
you
can
still
change
the
type
to
remove
the
github.
They
dig
the
Kommandant
get
up
stuff
and
replace
it
with
with
Kay
native,
and
you
said
yes.
D
D
Said
you
would
still
want
to
change
the
type
if
it's
our
code,
making
the
translation.
But
if
the
incoming
request
is
a
cloud
event,
then
it
doesn't
need
to
change
and
we
can
remain
all
the
keys
stay
the
same
okay,
because
that
that,
if
you
produce
the
envelope
we
own
that
envelope
and
because
of
API
incompatibilities
in
the
future,
because
we
are
locked
down
into
a
certain
version
of
the
the
API
for
github
for
the
web
requests.
We
need
to
own
that
our
namespace
for
that
application,
that's
doing
the
the
receiving
and
then
the
resending.
E
Right,
there's
basically
difference
of
opinion.
I
I
view
this
as
middleware,
and
you
view
it
as
cloud
native
now
actually
owns
the
event
and
I
think
that's
just
a
difference
of
opinion.
What
we
owned
the
code
that
that
did
that
translation,
oh
I'm,
not
disputing
that
Kay
made-
have
owned
the
code
that
that
did
the
rap
ring.
D
E
D
But
I
think
you're
wrong,
because
I
think
you
do
need
to
know
because
there
could
be
multiple
versions
of
github
wrappers.
There
could
be
many
different
opinions
of
how
that
github
data
gets
wrapped
and
sent,
and
in
that
case
you
would
like
to
know
exactly
which
application
is
doing
that
the
the
proxy
work
for
you.
Well,
let
me
let
me
put
it
this
way.
Then.
Okay,.
E
You
don't
understand
what
Canada
is
because
well,
let's
see
by
my
point
here
is
when
I'm
subscribing
to
github
events.
I
want
github
events,
I
don't
want
a
native
events,
then
talk
to
github
and
make
them
make
cloud
events
well
by
that,
but
see
that's
the
point
right:
they're
not
producing
it
now,
but
someone
produced
this
hey,
there's
wonderful
little
utility
called
the
github
event
source
and
key
native.
E
It
will
do
the
subscription
for
me,
cool
I'm,
gonna
use
that
well
now,
I
need
to
understand
cane
natives,
you
of
all
the
github
events
and
I
may
lose
something
in
the
translation.
That
is
exactly
my
point.
You
need
to
know
that
that
translation
and
that's
and
that's
something
I
as
an
end-user,
should
not
have
to
think
about
it
and
maybe
I'm,
maybe
I
shouldn't
be
using
the
cane
native,
get
up
event
source.
E
F
E
Comment
on
them,
I
totally
agree,
I.
Think
I.
Think
this
type
of
thing
is
a
wonderful
topic
for
the
primer,
especially
for
someone
who's,
creating
quote
event,
producers
or
middleware.
Or
what
do
you
want
to
call
it
because
they
need
to
understand
what
they're,
what
we
think
the
expectations
should
be
of
them
right.
F
E
E
F
D
E
You
go,
this
is
the
thing
that
always
kind
of
worried
me
about
these.
Open
space
environments
is
especially
in
small
startups.
Everybody
seems
to
leave
stuff
lying
around.
It's
not
a
big
deal
and
I
always
wondered
how
often
things
get
stolen
and
I
never
heard
of
it
happening
till
now,
so
that
that's
interesting.
D
Yeah,
it's
very,
very
rare.
Damn,
like
people
will
lost-and-found
in
like
a
twenty
dollar
bill.
That's
the
hottest
day,
I
like
that
yeah!
It's
it's
just
like
it.
Occasionally
somebody
you
know
every
once
in
a
while,
someone
will
like
smash
through
a
window
or
tailgate
through
the
door
and
like
usually
they
get
caught.
Sometimes
they
just
steal
a
sandwich.
Then
sometimes
they
apparently
snatch
laptops.
So
well.
Your
laptop
taken
like
during
the
night
or
during
the.
D
E
D
E
D
B
E
Know
we'll
see
okay,
so
the
other
thing
I
guess
we
should
talk
about
at
some
point.
Is
we
talked
about
doing
sort
of
sort
of
SDK
interrupts
thingy
but
I'm
having
a
really
hard
time
getting
notice
from
the
other
SDK
authors
you
know
do
about
it.
Yeah
I
know
I'm
trying
to
I
mean
either
do
a
more
direct
phone
reach
out.
D
C
E
E
E
E
E
F
E
B
E
G
E
E
B
E
D
K
Yeah,
it's
done
recording
since
I
shut
up.
L
E
E
E
E
Okay,
let's
go
back
around
later
all
right.
Let's
gonna
get
started
three
up
to
the
hour,
so
in
terms
of
action
items,
I
think
the
only
one
that's
really
kind
of
more
neg
where
they
put
it.
