Istio Technical Oversight Committee, 19 Apr 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Technical Oversight Committee 2021/04/19

Description

Istio's Technical Oversight Committee for April 19th, 2021.
Topics:
- Additions to PSWG
- Promotion of Gateway Topology to Alpha

A

We are recording.

B

Is this working for any chance? No.

C

That looks good, no you're good. Your.

B

C

Account has got better probes.

B

So you can see the meeting minutes.

B

Okay, awesome! Thanks! Okay, let's go to your weekly routine.

B

Let's record this: do we have this recorded? Yes, we do um community testing day.

D

So it's it's going great um all of the tests, which needs to be automated our work in progress, so hopefully, by the end of this release, any tests which needs to be automated should be done, but we still have 12 p0s, which are cannot be automated and needs ownership, and this is the second week in the last week of community testing.

C

Why can't they uh be automated more like concept docs, that sort of thing yeah.

D

C

Okay, how many test cases are we automating this release.

D

Oh, I think approximately 12 to 15 josh. Those were the left.

C

Are those all staffed or are you having problems finding people all.

D

Of them are staffed.

D

It's just this twelve p zeros uh which, as I said, uh cannot be automated but needs owners.

C

So um maybe we could re review the list, because sometimes um we have a bunch of p zeros. I don't really need to be p. Zeros yeah part of that is just nothing has changed in the area, so we don't think it needs a review.

D

Yeah there are these concept docs, which, to be honest, not changes every um right, but still we mark them as p0s and still ask for testing just because they are like the pages which hit really hard in this video like what is this to security, those kind of ideas? But my question goes back like if they are not changing why they are struggling.

E

Well, I think what has happened is sometimes things have changed silently and we haven't observed it. So why don't we open that list up and see if, among that, you see, a few of us can take some of these items.

B

Okay, all right and.

E

We can also remove the priority down if it's needed.

B

Okay, lynn, can you please click on that yeah? I did open. I guess it's not sure, because I don't know.

C

There's you'll probably see a share this tab button that you need to click at the videos tab instead, yeah.

B

Let me stop sharing, because I have to screen might be easy to just share the other monitor.

B

B

Okay, you guys see my screen now, hopefully better.

F

B

I distorted for you okay good, so this is the spreadsheets right.

G

No, I'm not saying this needed.

D

Yeah, it's loading up, then it's not there. Yet.

D

E

Are you running a multi-cluster store set up on your laptop.

B

No, I shut down my my docker. I guess it's not working the that's the screen sharing. So still nothing come up.

C

Nope, it's partially rendered.

B

That's all that.

B

Does it show anything now you're, not no.

C

I I would be happy to present.

B

Yeah, go ahead, take it over. I don't know. What's going on.

B

B

B

H

H

C

Okay, so uh how do you want to do this? Raj you're, suggesting two things: either demote some of these to p1 or shard them across the toc? What do you think we should do.

C

Here, does anybody see any reason like any concern based on the changes going on 110?

C

Is there anything here that really requires a review, something that may be stale.

B

Well, it's a new website. Remember, it's probably good to assign I'd be happy to take one or two pages, because the craig did the restructure. So it's pretty important to relocate it. I think.

F

um Extensibility extensibility stuff, probably the x.c stuff.

C

All right, where is.

D

So they should be in progress.

C

So I put an owner in the in progress. Call: okay,.

D

Okay, that will update the timestamp of when they are in progress and when they are done so me and ryan, go with the timelines and check the stats of the automation.

C

Okay, louie you're, saying extensibility and and which one.

F

So extensibility might have some changes based on external improvement. Oh.

I

F

And providers right.

C

Okay, so that was just one thing anything else here that needs a review needs an owner.

B

I think customer ca is relatively new right.

A

F

B

And configurations status, I think that's new, also right.

E

uh Kind of I think it has been there for a few releases that I was saying it will be good for someone like mitch, maybe to take a look at it.

J

E

Know if there has been progress, this release on it yeah I'd, be happy to give it a little cover. Thank you, uh and I think doug mentioned he. He can look at your standard metrics and one more. What was it the observability ones?

