►
From YouTube: CNCF Service Mesh Interface 2020-08-05
Description
CNCF Service Mesh Interface 2020-08-05
A
A
B
I'm
really
excited
because
this
is
the
first
contributed
blog
post
yay.
Thank
you
so
much
so
everyone
else
should
write
one
too
for
all
the
stuff
you're
doing,
but
kevin
has
the
honor
of
being
the
first
person
to
put
one
in,
and
what
we
did
right
in
our
guidelines
was
that
it
would
be
great
if
we
can
get
two
people
who
don't
work
at
the
same
employer
as
kevin,
whichever
employer
that
is
but
get
two
people
to
read
it
and
upvote
it
as
like.
B
Yes,
we
would
like
this
on
our
blog
or
say
this
seems
to
be
a
vendor
pitch
or
which
it
didn't
seem
to
be
to
me,
but
I
figure
you.
Experts
should
read
it
and
assess
it
with
your
opinions
and
say
this
seems
like
it
is
a
great
thing
that
we
would
like
talking
about
what
this
particular
person
does
with
smi
anyway,
that
we're
trying
this
is
a
new
process.
B
A
Yes,
so
if
you
have
your
own
blog
post
write
them,
there
are
some
guidelines.
I
want
to
thank
kevin
for
being
the
first
one
to
have
a
community
contributed
blog
post.
I
love
the
transparency
of
folks
being
able
to
do
this
and
obviously
bridget
set
up
some
guidelines
there
and
we
will
implement
the
blog
by
committee,
so
you
all
have
the
power
to
plus
one
this
and
get
it
out
there
on
the
blog.
So
excellent,
thank
you
kevin
for
getting
that
in.
C
C
So
it's
been
a
little
while
I
recognize
there's
a
few
folks
on
the
call
that
maybe
yeah
that
weren't
here
when
we
initially
raised
this
and
that's
to
say
that
smi,
like
any
other
specification,
is
in
need
of
some
tooling
to
validate
conformance.
So
you
know
those
those
service
meshes
that
in
this
case
that
are
participating
you
know
need
to.
We
need
to
define
it
as
a
group
suite
of
tests
that
that
we'd,
you
know,
say
hey
if
these
things
are.
C
In
this
case,
things
get
a
little
more
hairy
and
so
much
as
what
you
need
is
some
tooling
to
provision
the
mesh
to
provision
a
sample
app
to
provision
smi
series
to
then
to,
in
some
cases,
generate
load
to
value
for
traffic
metrics
like
validate
that,
in
fact,
what
you
you
know,
the
load
that
was
presented
is
what's
being
reported
on.
The
statistics
are
accurate,
so
there's
actually
like
quite
a
big
test
harness
around
that
and
so
in
starting
the
you
know
in
setting
out
to
do
that.
C
C
We
need
to
be
able
to
verify
provenance
of
tests
that
are
performed
so
that
someone
doesn't
necessarily
cheat
cheat
the
exam
and
then
and
kind
of
claim
compatibility,
and
so
that's
also
accounted
for
kind
of
in
the
in
the
design
spec.
The
issue
that's
linked
in
the
meeting
minutes.
It
has
a
link
to
the
design
spec
that
we've
brought
up
they've,
been,
you
know,
probably
to
date,
only
light
comments
and
suggestions.
I
think
from
maintainers
that
are
here.
C
They
are
busily
working
on
fixing
a
bug
on
a
different
call
right
now,
so
I've
just
so
I'm
going
to
poke
them
and
ask
them
to
come
on,
but
it's
but
there's
quite
a
lot
to
talk
about
outside
of
of
a
demo
part
of
the
goal,
and
actually
I
hear
let
me
bring
up
and
share
the
spec,
because
I
think
talking
about
the
these.
The
project
goals
that
there's
merit
in
that.
B
C
C
All
right,
fair
enough:
here's
the
design
spec
it
talks.
It
goes
on
for
a
while
kind
of
talks
about
the
goals
and
and
the
notion
that
there
would
be
a
public-facing
report
that
sanctifies
conformance
a
couple
of
concepts
that
are
probably
worth
verbally
chatting
through.
So
one
of
those
is
what
is
conformant
like
well,
you
know
clearly,
there's
like
a
set
of
tests
to
to
perform
those
tests
are
in
their
infancy.
C
C
Does
that
mean
that
they
could
never
be
smi
compliant
and
so
trying
to
put
some
particulars
around
the
terms
that
are
used
that
in
this
case,
what
we're
suggesting
suggesting
is
that
conformance
is
a
combination
of
the
capabilities
of
a
given
mesh
with
respect
to
what
at
the
smi
specs
to
say
that
hey
this
mesh
has
full.
