 Hello, folks. All right. Welcome to the CNA4DN group. At least that's the current name. This group may get updated as far as the name goes, as we do the transition into LFN. We're gonna keep this going until another time or place are decided. Right now, I guess we'll probably keep with the same format as we've been doing. There's meeting notes that have been pasted and to the Zoom chat, you can put your name and add any agenda items. All right. I'm seeing some activity, but I'm not hearing anyone. I'm hoping audio's. We can hear you. We're being quiet. All right. Great. All right. So this call is recorded. I'll probably notice as you came in, the CNA4DN group calls have been uploaded to YouTube. There's a playlist available for the calls. And just please take note of that. There's also a calendar for the event. Right now it's on CNCFIO, Lincoln, Oliver. We may wanna move or add this meeting somewhere else and start managing it on a different calendar. We can update folks on where that would be from the elephant side. I think the mailing list probably isn't as big of an issue as far as migrating it over, but I think elephant folks, if there's a calendar, a place to go look and then subscribe would be good and also manage it. We can work with Taylor Wagner, someone else from CNCF as far as maybe shutting it down or redirecting people from the CNCF side. Yeah, on the calendar side, I think everything in LS land these days is through like LSX or whatever for calendars, but that needs somebody from like the LS staff to help do it. I don't think the product can push it up directly right now. All right. So maybe take note of that for reaching out to someone there on the LS staff. All right. Yeah, I'm happy to do that. Can talk to Sandra. Thanks, Oliver. Upcoming events, cloud native days in Guadalajara, CFPs, I guess are closed. No, sorry, January night. So they're still open for anyone that wants to do a North America talk. This would be a good opportunity. I'd spoken with the is some folks from istelcom at the 5G conference in Austin a couple of months ago. There seemed to be a lot of interest from them and some of the other telcoms with regard to cloud native and network automation and some other things. So there's, I think, some opportunities there. The right now for KubeCon in Paris, EU in March, there is no cloud native telco day scheduled. If you're interested in that, then you should reach out to the events team as what LF events team and Ranny from LFN to express interest in having a co-located event at KubeCon. We had four and it seemed to keep increasing the interest and there seems to be a good, I guess, synergy between the idea of, the transformation to cloud native and being there at the event in addition to any other networking telcom specific. So reach out now or soon if you're actually interested in seeing that happen. I think telling people that you're interested and then getting sponsorship lined up is gonna be the only way something like that'll happen. Yeah, I think we should have this event. I think it's a useful thing to have. I'm just a bit stuck. If I indicate to Ranny that we should have it, maybe we have it. I think we need to have some kind of like the team who organizes it. If there's a... How is this going? So if there's a way to do it, that I guess like a LFN way of organizing, then we can do that whatever that would look like. I'm not familiar with, even though I've been to a lot of LFN events, I'm not familiar with the organization. No, but how did it happen so far? Like was it you who organized it or was it the CNCF team? So we mainly worked, I guess there's an LF event team that got part of it going, but I mainly helped, I guess, on some of the extra stuff. I wasn't on the program committee, so there's the program committee, I think Gerga, I think you've been on that. Yes, I think most of the cat herding was done by Lucina. At least that's what I was sensing, let's say, to organize it, like at least from the program committee work. Yeah, she did quite a bit. I don't know if Lucina, you're able to speak to it. She's writing some of this and... Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's the first thing that... She did not approve the request. So there's a program committee and then like the co-chairs to help run that, but that's a little bit different from just saying, we're gonna make sure there's a program committee and whatever they're reaching out to the people. So I would say from the unofficially, Lucina helped facilitate a whole lot of it, but Lucina, do you have more insight on the organization or is that something that we could gather, maybe outside of this call? Hello, so this was done several months ago and everyone who was on the Cloud Native Telco Day program committee would have gotten emails from me that had a shared Google form. We collaborated on the submission form for the co-located event for Cloud Native Telco Day. If people were interested in continuing being on the program committee, they put their names on the Google form and then all that information was sent over through the official co-located event submission form that was provided by CNCF. And