E

E

K

E

I don't think anything has changed in the dns proxy. We have not matured or made it better.

F

John is making the same point to the show.

E

K

That's different.

B

C

Oh okay, so is: does that mean that we have a p0 here? We need to add a new row.

B

C

B

C

B

Documentation for that yeah I actually look at the docs recently.

C

Okay and then what is extensibility is that webassembly or something else.

E

Yeah, that's whatever something right now: okay,.

F

Well, it's also envoy filter in general.

F

That could use a review commander. Do you want to take.

C

C

All right, and then this is the last one I think they should be oliver. Is he with us.

C

I'm going to reach out to him and ask him to do this.

E

Okay, quick question before you move off this topic for extensibility. uh So are we going to have the new uh apis, telemetry ap or one of the api in 110.

L

um Yeah, so actually the the tracing api, the dug.

L

E

Okay, okay, so that would need some good uh review. I'm guessing! We will need to have a top level page apart from the api reference right.

L

Observability that that would actually go under telemetry, not not extensibility, but.

A

L

Yep but yeah we will.

C

Have to hide in there, okay, all right: what was there so doug's gonna. Do that or somebody else.

L

uh So, yes, I think yeah doug doug will do that. Yes, okay,.

E

E

Josh, it won't be in the concept space. That's what uh yes.

C

Okay, uh what is the page.

C

We're gonna need a new.

E

C

I'll own, putting a new page and seeing that through, okay, a new page for what.

F

The telemetry api stuff.

K

Yeah I can review it. It's okay, great.

C

Okay, uh ship, this one should we move on to the next one.

C

Okay, I hear no objections. Let's do.

C

That all right.

C

Okay, sweater: you want to talk about release health.

D

Yeah there is one release blocker, I don't know if sam is on the call where they were looking for uh some environment which didn't happen. So I don't know what how we're going to work on that. One.

C

Emerge for a non-security, related onboarding version.

M

It's of the yeager, it's the jager not receiving any trace, spins. uh Okay, it's like on the on the left column. There.

D

One five: nine six one yeah.

C

There's a there's, a fix, that's been waiting for about a week to.

A

Be merged into upstream so yeah.

C

A

C

Upstream, yes,.

M

Okay, yeah, I'm not 100 sure what we normally do when um an envoy fix an envoy regression misses the this. Is the envoy release that we use? I.

C

Think what I would like to do, I I can help with this- um is get that merged upstream and then we can just cherry pick it into one of our branches. I think that's fine. As long as it's not you know too extensive. I doubt this one is okay.

C

All right I'll I'll make. I got the ai for this one. uh What else do we need to talk about.

D

That's it. I think the rest are in control sam anything to add here.

M

Yeah, um I think so eric added a release, blocker the supported kubernetes versions for 110., um and I think that specifically needs toc uh discussion.

C

So we're saying 117 is the minimum. It's hard to see this.

M

Yeah, I think I think it's a similar thing to what happened with one nine we're like testing 116, but we're not saying that we're testing it. So that's my understanding of this. This issue.

C

So we're basically incrementing the min and the max by 5.1 is that right.

I

Well, that's the question is: is that what we want to do right so today it says exactly what we had for 1.9. There is no increment at all. The question is: what should it be? Should we increment by each one, by 0.1,.

C

I think we should, I think, by default, we should increment the min and the max by 0.1 any reason not to do that.

E

That will make it 110 supported from 118 to 121.

I

Supported and then on the tested page, we can say what we test, which will be outside of that right.

E

Have we tested it on one two or one point, two one. uh That's a good question.

I

Yeah we're testing we're testing on well, we haven't done the the final testing but john to be here. I think we're testing on one two one and a version of one two two is well.

J

So about the the testing, I think, for one two one uh I know kind is so by default. uh Kubernetes 120, one two one is uh it supports. Dual stack uh kind uh is still in the progress of implementing that. So it's not necessarily equivalent to you know a vanilla, install of kubernetes one two one. So uh that's just information for people.

