 Hey guys Are you there John Mitchell? Good morning. This is John. Hey, John. All right. I heard Clemens Let's see Rachel are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Hello Yeah, I got you Roberto of Bruin Yeah, I'm here morning Vlad are you there twice? Yep. I'm here Okay See Roberto, okay. I don't know Roberto's last name. I don't think we have Roberto yet on the on the attendee list But I could be wrong. All right. Let's see Charlie Yes, all right. Thank you and Chris Yep. All right, Charlie. This isn't your first time, right? Yeah, no, I was here last week. That's what I thought. Okay. I thought you knew something there. Okay, cool Hi, this is Roberto from Adobe. There you go. Adobe. Okay. Thank you. All right. What's on mute? My phone do me a favor. Can you add your last name to the agenda duck? Thank you. I'll put the link in there in case you miss that David Baldwin you there. Hey Doug. Good morning. Good morning Jim Curtis. Hi. Hello. I think that's everybody so far You guys are early So Clemens You had an actual item to update one of your poor requests it might have been clarity around One of our turn like every which one off hand But unfortunately, I didn't write down in the notes what the exact change was going to be Do you actually know what that was you are reading my mind? Because I was I was just about to say hey I'm supposed to do this thing, but I have no trace of Okay, I'll have to go back and see if I can remember look deep and hard because I just stared at it in the the PR as it is and I could not remember what the objection was and I went back. I actually went back into the notes and looked and Yes, it was not noticed and that was In the middle as we were preparing for the for the demo. So that kind of Okay, I apologize profoundly Obviously we messed up in the taking a meeting minutes. So there you go All right. Let's see Colin. Are you there? Colin Sullivan. Yeah, I'm here. Excellent. Thank you. It's an 80 and that's all right. Got it. Thank you Thanks, Kathy Kathy you there? Yes, I'm here. All right Hey guys, hey Lee Let's see. Well, Sean Smith. Yes. Hello But up Ori, are you there Ori? What about Stanley? Hi, this is Ori. Sorry. I was muted not a problem Oh, is that Stanley? Yeah. All right, cool. I just tried to send myself up. That's okay. We'll figure this out one way or the other All right, how bird are you there? Yes, I am Arun either where do we get you know, I don't think we got a room yet a room. Yes. Yes. I'm here. Excellent Um Bill fine, are you there here? Excellent. Is there anything else I'm missing? I think I might have everybody. Oh William. Hey there William you on mute. All right. What about Eric? Erickson? Eric you there? All right, listen to those two folks and this is Pivotal Cambridge, Jurgen and Jacques All right. Thank you Type in our names. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. Save me the trouble of misspelling it Boston either whoop. You just want to mute Boston B. A. H. H. B. A. H. Sorry. Yeah, that's us. Let's just assume trying to be funny. Oh, that's your resume. Okay Got it. All right. Is there anybody else on the call who's not in the agenda? Do we have anyone? Oh, Dan. Okay. Thank you. Who's that last one? Eric Erickson. Eric got it. Thank you. Clouse. Clouse got it. Okay. What about William? Are you there yet? Yeah, I'm here. You are there. I knew you were there somewhere. All right. Okay David Lyle Yes, this is David. All right. Cool Anybody else in the call want to get added to the agenda before we begin momentarily? What about fraud? If they are H. A. D. Okay, I don't hear them yet. All right. David. Why don't we go ahead and get started? Just finishing this up All right. Um All right, Varun you had I think added some comment here on your AI you want to speak up to that one for people Who can't see the screen? Yeah, so I had reached out to this first two people who are basically injuring leads on the Lambda team in AWS One of them basically had moved teams and instead reached out to Tim Wagner and said like he'll forward my Request to Tim. I haven't heard back from Tim yet. So yeah, that's where it is. Okay. Now on the on the flip side We have a rune on the call from AWS. I believe right? Yeah Is it just curiosity just so you know for background There were some questions among the working group members about AWS's view of our work going on here since you guys were here for a while and then Took a leave of absence. Shall we say and so I was wondering if there are any kind of comment You'd like to make about your from your point of view how the work is going or something along those lines Yeah, so well, I represent AWS on the CNCF board. So I do watch all the activities closely In case in future if there are any issues anything around CNCF any activity related to that I'm always available on Slack or you can shoot me a mail at a RGU Amazon.com. So that's my email ID for Amazon. Feel free to shoot me a mail now for this activity the Version that has been announced at this point of time is 0.1 So we are following the specification. We have looked at the specification My biggest question, you know, I mean Amazon is a very customer-obsessed company And 90 to 95% of our roadmap is driven by customers So my biggest question at this point of time would be are there any customers that are asking for cloud events? Right