►
From YouTube: CNCF Service Mesh Interface 2020-10-14
Description
CNCF Service Mesh Interface 2020-10-14
A
A
So
let's
have
a
look
at
the
agenda
14th
right
yeah,
so
I
had
an
agenda
item
there
around
the
question
that
iconic
of
mine
raised.
I
just
have
a
look
he's
around.
Otherwise
yeah
we
might
postpone
background
here
is
question
was
if
there
is
a
similar,
if
there
are
there
any
plans
really
to
have
something
similar
to
what
the
conformance
suit
that
lee
is
working
on
and
yeah
I'll,
just
throw
it
out
there.
A
I
I
don't
expect
anyone
to
actually
answer
unless
you
know
of
something
I'm
just
probably
more
out
of
interested
in
the
same
way
that
you
know
the
control
plane
conformance,
it
could
be
tested
more
or
less
on
the
probably
on
the
on
level,
like
I
guess,
but
given
that
my
colleague
is
not
here
not
but
entirely
positive,
it
makes
sense.
But
if
someone
knows
something,
then
please
please
feel
free
to
free
to
share.
B
A
Right,
right
and
and
and
also
I
mean
it,
kind
of
assumes,
I
guess
that
we
already
have
a
standard
which
one
void
terms
of
a
great
extent
might
be
considered,
because
if
the
interplay
is
not
there's
not
a
a
standard,
then
it's
kind
of
like
hard
to
write
a
conformance
point
but
yeah.
I
would
definitely
suggest
that
we
revisit
that
once
once.
A
I
can
give
you
one
given
that
I
didn't
read
like
I'm
more,
like
no
pun
intended
a
proxy
for
that
question.
A
colleague
of
mine
asked
me
that,
and
I
said
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
of
anything,
but
I
happily
asked
the
big
brains
in
the
smi.
I
can
think
of
one
thing.
So
if
you
again,
this
is
not
saying
envoy
is
the
standard,
but
is
de
facto
very
widely
used.
A
So,
if
you
think
of
implementing
it
actually
we
raised
a
relevant
issue
on
on
the
gdpa
working
group
as
well,
if
you
think
of
the
onboard
api
implemented
in
say,
ebbs
or
ppf
right,
so
it
has
the
same
api,
but
it's
not
the
online
proxy
right.
You
want
to
make
sure
that
some
workload
that
works
against
the
onboard
proxy
now
works
on
that.
B
A
Ppf
based
implementation,
how
do
you
make
sure
that
this-
and
you
know
you
could
implement
the
online
proxy
in
a
bunch
of
bash
scripts
right
and
we
all
like
dash
script
like?
Why
not
right
you
could
and
the
question
is
then,
if
you
have
workloads
that
or
in
hardware
right,
you
might
have
a
dedicated
chip
that
implements
that.
Why
not?
So
if
you
have
that
kind
of
challenge
right,
so
you
come
from
the
original.
The
ogu
real
envoy
to
some
other
implementations
that
is
or
claims
to
be,
udpa
or
envoy
api
is
compatible.
A
A
B
I
don't
know
like
exactly
how
to
do
that.
I'm
totally
out
of
my
depth
here,
but
one
place
that
might
be
easier
to
start
than
others
is
like.
Maybe
in
metrics
like
the
kinds
of
metrics
you
could
get
out
of
a
particular
proxy
that
might
be
an
easier
place
to
start,
because
I
don't
know
how
to
do
the
other
things
or
do
conformance
around
the
other
things.
Oh.
A
D
I
I
dropped
some
specific
links
in
of
a
few
that
I
think,
could
probably
use
an
I
or
two.
So
in
some
of
them
we
had
like
one
review,
but
we
need
two.
This
is
related
to.
Michelle
was
pointing
out
that
we,
some
of
them.
We
might
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
a
couple
of
reviews
on.
I
put
this
on
the
agenda,
but
it
was
inspired
by
that
inside
of
michelle's.
Michelle
do
you
have
more?
You
want
to
say
about
that.