That
way
is
this
one
for
Clemens,
which
you
already
kind
of
Pokemon,
so
Clemens
when
you
get
a
chance,
oh
it'll
be
good.
There's
a
lot
of
things.
People
out
there
for
that
one
yeah.
L
E
D
Yeah
so
I've
been
working
with
adding
open
census
to
the
golang
SDK,
so
it
doesn't
expose
metrics,
but
it
collects
them
and
then
it
it
gives
you
a
way
to
set
up
an
exporter.
In
whatever
happen
you
happen
to
be
running,
so
I
have
been
adding
a
little
example
that
exposes
using
Prometheus
and
then
it
shows
traces
using
the
log
to
console
noise.
D
M
Yeah,
so
just
a
quick
question
on
I'm,
we
slightly
off
topic
from
cloud
events,
I
guess,
but
we're
going
through
an
internal
discussion
around
open
census,
verb
versus
open
tracing
open
tracing
is
backed
by
CN
CF.
Isn't
it
so
I'm
curious
of
and
I'm
not
criticize,
I'm
just
kinda
trying
to
understand?
Where
does
the
CN
CF
project?
We're
meant
to
be
more
aligned
with
other
CN
CF
projects
as.
E
Yeah,
but
just
to
focus
on
your
question
there
Jim-
and
this
is
strictly
my
opinion.
My
interpretation
of
the
ciencia
projects
were
yeah
I'd,
be
nice
if
they,
if
other
ciencia
projects,
use
the
existing
ciencia
projects,
but
it's
definitely
not
a
hard
requirement
or
anything
like
that.
Each
project
needs
should
use
whatever
it
thinks
is
best
to
get
its
job
done.
Is
they
sort
of
in
my
approach?
Okay,
please
yeah
all
right
moving
forward,
then
demo
work,
Doug
and
Scott.
Do
you
guys
want
to
talk
about
where
we
are
I?
E
B
E
A
Issuing
tasks
to
attendees
within
a
few
different
roles,
role,
a
passenger
and
any
driver.
You
know
the
things
that
were
involved
in
a
in
a
supply
chain
scenario
and
then,
when
Clemens
participated
on
that
call,
we
started
this
steer
the
demo
more
towards
notifications
rather
than
tasks
so
that
the
processes
that
would
be
handled
by
micro
services
and
that
in
the
orchestration
of
all
those
events
related
to
ordering
order,
fulfillment
would
be
more
automatic.
A
You
know
handled
like
robots,
and
so
the
attendees
would
be
connecting
into
the
various
cloud
nodes
that
rarely
represented
those
systems
that
were
involved
in
that
process
and
they
would
be
getting
notifications
based
on
just
the
traditional
pub/sub
model.
So
so
the
demo
deck
had
been
revised
to
reflect
notifications
instead
of
tasks
and
Clemens,
wanted
to
review
that
and
waiting
I.
Think
for
that
review.
L
So
I've
pointed
that
out
so,
but
there's
in
that
scenario,
there's
plenty
of
tasks
where
what
we've
done
so
far
in
cloud
events
actually
fits
Bill
well,
so
that
was
the
that
was
the
the
main
feedback
and
so
we're
kind
of
restructuring
so
that
we
can
go
in
and
show
you
know
appropriate
use
of
cloud
events
of
reporting
out
facts
and
then
react
you
typically,
though,
the
extensibility
based
on
that
and
then
have
kind
of
the
core.
The
core
flow
of
the
workflow
really
be
a
workflow.
L
E
Cool,
thank
you
all
right,
Scott
was
there
anything
you
wanted
to
add
fat?
No,
that's
pretty
much
it!
Okay,
cool
all
right!
In
that
case,
moving
forward.
Coo
Connie
you
I
did
get
confirmation.
I
think
it
was
either
yesterday
or
day
before
that
we
got
our
235
minute
sessions
for
cloud
events,
intro
and
deep
dive
and
then
one
large
85
minute
session
for
the
service
workgroup
itself.
E
I
still
don't
know
quite
what
with
the
serverless
practitioners
summit,
I
need
to
go
back
and
pin
chris
an
attack
on
that.
So
it
is
possible
that
our
service
session
gets
moved
into
that
or
make
you
a
separate,
don't
know,
but
I
think,
as
far
as
I
know,
they
are
still
planning
and
having
this
collocated
so
much
we
just
don't
know
what's
going
on
what
they
get
so
I'll
keep
you
guys
abreast
of
that
if
I
find
out
anything.
Of
course,
if
you
guys
hear
anything,
please
speak
up.
I
did.
D
E
Thank
you,
Scott
kook,
on
China
and
nothing
new.
There
then
I
did
put
in
a
request
for
the
basically
the
same
three
different
sessions
and
I
did
for
EU
I'll.