and to that point I did have that item to the agenda for our offline discussion So I wanted to sort of ask the question of the group itself Does anybody have any customers asking for this that they'd be willing to share with the broader group to help people answer that kind of question of You know is someone asking for this? I think the way I did to that is is we've we've had Several customer-oriented members attend this meeting and participate which seems to imply that they're interested in the work I think until it's a Fully fleshed out specification. It's hard to it's still a chicken and egg situation This is Rachel from Google. I don't know how much we're allowed to talk about that But I can take on the action item of finding out what we're allowed to say about Okay I have pretty much the same comment from Oracle as well. I can Go back and see what we're allowed to talk about Stan We've been we've been so Microsoft we've we've seen quite a bit of excitement Whether and and you know harmonization of events is something that will Certainly reduce complexity in applications so excitements from the customer funds on Twitter and private engagements with certainly with our MVP community And our influencer community which are kind of a leading indicator that we're on the right track Whether that translates into money for AWS is something that you guys need to go and decide yourself Well, it's not really about the money at this point of time You know, that's not how we look at any product or any project we get involved with The key thing is yes, I understand the influencer part But what I'm still lacking at this point of time is what which customers and any service I mean, as I said 90 to 95 percent of our roadmap on what we do is driven by customers So the reason we launched lambda is because customers were asking for the longest time that give us some Compute capability for storage, you know, and then now over the time we have added a bunch of triggers as well The reason we launched Eks is because customers are asking run Kubernetes for me So if I were to justify for cloud events within Amazon the first question that will be asked by the management is Which customers are going to benefit from this? What are they benefit? What are the missing points at this point of time? You know What is the use case that they're trying to solve? You know, is it one cloud vendor to AWS or AWS to one of the cloud vendor? That's the kind of typical questions that can be asked. So we have we have actually You know in our in our repo here. We have a presentation by Rofi wrong Which is just showing how much dispatch code he needs to write inside of AWS to distinguish between all the events So just just to harmonize All the events that you guys are yourself are throwing around in the AWS platform, which have Absolutely no standardization whatsoever will be a giant internal benefit for you guys Yeah, one of the things that I posted is the example of the difference across the different events within Amazon And that was taken from actual, you know Get snipplets and and complains that people have in the internet on the Amazon So a variety of events Yeah run, can you send that into the chat? I'd like to look at it as well I think it's important to the what we're doing is important because when you want to get an event out of AWS Do you use SQS SNS? Do you have to create a lambda and get it triggered directly? There's all these options And it does mean that the events can become portable. That's going to be really useful for customers Whatever platform they're working on Once again, you know, I understand the influencer part of it that it could be useful for customers I think I would really need some real customer data that hit out three customers that are excited about this and How is it gonna benefit to them? I'm a representative of Nordstrom. We are one of your major customers and we do we are interested in this My involvement is because of our interest in this I'm at the NAIC and we're also interested in this and we are delaying our adoption of lambda Until this is adopted so that we can see some of that compatibility issue and being able to remove our functions around So we're looking at currently open source options instead of lambda Okay Yeah, this is this is John from SAP I can't speak for all of SAP But certainly my part of it Which is a Reba? Which is a AWS customer as well as well as the other cloud vendors That's part of my involvement here is the the portability across the across the clouds and our and our private Clouds So yes, this is this is important to some of our projects. Hi, this is a ory from pure sec I wanted to Also clarify on the fact that even within AWS the the the difference between each type of event Structure makes it really hard for a third parties to analyze the events Sometimes you have to use heuristics to understand where the event came from So it's definitely missing some sort of standardization that allows you to Understand what kind of event it is what's what's the schema of of this specific? Event type and so forth. So that that would make it I think much easier for a third party You know vendors or entities to to know and understand what it is that they're looking at and to be able to validate the data properly All right, this has been great. Okay, this is really good input to me. So a