►
From YouTube: Ambient Mesh WG meeting 2023 06 28
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
Also
that
this
may
be
just
a
lightly
awesome
next,
one
because
July
4th
and
everything
all
right
well,
so
folks
welcome
to
the
July
that
the
June
28th
Wednesday
occurrence
of
ambient
work
group
meeting.
So
first
on
the
agenda,
we
have
keys
for
closing
on
the
subsets
and
destination
improvements.
B
Yeah
I
realized
that
this
topic
probably
best
discussed
with
maybe
a
bigger
audience,
but
I
did
want
to
highlight
that
we
do
have
a
pretty
a
sizable
section
of
the
ambient
apis
dock
that
is
API
API
talk
that
hasn't
been
talked
about
in
a
little
while
the
trying
to
pull
it
up
on
my
side.
C
B
B
There
was
an
issue
created
about
this
on
GitHub,
where
you
know
folks
were,
and
users
were
just
saying
that
they
find
subsets
pretty
useful,
not
having
to
create
separate
Services
for
traffic
splitting
and
such
that
does
get
tricky
with
with
ambient,
so
want
to
try
to
see
where
we
are
on
this
ambient
and
this
destination
rule
improvements
doc.
It
discusses
several
things
about
the
future
destination.
Rule
and
just
kind
of
you
see.
A
B
It's
been
around
for
a
for
a
bit,
but
I
I,
just
I
saw
it
referenced
in
the
ambient
apis
document
and
was
surprised
to
see
that
you
know
it's
been
since
2022
that
we've
just
got
comments
so.
A
D
The
right
form
for
I
mean
API
should
probably
be.
What
do
you
see?
I
I
feel
like.
Maybe
this
isn't
the
right
meeting
for
Destination
rule
improvements?
Obviously
I
mean
surface
it
wherever
you
can
I
mean
this
is
this
is
fine
for
that,
but
I,
don't
know
what
do
you
think
Francis
well.
A
I
I
Look
to
I
I'm
laughing
as
I
say
this
I
Look
to
folks
was
more
history
in
the
community
to
in
terms
of
how
it
would
make
decisions.
So
I
actually
don't
know
how
I
want
to
make
decisions
on
these
I
thought
we
just
reviewed
these
dogs
and
then
in
the
contributors
kind
of
or
in
these
meetings.
We
go
by
a
popular
vote.
D
Well,
API
changes
specifically
are
a
broader
topic
right,
so
it's
like
ambient
z-tunnel
meeting,
probably
isn't
is
too
small
a
form
like
you
probably
need
like
more
of
the
leadership
involved,
so
I
I,
don't
know
if
he
is
I
feel
like
Toc
has
been
traditionally
where
we
would
have
API
discussions.
C
D
But
I
mean
if
we
want
to
spend
some
time
here.
Given
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
networking
folks
are
probably
here
anyway,
I
mean
it
I'm
I'm
happy
to
chat
a
little
bit
about.
You
know
various
opinions
for
subsets.
If
that's
useful,
Keith.
B
Yeah,
so
just
to
clarify
I
didn't
necessarily
write.
This
I
didn't
write.
This
Doc
and
I
have
I
mean
I've,
obviously
got
my
opinions
about
subsetting.
My
only
the
wrong
reason:
I
brought
it
up
in
this
form
specifically,
is
because
it's
listed
in
so
in
the
drive
ambient
to
Beta
doc.
That
Lynn
wrote
there
is
a
link
out
to
the
ambient
API
stock,
where
it
talks
about
General,
API
changes
relative
to
ambient
and
this
destination
rule
Doc
is
is
cited
a
couple
times
there
about
in.
B
In
the
suggestion
in
the
in
the
document
is,
it
is
recommended
that
we
finalize
a
decision
to
support
subsets
in
the
destination
rule
Improvement
stock,
so
kind
of
by
this
chain
of
documents.
I
found
the
destination
rule
dog
and
just
want
to
make
sure,
as
we
try
to
get
ambient
to
Beta
that
we're
aware
that
there's
discussion
at
minimum
that's
needed
here
got.
D
It
yeah
yeah
totally
totally
understood
thanks
for
surfacing
it
I.
Think.
That's
that's!
Really
it's
a
good
time
to
do
that.
I
don't
know.
Do
we
do?
Do
you
think
it's
useful
to
chat
about
it
here,
while
there
are
folks
on
the
call.
B
I
guess
my
question
is
I
I
at
minimum
I.
Think
I
want
to
understand
this,
like
we
noticed
that
there
are
some
comments,
some
some
comments
from
2022.
