►
From YouTube: SIG Network Gateway API meeting for 20230320
Description
SIG Network Gateway API meeting for 20230320
A
A
A
We
have
a
few
things
on
the
agenda
today.
Several
of
them
are
just
little
updates
from
me.
So
if
you
have
anything
that
you
want
to
bring
up,
you
can
still
add
it
to
the
agenda.
While
we're
talking,
please
feel
free
to
put
it
below
Philip,
clat,
stuff
and
above
mine.
If
you
want,
because
my
things
are
kind
of
minor
so
that
we
get
to
it
sooner,
but
otherwise
we'll
get
started
here.
A
First
things
first
Rob
created
the
pr
to
add
the
contributor
ladder,
we're
making
it
official
so
just
wanted
to
bring
this
one
up
to
everybody's
attention
today.
Just
that
there's
an
actual
PR
for
this,
please
do
jump
in
on
the
pr
it's
1844.
take
a
look
at
it.
Make
sure
everything
in
there
kind
of
reads
right
to
you.
If
you
have
questions
and
stuff
add
comments,
otherwise
this
is
what
I
think
we're
going
to
try
to
start
with.
This
is
obviously
not
like
something
that
we
merged
this
and
then
it's
impossible
to
change.
A
It's
probably
pretty
easy
to
change
soon
after
because
we're
kind
of
hoping
for
feedback
so
check
it
out,
put
comments.
If
you
want
changes,
go
ahead
and
put
them
in
there
and
in
general,
if
you
are
interested
in
kind
of
an
official
role,
even
if
it
doesn't
necessarily
actually
almost
especially
if
it
doesn't
necessarily
fit
into
this
PM
us
and
talk
to
us
on
slack
and
stuff
like
that,
and
let
us
know
because
we'd
be
interested
to
understand
if
there's
something
we're
missing
here,.
A
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
Sounds
good
all
right,
so
he's
kind
of
got
a
hold
on
it.
Now
that
doesn't
mean
anybody
else,
who's
interested
can't
jump
in,
but
just
to
point
out
that
somebody
is
actively
working
on
this
right
now
so
cool,
very
cool
and
then,
if
you
are
interested,
please
do
get
in
touch
on
this
issue
and
kind
of
point
out
your
interest
in
helping
out
with
this.
D
C
C
So,
there's
a
couple
of
other
things
that
I
think
we
should
do
there
make
sure
we
hit
the
use
cases
first.
I
know
the
effort
has
been
going
slowly,
but
that's
one
of
the
things
that's
been
really
good
about
the
TLs
use
cases.
Dock
is
sort
of
just
gradually
over
time.
Building
up
building
up
some
use
cases
means
that
when
it
comes
time
to
write
the
app
it's
easier
to
sort
of
make
sure
you're
covering
all
the
things
that
you've
already
that
someone's
already
written
down.
B
A
C
That's
sort
of
a
good
Target
to
aim
for
is,
and
that's
what
we're
saying
is
the
initials
PR
of
that
should
be
just
it's
effectively:
the
sort
of
the
goals,
the
introduction,
the
goals
of
non-goals,
the
introduction
and
the
background.
Yeah
and
that's
that's
sort
of
yeah.
That's
what
we're
looking
for
here
and
I
and
yeah.
Sorry,
you
go
Bowie.
E
E
E
A
A
We
just
focus
on
the
specific
things
we
need
to
agree
on
like
what
are
the
goals
get
that
merged
and
then
move
on
to
like
how
are
we
going
to
meet
those
goals
and
then,
along
the
way
you
can
sprinkle
in
things
from
your
Dock,
and
we
could.
We
can
work
with
you
on
this,
but
really
just
don't
worry
too
much
about
like.
C
A
C
A
A
That's
that's
intense
and
that's
why
we
have
this.