E

That's good to know uh sorry jacob, so let me see there's some more chattering. The uh messages here so it looks like 1.21 has only been tested in master, which means it does. It is not supported in 110. Is that correct, john.

H

uh Yes, I mean, I I'm almost positive, we'll work at least 99, but we don't have it in our test. So.

C

Yeah, we would have to add it to the test to see if I support it. Yeah.

H

If someone wants to I'm sure you could do it with, you know some couple hours of work, um but it's currently not tested so and.

J

H

For reference, people that don't know, kubernetes has slowed down the release cycles. So that's why it's not just bumping everything up, because they've I see down historically to three releases per year at their current cadence and they're, also most likely going to persist that, for at least the next few releases.

C

I see so if we don't increment the max to one two one: should we not increment them in and keep it at 1 17.

F

Which is basically saying just match, one.

I

So I'm looking john, it looks to me, like I thought we were doing 21 in 1.10, but we're doing 22 in master. Okay, I think john might want to confirm that I'm reading it right, but.

E

So, irrespective of the current state I do want to go, I do want to see if we can get 1.21 kubernetes support in 110. So if it's not too much work in too late, can we do that now or is that going to cause a lot of oil on the side of release managers.

C

I think it was just finding somebody to make sure that the the tests are written, but john said he thought that it would just work.

H

uh There will be a few small changes to the first party draw stuff, but for the mainline users that don't use deprecated features.

C

So the release is may 18th, so it's so right is that right, yeah.

B

C

We still have a whole month, so I think it's an okay time to make this change it's more about just finding somebody to do the work.

E

Good, so do you want to define your statement there josh, so we want to target 118 to 121 yeah right and the tested is 116 to 121 yeah. That sounds right to me.

C

Assuming we have somebody to do the work for 121 uh-huh.

C

Awesome. Thank you. Yeah.

D

Thank you, sam. What is the rule of sum? Do we want to say three three supported version or four, we used to have three couple of louise's back when we moved to four.

E

I feel like we have decreased the cost of supporting four and our users tend to have a wide mix of kubernetes platforms. So, if that's true, that is, our cost is lower supporting four versions, I would try to do that.

D

Okay, yeah, the users are basically just like that.

E

Is that correct? Are there toc members.

F

I'm not certainly desirable, so if the cost is low enough, then wait sorry.

F

What was the proposal.

D

It was a question josh, like a couple of releases back, we used to support three. Now we are at four, so my question was: is the rule of thumb to support four or we are just keeping it for few releases to keep it? Fourth, given it is supported versions.

B

Yeah, I think we changed that since israel 1.9 right, we already have four releases of cuban.

J

B

B

C

What do you think I mean john? Do you care if we narrow the range, do you want us to narrow the range here.

H

I don't really care too much, um I think most of their. I I pains me to say this almost, but most of their braking changes are behind them um like we're all running.

J

H

Yeah so the only.

J

Pain that ever is.

H

Caused like I could support 15 versions if they didn't remove apis and it's no problem. It just takes a little more testing time, nci the main changes when they remove apis, but since we're on stable apis, they can't remove them or, at the very least, we'll have an extraordinarily long deprecation window. So I don't expect many issues again in the future.

H

C

Should we should we uh ship my comment.

K

I'm fine with it.

M

Okay, sam, what is your github handle? So it's monkeyinator wow, I'm gonna, guess that one there we go. Okay,.

C

Great. Thank you.

I

That beats deuteronomy we to reflect that change as well. Okay,.

C

All right, uh what do you guys think? Okay, that's been approved.

I

Okay, so brian and I have one other release blocker, which we should probably mark the the issue as a release blocker, um since it's not on the list. So basically the download istio script that we have today does not work for 1.10.

C

I

Why so somebody well because um 1.10 10 is bigger than nine and two characters instead of one, oh funny, so we're still getting bitten by that. So so we got bit by that, uh and the question we have to do is is just fix it, but it's not.

J

I

Right now, okay, so um I guess part of the problem. Is we because we do a check against 1.15 or 1.5? Excuse me, so we because 1.5 was where we added the um the 1.6 is where we added the additional um types so amd and stuff like that, I think um and that's what's causing us the grief, so we just have to figure out a way to get around it, but it is another issue. That's out there.