B
Oh
yeah,
I
just
feel
like
you
know,
more
people
are
getting
involved
in
this
spec
and
I
don't
want
to
like
lose
out
on
momentum,
but
I
think
even
stefan
had
pointed
out
it's
just
taking
a
while
to
like
get
reviews
and
stuff
and
totally
get
it
like.
I
don't
think
anybody
is
working
on
a
spec
full-time,
but
just
I
don't
know
if
we
need
more
maintainers
or.
A
B
A
Let's,
let's
kick
that
off
right
I
mean
sending
something
out
to
the
list
saying
like
hey.
We
I
mean
we
could
also
have
something
in
between
that
doesn't
have
to
be
a
full
maintainer
or
whatever
that
that
might
be
a
dedicated
review,
but
kicking
off
the
discussion
itself
like
hey.
We
need
to
scale
right.
We
need
more
people,
yeah.
A
Interested
in
something
like
that,
if
it's
full
maintainer
or
review
role
or
whatever,
but
I
I
said
you
know,
I
would
definitely
do
that
right.
I
have
cycles
specifically
for
smi
I
allocated
so
I
would
happily
do
that,
but
again
it's
not
about
food
maintainer
or
not.
We
want
more
eyes
that
can
essentially
authoritatively,
say
yep
lgtm.
B
F
B
F
There
is
a
typo
right,
I
forgot
to
put
minus
with
to
some
dock
right
and
I
got
the
reviews
for
it
to
be
merged.
If
I,
let's
say
fix
that
type
or
I
add
a
minus
somewhere,
all
the
reviews
are
lost
it
resets
to
zero.
Then
you
have
to
wait
like
another
two
weeks,
three
weeks
to
find
all
those
persons
again
so
yeah.
It
will
be
great
to
have
more
more
eyes
on
this.
That
can
react
much
faster.
F
B
D
A
D
B
Yeah
there
was
a
thread:
it
was
required
by
a
slack
conversation,
not
sure
if
patrice
brought
it
up,
I'm
not
sure
who
brought
it
up,
but
somebody
brought
it
up
and
said
that
you
know
what
is
the
behavior
of
a
traffic
target
if
no
spec
resource
resources
defined-
and
I
just
put
in
a
line
that
says-
and
we
didn't
clarify
that
in
the
in
the
spec.
But
on
slack
we
clarified
that
a
valid
traffic
target
needs
to
have
at
least
one
destination
one
source
and
one.
A
A
D
A
A
A
Yeah,
but
that's
exactly
what
I
mean
in
terms
of
like
agreement
in
principle
versus
you
know,
figuring
out
the
mechanics
to
resolve
to
untangle
this
thing,
because
there
are
mechanical
issues
but
like
if
someone
would
say
like
whoa,
I
have
a
problem
with
that.
There's
an
objection,
that's
something
else.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
like
yep
fine
and
then
you
know.
We
trust
that
you
folks
will
figure
out
how
to.
D
And
then
I
added
one
from
the
metrics
repo,
because
I
thought
it
was
kind
of
interesting
and
maybe
somebody
isn't
usually
referring
or
reviewing
over
in
that
repo
wants
to
look
at
it
that
one
being,
if
there
is
this
issue
in
kubernetes
119,
then
we
might
need
to
get
that
fix
in
someone
opened
an
issue
and
a
pull
request:
a
url
yeah.
It's
in
the
notes,
review
needed
cert
users
that
have
alternate
sand
fields.
G
G
A
C
D
D
B
A
B
I
think
that's
a
really
good
question.
I
think
where
the
idea
is
to
talk
about
how
you've
implemented
smi
metrics
so
we'll
bring
our
implementation
kind
of
give
a
5-10
minute
overview
of
like
what
went
into
doing
that.
The
action
item
or
the
end
of
meeting
I'm
hoping
to
get
kind
of
a
list
of
things,
a
list
of
issues
that
people
have
run
into
that
are
common
and
some
areas
that
we
know
we
need
to
improve.
