 Hey guys, you guys there. Hello. Hey, Tim. Tommy. Yo, yo, yo, I gotta give you my weekly yo. Thank you. Hey, Jesse. Good morning. Hey, Eric. Oh, he's not my cat. Ginger. Hello. Hello. Hey, Eric. Good morning. Ginger, you didn't get a note yet for signing up for Booth Duty for KubeCon, did you? No, I hadn't seen anything. No. Okay, cool. So I'll make sure I didn't miss it. Thank you. Hey, Simon. Hello. Hello, Doug. And Kristoff. He always managed to slip in there without me seeing you. Hi. I don't know how you do that. I don't either. Okay, there's a new one in there, S-A-N-A-N-D. I'm not familiar with that short name. Mark, are you there? I am. Hello. Howdy, howdy. Hey, Remy. Hey, sorry. Hey. No worries. Arrived late. So who is, oh, there he is, Sanel. Okay. Thank you. This, you've been here before, right, Sanel? Yeah, I was there last to last time. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. It's only one D. Yeah, sorry. Horrible. I will update my name. Okay, no, I got it. There we go. Okay, thanks. Lance, howdy. Hello. Hello. I'm wondering if we are losing people like Clemens and other folks because of the time difference. I think Europe is switching this weekend anyway. Yeah, yeah, that's what I think. It's interesting. I got pinged from the person who manages our recordings and I guess somebody stayed on the call. And so she started looking at the recording, starting at 1 p.m. Eastern. I'm not quite sure why her time was shifted for European time since I think she's in California. But she couldn't understand why there was no one on the call. She thought we'd maybe canceled this week or last week. So that was interesting. Anyway, Klaus, you there? Yes, I'm here. Hello. And Jim? Hey, Doug. Hey. Okay, I think I got everybody. So when we go ahead and get started. Okay, we don't have John or Daniel on for me to nag them about AIs. So that's okay. Or Clemens. So that's going to be interesting. Okay, community time. Anything from the community if you want to bring up? That's not on the agenda. I just wanted to pick on you, but as I will be presenting for the whole group next week, I'll submit the, I'll submit to you the presentation with like my notes. So if you can give me feedbacks, but like I'm a bit late. I will get it ready for next week so you can all review because like obviously just representing this whole group. So I don't want to say anything that you would be uncomfortable. That sounds great. Yep, we have complete faith in you. Yeah, maybe you should not. I don't know. I'll try my best. That's good. We usually do tend to try to share the presentations beforehand that way in case there's something obviously wrong that we need to fix. But yeah, usually it's okay. But yeah, thank you for sharing that. All right. Anything else from a community perspective? That's not on the agenda. All right. In that case, we have SDK call scheduled for this week. Let me just double check. I don't think we have any, yeah, no agenda items. So if you want to talk about something, go ahead and add it to the doc before the end of this call. Discovery interrupt. So next week is the last week of March. You don't need to talk about it here, but consider ever yourself nagged if you're planning on doing something that we did plan on doing something starting next week for interop testing. I know myself, I'm still way behind, but other people, please keep in mind that that was our original goal. So try to do what you can for next week. Okay. EU, we already talked a little about that. Let me do this thing. We haven't gotten a signup sheet yet. So I don't know what our office hours are yet. So we'll have to play that by ear. And Timer, anything you want to mention relative to workflow? Oh, just real quick. We released version 0.6 of the specification and the alongside all the SDKs, the VS Code plugin and updated the website as well. So that was like all we did last week. And now I guess preparing for next release are starting to think what's going to be included. All right. Cool. That's exciting. Any questions about that? All right. In that case, let's move forward. So it's interesting. If I remember correctly, I think Jennifer may have had a question on the conventions one. And since she's not on the call yet, let's skip that one for a little bit later just in case she joins. I'd like to see if she had any feedback or something. Even though I didn't notice anything in the issue, I just want to give her a chance. So let's hold off on that one for a minute if that's okay with folks. Let's look at this next one. Okay. So this one is still in draft form. Let me go ahead and hide the comments, but I did want to bring it to people's attention to make sure you see it. So this person is suggesting a new extension to basically add another field called classification where people can then indicate, I guess, the type of data or not, whether it's private versus public or something like that. And the example they give here is that it's labeled as public. Obviously, you know, take your time