Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog, 10 Aug 2017

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog 20170810

Description

- Should we have an F2F at Kubecon?
- Separating OSB and PodPreset facets of bindings
- Using generation instead of checksum to detect changes in object spec
- Sending bind_resource.app_guid on bind requests
- Orphan mitigation

A

All right welcome everybody to the Thursday August 10th meeting of kubernetes six service, catalog Aaron take her away cool.

B

Thanks Paul, so the regular announcements. The document for our agenda is in both slack in our Channel and now I added it a second time to the zoom chat for those who just joined jorge castro from the kunas community team works at hefty. Oh, he has graciously joined us again today, thanks Jorge Jorge, my bad I'm. Very sorry, I always do that thanks again for joining us. The second day he's gonna, take notes again graciously be on your best behavior. Please. Maybe he'll come back for a third day sometime.

B

That would be great great.

C

B

Just as a recap, speaker, queue put a plus hand into the chat if you've got something you want to add the conversation just like that Jorge. When you're ready, can you spare your screen and if you are an attendee today you hear what I just said. That means you're here as an attendee. Can you write your name if it's not already there under the attendees section under August, 10th 2017? That would be very helpful to all of us. So with that Jorge I'll wait for you to share your screen and then we can get started.

B

No, but definitely don't want to read that's the howl on one second, there we go.

B

All righty sorry about that, no problem, it wasn't anything too top-secret I hope, no, not really. Okay, cool all right. So we've got the first item. Doug, you are gonna talk. It looks like about a face to face, so why don't you summarize that and we'll open up the floor to the speaker, cue when you're done go ahead back.

D

It up with an easy one: I just want to know if there was interest in us trying to get together for a face-to-face meeting at the CAF cuca on in Austin in December, because if soda should probably look, you organize a room if there's enough consensus that won't actually go forward. That yes.

D

Anybody on the call think it's a bad idea.

A

George, you might want a mute or get a different keyboard.

D

All right not hearing an objection, I guess we should look for a room. Just did someone want to take the AI to hang the organizers to see if we can get a room? If not I can do that.

A

Yeah I'll take that one okay, cool.

B

Awesome other comments, questions about section before we move on this one was a pretty easy one, thanks for starting us off with that Doug always alrighty.

B

The next one is issue number 994 proposal from Doug on separating the OSB and pod preset sections of binding a Doug. Why don't you go and summarize.

D

B

We open up the floor right.

D

So this issue is actually opened up by Paul that, based on previous discussions, where we agreed to pull out the pod preset stuff from the binding and that we agreed to resolve exactly what kind of pod preset type of thing we're gonna create after beta I, believe on this one I'm, not looking to close the assuring like that, I'm just looking to get agreement that we want to move this particular issue out of zero one zero to a milestone, and this disappea clear. This issue is all about creating replacement for pod presets.

D

You know I think Paul actually suggested a pod preset binding type resource, but we need to get into what the decision is in terms of what the resources look like. It's just we didn't. We I think we made the decision we're going to make that decision after beta so I'm, just looking for consensus that we want to move this to be a post beta issue.

B

Okay, not seeing a from the speaker queue Sunil go ahead.

E

The only comment I have got. This is, let's say if you want to make any progress on this item, to thrash out the design and kind of the initial implementation before beta.

E

So can this be added with a flag got rid by a flag? This functionality? That's the I guess, because the aspirant plan, what we are hoping is that we'll have quad preset implementation as far as the API is concerned, also available in beta but guarded by a flag, so that people can try out- and this goes hand-in-hand having the integration with service catalog would also be important, and if we make progress on that dish, you should be. We should at least have some cycles from reviewers to review that during beta. So that's the comment.

E

B

Right, Paul, you cannot go ahead, so I.

A

I have a gut feeling that we are not going to have been with to talk further about the design of pod preset binding. It is certainly I.

A

Definitely I definitely think that if we run out of things that we need design, consensus on and finish the initial beta early that at that time, I'd be happy to talk more about pod. Preset lining and I actually have some fairly detailed mental notes about this thing. So I was considering sketching out a detailed design on it next week, while I'm gonna be out, but I. Think for now we should.

