►
From YouTube: OCI Weekly Discussion - 2023-08-03
A
A
C
A
A
That's
just
our
regular
hack
MD,
but
I
threw
up
there
at
the
top,
just
under
all
the
dialing
numbers
and
everything
the
auth
working
group
has
a
link
to
theirs
as
well.
This
week
was
pretty
light
on
that
side.
We
were
mostly
just
getting
some
procedural
things
knocked
out,
and
so
I've
got
the
new
repo
created,
not
specifically
me,
but
put
the
request
in
they
created
for
us
and
I
threw
in
a
few
generic
out
of
the
box
entries
in
there.
A
I
don't
know
if
we
technically
had
enough
approvals
on
that,
so
anybody
that's
listed
as
one
of
the
owners
on
that
one.
If
you
haven't
already
approved
that
original
governance,
setup
PR
after
it
got
merged,
feel
free
to
go
in
there
after
the
fact
and
hit
approve
on
that
one
or
denial
we
can
talk
about
it.
A
Other
than
that,
so
that
there
was
also
a
logistical
change
on
that
one.
We
were
originally
meeting
at
this
time,
30
minutes
later
on,
Tuesday
and
so
30
minutes
after
now
on
Tuesday
and
we
bumped
it
back
to
basically
being
at
this
time
so
on
the
top
of
the
hour.
Instead
of
trying
to
like
Bridge
a
couple
different
meeting
times,
so
people
can
jump
in
and
out,
it
was
getting
a
little
confusing
there
So
for
anybody
that
had
this
on
your
calendar.
This
time
on
Tuesday
is
when
we
meet
for
that
working
group.
A
A
A
B
Yep
I
will
I,
wasn't
tracking
very
closely
this
one,
but
we
had
a
discussion
yesterday
with
some
of
the
oldest
members,
so
I'll
be
looking
at
that
closely
over
the
next
two
weeks
and
I'll
collect
any
feedback.
A
A
And
on
the
other
implementation,
ROM
I
think
you
and
I
have
gone
back
and
forth
a
few
times.
I
think
last
was
me,
saying:
won't
fix
anything
any
new
thoughts
from
you
on
supporting
on
that
side
of
how
you're
creating
that
artifact.
D
Well,
no
I
think
I
think,
let's
at
least
personally
I'm
leaning
towards
the
the
artifact
type
going
forward.
I
think
that
should
be
the
recommendation
going
forward.
So.
A
For
what
you're
creating
I'll
push
you
in
that
direction,
I
would
say
that
artifact
type,
isn't
necessarily
the
one
I
would
say
is
automatically
preferred
for
everybody,
but
for
something
where
you're
creating
it
without
a
dedicated
config
blob.
That's
that's
my
recommendation,
but
there
are
things
like
Helm
charts
out
there
a
day
that
have
a
dedicated
and
fake
blob
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
necessary
need
to
say,
convert
off
of
that
and
go
to
artifact
type
they've.
A
A
So
the
meeting
for
that
one
you're
asking
about
the
working
group
there
Rob.
A
A
It
is
basically
copy
this
meeting
and
put
it
on
Tuesday.
Oh
okay,
so
same
time,
same
meeting,
Zoom
call
and
all
that
stuff.
Just
on
Tuesday,
perfect.
A
D
So
I'm
guessing
we're
waiting
for
more
feedback
for
the
disrespect
and
we
expecting
this
number.
So
we
wait
till
August,
18th,
I,
suppose.
A
That
is
my
big
thing.
I'm
also
kind
of
glancing
through
some
of
these
old
pull
requests
will
not
see
if
there's
anything
else
in
there
that
we
need
to
talk
about,
but
yeah
I
want
to
see
a
few
people
implementing
I
think
the
stuff
that
you
and
I
have
been
doing
like
when
we're
going
back
and
forth
on
the
artifact
type
field.
A
A
Just
in
time,
glancing
back
at
old
issues
and
things
like
that
I
did
throw
in
the
massive
linter
thanks
to
everybody
that
took
a
look
at
that
one.
So
now
image
spec
has
my
name
all
over
pretty
much
every
file
everywhere,
because
I'll
enter
the
whole
thing,
which
means
I'm
going
to
get
get
blamed
on
everything
now,
but
there's
a
choice.
A
You
need
to
go
through
at
some
point:
I
need
to
submit
a
PR
and
clean
out
stuff,
like
the
rkt
project.
