►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Meeting - 2018-09-06
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
B
C
C
So
the
face-to-face
meeting
last
night
check
from
the
doodle
poll
or
the
face
based
meeting
for
Shanghai
only
six
people
said
they're
gonna
be
there
and
we
never
actually
agreed
on
what
the
promo
number
would
be
for
quorum
for
parole
meeting,
but
I
think
six
is
a
little
low,
given
that
we
have
I,
think
17
or
16
voting
companies.
Six
deaf
I
feels
low,
so
we'll
work
on
defining
what
the
actual
number
should
be,
but
I
think
six
is
too
low
for
us.
C
However,
I
did
want
to
ask
the
question:
if
anybody
disagree
with
that
assessment-
okay,
not
hearing
any
so
over
those
six
people,
I'm
gonna
reach
out
to
you
guys
to
see
who
is
interested
in
participating
in
the
intro
and
deep
dive
sessions
and
who
wants
to
present
and
all
that
other
stuff.
So
I'll
take
those
conversations,
offline
work
with
you
guys,
the
material
that
we
present
I
assume
we
will
produce
it
in
a
way
they'll
be
available
to
the
working
group
at
large
to
participate
in
putting
it
together,
but
I.
C
Some
of
those
six
people
will
find
the
presenters
to
actually
do
this
thing
all
right
and
as
I
just
want
to
point
out.
There
is
a
brainstorming
doc
that
I
created
to
gather
ideas
for
the
next
possible
Interop.
Now,
whether
we
do
that
at
Shanghai
or
Seattle
or
some
other
events,
you're
still
TBD,
but
I
did
want
to
start
getting
some
brainstorming
going.
So
if
you
guys
get
a
chance,
please
do
look
at
that
document
and
put
some
ideas
down
there
for
things
we
could
start
considering.
C
C
C
All
right
now,
during
any
moving
forward,
then
I,
don't
believe
Austin's
on
the
call
I,
don't
think
anything's
happen
with
the
SDK
work
other
than
I,
think
Austin.
It
will
plan
on
or
is
planning
on
setting
up.
Another
call
now
that
the
extension
discussion
is
is
behind
us,
so
look
for
an
invite
coming
up
fairly
soon
I'll
ping
Austin
offline
to
make
sure
that
happens.
C
D
No
yeah,
not
really
so
after
that
PR
merged
people
can
start
putting
your
PRS
to
modify
it
to
make
it
better.
So
that's
a
whole
point.
That's
that
currently
that
draft
a
just
a
starting
point
which
the
work
flow
subgroup
highest
worked
on
and
the
reach
consensus,
but
that's
just
a
starting
point.
So
I
hope
you
know
more
people
could
join
and
then
you
know
to
evolve
this
document
to.
C
D
So
I
think
you
know
the
work
who
will
be
in
the
new
trees
will
be
committed
through
PR,
but
if
there
is,
you
know
how
to
say
if
there
is
a
topic
that
is,
you
know
more
meeting
this
that
is
meeting
discussion
to
to
to
move
it
forward.
I
think
you
know
we
can
call
meeting
as
needed.
C
E
C
Alright,
alright
Thank
You,
Kathy
I
think
that
ends
that
one.
Thank
you.
So
people,
please
a
go.
Look
at
the
documents
and
submit
PRS
get
moving
forward
all
right,
jumping
into
I.
Don't
think
we
have
any
maintenance
issues
to
discuss,
so
we
can
jump
right
into
some
of
the
PRS
Sarah.
Are
you
going
to
call
I?
Don't
think
I
see
Sarah?
Okay,
so
I
can
take
this
one.
Unless
Rachel
you
want
to
talk
to
it.
Yeah.
F
C
Just
be
just
my
understanding
to
be
clear
for
some
PRS,
we
don't
have
to
do
a
formal
vote.
It's
is
there
any
objection
to
adopting
it.
This
doesn't
impact
that
it's
wait.
There's
unanimous
consent,
we
just
let
it
go
through.
It's
only
for
like
a
little
phrase,
contentious
PRS
that
causes
us
to
do
a
formal
vote,
we're
just
putting
down
into
words.
Well,
we've
kind
of
been
doing
all
along
right,
yeah.
C
C
C
G
D
So
I'm
going
to
go
through
some
use
cases
that
you
know
shows
why
we
need
and
some
identity
labels
or
attributes
and
for
the
correlation
purpose,
and
so
the
first
use
case
is
a
home
security
use
case.