to read it and stuff. It is just an extension, so the bar is fairly low. However, what's interesting is they do mention specifications not because they necessarily adhering or they're not because they're necessarily implementing that spec per se, but rather they just sort of reference it as saying this is an example of where you might find the data to stick in there. And some of those specs are private. That's maybe a little bit of a concern for us. But anyway, go ahead. You mean ISO? No, it wasn't the ISO one, was it? There was another one in here that he mentioned. I mean ISO is usually, unfortunately, behind paywalls. Yeah, maybe it was the other one then. I honestly can't remember. But anyway, I don't take a look at it. Since it's still in draft, we don't have to put it on today or anything, but I just want to draw people's attention to it. ISO is a sad case. Sad. Yeah. I mean, because they still think they're a library, and so they're stuck in the 1980s and without any progress. It does seem kind of weird doing the state of affairs to have something like that be behind the firewall, but it's a lovey. All right. Since the owner, Gamer, the owner's name. Yeah, since Matt is not on the call, I'm not sure we can do a whole lot here other than just bring it to your attention. But, Jem, did you get your hand up? Yeah, I mean, I commented on this because I'm not sure what to make of it without seeing that spec. We certainly deal with data privacy and having to annotate data and all that sort of thing. But I wasn't clear what anybody would do with this information. That was really when where it wasn't sort of resonating for me. Did he answer you? No, I don't think so. So, but that raises a good point. And that is if we need, so if a CNCF working room needs an ISO standard to do its work, how does it get that ISO standard? I don't think it's related just to ISO. Basically, it's more related to data classifications and all the policy. You find it in these 800, you'll find it in like PCI DSS, you'll find it in several norms. So, even if it talks about ISO probably because it's from UK for what I've seen, it can apply to several other norms like security norms like the ISO 20.01 is like a security norm. Yeah, yeah, but my question is a different one. Can we get the ISO PDF? Yeah, exactly. So what is the process? So ISO is obviously capital S standards. So I think that it's without question that we should be able to go reference an ISO standard. It's just that for us to judge whether it is, you know, our specifications make sense in the context of those ISO specs, we would have to go and take a look at those ISO specs. So what is the, does the CNCF help? Does the great, the giant bag of money that we're all kind of directly or indirectly creating in CNCF buy us some ISO standards? Doug? I honestly, I don't know the answer to that question. I know that they have helped for going through the PAS process for some of these folks, you know, it's the fast path process, but I don't know about getting access to things behind the firewall that I just don't know. So, so I think that's a TNTF question. Well, isn't that why we used an RFC 3339 and for timestamp instead of the nicest standard? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's the ITF, that's the ITF way. But really, if we're referencing, so if either of any of us goes and acquires the standards documents, I think it's pretty clear that none of us are able to go and share them with anybody else. So I have it, but I can, yeah, it's like my company property. So, yes. Right. So, because 150, but the thing is, in my opinion, but maybe I'm a two lakhs on that is it's more the intent that we need to extract than the exact specific, like the exact need of ISO, because it's going to be more generic than I can go and check if you want. I can probably read it for you. Yeah. So I have that. So I would like to have the in addition to the concrete problem at hand, I would also like to have the this clarified from the CNCF is like if this working group as the working group needs access to an ISO standard, how does CNCF facilitate that? Well, I'll take some notes. Because because we as the member companies, it's impossible for us to go and acquire these standards because we can't share them amongst each other. So it's to make, to do its work. The CNCF bodies need to go and acquire this through CNCF, so that we can go in and and share first rule of what ISO is that you don't talk about. That's great, Mark. So, so that because because you know what, putting all that money into CNCF should not only go to the officers, we should also have some some resources to do to do some work out of that. So I'll, I'll, I'll pay some comments into the PR in this space. But to be honest, I kind of interpreted this as sort of an example of some folks that may want to actually use it. But then it does relate to the to the next question I was going to ask him at some point, which was, don't you need to give some guidance on what values to put in there? I