at this time, the Cloud Native Telco Day was not included in the program for KubeCon Europe. That's as much information as I have. That's KubeCon Europe, okay. And so is there a way then to make it from elephant side or is this like chance has been already gone? So I don't think our chance is gone because it was actually pretty late when it got approved for North America and we were still able to do it. I mean, more fit work was required, moving a little quicker, but I think it's still possible. It just needs to get approved. And there have been both CNCF project, more specific co-located events, but there's also stuff that I would say is more general that would be the same sort of fit as what we're wanting. So a Cloud Native Security Con or Day that's a co-located event, but it's not specific to any project, although there were project days at co-located events as well. So I think a telco date would make sense. What I haven't seen is a collaboration between two LF orgs on an event like this within CNCF, but I think Lincoln, maybe the one that I can think of would be one summit at open source summit. It's, I think it was a co-located event this year. Were you there, Gergay, for that one? LF organized a couple of one summits. I don't know what was the correct title, but these mini summits, and there was one before the one summit Europe. And I think there was one also before TubeCon Europe, maybe. All right, well, it seems like we could look into what happened for that, but the main thing I would say, and we can look at what we'd need to organize based on our experience with CNCF and probably reach out to some of the folks to see what else would need to happen there. But the main thing is send a message to Ranny and maybe our pet as well, and then send something to the LF event team saying that you'd like to see one and express your interest, you could also ask, what do we need to do to have one? We have had some folks say that they would be willing to sponsor the EU whenever it was for the North America and they were still up for it after that one happened. The more people ready to sponsor it, when we say, let's have it, I think we'll make it a smoother process to get approval. If it gets approved, which the sooner we do it, the more likely. All right, I'm gonna move on one summit in May, April, May. The, if y'all didn't, anyone didn't see, the CFP's got extended to December 17th, so we're wanting to submit for that. We still have an opportunity. Is there anything else to say about this, the one summit? If you have anything else, please add it. We do have a few topics. Normally we jump into the PR review because if we don't look at current issues or new issues, then we may miss them. So I'm gonna go ahead and do that. Looks like the only things here that updates the whitepapers. So for those that don't know, the new whitepaper was published last week. And that's just to show y'all. That's this one, this whitepaper. It's had a lot of updates and feedback over the last several weeks from different folks. This full request here is the latest. I'm gonna skip this one for a moment. This is an automated item that Victor Morales put in, so I can check that in a minute. So these are just some minor updates and mainly grammar and changes that some of them had gone into a different area, so we pulled them all in. These are grammar items like this with the goal of inviting to invite. So for minor changes, and we can look at how we're gonna do this going forward, but the way that the working group has been working, minor changes that can be pulled in without getting as many approvals to the pull request, but major updates or would want to have more, there's a governance and a link to doing updates to the different processes and stuff. That's normally like three for some and five I think is the common one for mess things, especially major changes. Yeah, spelling and some other things. And then there's a little bit of reorganizing to move references and stuff down. I'm not seeing any other changes though that it slipped in. It looks like there may be, it's not letting me review it. There's a merge conflict. Okay, I'm not gonna do that on this call. There's probably a change between the main branch and these updates that has already been merged in. So if folks wanna take a look though outside of the call and in time there's pull request, and just you can add your update. Misspelling, this is a misspelling. This is just an update for the automates. Yeah, for the version of the, yeah, the review. All right, I'm gonna try to keep up with deleting so that we'll not end up with so many branches like we've had for a while. All right, so that's it. I'll work on this later, but if anyone can come in and do a review. Oh, it looks like it's gonna work now. Have you had a chance, Nikolai or anybody look at this? Verbal, yes, looks good. Yeah, I can approve it. It was mine. Hey, Victor. Have you had a chance to look at this one? Yeah, I think I'm gonna review it. Doesn't change the meaning. I mean, it's fixing a lot of things. Yeah, let me just approve it from what's right. Sounds good. I'm gonna move back into the other items and we're