K

I mean that's a release: blocker blocker.

I

Brian just mentioned that to me and I'm going yeah, it should be a release blocker. I know we have an issue, but I guess I think sam owns it. So we'll fix we'll work on that. One.

C

Thank you sam. What do you think.

I

Or sam created, it.

M

I I don't think I think it's strong sure that created it. um Oh maybe.

I

It was shawn, I'm sure, yeah, so he's.

M

Been he's been working on this.

C

Yeah so sam, you don't have to own everything, you're a release manager, but that doesn't mean you have to do all the work. You just have to make sure that we don't ship or release, not not fixing. Something like that. So uh I think considering you just signed up for the kubernetes 121 testing. Somebody else should take this script fix.

I

I know shem sharon and I were looking at it last week, so probably one of the two of us can continue. Thank you.

C

Okay, uh what else? Okay, that is a great achievement! Jacob are you yes, you are. uh Do you want to talk about this one right now or is this.

J

Yeah, oh yeah, so the uh so brian made some changes where uh people put pr's up for um approval for um what were previously issues regarding uh uh like moving features from one stage to another uh yeah. So uh this is around um gateway, topology features. So um I originally wrote this issue, but you can look in the comments. um I addressed all of the comments that are there.

J

um No code was changed in actual istio code uh and it's or the toc said I don't know about a month or so ago that we can do this out of band. So we can uh kind of retroactively for 1.9 say that this was is now a an alpha feature, um so.

C

It was experimental, I see it's going to alpha any sort of backwards, compatibility break, not that we really care going from experimental to alpha.

J

uh No um primarily, the thing that I did is I worked with uh sven to make the document more um kind of user facing in terms of use cases um like why somebody would want to enable this feature and also put the uh page under uh automated testing. So like those were the two things that were concerned. This is this is in mesh config, so it can't go from alpha to like there is no, you know plan to make it beta.

J

You know, unless there's a you know an appropriate api for this, but um so yeah does it use onboard filter? I don't know no, it does not. Okay,.

C

Any reason not to approve this, what do you guys think.

B

No, it's good. Thank you for adding the automated test jacob.

C

Okay, is this right ship? It.

B

C

Okay, thank you all right now uh this is finally, what is this this is, we are, do we don't actually have anything on the ic got it look at that the friday dude, okay uh user experience and environments roadmap presentations.

C

Are you guys ready to go? Hang on looking at me.

A

C

Right. Thank you.

A

C

Yeah, this is why you never want me to leave the discussion again.

F

I'm sorry I'm just going to put on the on the agenda the same day in may. Okay,.

C

All right uh product security working group wants to induct utendai lambda into the product security working group, any any concerns with that. He certainly contributed a lot and pswg wants him in.

C

Poc going one's.

C

How many people are in the pswd? Now uh it's getting kind of big about about 70, uh but no, I think that it might be um it might be about. 10 would be my guess, um and we have some people who aren't really um uh who have dropped out, that we knew that we need to do a random calling uh to bring that number down a little bit.

C

G

L

G

L

People they're doing.

F

Yeah yeah believe me, I know um but yeah.

F

It behooves me to ask every once in a while. If we've got too many people in it.

A

C

Okay uh boy: well I I shall we end anything else to discuss.

D

We, um the easter roadmap presentations, are scheduled for these three days since.

J

D

One vacation, so I mark them here and working group leads, are aware of it.

I

C

What do you guys think of the new time slot.

E

It looks like we got the same number of people. I have normally seen around 20-25. So that's a good sign. You might be sleeping, but yeah yeah, okay,.

G

I feel more tired than I normally do on friday, but yeah.

C

I think uh on fridays you know I'm usually real willing to approve anything at that point you know it's been awesome.

G

Not having a friday yeah- and I I think it is gonna- get boisterous so enjoy the when the roadmap presentation start.

A

All right all right forward.

C

Okay shift: it thanks.

E

All right, thank you for.

C

G

B

Thanks, thank you.

B