understand he says it's maybe proprietary and he's not proprietary. It may be domain specific. And he's just sort of defining a field where this common information can go, but then it's up to each domain to define what those things are. But it still would be nice to point to non proprietary samples that people can look at and say, Hey, that's cool. I'm going to copy what they did instead of reinvent their own. Yeah. So I just personally the paragraphs is referring to under control. It's super generic. And I think this is what I was really questioning. I certainly in our world, we can't get away with saying this complex object is of a particular class or sensitivity. Yeah, it's actually all the data items inside that object. So I was still bemused as to how you could apply. I assume this would apply to the entire data payload of the event. Yeah. So if you guys can, if you have time, go ahead and add your own comments to there, Jim. I know you already did and I'll try to poke them behind the scenes to see if you can answer the questions. But, you know, revenue Clemens anybody else, if you have additional questions, please add them to the PR and I'll try to add some as well based upon some of the feedback on the call here. But like I said, it's just in draft form. So we still have time to hash through it. Okay. Any other comments on this one before we move on? All right, moving forward. Lance, do you want to talk about this one? Or do you want to wait since there's still some discussions going on? It's up to you. Well, I saw that there were some comments just well, I guess this week and maybe just today, even so I need to read through that stuff. Okay, we can hold off on that. That's fine. Let's see, Slinky is not on the call. Yes, Slinky is on. He's joining right now. Hold on. It's so interesting how long it takes sometimes for the microphone to pop up. He's having issues, obviously. Let's see if there's another one we can go to. Oh, there we go, Slinky. You there now, Slinky? Yeah. All right. You joined just in time. So we're just talking about this PR in here. I was wondering if you, because I don't think the author's on the call, let me just double check. Drew. Yeah, I don't see Drew. So did you want to talk to this one? Is it, do you think it's, aside from this type right here, do you think it's ready to go? Do you want more time to review it since you kind of own the SQL spec as of right now? How would you like to proceed on this one? Well, can you, can you ping me there? So I'll give a look. Yeah, okay. Yeah, because it's some, something seems just. It's, to be honest, most of it seems like strictly syntactical kind of things. I think there's only one or two spots where he had a question about the exact wording or choices you made. It was very, very minor, I think. But to be honest, if you have any chance to review it, I'd rather wait. Can you, can you go below, below, below, because I saw some changes to the function names. Yeah, here. Oh, okay, okay. Okay. He just moved the functions around. Yeah. Well, okay, I'll give a look. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, like I said, I think when I did my antics, I think that was one spot that would get closer, was it? Yeah, and this, I don't think it was trying to change the, what you were saying here. I just think you wanted to tweak the wording slightly, but you may want to just double check to make sure that's accurate. Okay. Okay. Yeah, again, CC me in the, yeah. Oh, okay, CC. Okay. Slinky. Done. However, does anybody have any questions or comments on it while we're on the call? Not during any. In that case, let's go back to the fun. Go away. Oh, wrong doc. Okay. So there's this one. Okay. Slinky, I think this one is yours. Yeah. So for who doesn't know, Antler. So I basically went ahead and started sketching the grammar for Antler, which is a pretty famous tool for like one of the most famous tool for a faster generation. In the process of doing this, I found some minor issues with the spec that I fixed. I, before going to merge this, I want to have one of my colleagues to look at it because he's more expert than me. Okay. Yeah, there were some things, some, say some leftovers in the spec that I forgot. Like this, yeah, the expression may be an F was missing. The like operation exists operation and in operation, then some, I fixed some naming consistencies in the BNF rules, but yeah, stuff like that. I didn't add that nor removed anything new in the spec. Okay. Any questions for Slinky? I know nothing about G4 stuff. So I can't comment on that. Anybody have any experience with this? Okay. If somebody asks, it will be very helpful. Okay. Is this something that you would like to sit out there for another week, or do you think is ready to merge now? No, no. I want to wait for another week because I want to have a little high. Okay. Okay. In that case, anybody want to chime in now? Okay. In that case we'll hold off. Hold on. Okay. Let's go back to, I don't see Jennifer yet. She usually would join