►
From YouTube: 2020-10-09 meeting
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
E
C
Okay,
what
do
we
got.
F
C
This
is
which
I
said
for
required
for
ga
for
a
decision.
F
B
G
B
We
could
add
clarification
up
to
the
ga,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
required
for
the
ga.
That's
just
my
thought.
It's
not
a
strong
opinion.
B
B
Yeah,
okay,
that
seems
fair
not
to
get
too
much
in
the
weeds.
Are
we
going
to
have
the
baggage
transmitted
on
the
the
standard,
http
header.
C
We
send
into
party
one
for
same
thing.
This
is,
and
then
the
label
area.
F
Api,
I
mean
the
title
should
be
changed.
If
you
have
a
chance,
I
created
that
or
you
don't.
C
C
B
Yeah
I
mean
the
decision
needs
to
be
made.
If
we
want
to
have
it
be
a
no-op
if
we
want
to
have
it
included
as
a
default,
so
we
do
need
to
actually
have
that
decision
and
then
yeah
then
defining
it
in
the
api.
F
I
had
to
take
a
phone
call.
What
was
the
question
now
right
on
this.
F
F
F
Yeah,
so
I
think
I
think
the
idea
here
that
if
we
have
a
way
to
configure
the
dns
based
on
that
to
be
able
to
determine
which
exporter
to
configure
for
the
library
nicely
but
can
be
built
on
top
of
our
sdk,
you
just
have
a
util
class
that
whatever
passes
this
thing
and
does
the
right
thing
set
up
the
right
exporter
based
on
the
rules.
So
I
don't
see.
D
B
This
emoji
so
currently,
right
now
it
looks
like
the
majority
of
cigs
actually
have
a
shutdown
method
on
their
sdk,
and
I
think
this
is
proposing
there's
an
associated
pr.
I
think
bob
has
actually
already
taken
a
look
at
it.
It's
proposing
to
change
it
so
that
the
shutdown
method
is
on
the
trace
provider
and
the
api
and
I'll
propagate
through
I.
So
I
think
this
kind
of
a
change
requires
it
be
resolved
for
ga.
B
Yeah,
I
I
I
yeah,
I
kind
of
wanted
to
talk
about
like
the
details
here,
but
I
don't
want
to
like
shout
out
the
meeting,
because
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
classify
it.
But,
like
I
agree,
I
don't
know
if
it's
I
don't
know
if
it's
meant
for
the
api,
but
I
do
know
that
if
it
is
going
to
be
meant
for
the
api,
we
need
to
make
a
resolution
on
this
before
ga.
I
guess
is
what
I'm
saying
not.
F
B
So
I
think
I
think
you're,
like
mostly
you're
correct,
but
the
one.
The
one
question
that
we
have
is
like:
we've
done
things
in
the
gosak:
where
we'll
have
a
function,
that's
I
don't
say,
shut
down
right
and
in
in
the
spec
it
says
like,
while
the
shutdown
needs
to
be
able
to
like
take
some
sort
of
timeout
or
something
like
that
and
use
it
that
way.
B
The
function
signature
is
going
to
change,
which
would
effectively
break
the
the
downstream
api
because
they
had
defined
a
method
for
shutdown
prior
to
that
being
in
the
api
itself
and
having
a
clear
understanding
of
what
that
needs
to
include.
That's
my
only
like,
I
think,
you're
right.
I
think
we
could
probably
make
sure
that
backwards
incompatible
change.
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
B
F
Yeah,
I
I
said
maybe
maybe
the
solution
for
this
is
to
actually
force
everyone
to
not
define
shutdown
in
the
api
right
now.
B
That
sounds
fine
to
me.
That's
actually.
B
Right
now
anyways,
so
I
think
that
that
works,
but
for
for
the
status
of
this
issue,
do
you
think
that
that's
still
going
to
be
allowed
for
ga
or
or
an
after
ga
or
required.
F
B
Yeah,
I
I
feel
bad
because
I
might
have
like
encouraged
people
to
open
an
issue
without
telling
them
to
not
include
this
in
the
api.
I
feel
somewhat
responsible,
but
I
kind
of
agree
with
you
on
the
same
thing.
I
don't
think
it
should
be
in
the
api.