Rocket
I
think
is
how
I
like
to
pronounce
it,
which
no
longer
is.
It's
been
archived
for
a
long
while
so
I
think
we've
got
references
to
projects
out
there
that
no
longer
exist
Does.
Anybody
have
strong
feelings
for
how
they
should
be
referred
to
in
the
future
kind
of
thinking,
like
maybe
an
Emeritus
or
just
have
an
archived
implementation
section
that
separates
things
that
are
no
longer
really
maintained
from
the
active
projects.
A
A
A
A
To
me,
it's
useful
because
when
I
start
querying
something
I'll
have
a
single
index
that
has
seven
platform
specific
manifests
I'm,
just
throwing
numbers
out
here,
six
artifacts
on
each
one
is
Manifest,
so
I've
got
you
know
multiple
s,
bombs
signatures
all
this
kind
of
stuff.
You've
got
a
lot
of
these.
D
A
It
does
mean
that
registraries
need
to
keep
keep
track
when
they're
returning
a
manifest
that
they
need
to
add
this
extra
header
in
there
just
to
say
it's
not
there.
There
are
other
thoughts
in
this
of
saying,
like
a
present
header,
I
didn't
see
as
much
value
for
that
one.
Another
one
saying
give
a
list
of
artifact
types,
I
think
there's
a
trade-off
and
overhead
between
that
one
of
whether
or
not
that's
valuable
or
not,
Ram
I
heard
you're
getting
ready
to
jump
in
there,
though
so
go
ahead.
A
Yeah
on
every
single,
manifest
return.
That's
the
downside
of
this
yeah.
D
That's
the
that's,
that's!
That's!
That's!
Okay,
so
yeah
I
mean
the
if
the
if
the
clients
are
going
to
be
interested
in
the
reference
as
a
as
the
general
case,
then
this
optimization
makes
sense.
If
the
clients
don't
care
about
the
reference
then
this
is.
This
will
become
unnecessary
work
on
the
registry
side.
But
but
that's
that's,
that's
a
call
to
make.
A
D
A
So
my
strong
feeling
is
that
I,
like
the
absent
header,
the
thing
that
says
the
registry
says
hey:
this
doesn't
exist.
I
don't
have
as
much
of
a
use
for
the
present
header
if
it
doesn't,
if
it
does
have
a
refer,
I'm
gonna
query
for
it.
If
this
header
is
not
there,
whether
or
not
it's
because
the
registry
doesn't
support
that
or
because
you
know
I
I
think
it
should
be
there
one
way
or
another
I'm
just
going
to
query
for
it.
A
And
again,
I
I
realize
I'm,
probably
throwing
this
on
you
when
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
do
the
homework
on
this.
But
what
they're
saying
is
every
time
you
do
a
manifest
fetch.
You
pull
back
the
oci
index
of
some
image
you're
looking
at
it
would
have
a
header
at
the
top
that
says.
Oci
refers
for
this
index,
you
just
pulled.
A
C
A
You
can
query
for
the
the
reason
I'm
more
hesitant
on
that
is
when
I'm
thinking
of
a
client
that
does
this
a
lot
of
times
a
client
doing
the
signature
check
is
not
the
client
that
did
the
Manifest
poll
you'll
pull
a
manifest,
then
you'll
have
a
separate
mission
control
or
something
else
out
there
that
says.
Okay
now,
I
know
this
the
digest
that
you're
trying
to
pull.
A
So
open
question
for
me
just
thinking
of
where
the
trade-offs
there
in
terms
of
how
much
that's
going
to
cut
the
overhead
versus
not
so
that'll,
be
another
interesting
thing
for
implementations
to
consider
on
their
side
of
will
this?
Will
this
remove
a
bunch
of
API
calls
that
you
were
making
before.
E
A
A
And
the
answer
that
threw
in
to
this
one
was
that
I
think
the
absent
header
in
this
one
is
super
useful,
but
a
lot
of
the
other
ones,
I'm,
not
sure
the
value,
and
so,
while
you're
reading
through
this,
if
you're
looking
at
other
headers
in
there
to
Think
Through,
would
some
of
these
other
options.
There
say
to
you:
API
calls
from
some
of
your
own
implementations.
B
Hey
sorry,
I
was
multitasking,
and
so
this
looks
a
lot
to
me
as
the
capabilities
header
that
we
were
discussing
months
ago.