You
know,
for
example,
full
kit
full
fully
meets
this.
C
Spec
has
full
capability,
maybe
it
only
partially
meets
it
or
maybe
it
doesn't,
and
the
difference
here
is
like
whether
or
not
they
ever
intend
to
potentially
like
or
or
maybe
maybe
that's
not
the
difference.
The
difference
is
just
again
like
whether
or
not
they've
done
it
and
then
whether
or
not
they
comply.
So
if
the
capability
is
present,
do
they
comply
with
the
spec
itself.
The
interface.
C
Other
things
to
sort
of
key
concepts,
I
think,
are
like
hey
the
the
notion
that,
after
those
tests
are
run,
the
collection
of
them
and
then
sort
of
the
presentation
of
them
mesherie
facilitates
for
an
smi
owned
repository
of
that
of
the
of
those
result
sets.
The
intention
is,
for
each
of
the
participating
service
meshes
to
run
mesherie
in
their
either
in
their
build
and
release
process.
You
know,
run
this
utility
in
that
process
and
have
a
say.
B
C
C
If
this
group
is
desirous
of
having
a
an
smi
published
version
of
those,
those
test,
results
and
sort
of
have
it
centrally
stored,
and
I
use
the
word
repository,
but
I
just
meant
like
have
a
central
location
for
each
of
the
participating
service,
meshes
to
send
their
results
and
have
the
provenance
of
those
results.
Kind
of
guaranteed.
C
That
there's
been
some
there's
been
consideration
for
that,
and
that
would
be
that
each
of
the
projects
as
they
have
they
would
identify
a
service
account
or
a
robot
account.
If
you
will
that
they
say
hey
for
us,
we
use
this
service
account,
so
we
will.
We
will
authenticate
with
this
one
and
you
will
expect
and
we
will
send
tests
under
that
account
now
that
doesn't
mean
that
they
couldn't
kind
of
take
this
concept.
One
step
further
that
doesn't
mean
that
they
couldn't
fork
this
open
source
project.
C
You
know,
manipulate
the
bits
so
that
they're
all
passing
results
and
so
to
mitigate.
I
don't
think
this
is
really
a
concern,
but
just
like
to
mitigate
that.
There's
a
a
shared
secret
inside
of
the
ci,
the
build
process
for
this
utility,
which
then
is
only
known
in
that
ci
process,
and
so
it
too
will
be
validated
as
as
part
of
receiving
those
results.
So
so
and
then
so.
A
C
Oh,
very
good,
yeah
thanks
for
that,
the
one
that
is
that
would
be
the
most
helpful
and
where
the
collective
brain
trust
here
is,
you
know
a
better.
It
would
serve
this.
The
best
is
in
this
section
here
conformance
test
definitions.
So
are
these
the
things
that
need
to
be
tested?
Does
this
you
know?
Do
we
have
full
coverage
of
smi's
specified
functionality,
yep
so
reviewing
the
doc
and-
and
all
of
it
is
great,
but
specifically.
C
A
Do
we?
Okay?
Can
you
see
the
folks
who
can
provide
a
demo?
Otherwise
we
can
go
to
the
next
agenda
item
and
then
come
back
to
this
later.
Give
five
minutes
at
the
end
sure,
and
just
I
was
wondering:
where
can
we
look
at
the
code
and
where
is
the
tool
and
the
test
defined
and
the
demo
app
totally?
Let
me
get
another
video
yeah
if
you
throw
it
in
chat
or
in
that
agenda,
that
would
be
great,
very
good,
I'll
drop
it
into
the
agenda,
but
this
is.
This
is
excellent.
A
So
I
just
want
to
thank
you
and
the
team
of
folks
that
have
been
working
on
it
to
get
it
this
far,
because
I
think
it's
actually
going
to
be
very
pivotal.
So
I'd
like
to
put
some
effort
into
helping
you
build
out
the
test,
suites
and
then
even
running
and
putting
you
know
on
behalf
of
the
community.
Publishing
results
and
performance
results
up
there.
Just
like
you
know,
kubernetes,
for
example,
have
a
performance
directory
to
specific
apis
and
things
like
that.
Beautiful
any
other
comments
for
lee.
A
A
E
E
E
E
E
F
E
E
E
A
E
D
F
A
Is
yeah?