gonna finish that. So I feel like the moving stuff might take over. I'm gonna, we could go longer, I should say. So let me move that down, Oliver. That way we can talk more about it and Lincoln, you may have input, maybe the tack. I'm gonna do a quick rearrangement. All right, so finish on the white paper. There's a blog post that we're getting ready and right now there's one that was set to go to CNCF. I don't know what LFN wants to do, but Oliver, I think you heard from Ranny that he was wanting to as well to do some type of post. I don't know, Lincoln, if you have an idea on that for PR and marketing for the cloud native telco-related stuff that we're doing, but we'll probably have a blog post out in the next few days from CNCF and I've heard from the CSPs that they're planning to do one and we have something in the draft right now that's pointing to joining the working group and talking about the new LFN program that's coming together. There's no webpage or anything to send them, but we do have a Wiki page that Ranny had created that then links to the resources and assets and a few of the other Wiki pages. We could send them there. Would that be a good idea or is there anywhere else that you all think we should send them for any type of PR or marketing? Because it's gonna bring a lot of price. I think the big thing would be, is there a way that we can get them engaged, right? So making sure that wherever we're sending them has like clear indication of future projects here's how you get involved with the group if so desires, here's how you join the meetings, subscribe to the meeting calendar, mailing list, whatever. So, and it might even be worth making sure we kind of get some of that. Those things sorted before you post the blog, right? Just to be able to capitalize on these things and the challenges we're gonna run right up against the holidays here and then the blog will get lost too over the holiday season. So I don't know what your timing is for anticipated timing is on some of those things. I think we're gonna end up with, I guess the PR marketing is gonna just keep going. So we'll have this one go out in the next few days, like I said, and then maybe something following up from LFN after that can be scheduled, whatever. And we've already heard about a follow-up that's gonna be talking about this white paper and some others that is in progress, but it'll be going out in January. So the idea then will be to keep the momentum going for talking about these things and pointing them. So if we have a new area, Lincoln, I think we can tie that in. Right now we're keeping it a little bit more general. So one of them will be to this working group and for that we can, we'll have the ability to update. So like these recurring meetings, if we get them here and there's a few other areas, then we can always update this to point to the LFN calendar once we have the LF team helping us to move on to that platform and the LFX and anything else that we have. So we should be able to redirect them that way. Yeah, that's perfect. So I mean, that I just would make sure that as the word drafting the text of the blogs, like the final thing kind of ends with like that calls action then. Yeah, that's right. Join the group here, like details here. Right. I mean, I'm just wondering if perhaps the, to your point, I mean, in terms of where do people go, Lincoln, maybe we can use on the Wiki page. Can't we just create an additional page that sort of fronts that asset sort of list and I forget the two main areas that are under what Randy created. I think there's an asset list and there is a challenges to be solved list but there is on that head page there, Cloud Native Telco. I mean, it has workshop but maybe we could sort of put a little bit of color on that one to basically say, the group for anyone who's interested, that's probably what we can do. That's probably the easiest way is just to sort of direct people to that for now. And we can basically say, where is this meeting? What's the frequency? And that this is work in progress to move it over to LFN but we don't yet have an LFN set up, something like that. And that might be the easiest way to do that just so people don't get lost in where they're supposed to go. That sounds good. Having linking between the different areas just making sure we keep mentioning the same thing we can do as well. So here's just the end of the draft. It's something like this. So number one calling to the new program and then the CNF or group meeting that we're on right now. So between those, I think we'll get some eyes somewhere where we can follow up and then we can update this. Right now we don't have anything that's pointing back to the working group. So as long as we have all of them pointing and talking about each other, I think we'll be fine. And then we can add more detailed or specific information to new blog post or announcements or whatever else. All right, reach out to you, Oliver, maybe after this call this week and make sure we have some of the same messaging on all those pages. That's good. Okay, Oliver, do you wanna give a recap? I don't know who added this, but a recap of the LFN