►
From YouTube: Kubernetes WG IoT Edge 20221012
Description
October 12, 2022 meeting of the CNCF IoT Edge Working Group where edge native white paper draft was discussed.
A
Hi
welcome
to
the
October
12th
meeting
of
the
cncf
iot
edge
working
group
on
the
agenda.
Today,
we've
got
a
discussion
of
the
Edge
native
white
paper
that
we've
been
working
on
for
a
few
months
now
in
preparation
for
a
talk
to
be
delivered
at
kubecon,
North
America,
there's,
probably
room
for
additional
items.
B
Sure
yeah
happy
to
kick
us
off
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
build
scope
on
this
meeting.
Maybe
what
we
want
to
try
and
Achieve
by
the
end
of
it
for
one
I
think
we
could
try
to
we've
been
doing
this
of
late
go
through
and
resolve
comments,
get
things
in
a
good
place
to
start
and
then
I
think
there's
also
a
big
chunk
that
still
the
main
thing
that
is
not
ready
is
our
last
principle
of
external
device
connectivity.
B
So
we
could
also
start
with
that,
make
sure
that's
in
text
form
and
then
from
there
kind
of
see
if
we
can
bring
things
together.
Another
thing
that
I
was
thinking
is
the
list
of
Open
Source
projects
deciding
if
that
feels
complete
and
deciding
how
to
handle
that,
and
then
the
final
thing
would
be
references.
B
B
Yes,
so
I
think
that
is
a
goal
of
ours
and
ideally
to
do
that
before
kubecon.
If
we
feel
like
we're
ready
for
an
official
draft
to
be
published,
that
would
go
so.
The
cncf
iot
edge
working
group
is
under
the
runtime
tag,
so
it
would
go
under
run
time
and
I
was
just
gonna
PR
or
one
of
us
can
PR
into
runtime
and
say,
create
a
new
folder
or
directory
called
white
papers
and
Link
from
our
landing
page.
There
I
can
I'll
share
a
link
to
that,
but
yeah.
B
Ideally
we
can
do
that,
whether
that's
this
working
group
meeting
after
this
one
or
Thanksgiving
or
the
next,
that
would
be
kind
of
the
place
that
I
would
see
it
going
and
then
I
think
we've
talked
about
I.
Think
Brandon's
mentioned
this
after,
like
after
our
Draft,
when
we
feel
like
we're
in
a
good
state.
Are
there
other
places
that
we
want
to
put
this
and
kind
of
expanding
that
conversation.
D
A
B
A
Yeah
I
think
we've
looked
at
the
slides
at
least
a
rough
draft
with
the
agenda
last
time
and
looked
good
I'd
suggest.
Maybe
we've
got
a
lot
of
things
already
on
that
list
that
maybe
aren't
going
to
come
together
until
just
before
the
next
meeting.
So
if
you're
not
ready,
I'd
say
postpone
it,
and
you
know
you
kind
of
have
to
get
some
of
those
things
ready
to
have
a
because
they'll
feed
into
your
deck
I
suspect.
A
So
do
it
only
if
you're
ready
and
if
you're
not
my
experience,
is
sometimes
you
don't
get
that
practice.
We're
on.
You
know
until
you're,
even
physically,
at
the
conference
in
the
speaker,
lounge
or
something,
and
if
it
happens,
it
happens.
But
since
you
have
two
speakers,
I
believe
you
you
kind
of
are
going
to
have
to
do
one
to
have.
It
come
off,
okay,
but
just
personal
opinion,
but
yeah.
B
Yeah
so
Omar,
just
hopped
on
the
question
from
Steve,
was
whether
to
have
a
practice
run
in
our
next
meeting
and
I'm
comfortable
with
that
we're
meeting
after
this
to
kind
of
look
through
our
slides
even
more
so
I'd
be
fine
with
that.
My
only
caveat
would
be
is
that
if
there's
another
topic
for
the
working
group,
we
can
make
it
a
one-off
with
a
smaller
group
I
think
sometimes
it's
hard
to
get
feedback
from
large
groups
but
yeah,
let's,
let's
tentatively
plan
on
that
for
the
next
meeting.
