►
From YouTube: CNCF Service Mesh Interface Project 2021-04-14
Description
CNCF Service Mesh Interface Project 2021-04-14
A
Oh
yikes,
okay,
all
right
thanks
everyone
for
joining
us,
it's
wednesday
april
14th,
I
am
michelle,
I'm
gonna
be
moderating,
which
I
learned
a
few
minutes
ago
and
I
remembered
cause-
I
remember
things-
sometimes
all
right,
so
I'm
gonna
paste
the
meeting
link
or
meeting
agenda
in
the
chat.
We
have
an
smi
controller.
Sdk
update
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
conversion
logic
in
the
sdk.
A
C
C
B
C
Is
going
to
be
alpha
4,
which
is
this
is
the
most
mature
version
and
we're
currently
working
how
to
get
that
conversion
logic
merged
from
the
go
sdk
into
the
new
controller
sdk.
So
we
can
have
a
single
repo
rather
than
having
to
maintain
two
different
things
benefits
for
that
are
that,
then
we
can
use.
Coupe
builder
generate
all
of
the
the
crds
and
things
like
that,
as
opposed
to
how
it's
done
at
the
moment,
which
is
a
manual
a
manual
process.
A
Hey,
I
can
give
an
update
on
that.
I've
been
working
on
moving
the
apis
into
the
controller
and
I
do
have
a
pr
so
I'm
trying
to
work
all
the
way
through,
like
at
least
getting
the
traffic
split
example
working
so
there's
a
work
in
progress
pr
there.
I
used
coupe
builder
v3
because
because
v3
has
a
good
support
for
multi-group
apis,
so
that
was
the
reasoning
and
it's
the
freshest
one.
A
So
did
that
I
did
run
into
a
ton
of
issues
with
the
code
generator
script.
So
if
anybody
struggled
with
that
or
has
experience
with
that,
I'd
love
a
second
pair
of
eyes,
because
I
don't
know
if
I'm
doing
wrong
or
if
there's
a
bug,
but
I
definitely
opened
up
a
an
issue
in
the
code,
generator
repo
and
that's
basically
the
tool
that
we
use
to
generate
the
clients
and
formers
and
listers
from
apis
automatically.
A
A
Thanks
all
right
moving
towards
the
next
topic,
which
is
the
conversion
logic,
and
I
think
nick
already
gave
us
an
update
on
that
nick.
If
there's
anything
we
can
do
to
help.
Please
let
us
know
this
is
something
that
open
service
mesh
really
needs
like
pretty
immediately
so
we'd
love
to
use
like
the
sdk
and
we'd
love
to
do
anything
to
help
with
that
stuff.
So
is
what
is
in
there
right
now
ready
for
review
like?
Can
we
yeah.
C
E
Hey
nick,
would
you
mind,
maybe
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
of
overhead,
but
I
think
it's
worth
it
at
least
in
the
beginning.
Now
to
our
surface
of
like
these,
you
know
if
there's
anything
where
we
can
unblock
you
in
terms
of
reviewing
on
on
the
slack
channel,
just
saying
like
hey,
you
know,
there
is
a
pr
I
don't
know
otherwise,
I
feel,
like
you
know,
we're
always
waiting
like
a
week
or
two.
C
A
B
All
right,
thank
you,
bridget!
You
want
to
take
it
away,
sure
yeah.
So
if
you're
looking
at
recordings
of
this
meeting
and
you're
thinking,
wait
a
minute
you
just
have
one
last
week,
why
are
you
having
one
again?
The
one
last
week
was
the
smi
multi-cluster
working
group
meeting
it's
currently
going
to
run
every
other
week
at
the
same
time,
in
this
time
slot
on
this
channel
in
the
weeks
we
don't
have
the
community
meeting.
E
E
Yes,
we
as
a
group
want
to
do
that
in
smi
and
in
terms
of
what
is
in
scope
or
out
of
scope,
I
think
we
didn't
really
have
a
or
or
at
least
we
we
said
that
certain
heterogeneous
environments
of
cross
compute
is
important,
but
we
didn't
really
have
a
like
consensus
on
on
what
exactly
the
scope
is.