Of
course
you
know
in
order
to
illustrate
the
part,
the
issue
and
the
use
case
had
been
simplified.
The
real
use
case
could
be
more
complicated
than
this.
D
So,
as
shown
in
the
following
burglary
detection
example,
a
home
monitoring
application
involves
two
events
or
it
could
be
more
events,
but
this
example
shows
involves
two
events:
a
motion
event
which
we
say:
detect,
emotion
and
and
the
door
or
window
open
event.
Since
there
are
many
homes
and
then
there
will
be
many
emotion
events
and
when
the
ouvea
events
from
these
homes,
so
the
event
consumer
needs
to
map
each
event,
to
the
correct
home
security
application
instance
as
showing
the
diagram
the
right
side,
you
know
I
have
not
well,
you
know.
D
Perhaps
that
shows
this
instance
and
then
on
the
left
side
we
can
see.
There
are
two
types
of
events
tours
or
event
types
and
then
the
event
eight
represent
the
motion
event
even
be
represented
window
open
event,
and
then
it
could
go
through
some
intermediate
routing
system,
our
gateway
and
then
reach
the
event
consumer.
So
when
the
event
resume,
I
receive
this
event
in
eastern
all,
okay,
which
event
a
okay,
so
that,
if
I
should
be
delivered
to,
which
instance
basically
need
to
correlate
and
even
and
even
be
correctly.
D
D
So
this
is
another
use
case.
It's
long
application
use
case.
So
we
have
two
events
here:
event
a
means
that
the
users
may
turn
on
application
and
even
be
means
that
application
is
approved
by
some
manager
by
some
banking
system
again.
Similarly,
there
could
be
many
event
a
and
event
B.
So
when
the
event
receiver
gets,
that
event
is
getting.
Is
these
events
and
need
to
know
how
to
map
them
into
the
correct
in
our
processing
unit
processing
instance
and
use
case
a
streaming
video
use
case?
D
So,
for
example,
when
someone
upload
image
file,
it
needs
to
be
transmitted
a
video
file.
It
need
to
transmit
eight
different
and
user,
and
then
the
users
display
could
in
different
might
be
my
receipt,
might
might
be
able
to
understand
different
format.
For
example,
some
who
understand
MPEG
format.
Some
will
understand
that
I
shall
ask
format
and
other
will
understand
the
format.
So
when
that
event,
a
happens,
which
means
the
video
files
upload
it
or
some
storage
it
needs
to,
you
know,
do
different
transcoding
and
then
each
transcoding
completion
time
could
be
different.
D
So
event,
B
means
the
manpack.
Transcoding
is
completed
event,
C
means
H
is
transcoding,
is
completed
and
even
D
means
the
transcoding
is
completed
again
when
the
event
receiver
received
all
these
different
events.
It
also
need
to
correct
you
know
the
event
a
to
the
right
event,
B
even
see
a
und
and
to
do
the
processing.
D
So
this
example
is
about
tribal
employee
travel,
application
use
case.
So
even
is
a
travel
application,
an
event
B,
it's
a
travel
approval.
Similarly,
when
the
event
that
could
be
many
travel
requires
an
approval
events,
so
when
the
events
receiver
gets
all
these
events
need
to
do
the
right
to
correlate
the
event
a
to
the
to
the
event
correct
event
B.
D
So
in
summary,
we
can
see
that
there
could
be
many
such
use
cases.
You
know
smart
home,
you
know
any
smart
home
use
cases
from
the
finance
you
know
on
department.
Like
you
know
the
stock
trade,
you
have
fire,
you
have
sale,
you
are
going
to
have.
You
know
the
validation,
and
you
know
when
you
want
to
sales
sell
stock,
it
needs
to
do
a
validation
and
then,
with
a
validation.
Returns,
result
that's
another
event
and
so
need
to
Mac
to
the
right
stock
sale
request
and
then
they
are,
like.
You
know,
health
care
right.
D
You
know
some
heart
ECG
monitoring
that
could
figure
different
events
and
also
in
education
in
government
and,
like
you
also
that,
like
some
example,
I
talked
about
that
in
mouse.
Multiple
events,
so
all
these
involves
all
these
use
cases
involve
multiple
events
and
then
we
need
to
carry
them
incorrectly.
