►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
You
know
in
the
long
term,
but
we
wanted
to
just
get
something
out
there
so
that
we
had
something
that
was
working,
that
we
can
start
getting
active
feedback
on
and
start
getting.
You
know
identifying
customers
who
are
using
the
features
that
we
can
engage
with
them
and
get
their
feedback
as
we
continue
to
iterate
in
this
policy
UI.
So
again,
this
was
really
scoped
down
just
to
be
an
absolute
minimal
piece.
A
The
long
term
vision
is
that
this
policy
management
UI
will
be
the
same
UI
for
policy
management
across
products,
so
you're
not
going
to
have
a
separate
UI
for
cilium
versus
mod
security.
You
know
versus
even
secure
policies
can
fit
in
here
at
some
point
down
the
road,
but
for
now
to
keep
it
simple:
we're
focusing
just
on
container
network
security,
so
secure
sodium
policies
and
to
begin
with
we're
just
going
to
expose
policies
that
exist,
so
we're
going
to
show
them
in
the
UI.
A
What
you
view
whether
the
policies
are
enabled
or
disabled
and
give
you
one
action
item
which
is
to
enable
or
disable
the
policies.
So
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
notable
functionality.
That's
missing
from
this
plus
there's
no
ability
to
add
a
policy
or
delete
a
policy,
or
you
know
empirical
policy
together
there.
You
know
there's
no
to
stuff
approval
process.
There's
a
lot.
That's
still
missing
here,
but
that's
intentional,
because
we
want
to
get
something
out.
The
door
also
I
broke
this
down
into
two
sub
issues.
A
So
the
first
issue
is
just
focused
on
this
first
polar
point,
which
is
viewing
policies
that
exist
and
then
the
second
issue
is
allowing
for
enabling
and
disabling
which
I
had
a
brief
discussion
with
Arthur
yesterday.
It
sounds
like
that
may
require
some
posturing
changes
to
the
soem
project
to
offer
that,
but
those
two
issues
are
linked
here
as
well
and
I'm,
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Andy
to
show
some
early
design,
which
is
still
in
the
work
for
a
design
stage.
B
There's
two
flows
that
I
was
exploring
and
the
first
one
would
be
enabling
or
editing
policies
through
an
mr
process.
So
we
could
get
that
two-step
kind
of
audit
trail
and
they
both
kind
of
start
with
the
same
information
architecture.
So
in
Brett
monitoring,
we'll
add
a
new
tab
for
policies
and
then,
if
the
user
decides
to
view
their
policies,
they'll
click
on
that
tip
and
they'll
get
a
list
of
their
policies
that
we
can
abstract
from
cilium
and
well.
The
name
is
kind
of
already
gotten
three
from
the
policy
itself.
B
We
can
tell
if
it's
enabled
or
disabled
when
it
was
last
modified
in
the
merge
request.
It
was
last
modified.
I
realized,
there's
more
technical
hurdles
to
that,
but
this
would
be
an
ideal
point
in
time
to
have
this.
Information
clicking
on
a
policy
will
open
a
drawer
where
the
user
can
view
policy
itself
and
see
a
note
that
they
make
changes.
It
will
trigger
the
commit
process
and
the
pipeline
itself
to
run.
They
can
also
copy
it.
Maybe
in.
C
The
buzzers
I
don't
know
if
it
matters
from
probably
booked,
it
probably
doesn't
matter
for
me
from
a
design
perspective.
I
think
what
we
decided
was
that
we
didn't
want
to
trigger
a
pipeline
on
a
change.
We
wanted
to
retrieve
the
policy
live
from
the
cluster
and
push
it
live
to
the
cluster.
Because
then
that's
where
the
policy
really
lives
in
the
current
configuration
and
if
somebody
like
change
the
policy
and
then
via
the
UI,
and
then
they
did
a
new
pipeline
rollout,
it
actually
could
overwrite
the
previous
policy.
B
We
settled
ok,
yeah
that
doesn't
change
much
puts
in
the
next,
the
non-m.
Our
solution
I
just
want
to
quickly
wrap
this
up,
because
there
are
benefits
I
believe
to
having
this
audit
ability.
However,
we
can
get
it
in
doesn't
have
to
use
our
pipeline
process,
but
if
we
decide
that
that's
the
only
way
to
do
it
and
users
like
if
this
is
audible,
then
we
can't
use
it
right.
So
if
there's
pushback
we're
prepared
or
if
there's
stuff
from
research,
we
can
also
be
prepared.