Let
you
know
when
that
happens,
all
right,
so,
let's
jump
into
pr's
I,
don't
see
Rachel
on
the
call,
however,
due
to
I
know,
she
did
update
her
PR
based
upon
the
votes
that
we
had
two
or
three
weeks
ago
and
how
long
ago
it
was
so,
let's
take
a
look
at
what
she
did
here.
E
So
basically
what
she
did
was
based
upon
the
vote.
She
added
a
section
in
the
primer
that
talks
about
proprietary
protocols
on
what
we're
doing
with
them
in
terms
of
additional
specs,
and
then
she
created
a
placeholder
document
to
point
to
those
specifications
that
live
outside
of
our
repo.
But
the
key
thing
is
probably
this
section
right
here
talking
about
the
the
text
itself.
I'll
leave
you
guys
a
second
to
read
that
since
I'm
sure,
probably
some
people
having
a
chance
to
read
it
yet.
E
E
E
E
J
E
E
J
J
I
You
want
to
talk
about
basically,
so
what
we
settled
on
was
we
want
to
have
a
min
event
size
that
is
supported
by
all
consumers
of
clutter
events
and
how
I
prepare
two
options.
The
first
one
is
open
since
a
bit
longer.
So
that's
basically
just
says
the
cloud
events
or
D
cloud
event,
as
in
Jason
in
the
JSON
format,
must
not
be
larger
than
16
4
kilobyte
and
then
you
have,
or
everybody
has
to
accept
the
cloud
event
that
in
Jason
is
64
kilobyte.
I
So
the
problem
of
that
is,
if
you
have
a
different
format,
then
you
don't
really
know
so,
if
I'm
sending
it
over
MQTT
or
mqp
or
protobuf
or
whatever
I,
don't
really
know
what
the
event
of
the
size
of
the
Jason
will
be.
So
I
would
have
to
take
my
cloud
event
out
of
the
one
format
and
then
encode
it
in
Jason
to
know
if
I'm
compliant
or
not
personally,
I,
don't
think
it's
always
a
big
issue.
I
You
can
more
easily
track
that
you're
compliant
with
it,
and
maybe
you
only
so.
Basically
there
are
a
lot
of
rules
for
the
context,
attributes
but
I
think
most
people
will
automatically
follow
them,
so
you
can
sort
of
ignore
them
and
then
the
only
thing
you
have
to
look
at
is
the
data
attribute,
so
I
think
in
practice
it
may
be
easier
for
some.
I
So
these
are
the
two
options
that
I
laid
out
Clemens
and
others
made
a
comment
that
they
think
it's
also.
Okay,
to
just
say,
here's
64,
kilobytes
and
whatever
format
you
use
just
make
sure
to
stay
under
64
kilobytes
and
that
will
leave
some
gray
zone,
but
we
were
fine
with
it.
My
response
to
this
is
that
I'm,
not
fine
with
that.
I
E
L
My
observation
that
I
made
was
that
with
current
messaging
infrastructure,
even
with
multi-protocol
brokers.
So
if
you
look
at
a
pic
of
example
and
say
acted
in
queue,
there
can
also
also
the
site
service,
bus
or
or
even
event,
hubs.
What
you'll
find
is
that
so
those
that
are
to
being
ours,
we
have
a
limit,
and
that
limit
is,
is
total
message
size
and
it
applies
to
whichever
protocol
you
come.
L
You
can
you
come
in
with
and
so
like
for
some
responses,
one
megabyte
and
whether
you
come
in
for
HTTP
and
whether
you
come
in
through
a
it's.
Where
am
Coupee,
that's
the
frame
size
with
support
and
whatever
stuff
you
put
in
there,
including
all
the
properties
and
all
the
payloads
needs
to
fit,
needs
to
fit
with
that.
L
And
if
you
have,
if
you
have
an
you
know,
if
you
combine,
if
you
want
to
combine
the
routes
with
an
active
MQ
broker
and
you
put
a
pump
in
the
middle
well,
then
you
make
sure
that
you
know
that
your
the
messages
can't
exceed
one
megabytes
and
ultimately
I.
Think
it's
about
it's
the
the
party
who
goes
and
configures
the
overall
system
who
needs
to
make
sure
that
that
all
fits
together
but
I'm,
not
sure
we
can
really
go
like
I.
L
Don't
know
how
the
section
really
helps
in
you
know
in
staying
under
or
above
a
limit,
because,
ultimately,
when
you
make
this
normative,
then
you're
forcing
every
intermediary
to
go
and
do
all
the
byte
counting
and
that's
costing
perf,
because
we're
actually
so
in
our
infrastructure.
We're
forwarding
cloud
events
and
and
we're
parsing
out
stuff
that
we
need
to
for
routing,
but
we're
not
policing
will
not
police
the
individual
quotas
and
probably
wouldn't
because
that's
just
costing
us
too
much
work
at
scale
and
some
III
don't
see
us
I,
don't
see
us
enforcing
those
rules.