D
So
to
support
such
use
cases,
each
type
of
the
event
must
carry
some
identity
and
labels
or
identity
attributes
whenever
we
call
them
to
distinguish
that
event
from
the
other
event
instances
of
the
same
type
like
you
know
the
same
emotion
event,
it
could
be
many
smashing
events
we
need
to
distinguish.
You
know
which
one
it
is
and
then
to
correlate
that
event
to
the
other
events
correctly,
using
the
identity,
information
high
rate
in
that
current
inside
that
event
message.
D
So
it
is
an
even
producers,
responsibility
to
put
some
identity
labels
in
the
human
context
attributes,
because
if
there
are
no
such
information,
then
there's
no
way
to
do
the
correlation.
Sorry,
so,
in
terms
of
you
know,
if,
like
a
a
producer,
could
put
some
identity
and
information
in
the
event
context
attributes,
and
then
you
know
it
is
a
service
application
developers,
responsibilities,
responsibility
to
specify
for
that
service,
app
use
case
or
the
service
app
workflow,
which
identity
label
cap
that
is
carrying
the
event
should
be
used
to
correlate
it
with
the
other
events.
D
D
C
Things
one
I
apologize
I,
probably
should
have
said
something
before
you
started
Kathy
this.
The
reason
we're
talking
about
this
is
because,
on
previous
phone
calls,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
correlation
and
stuff,
like
that,
and
we
thought
it'd
be
useful
to
have
some
people
who
who
cared
deeply
about
the
correlation,
use
cases
to
explain
some
of
the
the
driving
scenarios
that
were
pushing
them
to
make
sure
that
they,
these
things
were
supported,
and
that's
why
we're
doing
this
and
the
other
thing
is
Kathy.
C
H
From
the
toll
I'd
like
to
try
something
exchange
that
another
use
case
for
the
correlation
ID
and
the
operation
daily
days,
if
I'm
using
a
choreography,
microservice
I
can
use
the
correlation
idea
to
to
track
and
make
the
lineage
of
the
events
that
is
going
to
start
in
a
chain
of
events.
So
I
believe,
there's
another
it's
more
useful.
Then
then
I
was
already
represented.
C
D
I
A
A
We
have
these
cross-cutting
scenarios
where
you
have
these
tracing
things
which
are
directly
injected
by
the
middleware
and
then
carried
in
the
event
and
then
evaluated
by
some
other
middleware
and
and
just
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
correlation
mechanism
is
good
for
that
as
well,
and
then
for
those
we
also
need
to
have
correlation
information.
That's
likely
different
from
the
correlation
information
that's
being
put
into
the
then
by
the
publisher
that
can
then
also
be
carried,
and,
of
course,
that
can
also
be
carried
as
extensions
at
the
at
the.
G
Yeah
hi:
this
is
gem
I'd.
A
similar
comment.
I
know
I'd
be
a
bit
leery
if
you
were
conflating
distributed,
tracing
with
event
correlation,
because
I
think
they're
slightly
different
I
one
is
euro,
diagnostic
and
and
all
that
sort
of
thing
and
the
other
is
really
business
process
monitoring.
So
all
control,
so
you
know
clearly
indicating
when
you
should
use
one
versus
the
other.
I
think
would
be
a
good
statement
to
me.
A
And
I
believe
I
believe
if
I
may
make
comment
on
that
that
having
these
the
the
model
that
were
that
we've
been
starting
with
where
you
know.
If
you
look
at
the
extensions,
the
few
extenders
that
we
already
have
where
you
can
basically
define
an
extension
for
open
tracing
and
then
you
could
also
define
an
extension
for
a
particular
smart-home
consortium
and
they
can
all
exist
in
parallel
and
everybody
kind
of
just
you
know,
picks
picks
out
the
metadata
that
they
need
and
the
the
metadata
is
really
defined
for
scope,
use
cases.
Yeah.
G
Yeah
I
get
I
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
if
you
look
at
open
tracing
I'm
sorry
to
come
back
to
that
one
again,
you
know
I
believe
that
body
defines
how
their
properties
are
propagated
across
different
transports
yeah.
So
you
get
this
sort
of
contention
between
you
know.
If
I'm
sending
a
cloud
event
over
HTTP
do
I
put
those
open
tracing
attributes
in
the
HTTP
headers
as
defined
by
open
tracing,
or
do
you
put
them
inside
the
cloud
event?