A
H
Oh,
the
the
conformance
suite
for
yeah-
I
I
don't
really
know
what
all
you've
ended
up
talking
about
there.
My
my
interest.
There
was
weird
we're
doing
something
very
similar
for
app
mesh,
and
I
think
one
of
my
concerns
is
at
least
I'm
in
the
opinion
that
we
can
generally
get
the
api
level
consistent
across
all
these
different
implementations,
but
making
sure
that
well
one
just
our
own
implementations
are
internally
consistent.
A
But
I
guess
that
was
the
question
right,
because
I
I
was
only
able
to
convey
so
much
like
what
does
it
actually
mean
right
because,
for
example,
it
kind
of,
if
you
say,
data
plane,
conformance
it
kind
of
like
assumes
that
there
is
a
a
standard
right
or
to
address
the
elephant
like
to
assume
that
envoy
is
the
standard
right.
Otherwise,
you.
H
H
How
what
gets
preferred
there
and
one
of
the
kind
of
the
the
sad
secrets
of
like
all
these
service
meshes?
Maybe
not
osm?
I
haven't
used
osm
much,
so
maybe
osm
is
perfect
here,
but
at
least
for
the
rest
of
us.
There's
all
these
interesting
ghatias
as
we're
trying
to
make
the
obvious
use
cases
work
so
so,
for
example,
in
that
previous
one
for
istio
and
atmesh,
the
tcp
service
would
just
get
dropped,
couldn't
wrap
it.
H
Hp
is
preferred,
but
we're
all
working
to
not
only
try
and
fix
these
books,
because
customers
do
encounter
them,
but
also
I'd
say
like
as
a
general
guiding
light
of
where
we're
trying
to
get
to
is
like.
We
want
something.
That's
kind
of
like
a
normal
vpc
like
these
things,
like
things
should
you
should
be
able
to
in
the
sense
of
like
there
shouldn't
be
any
weird
edge
cases
there
shouldn't.
H
Actually,
it
shouldn't
be
obvious
that
there's
actually
this
proxy
in
the
middle
that
is
making
preferential
decisions
or
that
you're
having
to
deal
with
its
configuration.
Okay-
and
so
I
think
in
general,
like
istio,
is
improving.
This
app
mesh
is
improving
this
I
don't
know
where
osm
is
at,
but
I'm
assuming
that
wherever
osm
is
they're
improving
that.
H
A
I
guess
so
that
helps
already
a
little,
but
I
guess
to
to
really
capture
everything
it
would
be
as
as
we
had
notes
already,
it
would
really
be
great
david
if
you
could
create
an
issue
and
essentially-
and
maybe
you
have
like
you-
gave
one
example,
which
is
already
helpful-
maybe
you
have
more
so
that
we
then
can
also
because
essentially
these
agendas-
we
essentially
refer
to
certain
issues
so
that
we
can,
you
know
track.
Where
are
we
what
what
isn't
to
resolve
et
cetera?
H
B
Thanks,
like
I,
we've
definitely
been
running
into
edge
cases
and
kind
of
don't
know
where
to
go
all
the
time,
and
sometimes
we
take
those
questions
back
to
the
smi
community
and
have
like
issues
and
threads
about
it.
So
it's
great
to
like
kind
of
get
expose
some
some
more
of
these
issues
and
see
if
there's
more,
we
can
do
along
the
lines
of
conformance.
D
A
B
B
Please,
oh
yeah,
we
are,
we
are.
We
are
running
into
some
issues-
programming
the
proxy
to
handle
that
situation,
because
we
use
like
it's
like
we.
We
use
traffic
target
fundamentally
as
a
way
to
actually
like
program
the
routes
in
the
proxy.
So
then,
when
you
do
traffic
split,
you
also
like
have
to
handle,
like
especially
the
latest
version
with
all
the
http
spec
support,
then
you
have
to
like
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
C
C
So
it
looks
like
we
are
in
a
situation
where
we
have
different
service
mesh
and
even
if
they
they
would
finally
converge
to
use
smi
as
an
api
to
to
receive
their
configuration.
