 Hello. Good morning. Morning. Thanks. What was that Taylor? Just said greetings. Oh, yeah. Start sharing the screen and. Um, okay. It is five minutes after the hour. So probably we can just start. Um, Any additional items to agenda. So. Not, um, Let's try to review what we have and. Um, probably I have mentioned before, like, uh, The different events that we have it for regarding telcos. So. Um, Just you have the opportunity to try to, um, To channel some of them. So. Any, any news about the cloud cloud native telco day? Uh, Lucina or Taylor. So you can, you know, something new or. Um, I don't have any saying. No. Just that the. The CF, CFP was close, right? The only, the only one which is open is the. The one submit in Seattle. Okay. I think so. Good morning. Yeah. Um, If you've closed the. Program committee is reviewing them and the schedule will be announced on Tuesday, September 13th. Nice. Thank you. Okay. Well, regarding the PRs, do we have something new? Um, We have only two to do this. Um, so the first one of the older ones, the older one is from Jeff. Uh, I think that we haven't done too much progress on this. Oh, I mean, besides. The feedback that he has received. Um, so. We have to do something like a, I mean, he has some LinkedIn issues or. I think it's the worst, which are not in the world is, um, more than that. I don't know if he has added some of the comments. So what did you think that we should. Should we ping Jeff to know what. It's happening with this one or. By the way, I'm, I'm sharing my screen or like, okay, I guess. Um, yeah, we should. Just being. Jeff in order to see what is happening with his. Poor request. The other one is regarding. Um, Um, recording. Um, so. This is from Ian. Um, It's been open for a while. So. Probably he has to be also. Uh, close this one or let go. Or address all the. The feedback. Is there anything left on this one? Other than the linting. Well, hey, he has some. Suggestions. Um. He hadn't. Others, those. So I don't know if we can just accept them or. I mean, it seems like. Or just few, few, then let me just check there. Just one. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Yeah. Yeah, there are several. So what do you think Taylor should be. Just proceed them. I said all of these or like. Yeah. I mean, if I think at least that one. Um, the air gap message. Jeffrey on, but. If we can. On the best practice, if we can. Close it out ourselves, that would be. Right. Because for example, this. Well, I haven't reviewed it, but. This seems to be changing a little bit. The template. Right. I don't know if in the template we. Mark this as mandatory or. Um. Suggestion that he's making on this specific. I think he's suggesting it. And we need to. Update the template. Separately and. And the process. For suggesting a best practice. I think that would be where something like that would go in versus. Modifying a pull request for a specific. Practice or suggestion. Is that, that is part of the template. I would just say that should be a separate PR. Yeah, that's the plus one. But. It seems to be. Here. Or not. At least not in this template. Question. Yeah, I think he's suggesting to add it maybe. Or are you saying there's not even an optional. Are these template defined because. It's not. This one. Oh, this is use case. Sorry. Yeah, so it's optional there in the. Template. So I think we should just add a comment to do for that to be a. Pull request against the template. And it can also, you know, he could open an issue or whatever, but let's not add it to this one. Like something like that, right? Yeah. And then just say open a new pull request. And, and, or. Issue. Just like our, so this conversation because. Yeah. That one's hard to see without seeing the whole thing, but I think they're. He's trying to make it more a stronger. Then. The suggestion, like it's a required type of thing. Is one. That's what it looks like. It's not for that particular one wasn't just a choice of. Words that doesn't change the meaning. So I don't think it can be switched just switched out. What about this one? Are you writing down something? No, I'm, I'm looking at your screen. Okay. That's a whole lot. I don't want to change this. I think we ignore it. Go on to the next. This is all part of. The same. Suggestion. So let's just go on from that. It's a, it's a. I don't know. We start getting down to preferences and the wording, and then some of it. Can change what it was intended. Should there be a wet level of compliance. If the test compliance exactly how and why. And what level you're. That's fine except. I think we're documenting that. I mean, I, yes. Like communicating what level. How many best practices that you're following versus choosing not to follow is fine. That's a good idea. And. The other ones, the ones should be close or solve it. Just leave it. It won't. I mean. I don't like to resolve it unless we're putting a comment to communicate to do something else. It's kind of just an open one. And it'll show up and later if once the PRs. Merge. This is the way with the previous one, right? Because the mention of all the. Yeah, it's kind of weird how it's separated like that. But the. They could have, I think he just didn't put it together. He could have put the suggest edit and then a comment. But he. Did them separately. I mean, I guess this isn't terrible. To put at what level. The complaint, the. Best practice compliance recording is about. Communicating here are the ones that. We're following and here are the ones that. Didn't follow in what reason. So in that sense. You are saying what level. It's more of, is someone going to interpret that to mean. It's like a test and you hit certain levels. That'd be why I would hesitate to put this. There's no, this isn't the test. I'd say. Leave it alone. No, unless you know, do you, do you think we should add that? Or just leave it. Or anyone else have opinions on that? I mean. Are we, are we going to have like an example? Like, I don't know. Yeah. I don't, I don't remember what's in here with. For now, let's leave it as it is. And double check the. All right. I mean, someone can always come back and