At
least
that
is
my
interpretation.
Please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
so
I
would
like
to
you
know
bring
that
back
to
the
entire
group
here.
E
The
meeting
notes
are
below
you
can
see
the
details
there.
I
think
we
should
just
continue
in
that
way
to
essentially
find
consensus
in
a
smaller
group,
and
whoever
is
you
know,
as
a
stakeholder
has
something
they
want
to
do
their
implement
or
whatever,
please
show
up
every
other
week,
and
then,
whenever
we
have
consensus
on
a
certain
bit
and
report
it
back
and
if
there
is,
is
a
need
to
kind
of
like
open
up
something
against
like.
E
Oh,
you
know,
the
the
wider
group
or
all
everyone
represented
here,
has
an
issue
with
that.
We
can
definitely,
you
know,
discuss
that
and
then
reopen
that,
but
in
general
I
think
we
should
trust
the
people
who
actually
put
some
work
into
that
to
to
decide.
Yes,
you
know
that's
in
scope
or
not
or
whatever
at
least
that's.
That
was
my
my
approach
to
the
whole
thing
yeah
and
any
questions
or
any
comments
on
that.
E
Is
that
a
viable
boy
is
that
a
way
people
are
fine
with
running
things
or
do
you
want
to
see
a
different
way,
or
I
mean
we
kind
of
like
make
it
up
as
we
go
along
right?
We
don't
really
have
a
charter
or
anything.
We
might
also
want
to
consider-
or
maybe
I'm
missing
something,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
so
far
have
defined
the
workings
of
working
groups
and
what
what's
the
you
know,
the
way
how
we
refer
back
and
find
consensus
or
whatever?
B
E
Very,
very
I
I
hesitated
to
bring
it
up
right
away
because
we
haven't
really
addressed
the
scope
yet
right,
so
the
first
consensus
was
essentially
yep.
There
is
interest
we
want
to
do
that
and
then
we
didn't
really
wrap
up
the
scope,
so
it
would
be
a
little
bit
premature.
I
think,
at
the
current
point
in
time,
but
you're
absolutely
spot
on
as
soon
as
we
have
the
scope
defined
saying
like
yes,
this
you
know
it
is
indeed
not
just
community
clusters.
E
G
E
Didn't
really
yet
get
to
the
point
where
he's
like?
Okay:
how?
How
do
we
actually
go
about?
What
are
the
the
options
that
we
have?
I
think
that's
part
of
the
you
know
ongoing
homework
to
see
like
what
are
the
options.
Hamlet
in
my
understanding
absolutely
is
an
option,
but
I
think
we
should
be
open-minded
in
the
sense
of
like
that.
We,
you
know
immediately
jump
to
conclusion.
Like
oh
yeah,
it's
about
you
know
rubber,
stamping,
hamlet
and
off.
We
go
right.
E
We
should
say
like
okay,
what
is
the
the
solution
space
and
the
problem
space?
What
what
is
the
scoping
there
and
then
say
like
okay
here,
the
two
options:
three
options,
whatever
whatever
we
can
do,
and
then
I
think
that
is
something
once
we
get
there
to
that
stage,
that
the
entire
group
should,
you
know,
say
like
okay:
do
we
have
consensus
on?
Yes,
it
is
indeed
going
beyond
communities
because,
as
you
pointed
out
very
rightly,
the
the
quite
some
implications
there
right.
E
I
do
think
that
we,
if
we
keep,
keep
that
momentum,
that
we
actually
have
for
kubecon,
which
is
first
week
of
may
at
least
something
that
maybe
we
can
actually
share
in
the
booth
or
wherever
we
can
say
like
hey,
you
know,
should
you
be
interested
in
in
smi
beyond
ac
qualities,
cluster?
You
know,
please
be
part
of
that
right,
be
part
of
our
effort.
