 hello hello hey hello how are you on this wonderful day it's fine that's what your background says if you got nice snow over there here it's just cold in Ireland yeah same in Munich let's see if global warming gives us white so people should be starting to appear soon is it Simone or is it Simone in German I think I like the German version because otherwise I always turn out to be a Simon I think it's this long oh which designates this outside of German but I'm not quite certain to be honest but I can't be yeah so English speakers is usually Simone but then it turns out to be Simon that after three emails yeah I take names seriously try to remember Simone hello Christmas mood today you know okay I thought you had a color gradient in your tree but it's just changing lights yeah we we got it it's an artificial tree and there's an app it's twinkly he can you can set different patterns and it's pretty neat actually it maps the tree lights like it you point it and and then you can the kids you know they can they can make custom things and I seriously hope you hooked it up to the alert miniature huh hooked up to the what the alert miniature that's actually a good idea has an API so if the service goes down my Christmas tree will start strobing or something everything is a source of metrics or an event or an alertable thing an alert target I'm a little low energy today so I'm gonna ask Richard and or Bart Bartek I recuse myself for obvious reasons once we hit a certain history topic so as a reminder please everyone write yourself in as the in the attendee list one point of order is if we should have the next call on the 22nd of December and I think we should course we still have a few work packages left so it makes sense to just try and cover this unless there's trouble position from anyone who who doesn't want us to to bleed into into the quiet days okay cool so we are doing I'll be planning to attend yeah I mean I'm on PTO but I do care about stuff yeah I mean too I'm interested yeah Matt you wanted to speak about the thing oh yeah I'll be I'll be super brief on this one we're running in production Prometheus Grafana Enterprise Cortex and Loki and soon Tempo we're starting out this week actually as well as a bunch of other stuff and in order to run that on EKS you know we had to do some additional configuration and I talked in previous calls about wanting to jumpstart sort of a not like a you know sick observability sick observability says do it this way or not anybody says anything but just here are some end user driven examples of how people are running observability tooling in our case we're using mostly tanker but we're also using customized at home and we're doing on any chaos but so I'm in the process of open sourcing how we're running these tools in the hope that some of the learnings that we've had over the last couple of months you know for example annotations on service accounts and if anybody else got hit when Docker hub started rate limiting we needed to have image pull secrets on all service accounts in addition we run things pretty securely so that in Kubernetes default service accounts don't have any rights or permissions meaning that we had to create pod security policies and lots of our back stuff so so we're open sourcing that stuff and over the next couple of weeks I'll be filling out the rest of the configurations as well as how we're using the Prometheus case on it project which is a jsonic project that is an opinionated way to run Grafana and Prometheus that has a nice pluggable mix in model so that all of the operational dashboards to run logging tracing metrics back ends are there we found them to be useful so my hope is that that github org is a place where if other people want to contribute they could and and I'll also be using that github org to work on some tooling around CI CD as well as like there's a VS code plugin that could use some help and some things like that so this isn't anything officially CNCF but perhaps it could be the nucleus or a way to jump start building out I don't want to say reference architectures because that that sounds very opinionated and very official but maybe a community driven catalog or or examples or what a compendium maybe that's a good word so naming naming help would be appreciated but there's a link in the in the doc if anyone else is interested and I'm hoping by Christmas to have most of our stuff most of our stuff put to there with some examples and then and then lastly I'll say what's there now are libraries that can be used and one of the things that we found useful about this particular stack and other stacks are the same potentially is is to have a real focus on if you're a developer and new to the SIG here's something you can run to get everything working on your laptop and and I think in many cases there doesn't need to be invention of net new collateral or artifacts there just needs to be you know pointing to other resources for a developer so I'm starting with our production configs but I hope to backfill how you can do this in the case of us as an end user it's been useful and worthwhile as a goal to have how iterative iterative local development works in terms of toolchain and have that match how in our case production runs so that we don't have a skills gap there but that's it so I will also say let's say that what's there now is quite primordial and thin it's it's quite late there's not much there at all but but what's there is yeah a starting point so just as a point of order I will not recuse myself as chair yet again for the remainder of this meeting at least as long as we talk to your diligence and hand over to Bartek cool amazing let's continue what we started week ago two weeks ago sorry and I hope we we have lots of time for for anyone to kind of review it if they are interested so hopefully we have more context on this so let's go actually I can show my screen as usual and let's go through