tag meeting? Is there anything here? I mean, some folks may have already been on that meeting last week. Yeah, well, feel free to, I think there were a number of people on the call that are here today as well. So feel free to add any things I missed. But I think the main thing was is we were basically at a point where the initiative has of course been announced both at Cloud Native Cocoa Day and then also there were discussions at the last DNTF. So really the next step is in terms of trying to operationalize this in LFN. And so Ranny had spoken with Kenny Paul and one of the first things was really the tag meeting last week where in my mind it wasn't necessarily prepared as a, here's what the initiative seeks to do or this is what it is, it's what it seeks to do. I think it was a rather just a kind of open conversation to start with in terms of there's a new initiative, there's still things that need to be resolved. And so they want the community to continue to discuss it and figure out what the right approach is for the new initiative and ask that we update the tag. And I offered basically to say, okay, well, why don't we start with a proposal? What has actually been proposed? What areas are unclear or need further discussions? So I am in the process of trying to put that together but again, this is a community effort. So I think the, as if you can scroll down just a little but I'm just, or up or down, I'm just trying, ah, I'm just trying to see where that point was. Yeah, so I think what we said we would do is we would put together a proposal basically, you know, proposal slash status. Where are we? And I think, you know, we can start with what we're still over on CNCF. We don't really have a place with an elephant to start carrying out these meetings. There's a lot of unknowns at the moment. And one thought was to prepare a draft and present it next week in this meeting so that we can get as much community feedback and input in terms of your understanding in terms of your thoughts. So we capture that and then we will essentially the plan is to present that to the tack on the 10th of January as this is a status. This is what, you know, those of us have been working on think that it's about and how it's positioned within LFN. And then of course we will have discussions on that. So that's the thinking right now. So ideally we could use a large part of next Monday to go through that proposal and get, you know, input. And of course, if anyone wants to help out, you know, it's just to reach out to either Taylor, Lizzy, or myself. I'm just basically trying to put together sort of 10 slides or less that are going to articulate what, you know, what has been discussed so far and sort of what the next steps we think should be. Yeah, I know that there's already a lot of description of all the challenges. I think it would be so interesting to really discuss the interesting, I mean, the challenges and what the perception over this merger sort of is going to help. How's it going to help? And I think, I think you're spot on, Victor. I think one of the things we need to do is work to address, you know, I mean, to articulate how we think this new initiative can help with those challenges. And I think that's, that is the, I think that's a little bit of the benefit of getting to do this and present it again and say, this is what we think it is. This is how we think it helps. And of course, there'll be differences of opinion. So we need to, I think the more clear we are and what we think it is, then it's easier for people to comment. Because if we just say it's a cloud native initiative, then I, you know, it can mean, that means many different things to different people. Do we want to go into, do we want to talk about that today or is there anything else? It's not listed, but you're speaking to it right now. Talk about the challenges or asset list. The time remaining. I said it, yes. I don't know about that. All right. Before we jump into those, as it could take up the rest of the time, I would like to get feedback, especially from folks that may need to drop soon for the year-end schedule. So we'll be canceling for the 25th, of course. The first usually, new year, so that these two meetings won't be happening. So next week, the 18th will be the last meeting of 2023. Anything for the eighth? Do we just want to keep the same place and time for now? I think that wouldn't make sense. And I, you know, I would guess that, you know, we will have some, you know, hopefully we'll have a good discussion, but today and also next week, once we have some, some slides to share and sort of put thoughts down a little bit more on paper, we might be able to use that eighth as a, you know, feedback's been received and see if we can, how much we can address. You know, obviously it's going to be over the holiday. So there may be some work that remains, but ideally what we're presenting at the TAC is got as much community input as possible. And that for now is this group here. All right. I suggest that we keep it, even if we get some new information like the LF event team setting up calendar and other things, because some people have already