Absolutely,
I
think
from
my
perspective,
is
we
didn't
want
to
lead
with
an
another
hacked
up
ingress
implementation
that
was
purpose-built
for
osm,
but
rather
I
know
you
know.
Solo
has
done
a
lot
of
work
in
this
area.
This
learning's
in
istio
for
certain
you
probably
have
a
lot
of
feedback.
A
So
it
would
be
more
interesting
to
us
to
use
osm
to
try
and
feel
out
what
the
right
ingress
solution
would
be
or
a
set
of
ingress
solutions,
because
we
didn't
want
to
go
through
throw
another
one
into
the
pot
without
using
smi
as
a
place
to
discuss
that,
because
we
do
know
that
that's
come
up
on
multiple
occasions.
So,
if
you're
interested
we
could,
we
could
start
feeling
that
out,
but
we
didn't
want
to
go
and
say
well.
E
E
B
G
H
So
hello,
everybody,
I
think
I
I
talked
to
michelle
a
long
time
ago
and
we
started
evaluating
smi.
It
sounds
to
me
a
really
prominent
kind
of
project
that
we
should
be
looking
into
and,
of
course,
there's.
Some
other
priorities
we
have
to
work
in
but
smi
is
is,
is
one
of
them
that
we
actually
still
looking
and
and
understand
exactly
how
we
can
implement
into
the
kiali
plans,
as
in
now,
there's
no
hard
commitments.
A
Yeah,
I
think
I've
heard
on
the
well
hello
and
welcome.
I
think
I've
heard
on
the
call
several
times
that
the
linker
d
folks
were
extremely
interested
in
figuring
out
how
to
get
kiali
to
work
on
linker
d,
and
they
have
done
a
lot
of
work
in
shipping,
the
metrics
infrastructure
that
supports
smi
in
kubernetes.
So
this,
however,
we
can
help
you
get
the
information
you
need
to
actually
make
kiali
useful
by
leveraging
smi.
A
You
know
we're
all
here
for
you
as
implementers
to
meet
you
in
the
middle,
but
there
seems
to
be
broad
agreement
that
kiali
is
a
very
useful
tool
for
service
meshes
and
we
want
to
enable
that
ecosystem
much
similar
to
what
stefan
is
doing
with
flagger.
We
want
to
have
tools
built
on
top
of
smi,
because
I
think
that's
more
important
than
just
smi
in
itself.
You
need
to
have
ecosystem
tools
that
actually
leverage
that
and
make
it
useful,
so
don't
take.
A
What's
in
the
metrics,
as
you
know
done,
if
there's
things
that
you're
like
hey,
we
need
these
five
other
things.
Let's
start
poking
holes
because
you
have
an
implementation.
We
need
to
figure
out
what
you
need
to
get
out
of
these
service
meshes,
so
you
can
actually
build
the
dashboard,
so
don't
whatever's
there
is
not
complete.
Let
me
tell
you
that
and
nobody's
implemented
a
tool
to
your
to
what
cliali
has
on
top
of
metrics
at
this
point,
so
I
I
imagine
we're
going
to
need
to
add
a
lot
of
surface
area.
H
Right,
let
me
let
me
tell
you
one
particular
thing
is
kind
of
important
to
us
ever
since
we
start
to
evaluate
the
smi.
It's
there's
one
particular
missing
part,
which
is
the
easter
part,
and
we
haven't
seen
much
contributions
in
the
into
easter
adapter,
except
for
those
folks
here
in
this
hall,
but
we
kind
of
miss
people
or
engagement
from
google
or
even
ibm
into
that,
and
that
would
make
a
significant
change
for
us,
especially
into
contribution.
A
Okay,
that's
great
feedback,
all
right
we're
at
the
top
of
our
time.
Our
next
meeting
is
at
this
time
in
two
weeks
time.
If
you
would
love
to
moderate
that,
please
feel
free
to
throw
something
in
chat.
The
next
30
seconds,
it's
very
easy
to
moderate.
Even
you
know
a
trained
monkey
like
me
can
do
it.
They
train
me.
Well,
don't
worry.
A
They
feed
me
bananas,
but
it's
really
helpful
and
it
gives
you
know
the
community
meetings
a
lot
of
different
personalities
and-
and
I
would
really
appreciate
it
if
folks
step
up
there,
there's
nothing
secret
and
I'm
happy
to
help
if
people
are
interested
other
than
that
have
a
wonderful
day
and
it
was
lovely
to
see
you
all.
Thanks
for
all
the
agenda
items
and
we'll
see
you
at
the
next
call.