this incubation and then check if we have any concerns or if we can propose this to the TOC as our recommendation then my project had on so what we did is we went through everything last week as agreed to basically reply to comments put in more stuff delete stuff as appropriate there ever people had comments questions concerns we deliberately didn't close any comments and we deliberately did not change any text but we put everything as suggestions in suggestion mode or we replied to to comment so we can make sure or a certain or what have you that we address each and every point which has been raised so we can just scroll through this however and and just look at if that is what people were looking for I didn't see any comments after sending the email last week asking for updates I think it should all be clear but still let's walk through it cool amazing I just reverted like five changes I made because I started to accept those suggestions so it was changed so now I reverted so it should be all the fresh changes that we seen in comparison to two weeks ago okay and the flow hopefully we can do the same so I can by default just call for consensus and please pick up if you have any concerns or questions or follow up comments essentially sounds good okay so first of all let's go through the first topic that was already commented two weeks ago so essentially if the project is self-governing and the governance was created however there were first of all questions around more time to revisit the whole topic we definitely extended that to two weeks so I'm happy to accept this where are the meetings and are those opens public meetings are started from now on looks like that's the response fortnight call intention to be public soon is there application to a public and yes you can find it on the email this looks like um is there let's maybe because okay is this copied from okay so essentially governance is copied from prometheus with minor changes and that was kind of the the question like what exactly is changed and looks like cleaner donation of repositories within the github org so yeah that's pretty specific um we have many github projects in prometheus um that has different kind of rules so that makes sense an itf rough consensus this net of lazy consensus that sounds good to me as well and we have a project lead in open metrics looks like okay um are we happy with this is there consensus on that ssc observability okay no objections so leaving that let's go to number two condo contact yep it's exactly the same as cncf so is there consensus no no objection so far so let's move on and i think this part actually was agreed before but let's repeat all right and that was the the the concerning point that we spend some some amount of time so let's see does the project have production deployments that are high quality and high velocity and yes we have i mean open metrics have python since october yeah let's accept those suggestions python since october and go since january yep and this hopefully addresses the steve's comment around being explicit so i'm marking this what i'm marking this as done i just added pearl of course i got confirmation from the pearl person that they're also implementing support perfect yeah sounds good um marking go as well explicitly ruby that's interesting okay so looks like this is already done pearl okay and php clients libraries and implement support so anyway the python is support is quite long however curiosity is there a rust library there exists a rust client library for cometius maintained third party which is a pretty direct clone of client go lang i haven't heard anything about it in a while but like there's like 15 of these so one definitely exists i imagine it'll pick it up put everything else yeah cool i was just yeah cool yeah um and i was thinking of the the linkered the proxy and rust exports per metheus metrics that are that are pretty awesome but anyway you can take an action i have to follow up with that project as well i have some meetings coming up in the next few weeks so please do we would love to see that yeah um exemplars it's also kind of um good point because that's a kind of nice feature of open metrics and um i know tanos we are already kind of developing this uh support but looks like rafana labs and glonosphere are already using that so there is this question i don't know how broad is the implementation sorry just doing some extremely quick research and that linker d2 proxy is doing its own exposition based on you know 10 seconds of research oh yeah no no no yes i'm familiar with it um that's why i was asking actually i'm working i'm working we run linker d in production and so we've been looking at ways to contribute and i think there's an opportunity if there once there is a open metrics rust client library that is um yeah that's that's that's vetted and whatnot um it would be an opportunity to improve the project yeah the the one brian mentions um the ti kv uh rust prometheus client library um the as as brian mentioned the data structures are all ported from the go client so it'd be pretty uh pretty straightforward to uh essentially add uh add open metric support to that client library since um yeah as the go client has done it's it's a very straightforward uh minor set of modifications to to be open metrics compliant cool nice okay um i don't know what to do with this comment and i don't remember how broad is the implementation i think i just wanted to say for point of order to like you know whether or not there's rust client has no bearing on on on the incubation i suppose i'm out of order even asking um yeah um anyone can help with that how broad is the implantation what's what does it mean okay so maybe it means is it fully implemented all those kind of python and go who put the comment and if it's not a comment of anyone in the call without vertical like we we also didn't really know what that means um as we maybe