by now if she's going to join. So let's go ahead and do this anyway. Did anybody have any comments on this one? This is the one where Grant was trying to get us to use the conventional commits guidelines for tagging issues in PRs, I guess. And I don't think Jennifer had any comments in here. So I'm assuming if she had some concerns, she would have. So does anybody want more time on this one or are we prepared to vote? Okay. Not hearing any. Any objection to approving? All right. We shall do it. Thank you all. Okay. So let's look at that. I got that one. Okay. This one. I did not update the PR. However, I did add some, a proposal in here. So just to refresh everybody's memory, last week's call, we talked about possibly adding a removal time to indicate that, I'm sorry, that a removal time attribute, its presence indicates that the service is deprecated and the timestamp is obviously when it will be removed. Now, I guess Tom suggested what about making it a structure so that we can tap not just the time, but an alternative. And then we got a whole bunch of questions about the alternative. So after thinking about it, my proposal was if we're going to keep the alternative in there, my suggestion was that the alternative service must be available immediately because otherwise it just sounds like it's going to be a real headache because then you have to add some other timestamp or something like that to say when it's valid. And it seems to me it should be available immediately just to keep life simple. I think I did include text in there already that talks about how the subscriptions or what happens to subscriptions after the expiration date is out of scope for us. I got a little more specific here saying subscriptions do not carry over to the new service because there's no guarantee the new service acts provides the same semantics. In fact, the alternative, it doesn't, the alternative could be a completely different service. It's just what this person who owns this service is kind of recommending that they consider. It's not meant to be a one-to-one replacement. At least this specification does place no guarantee that it's a one-for-one replacement. Therefore, I propose that we don't do any transitioning or transferring of subscriptions at all. And alt must be a URL to the alternative service. It can be another discovery endpoint, which means there's no guarantee that the client can't access it. That was my current thinking around this. Any comments? Does anybody think we should do the alternative stuff at all? You guys can't stay quiet on this one. You're going to have to speak up. Sorry. Go ahead, Jim. No, as probably one of the people that asked for this in the first place, I do think we should keep it, have an alternative. And you're right. I mean, either it's being removed altogether, or if you're stating an alternative, the alternative should be available. Otherwise, you shouldn't deprecate something if there isn't a replacement for it. Okay. Or your end of life in it entirely as a capability. Okay. And I wouldn't expect subscriptions to transfer. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So it sounds like you're okay with the general direction I was thinking. I'm always with you, Doug. Life would be so much easier if everybody had that attitude, you know? Okay. Anybody else want to chime in? That sounds good to me. Okay. Thank you, Remi. Lance, you came off mute. I came off mute just to say that I don't have strong feelings about it, but I like the idea of the alt and I like your recommendations. Okay. Thank you, Lance. Mark? Yeah, I agree. I think that having an alternative and then your recommendations around it are good. If it is expanded like that, then I might suggest changing the term removal to deprecated because you're specifying a time in there. But no objection to that from me. Okay. I prefer also the deprecated. Okay. Easy enough. Anything else? Jim? I think, did we go over this? I think the, did we want to, I believe originally we had deprecation, but then there was a confusion about what about removal? I think for what I understand, if we put deprecation, then the time is basically the removal time and not just the time of the deprecation. So that's otherwise it creates, I do understand some confusion. Yes. I mean, so I think that's why we opted to say it's removed. You know, it will be removed on this date and there may or may not be a replacement for it. What about we put like EOL or end of life with the time inside the deprecation? Because I see there is a time instead of just putting time, just put like EOL or something like that. I don't know. Because time is too generic to me. I do agree with you. It's like, is it when it was deprecated or when it will be completely removed? Which is not the same. This is like wordsmithing by committee, but it's all good. So let's start with one at a time. First of all, the top level element, I have no problem with changing it from remove removal to something else. My question is, is some variation