 Hey, William. Can you hear me? Yeah. So we have 14 people on, which is great. And I don't think we have a ton of agenda. I was just happy to give a quick update on the program as to what's going on. And then I'm not sure if there's other areas you'd like to cover. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. Yeah, I didn't see any other topics on the agenda, so. Okay. So I'll just go ahead and give the update that we're up to 54 certified vendors, which is pretty spectacular. So that's 62 certified products, 22 platforms and 40 distributions. And those numbers are 28 for 1.7, 45 for 1.8, 29 for 1.9. And we do not have any 1.10 certified yet. But, you know, continue to find new companies coming out of the woodwork certifying, which is great. Folks seem to be able to use Sonabue. They appreciate the latest release that has the clear message at the end about whether you're passing all the tests or not. The essential processes are working out. I've made a few small updates to the FAQ to just address questions that people have asked. I'm also very pleased to mention that Amazon Web Services has certified in the last week or so, which is essentially the last major vendor in the space that hasn't been discussed. They can promise to do before they went GA. They've gone ahead and done. So from my perspective, the working group is going well and all those processes are underway. The kind of new areas that we're beginning to invest in is starting to try and improve some of the test development. And so we do have this investment going forward with Globent. But that hasn't resulted in pull requests yet. And of course, all those processes happen through SIG testing and SIG architecture not over here. So could I answer questions from anyone about the process or issues folks have run into or concerns or anything else? Hi, Dan. This is Mitra here. This is me and Aisha over here as well. And I think some of the Globent vendors are also dialed in. Great. Yes. This is Mitra. I think we have a call to sync up tomorrow and some of the vendors are also dialed in. Yes. Yeah, that's great. Do you want to just introduce yourself and mention the tests you're working on right now? Sure. So we've been mostly understanding the whole project and how the tests are built and how they are written down and going through all the concepts with my Yank. And we have this spreadsheet that Mitra socialized with us from the different API endpoints that we should tackle first. So we've divided to begin with. With my Yank, my Yank is going to tackle a bunch of namespaces, endpoints like section of it. And I will tackle another one. So our initial idea would be to pick and mimic a good example that we went through together, which was a flaky test that Mitra suggested taking a look at the signal work that was a flaky test on service.go. So that actually helped us a lot to understand the mechanics of how this works. So our step right now is to mimic what is there and reproduce that on a very basic REST API testing. Like if the initial status is empty, then if I ask for namespaces, then I should get only the default ones. If I add one, I should see that. If I delete it, then I should not see it anymore and things like that. So that should give us a lot of clarity first to actually submit PRs and go through a process and start from the things we know. Does that make sense? It does. It's very encouraging. So I look forward to hearing more from Mitra and when we have the chance to catch up. But I'm glad that you're on the path here. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, sounds great. Thanks for the introduction and nice to meet you all. Thank you. So is the plan to use this meeting as kind of a regular check in then for the work that you're all doing? I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to. I am doing a weekly sync with them on Friday mornings. But if they have something exciting to share, I'm asking them to join the meeting so they can hear from all of us. And if they have like something to share or a question for the general group, I'll ask them to present it to you. Okay, sounds good. Well, I'll pencil you in on the agenda then, kind of every two weeks. Yeah, sounds good. Cool. Thank you so much. We really appreciate your help. And I should be thankful for your disposition on this. Thank you so much. Great. Great. So William, what else would you be interested in covering? Because the other thing that I think we should, I believe we do have time set aside in Copenhagen as well. And we should figure out what we'd like to accomplish there, I believe. Yeah, definitely. So if we wanted any agenda bashing for that session, we could do that now. Yeah, one thing I would really like us to discuss in Copenhagen is kind of a little bit more details on what should be a confirmance test or how we are measuring coverage to. We have some touchpoint level coverage measurements added in Testinfra. Hippie Hacker has a really good proposal. So I would like us to maybe come together as a group to kind of discuss and figure out what we are going to do and our next steps for measuring that coverage. Sounds like a good plan. Hippie Hacker, are you? So, Mitra, I just need to speak up for Brian Grant here, who always interjects when someone says that, which is that what is and isn't a confirmance test is very much under the direction of SIG architecture, not this working group. And so I think it's totally fine for us to discuss it or talk about processing such, but I just want to be clear that we're not trying to take that on. But I think in particular looking at how we're measuring and whether there's better ways to measure what's really in