brought adoption was the intention of that thing that's what we thought about but apparently didn't comment uh that we thought it would be a question about adoption and not implementation and as this is based on on premieres it's uh all across the cncf i don't think we should have the comments in the actual due diligence document once the document is done but i also don't object to it it's just it seems weird to have this as part of the result set and i kind of agree maybe comment on number three like add this as a comment and then we just resolve it so you can like keep the history but it shouldn't be part of the due diligence document no okay cool so do we have consensus as a seek observability right looks like it is um number four is the project committed to achieving the cncf principles and do they have a committed roadmap to address any areas of concerns it's committed there is no roadmap but there is nature of a standard but essentially the roadmap is if you have any concerns so um is there any concern we have a comment okay and sorry this is a very long comment for me yes i think there are several things here one was a compatibility with hotel i believe that one has been addressed so there has been meetings between om and hotel um the oh and folks have joined the hotel sig meeting and um i think this is already commented here that work to collaborate and ensure that things are are met so from an hotel perspective i'm i'm good with the first part of the comment that i had unless anyone objects of course all right there are several other ones here though i don't know if these have been addressed um okay so support for dots and metro i some of these are kind of generic so maybe you just take the second to the bottom one like many github issues have been idle for for years um i don't know if that one has been addressed so we've all been closed with references to the specific parts of of the documentation and such or of the specification of the documentation but they've all been closed except for two one is a most generic scraping thing and one is a request for a read me on differences and and synergies with open telemetry but as we have the joint call in two days we thought we would wait for that one before we move forward on on that one issue that was a pretty good event flood when you closed all those yeah i mean yes yes nice okay but do we have more so um yeah so um i mean as they are referring to issues within which have been closed um maybe we can just jump at those for the dots and metric names um i can already tell you it's an incompatibility which is which cannot be covered by open matrix because else we will be breaking with for meteors but that's been clear from from the get go of the whole project for better or for worse we did have that discussion within the working group several times but in the end dots are just not in metric names um which has implications towards how how to map things within open telemetry inside we will work on those but that's outside the scope of the due diligence for which we drop wizard integration um you can just lick it are you already brain flushed what we answered um and yeah the idleness um that's been that's been addressed let me check the drop wizard stuff Ryan do you have this by heart yeah yeah like there are no special considerations for drop wizard like the only consideration is that hey summaries exist as a type with quantiles because drop wizard and its various clones across various languages like that is the only consideration but otherwise like drop wizard doesn't require any special consideration but it drop wizard itself does not have an output format but it goes to all sorts of stuff and even the client in java like the permitious client java has a drop wizard plugin to take those metrics so it will automatically pick that stuff up when i get around to finishing that code so for the purpose of this due diligence uh i i think we have it answered but obviously if anyone disagrees we can we can discuss it yeah and cemented conventions ones what is self contained mean within open metrics huge elaborate um but the specification when when implemented um you have everything which you need for emitting metrics through that wire format within that one specification so i mean obviously there are one or two references to outside standards and such which pull in the definitions from the other standards but beyond this there is nothing which um which is left hanging in thin air everything is either defined within the specification or it has a specific and explicit reference to a another specification pulling those definitions in which is a hard requirement from itf anyway of course they need to be written as such i see very complex explanation but for the simple work i mean yeah but complete that's what i'm aiming for okay so looks like it feels uh the the comments were all addressed so yep i'm good with it perfect thank you and there's one comment around uh mentioning in the roadmap there is um collaboration with open telemetry and looks like it is part of the roadmap already somewhere and it's also like we already had a call and i think steve could i mean steve took part of the call so i think he can confirm that we're actually working on this yeah i'm good with number four as it stands i think anything that was open from my perspective has been addressed okay right thank you so given that um let's have a call for consensus anyone has any objections for consensus here looks like not okay next one um document that the project has a fundamentally sound design without obvious critical compromises that will inhibit potential widespread adoption um given that was yeah um that was based on the prometeuse it has kind of strong background but there were lots of comments oh a bit of comments the biggest one i think yes i think the biggest one was from me from open telemetry but again we've been resolving this so i don't see any