D
D
Sorry,
the
information
array
you
know
originated
from
by
your
a
should
should
be
put
in
by
the
event
producer.
Not
you
know
the
the
intermediate
routers.
Of
course
in
me,
your
auto
can
add
more,
you
know
information
or
more
labels,
but
you
know
the
regional
on
the
information,
your
stuff
or
correlation
will
come
originally
from
the
from
the
event
producer
or
event
are
others
aids.
The
event
you
know
the
events
or
that
that
on
send
down
originally
said
not
this
event.
D
G
I
guess
that
raises
another
question:
I
may
be
related
to
apologize.
I,
remember
the
guys
name
that
was
talking
earlier
about
you
know:
where
is
it
the
consortium
on
how
stuff
should
be
correlated
and
does
that
go
in
there
extension
and,
and
is
it
possible
to
sort
of
generalize
this
pattern
and
elevate
it
up
because,
in
your
example
of
a
home
you
know
security
system,
I
would
imagine
those
devices
are
emitting
source
information
and
the
the
security
company
or
whatever,
is
correlating
those
together
and
saying?
Oh,
that's
going
on
in
this
building.
G
D
D
You
know
because
he
knows
you
know
how
many
other
events
are
involved
in
that
security,
application
and
the
in
his
security
application,
workflow
him
to
specify,
say
what
event
what
identity
label
in
the
motion
event
I
should
be
used
for
the
correlation
and
which
I
didn't
label
in
the
when
the
open
event
should
be
used
for
the
correlation,
for
example,
for
that
motion
application
under
the
motion.
Sorry,
in
that
security,
application
use
case,
and
now
when
he
transferred
to
surveys,
surveys
implementation,
it's
going
to
it-
will
specify
in
the
surveys,
applications
surveys,
security,
application.
D
What
flows
back
that?
You
know
the
the
correlation
label
might
be
like
a
home
address.
Something
like
that.
A
The
way
the
way
I
imagine
that
is
that
so
for
the
so
you
have
this
alerts.
The
window
is
open
and
there's
a
home
automation,
specific
I
of
data,
that's
the
effect,
that's
the
correlation
for
the
home
automation,
app,
that's
probably
even
defined
by
a
consortium
who
says
this
sensor
is
in,
is
the
third
window
in
this
room
on
this
floor
in
this
building
on
this
campus,
and
then
there
is
another
data
island
which
has
nothing
to
do
with
that.
A
It's
mostly
orthogonal
to
it,
which
says
the
causality
idea
is
this
and
that's
something
that
a
tracing
the
particular
tracing
framework
understands.
So
you
can
go
and
take
one
event.
You
can
populate
it
with
metadata,
that's
understood
by
separate
different
consumers
and
you
can
go
and
have
the
home
automation,
application,
correlate
and
know
where
that
sensor
is.
You
can
have
the
tracing
application,
no
correlate
all
the
causality
IDs
you
could.
C
So
it
seems
to
me,
though,
that
the
net
of
this
is,
though
right.
The
net
of
this
is
to
just
make
sure
that
whatever
we
produce
has
the
flexibility
to
not
only
just
support
all
these
use
cases
you
guys
are
talking
about,
but
the
ability
to
put
the
required
information
into
a
cloud
event.
So
these
cases
can
then
be
possible
right.
That's
the
basically
the
net
of
all
of
us
right,
yeah,.
D
Yeah
I
think
that
one,
no
matter
how
so
there
to
this,
how
it
this
these
information
seals,
that's
another
issue,
but
they
all
comes
to
the
key
point
that,
in
the
crowd,
events
we
must
put.
Some
even
producer
must
put
some
I
didn't
take
attributes
in
there,
so
that
you
know
whatever
the
application
and
the
event
consumer
application
and
how
they
even
consume
a
patient
use
it.
They
have
their
way
of
define.
D
You
know
which
label
should
be
used
or
which
combination
of
on
identity,
information
that
should
be
used
for
the
correlation
or
for
the
tracing
or
for
other
purpose,
but
bottom
line
is
we
need
to
have
those
information
in
the
event
context,
attributes.
Otherwise,
those
use
cases.
These
use
cases
will
not
be
supported.
D
D
I,
don't
know
why
it's
block
anyway,
yeah,
okay,
I.