Do
we
have
a
reason
why
the
doc
hasn't
been
approved
since
then,
or
why
we,
maybe
there's
been
movement
in
the
comments,
have
just
been
resolved,
but
do
does
anybody
have
a
current
status
on
the
doc?
A
D
Yeah
custom's
basically
been
a
document
Factory
for
I,
don't
know
how
many
years
now
so
yeah
this
has
got.
You
know
you
know
was
one
of
the
the
flurry
of
documents
he
had
been
authoring
over
the
past
year
or
so,
but
yeah
I
I
do
think
it's
worth
just
getting
into
a
decision.
There.
I
don't
know
John.
Do
you
have
any?
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that
doc?
Have
you
have
you
looked
in.
C
D
What
is
the
it'd
be
good
to
have
like
some
action
from
here?
Obviously,
this
probably
isn't
the
right
Forum.
What
do
you?
What
do
you
think
is
like
the
networking
working
group
should
we
should
we
just
bring
it
there?
Should
we
just
bring
it
straight
to
Toc.
E
F
C
Think
either
this
is
not
necessarily
proposing
an
API
change
like
if
you
look
at
the
requirements,
it's
actually
saying
we
should
go
over
the
docs
and
replace
usage,
but
not
using
destination,
Rule
and
then
add
tooling,
to
migrate
and
add
warnings
like
it
is
kind
of
I
mean
kind
of
an
API
change,
but
it's
not
actually
changing
an
API
and,
like
these
two
API
refill,
it's
more
just
recommending
users
not
to
use
an
API,
but
at
least
my
reread
of
it
if
I'm,
maybe
I
I.
Just
can't
do
it.
Obviously.
So.
D
Got
it
okay,
yeah,
sorry
Keith?
Maybe
maybe
I
misunderstood
what
you
were
saying
earlier,
so
I
guess
your
your
point.
Keith
was
that
you
know
it
basically
suggests
not
that
using
destination
rule,
which
means
we
lose
subsets
and
is
that
okay,
I
think,
is
what
you're
asking.
B
My
again
I
I
haven't
my
history
with
the
doctors
relatively
new
just
came
across
this
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
where
we
are
with
ambient
beta
work,
but
my
reading
of
the
doc
is
is
kind
of
similar
to
John's
at
a
high
level.
It's
saying:
hey:
there
are
some
field
and
destination
rule
that
don't
make
sense
for
Ambience.
We
should
consider
getting
rid
of
those
entirely,
not
sorry
I
shouldn't
say
getting
rid
of.
B
We
should
consider
recommending
users
to
not
use
those
generally
or
we
should
just
not
have
those
be
used
for
ambient,
or
we
should
bite
the
bullet
and
use
them
in
ambient
anyway,
which
would
be
more
work.
That's
my
kind
of
understanding
of
the
three
options
in
the
document.
It
goes
through
and
discusses
what
those
apis
are
I
think
that
one
way
or
another
we
are
going
to
have
some
weirdness
or
destination
rule
with
with
ambient.
Just
because
there's
so
much
in
there
subsetting
export
two
and
there's
a
lot
of
stuff.
B
That
is
is
do
you
make
that
make
sense
in
the
ambient
other
things
that
don't
make
sense
in
Ambience?
We
just
need
to
have
our
plan
for
what
we
want
to
support
and
innovate.
What
we
don't
want
to
support
an
ambient
and
start
executing
on
that
I
think
is
my.
This
is
my
call
to
action
in
general,
not
immediately,
obviously,
but
we
just
should.
We
should
know
we're
doing
the
destination
rule
in
the
long
term
and
ideally
have
issues
for
that.
So
folks
can
take
up
doing
the
work.
D
Yeah
I
mean
that
that
sounds
great
I.
Think
the
question
is,
you
know:
who's
going
to
be
the
owner
to
drive
that
I
I
suspect
costin,
probably
isn't
going
to
have
the
bandwidth.
B
D
B
B
One
General
with
respect
to
ambient
and
I
don't
see
a
reality
where
ambient
gets
debated
without
some
of
these
questions
being
answered
without
some
of
this
work
being
done,
and
so
for
for
things
like
this
I
I
think
that
it's
important
to
call
that
out
to
everybody
who's
invested
in
getting
ambient
to
data
and
just
realize
that
this
is
that
that
work
discussion,
something
time,
has
to
be
spent
in
this
area
and
if
costing,
is
not
in
a
position
to
drive
it.
Somebody
step
up
to
do
so.
B
I
I
could
potentially
I
don't
claim
to
have
the
most
expertise
here
in
any
shape,
form
or
fashion.