blockers as it stands right now between the two projects nor any blockers from a due diligence standpoint so at least from an open telemetry perspective i'm i'm good on this one sounds good um to meet uh sunset as well so let's have call for consensus any objections any comments okay consensus then document that the project is useful for cloud native deployments and degree that is architected in cloud native style um open metric is it only truly cloud native wire format for metrics that um i don't know it's a bold statement it came out number i was gonna say that's almost a like that's like proving a negative or something like it's that's a that's a difficult statement as it stands but yeah exactly maybe one of the or or one of the few or i i don't know are you reading that section i would tend to agree and just changed it especially with the plp around the corner not intended that way um however it's it is a truly cloud native wire format it came out number five in the since the observation survey so definitely people that have clouds and and are using communities um are interested in that so call for consensus any concerns any blockers i think this whole question is a little more applicable for things that are not just wire formats really we had that several times but we answered it as best as we could uh and their appropriate made references to us being a wire format which yeah we we don't we a lot of things don't apply but we made a good faith effort to to reply so yep yep yep of course sounds good document that the project has an affiliate affinity for how cncf operates and understand the expectations of being a cncf project uh yeah given all of i mean most of the maintainers are primitives maintainers um yeah we trust that they know what they do um any objections to that call for consensus okay done okay review of graduation criteria and desire cloud native properties um samples graduation is it okay or exit requirements of samples because this is kind of incubation graduation shouldn't be incubation here this is from sandbox and yeah okay incubation yeah i think that yeah it's it's kind of like you know my kid graduated from second grade or something like oh hey and yeah document that is being used successfully in production by at least free independent end users which will focus on the adequate equity and scope defined so cncf end user server kind of um well well there is like users that mentions already but for convenience we could link to that i mean i i know which one it is but you know if some of them looks at it i have a question on this one like we're listed there i mean we're not like in the in an everquotes case we're using primitius and remote right right um right right we're using remote right is there an implication that there's something specific about this or is this basically anyone using primitius and remote right is using this format because if that's the case we can expand this to be just the primitius community anyone's using this with python with python such uh if i remember correctly we poked you if you're using something with python you said yes and that's why and you want oh i'm not i'm not saying you need to remove us i was just saying like i'm trying to understand like in the context of the of open metrics specifically i think it's it's more than just three right isn't it pretty much everyone using primitius and python together this thing does is hard because there's potentially many of them and it's asked for trees so we found tree oh cool yeah they listen they're just uh capitalized q or else somebody'll somebody'll come find me later and say i should have said capitalized q i can just do it too sorry and just as we speak i'm looking for the technology radar i found it so i just copy and paste it in and we can accept it um of course that is uh that was a very good point where are we here we are right i copied it in perfect um we have come and though from artur it's official document required something like adopters it's a good question um and i don't think it's required for you know the the concrete mean how do you provide the adopters but it's i guess nice to have them on on website but i don't think there is agreement there was a requirement for due digital diligence but i think some suggestion to the project that can be optionally done i guess just move on it'll be it'll be there and linked before we're done with this call like that's trivial i'm literally just copying over a few names awesome all right do we have wrong thing of it call for consensus then any objections any comments cool um is there is there an adopters i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm a little bit slow mentally today i was out sick yesterday so is there an adopters file that we should make prs to or i'm literally creating it as we speak oh cool neat first that's the easiest then we can just close it i still disagree that it would be needed in the context of this due diligence but yeah i agree you can just stop talking about it once it's there so yeah but it's not needed i think anyway let's go have a healthy number of commuters a commuter is defined as someone with the commit permissions i guess some of we can accept contributions and we have yeah four of those core active maintainers so and yeah um i i can definitely confirm they are active um but is there any comment and objections towards that call for consensus okay no let's move on demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merge contributions and uh yeah the caveat here is that github was not used for most of part of the work right it's mostly google doc so i think this applies to me but uh worth to kind of reffing this question then flow of commits flow of merge contributions i think this applies um actually that's fine we we make a hard commitment to keep development in public um re on boarding previous maintainers even after a half year yep and um plan is to have cold