A

We should concentrate on other matters.

E

Yeah I agree concentration, concentrating on items which are needed for beta, so we are focusing to get pod reset in. But then what would happen is that you can have parties at api's, but the integration will not be in there. So if you want to get early feedback and create a time frame for the pod preset stuff, which is probably fine, I think I.

A

Think I may have misunderstood the suggestion, so it sounds like Sanel I think. Maybe some information is missing from your contacts, so we put if I remember correctly on the beta scope issue. We put we put as a nice-to-have pod, preset being present and service catalog API server, and so, if it's done, I have absolutely no problem.

A

Policing hyeondo with an alpha or beta pod, preset that's moved over I do think it should be guarded by a flag. I, don't think we'll have any bandwidth for pod preset binding, like I just said, but I wonder. Does that clarify things for you.

E

So how how much would the party should be useful without the binding? It's the only thing, I have well.

A

Useful for cases where people were trying it out and wanted to get an impression of how it worked just in a vacuum before they added the like any notion about what pod preset binding was, which I think would be useful.

A

It would be useful for people that did that want pod preset, but don't care all about service catalog. As we know, there are some people that fall into that category, yeah so I think I think it has use and I don't see any reason not to not to release it. If it's in a state that we think is especially if it's in, if it's behind a flag, okay,.

B

I think we got, we got some good contacts there. I wanted to go back to the queue. Doug has had his hand up for a while, so Doug go ahead and take the floor. Yeah.

D

So no I think there might be a little bit of miscommunication here. We're not looking to remove pot presets pod presets will still be be there in 1.8, whether it sits in the committee's core or our Service. Catalog. Repo is still a little bit up for decision and it's probably gonna remain where it is, but we're not looking to remove pod preset.

D

The only thing we did is remove the pointer to a pod preset from the binding object, and what we're really deferring here is that the notion of creating other pod preset type of resources to extend the functionality of pod reset so you're concerned about properties. That's not being there or not being available. That's not true. They will still be there. It's just we're not going to necessarily talk about them as a thing to use, as per the Service Catalog for the short-term guarded.

E

Guarded garden so I think so as if we can get the design.

B

I gotta go back to the speaker, queue so I know you got stuff to say just put your hand up, no worries at all. Vla go ahead.

C

Yeah so I'd be curious about so my understanding matches exactly what Dan was saying, which is pod presets whoa Pete there, but you there is no magic that service catalog provides for you is that true, yes right so going from that, I would be curious. How useful- and this is sort of kind of it would be interesting to get some thoughts from some customers and whatnots on how useful do we think it is cuz, cuz, I, I think the fact that they just kept putting the secrets is reduces the function. That'll be quite a bit.

D

Okay, go ahead, take floor, it so I, Soviet I think we had a whole bunch of discussions on this while you're on vacation um and what I think it might be useful to do it so that we don't and too much time on. This call is, if you want I, can talk to you offline after this call to bring it to speed on conversations and then, if you want to in essence reopen that discussion, which I think is a valid thing because want to make sure to get this right for beta.

D

If you want to reopen that discussion, then we can add it to the next design call to talk about whether we want to reverse the decision or change our decision slightly. That's not fair.

C

Yeah, that's all.

D

C

Be a guest! What I'm saying is that okay, I'm shutting up okay, Paul.

A

Go ahead, and so I I, just I think that uh we should retain focus on things that we've already agreed are in scope and we've already talked about.

A

There are definitely use cases for people wanting to have presets available to use, even if they don't care at all that Service, Catalog and I think the name of the game here is iteration and after we solve some of these other more pressing matters, I think it will probably be pretty easy to figure out what to do with pod preset, especially if I can take some of my copious spare time and write a detailed design document I, so I I couldn't foresee it being actually quite.

A

As far as as things go, relatively speaking, on the simpler side to implement an integration after we've done, an initial beta release.