This
proposal
like
progress,
basically
like
statuses,
it
starts
with
provisional,
we
just
recently
added
prototyping,
which
is
kind
of
an
extension
of
provisional,
where
you
prototype
and
use
that
as
a
part
of
what
feeds
back
into
the
Gap
like
what
you
actually
write
down,
as
opposed
to
just
doing
all
the
design
up
front
and
then
experimental
and
standard.
So
there's
a
progression.
You
can
have
as
many
PRS
in
any
of
these
stages
as
you
want
Etc.
A
E
A
A
Okay,
there
are
some
chat
comments:
okay,
I
think
they're,
just
related
to
trying
to
make
gaps
a
little
smoother
all
right,
I
have
a
couple
of
things
to
highlight
again.
If
anybody
else
has
anything
to
jump
in
here
with
we're
only
at
17
minutes
after
the
hour,
please
do
feel
free
to
drop
things
on
here.
A
Oh
sorry,
this
PR
there's
a
relevant
issue.
I
put
a
hold
on
this
because,
okay,
so
basically
what
this
is
doing
is
we
added
a
conformance
test
that
came
with
a
feature
that
said:
support,
Gateway
class
observe
generation
bump,
and
if
you
enabled
that
feature,
then
your
gateway
classes
would
be
to
be.
Conformant
would
have
to
kind
of
update
all
their
status
conditions
to
show
that
they've
seen
the
most
recent
version
of
the
object,
with
every
update.
A
My
interpretation
after
seeing
this
like
actually
having
merged
already
like
this,
was
that
we
actually
want
that
to
be
a
core
thing
like
we
want
every.
We
want
that
to
be
something
everybody
has
to
do
and
I
think
that
has
been
the
interpretation
of
many
people,
but
we
didn't
merge
this
because
we
know
that
there
may
be
some
people
that
this
would
kind
of
get
them.
A
So
please
do
take
a
look
if
that
rings,
a
bell
for
you,
if
you're
working
on
implementing
conformance
or
rather
implementing
controllers
for
your
gateways
and
Gateway
classes
and
stuff-
and
yours
does
not
kind
of
deal
with
staying,
keeping
track
of
the
most
recent
updates
to
the
object
and
updating
that
and
reflecting
that
in
the
statuses
start.
Thinking
about
that,
take
a
look
at
this
issue
and
we
won't
do
it
super.
Suddenly
we're
going
to
kind
of
wait
and
let
this
one
soak
for
a
bit.
C
I'm,
just
putting
on
in
the
chat
there's
another
one
that
I
did
a
while
ago
that
that
I'm
intending
to
update
the
implementer's
guide
with
some
information
about
like
what
we
expect
implementations
to
watch,
the
big
ones
are
those
two
there.
You
know
it's
expected
that
you'll
watch
all
Gateway
classes
and
then
you'll
do
something
with
any
of
the
Gateway
classes
that
you
have
the
controller
name
that
you've
picked
for
your
controller.
C
Maybe
you
might
only
accept
one
of
them.
Maybe
you
might
accept
more
than
one
but
like
the
the
idea
is
that
you
watch
them
and
you
upload
the
status
of
all
of
them
and
that's
what
this
is
sort
of.
You
know
this
moving
this
conformance
just
to
call
Will
codify
that
into
a
requirement.
You
won't
be
able
to
just
specify
a
Gateway
class
by
name
or
something
like
that
or
not
have
a
Gateway
class.
C
So
that's,
that's
probably
the
part
that
Isis
that
I
think
might
be
a
little
bit
controversial
that
we
need
to
talk
about,
and
so
that's
why
we're
trying
to
focus
up
to
everyone's
attention,
so
yeah
I,
hope,
I've
written
a
bunch
of
notes.
There
already
about
stuff
that
I
think
it's
really
that
we
expect
that
implementations
will
do
because
I
don't
think
we've
done
I
think
it's
certainly
implied
in
many
of
the
places
in
the
documentation,
but
we've
never
written
it
down
explicitly.
A
Okay,
this
is
just
another
call
out.