But
if
what's
needed,
is
somebody
to
just
to
step
up
and
make
sure
this
gets
done.
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
B
But
my
purpose
of
bringing
it
up
in
this
meeting
is
to
just
make
sure
that
we're
aware
that
we're
accounting
for
this
work
that
needs
to
happen.
So
we
can
get
Ambience
to
Beta,
which
I
assume
is
the
is
the
goal
of
everybody
on
this
call.
D
I
I
think
I
think
he's
we're
we're
all
in
agreement.
I
think
it's
just
a
matter
of
finding
someone
to
drive
this
so
I
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
have
just
a
side,
chat
with
Coston
and
see
see
if
he
can
pick
it
up
or
or
maybe
has
some
kind
of
like
updates
or
anything
like
that,
and-
and
we
could
just
you
know,
figure
out
who
the
right
owner
should
be
I
mean
if
you're
happy
to
take
it,
that
that's
great
so.
A
By
the
way,
Carson
is
out
of
office,
I'm
PTO
until
I
think
either
later
this
week
or
middle
of
next
week.
What
we
can
do
is
to
make
this
a
item
for
next
Wednesday's
meeting
and
ask
them
the
joy
and
also
opinion
on
the
internal
Channel
about
the
stock,
so
I'll
take
over
paying
costers
and
then
based
on
his
feedback.
Where
you
can
say
you
know
what
what
should
we
do
with
this
item.
B
So
I
guess
my
my
question
is:
do
we
need
an
I?
Don't
think
we
need
an
owner
to
read
the
doc
and
comments
on
it?
I
guess
my
question
to
be
to
John
and
Lynn
well
one's
not
here
today,
but
because
this
doc
was
cited
in
the
ambient
apis
document.
B
B
The
only
way
I
found
that
the
destination
rule
improvements
documents
that
costume
wrote,
is
in
the
ambient
API
stock
that
John
and
Lynn
wrote
so
I
guess
my
my
concern
is
if
we,
if
that
we
can
be
making
progress
on
this
well
also,
we
can
make
progress
on
this
without
having
a
specific
owner
to
quote:
unquote
drive
it,
which
I'm,
not
sure
Nathan.
B
If
you
mean
drive
by
complete
the
work
or
just
Shepherd
the
work
and
make
sure
that
it's
being
brought
up
yeah
progress
on
it,
I
specifically
mean
cat
hurting,
yeah,
gotcha
gotcha,
but
yeah
I
mean
I'm
I'm
happy
to
do
to
do
cat
hurting,
but
I
guess
my
question
to
John
would
be
you
know
you
included,
or
you
are
included
this
Doc
in
the
ambient
API
stock.
B
C
C
B
Yeah,
so
I
can
link
to
that
with
with
the
heading,
because
again,
my
only
focus
for
this
is
Anime
I,
don't
I
care
about
the
bigger
conversation,
but
in
this
meeting,
I
only
really
care
about
how
destination
will
impact
Ambience.
B
A
F
C
C
Left
to
solve
really
is
I.
Think
it's
already
been
established
that
destination
rule
won't
be
in
zetanol
and,
what's
left
is
what
it
looks
like
in
the
Waypoint
which
I
forget
the
details.
There's
probably
some
discussion
on
the
API
docs,
but
I
have
to
pull
it
up.
Okay,.
B
I
want
it
in
the
in
the
chat
for
for
later
John
with
that
particular
yeah.
I
think
the
the
ambient
relevant
part
skinning
is
around
producer
Waypoint,
which
is
consumer
Waypoint,
similar
to
the
virtual
Service
distinction
that
we've
got
and
we
probably
need
to
implement
those
semantics,
as
well
as
figure
out
how
we
well
I,
guess
presence
of
destination
rule
in
general.
What
would
require
a
waypoint?
B
B
I
will
take
on
the
action
item.
We're
reading
through
the
Improvement
stock
and
they've
been
API
stock
and
trying
to
pull
out
the
ambient
relevant
pieces
into
a
specific
section.
I
think
John's
already
done
some
of
that
I'll
go
back
and
see
if
there
is
anything
missing
and
just
kind
of
flatten
the
hierarchy
to
get
that
duck
out
of
the
critical
path.
And
then
we
can
discuss
the
results
of
that
next
time.
B
A
All
right
so
next
up
ambient
task
tracking.
So
this
is
topic
from
Phil.
G
Yeah
I
think,
coincidentally,
this
is
probably
just
an
extension
of
some
of
the
stuff
that
they
keep
touched
on,
but
yeah
I
mean
I.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
like
Clarity
in
the
work
effort
to
like
move
ambient
forward
and
I
think
we're
trying
to
get
ambient
beta
for
119.