communicated they won't be available starting next week. So they may not be on the call and they may not be back with all the others canceled. So that way at least folks that find stuff now will be able to find us on the eighth. And then if we're, if we have somewhere to move, we need to move or whatever else, then we move after the eighth. Any objections to that? No. Okay. I'm just going to put, yes. Okay. So we'll keep it. All right. Just Taylor. Yeah. Nicola and I just approved the PR. So I don't know if you want to merge it or if you can merge it offline here. Yeah. I'm sorry. I couldn't understand you realized what? Oh, the PR with the small changes. You go to approved. So you said like even though it's just minor changes on the grammar and two things, I guess. I guess that we can merge it now or maybe you can also do offline for. All right. Yeah. I'll open that up again. I'd like to hand the screen share over to maybe Oliver if you're available. As we get back and talk about the challenges. Okay. Going into the challenges and asset list. All right. Are you up for that? Yeah. All right. And that way we can, you know, if we want to continue the discussion on this it sounded like Victor, Lou, you had some more interest in the challenges and then Gerge as well. Yeah. I'm going to share her. Just give me a sec. Okay. I'm going to stop my screen share. There you go. Somebody needs to give me permissions to share. There we go. Right. You see on my screen now? Looks good. Okay. So did we want to start on challenges? Okay. Does anybody want to, I don't know if I wasn't, I'm not sure if you wanted us to walk through this or if people had comments that they wanted to spring up having read this. So this was of course in the references we've made this reference several times now about the Manifesto, the NGM Manifesto and then followed by the latest white paper. Yeah, my understanding the, it's pretty much the same problem every industry face, right? So it's just moving away from modelists and the problem is there's so many different products that's using technology from different kind of ages, right? From virtual machine to containers, et cetera. So there's just a problem to make them work together. So, but that's not going to change even with all those projects that's talked about the Sylvan, the Sylvia, or the Anokit, I don't pronounce it, right? So even with all those projects, those are just the current state that's going to evolve again. So how is going to the CNF projects going to help making that easier to transition? Yeah, basically, that was the original question here that what kind of problem do we want to solve? Like, is it like making it easier to integrate the platforms and the CNFs or is it making the CNFs nice, the following cloud native principles or making them easy to manage all of these? That's why we created this page to collect what problem we would like to solve in with these projects. And of course, these are all overlap a bit. That's the beauty of it. And what Sylvia is trying to do is that they are creating a very open-ended stack, like they say that if your CNF is not able to run on silver, then your CNF is not compliant with silver. And that is one way to specify a stack. It's a very concrete way to specify the properties of a platform to build the platform and require the CNF to run on that platform. But that is also, for me, even the existence of silver is an indication that at the moment, there is no generic stack, like you cannot have non-open-ended stacks. And that is because Kubernetes misses some features or properties to run tech over clothes. And that is also coming from the fact that Kubernetes itself is like a plug-in framework like you have to select the container runtime, you have to select whatever storage framework networking or all of these things. And all of the choice sources are giving you whatever different runtime capabilities. And that led to this privatization problem, for example. Basically, I think if I understand correctly, the goal is to first start with the opinionated stack, right, just as what Siebel did, then eventually from that experience, create patterns and interprobabilities, API standard, et cetera, that's going to be able to be more generic for future kind of non-opinated stacks, is that correct? Well, I don't know if that can be set as a goal today, because Siebel is one implementation, but other operators who are not part of the Siebel group are using different implementations. And I doubt that all Kubernetes distros running tech over clothes will be based on the Siebel stack ever. So I think we need something a bit more loose than the Siebel approach. At least that's my personal opinion. So I just want to thank you, Jacques. So I guess in this particular case, what we have here is just talking about the challenges. I guess, I mean, it's great to have like a multiple solutions, but I guess the first thing and something that I started thinking about it is, so we have to define the problem statement, like where are the things that we are challenged or where the problems that we are facing right now, ones that we define, we have clearly defined that the problem