H
H
C
C
H
B
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
nick
summed
it
up
really
well
and
I
echo
the
same
thoughts
at
first.
I
was
like
okay.
Well,
the
custom
auth
filter.
You
know
that's
very
implementation
specific,
but
I
mean
at
a
high
level,
yeah
like
if
the
the
end
user
wants
to
be
able
to
configure
that
through
smi.
That's
something
that
we
should
have
some
mechanism
to
do,
but
it
would
be
really
helpful
to
understand
what
like
the
ux
looks
like.
A
So
how
does
it
actually
fit
into
the
traffic
target
object
or
the
hp
route
group
or
whatever,
whatever
it
would
go
into?
So
I
think,
having
just
even
a
sketch
of
like
what?
What
that,
what
you
would
want
that
experience
to
be
like
will
give
us
a
better
way
to
have
a
you
know,
conversation
further
conversation
about.
You
know
what
is
the
right
layer
of
abstraction
and
how
much
information
do
we
need
to
put
in
this
and
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
Thank
you.
There
is
a
a
different
comment
around
spiffy
identities
as
well.
So
I
think
on
that
on
that
same
thread,
so
someone
wants
to
propose
a
pr
for
that
as
well.
That
would
be
great,
and
we
can
have
a
conversation
about
that
on
the
pr
as
well
all
right,
moving
forward,
smi
conformance
lee
feel
free
to
take
it
away.
G
G
I
don't
know
if
you
all
are
sick
of
talking
about
it,
but
I
am
it's.
It's
ready
or
you
know
like
it's
it's
time.
I
think
that
the
tooling
is
at
a
point
by
which
and
has
been
for
a
little
while
at
a
point
by
which
is
ready
for
individual
service
mesh
teams
that
are
interested
in
owning
their
own
compliance.
G
G
Mesherie
is
was
up
for
review
for
donation
to
the
cncf
last
month,
and
it's
up
again
we
didn't
get
to
it
this
month.
So
it's
up
again
here
in
a
couple
of
weeks,
I
figured
I'd,
say
that,
just
because
I
don't
know
just
to
help
clarify
the
intention
of
the
project,
it
focuses
on.
You
know
largely
like
two
specs
at
the
moment,
smi
and
specifically
conformance
and
then
smp
on
per
on
performance
to
engage
like
turns
out
this.
G
This
darn
thing
is
not
necessarily
a
small,
it's
a
bigger
piece
of
functionality
than
it's
a
decent
sized
piece
of
functionality.
I
think
that
there's
probably
there's
probably
two
steps
to
start
to
engage.
One
is
the
nginx
folks
had
reached
out
a
week
and
a
week
ago,
I'm
quite
earnest
to
to
move
forward
and
for
them
the
next
steps
are
a
little
bit.
G
Challenging
because
they
don't
you've,
got
to
send
a
eula
to
get
to
their
software,
which
makes
which
I
guess
will
prove
the
point
of
it
being
good
to
empower
them
with
the
tools
so
that
they
can
run
it
and
self-report.
So,
actually,
now
that
I
say
that
that
that'll,
that's
not
as
much
of
a
it's
been
a
hiccup
for
us
in
terms
of
doing
those
tests,
but
so
I
was
considering
so
so.
G
I
think,
like
michelle,
has
two
great
questions,
both
of
which
I
was
fumbling
over
just
before
this
meeting
and
how
to
engage
in
how
to
get
started.
My
recommendation
is
to
go,
is
two
things
one
to
go:
try
the
tool
and
find
a
bug,
and
you
know,
there's
there's
probably
one
or
two
in
there
is
to
try
the
tool
and
then
either
depending
upon.
If
there's
a
multiple
of
the
service
meshes
that
are
wanting
to.
G
You
know
the
implementations
that
are
wanting
to
talk
about
it,
that
we
would
schedule
some
other
time
to
walk
through
it,
either
individually
with
those
teams
or
just
centrally
as
a
as
another
set
of
series
to
engage
with
multiple
meshes.