L
L
I
It
is
not
a
rule
that
you
have
to
check
these.
The
only
thing
that
you
have.
If,
if
you
look
at
the
last
sentence
or
the
the
second
last
sentence
cloud
events,
consumers
may
reject
events
that
do
not
follow
these
rules,
but
no
one
forces
you
to
reject
them
right.
So
you
can
still
go
and
say
my
limit
is
one
megabyte
for
whatever
you
send
in
I.
Just
accept
1
megabyte
and
that's
good
for
me
and
you're
compliant
with
that.
Well,.
L
But
see
I'm
building
generic
infrastructure
and
so
because
I'm
building
generic
infrastructure
I
need
to
go
and
provide
a
switch.
That
then
goes
and
forces
the
rules
and
to
be
completely
protocol
compliant
and
so
I'm
I'm
I,
don't
know
so
I,
don't
know
how
this
feature
which,
because
I
see
this,
if
I
see
this
as
a
feature
request
on
my
on
my
infrastructure,
how
that
actually
helps
because
the
the
ultimately
it's
about
the
event
fitting
into
the
frame
size,
because
that's
what
the
protocol
gives
me.
M
So
Jim
you
have
your
hand
up,
yeah,
I,
so
I
guess
I
was
sort
of
come
into
the
same
conclusion.
Christophe
mentioned
that
I
sort
of
see
this
more
as
a
compliance
proof
than
a
runtime
constraint.
So,
as
an
infrastructure
provider,
you
could
run
some
compliance
tests
that
ensured
the
events
constructed
to
this
spec
actually
flowed
and
I.
Think
that's
all
we
were
trying
to
get
to
from
this
spec.
M
It
was
trying
to
say
as
a
as
a
source
of
an
of
an
event
which
is
then
going
to
travel
across
potentially
multiple
people's
infrastructures
over
a
number
of
intermediaries.
To
get
to
some
end
point,
it
should
so
crystals
point.
It
should
be
able
to
leave
one
place
and
arrive
at
the
other
in
in
the
same
state
and
not
be
rejected
along
the
way.
So
it
it
is
more
of
a
an
intermediary
compliance
statement.
I
think.
E
Okay,
I'm
not
sure
how
to
interpret
the
silence,
because
it
could
mean
no
one
cares
at
all.
That's
not
for
the
people
that
spoke
up
or
it
could
mean
you
guys
are
perfectly
okay
with
the
sounds.
The
acceptance
at
that
is
one
way
to
view
it.
I
was
getting
that
and
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
look
forward
on
here,
because
I
mean
ultimately,
if
we
don't
move
our
current
position,
it
I
think
they,
like
choices,
just
okay
put
up
a
vote,
and
we
could
definitely
do
that.
That's
the
next
step.
E
I
was
hoping
to
get
a
little
bit
more
back
and
forth
from
people
to
see
how
they
feel
about
this,
though
so
the
just
no
one's
raising
their
hand
and
jam
your
hand
is
still
up
by
the
way.
Christoph.
Let
me
ask
you
this
question:
if
we
were
to
go
forward
with
a
vote,
would
you
want
to
put
both
PRS
into
the
vote?
Or
would
you
like
to
choose
just
one.
I
Well,
I
I,
don't
have
a
strong
preference
either
way.
To
be
honest
for
me,
what
really
matters
is
that
I
have
this
guarantee
that
some
sort
of
size
will
be
accepted
by
everyone
and
I.
Don't
really
care
too
much
how
that
is
being
made
up
yeah,
so
I
don't
have
a
strong
preference,
so
person
commented
they
prefer
number
two
okay,
yeah.
E
The
reason
I'm
asking
is
because
I
know
last
time
we
had
a
vote,
we
had
I
think
three
or
four
different
choices
in
front
of
us
and
we
did
the
that
boning
started.
Let's
see,
I
probably
would
never
run
the
name,
but
I
think
it's
always
easier
when
people
are
faced
with
two
choices
and
unfortunately,
right
now,
I
see
four
choices
in
front
of
us.
I
see
your
two
choices.
E
E
E
L
L
I
I
E
Okay,
since
no
one
spoke
up,
I'm
gonna
take
that
as
everybody
on
the
call
thinks
we
need
to
say
at
least
something
in
this
space,
which
means
I
can
eliminate
the
do-nothing
choice.
Is
that
a
fair
conclusion
based
upon
the
silence
speak
now,
if
you
don't
feel
that
way,
okay,
so
down
to
three,
so
that's
good,
so
so
between
Christophe
between
the
year
two,
as
you
said,
as
you
pointed
out,
some
people
in
the
chat
are
saying
they
preferred
number
two
as
well.
E
Would
you
feel
comfortable
with
just
choosing
between
your
number
two
and
the
Clemens
proposal
that
I'm
hoping
he
would
write
up
at
some
point?