or the challenges in this case, maybe from that point, we can start like proposing a solution because if we tried to just quickly solve the problem, but I guess we didn't have a chance to analyze it and try to limit the solution. I mean, I like the way that is often described things as long as we are describing the problem, not as a way to provide a solution for a problem. So yeah, I know that we have field and other like initiatives which are trying to solving these particular problems, but I wouldn't like to just jump in the solution because I guess in that way, we can just maybe omit or like assume certain things. So one of the things that I was also thinking about it is like one of the things that we have constantly changes the way to develop applications, initially we have like a more predictability, for example, the infrastructure, the decisionaries, we didn't have like a chaos engineer for a time. We're like, we didn't have to do those things and we were relying too much in testing. So now we are like facing a new area where we have applications, we are going to be deployed in certain places where we don't have controller infrastructure or even the way that the application is running. So that's why, yeah, it's a new way to, avoiding and we have to accept the fact that this is going to happen. So yeah, that's one of the issues that I don't really get. Like we have to accept the fact that we don't control the infrastructure on one side, which is okay, but on the other side, we are expected to deliver, which means that we have to control the infrastructure because that gives us the CPU cycles and the packets. So how a CNF supposed to deliver if it cannot have any assumptions from the infrastructure, then we have to also accept that you cannot have any assumptions about the working of the CNF. Yeah, that's my point. I mean, we can try to force the infra providers to stick to certain offerings or we can also force the NF vendors to say, well, you have to do all this testing or all this validation. I mean, I think that there are two approaches. This one is try to inform them to do certain things or the other approach could be like, just accepting the fact that this is not going to happen and it is a new way that you have to prepare for the uncertainty and you have to prepare for that. I mean, not trying to force them to comply with certain rules or certain things because I remember that reading in this particular document, they were saying like, okay, well, we have to enforce that the CNF, then a vendor has to test it or to validate their application at least six months of a Kubernetes or something like that. So I don't know if that is low. I don't know if we can, I mean, we can propose that that's why we're here, like, but given the fact that things are changing so fast and I'm not sure if it makes sense just to keep in force and to do that in that way. Many of these challenges is, at least my understanding is it's kind of applied not only to telecom, it's kind of universal any cloud native implementation will have. So now that it is, in a way, the RF networking is sort of a kind of different role from CNCF, at least to me, they don't have it. They need some special email to even log into their Slack. So this concerns how, what's a more effective way to resolve this problem to even identify the problem? Should that be done in a CNCF level or is more collaboration between CNCF and RF networking or just busy networking just between the networking projects? Yeah, that's my point. Like, I mean, that's true Victor. For example, we now like a new kind of applications, the LLM applications, which are very hard to test them because you don't have that predictability in terms like the results. And I guess eventually the new era of all the new applications that are going to fall in the same category like not providing the level of predictability. So that's my point. I mean, probably more likely I'm kind of wrong, but I feel like trying to enforce them and to provide certain level of predictability from both parties, like from the NF and infrastructure could be, I don't know, if it's something idealistic or ideal, but it probably is not for the industry going, I don't know. Yes, I don't know if this list of things which are listed in the page, like this privatization and all of that, but are these in problem domain or solution domain? Because they still, I think, try to solve something. All right, so those, I put that in there, so I'll speak to it. These are copied out of the CSP Accelerating Quadnative White Paper, that if you scroll to the top, by the way, I added a couple of other things. So there's the link to that, but those quotes right above it, I think are important to this, Kirke. This was updated based on discussions back and forth with several vendors on the White Paper to try to be more explicit, that the CSPs understand they've had requirements, including SLAs, that then the vendors have to meet. So if there's new requirements that don't have an environment that actually allow them to be met, then it makes, it wouldn't be fair to vendors, it doesn't make any sense. It's gonna be a failure. And that's