B

Yo we have I believe a consensus and George has written that down. This is out of scope for beta. We will revisit at post beta now, I will ask. Is anybody disagreeing with that consensus going once okay I believe we can move on now?

B

We are now going to move on to use generation instead of checks on to detect change in the spec issue, number 1095 Doug. Why don't you go and summarize that for us, then it will open up the floor. Okay,.

D

I just pasted a link into the chat so again, I think this was she was open, I, qualify, Marin, correctly and I believe on the August 7th meeting. We did sort of talk about switching from checksum to generation and I. My general sense was that we were all kind of in agreement that that mechanism is already there. In course, we might as well reuse it, but I don't think we actually formally agreed to that, because it was all discussed within the context of I.

D

Think one of your issues there in a camera exactly which one it was I, might have been relisting. So what I want to do is to bring it back up to make sure that we're in agreement from as a group on that general direction and then if Paul does have ever former posle, we could talk about now, but if he didn't then I would at least want to get that general consensus going forward and then a future call. You could talk about a concrete puzzle, Paul had it cool Paul go ahead, take the floor.

A

So I have a write-up that shows exactly what we should do. There are some special cases that for broker, for example, I've written a broker. I haven't finished, writing up instance, but I'd be happy to talk through it now. I think it would take, maybe about 10 minutes to go through the general mechanics of checksum and at least say why it will work for broker and binding with the additional bonus challenge. If I can mentally write the rest of the special things, for instance, I can probably talk that out as well.

A

How do people feel about that.

B

Any objections to spending 10 minutes on this, please verbalize them with this q. If you have them, go ahead, be late.

C

Yeah me I haven't seen the proposal yet and and if I'm the only one who hasn't read it, that's fine I would rather see read it and then look at the different pointers to it. First, so that then I can ask questions or if it looks good, then then yeah I'll go to the back first and read it generations.

B

C

B

Then, with waiting a day or maybe till next week,.

D

Doug go ahead: yeah! How about this I bet it's sort of a compromise. If I don't we go through the other agenda items that have concrete proposals sort of written down already and if we get through all those- and we basically have extra time, then we can go and do pod Paul's up brain Duncan Paul go ahead.

A

The proposal that I have written is six lines long for special considerations for brokers. It's an additional 16 lines. Does that change anything for anybody.

B

Aaron go ahead. This is Aaron speaking now I'm going to propose that we have I believe this was proposed by Doug in the chat yet I'm going to propose that we do a 10-minute Thunderdome so to be ended by 31 minutes after the hour and whatever we can get through in ten minutes great then Paul. You come back with a concrete proposal in a future design meeting for us to go over and continue to adjusting and that's it yo F. For me, any responses, reactions from that. Please put them into the speaker: queue.

A

Go ahead, Paul I'm, going to be out next week and I'd strongly prefer not to have to dial in I think this is an important thing to talk through I'd love the chance to be able to talk through it today, but if folks would rather see something in writing, first I'm happy to do that.

B

Alright, so we've got one person requesting something in writing. First, I have heard another person. In addition to you, Paul say that we should do it now. I can't make the decision for you guys so either we do it or we take a vote.

B

If we have to take a vote, we have to take a vote.

B

Okay, please write in the chat a plus hand. Excuse me a plus vote. If you want to hear it now, ten minutes, Thunderdome.

B

I've got two votes for any other votes; three votes for four or five; six.

B

All right: six votes, four votes.

B

Again, please write Plus vote for voting against doing this right now for ten-minute phoner dome.

B

B

All right six votes for is once again Paul. You have ten minutes, here's the timer! You may start whenever I'm starting the timer. Now you are muted, also.

A

Alright, I will start by putting into a comment on this issue, just the basic mechanics of using generation, so that people can see what.

A

Can see what I'm talking through oops and it's the proposal so nice I pasted it twice so I'll just clean that up alright, so the proposed changes that I suggest invite up by the way so for context generation is a field on object, meta, it is not user settable and it is basically maintained by the API server. So the idea basic idea generation is that as the spec of an object changes, the API server will bump the generation on an update.