Is
that
still
a
true
statement
or
am
I
if.
G
And
that's
fun
and
I
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
we
want
to
work
on
here
is
like
I
know.
Last
time,
Lynn
we
were
discussing
the
draft
ambient
Master
to
the
beta,
Dock
and
I.
Believe
all
those
items
are
captured
on
the
ambient
tracking
board,
hopefully
I
think
but
I
think
whatever
Focus.
We
need
to
do
to
kind
of
just
have
a
concrete
backlog
of
of
everything.
G
That'll
be
helpful,
and
then
you
know
you
know
our
team
could
help
draft
some
things
Etc,
but
you
know
I
just
want
to
kind
of
wrangle
kind
of
all
this
together
and
kind
of
like
one
view,
if
possible,
and
so.
A
You
know
yeah
yeah,
so
the
board
I
linked
is
the
only
board
I'm
aware
of
that
keeps
track
of
all
the
let's
say
that
a
one
single
place
to
see
all
the
ambient
issues,
including
the
backlog
and
so
on
now,
I
also
I,
think
this
board
does
not
reflect
the
state
of
everything
that
we
need
to
do
to
reach
Beta
And
by
everything
that
we
need
to
do.
A
Reach
beta,
that's
where
the
proposed
beta
document
comes
in,
so
I
had
meetings
with
both
of
them
and
keys
last
week,
and
the
one
thing
that
we
mutually
read
on
is:
let's
get
this:
let's
drive
to
a
clear,
beta
scope
first
and
then,
based
on
our
skill,
we
can
then
look
at
all
the
outstanding
issues.
You
know
whether
they're
linked
to
the
board
or
not,
and
if
they're
not
linked
to
the
board
listening
to
the
board.
A
If
the,
if
the
issue
does
not
exist,
then
let's
create
those
issues
and
get
into
a
backlog,
and
then
we
can
figure
out
for
the
contributors
that
can
go
work
on
this
and
just
execute
the
asset
project.
Right
now,
without
a
clear
scope
that
that
answer
to
your
questions,
no
I
actually
don't
know.
Well
one.
We
don't
know
what
we
need
to
build.
It
gets
away,
though,
because
the
scope
isn't
clear
and
two:
we
don't
know
how
long
it's
going
to
get
there
since
we
don't
even
have
all
the
work
items
tracked.
G
A
Yeah
so
I
think
last
week's
meeting
will
reached
consensus
that
Lynn
will
help
Drive
the
beta
scope,
Doc
and
I
feel
you
and
I
can
work
on
the
project
management
aspect.
B
One
quick
call
to
action
is
I,
went
ahead
and
created
an
OSS
beta
label
and
as
well
as
a
view
in
the
project
for
things
with
that
label.
So
as
those
things
get
agreed
upon
for
beta
beta
scope,
you
can
go
ahead
and
label
it
with
the
OSS
beta
label,
so
it
could
be
tracked.
I
went
ahead
and
added
a
couple
one
to
the
board.
B
One
to
just
has
to
make
sure
it
works
in
two,
because
they
were
issues
that
there
were
bugs
that
felt
like
they
blocked
a
a
bad
quality
product,
so
they
can
be
removed,
of
course,
but
just
wanted
to
to.
Let
folks
know
that
it
exists.
G
F
A
A
Yeah
quad,
so
I
I
see
your
point.
The
thing
is.
F
A
It's
it's
a
chicken
egg
problem
right
how
like
how
many
users
are
actually
going
to
deploy
an
alpha
product
in
production
and
I'm?
Guessing
not
many.
B
I
think
that's
one
reason
why
I
recognize
there's
a
conflation
in
terms
of
it
but
I
think
that's
the
distinction
between
beta
and
stable
right,
but
beta
is
a
signal
that
this
is
reasonable
for
you
to
deploy
in
production
stable
is
this
is
Hazard
to
put
in
production
and
has
been
tuned
and
considered
to
be
well
lack
of
a
better
turn,
stable,
I
think
that's
the
difference
between
those
two
stages.
C
Yeah
I
completely
agree.
Feedbacks
are
important.
I.
Think
one
thing
is
that
it's
important,
like
one
part
of
beta,
is
stabilization
of
the
apis,
and
so
like
there's
one
thing
to
say:
to
put
the
label
Beta
And,
there's
another
thing
to
check
off
all
the
list
of
the
engineering
efforts
that
we
want
to
do
before.
Verbata
such
as
like
the
API
changes
and
compatibility
changes
right.
