►
From YouTube: CNCF Service Mesh Interface Project 2020-09-16
Description
CNCF Service Mesh Interface Project 2020-09-16
A
A
Today
we
have
a
few
items
to
discuss,
and
then
we
have
a
few
people
who
you
know
haven't
been
in
the
meeting
for
a
while,
maybe
have
things
they
want
to
say
so,
we'll
make
sure
the
floor
is
open
after
a
few
items
that
we
want
to
discuss
the
first
one
on
the
list
is
michelle
was
saying
we
needed
at
least
one
more
reviewer
on
the
tcp
udp
routes
additions
to
traffic
specs.
Michelle
do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to
take
that?
Tell
us
what's
going
on
with
that?
B
B
I
didn't
see
any
issues
with
it
look
straight
forward
to
me.
I
think
the
only
thing
that
you
might
want
to
consider
is
calling
out
in
traffic
split
that
since
traffic
split
supports
traffic
specs,
that
this
would
mean
that
implementations
support
traffic
split
via
traffic-
oh
god,
all
these
prefixes.
A
B
C
C
B
A
D
A
Thing
yeah:
I
think
that
the
confusion
was
because
if
you
don't
want
to
write
and
go
then
you're
like,
why
would
I
look
in
the
go
sdk
for
something
about
how
kubernetes
crds
work,
and
so
it's
kind
of
a
scoping
issue
of
like
where
we
have
it
conceptually,
but
I
also
don't
think
it
actually
necessarily
belongs
directly
in
the
spec
repo,
as
suggested.
That's
why
I
was
like.
I
don't
know.
B
Yeah,
it's
like
the
crds
get
updated
when
we
update
like
the
go
sdk
so
first
like
the
spec
gets
updated.
So
we
couldn't
like
put
in
the
spec
document
a
link
to
the
crds
because
they
wouldn't
be
updated.
You
know
so
like
we
just,
I
think
in
the
readme
in
where
it
says
smi
documents
or
something
we
could
maybe
like
link
to
the
sdk
repo
crds.
A
A
B
A
D
A
D
Okay
is
like
we're,
so
so
from
my
perspective,
net
positive
that
http
tcp
udp,
and
that
the
support
for
those
explicitly
is
is
there
like?
Is
it
as
an
aside
like
a
http
sort
of
runs
on
top
of
tcp,
and
so
like
technically,
like
one
is
a
subset
of
the
next?
Although
probably-
and
this
is
why
I
was
saying
it's
probably
not
a
helpful
comment-
it's
like
it
probably
doesn't
really
matter
that
much,
it's
probably
easier
conceptually
to
to
grok
and
just
sort
of
see
that
they're
all
equal
and
so.
A
D
Yeah
or
just
to
throw
out
that
thought
that
yeah
one
is
http,
is
a
subset
of
tcp
and
as
a
point
of
30
second
reflection
does,
would
it
be
looking
forward?
Would
that
be
helpful
to
us
as
we
potentially
identify
support
for
other
tcp
based
other
tcp
based
protocols
like
in
terms
of
not
repeating
ourselves?
Do
we
have
certain
sorry
certain
base
level
parameters
or
metadata
around
tcp
and
then,
as
a
grpc
and
nats
and
https,
like
subsets
of
you
know
of
tcp
or
just
hey?
E
Help
me
understand
that
partially
for
for
prescribing
reasons,
but
also
for
like
logical
reasons,
your
argument,
I
I
think
I
understand
your
argument
in
the
sense
of
that.
If
the
one
is
the
subset
of
the
other,
then
we
can
kind
of
like
reuse
things,
but
what
I
don't
really
get
is
that
would
only
be
valid
in
a
regime
where
you
have
kind
of
like
the
semantics
would
would
inherit
stuff
like
do
we
actually
have
that.
D
Yeah,
I
don't
know
that
we
do.
I
it
just
sort
of
occurred
to
me
that,
like
oh,
if
this
hasn't
been
a
consideration,
maybe
it's
worth
mentioning
and
I
don't
really
have
a
strong.
This
isn't
necessarily
a
strong
argument,
or
this
is
clearly
not
a
strong
argument
and
isn't
necessarily
a
suggestion
that
we
go
and
define
inherent
inheritance
and.
E
C
C
E
E
E
D
E
A
A
D
D
So
there's
a
few
examples
of
tests
to
be,
you
know,
conformance
tests
to
be
run
and
and
what
those
tests
assert
must
be
true
in
order
to
you
know,
pass
or
fail,
but-
and
so
this
is
a
call
for
consideration,
a
call
for
others
to
come
to
express
opinion
or
come
to
bear
or
or
to
help
define
what
those
tests
you
know
are.
What
would
be
there's
examples
in
there
so
without
like
it's
just
to
save
time
and
things,
I
think
they're
they're
relatively
straight
straightforward,
the
the
assertions
that
are
being
made.
B
D
Yeah
the
framework
accounts
for
testing
against
each
of
the
specs,
the
examples
that
have
been
done
thus
far.
If
I
recollect
it's,
I
think
there
there
might
be
like
eight-ish
or
so
total
a
couple,
a
few
for
traffic
access
and
a
few
for
traffic
metrics
and
then
no
particular
priority.
You
know
beyond
that.
B
D
A
Verified
and
validated
sounds
good.
Okay.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
anybody
who
didn't
add
something
to
the
agenda
but
wants
to
talk
about
something
gets
a
chance,
and
while
people
are
thinking
about
that,
our
next
meeting
is
september
30th
and
I
would
love
to
have
somebody
volunteer,
possibly
who
will
be
able
to
be
here
on
september
30th.