contributions yeah okay we're done from here sorry a quick question you're moving quick um is is i should just go look but is this already in dev stats if not we should probably take an action to add it to dev stats the cnc fds dev stats all member projects are in dev stats their git orcs else you wouldn't be part of sandbox that's part of the onboarding the initial oh that was part of set sandbox for okay great thank you anything which is on like we predate most of this with the initial creation of the project but this has been applied to every single cnc f project yeah i wasn't sure because this started outside of of as you mentioned that in a different source control so i just wanted to make sure that cool awesome okay and uh looks like the implantations were done from tears arc with help of data doc as well which is which is nice um and yeah and also in their repository like they also did it on their end obviously but they also sent performance improvements and bug fixes um out of the blue like they just started setting them okay so looks like there is uh like um yeah nice notes even like what exactly how decision was made um similar to what we do in the dev summits i agree okay um to me there is definitely ongoing flow of contributions so call for consensus any concerns objections okay um here let's make it quick i think name is open matrix i do we need to yeah okay let's do this um was to the large sections here because we we got one with the same for cortex and planos um that we just said large sections of course this is endless here large sections okay um project description open matrix creates an open started from transmitting cloud native metrics at scale we support for text representation and protocol buffers and the factor standard it's kind of bigger sections so let's quickly have call for consensus any objections to this description no okay let's move on uh alignment we are aligned we sponsor from toc um any kind of known status we're talking to several and several have expressed interest but none has fully committed yet um so currently we are obviously not naming them to to not put pressure on them to to follow of course they said something ever um but i do expect this to happen within the next few days i think that's okay for me um license aperture two github repository is there external dependencies that's important one this question okay external dependencies of the spec we don't depend we do depend on several itfc and the protocol buff specification that's well that's the dependency to me um and uh yeah that's how to call for consensus any objections on external dependencies on open metrics off open metrics okay let's move on release methodology and that's a that's interesting one how do you release standard and patches right being a standard we are moving slowly and deliberately any chances are considering costly from pure score text standards and communities all of them cnc of projects and steve you had some question hey Bartek can you just increase the size a little bit of your screen just to widen it thanks i think steve mentioned that all his questions were answered or i know he mentioned but hi there he is perfect yeah sorry i stepped away for a second um i think this was i don't even remember but i'm pretty sure we're we're all set for this one so i'm not worried about it okay additionally we follow the idea of rfc process okay so this this applies as well that sounds fair to me call for consensus any objections okay let's move on community size and existing sponsorship uh yeah this is again hard to measure because but like anyway like and through client go like every community's user is also an open metrics user um i think that's fair statement um and also maybe we can link the end user rather like that's kind of related yeah i'll do that but apart from that call for consensus any comments any objections i think we are happy with that okay and architectural design and feature overview should be available and um right steve not making it yeah i think just a link to the implementation would be great it's just more of a comment the implementation or the specification because again we are running do you did you say the implementation or the specification we can do both or either uh just to be clear about what you want to see here uh i think i'm more interested in the implementation like people are going to want to know how it's used or how it can be leveraged or where it is leveraged today so i think the implementation is super important okay right i i didn't notice this the first time i read it as well but when it says push and pull over webhooks in the very first line like do we want to just replace webhooks with like hcdp or something it's a knit but i don't know i didn't realize it until just now when i looked at it a second time that makes sense yeah yeah okay uh i think to make it language yeah you know like i think spoken language the specification while it outlines hcdp pull as um like preferred method it's not i think perhaps the reason why webhooks was used here is it actually is not tied to hcdp um it's it's oh i see you could put it over likes whatever you could put it over right serial or scuzzy or or your web protocol yeah that makes sense yeah so tcp maybe how about so then we cover well yeah no it's not even a tcp yeah okay so i see that that makes perfect sense actually and webhooks makes more sense than with that thank you for clarifying no we we had i wasn't joking about scuzzy too we have considerations that we basically don't care about the underlying network layer because again as a wire format we care about the representation of exactly at that one point and what you do left and right is you're more like within reason anyway looks like we have implementation we have clear standard reference so that's fine for me okay call for consensus are we happy any objection well um did you want to drop the hcdp part i mean we already changing