C
The
important
part
is
that
we
we
do
the
work
that
need
to
make
the
product
actually
stable
and
then
completely
agree
that
the
next
step
was
then
testing
out
that
our
assumptions
that
it's
stable,
actually,
you
know,
meet
reality
when
people
try
it
out.
C
But
I
completely
agree.
We
need,
we
need,
you
know
real
feedback,
but
it's
also
it's
good
to
get
the
apis
stabilized
before
we
push
too
many
people
on
it.
Otherwise,
it's
harder
to
break
things,
I
mean
I,
think
we'll
still
do
it,
but
we'll
feel
bad
about
it.
So.
A
So
drawing
is
the
fair
to
summarize,
as
we
can
test,
we
can
test,
it
will
stabilize
the
API,
we'll
get
tested
to
the
extent
possible
and
release
the
beta,
getting
people
to
to
adopt
Us
in
production
workload,
and
we
prove
it
from
there
or
are
you
proposing
that
the
having
the
beta
run
in
production
workload
for
a
period
of
time
is
a
prerequisite
for
declaring
beta.
C
I
don't
think
we
have
historically
said
that
running
in
production
is
a
prerequisite
to
get
to
Beta
I
do
think
we
say
that
it's
a
prerequisite
to
get
to
well
I,
don't
I
have
to
go
check
right
yeah
we
can.
We
can
find
that
out.
We
shouldn't.
C
F
C
Feel
a
lot
better
calling
it
beta.
If
you
know
people
are
running
in
production
but
I
think
because
it
may
or
may
not
be
a
requirement
go
ahead.
E
Yeah
I
think
that's
an
important
point
on
you
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
distinction
between
beta
API
and
better
runtime,
because
this
is
probably
one
of
the
instances
where
we
have
a
new
runtime
new
proxy
that
has
not
been
has
not
seen
all
the
possible.
You
know,
traffic
that
other
properties
have
seen
it's
much
more
important
to
have
a
stable
or
better
handtime,
even
with
Alpha
apis,
and
to
be
dangerous
to
have
a
better
API
on
a
unstable
runtime.
C
Yeah
I
do
think
we
will
need
to
be
very
careful
in
our
messaging
I've
already
seen.
Some
people
that
are
like
oh
I
am
Indian.
Alpha
should
I
go,
deploy
it
to
production
and
like
well
at
least
you're
asking,
but
the
fact
that
you're
asking
means
some
people
probably
assume
that
they
should
and
are
considering
it,
which
is
kind
of
concerning
right
and
that's
for
Alpha,
like
beta
I'm
sure
that
we'll
get
people
doing
it.
So.
F
E
This
is,
this
is
new
because
I
mean
in
the
past.
We
just
relied
on.
You
know
Envoy,
which
had
battle
stable
runtime,
so
we
didn't
have
a
case.
I
guess
mixer
was
the
one
but
mixer
in
glanzo,
but
it
was
a
similar
situation.
We
have
a
new
data
plane
component
that
is
not
stable
and
to
be
it's
too
early
to
promote
it
to
better
until
you
can
expose
it
to
the
actual
production,
we'll
try.
It.
B
Well,
I
think
specifically,
the
distinction
here
is
that
we
have
a
new
runtime
that
is
coupled
to
istio,
so
Envoy,
of
course,
whatever
use
cases
like
onwards
or
runtime
has
other
use
cases
other
projects,
products
using
it
and
to
what's
Point
giving
the
production
run,
work,
production
level,
traffic,
but
I
I,
don't
see
a
path
to
doing
that
for
Z
tunnel
unless
it's
a
lot
more
general
purpose,
which
is
not
a
a
requirement
or
a
goal.
A
g
tunnel
from
my
understanding.
B
E
C
Well,
I
will
say
sorry
to
cut
UFO,
I
I
do
know
I,
don't
wanna
well.
I
do
know
that
there
are
people
that
are
going
to
deploy
before
it
goes
to
Beta
and
production.
So
I
think
you
know
in
the
general
case,
like
it's
always
a
hard
trick
and
egg
problem,
but
in
this
case
we
may
actually
get
some
some
real
feedback.
So
we
should
make
sure
that
we
tap
into
that
and
make
sure
that
actually
happened
and
we
addressed
any
feedback
if
they,
if
they
have
some.
G
Yeah
no
I
mean
just
just
to
touch
on
that
General
I
guess
you
know
it's
gonna
be
well.
I
I
feel
like
it's
going
to
be
a
challenge
to
get
a
lot
of
people
to
kick
the
tires
on
this.