Think
number
three.
Is
you
know
what
we
the
summary?
The
key
summary
here
number.
Four,
it's
a
separate
thing.
You
know
it's
like
how,
from
the
event
consumer
point
of
view
or
the
service
application
point
a
application
point
of
view
how
they
should
use
this
information,
but
you
numbers
the
number
three.
Is
you
know
it's
the
key
point
for
the
from
cow
events,
point
of
view
we
need
to
have
some.
It
needs
to
have
some
identity
information
in
the
context
attributes
yeah
it.
K
I
was
curious,
why
it
is
that
this
it's
important
for
these,
these
identity
labels
that,
as
far
as
I,
can
tell
or
are
purely
meaningful
within
the
application
context
to
be
a
part
of
the
contact
attributes
as
opposed
to
something
like
the
payload.
You
know
when
you
were,
you
were
showing
the
diagrams
earlier.
Maybe
you
could
switch
to
one.
K
I,
if,
if
that
event,
receiver
was
infrastructural
component
that
needed
to
make
a
decision
about
how
to
say
party
which
partition
of
a
charted
system
to
send
the
event
to
then
then
an
ID
that
would
help
make
that
vision
seems
like
it
would
be
something
that
would
be
important
for
the
envelope,
but
for
something
that
is
entirely
within
the
applications
domain
and
and
definition
and
model
of
existence.
The
it
seems
like
perhaps
elevating
that
into
the
context
context.
Attributes
is
maybe
less
important.
C
Yeah
I
would
agree,
and
it
seems
like
at
that
point
the
event
producer
or
I'm,
sorry,
the
person
or
inside
the
component.
That's
adding
these
attributes
or
making
the
decision
about
whether
to
add
the
attributes
almost
has
to
know
whether
the
receiver,
it's
going
to
process.
That
information
is
part
of
quote,
as
you
said,
the
application
versus
infrastructure
and
base
and
use
that
information
to
determine
whether
it's
okay
to
keep
it
in
the
payload
versus
in
the
envelope.
C
E
My
understanding
is
different.
I
think
what
one
of
you
guys
said
is
the
UN
consumer
is
part
of
the
application
context.
I
actually
think
it's
part
of
the
infrastructure
context,
I
think
it's
the
infrastructure
that
we'll
have
to
look
at
the
correlation
and
then
basically
route
that
event
to
be
appropriate,
so
less
functioned
or
the
server
less
instance.
That's
gonna
service
them.
Am
I
right
Kathy
is
that
the
application
context
I
assume
the
event
consumer
is
gonna,
be
in
the
infrastructure
context
right
the
point
at
which
the
routing
base
of
correlation
labels
happens.
E
B
K
L
D
More
than
event
a
way,
it's
not
intermedia
routing
gateway,
it's
more
like
a
consumer.
You
know
when
the
event
it's
a
like
instructional
component
that
received
this
event,
which
you
know
it
has
to
process
this
event
and
then
party
to
get
that
information
that
even
all
the
event
make
a
data
or
context
attributes
and
then
from
those
information
they
decide
how
to
you
know
and
send
the
event
to
which
application
instance.
D
C
D
D
Depends
on
honey,
alright,
I
think
you
can.
It
depends
how
you
define
this
event
gateway.
You
can
say
it
whatever
the
name,
but
the
functionality
is,
you
know
it
will
pass.
It
will
pass
all
the
context
attributes
and
then
from
those
informations
and
decide
how
to
you
know
how
to
set
from
book.
From
the
correlation
point
of
view,
it's
going
to
get
that
identity,
information
and
then
decide,
and
you
know
which
you
know,
which
complication
instant,
to
send
an
event.
C
So
so
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
getting
into
a
discussion
about
possible
text
that
we
need
to
add
some
place,
whether
it's
into
our
spec
or
into
the
primer
that
talks
about
when
things
should
go
into
the
payload
verses.
The
envelope
and
Kathy's
open
it
up
a
pull
request
to
start
that
that
discussion
and
put
up
some
proposed
text
I'm
wondering
if
it
makes
sense
to
defer
the
rest
of
this
discussion
or
the
around
that
part
of
anyway
to
Kathy's
PR.
C
J
Would
believe
that
it
might
be
something
you
might
want
to
defer,
having
done
all
of
those
use
cases
other
than
the
video
where
the
correlation
ID
was
absolutely
required
and
important,
it
was
only
one
of
several
factors
that
were
in
the
either
payload
or
in
the
protocol.