Nordstrom and a I see a riba and ory from pure sec I would really like to understand more on use cases and how it's impacting you And once I have a better understanding, this will allow me to kind of socialize the proposal a little bit more The lambda team is aware of the cloud events proposal I did bring it up to them and as a matter of fact, I'm giving a keynote tomorrow at swamp up And the title is the serverless title wave and I will be mentioning about cloud events over there and the problem domain that is trying to solve and so I'm Personally, I'm for supporting cloud events bird, you know on what the lambda service team is going to do and And how it's going to impact our customers is the biggest thing that I need to understand at this point of time So I'm willing to Can I explain that? To the lambda team, you know, once I have the right data because that's the language that all the service teams at Amazon talk and I'm happy to follow up on that Would it be useful check? Check the post that I made on the on the chat. That's taken from someone Frustrated about the you know consistency Would be possible or would it be useful to have an email thread about this that way everybody can share their thoughts or Would you prefer an offline conversation? Oh What I could do is I could fire up each Okay, I'm thinking out loud here. That's fine I'm thinking that each customer use case may be different and I'm not sure how much they are willing to talk about it in public So I'm okay if they want to do it. I'm totally fine I would rather preserve their own use cases. So we're very vigilant about customers security So that's the reason I recommended that you know, we could go out on a private route But then once I have the data point then I'm willing to summarize this in a public thread And on whatever could be shared publicly, okay? What if you sent a public email asking for the data you're looking for and if people don't feel comfortable sharing it publicly They can email back to you privately But at least for those people who who are comfortable sharing it publicly at least then other people can see it Then use that data for their own purposes as well to help convince others of the value. Yeah sounds good I can do that. Excellent. Thank you very much. Yeah, there's an end-user mailing list, right? There is for CNCF in general, I don't think we have one just for our group Our mailing list is pretty pretty Non-active, so I don't think there's a problem with flooding it Don't you should I send an email or should I send a slack message? I would do an email because not everybody watches the slack very closely gotcha Okay, I should have messaged Hopefully today Please respond back to that message, you know, either privately or publicly either way is fine and as you feel comfortable and as is right for you and Then I would like to gather that data and then take the next steps from there Thank you very much. Hey rune. I will I'll go ahead and tag SolarWinds on the list as well. We've an internal implementation of cloud events Happening in one of our across a couple of our SaaS products Some of which are leveraging Lambda and it would Not only do we benefit internally as we go to have our own various services, but but as a customer of AWS we would benefit as well Okay, thanks. Yeah, I would really like to understand the benefits coming out of it So that's the key part that I'm looking forward to but I will shoot a mail to start that thread Excellent. Thank you very much. And thank you guys for speaking up there. I think it's been really useful All right, so moving on the agenda, I believe last time we talked about trying to come up with modifications for our milestones I'm not quite sure of the best way to move forward here other than to say I did put forward a proposal Earlier today and I know it was just put out there today. So I'm not gonna ask any way to this I vote on it, but I Did put out some ideas for how to categorize what we want to do going forward Hold on a sec. Hopefully you guys did see my email from yesterday Basically, I moved everything into 0.1 that we did From before and then point two is this stuff here basically what I tried to do is to group things in terms of the items that I thought impacted the spec the most meaning the most Breaking most serious breaking changes. I tried to move up to the top And the things that were either sort of on the optional line or clarifications. I moved those a little bit down But I was wondering if people wanted to take time just to review that offline because I don't necessarily want to do it right now But other than that, are there any suggestions people have in terms of ways to move forward to lay out our road Not going forward. I'm open to any ideas basically at this point. No comments You want us to review this offline? Yeah. Yeah, because I don't think it's a good use of time to everybody. We'll read it right now Yeah, yeah How long I mean could you give us some more time to review this because there are quite some items here Yeah, yeah, like I said, I don't I have no intention of asking for a voter anything like that right now I just wanted to know if there was an alternative proposal or path forward to developing the list that people would like us to consider Or does word smithing on what we have here as a sufficient way to go forward So how about give us two weeks and if we have like some some new items I did we can pull a PR or we just directly How we should do this Yeah, if you want to see changes in here, I'm very open to Putting a comment on the on the PR and I'll make the changes. That's not a big deal. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you Okay, so you had mentioned two weeks there. Is it okay if we try to shoot for next week But if people need more time, then we can go another week I'd rather be aggressive and then slip a little rather than assume a full two weeks. Is that okay? Or do people really think they need two full weeks? I think we can do a week. Well, we can I won't speak Okay, and Kathy, would you would you be okay with trying for next week? But if you need more time, then we can delay it It's okay, I prefer two weeks, you know because People could be on location Okay, I don't think it's critical for us to move forward because We're gonna dress PRs as they come in anyway But we do we should probably lay down on paper someplace what our plans are so let's do this then for Kathy's request. We'll Well, maybe briefly discuss next week, but look for a vote in two weeks. Is that okay? All right, cool. Thank you guys Okay, next up is the list of reposals for The next set of work items or parallel work streams, I should say Now we had a whole bunch of people add comments here Or add suggestions here But I'd like to do if you guys are okay with this is ask people to spend just a couple minutes I really do mean a couple like two or three Per item added here just to briefly summarize it and then we can talk about next possible steps here in terms of Determining what if anything you want to do next is that's not okay? Yeah, okay, not hearing objections Kathy. I think this person might be yours. Is that true? Yes Okay, so maybe there's a two or three minutes summary. Oh, okay. Oh, yeah, I need to give a summary. Okay. Well, um, so they have been several presentations in the in the recent CSF the cook on conference about the, you know Function workflow or function composition and people give it different names. What it really means is, you know, um The user, you know, you really needs a way to specify their service use case workflow for example, um, you know, some use case could be like Do a image, you know face recognition on a photo when the photo is uploaded onto the cloud storage And then another use case could be in could involve, you know, multiple steps of the function Functions either executed in sequence or in parallel and also, you know, could also, you know, involve, you know The second function wait for another event and to happen and then execute that function So so I think, you know, we need a standard way It will be used it will be good for the user if we can have a standard way or consistent way for the user to specify their workflow, for example, to specify what combination of events trigger what functions and how those function are executed and what information is passed from one function to the next function and also, um, like, you know, whether the next step function execution needs to wait for another event to happen. Um, for example, we already, like, uh, I mean, uh, The issue is we discussed a correlation ID, right? I think that correlation ID is associated is associated with a use case workflow and do need to be specified in the workflow specification, like, you know, if that workflow involve multiple events and then if there are multiple instances of each event and So how we correlate, you know, those even instances together to the right on workflow execution instance I think, um, I think that's the motivation for for this work. I this work, um Workstream. So Kathy on this one, are there prerequisite work streams that would happen to happen first? For example, would this require us to solve the function signature interrupt issue first? I don't think that's necessary because this is more about this Um, the workflow on even without function signature, you know, it's okay. It's just one one version Okay. Any questions for Kathy? Kathy, have you looked at some of the work done by AWS in terms of step functions and the spec and the approach around that whereby they're using a state machine? You mean, can we, um, sorry, you mean, can we, could you say that again? Have you, have you looked at some of the work that already exists in this area? I'm just curious. Um, there don't seem to be any links to things or work that is already existing in the area. Oh Yeah, yeah, when we really start working on this, yeah, we're going to, oh, yeah I'm very well about, you know, AWS that function or other, you know, like Microsoft as your function and also Huawei's, you know, Yeah, I'm aware of that. We can, we can list that links when we've really start to work on this, you know, those will be our reference From a, from the perspective of the work group, do you, do people think that, um, function workflows are more important than, um, the signatures seeing as Nordstrom are delaying the adoption of Lambda because it's so hard to move from one cloud to another Would it make sense to, to see which of those two items is more important, whether it's standardized to signature to allow more people to adopt functions Or you worry about how you chain them? Yeah, Alex, I think that's going to be a question we have to ask once