been acknowledged. It was already implicit based on everybody that's been involved. Tell us, writing up this area, Vodafone, Orange, Deutsche Telcom, a bunch of different people that are putting these in here. They're all saying yes, we can't just say vendors do all these things, but not try to have the environment. That includes having a more interoperable set of systems that you can go on. Yes, there are gonna be some specific things per environment, but they're all trying to go towards essentially, and you can see this in like a cloud native infrastructure book, I've seen it, but they've communicated this in a lot of different ways. Some type of cloud native layer that sits between it and the actual infrastructure layer. For a lot of people, this would be a SaaS model. So you may be on OpenShift or AWS, the EKS or whatever. So lots of different Kubernetes environment. And then some layer between it that's providing, here is what looks like the infrastructure that they would be running in production for the these Telcom environments. That layer is what they're focused on for the quote unquote platform. And they're wanting to build that out and they're focused on that right now. So you see production launches right now that are moving towards that and they're wanting to work hand in hand on that. So that's why I put the quote here that they're gonna be adjusting, they're gonna be adjusting what those requirements in SLA are so that you're not gonna think, hey, wait, we can't do this performance thing if we just throw it into, we can make sure interoperability thing here, but then our performance drops. So they realize that and they're gonna have to change what they're requiring from you whenever they're saying to come into these environments. Okay, let me just reiterate on that if I got it right. So you say that operators are building kind of an abstract layer to provide a homogeneously looking platform view for the CNS and they are raising this in production already. Is this correct? Because I didn't hear anything like that. So if you have any more references, I would be very happy to learn more about this. Yeah, for sure. I'm trying to find the, this is, okay, this is probably a good one. This book that I referenced, we need to add, I think we should probably add some diagrams into the white paper that are talking about the different things here. The book isn't gonna help a lot, Oliver, until I get you to the right spot in it. I'm trying to find the diagram that at least gives a very high level of what I'm referring to. There's a written version of it in the updated, okay, it's on page 43. And I'm gonna put, I'm just gonna paste that into the book, into the webpage. I need to reference the book though, I'm gonna do that. PDFs are frustrating, all right. So let's see, do you have it up? Yeah, you do. So this would be the general idea that I'm hearing from the CSPs that are pushing for this type of adoption. There's, I mean, okay, so it says in this book, and I've heard it independently from a lot of different people say this, but just to keep it in mind, everybody needs to look at whatever their problem is, and then you're gonna decide if something is the right solution. So that's the same thing when you're looking at cloud native technology and best practices and stuff. If it's not a good fit, then you're not gonna pick it, that's fine. When you say you do think it's a good fit, then what we're trying to do is help with picking those best practices. All right, so now you're going down this path. So this is the idea of what you would do on the different layers. And they are saying this from what I'm hearing the CSPs is they're wanting to eventually approach all layers. And there are projects that are actually looking at the automation side from a cloud. How would you do automation cloud native point of view for stuff like compute storage networking? So the underlying infrastructure layer and then the infrastructure service. But what we're really talking about right now is those top two layers. So applications, the workloads, I think we've all pretty much understand what we're saying for that for Telecom. This cloud native infrastructure to the infrastructure as a service, that's what the layer that I'm referring to Gurga. And I know Deutsche Telecom is already doing the automation for the infrastructure for themselves. They already have it on bare metal. They're doing their own thing. And maybe at some point they'll say, hey, we'll work with the rest of the open community and provide that, but I'm not looking at that today. I know that Equinex has some stuff, projects like Tinkerbell for doing some of the automation of infrastructure. But again, we're not talking about that. If there is some layer, the point is to try to talk to that. And if you're looking at a cloud provider, then there's definitely a layer. If you're building your own, then you'd need to think about it. But have something where it's abstracted and you say this is the environment that we want the application to think about. We don't want the applications to worry about the underlying pieces as much as possible. They may want high performance. They