Or
would
you
want
to
keep
your
number
one
in
there
as
an
alternative?
No,
we
can
take
my
number
two
okay,
so
well.
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
is,
if
we
can,
if
anybody
objects
to
this
thought
process
here,
that
I
was
walking
through,
is
once
Clemens
writes
up
his
his
proposal.
People
could
people
can
then
choose
between
this
number.
E
Two,
that's
on
the
screen
right
here
from
Christophe
and
Clemens
proposal,
which
is
just
64
K
minimum
size
regardless
of
protocol.
Is
that
what
we're
going
towards
I
believe
that's
true,
I
think
so.
Doug,
okay,
make
sure,
okay,
good
I,
don't
want
to
I,
don't
feel
like
I'm,
forcing
a
decision
down
their
throats
by
excluding
something.
So
if
that's
true,
then
Clemens
do
you
think
you'll
be
able
to
put
something
together,
two
per
people
to
look
at
yeah.
E
Okay,
in
that
case,
I'm
trying
to
think
about
the
process,
I,
don't
think
I.
Think
formal
votes
technically
have
to
go
for
a
week.
I,
don't
think.
We've
ever
really
started
a
vote
before
that
didn't
start
and
end
during
a
phone
call,
so
I'm
a
little
bit
nervous
about
starting
one.
You
know
like
say
today
or
tomorrow,
unless
you
guys
feel
like
that's:
okay,
I'd
almost
rather
wait
until
next
week,
so
Clemens
you
can
do
a
little
talking
to
your
proposal
and
then
start
the
vote
next
week.
E
E
B
E
We
can
kick
off
the
vote.
I
mean
I'm.
To
be
honest,
though,
if,
if
you
guys
offline
start
lgt
IMing,
one
of
them
like
completely
and
the
other
one
gets
no
compliments
at
all.
That
may
mean
we
take
a
voice
voice
vote
during
the
call,
because
no
one's
really
speaking
in
favor,
the
other
one
so
think
about
doing
some
offline
discussions.
If
you
can
but
worst
case
scenario,
we'll
start
the
vote
next
Thursday
and
then
they'll
run
for
one
week,
sound
fair
yeah.
E
E
That's
what
I
thought?
Okay,
all
right,
this
one
I,
don't
think
Alan
is
on
the
call,
unfortunately,
but
I
wanted
to
bring
this
one
up,
because
I
can't
Murr
for
sure
I
never
he's
going
whether
we
actually
discuss
this
one
or
not.
Oh
we're
we
if
we
did
discuss
where
we
landed
so
basically,
Alan
is
proposing
that
we
uniquely
identify
events
based
upon
source
and
ID
put
together
and
I
know
that
there
has
been
a
little
bit
discussion
about
possibly
pulling
in
type
as
the
third
part
of
that
couple.
E
But
I
wanted
to
get
a
sense
from
the
group
as
to
which
way
you
guys
want
to
go
with
this
cuz
I've
heard
some
people
say
we
can't
do
anything
at
all
here
and
it's
still
it
even
try
and
then
I
heard.
Okay,
we'll
say
no.
We
need
to
at
least
do
something
here,
so
people
can
do
D
duping
or
something
in
this
space,
but
I
want
to
get
a
general
sense
which
way
you
guys
want
to
go
as
a
group.
E
M
E
E
Okay,
because
I
could've
sworn
I
heard
somebody
say
that
in
the
past,
so
okay,
so
not
hearing
an
objection.
We're
gonna
do
something
so
that
I
think
the
question
then
comes
down
to
something
like
ID
and
source
or
ID
source
and
type
cuz,
I.
Think
at
least
one
person
in
the
chat
said
they
think
I
should
be
included.
I
think
Scott
you're
in
that
camp
as
well
yeah.
D
K
D
I
Up
yeah
I
have
a
slightly
different
argumentation.
Why
I
think,
including
type,
is
a
good
idea
so
currently
in
the
spec,
we
was
only
should
well,
we
say
the
type
container
reverse
DNS
in
front
of
the
type
name.
So
I
think
this
is
the
only
place
where
we
really
asked
for
this
sort
of
internet
internet
unique
your
I
think
on
the
source,
it's
sort
of
optional.
I
I
think
that's
a
bit
unfortunate
I
mean
you
can
still
do
it
if
you
want
to,
but
it's
not
necessarily
a
good
thing,
because
I've
right
now,
the
source
to
me
feels
like
it's
not
necessarily
a
real
URL
that
you
can
actually
call.
It
could
be
just
something
you
made
up
so
in
terms
of
send
source.
It
could
be
just
a
us.
I
L
I
Exactly
but
then
what,
if
you
sort
of
say
it's
the
source
and
ID
and
those
make
the
DD
application,
then
you
more
or
less
force
people
to
put
the
URL
into
D
or
the
top
the
DNS
part
into
the
source,
and
because
that's
the
only
way
you
can
make
sure
it's
actually
internet
you
unique,
and
then
you
end
up
with
something
that
looks
like
you
should
be
able
to
call
it.