A

Now that doesn't include status and it doesn't include annotations or labels. It's just the spec and the pattern that resourcing resources and kubernetes use this field in is when they have finished, reconciling a particular status or I'm. Sorry, a particular version of the spec, a particularly generation of the spec.

A

The I will get to your comment: Doug one sec. They can use that value in a status field to say, I have done the work for this generation, and so that allows the in order to implement a check to see.

A

Do I need to actually do any more work for this thing, so the specific changes that I propose that we make to adopt generation are to remove the checksum field from the broker instance and binding status and all the associated checksum calculation code stuff in the strategy that maintains the checksum, etc and add code to the rest strategies to increment the generation field.

A

In the object meta when the spec is changed, then add a new field to broker instance and binding status called reconciled generation that the controller will set to be the value of generation currently on an object when it is going to set the resources ready condition to have status true. So to talk through an example of this say that for broker, we we add a new broker.

A

The generation has a value of zero. We reconcile that broker successfully on the first try and set the ready condition to be true and set the instant the reconciled reconciled generation to be zero.

A

So if nothing else happens to that object, the next time the controller sees it, it will do a check that says: hey, observe or I'm sorry reconciled generation and generation of this object match I had nothing else to do done when you change the broker spec, the API server will increment generation on that object and when the controller gets a watch event for it, it'll say: hey the reconciled generation in the current generation of this object match I have work to do.

B

Okay, Paul, you came in very light. Thank you for that. I reserve the remaining time to interrupt and bypass the speaker. Queue. That's not gonna happen, but do you have anything else you'd like to include in this this design? Explanation now.

A

I do and I'm gonna address so Doug I think I have addressed your comment. Maybe Doug you can just put plus Doug in the chat. If I have addressed your question.

D

I'll wait for my spot on the queue all.

A

Right so now says it might not work. Only if there is some field in the spec irrelevant to open serviceworker, then we still need to check some to know whether we need to invoke open serviceworker requests. I.

A

Think that I do not think that you are wrong, but I do think that all of the fields that we should allow to change should in this nucleus of resources that are just for open serviceworker should all meet the criteria of they had some effect.

A

That makes sense in open, serviceworker, API. So I, don't think that you are wrong, but I, don't think that we will have a such a field, and let me call it specific counter examples here, so reference to a secret in secret. Okay, so I think what we're talking about is you're thinking about a flow where you we would we've supported, parameter, updates and there's a secret that hat holds the source of parameters I now I have I have.

A

This is the part that I did not get to right now, I think in the case of parameter updates and I I'm, we run a chance of getting into the weeds, but I think in the case of parameter updates. There is a convention on deployments or there's precedent on the deployment resource to have a field in the spec. That's called pause that when you, when you set that field, it means that the controller won't do any more work until the fields, unset and I.

A

Think that, instead of monitoring secrets for changes or pulling secrets for changes, especially until we have a watch capability that we can use, which we don't right. Now that we could just drive all of the updates.

A

Whether they're in band in the spec of an instance we're out of band in out of band in a secret I, see.

B

An errand thank you very much so Paul I want to say, since this isn't written in a design document, I've gotten some comments that it should be written before we go I'm gonna, be the rest of your two minutes. I'll actually give you a couple extra seconds like am I talking, but then we got to move on to the speaker, queue all.

A

Right: let's go to the speaker, cube all.

B

Right, VLA you're up next go ahead, so.

C

It seems like this concept of we consult.

C

Generation, if you're gonna use that and every resource that we can solve asically gets added strongly suggests to me that it belongs in the tight-knit. Other generation goes as well. Should we think about a possibility of up streaming? This.

A

Do I get to respond to that without raising my hand or I, don't know how that rules work right now, Doug's.

D

Next, in the queue so go ahead, Doug well, I I was assuming that Paul is the presenter we get to respond, but okay, so there's question is kind of based upon the conversation we had a couple days ago when around Aaron's issue for those resources where the user may need to force a resync. Are you in Paul? Are you in visiting some sort of glass sink type of URL like we talked about the previous issue, to be available for people to to force the resync to happen all.