At
the
same
time,
the
the
idea
here
is
that
it
becomes
a
self-service
tool
that
you're
empowered
to
that
each
of
the
teams
are
empowered
to
run
and
yeah,
and
so.
E
E
We
should
learn
more
about
that,
but
if
you
have
that
the
problem
that
I
see
is
that
this
fits
perfectly
in
a
tweet
right,
someone
taking
that
and
without
providing
the
context
tweeting
it
it's
like
what
does
that
even
mean
right
if
you
have
a
legend
that
directly
sits
next
to
the
table.
Saying
like
this
is
the
semantic
you
can
still
argue
like.
Is
that
true
or
whatever,
but
at
least
it's
clear
like
this?
Is
it
what
it
means?
That's
my
little
feature
request
here
right
away,
but
awesome
work.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
Alright
time
check
real
quick,
so
I
think
oh
bridget
moved
the
flagger
comment
up,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
quick
update
on
the
flagger
and
smi
conversation.
So
nick,
do
you
have
an
update
by
any
chance
for
us
also
very
interested
in
helping
out
there?
We
have
folks
that
can
work
on
it
on
our
side,
so
we
really
just
need
to
understand.
Like
I
don't
we
don't
want
to
step
on
anyone's
toes.
C
C
C
H
C
C
The
well
for
not
from
my
understanding
that
the
link
d
provider
is
actually
smi,
so
I,
but
I
hope
that
it's
actually
minimal
effort
flag
and
just
add
an
alias
to
provide
our
great
provider
of
smi
to
the
functionality.
That's
that
already
exists
around
the
lincold
provider
and
that
obviously
wouldn't
break
lincoln
in
that
future.
Spec
stefan's,
probably
the
best
person
to
to
speak
to-
and
maybe
we
can
invite
him
to
the
call
next
week
as
well,
to
talk
about
flagger
for
folks
who
don't
don't
know
what
it
is.
A
Yeah
that'd
be
great,
so
let
me
just
get
you
two
on
a
thread
going.
I
also
think
there's
some
discussion.
We
can
have
around
just
having
our
own
smi
provider,
because
we,
for
example,
in
osm,
are
on
v1
alpha
2
and
want
to
get
on
v1
alpha
4
in
our
next
release,
and
when
we're
talking
about
the
conversion
logic,
we
decided
that
you
know
the
hub
would
be
v1
alpha
4,
so
it
makes
sense,
maybe
potentially
to
have
like
the
smi
provider
on
a
like
on
the
more
updated.
C
Yeah,
I
think
I
mean
the
good
thing
is
so
when
the
v1
alpha
sorry
flagger
currently
supports
v1
alpha
1,
which
is
a
version
of
the
link
of
ds,
pin
2..
The
version
console
supports
is
actually
1
alpha
4..
So
when
I
built
the
console
controller,
when
I
was
using
it
dog
foodiness
with
flagger
the
conversion.
B
B
A
G
G
There's
a
link
in
the
meeting
minutes
that
goes
to
a
doc
that
has
other
links
that
talk
about
if
we'd
like
to
do
a
survey
and
and
if
we
would
like
to
do
and
if
we
have
other
content
to
put
in
there
there's
a
we
do
have
project
office
hours
scheduled
and
so
a
few
slides
for
that
those
office
hours
to
kind
of
speak
over
would
be
good
and
those
same
slides
are
great.
Make
great
content
for
the
booth.
A
Okay,
who's
on
the
hook
for
actually
doing
the
slides,
because
I
don't
think
that
crowdsourcing
is
gonna
work
here.
So
I
think
lee
you're
gonna
have
to
point
to
someone
and
be
like:
can
you
do
this
and
that's
just
gonna
have
to
be
the
case
or
if
you
can
do
it
it'd
be
great,
but
if
you
can't,
then
you
just
need
a
point
and
be
like
please
and
that
I
don't
see
any
other
way
to
do.
It
sounds
good.
Thank
you.
We
can.