B
A
Yeah,
we
could
always
just
pause
the
recording
too,
so
it's
not
there
I'm
expecting
you
know
if
you
literally
it's
the
first
time
you've
ever
done.
It
it'll,
be
so
rough
that
you
probably
don't
want
it
it's
circulation.
The
whole
point
of
it
is
to
you
know,
get
down
your
timing,
your
content
and
everything
and
very
few
people
get
it
right.
The
first
time.
A
B
Yeah
I
guess
that
was
resolve
the
scope
for
today,
so
I
think
our
scope
is
maybe
let's
try
and
get
through
as
many
of
these
as
we
can,
and
we
did
resolve
scope
on
let's
present
next
time,
and
let's
do
that
after
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
stop
the
record
for
that
with
that
are
people
how
do
people
feel
about
moving
to
external
device
connectivity?
Looking
at
that.
E
B
E
B
E
So
then
examples
are
all
these
things
like
USB
cameras
or
or
local
radio,
sensors
or
devices,
or
all
of
that
require
us
to
to
have
a
special
consideration
for
workloads
running
on
the
edge
so
that
they
can,
for
example,
run
in
a
privileged
mode
or
with
raised
access
levels
to
to
be
able
to
to
access
those
resources
and
and
be
able
and
expose
those
resources
to
the
workload
so
containers
or
or
veggie
or
whatever.
We
we
use.
D
B
B
F
B
B
I'm
gonna
just
put
it
in
here
Steve,
because
I
think
it's
easy.
If
we're
all
looking
at
it.
So
kind
of
the
summary
that
Steve
put
in
the
chat
is
external
device.
Connectivity
is
in
one
sentence
all
about
the
challenges
related
to
Edge
device
connectivity.
So
it's
getting
an
inventory
or
device
monitoring
health
of
device,
connect,
health
of
device
checks
or
health
checks
of
devices
and
connections
to
devices
update
management.
E
C
B
A
If
the
connection
to
the
device
is
IP
based
with
some
of
your
orchestrators
and
container
runtimes,
you
have
a
semblance
of
establishing
limits
to
what
they
might
be
able
to
use.
But
if
these
devices
are
not
using,
you
know
traditional
IP
based
connectivity,
I,
don't
think
the
typical
container,
runtime
or
orchestrator
or
Os
will
do
anything
for
you.
So
there
isn't
necessarily
a
mechanism
with
existing
technology
to
monitor
or
impose
limits
on
resource
consumption
related
to
Communications.
A
We,
the
best
we
could
do,
is
indicate
it's
there.
I
don't
think
we
could
I
I,
don't
it's
a
falls
into
the
either
unsolved
problem,
space
or
out
of
scope,
so
whether
we
raise
Resource
Management
there
I
think
we
could
safely
leave
it
out
because
in
terms
of
best
practices
today,
I'm
not
sure
there
is
any
kind
of
recommendation.
We
could
do
other
than
observe
that
maybe
this
is
an
unsolved
problem.
B
A
Well,
it
isn't
necessarily
even
the
number
of
connections,
but
one
connection
hogging
it
all.
If
they're
on
a
shared
bus,
you
know
like
a
4k
camera
at
60
frames,
a
second
if
it
goes
wild
Maybe
it.
You
know.
Maybe
if
these
are
smart
cameras
that
do
motion
detect
and
only
send
on
motion,
you
don't
want
one
going
wild
so
that
the
other
ones
don't
get
a
shot.
Whether
this
is
something
there's
existing
technology
on
I,
don't
know
if
there
is
I'm
not
aware
of
it,
but
yeah.
B
Thing
if
you're
talking
about
input,
then
I
guess
if
you
put
a
load
balancer
in
front
or
like
have
basically,
you
can't
establish
a
direct
connection
with
the
device
but
yeah
but
I
think
I.
Think
that's
fair
and
it's
sounding
like
you're
bringing
the
discussion
up
from
the
category
of
resource.