So
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
like
promote,
like
a
certain
like,
like
a
profile
of
a
use
case
that
that
we
think
will
you
know
if
we
put
that
through
the
paces?
E
I
think
what
they're
looking
for
is
the
end
user
coming
out
and
saying
I
use
this
for
like
this
scale,
for
this
long
way
for
production
traffic-
or
maybe
you
know
not,
production
testing
organic
traffic,
but
it
has
to
be
a
story.
That's
not
us
because
we
can
come
up
with
synthetic
loads,
but
they're,
not
representative.
G
B
E
B
Yeah
I
agree
that
that
that's
also
the
the
concerning
part
I
agree.
C
A
I
think
my
specific
question
is
here:
is
that
like
do
we?
Do
we
get
the
beta
based
on
actual
production,
user
feedback
or
not
because
I
think
that's
the
that's
the
question
that
you
initiated
all
this
debate.
What
I'm
hearing
is
well
one
well
beta,
just
beta
for
us
means
API
stability
right.
So
that's
number
one.
Whether
we
have
production
user
feedback
for
the
beta
runtime
is
a
it's,
not
a
must-have.
It's
a
great
to
have.
C
Yeah
I
would
say
it's
not
just
the
apis
like
apis
are
part
of
it.
The
runtime
being
beta
quality,
which
is
perhaps
subjective,
is,
is
a
requirement
whether
that
decision
is
made
based
on
real
users,
production
data
or
Louie's
gut
feeling,
or
whatever
we
we
want
is.
Is
another
question
yeah
how.
C
B
It's
on
the
features
page
of
istio,
the
docs
for
the
purpose
for
beta,
says,
use
to
vet
in
production
to
a
solution
in
production
without
committing
to
it
in
the
long
term,
to
assess
its
viability,
performance,
usability,
Etc,
targeted,
all
users,
that's
the
what
we
say
for
beta.
That's
the
promise.
C
Yeah,
so
we've
never
said
that
in
order
to
go
to
Beta,
you
need
to
have
pre-existing
production
usage.
It
would
be
nice
to
have
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
to
make
it
a
hard
requirement.
I
think
the
discussion
is
also
going
to
be
moved
because
I
think
we're
going
to
get
that
feedback
before
we
get
the
actual
quality
to
Beta
level.
But
we
may
have
an
easy
non-decision
to
have
to
make,
because
we'll
just
have
the
data.
G
Just
just
chairman,
so
next
steps
on
this
is
we
focusing
on
kind
of
I
guess
creating,
like
the
exhaustive
backlog
of
everything?
Is
that
understanding.
A
Yeah
so
I
see
this
in
this
order.
Right,
let's
get
the
let's
clarify
the
code
and
let's
clarify
the
skillful
beta
and
that's
Lin's
dog
and
then
based
on
that
we
break
it
down
to
the
actual
deliverables,
generate
the
the
exhaust
list
of
backlog
and
we
find
people
to
do
the
work.
A
All
right
so
last
item
Keith.
This
is
on
you.
Do
you
mean
sipping
priorities
or
slipping
priorities.
B
Slipping
priorities,
so
these
are
so
what
I
mean
by
that
is:
we've
got
a
couple.
Things
in
the
I
should
have
linked
the
doc.
The
drive
ambient
to
Beta
dot
that
Lynn
is
is
driving
and
I
just
wanted
to
to
call
out
that
there
are
a
couple
of
things
in
the
dock
that
currently
don't
have
an
item
or
sorry,
don't
have
an
owner
and
don't
have
a
priority,
and
it's
con.
Those
items
not
having
a
priority
owner
is
concerning.
Let
me
link
the
dock.
B
Just
so
folks
can
follow
along
do
yeah,
so
I've
got
a
couple
of
them
there
satcar
interrupt
is,
is
one
of
them.
I
think
that
would
be
useful
to
close
on
before
I
mean
relatively
soon
to
be
good
to
close
on
that
one.
B
Just
because
it'll
help
us
know
what
things
we
can
we
can
table
and
what
things
be
need
to
do
before
for
beta
beside
cars,
because
I
think
that's
probably
a
a
pretty
underexplored
aspect
of
the
ambient
initiative
and
the
other
one
is
trusted
security.
Heartening,
there's
currently
a
whole
section
of
things
in
the
drop
ambient
to
betadoc
that
don't
have
don't
have
an
owner
security
is
concerning
just
because
this
is
a
new
deployment
topology
with
a
multi-tenant,
L4
proxy.
B
That's
doing
effectively,
you
know
impersonation
and
grammar
certificates,
and
that
seem
to
be
investment
towards
heartening
that
for
beta.