So
so
we
have
so
the
the.
L
The
uniqueness,
the
uniqueness
requirement
that
we're
talking
about
here
is
how
can
we
uniquely
identify
this
particular
event
in
event,
instance,
and
since
we
can't,
since
the
IDE
shouldn't
always
have
to
be
good
but
should
be
able
to
to
be
more
compact,
you
basically
need
to
have
a
relative,
a
have
reference
to
worse
that
ID
space
coming
from,
and
you
qualify
that
ID
space
with
with
a
URI,
but
that
your
I
is
given
so
that
identifies
the
source.
But
that
doesn't
have
to
be
anything.
That's
that's
callable!
L
It's
just
something
where
you
assure
in
some
way
to
make
that
thing
that
thing
unique
and
there's
rules
in
how
you
can
go
and
and
create
a
URI,
for
instance,
using
your
domain
name
that
you
that
is
assigned
to
you
either
as
a
u
RN
or
as
a
as
a
as
a
UI,
with
some
scheme
that
then
scopes
to
you.
But
that's
the
same
thing
as
you
would
do
for
let's
say
in
an
XML
namespace
declaration
or
a
namespace
declaration
elsewhere.
That
doesn't
need
to
be
a
callable
thing.
It's
just
a
UI
that
is
reasonably.
I
Yeah
I'm,
not
disputing
that
I'm
saying
we
already
have
we
do
that
at
once,
and
we
do
it
for
the
type.
That's
where
the
spec
currently
says.
Please
use
your
your
on
reversed,
sit
and
then
put
it
there
so
that
your
type
is
hopefully
internet,
unique
because
no
one
will
steal
your
domain
yeah.
But
that's,
but
that's
a
different
thing
right.
L
The
the
type
is
something
that
classifies
that
affect
me
refers
to
implicitly
refers
to
the
schema
of
the
event
that
you're
about
the
process.
So
that
is
like
the
whatever
raise
alarm
type
right
and
that's
the
that
raised
alarm
type
by
a
device
from
device
maker
X
might
be
applicable
to
many
kinds
of
devices
and
many
types
of
devices.
L
B
D
Take
my
example
back:
okay,
so
going
to
something
we
were
talking.
Dog
and
I
were
talking
about
in
the
cañedo
project.
We
have
these
things
called
sources,
and
they
they
we
make
the
choice
that
we
use
the
K
native
know
name
and
the
type.
But
let's
say
you
have
two
applications
that
are
bridging
non-cloud
of
cloud
event:
web
hooks
into
cloud
event,
web
hooks
and
there's
two
versions
of
that
thing:
that
both
by
pull
on
a
pull
request
from
github
they
act
on
the
web
hook.
D
The
the
web
hook
has
the
cloud
event
ID
that
you
can
pull
out
of
the
body
because
that's
a
known
thing,
the
source
is
the
resource
that
github
is
talking
about
and
the
only
way
you
can
D
do.
The
two
events
that
come
in
is,
if
you
understand
the
type
of
the
the
application
that
did
the
bridging,
so
one
would
be
Joe's,
adapter,
dot,
pull
request
and
the
other
one,
the
Mike's
adapter
dot,
pull
request.
B
E
Is
a
very
dangerous
conversation
because
this
is
gonna
get
into
should
type
B
from
the
original
event
producer
versus
this
adapter
that
you're
talking
about
it
and
I
didn't
want
to
go
there
quite
yet,
but
I
guess
the
way
I
kind
of
look
at
this
is
in
the
spec.
We
already
say:
ID
needs
to
be
unique
within
the
scope
of
the
producer
and
to
me
the
the
spec
version
of
quote
scope
of
the
producer
is
basically
source.
That's
the
only
thing
we
have
to.
It
comes
close
to
fitting
that
bill.
E
So
that's
why,
to
me
ID
and
source,
pretty
much
need
to
be
unique
because
I
don't
know
what
it
means
as
a
receiver
of
an
event.
If
I
get
two
events
with
the
exact
same
source
and
ID,
but
different
types,
I,
don't
know
how
to
I
would
not
honestly
know
how
to
interpret
that
I
would
almost
look
at
it,
as
one
of
them
was
a
mistake.
E
So
that's
why
I
get
a
little
confused
when
when
we,
when
the
speck
goes
out
of
its
way
to
say,
I
D
must
be
unique.
Well
then,
what
does
that
mean
anymore
right?
If
we
can't
guarantee
its
uniqueness,
we
have
to
count
on
something
else.
It
seems
like
it's
a
it
just
feels
a
little
weird
that
that
were
saying.
Id
is
unique,
but
not
really
all
right.
So
anyway,
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
looking
at
it
tippy
need
your
hands
up.
Yeah.