Headers
that
were
used
to
you
actually
do
the
actual
correlations,
so
using
just
the
correlation.
Id
may
not
be
enough.
D
Yeah
yeah
I
agree
with
that
I,
don't
think
he
know,
and
there
will
be
just
one
labor
called
correlation.
Id
is
not
that
case.
I.
Think
he's
you
know
it
could
be.
You
know
wine
events,
identity
information
could
map
to
another
events.
Another
identity
information,
so
might
not
be
one
yeah,
but
I
think
I
want
to
separate.
You
know
the
two
things.
One
thing
is
what
the
event
producer
with
information,
the
event
producer
put
into
the
events.
D
What
I
didn't
think
information
the
event
producer
put
into
the
event
and
another
thing
is
you
know
how
the
different
you
know
for
different
use
cases
right
on
how
they
specify
in
the
on
the
receiver
side
how
they
specify
which
identity
on
label
in
the
contest
attribute
will
be
used
to
do
the
correlation.
These
are
two
different
things.
I
think
he
in
the
from
the
crowd.
D
Events,
point
of
view
will
just
concentrate
on
the
first
thing,
so
how
we
should
put
I
think
the
whole
presentation
perverse
is
to
just
to
illustrate
why
we
need
this
I.
Didn't
a
label
information
in
the
events
on
to
support.
I.
Think
the
the
goal
is
to
support
such
use
cases,
and
there
are
many
such
use
cases
right.
C
So
with
that
I
think
Cathy's,
part
of
the
presentations
done,
are
there
other
people
on
the
call
who
would
like
to
present
their
use
cases
that
they
feel?
Like
fundamentally,
add
new
information
to
the
discussion.
M
One
I'm
not
sure
if
the
use
case
were
said,
but
on
our
perspective,
the
correlation
ID
was
meant
to
a
segment
little
business
events
that
together
represent
a
much
more
abstract
business
event.
For
example,
in
our
case,
we
work
in
a
financial
company
and
for
transaction
put,
it
simply
would
be
a
debit
from
one
account
and
a
credit
into
another.
That
would
be
two
different
events,
but
the
second
one
would
need
a
reference
from
the
first
one
to
encapsulate
the
whole
transaction.
So
that
would
be
a
use
case
for
our
scenario.
L
Their
concern
that
the
identity
information
might
be
too
big
in
Kathy's
presentation,
there
was
a
line
that
each
event
must
identify
itself.
What,
if
they,
the
event
wants
to
use
certificates
might
be
way
too
big
in
size.
This
is
related
to
the
concerns
that
this
info
might
be
better
in
the
event
payload.
H
Just
I
just
sent
that
info
from
the
event
itself.
Maybe
the
alternative
options
from
the
what
Kathy
present
I
just
send
the
ID
from
the
original
event
on
the
on
the
metadata
and
then
I
can
recreate
it
everything
from
a
if
it's
store,
I,
don't
know
it's
something
that
we
are
discussing.
It's
an
option
and
I
can
envelope
on
the
extensions
all
the
information.
If
we'll
get
better
performance
to
us,.
D
H
H
A
D
F
D
I,
don't
think
I'm
a
single
idea
will
work.
Yeah
I,
think
you
know
the
different
event
producer
could
put
different
identity
information
there.
So
what?
What
had
this
I
think
the
information?
That's
up
to
the
that's
you
know
we
cannot
predict
because
there's
so
many
different
types
of
events
right,
but
they
I
think
the
the
common
point
is
no
matter
what
kind
of
application
or
use
cases.
D
That's
the
and
I
think
this
information
is
I.
Think
when
Jamie
mentioned
is
you
know
these
identity
information
should
be
put
into
the
context
attribute
field
for
better
performance
instead
of
you
know,
even
consumer
has
to
pass
a
big
payload
to
get
that
information.
D
C
D
G
C
C
You
know
a
chain
to
the
spec
I
think
it's
easier
to
have
that
discussion
rather
than
the
abstract
one,
but
at
the
same
time
this
this
conversation
did
come
up
enough
times
that
we
thought
it'd
be
useful
to
have
the
abstract
discussion
at
least
once
more
in
one
of
our
calls
was
why
we're
doing
it
now
but
going
forward.