So
that's
a
concerning
thing
and
then
one
the
bullet
point
I
think
is
the
most
concerning
out
of
that
security.
B
Hardening
section
is
edge
cases
around
restarts
and
shutdown,
and
things
like
that
with
the
cni,
the
upgrade
story
I
did
I
do
know
there
is
that
then
nugget
from
solo
has
been
doing
some
work
on
the
upgrade
store
and
there's
a
decision
in
one
of
the
previous
meeting
notes,
but
there's
no
owner
for
that
in
the
in
the
doc,
meaning
if
it
issues
it's
not
gonna,
be
an
issue
created
for
it
not
going
to
be
an
owner
on
that
issue.
B
So
this
is
just
kind
of
like
let
the
community
know
about
this
to
say
like
if
you
really,
if
this
is
something
that
you
know
you
really
care
about.
Let's
try
to
see
if
we
can't
put
some
resources
on
these
things
in
a
more
quote,
unquote,
formal
way
just
so
we
don't
duplicate
work,
but
also
we
can
ensure
that
the
work
does
get
done
in
a
reasonable
time
for
for
beta.
A
Once
we
arrived
at
consensus
on
the
scope,
these
may
or
may
not
well,
these
may
or
may
not
be
in
scope
for
beta
right
and
if
there
are,
if
a
routing
scope,
then
the
the
discussions
kind
of
moved.
If
we
decide
that
these
are
in
scope,
then
let's
get
them
on
to
the
agenda
and
is
the
most
important
part.
Okay,.
F
B
Yeah
John's
comment
is
kind
of
the
reason
I'm
bringing
this
up,
because
you
know
they
don't
have
the
currently
don't
have
an
owner.
Therefore
it
looks
like
they're
going
to
fall
out
of
scope,
but
a
little
bit
less
for
static
current
Iraq.
We
can
always
just
say,
use
ambient
and
fresh
clusters
for
now,
like
that.
B
That's
a
possibility,
but
that
second
one
with
trust,
security,
hardening
and
edge
cases
I,
don't
see
us
getting
a
beta
beta
product
without
those
when
it
comes
to
something
that
we
are
asking
you
just
use
in
production,
I,
just
I,
just
don't
see
it
so,
like
John
said
those
are
some
of
the
most
important
parts
of
of
ambient
and
I
know:
there's
no
names
by
them
right
now,
but
really
needs
to
be
to
get
this
thing
to
Beta.
A
Okay,
then,
let's
mark
them
as
P
Zeros
in
or
p02
p1s
in
the
beta
scope
and
find
owners
for
these.
A
Hey
I
think
the
state
we're
coming
in
as
we
it's
a
bit
of
a
checking
act
like
we.
We
have
not
confirmed,
we
have
not
solidified
on
scope
of
beta,
and
so
therefore
people
don't
know
whether
these
things
will
make
better
or
not.
But
it
sounds
like
these
things
should
be,
and
you
know
I'm
saying
that,
because
we
don't
have
a
scope
and
so
people
will
we
we're
not
actively
looking
for
contributors
to
work
on
these
and
because
we're
not
actually
looking
for
contributors
to
own
and
run
with
this.
A
These
problems,
the
that
they
are
they're
slipping
and
it
may
become
a
self-fulfilling
prophecy,
whether
it's
manipulator
or
not.
But
these
both
of
these
issues,
that's
like
we
need
to
resolve
what.
E
Yeah
so
I
I
think
there
is
there
is
that
there
are
going
to
be
some
breaking
changes
coming
and
regardless
of
what
we're
thinking
about
it.
These
changes
have
to
be
communicated
to
users,
and
we
cannot
just
do
everything
at
once
and
expect
things
to
work.
Well,
so
it'd
be
better
to
Stage
those
changes,
for
example,
this
cycling
drop
is
a.
A
F
E
B
So,
first
of
all,
I
agree
with
everything.
Quad
just
said:
we
need
to
get
users
a
heads
up
if
I
can
be
blunt.
This
is
one
of
probably
one
of
the
most
concerning
things
to
me
about
the
way
we're
currently
going
about
the
beta
process,
and
by
that
I
mean
we
are
marking
things
as
P0
and
P1,
based
on
resourcing
on
having
owners.
B
B
Us
is
we're
at
a
situation
where,
oh,
if
I
want
it,
if
I
want
as
a
contributor,
want
to
see
this
thing,
land
and
land
in
beta
and
I'm
willing
to
work
on
it,
then
yeah
I'm
going
to
go
work
on
this
thing
that
I
want
to
get
into
beta,
even
though
there
may
be
other
things
that,
for
ambient
even
exists
need
to
be
done,
but
there's
no
resources
allocated
there,
and
so,
in
my
opinion,
it's
probably
it's
going
to
be
more
helpful
if
we
set
and
and
sit
down
and
and
clarify
what
the
minimum
viable
ambient
beta
looks
like
work
backwards
to
do
what
said
and
call
out
the
breaking
changes.