C
A
C
E
C
C
A
C
B
C
Might
just
be
submit,
submit
the
policy
and,
if
cilium
rejects
it,
then
immediately
go
back
to
the
old
policy
until
the
user
Y
cilium
objected.
That
might
be
a
way
to
do.
It
is
to
flip
it
to
the
new
policy,
with
an
ability
to
roll
back
to
the
old
one.
If
cilium
complains
about
it,
that
actually
might
be
a
lot
simpler
to
running
your
own
validator,
but.
B
The
only
change
here
would
be
reverting
to
this
non
I'm.
Our
solution
right
now,
you're
still
seeing
the
EM
our
solution
with
like
it's
a
button.
We
get
from
kind
of
issues
and
making
an
M
R
from
that.
It's
changed
a
little
bit
the
logic
courses
deeper
than
the
UI,
but
when
we
go
to
this
non
M,
our
solution
and
the
button
just
changes
to
Save
Changes,
of
course,
easier
said
than
done,
but
there's
not
a
huge
impact
to
the
experience
or
flow
either
or
case.
So
that's
kind
of
so.
A
Just
to
elaborate
on
that
a
little
bit
that
M
our
solution
works
really
well
with
they're
using
other
DevOps
the
non
M.
Our
solution
works
really
well,
if
they're
not
using
Auto
DevOps.
So,
as
you
explain,
Wayne
there's
potential,
you
know:
we've
got
policy
in
two
places
if
they're
using
Auto
DevOps,
they
now
have
policy
as
it
is
stored
in
cilium,
and
they
also
have
policy
as
its
stored
in
the
auto
deployed
values
demo
file
in
the
gitlab
repo,
and
so
this
second
non
mr
solution
that
you're
looking
at
now.
A
This
would
push
the
changes
directly
into
cilium,
but
the
challenge
is
that
it's
not
replicating
those
chain
in
the
auto,
deploy
value,
stocking
a
mole
file
but
stores
in
to
get
lab
container
management
project
repo,
and
so
if
they
go
and
rerun
their
CI
CD
pipeline,
it's
going
to
overwrite
any
changes
that
they
made
in.
That's
not
mr
approach,
unless
they
copy
you
know
unless
they
copy
the
policy
definition
over
into
their
auto,
deploy
valued
CMO
file
before
they
lose
on
that
pipeline.
A
So
you
know
it's
a
little
bit
challenging
because
there
are
two
places
to
edit
it
and
both
workflows.
That
Andy
has
here
come
with
the
downsides
that
it
solves
for
one
of
the
two
ways
to
edit
the
policy,
but
not
both
I
think
longer
term.
We're
going
to
need
to
have
a
UI
that
accounts
for
both,
but
for
now
considering
the
usage
get
web
wide
usage
of
auto
devops
is
very
low
per
all
the
data
that
we
have.
A
The
solution
that
I
explored
with
Arthur
and
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
discuss
yet
with
Andy
is
to
go
with
this
non,
mr
workflow,
since
that's
going
to
account
for
99.5%
of
all
customers
and
for
those
other
point
five,
if
we
can
detect,
if
they
do
have
auto
dev
ops
in
place,
then
when
they
hit
that
Save
Changes
button,
we
just
give
them
a
message
of
some
sort.
That
says
before
you
run
your
CI
CD
pipeline.
You
need
to
copy
this
new
policy
definition
that
shows
enabled
or
disabled
into
your
auto
deploy
value
CMO.
A
Otherwise
these
changes
they
can
get
overwritten
when
the
job
when
the
pipeline
comes
again.
So
it's
not
a
perfect
solution
for
now,
but
it
will.
Let
us
address
99.5%
of
our
customers
with
a
minimal
amount
of
work,
and
then
we
can
come
back
and
revisit
that.
Mr
would
flow
later
for
the
customer
scene.
You
need
and
not
a
DevOps.
A
D
In
terms
of
Henry,
Report,
metrics
or
DevOps,
strictly
means
ones
that
have
no
CI
file.
So
it's
something
s
generate
the
auto
dev
ops,
like
literally
like
the
full
magic
pipeline,
but
this
is
composable
people
who
just
use
like
the
auto
deploy
portion
of
auto
dev
ops.
That
would
not
count
towards
that.
So
you
can
still
use
those
sub
components
there,
which
would
include
like
usage
of
the
cluster
management
projects.