They
will
end
up
in
configuring
the
data
plane
and
void
in
particular
in
a
different
way.
Is
it
the
the?
Is
it
related
to
what
you
were
saying?
Do
you
have
some
more
conformance
on
the
data
plane
level.
C
H
Yeah
so
so
yeah,
it's
yeah.
It
is
the
actual
behavior
that
customers
see
in
the
data
plane
consistent
across
all
the
different
implementations,
okay,
yeah
and
also
even
and
maybe
that
doesn't
have
to
be
perfectly
consistent
but
being
able
to
test
a
implementation
and
show
how
they're
they're
non-conforming
or
I
don't
know,
if
there's
some
kind
of
like
shoulds
or
preferreds
behavior
or
implementation
defined,
where
it's
very
clear
how
different
data
planes
diverge
and.
B
C
A
But
I'm
I'm
really
curious
to
learn,
and
maybe
that
issue
helps
to
tease
that
out
what
is
indeed
a
data
plane,
property
or
issue,
because
the
the
example
that
you
gave
to
a
certain
extent
to
me
that
sounds
more
like
the
semantics
of
the
spec
might
not
be
100,
sharp
or
clear
right.
If
it's,
if
it's
kind
of
like
unclear
which
which
of
those
two
should
be.
Obviously
it
impacts
the
configuration
of
one
or
whatever
proxy,
whatever
you
might
have
there.
F
Yeah,
I
think
that
issues
this
is
due
to
historical
reasons,
like
traffic
split
was
first
implemented
in
lingard
and
link
rd,
does
its
own
discovery
of
kubernetes
services
and
defaults
to
kubernetes
services,
which
is
wonderful,
but
it
doesn't
work
in
an
envoy
world
where
you
need
something
to
base
to
base
your
routes.
So
osm
osm
choose
a
traffic
target
which
I,
which
I
think
is
a
mistake,
because
maybe
you
don't
want
any
kind
of
fire
rules.
You
just
want
to
split
traffic.
F
A
Yeah-
and
I
guess
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
maybe
the
question
that
david
raises
is
not
just
just
you
know
the
the
original
core
question
that
he
had,
but
it's
maybe
a
wider
discussion
and
we
might
end
up
doing
a
you
know
a
dedicated
like
in
the
same
way
that
we
do
next
week,
metrics
that
we
dive
deeper
into
that
issue
around.
If,
if
people
think
that
that
makes
sense
around
that
and
then
if
they
can
share
any
any
notes
there
to
to
put
some
more
flesh
on
that,
that
would
also
help.
B
Yeah,
I'm
with
you
on
the
implementation
first
kind
of
approach.
I
think
that's
what
lingardy
originally
and
console
and
solo
and
there's
one
more
person.
I
don't
know
who
the
partner
was.
This
is
before
my
time
on
us
and
I
kind
of
got
together
and
shared
their
learnings
and
created
this
spec,
and
then
we
kind
of
came
along
later
and
started
implementing.
H
B
H
B
I
was
I
mean
I
would
be
like,
I
think
it's
super
important
to
like
get
aligned
as
a
community
on
the
conformance
testing
dock,
and
I
know
like
lee,
calcotta
has
kind
of
been
pinging
people
and
asking
people
very
loudly
to
review
the
doc
and
then
a
little
bit
of
it,
but
I
feel
like
we
need
more
reviews
on
it
and
at
this
point
I
feel
like
it's
worth,
maybe
doing
an
hour-long
review
of
the
dock
together.
So
we
can
expose
some
of
the
issues
in
real
time
between
the
implementations.
A
But
I
hate
I
hate
to
to
interrupt,
but
as
the
moderator
of
this
meeting
I
I
have
to
insist,
we
are
at
the
top
half
of
so.
Unfortunately
I
have
to
wrap
it
up
now,
but
let's
keep
coming
and
yeah
david
looking
forward
to
your
issue
and
then
we
can
take
that
and
put
it
on
the
agenda
again
and
continue.
The
discussion.