go, no, this really needs to change and then they add more details, which would be helpful. Especially when. They're not on the call. On Kai or Ian. All right, let's see the next one. Should be a suggestion or. Why he would like context and I don't know if the next, no, the next part doesn't have a suggestion. But no, one appliance is not possible. He didn't put a suggestion at it. It's just conversation. Let's move on. Yeah, but it also seems like you clarify the point, right? So I guess it is resolved or like. Yeah, sure. Yeah, sounds good. He could have resolved it. It's all right. I think. Ian. Said something about this. It's talking about NFV in a general sense and not. Like a specific thing. Okay. I don't, I don't think it's a type of, I think it's intentional. Yeah. Oh, interesting. That's fine. On Kai. Responded. To Oliver. That could be resolved. This one. Yeah. Yeah. And Pankai is trying to talk about it as related to a specific NFV implementation. And Ian was. Using the more general concept of in those type of environments. So I don't want to change what Ian's meaning was. I think Ian. Would need to. Do something and he's had enough time. So let's move on. Leave it as is. That's a major change and it didn't happen. Or maybe it did and we didn't resolve it. So move on to the next. Let's just see the suggested it. The. The components and press may be. May likely. Their components. Will be. May likely be. Just. Knit picking. On. The word. During that journey, their components and processes will be imperfect. It's. It's funny that the may likely be imperfect. Is there. It went from strongly. It will be. We know it will be too. It's still not. It might be. It's may likely. It's still indicating it's a likely thing. It barely reduced. The strength of that Senate. And it may. Less personal. And their components. And their components are. The components of what. The components of the applications. That are following the best practices. So this is talking about the. A CNF, which could be. You know, as. If we think of NFV world, a VNF. Could be. One. Small. Service or it may be a whole set of. Different pieces that. Provide multiple network services. It's a more complex type of setup, like a transparent firewall is. One thing, but a. Charging. 5G charging application has a lot of different pieces. So I think that's what's referring to. So when you're building. A CNF. And talking about. Following applications. So this is saying this is. This whole paragraph is talking about. What, what are we doing here? So we're trying to help people improve their. Implementation of the CNF. We want to help people do that. So during the journey, we expect that different components will not be perfect. They will be imperfect. In that sense. At least for me. Is better to use there. Yeah, I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree with leaving it as the input. Yeah, me too. Someone wants to come in and show that they had a perfect CNF. I just don't see that as a problem where they're mad that we said that it was imperfect in our document. All right. What's next. Both software and process both at the software and process. Okay. I trust in usually on grammar. But. You know, some of it's just the British English. How he's going to come across. So. If anyone feels strongly, go ahead. Definitely not. That's not my strongest thing. So I can rely on. What, what do you suggest. For me, I believe it. I just don't care about that one. Let's move on. It didn't help a whole lot. It didn't make it clear or anything to me. So it's just more of a choice and for a choice. I'm not going to. Change someone else's words. And it is not changing the. The meaning, right? It didn't change the meaning. It didn't change the meaning and it, for me, it didn't make it clear one way or the other. So I think we leave it to whatever the original writer's preference was. In my opinion. If we had one consistent English style across all of it, then maybe it would make sense, but I haven't seen someone try to do that. So I think that. Guys, just us is referring to this as a number of one, right? Yeah, he can come in and do it. I mean, I also don't care. Like there's an, there's no numbers. It's a bullet list. If we're going to, you know, number them or you want to put it at the top and make it bold. But why he's referring to. And this file. Yeah. That was the reading. Yeah, they read me. Oh, no, that number one. No, that's. That's just get hub. Automatically turning the pound one into that. That's all. It shouldn't be like. Okay. So. He's saying that he really likes that one non-goal a lot. And wants to make sure that people follow it. Yeah, sounds good. Add a single comment and resolve. This is in some ways. Just grammar choices. And Ian is really talking about. When a team might be able to follow a best practice and theories, but maybe a requirement or some other reason. Don't allow them to do it. Like you may understand the best practice and you can't follow it for some other reason. Versus just saying it just happens. Yeah. I don't think it matters. So I say, leave it. He is also saying that. There's all. Okay, just resolve it. The same like. Sounds good. So moving the weights. Grammar again. I don't think it matters. They're compliance. If you're reviewing how you comply. It's whether it's in a list or. It doesn't really matter. All over. Your office. It doesn't really matter. Reviewing the compliance is the important part. Okay. We are not specifying when it is implicit that it depends on the teams. I guess that's true. But. His suggestion is. We don't really say when that's going to happen. But even if we change that for. Period. Period. City. We have to specify how often, right? Like. Weekly or like. Monthly. I mean, if we are going to make it more. Deterministic. You know, we have to say like. What, when those periods has to happen, right? Right. I would just leave it. He's saying we don't talk about teams and the structures. But. All of. Software development is. You just say it's always by a team, even if it's a team of ones. There's some group. That's working on. And especially for saying telecom applications. Even