that i mean to drop it i mean it was a very good explanation why we didn't i mean it's not specific to hcdp that's a perfectly valid point yeah perhaps it could be h like a transport protocol and then in brackets such as hcp or something yeah there you go that's very long tail um i'll fix it and i'll self accept my changes yep that's great thanks and thanks for the explanation makes sense you could easily see people implementing their own protocols for iot and other scenarios yeah precisely okay let's move on what are the primary target cloud native use cases which of those can be accomplished now all cloud native metrics use cases are covered and given that it's kind of some of the materials i tend to agree um and let's have maybe uh like and call for consensus for all of those four can be accomplished with reasonable additional effort um id if rsc release yes so given a new release we can i mean open metrics can can do improvements are in scope but beyond the current roadmap for the next month so what what kind of cloud native use cases are like that yeah current roadmap is efficient histograms and that's it and out of scope logging and tracing are out of scope also see additional documentation um yeah that's feel fair to me and i have a question regarding the out of scope if i remember correctly last time Richie you mentioned there is a plan for logging yes but this is outside the scope of open metrics because that deals only with metrics right right right the naming is super confusing right right but same as logs are outside the scope of Prometheus uh logs are outside the scope of open metrics right right yeah that makes sense i'm just trying to put myself into the position of someone from TC reading it from top to bottom and you know reading there there's something planned around logs at the top and then saying oh the logs but yeah yeah you're right it's out of scope for metrics yeah makes sense one minor need is that you could add that to the scope because i can see it's not there it's only one kind of ingested discover discovery is out of scope but nothing about tracing and logging so but yeah yeah this is reversed defined by talking about this is about metrics and the introductionary set yeah i think that's her point as well again for the for the intense and purpose of due diligence i think we made it clear um okay i'm good you can resolve mine yep perfect thanks okay call for consensus any objections to that okay what exactly are the failure modes um are they well understood uh have they been tested do they form part of the continuous integration testing um and are they appropriately given the intended usage the main failure mode of a spec if it's not the main failure mode of a spec is if it's not followed okay the specifications if you remove the contraction that might be simpler just remove the ostrich and just sense um it's using may should not follow to make it easier and there are even tests test cases to i guess much compatibility yeah right now the python client is the main um is the implementation that's that's that's tested against but it's abstracted to uh be able to be fed into any yeah any arbitrary uh implementation nice okay negative counter right for example i showed um i showed the spec to a colleague and and just to kind of get their feedback you know like fresh eyes and while i don't think it it might just be again like not necessarily like so what they raised is that you know the spec doesn't call for any kind of like check something or or or you know knowing that in a in a secure way these have been delivered and what i said well that this is a wire format and whatever protocol would handle that would be you know at a different layer of the protocol stack um but somebody reading this for the first time might ask the same question so maybe like a one-liner would make sense i can propose on later this just says like you know oh by the way this is a wire format and it's not meant to have part of the spec be no we're actually talking about this as part of the specification we have the uf to to know that the message itself is complete anything under this is uh is handled by the underlying layers as is usual in any networking plus as we have the classic effect of having a connection so yeah great oh great i must have missed it then as well um in the itf version uh great super never mind amazing all right let's try to finish as much as we can we have 15 minutes left just quick question on this one so semantic versionings will there be backwards compatibility should something be said about backwards compatibility that's also part of the spec um there we always have backwards compatibility to 1.0 to 1.0 basically and we follow somewhere in spirit same as the permitting libraries follow somewhere in spirit where it makes sense for the specific project course not all of somewhere applies yep okay cool thanks amazing in that case um call for consensus any objections further comments cool let's move on what trade-offs have been made regarding performance callability complexity reliability security are these trade-offs explicit or implicit why are they appropriate given the internet usage are the user tunable um so there is uh one trade-off looks like implementation must support pull and may but not need to support push and also probably buff for operational or provincial considerations and that makes sense to me and i guess go on one question i guess maybe this is more for the scope section but maybe making it super explicit like the scope is a wire format and maybe even out of scope is the protocol type stuff um i don't know if it's a hundred percent clear even reading the design considerations that's the case but that's part of the spec where we talk about that this is that we are just building on the transport like we can put something in i don't think for the purpose of this due diligence it's needed to write more here because it's again part of