use and what should be done next and such would be immensely valuable for us to try and reach consensus on. Yeah, I agree. I have been actually discussing with members in SIG architecture as well to do a little bit more deep dives into different topics to see what should be in the realm of a confirmance test or not. Hopefully by the time KubeCon comes around I'll have more to share on my findings as well. Mitra, the other area, and I don't quite know how to ask this question, but it was brought up at the in-person meeting in Austin is I thought there was someone and they might have been at Google who had a little bit of a rocket science kind of experiment that they were hoping to get basic API coverage for a ton of the APIs. And I guess I presume that it was working with the swagger open API work, but that there were some aspirations as opposed to sort of slogging away at the in-depth tests. And so do you know what I'm referring to or maybe William does and has there been any progress on that front? I think I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not aware of any particular progress on that. Yeah, I'm not aware of that either, but I can touch base with you, William. I've had a couple of initiatives from my team to help with confirmance. One is the Docker and Docker based Kube test solution that can be used to run confirmance tests. And Quinton on my team is basically working on setting up a CI with those kinds of confirmance tests. And we want to see how good or how performant it is. He already has a non blocking CI set up. So I should have more data on that as well. And I'm going to try and ask the vendors to also write a Docker and Docker based test to see how comfortable they feel or how easy or harder it is. There is also some efforts with a couple of people going on around like a kind of like figuring out the best framework to use for a confirmance test, they will circulate a proposal at some point. I don't want to step on their work just now. And Ben from my team has been also working with a lot of the cloud providers to be able to export their confirmance test results to test grid. And he has a working dashboard already and a proposal that was kind of circulated in the six. And I think one or two cloud providers data is already there as well. So I'd love to see a presentation on that in Copenhagen if you were he could do it. And then also just sort of talking at a high level of what are the different possible approaches to improving our test coverage and the surface area that we do in a more efficient or more automated way. I think would all be fascinating areas. And I think the fact ideal here, C&C8 members like Google could fund a lot of this work. There's also potentially some funding available if we wanted to have contractors work on things but even just trying to understand the landscape before we go to the next step I think would be really helpful. Sounds good. Me and Aishir will take up an AI to do a presentation for you. Great. Yeah, for the working group. Thank you. Excellent. Any other topics to add now to the list for Copenhagen? We can of course build that over the next three weeks as well. Last time we talked about profiles. It seems like there's still not too much. There's no kind of like driving need for that yet. So I guess we'll probably just table that for now. Maybe just focus on the quality and the test coverage and bring that out. At some point we should talk about it because the consistency of storage across providers is a thing that people, you know, storage and networking and other aspects will eventually want to cover that. I don't know when. Obviously the, I think the conformance work alone will probably take a couple of cycles, several cycles when I was to get like good coverage. So I don't think we need to add it to the agenda topic like right now but it's worthwhile to start bantering about it to get consensus. Not right now, obviously. Okay. Yeah, we can definitely just talk about and say that we still think it's needed at some point and yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I guess the floor's open if anyone has any questions or other topics to add today. Right. Well, we do have a meeting scheduled in two weeks but then there's the Copenhagen in three weeks. So I would probably suggest we just meet in three weeks for Copenhagen. Does that sound good to everybody? That'll be great because I'm looking before that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And would you mind just emailing William the link to the, I'll do it, the link to the working group meeting just so that everybody knows it. Yes. Okay. I did email that this morning. I mean, yeah, just recently but we should do it again. I haven't caught up on my emails today. But yeah, hopefully we can get a good turn out there. Tim, are you going to be able to make it? Copenhagen? Yeah, I'll be there. Awesome. Yeah, I just sent out a last minute call for agenda items this morning. Yeah. And I guess I would ask the question for this group. I'm definitely open to moving this to a monthly call instead of twice a month. But we could decide that based on agendas going forward. Yeah. I mean, I think that was the original idea. We just thought we tried it two weeks just to see if we had enough topics. Definitely open to that. I mean, I'm pleased to see how things are running right now just from the mechanics of it. And I think we've been able to be pretty responsive for requests that have come in and such. Yeah. All right. Well, should we wrap up here and reconvene in three weeks? Great. Thanks, everyone. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a good day today. Bye. Bye, everyone.