of the word deprecate problematic? I wasn't sure whether you, whether you think that's too confusing because it's not like you're saying the word deprecate doesn't mean or means it's going to be deprecated at this date as opposed to it is currently deprecated, right? Almost like you're implying if we use deprecated, we almost need two dates. And I think my intention was, no, the presence of this implies it is currently deprecated. Jim, you on mute? Yeah, that was because I was typing. Yeah. So I think saying it's going to be removed, I think that's the marker. And then if it's typically from that you infer or we imply that it's going to be that it is deprecated. And then the date after that is informative because you're really saying on this particular day, this thing is going to disappear altogether. And if there's a replacement for it, here's the reference to it. And you've got until that time to actually make any changes that you need to. So maybe it should say some, you could change the language to say it's supported until or something like that. If the word time is not clear enough. And for me, if it's in the context of removal, then I sort of the way I tend to read stuff is that that would mean it's the removal time. But that's just the way my brain works, I guess. Okay, so what other people think is, is Jim right that the word some variant of the word deprecate could be confusing for people and we should be a little more direct and imply this date will be removed. Mark, can I pick on you since you were suggesting we rename it? What are your, what's your take on that? Yeah, I just think that, you know, if you, if the top level was deprecated and you have a time that, you know, it's reasonable to assume that that's the time that it's going to be removed. You know, that it's just, I think deprecated is a better term to use here. But that's just my two cents. So if we, if, Jim, let me ask you that, Simon, I'll get to you in a sec. If we change the top word to be deprecated and then we change time to removal time, would that clear it up in your mind or something like that? Jim? Sorry, yes. Mark, would you be okay with that? Yeah, I think so. Okay. Okay, I apologize, Simon. I mean, the main thing that I tend to be after is how can we make these things as small as possible so that we're not transmitting the same bytes over and over again? So. Yeah, probably great. Okay. Simon, your hands up. Yeah, I just wanted to add an experience here. So we actually had this at some other discovery both and we had the deprecation date, which is the time when the deprecation will become active. And that might be in the future. And then we have a removal date, which is from this date on this actually has been removed. So it's actually a window of time you have, which is the deprecation phase. Right. And I think Jim was suggesting something similar. I guess the question for the group is, do we want two timestamps or just one? Does anybody have any strong opinion? Jim, I'll speak for you, Jim. I think you prefer two. You've had your choice, right? I think two is more informative because you're really saying you're just advertising the date on which the deprecation started. But I mean, it's really the removal time that becomes important for anybody consuming. So I think I wouldn't push back if you wanted to add that, but I don't think it's candy. It's not really required from a sort of processing perspective. It's informative. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. So I think what I'm hearing is possibly look at adding deprecation time. Optional. Absence equals now, I assume. Or I just say already deprecated. I think that's what I'm hearing. I was assuming alt was optional. Does anybody think it needs to be required? No. I don't think so because you may be turning this capability off altogether. There may well not be an alternative to it. Right. Okay, I'm just trying to get all the comments that were in the Slack. I'm trying to Slack. WebEx chat. Make sure I'm getting them all. Yeah, so Lou, you're asking, do we need a time when the alternative will be available for you? So my current recommendation was that the alt has to be available immediately. Otherwise, I feel like we're putting a real pain in the butt burden on clients to have to wait before they even think about moving over and stuff like that. It just seems like it'd be easier if we keep it simple and say, if there's an alternative, it has to be available right now. Okay. So does this summarize where I think we're at? Change removal to deprecated, add or remove, change time to removal time, add a deprecated time under it, which is optional. Absence means it's already been deprecated and make sure alt is optional. Hold on. Okay. So, Jan, you made an interesting comment in there. Multiple alternatives. Do you want to speak and elaborate on that? Because I wasn't sure whether there you're talking about whether alt should be... Maybe I missed an instant story. Hello, everyone. It's the first time for me, Remy invited