Please,
let's
talk.
C
Let's
try
to
work
these
things
through
PRS
and
talk
about
you
know
changes
if
you
want
to
see
in
spec
that
way,
they'll
help
focus
the
discussions
all
right,
but
that's
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
talk
about
Cesare's
PR,
no
Rachel.
Are
you
able
to
talk
to
this
one
from
Sarah
since
I?
Don't
believe
she's
on
the
call?
F
C
We
don't
know
we
don't
care,
it
doesn't
really
impact
us
directly.
That's
a
different
conversation.
Our
project,
though,
can
decide
on
our
own
whether
we
want
to
use
reference
whatever
any
particular
protocol,
regardless
of
the
governance
model.
For
the
most
part
we
can
choose
to
do
whatever
we
want
it's
up
to
us
to
decide.
So
we
have
our
own
destiny
in
our
own
hands.
You
know,
for
the
most
part,
within
the
within
the
scope
of
whatever
CN
CF
rules
are
finding
us
so
relative
to
the
proto
discussion
itself.
C
We
will
decide
on
our
own
whether
we
like
that
PR
or
not
on
our
own
governance.
Legal
reasons
are
not
going
to
really
impact
us.
Unless
someone
chooses
to
let
that
impact
their
vote.
But
as
a
group
we
has
no
impact
on
us.
The
other
thing
I
think
we
talked
about
creeping
around
here,
Rachel
Mike,
so
I
make
sure
I
get
this
right.
C
The
295
I'd,
say
I
think
the
number
yes
right
right,
okay,
and
so
that
that's
about
that
PR
now
the
reason
I
think
this
ties
back
into
this
one
Rachel
I,
think
of
you
reading.
The
reason
you
want
to
mention
here
was
because
you
guys
are
then
looking
for
changes
to
this
PR
that
loosened
it
a
little
to
talk
about
how
protocols
or
bindings
could
come
from
places
other
than
consortia.
C
F
A
C
A
No,
no,
no,
but
this
only
shows
the
okay
so
so
widely
use
protocols.
Basically
what
this,
what
this
was
intending
to
do
is
just
introduces
the
notion
that
there
are
protocols
which
we
should
consider
that
are
defective
standards.
And
so
what
this
said,
some
widely
used
protocols
have
become
de
facto
standards
emerging
out
of
strong
ethical
systems
of
top-level
multi-company,
consortio
projects
and
now
with
a
change
where
it
says,
or
it's
basically
breaking
that
term.
A
Strong
ecosystems
of
top-level
multi
company
consortium
projects,
apart
into
two
terms
losing
the
previous
ones
right
and
that's
and
that's
for
me,
that's
a
little
odd.
But
it
peers
to
be
doing
is
is
saying.
There
are
strong
ecosystems
which
are
not
the
prayer
prior
one
and
then,
and
then
there's
the
other
ones
which
are
tappable
to
companies
and
social
projects.
And
so
what
I
proposed
was
basically
in
in
my
comment
was
basically
teasing
those
things
apart,
because
I
don't
think
it's
like
it
seems
like.
It
seems
a
little
odd
to
go.
A
Make
a
making
correction
where
you,
where
you
break
apart
the
term
in
a
sentence
where
you
change
Florida
off
to
war,
but
rather
really
go
and
be
explicitly
about
the
attempt
to
do
so.
That's
what
I'm
proposing
here,
because
the
the
juxtaposition
here
to
make
this
really
there's
top-level
company
Patricia
projects
and
the
other
ones-
are
proprietary
projects.
C
A
It's
just
that,
there's
a
there
has
been
a
there's,
a
semantic
change
that
breaks
apart
the
statement
that
was
being
made
and
instead
of
breaking
it
apart,
it
would
be
good
to
go
and
just
add
a
part,
a
sentence
or
a
part
of
the
sentence
that
it
clarifies
to
what
to
change
incentives,
because
that's
what
it
seems
to
be.
Okay,.
F
C
Sorry
derechos
to
be
clear
what
I
meant
was
Clemons
wasn't
disagreeing
with
your
semantic
change.
He
was
I
was
interpreting
his
thing
as
more
of
a
syntactical
change
on
top
of
your
semantic
change,
but
that's
what
I
meant
I
understand:
you're
looking
for
a
semantic
changed
I
apologize.
If
I
wasn't
clear.
