►
From YouTube: Network Policy API Meeting 20200125
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).
B
B
C
Yeah
we
went
over
this
today.
I
think
it's
going
good,
I
updated
it.
We
need
to
see
if
we
can
get.
I
guess
david
eads
or
lava
lamp
to
give
another
look
and
approve
it.
I
just
made
it
implementable
and
just
there's
only
one
one
or
two
sentences
that
were
debated
around
version,
deprecation
and
stuff.
C
We
just
need
to
get
a
final
approval
on
it
and
the
patch
is
up
and
pretty
much
done
so
I
just
need
to
make
sure
the
unit
tests
pass.
I
think
they
were
failing
for
some
reason,
but
that's
pretty
much
it
I'll,
probably
look
at
it
tonight
and
unless
you
get
it
to
it
before
me,
abhishek,
but
I'll
probably
get
a
chance
to
look
at
it
tonight.
C
We
just
have
one
more
tiny
tweak
on
that
that
network
policy
labor
patch,
that's
it
that's
all.
I
got
okay.
B
Okay,
so
about
the
port
range
import
field,
I've,
actually
it's
pretty
much
implemented
and
it
works
also
in
calico,
I
put
the
code
into
calico
also,
but
there
is
some
discussion
in
the
cab
about
the
performance
review
again.
I
need
to
to
take
another
look
into
that
today's
holiday
in
brazil.
B
So
I
completely
forgot
about
that-
and
I
probably
will
take
a
look
into
that
tomorrow
and
see
if
folks
from
the
the
the
the
sick
chairs
or
someone
can
approve
that,
because
that's
missing
some
only
some
small
parts-
and
I
again
kindly
ask
you
folks
to
take
a
look
into
the
into
the
pr
from
the
import.
I
took
some
comments
from
abhishek
from
andrew
from
then
winship
and
after
that
I
will
start
poking
the
approvers
and
the
api
approvers
to
to
to
have
this
shipped
into
dv121
before
the
cold
freeze,
which
is.
D
But
I
think,
sometime
in
april
I
think,
oh
really,
I
don't
actually
know.
I
think
I
think
that
freeze
is
february
9th.
So
if
you
wanted
an
enhancement
merged
that
would
you
need
to
get
your
kept
merged
by
the
9th.
But
I
think
code
freeze
is
either
late
march
or
april,
but
I
have
to
double
check.
B
B
Okay,
so
why
webcheck
tries
to
to
make
his
internet
works?
We
have
this
service
account
selector
proposal,
which
was
by
deny
and
he's
not
here
I
don't
know
if
satish
knows
something
about
that,
and.
E
Yes,
yeah.
I
know
that
there
was
some
draft
version
of
service
icon,
selector
proposal
or,
like
the
use
case
summary
is
going
on,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
ready
for
review,
so
it's
being
handled
by
vine
so
once
he
joins,
I
think
he'll
talk.
I
don't
know
if
he's
gonna
join
today,
but
any
chance,
I
think,
probably
he
has
better
contextuality.
B
F
Yeah
I
just
joined
my
phone
now.
Okay,
sorry
for
the
cluster
group.
Last
week
we
had
the
part
one
of
the
presentation
and
we
got
a
few
comments
from
tim,
horton,
thomas
craft
and
a
couple
of
others
on
the
slide
deck,
and
you
know
we
are
kind
of
trying
to
make
it
more.
It
seems
like
on
a
on
a
high
level.
F
People
want
a
little
more
explicit
in
you
know,
explicit
fields
to
express
the
intent
instead
of
the
implicit
ones
which
you
know
kind
of
makes
it
a
little
more
complex.
So
so
we
have
a
few
alternatives
already
in
the
back
pocket.
So
this
week
within
the
team,
we
are
going
to
go
over
those
alternators
and
see
which
one
is
is
the
best
approach
to
you
know
resolve
those
complexity
issues,
especially,
I
think
the
complexity
that
tim
and
thomas
and
others
were
raising
was
around
the
baseline,
allow
action.
So
we
are
we're.
F
Looking
to
you
know
the
two
alternatives
that
we're
exploring
one
is,
you
know,
break
them
into
two
crds,
the
user
or
the
higher
precedence
policy
would
allow
and
deny
actions
would
be
a
different
crd
and,
and
the
baseline
allows
intention
could
be
something
like
a
default
network
policy
crd,
which
is
similar
to
the
network
policy
resource.
F
The
other
alternative
that
we
are
exploring
is
is
include
a
new
field
in
the
in
the
existing
proposal
to
separate
the
intent
of
like
whether
this
policy
is
supposed
to
override
the
kubernetes
network
policies
or
whether
this
can
be
overridden
by
kubernetes
network
policy.
Developer
developer
attend
once
so.
So
those
are
the
two
alternatives
that
we
are
exploring
and
and
then
we
will
continue
to.
F
You
know
brainstorm
our
new
ideas
to
make
it
more
simpler,
and
so
that's
the
current
status,
and
hopefully,
by
this
third
day,
we
in
our
this
thursday
meeting
we
kind
of
like
come
up
with
a
with
a
better
alternative,
look
about
it.
B
B
F
E
Abhishek
yeah
I'm
actually
working
on
those
follow-up
things
I
haven't
gone
through
all
of
them
yet
so
probably
have
it
next
week.
I
guess.
B
Okay,
so
I
guess
we
can.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much
so
I
guess
we
can
move
this
to
the
next
next
meeting.
The
the
services
selector
and
the
service
account
selector
sounds
good.
We
can
make
the
follow-up
of
the
questions
with
satish
and
then,
if
vinai
is
present,
we
can
we
can
discuss
about
service
accounts.
A
letter
sounds
good
for
you,
folks.