We
have
when
I
say
we
I
think
it's
pretty
much
Arco
Sanjay
Matia
and
myself
have
kind
of
been
working
on
the
Gap
and
there's
a
prototype
started
for
conformance
profile
for
profiles.
If
you
haven't
seen
it,
I
should
probably
actually
should
I.
Have
the
website
open
it's
here,
1709
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
code.
That's
behind
a
build
tag
right
now,
an
experimental
build
tag,
that's
getting
started,
and
it
is
my
intention.
A
One
of
my
main
focuses
right
now
to
kind
of
get
to
the
point
where
we
have
some
working
prototype.
We
can
start
to
run
conformance
profiles
or
rather
run
the
conformance
tests
with
profiles
and
then
receive
conformance
reports
and
see
how
that
starts.
Looking
and
shaping
up
everything
that
you
see
in
here
is
subject
to
change
it's
in
prototyping
stage,
but
what
I
did
want
to
do
is
just
highlight
it
again
for
people
in
case
they
weren't
aware
of
it
and
also
kind
of
make
a
general
call
out
for
testing.
A
A
No
hands
just
to
follow
up
on
the
code
Jam,
so
we
had
a
couple
of
interesting
discussions.
The
code
jams
have
been
going
well,
if
you
guys
aren't
familiar
with
the
code
Jam,
it's
just
a
Friday
meeting.
It's
called
Sig
Network
Gateway
API
code,
Jam
that
we've
been
doing
it
started
as
just
a
place
to
kind
of
focus
on
our
Blix
project
a
little
bit
and
like
talk
about
conformance
talk
about
ebpf
like
it
was
kind
of
just
general
and
kind
of
a
hangout.
A
It's
been
going
well
and
in
fact,
there's
been
some
kind
of
intense
discussions
there,
which
I
put
some
notes
about
and
just
wanted
to
kind
of
bring
some
of
those
forward.
There
is
some
interest
from
Gabor
Gabor
who
I,
don't
think
is
I,
don't
think
he's
in
here,
but
he
did
stunner
and
several
weeks
ago.
A
He
did
a
really
nice
presentation
for
us
on
stunner,
which
uses
UDP
route,
but
on
top
of
that
always
has
a
uses
turn
and
he
brought
up
some
interesting
discussions
about
wanting
to
potentially
be
able
to
express
tunnels
with
Gateway
API
in
time
and
do
things
like
Express
the
transport
layers
below
L7
routes.
So
this
is
a
discussion
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
follow
up
on
possibly
like
within
the
code
Jam,
but
we'll
bubble
it
up
here.
A
But
it's
something
that's
interesting
and
if
you
are
interested
in
that
sort
of
thing,
that
might
be
a
reason
for
you
to
kind
of
join
that
meeting
or
for
us
to
think
about
where
we're
going
to
do
those
kinds
of
discussions,
because
that
is
a
little
outside
of
the
normal
like
pairing
that
we
had
been
doing
previously
either
way.
It
was
interesting
and
you
should
see
some
more
updates
on
that,
possibly
in
time
a
gap
if
the
use
case
really
starts
to
Bubble
Up
and
he
really
wants
to
Champion
it
forward.
A
So
that
was
just
a
little
bit
of
interesting
stuff
related
to
L4
functionality
and
what's
going
on
with
stunner,
which
is
kind
of
a
probably
our
most
unique
implementation
and
then
ebpf,
which
has
also
been
a
very
big
Topic
at
the
code.
Gems
is
kind
of
starting
to
break
out
into
its
own
things,
because
it
often
takes
up
most
of
the
time.
A
So
we
actually
on
a
related
note.
Bpfd
is
now
an
available
channel
in
slack,
if
you're
not
familiar,
it
is
the
BPF
program
loader
that
we're
going
to
be
using
in
our
Blitz
project
for
Gateway
API,
there's
now
a
channel
for
that.