B

Right so Paul you're next to the queue. Why don't you go around answer all these questions? Okay, so.

A

I think that for broker I will next put in what I've written up for broker, and it's very quick, basically special considerations for broker are that we do need to support a manual resync, and so what I have spoken about with Jordan Liggett who's? One of the folks that works on API machinery, stuff at Red Hat is we could have a field on the broker's, spec and I've. Just I've updated the the issue.

A

With this comment, we could have a field on broker spec, that was the number of realist requests and a user could just bunk that either by editing the resource or we gonna have a porcelain command that that does it for you and we would actually not need to have a new sub resource to do that.

A

So that way we could just kind of ride. On the the behaviors of when the spec changes the generation changes when the generation changes, the controller does work to handle the manual realist.

B

Okay, I am not seeing any other hands.

B

Reactions to anything here, George, do you mind putting the notes back up.

B

B

Alright I'm gonna put my hand up and a kit, so what I would like to see next? This also echoes I think what you just said is well Doug I think the next step would be Paul, write everything down in completion and we will put this on the schedule. Asap I know you're gonna be gone next week, but we're absolutely we're gonna need to see this in full. That's it for me. Paul you're up next go ahead.

A

Yeah I can live with that. I do just want to say in the kubernetes core the the fields that hold the the status view that the fields that hold the last generation you didn't work for are in the status, so I don't know that we would have traction moving them into object, meta and I think that if we did, we would certainly face a uphill battle on it. I think as far as what we should do for the initial beta I think we should just add a field in the status and I am totally fine.

A

Writing this up in full I regret that I was not able to finish a full detailed write-up before this meeting cool.

C

Okay, Eli go ahead. Oh sorry, I ruptured, a handed it I was gonna, say so so Neal said or nail said that there is a something in the deployments already called something else observed generation, but if we think it's never ever ever going to go the object metadata, that seems goofy. Every controller needs to solve this problem. Is there? Is this ad hoc or how do people typically do this.

D

If Doug go ahead, I don't want to let probably answer that or now go ahead: Doug, okay, so Paul I'm, assuming that before you'll vanish for vacation, you probably write up the full thing. Do you want us to wait until you get back before we have a formal discussion about it or not? I.

A

Would be happy to have folks talk about it while I'm gone I will write it up in full before Monday's meeting I I see where melee is coming from I, don't think it will be actionable, and so I I reiterate in my position that I think that we should just do what the convention existing convention is, though it.

D

Means be absolutely perfect, so.

A

I think it an answer you want to solve on.

D

A decision or not.

A

What's the decision well,.

D

If we did, we talked about it while you're gone. Are you okay with us deciding one way or the other, or do you want to be there for the decision so.

A

I view this, as so fundamental and I view this is so fundamental that I don't think there is any decision, but to do it I think the question is: is the proposal explanatory enough I I realized that I am the person that introduced checksum but hey I? Did it wrong?

A

I think that API review would be like use generation, so I'm fine, to spell it out in more detail, but I think that if I think that a vote against using generation is a vote against the existing conventions that will later require a migration when API review, I guess the thing: that's that's. Where I stand.

B

So I've once again handed and act myself in the confines of the speaker, queue I, hope, that's, okay, Paul! The only thing I want to ask is when you write up the complete proposal, you address the lace three questions in the chat. It says: how do other objects handle this number one number two: how does deployment do this number? Three? Why not push upstream for anyone? Everyone has to do this. Okay,.

A

Can you can you copy? Can someone copy those into the can someone copy those into the agenda as an action item for me, yeah George, you mind doing that.

B

Thanks, the three questions are at 137 p.m. from Vikas. That's feely, awesome. Thank you.

D

I added one more to the list at 1:39 handle the secret issue that then now brought up cool all.