me. And what I understand is when something's deprecated, we add a new field called the alt to transform what we are using before with this one, this alternative. Is that correct? I wouldn't say it's transforming it as much as the owner of this service is saying it's going away. And here's an alternative you can consider. It is not necessarily a direct replacement. It could be, but it also may not be. It's just something that the user may want to consider moving to if they want to try something in its place. Okay. And so my question for you based upon your comment in the chat was, are you suggesting that there may be more than one alternative? So it needs to be not a singleton, but actually a list? Yes, maybe. So it's just a thinking. I'm not an expert in cloud event. I'm just new. But what I see here is when we remove something, maybe it's to split it in several other things. And maybe it could be useful to to have the link to those new alternatives. Okay, what do people think? Does it need to be a list or is a singleton good enough? Jim, can I pick on you since you seem to have a lot of opinions on this one? What's your take on that? Okay, quiet next time. Remind me what this is pointing at. Is it point, you know, is it because I can see, you know, you may have multiple replacements or options. What is it going to refer me to? What is that? You'll point you to another service and a discovery endpoint. Where I could get all the documentation and everything about that thing and make a decision about whether it was something I wanted to use. Yeah, basically, the same type of information that you could get from this service in terms of whatever metadata we define. Yes. So in that case, yeah, maybe most pause is a wise thing to support. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else want to chime in here? I just wanted to ask, is this a realistic that usually one event would have multiple alternatives or one deprecation? I think the split example was not, if you have a huge service that you start splitting in microservice, it might generate this kind of situation. Yeah, I was actually wondering something similar because obviously a singleton is conceptually easier. But if people have real use cases where, as you just said, one service gets split into many microservices, I can definitely see the need for more than one. I just didn't want to overcomplicate it unless we had a real need for it. But if people think it's valuable, then that's fine with me. Any objection to starting out with multiple and we can see how that feels once it's in the spec? Anybody else have an opinion? Okay. So does this comment down here summarize where we think we're at in terms of possible changes? Yes. Okay. Done. Cool. Any other comments on this issue? I'll go back and make the updates to the PR based upon that. All right. Cool. Thank you all. Okay. Grant, I noticed you joined. Just let you know we merged your PR. So if that's one of the things you were joining for, there you go. Okay. Clemens, I believe you missed the call last week. So I just want to draw your attention to the fact that we did talk about last week and people seem to be leaning more towards your option B. So do you want to create a PR around that option? Yes. Since it is that time of the spring, I will often be missing the next two weeks, but I will have one. Okay. I hope you have fun. Yes. I seem to be the only person taking vacation on this entire route. You're just not as dedicated. That's not because we're psychotic. Yes. All right. Okay. Well, thank you for agreeing to do that one. Okay. Of these four down here, does anybody have any updates they would like to bring to our attention? I don't think anybody's made any changes yet, but since we have extra time I'm asking. Okay. Not hearing any. Does anybody have any of their business they'd like to bring up on the call? Because we're at the end of the agenda. Not hearing it. Okay. We'll do Scott's favorite part then. Last call for roll call. So Daniel, you there. Yes, I am. Excellent. And how? Hello. Hello. Grant, you there? Grant? Hey, there he is. Mr. Grant. Okay. Got it. Did I miss anybody? I think I got everybody. Me? What am I? Oh, I'm sorry. I meant, okay. I actually meant to type your name then I got distracted. I apologize. Slinky. Got it. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Last chance. Anybody have any agenda items for the SDK call? Otherwise we'll cancel that as well. Quick question for the CI. I probably missed this. Was this, are the conventional commits for the spec repo fine? Yeah. I mean, we approve the PR. So I'm going to merge that today. Okay. So there you go. All right. Any other topics for the SDK call or any topics for the SDK call? All right. Cancelled. And that's it then. We're done. Thank you, everybody. And don't forget, if you're doing the interop, you got till next week, then we're going to start testing, hopefully. All right. Have a good day, everybody. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Thank you.