Right.
A
A
little
different
this
is
this
is
not
so
much
saying.
The
registry
supports
the
API
call.
This
is
saying
for
the
Manifest
you
just
pulled
there
actually
is
a
refer,
the
points
to
it.
A
It's
a
good
question:
if
people
are
if
people
are
interpreting
good
questions
means
I'm,
not
explaining
well
either
but
yeah.
The
goal
is
here
for
clients
that
are
querying
this
stuff.
If
we
can
eliminate
some
of
these
API
calls
on
their
side,
and
so
the
registry
can
give
the
client
some
kind
of
feedback
that
says,
here's
what
you
can
expect
you
can
skip
some
of
these
other
API
calls
because
it
just
isn't
there
so
don't
even
bother
with
it.
B
I'm
trying
to
think
how
so
I
I
understand
how
I'm
gonna
use
it,
but
I'm
thinking
some
of
the
scenarios
that
actually
we
are
working
on
and
for
how
long
I
should
keep
that
information
on
the
client
side.
To
think
that
there
are
no
referrals,
because,
like
30
seconds
after
I
make
the
call
there
may
be
a
referral
that
shows
up
and
like
yeah.
It's
I
need
to
think
through
through
the
scenarios
a
little
bit
and
I'll
go
through
the
issue
and
maybe
add
my
comments
to
it.
A
E
E
A
It
kind
of
follows
some
of
our
other
queries
that
we've
got
out
there
right
now.
When
you
push
a
manifest,
we've
got
a
response
that
comes
back
that
says:
hey
I
received
your
manifest
and
oh
by
the
way.
I
also
understood
that
this
was
a
referrer,
and
here
was
the
subject
Viewpoint
that
you
include
in
there.
Here's
the
digest.
That's
so
that
clients
know
they
don't
have
to
go
back
through
the
fallback
method
of
pushing
attack
and
everything.
A
A
Stuff,
if
nothing
else,
I
see
toddy
saying
he's
got
to
do
some
more
thinking
see
such
a
frantically
query,
a
bunch
of
HTTP,
specs
and
thinking
through
it.
A
If
nothing
else,
I
put
this
all
in
your
heads
for
now
to
give
us
some
more
thought,
because
I
think
this
would
be
useful
and
if
we
at
least
did
the
absent
header
so
CR,
your
first
absent
it's
just
an
optimization
and
so
I'd
and
I
think
it's
something
we
could
stay
as
I
should
so
it's
one
of
those
use
cases
where
I
think
we
can
add
that
late
without
breaking
too
many
things
and
people
can
add
to
their
Registries.
If
and
when
they
want
to.
A
A
A
While
we
add
the
header
and
that's
kind
of
where
I
took
the
follow
on
there
saying
well,
it
gets
a
lot
more
complicated
when
you
add
reverse,
because
you
can
have
refers
on
Reaper
I
can
have
an
s-bomb
out
there
with
a
external
signature
attached
to
it
as
another
referrer,
and
so
now,
I
have
to
start
querying
these
things
at
multiple
levels
and
the
problem
doesn't
get
better
when
everybody's
got
to
refer.
It
gets
a
whole
lot
worse
in
terms
of
the
number
of
API
calls
that
I
was
making.
A
So
that
was
my
one
contribution
for
the
day.
I
created
an
issue
out
there
and
thought
that
I
might
be
interesting
to
chat
about,
have
I
missed
any
other
issues.
Folks
want
to
chat
about
any
other
important
things.
Otherwise
we
can
always
end
early
I'm,
not
opposed
to
quantitating
giving
people
back.
30
minutes.
A
We
do
on
that
note,
have
a
good
rest
of
your
Thursday
rest
your
week
and
we'll
catch
back
up
here
next
week.
Tomorrow's
the
iPhone
all.
A
Toddy
and
I
were
chatting
before
you
came
in
I
heard.
Oras
was
looking
at
middle
of
August,
and
that
was
something
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
seeing
the
comparison
between
Bridge
client
or
us
all
unsought.
Hopefully
we
can
get
another
registry
out
there.
That
can
say
even
if
we
get
a
private
registry
like
ACR,
providing
their
conformance
results
in
like
a
draft
state
or
whatever.
However,
they
want
to
provide
it
censored
out
details,
something
that
just
says
that
shows
hey.