H
H
B
L
Yeah,
the
the
ID
identifies
the
event
person
a
right.
It's
for
D
view.
It's
it's
it's
for
deduplication,
it's
for
handling
in
the
infrastructure,
I,
don't
think
it
necessarily
is
so
I
think
if
you
have
a
database
commit-
and
you
want
to
raise
information
about
the
database
commit,
then
you
might
want
to
go
and
erase
that
about
that
database.
Commit
means
that
might
be
in
the
source.
L
Everything
into
the
source
which
we
did
based
on
that
discussion
is
causing
that
so
the
way
how
we,
how
we
in
an
event
grid,
represent
this,
where
we
have
kind
of
the
the
source
you
subscribed
to,
and
then
you
have
further
information
that
is
in
the
in
the
source
at
URI.
Is
we
use
the
the
pounds
anchor
and
then
put
all
the
further
information
on
the
right
side
of
that?
But
if
we
attach
it
to
the
source
of
your
I,
so
your
database
transaction
ID
would
actually
be
part
of
the
source.
So.
E
Evan
is
asking
a
good
question:
I
think
it's
relevant
here
right
if
there
is
one
occurrence,
but
two
events
are
generated
from
that
one
occurrence
and
the
example
he
gave
was
there's
a
something
happen
in
a
database
and
that
could
that
it
create
an
a
right
event
from
that.
Do
they
both
have
to
both
of
those
cloud
events
that
get
generated
have
the
same
ID
I
would.
L
E
Now
that
that's
where
I
tend
to
land
as
well,
it's
there
are
two
separate
events.
When
was
a
great
one.
So
right,
but
the
related
to
the
same
event,
I
would
say
the
same
occurrence
but
they're
two
separate
events,
that's
where
I'm
at
is
that
as
well,
but
Scott
I'd
be
curious.
You
know
your
take
on
that.
I.
D
Would
agree,
I
think
those
are
two
different
IDs
I
think
this
really
comes
down
to
when
it's
a
two
different
producers
producing
events
based
on
some
other
non
Clawd
event.
Event:
that's
happened
that
can
have
an
ID
associated
to
that
like
two
entities
watching
two
right
and
they're
both
emitting
events
for
that
source.
You
can't
deduct
that
if
you
don't
know
the
type.
M
D
M
D
D
Brenda,
but
there
are
two
things
that
are
listening
to
that
transaction
okay,
so
they
would
listen
to
the
event
yeah.
No,
they
listen
to
the
database
directly
and
they
would
you
expect
those
two
things
to
identify
themselves
using
an
equivalent
source.
I
would
expect
them
to
have
exactly
the
same
source
and
ID,
but
different
type.
L
Think
I
think
I'm
happy
about
this
discussion
happening
because
it
actually
points
to
I
strongly
believe
still
that
this
points
to
the
fact
that
we
have
a
missing
field,
and
that
is
subject
because
because
the
the
source,
as
we
generally
as
as
we
generally
understand
it,
is
equivalent
largely
to
and
sorry
if
I
have
to
say
that
word
again
to
what
we
call
topic
in
in
in
pub/sub,
and
that
is
it
is
the
scope
at
which
you
subscribe
right.
You,
you
register
interest
in
a
particular
source
than
it
submitting
events
to
you
at
that
level.
L
You
you,
you
make
a
subscription
and
then
you're
interested
in
events
of
different
types
and
each
of
those
events.
You
need
to
be
able
to
tell
apart-
and
you
do
that
with
the
ID
and
yeah,
but
the
idea
is
basically
just
a
discriminator
and
you
shouldn't
have
to
go
and
interpret
that
in
any
particular
way,
but
it
really
just
acts
as
a
key.
What's
the
the
the
missing
information
field
that
we
have
I
believe?
Is
this
effective?
L
The
sub-elements
inside
of
the
source
that
this
event
is
put
in
particular
about
so
I'll,
give
you
the
I'll
go
back
to
the
the
initial
example
that
I
had
talked
about
when
we,
when
we
were
discussing
this
about
the
blob
storage
right,
you
subscribe
to
a
storage
container,
you
don't
know
which
files
are
going
to
be
created
yet,
but
you
know
that
you
are
interested
in
in
files
that
are
being
that
will
be
created,
deleted,
etc,
in
that
in
that
container,
that
is
your
source,
and
then
a
file
gets
created
and
you
get
that
raise
out
of
that
container,
which
means
that
is
your
source.
L
You
had
a
blob
created
event,
that
is
your
event,
is
your
event
type,
and
then
you
have
an
ID
which
is
a
artificial
identifier
which
which
which
distinguishes
that
from
another
club
created
event,
and
then
you
still
need
to
have
a
field
that
says
this
is
the
name
of
that
file.
This
is
this.
Is
this
this
sets
this
apart.