A
You
were,
they
were
making
an
addition,
or
their
intent
was
to
make
an
addition
and
I
think
I
just
made
that
decision
more
explicit,
because
the
it
was
basically
determine
strongly
perceptions
of
proprietary
projects.
Sorry
I'm,
sorry,
persistence
of
a
couple
of
multi-company
consortium
projects
was
broken
apart
and
that's
one
firm.
A
C
Rachel,
do
you
think
I
know
you
probably
need
you
guys,
probably
some
time
to
think
about.
Doesn't
Epona
need
to
have
Sarah
look
at
a
census.
This
was
originally
her
PR,
but
in
general,
do
you
think
this?
This
type
of
change
that
Clement
is
talking
about
here
is
something
that
it's
still
consistent
with
the
goal
of
what
your
PR
was
trying
to
do.
Yeah.
C
F
F
To
be
clear,
like
the
point
of
this,
was
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
like
the
motivation,
for
this
is
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
applicable
to
many
different
projects.
That's
why
we're
doing
this
we
wanted
to
brought
in
what
we
see
is
like
people
that
we
welcome
to
join
this
community
like
who
are
we
making
this
spec,
for
we
want
to
make
that
a
broader
tent.
That's
that's
the
motivation
behind
this.
D
I
think
here
is
a
top-level
multi-company.
Do
I
need
to
define
what
that
matter,
company?
How
many
is
considered
like
multi
company
I,
think
there's
their
comments
say
you
know
if
we
can
be
more
explicit,
that
we
more
objective
rather
than
you
know,
if
we
can
define
that
I
think
it
will
be
better
like
five
or
ten
or
oh
three.
F
My
well,
this
is
not
my
Piazza
Sarris,
but
if
I
were
to
give
my
opinion
about
this,
it
would
be
if
there
are
two
companies
that
are
collaborating
in
the
open
on
on
a
project.
Then
I
would
consider
that
multi
company,
but
if
people
would
like
to
see
broader
like
we,
the
expectation
is
that
they're,
a
strong
community
support
behind
whatever
is
happening
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
make
any
of
these
like
necessary
clauses.
C
C
N
This
is
Ryan
Oh
from
what
I
understand
now
is
its
top
level.
Multi-Company
consorted
doesn't
seem
to
even
mean
anything
there,
because
this
is
all
so
seems
like
all
we
need
to
say
is
it's
a
have,
asteroids
regeneration,
it's
basically.
What
we
need
is
someone
has
something
that
actually
has
a
strong
ecosystem
and
has
a
wide
community
support.
It
looks
like
whether
it's
coming
out
of
Motel
company
or
a
single
company
doesn't
matter
it
will
meet
the
bar
anyway.
N
C
C
D
C
N
C
C
O
C
Yeah
I'll
be
quick.
Basically,
it's
one
people
draw
people's
attention
to
this
PR
Kathy,
open
cuz
I'd
like
to
get
some
eyes
on
it
sooner
rather
than
later.
It
talks
about
the
notion
of
of
including
identity
properties
for
the
correlation
or
add
any
purpose
or
something
into
the
message
itself
and
like
I
said,
starts
that
process
of
opening
up
the
discussion
about
when
things
go
into
the
payload
versus
into
the
cloud
of
n
attributes
and
stuff,
like
that,
so
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
critical
one
for
us
to
get
right
going
forward.
C
O
But
hi
everyone
I
we
we
came
to
a
conclusion
on
the
extensions
work
and
I
think
now
is
time
is
a
great
time
to
focus
on
the
SDKs,
so
we'd
love
to
kick
off
that
effort
again.
I'll
send
out
a
dual
polls
later
tonight
and
if
anyone
is
interested
in
contributing
to
the
SDK
efforts,
just
look
out
for
that
I'll
post
it
in
the
slack
channels,
as
well
as
the
CN
CF
message
board.
Excellent.
C
D
Right
yeah,
so
the
reason
the
poor,
the
new
P
I,
so
the
original
PR
with
is
is
proposed.
Identity
label
bag
right
so
I
think
there
are.
That
looks
like
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
people
would
like
to
go
for
that
or
go
for
this
new
one.
So
yeah
you
can
take
a
look
here.
No,
this
one!
We
didn't!
You
know
we
there's
no
identity
label
back.
Basically,
you
know
ray
goes.