I
think
it
should
be
an
sdk
thing
and
I
think
that
you're
right,
I
think
we
need
to
convince
people
of
that
prior
to
ga,
just
to
make
sure
that
that's
not
included
in
the
api
is
kind
of
what
I'm
thinking.
F
B
C
Andrew
required
for
gn.
C
B
I
think
that
at
this
point
in
time
we
probably
shouldn't
be
entertaining
just
like
any
potential
change
to
the
api.
I
think
they're.
Actually,
some
really
good
reason.
I
think,
there's
some
good
reason
here,
given
the
fact
that
there
might
be.
I
haven't
seen
an
implementation
that
in
a
language
that
has
this
on
the
api,
but
we
don't
want
to
make
sure
that
this
isn't
on
the
api.
B
It's
existing
in
the
sdk
is
the
issue,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
this
shouldn't
be
in
the
api
or
it
should
be
in
the
api
but,
like,
I
think,
we're
kind
of
jumping
ahead
of
ourselves
but,
like
I
think,
that's
that's
kind
of
the
key
like.
B
B
D
B
Yeah,
this
is
going
to
do
a
science
and
conventions.
I
I
think
this
is
required
for
ga,
based
on
talking
with
josh
yesterday
in
the
meeting
like
it's
a
pretty
standard
thing
in
the
prometheus
world.
They
want
so.
C
C
D
B
D
Yeah,
I
can
you
can
assign
this
one
to
me
for
now.
I
know
chris
wildman
is
also
interested
in
looking
into
it,
but
you
can.
C
B
Yeah
you
got
comments
on
it,
I'm
not
going
to
work
yet.
B
Do
you
know
how
active
like
sergey
or
daniel
daila
are,
if
they'd
be
up
for
taking.
F
B
C
B
This
is
the
this
is
the
one
I
think
we
talked
about
at
the
spec
meeting
this
past
week,
where
there
was
there's
not
really
a
struct
for
the
baggage
api.
I
remember
bob,
and
you
were
talking
about
how
this
doesn't
really
match
the
spam
api.
E
Maybe
comment
there
that
come
up
with
from.
G
G
B
I
think
it
was
matt
weir
as
well,
but
I
think
you're
right.
I
think
carlos
was
in
there.
C
Yeah,
let
me
check
the
things
this
one.
C
A
B
B
A
A
B
E
A
A
Otherwise,
I'll
do
it.
Oh
wait.
No
there's
something
merged.
There
hang
on
rust.
Oh,
that
was
for
specific
sdk.
Never
okay,.
A
A
Yeah,
what
tyler's
saying
is
that
it
is
for
go
it's
a
p1.
B
Yeah,
I
honestly,
as
long
as
once
the
ga
happens,
like
that's
yeah
shoot.
That
is
right.
G
C
G
B
B
C
B
Well,
this
looks
like
I'm
reading
the
second
paragraph
or
the
third,
how
you
count
them
saying
that
it's
looking
to
extend
the
sampling
results
to
including
a
field
which
definitely
means
that
it's
going
to
be
a
backwards,
compatible
change.
So
the
lab
for
ga,
I
think,
correct.
I
think
that
you
should
probably
put
this
as
a
p3
based
on
that.
B
It's
not
an
editorial
change,
I
don't
think
but
yeah
it's
a
small
or
a
backwards
compatible
change.
I
guess
is
how
I
would
say.
C
C
A
C
Okay,
that's,
I
think,
that's
it
guys.
B
C
So
the
just
before
we
go
we're
talking
about
this
for
sure
morgan,
because
I
got
you
on
the
call.
A
Yes,
yeah
so
for
I've
written
a
draft
blog
post
that
I'm
fleshing
out
today
announcing
the
release
candidate
that
will
share
amongst
all
contributors
and
vendors
who
want
to
cross-post
it
we'll
do
the
same
thing
with
the
beta,
we'll
post
it
at
a
certain
time
on
the
the
open,
telemetry,
medium
blog
and
then
at
the
same
time.
Anyone
else
wants
to
cross-post.
It
should
post
a
cross-posted
version
of
their
own
intros.
A
A
Yes,
yes,
I'm
thinking
like
at
least
for
announcing
that
the
tracing
spec
is
at
rc.
We
can
probably
post
it
the
week
after
this
upcoming
week,
capture.
A
Yeah
yeah:
let's
get
consensus
on
what
that
is.