You
know
from
other
events
that
call
blob
crater,
because
you
need
to
be
able
to
to
separate
those
two
and
what
we
currently
do,
because
we
don't
have
that
filled
in
in
our
implementation.
L
Is
we
put
this
pound
separator
behind
the
source,
your
eye,
so
we
can
separate
out
out
the
original
source,
your
eye
and
this
extra
information
in
some
way
and
I.
Think
that's
a
missing
field
and
I've
been
I've
been
been
saying
that
as
we
in
the
beginning
and
then
we,
you
decided
to
consolidate
initially
where
we
had
four
fields
into
one
field
and
there
was
a
source
and
I
think
still
think.
That's
a
mistake.
I
still
think
we
need
to
have
an
extra
subject
field
so.
M
I
I
understand
your
reasoning.
There
I
in
that
snare,
I
want
that
file
name
or
whatever
you
call.
It
actually
be
an
attribute
of
the
event
itself.
What
I'm
saying?
Well?
How
do
you
say
because
your
point,
the
event
was
emitted
by
the
container,
not
by
the
not
by
the
file.
So
the
can
the
the
source
is
the
container
the
ideas,
the
discriminator
for
that
event
within
that
container
and
but
then
the
file
name
is
actually
an
attribute
of
the
event.
Schema
I
would
argue.
L
Yeah
so
the
reason,
the
reason
why
I
still
like
there's
a
practical
reason
for
why
I
still
would
like
to
have
that
extra
feel.
That
is
filtering
when,
because
you
will,
you
will,
if
you
watch
for
certain
cloud
events
being
emitted
from
that
container
and
you're
really
only
interested
in
whatever
JPEG
files.
L
E
E
E
D
Yeah,
a
huge
plus
to
what
Clarence
was
just
talking
about.
We
we
run
into
that
same
problem
with
K
native,
where
we
would
really
like
to
be
able
to
filter
on
certain
things
like
the
bucket,
but
not
necessarily
the
UUID
of
the
blob.
That's
inside
that
bucket
and
right
now,
there's
just
no
good
way
to
take
take
a
look
at
source
and
be
able
to
split
it
in
half.
Unless
you
do
something
very
special,
like
Clemens
was
saying
that
they're
doing
like
you
can't
do
that
as
middleware.
E
Okay,
so
we're
running
a
little
long
time.
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
sera
solve
this
one
here.
So
a
couple
things
here:
first,
there
are
a
lot
of
really
good
comments
made
in
the
chat
and
on
voice
about
this
issue.
Please
put
your
comment
to
the
PR,
so
we
can
concede
a
discussion
offline
but
to
Clemens
it
sounds
like
you
want
to
open
up
a
either
issue
up
or
request
at
another
field.
Can
you
get
that
one
out
there
too?
Today's
kind
of
related
this
discussion,
yeah.
L
So
what
I'll
do
is,
since
we
have
so
much
material
on
this
in
the
already
in
the
repo
I'm
gonna
open
up
a
new
I'm
gonna
open
up
a
new
PR
and
then
I'm
gonna
point
to
all
of
these
things.
We
have
actually
the
the
deck.
So
in
the
in
the
in
the
repo.
There
is
a
section
where
we
have
a
few
powerpoints
and
there's
one
that
talks
about
topics
and
some.
L
L
So
if
you
open
that
and
if
you
are
in
possession
of
Microsoft
PowerPoint,
thank
you
very
much
and
then
you
can
actually
go
and
put
that
into
presentation
mode,
and
you
can
hear
me
speak
to
that
top
to
that
topic.
Where
I
make
a
very
passionate
argument
for
why
we
should
have
two
fields.
So
so,
if
anybody
has
time
and
interest,
you
can
go
and
look
at
it
and
in
parallel,
I
will
make
a
PR
and
basically
propose
the
subject.
Field.
Yeah.
L
E
Okay,
so
please
put
comments
in
there
before
we
go
back
and
just
do
a
final
roll
call.
There
are
a
couple
PRS
here
that
I
think
are
actually
ready
for
discussion.
I
have
one
on
what
is
optional
and
Jim
opened
up.
One
I
think
Jim
they're
a
couple
of
minor
typos
syntactical
things
make
comments
on,
but
I'd
like
to
get
people's
opinions
on
whether
they're
okay
with
that
general
direction.
So
please
look
at
that
and
comment
in
the
PR
itself.
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
pretty
much
ready
to
go.
E
I
E
And
I
think
it's
not
on
the
phone
anymore,
whoever
that
was.
Is
there
anybody
I
missed
on
the
roll
call
Christian
here,
hello,
Christian
got
it
okay.
Thank
you.
Anybody
else,
oops
all
right
cool.
Thank
you
guys.
Very
much
very
lively
discussion
today
was
really
good.
Just
please
put
your
comments
into
the
repay
hours
that
are
out
there
and
we'll
talk
again
next
week.
Thank
you
guys.
Thank
you
all.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.