 Hey everybody. Good morning. Good morning. Yes, are you there? Hello. I Hate the fact you guys can see all my wonderful typing errors. Awful. Hey Vlad. Hey Tommy. Good morning, Doug. There we go. All right, cool. Hey Clowns. Clowns, are you there? Yes, I am. Yep, you're very very faint. Very very faint. Unless it's me. How about now? Whoa, that's better. Okay. All right, and Ginger. Yes, I'm here, Doug. Hi Inns. Yes, I'm back alive. I was gonna say it's been a while. Welcome back. Oh One day over a beer. I'll give you the comedy of errors with working from at home. Oh, that's great. Tiamar. Yes. Hello. Hello. Mr. Baldwin. Good morning. Hello. So for those of you who are adventurous in two days time, Clemens and I are going to be showing our Cloud Events presentation of what you're gonna call it. For the, I keep calling it Kupkan China, but it's actually not Kupkan. It's one of the cons in China Athletics Foundation. If you are so inclined to join, It's the time zone is more friendly for Europeans. I believe for me, it'll be 330 Eastern time in the morning. But I thought I'd mention that if someone has to be awake at that ungodly hour, You're welcome to join us to the fun. Lance, are you there? Hello, I'm here. Hello. Hey, Doug. Hello. Do you have the link to that Kupkan session that you have? Oh, I could try to dig it out to you. Alright, thanks. Okay. Thomas, you're there. I'm here. Hello. These days, I get to spelling your name down to have a look at it over the same times. There's no G there. There we go. Okay, I got it. Perfect. It's so bad. No, I know. No, no, no. I don't mean your name is bad. I don't mean typing is bad. No, it's also painful for me, though. I would love to have a shorter lost name. I can imagine the difficulty there. Remy, hello. Right. We're going to see if I can dig out that URL. Does that work? You can always put the notes later too, by the way. It doesn't. We don't need to slow down for this. So, Doug, I put it in the chat. Oh, there you go. Great. Thank you. It's actually pre-recorded. So it's really just a question-answer session that's going to be the most interesting, I think. Oh, so really, you could just share the video with us? Actually, I already mentioned that last week, I think. Yeah. It's in one of our Google Drive folder thingies. Yeah. And for better or worse, it is the exact same presentation for the China event, as well as coupon Europe. So, watch it once. You don't have to watch it twice. We are efficient. One more minute until it gets started. Hey, Jim, welcome back. Hello. Thank you. And Hong-Qui? Hong-Qui? I apologize. I'm sure I'm butchering your name. He has no microphone yet, so I can't say anyway. All right, three after. We'll sync back up later. Let's get started. Community time. Anything from the community if you want to bring up? All right, moving forward. No SDK call this week. We do have an agenda for next week though, so feel free to take a look at that and comment on it if you have anything to say to that. I think Grant added a whole bunch of items there. Workflow, Tim, or anything you want to bring the group up to speed on? Not much. Doug and I recorded the KubeCon video with the working group update on cloud events and the total is workload specification. And the only other thing that happened is we are looking at some design proposals for a logo change for the specification for serverless workflow. That's it. Any questions for anybody? All right, before we jump into PRs, is there anything I forgot that we should talk about for the agenda? In that case, I think I already had this one. I don't see Scott. Originally, he did have a change in this one. This was just he was going through the spec. Actually, a couple of different. Yeah, this is just the discovery spec. He was going through the discovery spec. There's a couple of typos he did as of yesterday actually had a slight wording change in there, but he dropped that. A potentially non-typo type change in there. He dropped that. So now it is just a technically just typos in here. These are all mindless. Otherwise, I would have approved it if he didn't have other change, but he did. Any questions on this one? Like I said, I think it's just typos or anything else like subscription URLs, the biggest one I goofed on. Okay. Any objections to approving this one? Like he wants. All right, use case. I think this is classes, but unfortunately he is not here. I think he just wanted to add some additional text here talking about inmate areas and producers. I'll give you folks a chance just a split second to read this one. Because people haven't had a chance to. And keep on. This is just for the primer for discovery, not the spec. Okay. Anybody have any comments, questions on this change to the discovery primer? Any objections to making the changes? Okay. Cool. Thank you. And as with anything, we can change it later. These are not set in stone. I don't see him on the call. I believe this was in response to issue that grant opened where there's some confusion around whether batching is a mode versus something else. I'm just trying to fix the wording. Let's get the key changes here. So I think there are two main changes he had. One is this section right here. I'll give you folks a chance to read that. And then I believe. Let's ignore this one just for a sec. I think this is the other big chunk of text he added down here, give you a second to read that. Okay. And I got you Scott. Thank you. The other little bit is he added this sentence in