So,
if
you're
interested
just
wanted
to
point
that
out,
but
if
you're
interested
generally
in
ebpf
I
think
this
kind
of
is
starting
to
get
outside
of
the
realm
of
Gateway
API,
so
I
think
as
a
general
Sig
Network
thing,
we
might
be
looking
at
doing
something
like
some.
A
A
Triage
is
all
we
have
left,
then
I
pulled
triage
issues
that,
like
literally
we
say
like
meets,
triage
or
triage,
needs
more
information
on
them.
If
you
have
anything
that
I
might
have
missed,
please
feel
free
to
drop
it
in
here
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
some.
The
backlog
is
huge
right
now,
so
so
this
isn't
even
close,
but
I
figured
we
can
get
started
with.
Some
of
these
looks
like
somebody's
changing
something.
Did
somebody
have
something
to
bring
up?
A
C
Is
hey
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
make
listeners
optional
in
a
Gateway
so
that
I
can
create
the
Gateway
and
have
the
infrastructure
creation
bits
happen
before
we
start
defining
config
and
I
I.
Don't
dispute
that?
That's
a
very
useful
thing
to
have
happen,
but
now
we've
been
around,
it's
been
around
for
a
while,
it's
already
in
it's
already
in
you
know
we're
in
beta
on
our
way
to
GA,
and
this
is
a
breaking
API
change.
C
That
would
require
an
API
revision,
so
yeah
it
kind
of
sucks,
but
I
don't
see
any
way
that
we
can
do
this
safely.
At
this
point
it
could
be
that
we
can
write
some
docs
about
how
you
know.
If
you
want
to
do
the
sort
of
the
create
create
a
Gateway,
maybe
we
can
define
a
standard
sort
of
null
listener
or
something
like
that
and
say
if
you
create,
if
you
create
a
listener
with
this,
then
that
means
this
listener
should
be
disregarded
like
a
specific
name
or
something
like
that.
C
A
We
could
dig
in
a
little
bit
further
to
understand
why
and
kind
of
lead
towards
closing
it
unless
they
can
make
a
really
really
strong
case,
yeah
yeah,
so
I'll
do
that
kind
of
async
I'll
follow
up
on
this
and
kind
of
move
it
into
like
needs,
information
and
and
just
kind
of
keep
pushing
it,
but
ultimately
kind
of
letting
them
know
that
we're
probably
I
mean
we
would
close
it
unless
they
have
something
really
big
to
kind
of
bring
to
the
discussion.
So
yeah
yeah.
C
C
Yeah
agreed
I
think
yeah,
some
sort
of
if
there's
some
sort
of
Sentinel
value
that
we
could,
you
know
say:
hey
we're
all
going
to
agree
that
a
listener.
With
this
specific
name,
like
you
I
mean
we
have
I,
don't
remember
if
I
think
the
name
field
might
be
optional
as
well
or
something
but
I
mean.
Maybe
that's
a
way.
We
can
say:
hey,
there's
an
optional
name
field,
and
if
you
set
the
optional
name
field
to
this
specific
name,
then
then
that
means
it's
a
you
know
it
is
a
inoperative,
listen
up.
E
C
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
About
it,
yeah
it
needs,
it
needs
just
a
little
bit
more
feedback
from
people
about
what
they'd
like
to
see.
So
this
is
so.
This
is
the
one
saying,
hey
you
know:
it'd
be
nice
to
be
able
to
contribute,
it'd
be
nice
to
be
able
to
contribute.
You
know
to
have
some
way
for
you
to
define
whether
like
what
should
happen
with
gzip
for
The
Listener,
you
know
many
properties,
let
you
automatically
sort
of
you
know.
Decode,
decode
and
encode
enforce
gzipping.
C
In
fact,
on
Contour,
when
we
we
always
just
as
Arco,
says
down
below,
we,
we
always
unconditionally
for
a
long
time.