may want multiple network connection points, but that should all be requested using cloud native practices, the declarative configurations and stuff. Does this make sense, Kirke? Absolutely. I'm just wondering when we will have this. So we're starting to have it already. Like I said, Deutsche Telecom is doing it. I think that TELUS has some of their stuff doing this from what I'm hearing. At least they're doing a little bit of it. Some of their network functions are actually deploying on AWS in a complementary type of manner. And I've heard a little bit from Orange on this, but only in some areas. All of those Orange, Deutsche Telecom and stuff, you know they have a lot of different groups and stuff. Yeah, exactly. And that's my very... So this is how we are creating all of these open-ended stacks. So everybody's doing their own stuff. Absolutely. So we can't solve them all at once. And even if we said, hey, let's just... We know that they're all going to be on different things. So let's just make sure that we work well on that. It's going to... Whatever we do is we're not going to change everything today. So what we're talking about here is for the groups that are already starting to do this. So Vodafone has a lot of the infrastructure automation stuff. I know they have a whole cloud group. So there's... I know there will be some type of collaboration between them. And then if you look at, say, for Deutsche Telecom, they have their own thing, but there's a lot of people that are working more on, I think the match here for this top layer and what we're trying to do with this program, this new program, would work with people that are running in public cloud environments. So now we're saying, what is the cloud-native infrastructure telecom layer that we would like? That could be aiming towards that more interoperable across environments. I actually had a question. I think I found the answer. It's like, in CSEF, we're talking about containers. And when will the public cloud providers rewrite their public cloud using just containers without virtual machine? And I think I got my answer that is that the answer is depends. For the edge, you can have pure containers on bare metal, whereas for public cloud providers, because you're doing multi-tenancy and et cetera, so virtual machine is something that you just cannot live without. So that's why you won't expect the public cloud provider to rewrite their public cloud with just containers. And the same thing applies to the infrastructure, the service here. I don't know what they're doing right now. Most likely it will be sort of like open stack and be aware sort of virtual machine level, especially if they're talking about multi-tenancy. And more about resource management actually. I think it's more of a longer term, we can look to longer term goals and then know that things are gonna change along the way, including our long-term goals may completely change. So where do we want? And there'll be multiple goals. So you're picking a goal and then if we're moving towards that, I don't think we're gonna ever get all the providers move over to containers and then we say, we're done. There probably will be before you could move them, before you'd get agreement. And then definitely before it actually happened, we're gonna have some new technology. So trying to move forward in some area. So what I would say would be, if you think that using the properties of cloud-native technology and practices, which is really what we're talking about. So is the application and environment to design to work and act natively in that environment? So it was created not to just run in it, but actually respond and behave for that environment specifically. If you're wanting that, now we can say, well, who is interested in what can they do? So we already know that some providers are trying to do that for Telcom. So Microsoft has the Azure for operators, but that doesn't mean that they're taking on all the qualities that we want, but they do have an interest. So they're trying to do hyperskeller general stuff. They're also trying to do Telcom requirement stuff, including, I know that they have a whole group that's doing some secure computing stuff that's a good match for the EU specific requirements. And what we can do is try to reach out to any of them that seem more interested in working and try to get them on board to discuss those type of requirements, Victor. Hey, we're at the top of the hour. I do wanna make sure that we respect everybody's time. I'm just realizing. Oliver, anything else before we shut down? No, I think just feel free. We'll work a little bit on this during the week, trying to, again, I see just from this conversation, there's still a lot of things to discuss. So if you're interested in helping out or if you've got some time, feel free to reach out to again, either myself, Taylor or Lucina. We don't have anything booked, but we probably will meet once a week just to kind of discuss material that we're preparing for next Monday, where we can hopefully start talking a little bit about what the initiative, how the initiative can help. Sounds good. Thanks, everyone. Thanks.