if it's one person, it's one person, a company working on one and then, you know, just working on a team to get it. It's going to fall and then someone else is working on a whole another set of people. It works. What do we have. Just removing encoded. Or names. Encoded. I mean, whatever. I think he's. Doesn't know. What do we mean when we say encoded? I don't know. Does anyone else have a problem with encoded? I'm okay with removing it or leaving it. I think it's fine. I mean, it doesn't change the meaning. I'm, my background is technical enough to over the, you know, encoded. I get what it was intended when Anne puts it. So it's really, does it make it more clear for people coming in that are trying to follow best practices because we go back to the, who is our audience? It's the people implementing CNFs and the processes around management of them. Does it make it more or less clear to remove? Well, the other thing is like, if we leave us encode, should we need to provide the rules or like the format that has to follow or like? No, not for this. I mean it does it. Making records conveniently machine readable, simple bullions helps consumers in filtering these. And it doesn't say what that is. Some of this is it's leaving it open. We're not trying to provide the format that's required. It's saying it should be easy enough for people to consume this. Yeah, because the other one could be like a, what is the different type of, like Camo K's or I don't know, this snake. Right. So this is really saying, if you look at the paragraph of, so if you had a text file that had a list of the best practices and it says, you know, like equals compliant equals compliant, non-compliant, or yes, no. I mean it's, that's why it's saying like CSV, there's that. It could be a text file with an equal sign. It's some way that allows you to check that. So if you're using the CNF test suite, it provides something like this. If you were created your own, it's essentially saying you shouldn't provide something like a binary format file that's only readable by that one company. The idea with this is that someone can come in and look and see, does your CNF follow best practices? So I think in that case we can just leave it. All right. That was the last one? Oh, yeah. This isn't that read me. I don't think that matters. This is a pair, an English paragraph communicating what we're trying to do here. Using best practices. CNF should be compliant, et cetera, et cetera. And then it says why you're not following the best practices, whether you have mitigations in place and so on. It's English communicating saying if you're, if you're not following best practices, then you should document. That's what this entire PR is about. You should document what you follow. And when you don't, you should communicate why you're not following them and how your, you know, software is handling those type of issues. So maybe you're using root in a process and you want to say why you're having to use it for that particular component and what you're doing to prevent any type of security issues. Maybe you've isolated that one container and it doesn't have access to the namespace of other containers or something like that. That's all this document. I don't, I think it's a non-issue. We don't need to change it. And there's no suggestion at it. So I definitely don't want to do anything. It was all, it's six months ago in January, or more than six months ago. Yeah. And also like, if we get one to specify something more specific, maybe we can create like another PR for just for mitigations. Absolutely. So the only one which we didn't even for was, it was this one. Yeah, I think. So it is the only, the only comment that you just accepted or like. I'm good with it either way. The recording is going to communicate what level. And there's the PR is only asking for a general recording. It's not so specific that we're going to end up with here is the level of compliance that has a specific level. You are. Gold compliant or you're. You've reached level eight in compliance. There is no specific level. So I don't think that's. The suggestion is required, but it's also fine. If it's there. Do you have an opinion on it? No. I don't know the rest. What's on reach. I don't hear anybody else. So let's leave it. So go, let's go ahead and accept this. Let's get this PR and I'm going to. Could I do a review and do a plus one. So do we need at least another one. Because we lower that number to three approvals or how many. Add your review. Can we get another is. Plus one. From folks on this call. Here's the link. We want to close it out. I don't see. Reach listed in this. It's over viewers. I don't know if you can. Maybe. It's okay. If we get a plus a thumbs up. If we get a plus one looks good to me. In the comments. Rich. Yeah, I can add a comment. Thank you. I'm getting your access rich. But it'll take me a minute. No worries. Is your F5. Email. Good. I had to get hub. I just didn't invite. Okay. I can have a thumbs up on it. Thanks. So. Should I just. Merge. The pull request. For. Great. No. No, it's marriage. Great. So the last thing that I was thinking is about the interesting. Parties. So maybe. If you're not rich, you are not in this list. You can also send your pull request and be part of this. Okay. Yeah, this also ties in with that. You know, besides communicating and showing an interest there. This is tied to governance stuff. So there's some things where. You know, you know, you can just be listed as either an individual or. For the company. Before you can engage in some of the governance stuff. There's timing around it as well. So. That's that's it, right? I think that's it. I will try to fix some of the. Issues that we have here. Another PR. Yeah, there are those for men. Minor things. Okay. Well, it's time to conclude anything else to. Please. And it means in point. Good to go. Unless anyone has any other comments. Rich, you got anything. Maybe we can see some. Best practices. The idea is if. From F5. I think about them and share them in the future. Okay. Sure. Thanks everyone. Have a good one. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.