here. And people thought there's wasn't necessarily to add that text, but I'm going to read that right here. Okay. And with that, let's go ahead and open it up for comments questions. Yeah, I find the, so I'm generally agreeing with what's written here. The only thing I find a little odd is this is embedded in an envelope thing. Is that down here? Yeah, well protocol bindings typically use another 139. The protocol bindings typically use binary mode messages directly on the wire structure mode messages are often embedded in the envelope. That's, that's a little cumbersome in terms of wording. Also, I'm not sure whether, you know, if you have a structured mode message in Jason, and that's a Jason object. I'm not sure when the Jason object counts as an envelope. Two of the people commented that they would actually prefer to drop these two lines and there is no normative in there stuff like you might be in favor of jumping it as well. That's true. Yeah, yeah, because they, they, I don't think they add something other than potential confusion, but the rest is good. Okay. Anybody else have any comments on any of it. Okay, I think what I'm hearing is maybe accept the PR but ask him to drop these two lines. Is that what I'm hearing from people that that would be good so that we can make progress in this one. Anybody want to comment on that suggestion. I'm in agreement. Okay, thank you Lance. I just want to chime in. Sounds good to me. Okay, thank you john. Okay anybody object to that direction. I will double check with the Kristoff and if he's okay with it then we can merge it if he wants to push back on dropping that text then we can have more discussions. So fair. Thank you everybody. Now onto one that's a little meteor. All right, back to ID discussion. I tried to speak for Klaus because he's on vacation. However, I will say that in a private Slack message and you might have to trust me on this. He did say that he understood it a little better because he was looking at a previous specification that he and I both worked on called the service binding spec, or I'm sorry open source broker API, which I think has a similar concept in there. And so we didn't necessarily come right out and say Doug you're right this is wonderful. He did at least say understands better why it's needed. So, but not saying that he's endorsing this yet. He can be for himself but I do want to put that out there. So I did go through and make some changes here based upon last week's conversation. In particular I tried to make it clear that it is unique. But so is name. Name is unique for a slightly different purpose, it's more human readable. It's only unique within the scope of this discovery endpoint, whereas this one is globally unique. So that for example, if you want to say the same one to appear in different discovery endpoints, you can be guaranteed that the idea is the same across them. Let's see what else I put in here. So typically it is defined by the discovery endpoint itself or the one of the components behind there. I didn't want to make it a hard requirement that that's true because I want to be able to make sure that people can do some sort of import type of action where obviously then it's been provided to the discovery endpoint. I thought that was an important use case. I'm talking a little bit about why it's meant why it's there at all so that the clients can have some consistency in terms of knowing what this entity is even if all the metadata including the name changes be sure it's the same one. And that's a think about it in terms of local changes from this section. The other thing I did change I know this might be controversial is I did make the URL of the resource to use the ID rather than a name, mainly because I wanted a static URL. If the URL for this resource uses the name and the name changes, then every single reference to this resource is now going to be broken. Excuse me. And I didn't want to get into a really weird race condition where the server changes but then how do you make sure all the clients get updated. Does the server have to support both the old and new versions of the URL over time it just seemed easier. If we've made it the static URL be the the UID itself. Now, that's not to say if we wanted to support both the name and ID. That's possible. I just got a little bit worried there because what if someone chooses to use a UID has their name as weird as that may sound it is technically possible. Anyway, that's kind of where I left things open for discussion. I think John you came up with your first sec. Do you still want to say something. Yeah, I was going to ask what Kristoff thought about the name versus ID thing. And you talked with them, but I guess my my my bigger concern is the question of how is this basically what's the mental model of how people are going to use this in your in your mind right are they like because if you're going to use a UID. Okay, well how do I, how do I find out what that UID is so that I can go look it up. Okay, so what forgot I did make another change. So down here in the API section. Down here in the API section I did say okay I'm going to change from name to ID but of course that stinks from a usability perspective right. So I made it a little bit clearer that down here, you can search for it by name. I thought matching wasn't very descriptive, right because you don't know what you're matching on so that okay let's make it a little clear and I thought okay you can put in the name there so here you