we get done quickly evaluating or talking about each of the items on the list Is to figure out which ones should come first versus second and prioritize them So I think that's a, that's sort of the next question after this review Yeah Okay All right, any other questions, comments or Kathy before we move on to the next one Okay event orchestration and chaining Kathy was this yours or is this somebody else? I can't remember Uh, I think this is somebody else Okay, is anybody Is the owner of this one on the call? I can't remember who it was Yeah, I I wrote part of this when it was Still uh combined with what Kathy talked about This is I can talk about it, but still I'm new to the working groups. So I'm myself a lot of wrong stuff But there are a lot of questions about how Events and functions are transmitted and chain. There is uh, but the cube can't face the face There was the discussion about the light bulb or an event you you have an event But an actual device in a room that's generating an event now Well light bulb might not know what room it's in if it's in a warehouse or a flat and you might have Event gateways forwarding that event. How is that done? Are they allowed to modify the event? Do they generate a new event? What is happening? And there are a lot of questions on this and people wanting to just before the meeting dug You responded to a pr for somebody wanted to add the source attributes for iot events to help with Adoption because they do need that It's the whole thing. Uh, we have an event that's been generated and we want to forward it Maybe add some more details to it again in relation to the correlation ID issue that Kathy talked about And there is a lot of questions here and it's unclear who's allowed to modify what how events are forwarded and uh, there's been Some discussion about putting everything in headers and not necessarily having labels Again, this is still very tied up with the correlation ID but then again at the face-to-face the issue of Encrypted or signed the payloads was brought up and if the payload is encrypted obviously the Or event gateway could not do that much unless there are some labels that are outside of this This needs to be discussed because there are a lot of questions I think we agree that we want to go and amend the proposal that thomas made Um to for that to be properties that are associated with the message and then we're also going to have an imitation property bag So I I thought that was something that we had kind of semi resolved At least that there will be proposals that we can go and then go and discuss Yeah, I think we will agree. This will be part of the cloud events spec First, I think this is a very important thing But I think we agree with this will be part of the cloud events bag Will not be a separate item also talks about I think thomas has a Source label proposal I think we let also has something which put into my PR some suggestion put into my my correlation by dpr We can probably look at both and then oh, we should you know do this So it sounds like there may be some things that definitely fall back in scope of the spec but it's not like I'm glad you think there may be some items that were falling outside of scope and I'm wondering whether What we should do is assume they're in scope right now Get people to open up prs for those features and then once people look at the prs Then they can make the determination about whether it's in or out of scope and if they're out of scope Then we can push it back to this list. What do you think? I think this is still There was the issue of okay We do set the bag of events or labels or whatever and we do that in cloud events That's in scope of cloud events, but if we do that we don't specify Okay, there is just a bag you put everything you want in here I do think there there is a need to say, okay, what are we gonna put here? What's gonna go as a label and not as a payload labeled stuff? I don't know and again This leaks quite a lot in the correlation idea, which is part of cloud events But I don't see it as a good idea to just put a field and say, okay You put anything you want in here, but we're not gonna specify exactly what But that really depends on what the semantics of your particular solution are and how you're going to use the events So, okay, I don't want to get to a deep discussion about how to solve this particular problem But what I think I'm hearing though is at least part of this may fall within scope of the spec So so like maybe it would be best if we discuss this within the scope of the specification until we Definitely decide it's not in scope because I don't want to leave something out if it does If we do think it should be there Yeah, I think that's a good suggestion. You know, we can do some exercise to see whether you know everything, you know Talk being you know, um talk to here is you know within that scope or with the proposal or the solution itself all this Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah Okay Okay Okay, any other questions or comments on that one before we move on to the next one Okay, function signatures. I came over who added this one. But uh, uran, was that you? Or is that somebody else? I would have thought that's um serverless framework going to have been very keen on that Well, let me put this way. Who wants to speak to this one regardless