Aware,
like
the
the
principle
of
resource
aware
made,
you
bring
up
this
topic
and
the
reason
I
was
saying
that
is
because
I
see
that
topic
as
being
about
external
device
connectivity,
which
furthers
the
point
of
maybe
these
should
be
merged.
A
B
Well,
I
think
one
of
them
is
I,
think
resource
usage,
optimization
encompasses
some
of
that
and
I
think
the
word
external
can
be
removed.
So
we
could
say
resource
aware
and
that's
external
and
internal,
but
I
think
our
discussion
may
have
been.
We
wanted
something
explicitly
discussing
external
devices.
A
B
I
yeah
I
don't
see
a
need
to
address
management
of
devices
yeah
yeah
in
either
of
these
I,
don't
see
any
to
put
the
word
management,
so
I
think
what
we
could
do
is
I.
Think
resource,
aware
the
reason
we
I'm
trying
I
think
I'm,
remembering
the
reason
we
put
it
is
because,
in
the
similarities
and
differences
slide,
we
mentioned
how
the
The
Edge
is
more
heterogeneous,
so
applications
need
to
be
more
aware
or
of
what
resources
are
on
their
compute.
B
A
I
up
to
now,
I
wasn't
thinking
of
a
GPU
as
being
in
the
category
of
an
external
device,
but
now
that
you
mentioned
it
I
suppose
some
people
could
think
that.
But
to
me
that's
belongs
more
under
the
category
of
compute,
even
though
it
is
a
device.
I
mean
the
CPU
is
a
device
too,
and
so
are
the
memory
chips
but
yeah.
A
B
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
the
word
external
is
confusing,
like
I
I
think
I
phrased.
What
I
was
saying
wrong:
I,
don't
think
a
GPU
is
an
external
device,
okay
and
I.
Maybe
if
someone
else
thinks
that
then
yeah
we
should
say
I
o
devices
but
I'm
aligned
with
that
I,
don't
think
a
GPU
is
an
external
device,
but
I
think
what
Omar
was
saying
about.
B
A
I
hate
to
throw
this
in
a
different
direction,
but
I'll
do
it
anyway,
that
maybe
this
isn't
external
device
connectivity
so
much
as
management,
which
is
broader
than
connectivity.
You
know
management
would
entail
to
me
taking
inventory
of
the
devices
discovering
them,
maybe
trying
to
keep
their
firmware,
updated,
and
that
goes
beyond
connectivity.
E
D
A
E
A
Could
choose
to
do
it
in
an
application,
but
it's
possible
that
maybe
someday
some
orchestrator
or
something
you
know
in
the
stack
would
take
it
on
too
so
I'm,
not
sure
an
application
is
a
way
to
address
the
challenge
one
way,
but
the
the
principle
is
still
there,
and
this
is
something
that
is
a
little
different
from
a
public
Cloud
data
center
environment.
You
know,
if
you're
hosted
in
AWS,
you
don't
worry
about
managing
devices.
A
The
cloud
provider
isn't
going
to,
let
you
get
to
any
devices
sitting
there
anyway,
even
if
you
wanted
to,
but
at
Edge.
This
is
one
of
the
fundamental
distinctions
that
you've
got
these
I
o
devices
and
we
need
to
call
them
out
in
some
row
of
this
table,
I
think
and
what
the
title
of
that
cell
is
on
the
left
side.
I
think
you
know
external
device,
something,
and
maybe
it's
management.
F
A
B
D
B
I
was
I,
essentially
just
pasted
this
from
our
differences.
We
have
a
hardware,
awareness,
differences
and
so
I
repeated
the
wording
so
I
said,
rather
than
having
homogeneous
Hardware
platforms.
Developers
need
to
be
aware
of
a
wider
variety
of
hardware
and
interfaces,
and
that's
what
we're
defining
is
resource
aware,
because
that
removes
the
word
connections,
because
that's
what
was
really
throwing
me
off
and
local
resources
is
a
little
vague.