I
mean
I
plan
to
be
here,
but
somebody
volunteered
to
do
what
I
just
did
and
somebody
volunteered
to
do.
A
E
A
E
I
do
have
one
question:
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
discuss
it
now,
but
I'd
like
to
raise
it
it's
again
essentially,
do
we
have
anything
planned
around
the
upcoming
kubecon,
so
kubecon,
north
america
being
beginning
mid-november?
Do
we
have
anything
as
a
you
know,
cncf
project
that
might
be
an
opportunity
to
do
something.
A
I
want
to
say:
sandbox
projects
aren't
automatically
given
sessions,
so
unless
somebody
submitted
something,
I
don't
think
we
have
a
session
project
office
hours
last
time
were
a
thing
and
I
think
we
didn't
do
any.
So
that's
a
that's
a
good
note
that
if
we
want
to
think
about
running
some
project
office
hours
time,
concurrent
with
the
upcoming
kubecon
north
america,
those
would
probably
be
early
to
midday
for
us
and
later
in
the
day
for
eu,
so
yeah,
perhaps
yeah.
D
A
Cncf,
like
they
publish
at
least
for
the
last
one,
so
I
assume
for
this
one
too.
They
publish
a
list
and
people
who
want
to
go
to
a
project's
office.
Hours
can
like
show
up
and
there's
usually
a
couple
of
maintainers
who
are
taking
questions
from
all
comers
and
that
went
pretty
well.
I
was
in
a
couple
of
those
for
the
helm
project
and
you
know
like
30
or
so.
Attendees
would
show
up
and
really
want
to
talk.
You
know
not
nitpick
about
one
specific
pr
or
something.
It's
not
like
that.
It's
more!
A
A
All
right,
whenever
I
mention
on
slack
that
this
meeting
is
happening,
people
jump
in
and
look
at
the
notes
and
they
don't
all
come
to
the
meeting.
But
I
think
people
get
interested
to
get
a
chance
to
see
what's
discussed.
So
all
right.
Is
there
anyone
else,
especially
people
who
come
from
time
to
time
or
haven't
spoken
up
yet
this
meeting
is
there
anyone
else
who
has
something
they
want
us
to
know
about
to
talk
about?
Tell
us
their
thoughts.
D
I
do
yeah
there's
I
need
to
go.
I
need
to
circle
back
with
a
conversation
that
I'd
had
with
privately
with
nginx
a
couple
of
them,
as
did
anyone
catch
the
I
barely
caught
the
announcement,
but
I've
been
waiting
on
it
for
a
couple
of
months.
Nginx
has
a
new
service
mesh.
I
hope
I'm
not
breaking
like.
I
saw
somebody
publish
on
devops.com
but
they've
been
having
a
service
message.
It.
D
And
the
api
is
entirely
smi
like
or
like
smi
is
the
api
or
you
know,
and
so,
but
cool
really.
You
know
really
really
awesome,
also
astounding
that
they
were,
I
think,
just
sort
of
in
general
that
they
were
able
to
to
do
so
without
asking
a
question
or,
like
you
know,
that's
either
a
tribute
to
the
the
the
or
it's
a
tribute
to
them
to
like
you
know
anyway,
anyway,
it's
an
exciting
thing
for
the
project.
E
D
A
H
H
D
Is
yeah
no,
but
it's
not,
but
it's
not
like
as
oh,
okay
yeah.
I
guess
now
that
it's
open
it's
fine.
It
is
based
on
nginx
plus.
That
said,
licensing,
isn't
it's
not
that
licensing
isn't
such
that
you
need
licensing
is
different.
It's
not
go.
Buy
a
thousand
nginx
sidecar
service
proxy
licenses
for
your
thousand
service
system.
D
H
Well,
when
the
first
iteration
was
this
fabric
model
that
they
worked
on
and
I'm
sorry
if
I'm
digressing
a
little
bit
here
from
the
topic,
but
this
fabric
model,
where
it
was
all
a
bunch
of
nginx
proxies
with
really
no
control
planes.
So
I'm
curious
to
see
what
the
control
plane
is
anyway.
This
is
very
exciting.
I'm
happy
to
see
this.
A
Yeah,
that's
great!
So
if
you
know
either
lee
or
charles
or
whoever
wants
to
talk
to
them
and
find
out
if
they
can,
you
know
look
into
writing
a
blog
post
about
their
experience
of
implementing
a
smile.
That
would
be
fantastic
because
that's
the
kind
of
stuff
that
I
feel
like
and
michelle
is
raising
her
hand.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
we
hear
what
michelle
has
to
say,
but
just
to
finish
up,
I'm
really
happy
that
people
are
implementing
it.
Michelle
what's
up.
B
I
I
B
Awesome
good
to
hear
so
john
who's
on
this
call
and
on
the
osm
team
has
been
working
to
implement
smi
matrix
and
he's
done.
Some
really
good
work
to
extend
envoy
to
give
us
some
custom
metrics
and
then
that
allowed
us
to
implement
allowed
him
to
implement
smi
metrics.
I
think
he's
going
to
give
us
kind
of
like
a
lessons
learned
next
meeting,
so
maybe
that
might
be
relevant
to
your
team.
In
particular,.
A
G
G
G
B
Either
digressing
a
little
bit
hey
lee,
could
we
like
are
we
gonna?
Is
the
best
place
to
come
back
and
sync
on
the
conformance
stuff
at
the
smi
call
next
week
or
next
time,
or
is
it
the
cncf
sig
networking
call
like
where
do
y'all
go
into
detail
about
this,
because
I
do
have
some
detailed
scenarios
I'd
like
for
us
to
consider.