B

Right so I am not seeing other hands. We've got an accent from Paul. We're gonna discuss this once the agenda item is up. Excuse me wants to proposals up we'll put it on the agenda to discuss next week. Do we have any other comments? Questions objections anything on this item before you move on.

B

All right not hearing anything going once okay, so next up is Doug with issue 818, sending the bind resource bind resources, app gooood each bind request to the broker server. Why don't you give an overview of that and then we'll open it up to the speaker? Queue.

D

So I just pasted a link to not just the issue, but also the proposal that I put in there. So as background um right now, when you do a bind request, there is an optional field called app couid. That is supposed to be obviously a good, that's a pointer to the application. That's that's trying to bind to the Reese to the service for right now we actually send the namespace good in which the secret is going to be created, because we didn't know what else.

D

To put so, we decide to put something there and that's the seem like as good as anything else. So there's been hold the whole discussion about whether we should change that or not to something else. Well, I was thinking about it today and with the decision to remove the pod preset stuff from the binding we've, basically converted the binding resource into what we sort of called in the past, the instance credentials object or so like that, basically we're reducing binding down not to a binding option or action anymore.

D

Rather, the binding is just a way to say, give me the credentials and send stick into a secret and then they'll be another step in the workflow, meaning like the pod, preset, binding thing or whatever else that would actually link things together, but from the service, catalogs I'm, sorry from the open, Service, Worker api's perspective.

D

We really don't have a application at that point in time in the workflow to work with, and so what I I think we should probably keep going forward is exactly we're doing now, which is just continue to send the namespace gooood in which into which a secret is going to be created, because that at least give the source broker some sort of scoping mechanism. If it wants to use it to make a determination about how to handle the binding requests- and I think that's the most accurate thing to send.

D

The only other option that I've heard mentioned is to send nothing at all. But I don't think that really helps the broker do its job if it actually does want to do some kind of logic based upon groupings or associations of things. So my basic proposal is to do nothing and close this issue without any action and just continue to send the namespace good for the app for the app do it. Okay,.

B

D

A

I think Doug answered my question. I am I'm very much in favor of doing nothing for now and closing this issue, and if someone can bring a concrete use case for why they need it, we can take it up after the initial beta would be my suggestion.

B

Okay, now hands up go ahead. My.

F

Short question is just to clarify: what does this field effect in the broker or why is it important for Service Catalog to put the right value there.

D

So the broker can choose to use this field or not. What I've seen in the past is sometimes brokers, will look at this value and determine that the the user is trying to bind, for example, the same application to the same instance and and flag that so sometimes he may return the exact same credentials before or he made to say yeah. That's fine, I'm going to return different set of credentials because they want I've seen other cases where they say no I'm, not gonna. Let you bind the same application twice.

D

There's no concrete statement in a spec of what the broker is supposed to do with it. But those are some of the use cases that I've seen people talk about using it for.

B

Okay, other questions comments on this item. Before we move on going once.

B

All right, the next item- Paul, you want to just explain very briefly. What this item is. I, see that you said it's a 50-minute topic, so we can probably decide after you make your short explanation. What to do at that point. So I.

A

I don't actually want to get into it. I think it's far too detailed to have a real discussion about and I'd, rather just wait and write everything down as though that I can bring something. That's packaged for everybody's digestion for them to read before we talk about it. Great all,.

B

Right great Hey we've got 15 minutes left Sonne. Oh I, see that you are listed pod, preset migration details is listed under a future topic.

B

One second Paul Sunil is that something that is appropriate to talk about now and something that you're prepared to talk about now. I.

E

Can give a quick update if you're not interested okay,.

B

So give me one second, let me Paul, let me let Paul take the floor for a second. He had his hand up and then we'll move on. Go ahead. Paul, you're, muted, you're, muted,.

A

A

Have gotten a response about a face to face, and we redhead already has some rooms reserved the day before cube con? We have an open shift, Commons gathering the day before cube Khan, as we always do.