B
F
F
B
Okay,
so
for
external
device
connection
connectivity-
this
is
all
about
now
we're
talking
about
that
heterogeneous
environment
outside
of
the
node
and
how
applications
need
to
find
a
way
need
to
consider
all
the
connection
endpoints
around
them
in
their
environment.
And
what
is
that
process
like,
and
what
does
that
entail?.
D
B
B
B
But
I
I
like
that.
Maybe
we
can
say
the
capabilities
of
applications
on
the
edge.
No,
maybe
that's
getting
too
too
much,
but
it
seems
like
what
you're
saying
here
is
a
capability
of
a
server
on
the
edge
is
also
that
of
all
of
the
resources
around
it.
It's
not
static
and
those
resources
aren't
static
and
therefore
the
capabilities
of
the
server
isn't
static.
E
B
E
B
C
B
B
E
B
B
B
Yeah
I
think
the
only
issue
here
is
is
an
I
o
device,
a
locally
attached,
Hardware
I
think
that's
where
we
get
grainy
with
external
device.
I
think
what
that
boundary
is
is
a
problem.
But
if
there's
a
slight
blending
of
these
I
think
that's
okay
and
we
can
even
have
a
footnote
that
discusses
that
that
boundary.
B
So
maybe
maybe
we
add
a
footnote
that
says
like
the
boundary
between
hardware
and
external
device-
is
vague,
but
regardless
of
that
boundary,
you
need
to
be
aware
that,
regardless
of
that
external
device
connected
activity
is
trying
to
discuss
how
that
can
change.
So
if
you
define
Hardware
as
something
that
can
be
plugged
in
removed,
then
take
into
account
like
external
device
connectivity
principle,
otherwise
just
take
into
account
that
your
Hardware
is
more
varied
in
general.
I
mean
that's
a
way
big
footnote,
but
we
could
have
a
footnote
along
those
lines.
B
So,
okay,
at
this
point,
we
have
15
minutes
left.
What
do
we
want
to
do
next
on
our
agenda
on
the
list
of
things
that
we
said
we
have
to
do?
Do
we
want
to?
Maybe
next
on
our
list
was
list
of
Open
Source
projects?
Is
this
complete
so
I'll
go
to
that
next?
Unless
other
there's
other
ways
we
want
to
Swerve
next,
what
I
did
this
past
week
is
went
through?
A
A
A
Well,
I
think
maybe
you
just
have
to
declare
a
date
and
those
who
want
to
I,
don't
think
there's
deletions
likely
from
this
list,
but
there
might
be
ads
and
it
would
kind
of
be
nice
to
not
just
list
them
but
go
to
the
work
of
making.
The
name
of
this
thing
be
a
link.
You
know.
If,
if
I
were
a
reader
of
this
white
paper,
it
would
be
a
value-add
if
these
things
were
actual
URL
links
to
go,
find
out
more
about
these.
A
D
D
B
E
A
B
B
One
thing
when
we
were
creating
the
slides,
Amar
changed
this
to
be
a
grid
and
I
think
that
might
be
more
helpful
going
along
with
our
grid
format
of
have
this
via
principles
grid,
just
like
we
had
earlier
and
then
each
project
and
then
in
parentheses,
the
foundation.
So
it
could
be
cncf,
LF,
networking,
LF,
Edge,
LF
eclipse
and
then
just
add
it.
That
way,
maybe
and.
A
You
know
in
the
long
run,
if
we
wanted
this
to
be
a
living
thing,
taking
it
as
a
model.
The
cncf
itself
has
their
landscape
thing
right
now,
and
it's
driven
by
GitHub
check-ins,
mostly
by
people
who
want
to
appear
in
the
landscape
just
voluntarily
submitting
a
PR.
We
could
probably
have
a
thing
that
we'd
started.
A
We
are
not
going
to
get
it
done
in
the
next
two
weeks,
but
in
the
long
run,
if
we
had
an
edge
native
landscape
that
was
kind
of
maintained
by
people
who
want
to
appear
in
there,
meaning
we
don't
have
to
do
all
of
that
work
of
keeping
it
up.