B
So
we
give
users
a
heads
up
and
then
figure
out.
You
know
what
other
things
can
be
added
once
we
have
a
good
sense
of
what
that
minimum
viable
Ambience
is
because
the
current
state
of
the
doc
there
are
several
things
and
again,
just
in
my
personal
opinion,
aren't
required
for
in
that
minimum
viable
ambient,
but
some
things
that
are
that
aren't
being
resourced,
and
so
I
really
think
we
need.
We
need
to
pay
some
attention,
get
some
attention
to
some
of
these
things.
B
Like
trust,
security,
soccer,
interop
Etc
been,
do
the
and
do
first
things
first,
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
take
care
of
things
that
have
breaking
changes,
get
them
to
the
users
n19,
who
don't
have
a
ton
of
time.
You
don't
have
very
much
time
at
all.
Actually
I
think
feature
like
feature
freeze
is,
is
in
July,
so
like
get
first,
things
first
done
communicate
those
to
users,
and
then
you
know,
let's
work
on
those
things
that
you
know
we
will
like
to
have
for
the
ambient
banding
120.
A
A
feature
cruises
in
about
a
month
or
119.
if
we
want
to
get
these
out
in
roll
out,
these
gradually
create
a
lot
of
these
breaking
changes
in
119.,
assuming
they'll
120
is
obey
the
release,
so
Keith
I
do
agree
with
you
it.
The
priority
of
these
work
items
should
not
be
based
on
resourcing,
or
rather
based
on
what
we,
the
maintainers
of
the
community,
think
as
the
minimal
body
product
viable
product
for
for
beta.
Here.
B
Yeah
I
mean
that
that
being
said,
you
know
I
think
that
any
that
the
the
work
to
kind
of
to
Pivot
that
willing
to
talk
to
Lynn,
obviously
because
she's
doing
a
lot
of
the
driving
of
the
of
the
beta
scoping
but
yeah
I
think
we're
not.
B
We
don't
anticipate
there
being
a
lot
of
turnout
next
week,
but
maybe
async
we
can.
We
can
have
some
discussion
on
this
and
get
a
preliminary
preliminary
list
at
least
of
what
the
Bible
product
looks
like.
Why.
A
B
Because
is
that
group
of
stakeholders
just
Toc
from
a
community
perspective
or
is
it
do
we
need
a
separate
body
just
wanting
to
that's
just
curious,
I
have.
A
A
F
A
And
we
have
Lynn
Keith.
Would
you
like
to
be
a
stakeholder
here.
E
A
G
A
Okay,
Nathan
anyone
from
aviatrix.
D
Oh,
it's
a
good
question
we
can
I
can
reach
out
to
you
to
folks
and
see
I
can
get
back
to
you
I
think
it's
probably
the
best
way.
A
H
A
All
right,
well,
so
the
expectation
for
those
stakeholders
is
really
reveal
the
talk
and
discuss
months,
all
of
yourselves
to
arrive
at
the
scope
for
ambient
and
then
raise
the
TLC
for
final
approval.
A
All
right,
which
actually
remind
me,
let's
put
a
time
box
on
this,
when
is
the
next
Toc
meeting.
A
I
wish
I
did
not
close
to
my
calendar.
Let's
see
anyone
from
the
top
of
their
head.
Remember
when
the
next
TLC
meet
July,
10th,
okay,
that's
very
soon,
especially
given
July
forces
between
so
how
about
we
place
a
is
always
on
the
second
Monday
of
the
month.
A
So
if
that's
the
case,
can
we
just
can
we
put
on
the
lines
and
say
we
will
have
to
we'll
present
this
we'll
share
this
with
the
TLC
well
in
advance
of
August,
the
7th.
B
I'm
interested
like
John
mentioned
either
Toc
can
do
it
offline
or
we
can
have
an
ad
hoc
meeting.
I.
Think
that
probably
makes
the
most
sense
I
think
the
expected
turnaround.
Time
is
greater
than
a
week
and
a
half
in
less
than
a
month,
so
I
I'd
probably
be
in
favor
of
that
ad
hoc
meeting.
A
A
On
the
list,
yeah,
the
only
reason
I'm
hesitating
is
next
week
for
the
US
is
a
holiday.
Usually
people
take
time
off.