A

We already have rooms reserved for that day. So if we want space during cube, con I have somebody that can try to get some space for us. Why don't we do this? How about we have an action item? Think about which day you want to have a meeting and either I guess we could possibly do it after, although I'm not sure what level of interest in such a schedule would be or how much energy there would be to execute it.

A

So why don't we talk about this again on a Monday call and folks can this we can take a vote who wants to do it when and I will get meeting space reserved? Thank you. Come okay.

B

George, you had a hand up go ahead. Yeah I was gonna, say usually at the project level. They have a spreadsheet because some people need to uh send multiple SIG's and you kind of pencil yourself in for the day before, so that certain people can it turns ten, certain SIG's, so I don't know when that's happening. I know the stance.

B

You have people who are organizing cube content to put on an announcement style thing, so just something to keep an eye out for so how about this I'm gonna just suggest I can put out a poll to the group right now give that an action and for me, sorry to take over the queue I just want to throw that out. Paul go ahead. You're in the could take the floor. Yeah.

A

I think good point, George I think this this channel that I have might afford us the chance for larger space in longer times in the past I. If I I remember correctly, there had been like specific hours and that's you know. A couple hours is not actually enough time to talk through very much in person, so we might be able to get like a four six hour stretch of time. This way just thrown it out there I'm happy to do whatever folks want.

B

Alrighty, okay, Sunil apologies for cutting you off. We have 12 minutes left. Is it still appropriate to go over pod preset so.

E

Actually I will then mention something which is more relevant to the audience here. So I did a work-in-progress PR for moving the api's and I ran into two issues and which we can probably put it for the next meeting. One is: should the pod reset have TP our storage at all or not, or should just be at CD? So storage question came up in the PR and second, is the issue? I ran into walls? What should be so?

E

It has a it is being developed under the group settings and the group name is whatever: whatever is the domain name, which is settings dot gate start IO? It will conflict with the implementation in coal kubernetes. So that is another point that I want to resolve. What would be the group name when we start implementing it and service catalog? Will it be settings dot, Service, Catalog, dot, Kate short time, so.

E

Okay, so these are.

D

E

Two open questions: I can actually put them in a separate issue and we can discuss it there and I'm. Also quick, update, I'm writing a proposal for the initializer and I will share it with the share it in the slack channel after I'm done with it yeah. So that's pretty much. The update from.

B

My side cope thanks to new, so real, quick we've got ten minutes left we're probably going to end up being able to take two, maybe three more people in the queue with that Morgan, you got a hand up so go ahead. I'll just comment on the thing and we get there. That's fine, but the okay.

B

Any other comments, questions on pod, preset and Sunil's work.

B

Okay, not seen anything here, don't what's all right now see a design issues needing concrete proposals. I'll just call out that these are these look like all issues that someone or some people need to write proposals for. If you have a proposal in mind, please go pick one of those issues up write that proposal. That would be great.

B

Besides that we've got nine minutes left. Does anyone have anything brief that they want to bring up? Please put a hand up if you do go ahead, Paul.

A

So if, if you would like to write a design proposal for something, please indicate on the issue that you're going to do so so that we don't have duplicate work, we have very little time. So, let's try to avoid duplication that ultimately wastes time. Good.

B

Point thanks for that, okay haven't seen any other hands. I have.

A

Some more thing: I'm, sorry I, didn't put my hand up okay, but if you are interested in writing a design proposal, I ask that you ensure that you are able to take the task of getting consensus on the design to completion, so just throw that out there so that.

B

Would mean bringing it up in a design meeting that correct? Oh yeah,.

A

And making requested changes or immediately handing it off if you have like a production, blocker or something else, you have to do just so that in the interest of time, we can come to a speedy resolution on these things.

A

B

All right with that in other hands looks like we were gonna, be able to get eight minutes back. That looks like it great guys. Thank you, everybody for coming today. We are I believe not gonna have a design meeting tomorrow, so that would mean Monday's next time we all get together. So thanks, everybody we'll see you on Monday I will send it I.

A

Will send a link out in slack when I have finished the complete write-up of generation.

B

C everybody see ya.