the spec but like what specific wording would you like to see addressed i i guess like i was looking at the open metrics spec the scope section that you that you have it's intended to provide to limitry for online systems it runs over protocols i mean explicitly saying that it is not a protocol maybe would be ensure that it's just out of scope when it comes like performance type things it's just more of a suggestion like i'm not very hard and fast okay to make it quick we'll just edit to the spec i think yeah and then okay yeah we'll add it yeah we'll add it to scope it's already in the overview um it says primarily y-form independent of any particular transport but this could be duplicated in scope perhaps cool thanks otherwise i'm good with my comment i'll add a proposed line async as well to the due diligence document just calling out specifically the trade-off like it's implied here like proto is much more efficient on the wire than than other alternatives and i think you say operational considerations in the first um paragraph but i mean that that is the the nugget right that proto provides a much more efficient scalable um implementation of it of the of the wire format there's implied there but we might want to just add some of this to in case whoever's reading this in the toc doesn't just automatically know that there's a huge discussion as to what you consider more efficient but that is why we have this operational consideration but um touched as performance and then we can just move on yeah just again just to make it a little more human readable depending on who else in the toc might might not be super familiar with the implication cool makes sense um trade those rxp's explain consideration sectional spec okay yeah that's that makes sense to me call for consensus any projections comments okay what are the most important holes uh we are not aware of any important holes and we have one comment migration i'm good with the response yeah and i think we talked about that as well yeah amazing um it'd be gaps instead of holes yeah call for consensus okay sorry i didn't mean to overwrite a vote no worries code quality does it look good but or Medicare to you um code quality yeah i guess um it's it's quality of the spec that we can discuss and definitely it it feels professional at least to my extent about that i would actually suggest to to make it clear thing that this doesn't really apply right i mean it clearly this is about code quality like software and uh like how do you tell if a if a spec is well written or not i've been writing specs for 20 years i like it's fine to keep the rest but i would definitely suggest to say it does not apply because it's a spec i mean i would say that's not strictly applies as it's spec but we can maybe mention that the style of the spec is high quality as well because i think that's that's kind of true is that okay and if yes let's have i don't call for consensus here as well although it's it's a bit funnier any objections okay let's move on dependencies actually um we already have a call for consensus on that if i'm not mistaken so we already talked about those what is the release model versioning scheme that's exactly uh mentioned above so call for consensus we can do but to me we already spoke about the release model wait steve steve had a comment there to link to it and you just deleted that comment yes because which we linked above okay the problem here is and this is also why with cortex antennas we did this in large blocks and not per sub subsection um is that this is largely duplicating what was written about right means you have to save us so that's what we're following yeah i'm going to keep that okay it reminds me of an action i have to formalize that feedback to the tsc about their template i can note to myself yeah we should have a a dedicated spec all right what is the cacd status um any code coverage matrix if not um any automated tests um and although it's about spec there is mentioned about implantations have ci integrations and there is even test cases that were already mentioned um so can i agree with that and the python reference implantation has what quite huge implementation uh the test coverage that's kind of impressive call for consensus on that one let's move on um as i agree it lets call for consensus on the bigger items i have to do is small what are the recommended operational models deploy any modern cloud native matrix ingestion and use properly instrumented code i think that's small enough let's go let's move on project do we believe it is a growing okay um maybe we can do the yeah i think that's that's just duplicating stuff here right there is nothing yeah yeah i had a read through this and all i think i mean does anyone have any issues with this whole you know action but let's super quickly go through that but not like and have a bigger call for consensus at the end so project yes it's growing thriving um yes it's aligned yes we talked about that do we believe it can eventually meet the graduation criteria hopefully yes should we start a sandbox okay it's already um offered as incubated um my point is that all the bullet points under project are just repeating stuff that we have already agreed to above and my question was is there anything in that bullet list that does not that is new and i think it is not yeah okay so i didn't see anything when i read through but we copied over large sections from above so i would also unless someone has something specific prefer to have the whole thing as one agreement we added a little bit of text at the end with the complete overview and that's it i don't see any yeah that's a good point right ongoing contribution that's kind of but this is also basically copying from above okay are you happy without the links okay cool that's a yes i think this is all fine to me um cool let's have a call for consensus on this one mostly copied but any objections okay let's go users