D
A
So,
just
for
the
sake
of
time,
which
noting
I
have
a
follow
on
issues
that
I'm
working
on
putting
together,
we
will
apply
a
default
or
base
policy
pack
for
psyllium
because
out
of
the
gate,
this
list
will
be
empty,
but
I
plan
to
address
that
later
after
we
get
the
initial
UI
done.
Also
there's
a
related
research
issue
on
unified
policy
management
to
help
look
into
some
tools
that
might
help
us
create
a
little
bit
more
seamless
experience
and
let
us
bridge
rules
and
actions
across
technologies.
A
C
E
E
B
Address
that
point
quickly,
Sarika
job
is
that
so
Kyle
is
also
working
on
policies
for
license
compliance,
so
license
policies
and
dependency
scanning
policies.
They've
also
gone
with
a
tabbed
approach
in
13:1
when
we
kicked
this
research
off
for
this
larger,
like
policy
capital,
P
initiative,
I'll
be
collaborating
with
him
and
pretty
much
the
rest
of
the
team's
to
think
about
bringing
this
out
into
the
navigation
into
security
policies.
B
E
And
my
second
point
is
on
the
intended
user,
so
they're,
just
very
small
thing:
there's
only
seven
there
and
I
think
some
is
not
going
to
use
this
UI.
Maybe
they've
run
to
the
labs
in
general,
but
I
would
imagine
that
the
security
team
is
not
putting
policies
in
place.
It's
the
role
of
the
DevOps
team,
so
they
will
just
review
the
policies
that
are
in
place.
E
Maybe
we
should
keep
that
in
mind
while
designing
this
feature
so
that
you
could
have
a
quick
overview
of
the
policies
in
place
that
could
be
the
file
directly
I.
Think
the
security
team
would
be
fine
with
that,
but
mostly
the
dev
ops
team
aren't
going
to
use
the
UI
because
they
will
be
in
charge
of
dating
the
police's
and
the
shape
of
the
application.
A
So
you
certainly
might
be
right,
I
think
I'm
willing
to
add
in
the
DevOps
engineer
there
as
a
potential
one
and
maybe
as
we
do
additional
research
there,
we
can
get
clarity
on
exactly
who
is
the
persona
that'll
be
using
this?
My
inclination
is
to
believe
that
it
is
the
security
team,
not
the
DevOps
team
but
I
again,
I'm,
not
I.
Don't
have
enough
research
to
say
that
with
absolute
certainty,
I
think.
B
A
This
came
back
here
as
a
result
of
feedback.
From
said
he
just
wants
us
to
avoid
referencing
the
open
source
projects
directly
in
to
get
labs.
Ui
he's
fine
with
them
being
there
in
the
documentation,
but
he
wants
them
to
be
removed
from
the
UI
itself.
I
noted
in
the
notes
that
you
know
this
is
a
little
bit
inconsistent
with
the
way
the
rest
of
the
items
and
you
know
managed
apps
are
listed
out
because
they
referenced
the
open
source
technologies
directly.
A
I
might
push
back
on
this
more
other
than
the
way
ending
is
headed
with
the
future.
It's
moving
more
of
this
management
out
of
the
gitlab
managed,
apps
UI,
and
into
that
security
and
compliance
submenu,
so
I'm,
okay,
with
making
these
changes,
but
this
is
just
you
know,
a
relatively
straightforward
issue
for
somebody
to
just
go
through
them:
scrub
any
occurrences
of
these
open
source
technologies
and
replace
them
in
the
UI
itself.
A
Cool
research
issues,
so
it's
the
time
we've
got
left
here
there
was
that
evaluation
I
just
wanted
to
call
out
a
reminder
that
really
we
want
to
address
the
goal
of
this
is
to
find
a
way
to
address
the
required
capabilities
and
as
many
of
the
nice
to
have
list
as
possible,
I'm
flexible
on
what
the
end
solution
is
as
long
as
we
can
meet
the
product
requirements
and
the
customer
requirements,
so
that
was
just
a
quick
call
out
and
then
it
looks
like
asynchronously
away,
and
you
responded
here.
You
know
how
are
we
progressing?
A
C
Yeah
I
can
do
that.
I
think
it's
about
time.
I
don't
want
to
get
into
it
today,
because
it's
definitely
more
than
a
seven
minute
discussion,
but
Alan
you've
been
deep
into
it
for
a
while,
which
is
great
and
Zamir
I
know
you.
You
started
on
a
little
bit
later
than
Alan.