It's
up
to
the
people
kind
of
self-nominating
to
be
relevant
to
the
landscape.
That
would
be
something
of
value
to
the
community
and.
A
I
think
that's
that's
where
we
should
go
as
an
end
game,
but
for
the
short
term
of
just
getting
a
useful
list
that
you
can
pop
into
your
presentation.
Just
saying
hey
here:
maybe
we,
since
this
is
a
graph,
we
don't
make
a
claim
that
this
is
exhaustive
right
now
it's
just
highlights
or
the
ones
we
came
across
and
leave
it
at
that,
because
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
a
perfect
list
in
two
weeks.
B
H
H
One
of
the
things
having
built
out
a
landscape
for
LF
networking
I
know
that
we'll
have
to
come
up
with
categories
either
on
the
x-axis
or
y-axis,
or
both
that
talk
about
how
the
logical
groupings
of
these
projects
should
go.
So
we'd
have
to
figure
out
those
those
categories,
whether
they're
aligned
under
our
Aid
or
so
principles
or
different
parts
of
the
Edge
from
where
they
are
on
the
edge.
We
would
have
to
figure
that
out,
but
I
do
agree.
H
If
we,
you
know,
go
forward
with
something
and
say
hey
this
is
it
and
it's
not
really
subject
to
change
or
we
make
change
difficult
that
might
wrinkle
some
feathers
from
folks
in
the
community
that
are
using
different
projects
that
think
that
those
projects
Merit
inclusion
on
the
list?
We
don't
want
to
create
the
friction
with
those
folks.
H
So
in
order
to
reduce
that,
if
we
have
it
in
a
spreadsheet
of
some
form
and
say
this
is
our
first
pass
at
creating
the
list
and
this
these
were
our
criteria
and
it
seems
like
we
are
sort
of
applying
criteria
around
the
principles
to
these
projects,
rather
than
trying
to
get
every
single
Edge
related
project
known
to
humankind
on
on
the
list.
But
if
we
just
have
a
statement
of
hey,
this
is
our
first
attempt
based
on
this
rough
criteria.
H
Here's
a
list
that
is
accessible
if
you
are
would
like
to
add
your
Edge
project
to
the
list.
Here's
what
you
do
and
sort
of
allow
people
to
do
that.
That's
why
that
way,
people
that
care
and
feel
that
they're
missing
can
get
it
added.
Otherwise,
you
know
other
folks
will
just
kind
of
Nod
and
say
hey.
The
list
looks
good
I,
don't
know
what
y'all
think
about
that.
B
A
Well,
maybe
we
should
even
announce
that
we're
thinking
of
going
the
correction
of
the
landscape,
but
we're
not
ready
to
do
it,
yet
it
I'd
almost
seen
this
spreadsheet.
If
the
landscape
was
there,
that
should
be
the
one
source
of
Truth,
not
the
spreadsheet,
so
maybe
the
spreadsheet
should
even
be
viewed
as
a
draft,
but
people
can
get
themselves
on
the
interest
list
or
whatever
I'll
tell
you.
A
Another
thing
for
purposes
of
this
group
maybe
suggests
that
the
spreadsheet
would
also
serve
as
a
list
of
people
in
a
queue
that
we'd
ask
to
speak
at
meetings
of
our
group,
I
mean
at
some
time
to
keep
this
this
group
interesting
to
actual
Community.
We
can't
just
endlessly
have
it
be
white
paper
draft
discussions.
You
know,
I,
think
our
best
attendance
comes
when
we
get
speakers
on
interesting
projects.
A
H
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
Stephen,
and
if
someone
wants
to
nominate
their
project,
their
open
source
project
I
do
think
we
should
err
on
open
source
to
be
added
to
our
list
and
eventually
our
landscape.
Here's
the
process
for
doing
that
sign
up
here
and
then
we
also
invite
you
to
come
to
the
iotn
edge
working
group
to
talk
about
your
project
and
how
it
integrates
with
the
edge
native
ecosystem,
it's
great
to
link
those
two
together.