We
just
unconditionally
enabled
use
it
because
it's
like
well,
it's
a
negotiation.
If
your
browser
doesn't
support
it,
then
it
won't
do
it
and
so
yeah
we
had
a
pretty
strong
opinion
there,
so
I
think
the
yeah
it
just
feels
like.
We
just
need
some
more
implementations
and
stuff
to
talk
about.
C
If
you
know
they
think
that
that's
valuable
the
thing
I'm
worried
about
is
it's
pretty
specific
little
knob
and
you
know:
where
do
we
put
it
and
how
does
this
sort
of
add
our
president
of
US,
adding
very,
very
specific
little
twiddables
on
a
Gateway?
Should
this
be
in
the
you
know,
these
sort
of
mooted
infrastructure
stanza
that
we've
been
talking
about
a
little
bit
or
you
know
how?
How
should
we
represent?
This
is
the
sort
of
question
that
I
want
to
leave
open.
E
D
D
C
C
How
does
how
do
the
filters
The
Listener
level
interact
with
the
filters
that
they're
out
level
there
would
need
to
be
sort
of
quite
a
bit
of
definition,
work
put
in
there
to
sort
of
say
you
know
how
if
you
have
the
same
filter
at
different
levels,
and
you
know
a
bunch
of
other
sort
of
Specky
kind
of
things
like
that
yeah
and
you
know
I,
that's.
That
is
a
good
point
that
we
haven't
discussed
before
I
guess.
D
A
So
it
seems
like
the
next
step
is
to
kind
of
talk
to
Ill
one
a
little
bit
more
and
kind
of
point
out.
Hey
is
this
something
that
you
you
know?
Do
you
have
other
things
or
other
algorithms
that
you
need
to
actually
apply
here,
that
this
could
be
done
in
a
generic
way?
Are
you
interested
in
starting
a
gap
around
this?
A
That
kind
of
thing
is
a
conversation
that
I
can
push
forward,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
we're
quite
ready
to
say
that
this
is
accepted
yet,
but
if
it,
if
it
does
get
accepted,
I
guess
it
will
probably
need
to
be
a
gap
so
yeah,
so
anyway,
I
mumbled
a
little
bit
there.
But
my
whole
point
is
I'll.
Follow
up
on
this
one
too,
with
some
questions
to
kind
of
keep
the
conversation
going,
but
also
push
in
the
direction
more
of
like.
A
B
D
C
Yeah
I
say
it
I
think
this.
This
one
is
a
classic
one
where
you
need
to
add
a
plural
field.
There's
API
changes,
docs
Upstream
about
the
right
way
to
do
this
yeah
the
tldr.
Is
it's
a
bit
complicated
because
there's
certain
semantics
you
need
to
expect
about.
If
you
add
a
plural
field
and
a
single
field,
a
singular
field
still
exists.
Then
there's
sort
of
it's
kind
of
expected
that
if
you
set
the
singular
field,
then
you
also
set
the
first
element
in
the
plural
list.
C
And
if
you
set
the
first
element
in
the
plural
list
and
only
the
first
element,
then
it
gets
copied
back
to
the
singular
field
and
a
few
other
things
like
that,
not
in
the
end
of
the
world,
we
can
do
it,
but
it'll
just
need
a
it'll
need
an
implementation
plan
to
be
done
in
such
a
ways.
To
not
be
you
know,
is
to
not
actually
be
a
breaking
API
change.
A
Cool
I
guess,
then,
we'll
continue
to
follow
up
on
that
and
if
somebody's
feeling
really
strongly
about
it,
we
can
maybe
make
that
one
happen
all
right.
That's
all
I
had
on
the
triage
thing.
For
today
we
still
technically
have
20
minutes
left.
If
anybody
has
a
last
minute
thing,
they
want
to
bring
up,
including
an
issue
that
they
want
to
look
over
real
quick.
We
could
do
that,
otherwise
we
can
give
everybody
20
minutes
of
their
time
back.