Do
you
think
you'll
be
ready
as
a
mirror
as
well
to
discuss
sometime
next
week,
yep
yeah.
F
A
So
if
I
was
just
looking
for
an
update
on
this
issue,
I
know
we're
short
on
time
here.
So
I'm.
Fine,
if
you
don't,
if
we
want
to
just
handle
the
face
and
critically
but
it'd,
be
great
to
get
an
update
here,
because
I
I
do
see
this
as
a
priority,
and
you
know
about
to
get
an
idea
of
where
we're
at
with
the
time
left.
I
just
want
to
cover
this
other
research
issue
that
I
have
slated
for
13
1,
which
is
unified
policy
management.
A
So
this
idea
actually
came
from
Filipe
looking
at
OPA
or
open
policy
agent,
but
in
the
end
you
know
going
back
to
that
discussion
about
the
longer
term
vision
for
that
policy
management
console.
It
would
be
really
nice
if
we
could
abstract
away
the
individual
technologies
that
we're
using
from
the
end-user
and
just
let
them
write
policy
to
do
the
things
that
they
want
to
do.
You
know
so
thinking
about
fellahin,
for
example,
they
might
say
you
know,
I
want
to
protect
this
main
space
or
I
want
to
write
a
pod.
A
You
know
a
rule
that
governs
traffic
coming
in
and
out
of
the
pod,
so
they
shouldn't
have
to
say
you
know
ie
I'm
going
to
use
cilium
to
do
this.
They
should
be
able
to
just
write
the
rule,
but
they
want,
and
then
you
should
know
which
technology
is
applicable
in
that
case
and
firm
it
out
to
the
technologies
that
are
appropriate.
A
It
would
be
even
better
if
we
could
write
cross
pulp
or
cross
technology
policies,
and
you
know
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
cheap
high
in
the
sky
or
out
of
the
scope
of
what
OPA
does,
but
it
would
be
awesome
if
I
could
say
you
know
when
I
see
you
know
five
violations
and
modsecurity
here,
and
somebody
also
violates
this
policy
and
so
I
am
down
here.
Then
I
want
to
take
this
action
down
in
you
know,
was
or
Falco
or
whatever
other
technology
right.
A
So
if
we
can
start
to
even
mix
and
match
the
technology
in
the
way
we
write
our
policy
really,
every
policy
is
a
big
hit
on
statement.
You
know
it's
this
on
that,
so
you
know
if
we
can
start
to
mix
and
match
the
ifs
and
then
together
that
would
be
sort
of
the
holy
grail
of
policy
management
for
me.
So
this
one,
you
know
is
very
interesting
to
me.
A
C
Anything
about
it
more
research.
Definitely
so
one
thing
to
note
is
that
mods
and
I
don't
know
how
this
implement,
how
this
is
impacted
by
the
cenotes,
mod
security
and
cilium
do
not
have
a
management
UI
as
part
of
the
as
part
of
those
open
source
projects,
so
a
unified
policy
manager,
you
know,
definitely
makes
sense.
Have
one
place
to
configure
those
things
was:
does
it
has
actually
a
pretty
extensive
UI
for
for
configuring
it
and
so
I?
C
Don't
know
if
this
is
maybe
part
of
a
different
discussion
of
this
one,
but
we
may
want
to
have
it
was
on/off
button,
but
I
don't
think
we
want
to
recreate
the
entire
UI
for
was
or
portions
of
it,
but
instead
might
want
to
have
a
single
sign-on
to
was
so
that
the
users
can
click
on
go
to
the
was
our
UI
and
then
it
you
don't
have
to
login
separately,
or
you
know
something
along
those
lines
which
makes
it
not
a
unified
user
user
experience
between
them.
C
A
That
makes
great
fun,
I
mean
I.
Guess
what
I'm,
hoping
that
this
piece
will
solve
is
letting
me
write
policy
that
spans
product
in
there
so
fun
writing.
That
was
specific
policy.
Maybe
we
have
that
you
know
UI
in
was,
but
what,
if
I
want
to
policy
that
takes
an
action
in
was
a
based
off
of
something
that
I
observed
up
in
Mont
acuity.
You
know
and
can
open
policy
agent
help
with
that.
You
know,
I
see
this
yeah
I
don't
know,
but
I
was
I.
B
C
B
Think
what
was
I
don't
I?
Have
it
look
too
much
in
it
was,
but
is
it
its
UI
is
really
just
Cabana
like
this
Alex
tak
right,
yep.