can find things by the human readable name if you want it's just instead of a slash it's a question mark, basically, what I'm trying to say there. So the technical thing there so then is your model basically sort of akin to DNS right I'm going to use, I'm going to use a very generic label to use different term to go look something up. And then what I get back is a, I guess in your term a static URL for the lifetime of that service in that discovery endpoint. Yes, I believe that is one fair way to think that yes, because I even mentioned this in one of the comments above right once, once someone discovers a service, it's very possible that they monitor, they may want to cash a reference to that service samples right so they're going to stick something inside their own data store something like that, and whether they store the full set of metadata, or just a URL to it is obviously up to them, but at a bare minimum, they're probably going to put the URL to it right and it terrifies me that that URL may change, because someone that finger the name needs to rename it. Okay, so then it's broken. Yep. So then the next meta level up is. Okay, so now that service does actually change. Right. Yes. So then at the top level, I'm going to try and connect to that static URL that you've created, that's going to fail, right. And then I have a loop that just goes back to doing a new search for a new name, or the same, the same name, but doing a new search to get a new static URL to the new service. If yes, if that is what you want to do, because even though it vanished, yes. Now that's not to say obviously if someone wants to store in their data store, a URL that has the query parameter thing right so the services question mark name equals foo. And they're welcome to store that as well. And that way they're, you know, they'll discover even faster than it's gone. You know, the url a stores up to them but yes, if they're going to store the uid then yeah they'll get a 404 and then they have to go refind it and figure out what happened and try to resolve it themselves. And I should also mention at the camera who was it may actually been you John last week. Somebody mentioned well what happens if there's another version of the service and I actually do want to be represented as a completely different service it just happens to be mentally linked because it's version one version I in here I tried to talk about how, whether they use a new ID for that, or they replace the existing one is an implementation choice I don't think we as authors of the specification can dictate. No version one version two must be completely different services versus no same service and you just killing off the old one when you reusing the same ID. I don't think that's up to the service provider or discovery and point or somebody in that back end to make that decision I don't think that's up for us to decide from the spec level. Got it. Any other questions. Now, Thomas I want to pick on you since you are on the call, you said you did not like having the name and I'm sorry you didn't like having the uid in the name. Did my comment here address your concern about that. Yeah. I'm still on mute. It didn't work with the space bar though. I see where you're coming from and what's your intention. Nevertheless, I really don't like having this you ID in the URL. Just. It doesn't look like nice for me. Is it a huge concern though in the sense that, you know, you could drop to this forms you really want it to right so you do get almost the same thing with just five extra characters. Granted, if the name isn't unique or the search term isn't unique right if you just search for food when you have food service a and food service be able to get both so that is a very problem. So yeah. Anybody want to comment I'm not going to push for a vote on this today because I still think you need to think about it. It's obviously a touchy subject with people. I'd like to try to at least gather your comments and feedback if I need to make changes. I'm trying to interpret silence. You guys know I love silence. The silence mean it's generally the right direction people don't care how do people think I want to avoid people but I will. On my side, I'm still like not convinced by the idea even if I understand the reason I'm still have to think more. Okay. Okay. Let me pick on Jim, because you had the pleasure of not being here for several weeks. Jim, do you have a take on this one. If this is just the ID for a thing why do we care it's just a string. Right. Could be a UID, a GUID or some random stuff that I make up is just a unique resource ID. Well, actually, no, I take that back. It is not just a random string. I do require it to be a GUID or a UID. But it is not meant to be human readable and it is immutable. So if that's the resource ID, then I'm not quite sure then it would be normal to put that in a URI string when you're searching for that resource. If you're getting that's what the conversation is about. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so you've drunk the Kool-Aid. That's good. Yeah, I drank that. Okay. Anybody else want to chime in otherwise we'll move on and we'll revisit it next week. Okay. So let's move on. Please if you have any comments in particular ones that would make you want to vote no please raise them in the issue itself so I can or PR itself so I can try to address them. Otherwise we'll see if we can wrap it up next week. Um, let's see. This one is from Ray. I forgot this was you. Okay. And this one was just open yesterday so we can't vote on this today. Remi you want to briefly introduce this one so people can be thinking about it. Yeah, just by talking about the discovery service, I remember like there was a requirement of filtering the events and service based on your permissions. But if the discovery services decoupled from the service itself, it might not have the permission scheme and be built. So you cannot know what do you have access to. So it might want to list the only events from the service and cannot comply with that requirement. So we just losing it with my talking with you just think it was better to make it optional. Any questions on that. Does everyone understand why he wasn't listening. Okay, I'm not hearing any objection will vote on that one next week so please when you get a chance to review that one. And that is technically it. This PR. I know Lance you had a few comments in there. I don't think they were controversial necessarily, but I know slinky is on vacation today so we didn't get a chance to make those changes so we're going to have to wait on that one. But of the other PR is here. Actually, I'm still reworking the pagination one. I'm still trying to absorb people's feedback from that one. So I'll get that one on next week. Hopefully, I think these last three might be from slinky if he's not here. Actually, I'm sorry Jim, your protobuf one did you, what's the status of that one is it's still sort of in the works. If you had to lay money which way would you swing. I'm betting no, no movement I'm afraid. Is there anything you need from us to help you make progress or is it just a matter of just working through the comments and going back and forth with people. No, I think it's just me I think the last, the last comment on it was really that I've seen, and there may be more, I have to say, was more around being more explicit and examples of how we might translate between different event formats. So, you know, bringing in a structured Jason event, for instance, and sending out a struck, you know, the same event but now structured as proto. So that, that was an ask I think I think I know how to address that I just haven't got around to it. All right. Before we leave this section of PRs, or I guess issues to somebody open this you want to raise. Is there anything you want to bring up. That's not on the list or I forgot to bring up. Okay, in that case, the next topic is discovery interrupt. I don't personally I still haven't had a chance to do any coding that anybody else want to chime in in terms of their status or opinions on their coding efforts. So yeah, I'm waiting to settle on the discovery to make sure I implement the latest space based on our discussion. Okay. Right. Anybody else want to speak up. Okay, in that case, before we think about wrapping this up I do have another question. Klaus, I'm not close, Clemens. I'm a registry thing. Is there anything you want to do with that or are you okay with us just sort of waiting till people review it and comment on it. What do you have in mind. I don't know. I just I just feel a little bit bad that we're focusing heavily on the schema stuff. I'm not worried about the subscription API, because I feel like we'll get to that once we finish discovery since it's a natural progression. Yeah, on this on the scheme of stuff I want to make sure that you didn't feel like we were neglecting it or something so. No, I'm not worried. I think I think all those things hang together in a way and if we get those, if we get to discovery if we give discovery love now then and then look at this registry. I think the folks who were thinking about implementing schema registry were already reviewing it. I don't know how far anybody has progressed in terms of implementation but given that it's July coming up in August and we're still having people on vacation etc. I'm not. I don't feel any rush right now. Okay, cool. Just wanted to double check. In that case before I go back and do final attendance, the 10 b list. Are there any of the topics you want to bring up. All right, that case very short today. Manuel are you there. Yes, I am. All right. Thank you. Maybe something for us. There you go. Cool. Thank you. Brian young. First Brian is here. Okay, what about Brian number two, Brian Zerman. Yes. Hello. Hello and what company if you want to be associated with the company. Yes, of course. So I'm I'm with Google and I just joined the project as a product manager for the eventing side of things. So happy to happy to be sitting on the meetings and and joining the initiatives. Cool. Thank you for joining. Brian, you have two brands from Google now. That's exciting. I'm from Google on the same team. So it's quite confusing. We'll have to use our last names wherever possible. And you both still Brian the same way too. It's not even like one of you has an eye and the other has wise. That's interesting. All right. Christian either. Good morning. Good morning. All right. Did I miss anybody? Oh, I'm sorry. There was somebody else on Sunday. I'm here. Yes. And I'm sorry. I apologize. Is this your first time on the call? This is my second time. Okay. Then I already got you. Nevermind. Okay. Cool. Thank you. All right. Then I miss anybody for attendance. All right. In that case, I believe we are done. Thank you everybody. And please, if you get a chance, look over the same PRs and comment if you can. Otherwise, we'll talk again next week. All right. Bye everybody. Thank you.