H
B
I,
wonder
is
that
so
is
the
process
just
that
anyone
can
access
a
spreadsheet,
anyone
can
add
anything
to
it
or
how
do
we
handle
access
rights
and
then
that
way
like
I,
think
that's
why
github's
kind
of
nice,
because
you
can
submit
a
PR
and
someone
can
go
in
and
look
up
the
project
and
be
like?
Oh,
this
is
related
to
the
edge
or
oh.
This
is
cool.
Also
come
speak
at
our
working
group.
E
But
maybe
we
can
do
it.
Similarly,
like
we
are
doing
with
the
white
paper,
so
first
period
be
a
a
sheet
that
any
any
group,
member
or
of
the
working
group
can
at
least
suggest
changes.
And
then,
when
it
shapes
a
little
bit,
then
we
convert
it
to
the
markdown
or
whatever.
We
need
for
the
for
the
landscape
in
a
in
a
GitHub
and
and
continue
with
the
PRS.
H
I
think
so,
yeah
replace
it
with
a
line
and
a
link
to
a
Google
spreadsheet,
and
then
a
good
idea
for
control
might
just
be
hey.
If
you
want
to
add
your
project
to
this
list,
you
know
you
can
request
access
here
and
that
at
least
gives
us.
You
know
some
level
of
awareness
of
people
that
want
to
change
it
or
add
to
it,
and
then
it
gives
it's
a
conversation
starter
for
hey
I,
represent
at
this
project.
B
Great
and
I
think
also
that
could
be
a
good
opener
for
every
bi-monthly
meeting
is
looking
at
the
spreadsheet,
going
into
Google
and
seeing
the
delta
in
the
past
two
weeks
and
seeing
what
projects
were
added
and
then
saying.
Oh
cool
announcement.
There's
these
two
new
projects
quickly
go
to
the
link
and
just
spend
five
minutes
on
them
could
be
kind
of
fun.
H
Yeah
yeah
and
in
terms
of
how
many
projects
we
expect
I
mean
I,
think
this
lifts
is
a
good
first
swag,
and
this
is
maybe
half
the
Universe
we
may
get.
You
know
another
dozen
or
so
projects
wanting
to
sign
up
for
this
and
be
involved
over
the
coming
months
and
I.
Think
that
would
be
a
a
good
number.
You
know
as
long
as
it's
really
the
participation
and
the
contribution
part
that's
going
to
I
think
weed
out
others
that
just
want
their
project
added,
but
nothing
else
behind
it.
H
And
if,
if
that's
the
case,
then
we
feel
like
maybe
their
project
isn't
well
positioned
for
this
exercise.
You
know
we
we
have
to
have
some
level
of
Engagement
with
them,
but
if
they
can
request
that
through
requesting
access
to
the
sheet,
it's
it's
a
first
level
of
filter
to
make
sure
that
they're
adequately
I
think
representing
their
community
and
wanting
to
contribute.
G
B
B
That's
something
that
brought
me
into
this
working
group.
I
think
Steve
may
have,
or
maybe
it
was
the
I
think.
Maybe
runtime
tag
did
that
where
they
put
up
something
on
Awkward.
That
was
like.
Would
you
be
interested
in
presenting
in
the
runtime
working
meeting
and
that
brought
me
into
that
community,
so
I
think
having
someone
who
does
that
sees
the
project
goes?
The
GitHub
page
puts
up
an
issue
with
the
question
tag
and
invites
them
to
speak
could
be
good.
B
B
B
C
D
C
B
Yeah
and
it
it
doesn't
need
to
be
pretty
because
we're
going
to
move
this
to
markdown,
soon,
anyways,
okay
and
then
I
think
folks,
who
don't
have
anything
explicit
to
do
but
want
to
be
involved
just
going
through
and
resolving
ads
and
replaces
where
they
seem
acceptable,
maybe
pairing
up
with
someone
else.
If
you
don't
feel
comfortable
doing
making
those
decisions
independently.