i can repeat the question um strength and weaknesses concrete examples of those um hotel spine you can resolve my comment right i guess we could elaborate more on this but compatibility is definitely a plus perception versus quality any bus there is a section of us um reliability the recent release so tens of thousands engagements within days okay um there is definitely lots of usage i would say that was a section about call for consensus amazing okay okay context is just a yeah story like do we need to have a consensus for this for context and that's really it to be honest so i don't think we did that on ton of scope actually then i just had one question on the how necessary is it looks like my comment wasn't very very clear i'm just my my question was around it clearly it's being used by prometheus i'm assuming the expectation is to be used beyond prometheus um if that is the case then then how why when like what are like what are the plans around that if no then why is it not just like part of prometheus or a sister project of prometheus why is it actually being broken out from prometheus that's also part of the spec itself um there is substantial um politics around if anyone is um like supporting something which is named after prometheus is super touchy and with the exception of politics back a few years ago no one wanted to go there it has been widely implemented and called prometheus exposition format which is a thing which basically solved itself over the years through to the brutal success of prometheus yet that is part of where the initial thing is coming from to have a a politically neutral place but obviously heavily inspired and compatible with everything which the cnc f graded projects are doing so that's the thing to to phrase it differently so i i think we we uh we support or do you have specific concerns which are not being answered by what is written there maybe you phrase it like such got it okay let me everything cnc f uses this for metrics transmission yeah i i think in addition like i don't think prometheus yeah many sass vendors right provide remote right you know capabilities that might be prometheus behind it it might not but that's the whole that's the whole point i think right yeah i think part of my question comes because like open symmetry took a different approach like the same applies to otlp but otlp is part of open symmetry it could be a separate project but why um and that was just more of a question i don't think it necessarily matters like i don't think it changes anything i just wanted to raise the question yeah again that makes sense to make it easier for third parties to support us and um you know that's the reason why it was split out in a court like we talked about this with then and and chris back before we even started this as they saw this as a strategically important thing for cnc f so doesn't make sense steve and yep slide hopefully those are answered as well um okay it's really the time so i think it's it's really the time until everyone goes to another meeting to have can we do the last section please if we only have one left that's really last okay okay we can have page you mean the compare yes yep so um and then we can have like global consensus clearly compared in contrast with peers so the first alternative is just prometheus exposition format which makes sense and it's clear statement that open telemetry intends to support open metrics as well and on the wire and the comment from michael is can we link that and there's already linked maybe we can add that yep you can just click resolved perfect perfect and there are other that's a good call out steve collectee and telegraph although those aren't really wire formats right but for a wire format they're not of course none of them are wire formats and we're deliberately not touching the implementations and so there are outside the scope of considerations for a wire format the wire formats you can make a point that multiples should be considered but it really is not for metrics that beyond that there are no widely adopted wire formats which deal with metrics the rest are implementations and that's the difference that makes to me and makes sense to steve or do you think i'm good yeah if someone's using telegraph today and they wanted to write out open metrics i mean i guess they'll just get it for free from the prometheus stuff yeah all right time is up so time is for like uh i guess full recommendation call for consensus um are we happy to recommend that to to see as project for incubation stage looks loose green to me any objections any comments going once going twice okay um looks like it's green thank you everyone who's kind of again elaborative okay so one one for everyone who took part in this you can add yourself as the reviewer so you're on the record as having actually done the work if you want uh you don't have to be free to do this anonymously but if you did the work you should probably claim your credit um so feel free to write yourself in above thank you bartek for driving this with vigor yeah but also i think thanks thanks for all all folks being being here right that's that's really awesome of you um will we meet on 22nd or we have a few things left i think also matt wanted to update on what he did we have something by simon as imona which which he wanted to present i think going into the holidays with with yes sorry i'm putting on my my chair again at the moment we have plenty of stuff and we had a point of order at the beginning that we will have that call of course there's enough work to be done so okay cool we're just hammered okay um sorry for thanks a lot overtime thank you everyone bye bye see you next week have a great holiday everybody i think it's a before but yes see you boom you had a lot of lots of an mg mod apparently uh this i took the energy for the day and i put it into this hour i'm gonna go collapse now yeah okay rest hey bye bye yeah bye