of whether it's yours or not Or is it just so pleasantly obvious without the same thing? I think any of us could really speak to this. It's this is when you like We heard from Nordstrom you you're thinking of adopting serverless You start writing some code for azure and then you realize that It's not going to work out. You want to move it to aws and you can't because the signatures are all different And the events are different So this is about finding a way to get common ground the same thing applies with open source fuzz as well Every open source fuzz some of them are trying to follow lander. So there's more compatibility But others are just finding their own opinions on it All right, any questions on that seems fairly straightforward Well, it's that's gonna I think from and speaking from the microsoft perspective that that one is going to be a little difficult Because that ends up being a discussion about api standardization And i'm a little worried about that happening now because it's early And once you know once a space is pretty settled then you can say okay now we're tightening up the apis but this field is is just right now emerging and I'm worried about ending up in a situation where we are effectively limiting our own abilities and everybody's abilities to go I just do new things by just bolting down to a particular api shape Right, so let's hope this comes down to yeah, so let's hold off on the discussion. Uh, which one we want to do Whether we don't any bears are too soon or or or not. So let's hold off on that It's legitimate. I think that's true the ever the other thing though is that we have this implicitly and people already have committed to that the azure or the open fuzz api And that's the fact it's just that there's now a problem And there may be some projects that can find a common ground and then moving between them Would be incredibly useful as an end user I'm concerned as well about uh breaking the interface So with everybody that's got so far have people actually using this and making use of it Now that we changed the signature, how would you even manage that? So I think there's a there's a concern Maybe a worry that needs to be looked for this as well Right, okay, but I think everybody understands that what we're talking about here. I don't think there's any confusion about that So let's move on to the next one apis for access and cloud events and uran. I think this one might be yours in conjunction with the next one. Is that true? Now which one apis for access and cloud events and then the cloud event client sdk I think those might be related and I think they're both yours aren't they? Probably The ones afterwards the logging etc Uh, I think the the sdk is something we spoke about the last time Which is uh, you know for testing or for people that want to integrate easily with cloud events by the simple And transfer that we support like http and mqp etc Don't think there's a lot of things to it You know, there's also the The consumer api which is a little more difficult and more opinionated because it has all the the marshaling Aspects, but I think the push api Is less contentious Okay, any questions on that? Okay, let's move on to the next one that this one's yours right here on common function for logging observing and monitoring Yeah, so, uh, you know each one of the frameworks have or most of the frameworks have Logging facility like if you go to amazon you have some logging Facility that writes things to cloud watch eventually you go to nuclear We have something that can export to variety of logging services and so so does azure and others so When if you're starting to write the function So you focus on the events and the signature everything is cool But then within your functions you're calling a logging Facility and each one of those logging facilities have its own proprietary api That means that every every place you put a debug print or logging etc You have to modify your code or you have to build some wrappers So if we come with a suggestion for a common api for logging and That you know, we can also build wrappers to the different log implementations within the different function providers and people can update these semantics and for the open source community, we can also Support that in all trying and converge on one definition It's not only for the function implementation, but also We we can come with a Facility especially on the open source community where you could have like log consumer or logging service that consumes the Function event so like could be Kubernetes. Okay, but it may be A direct injection of a log entry into something like elastic search or cloud watch or app insights So that that's the proposal. There's also we're using something from uber called as app And I've also listed how it works So if people are interested in looking into it, but yeah, it's more the point of trying to standardize the way You're doing logging we can further expand it later to also observing maybe Open tracing for api built into the function Context or maybe some programmable counters You know, that would be pushed to things like Prometheus Did you did you mention open tracing already? I know mark mark's team implemented that recently And they found that it it could take the place of logging in some circumstances Right still, you know, I see something like elastic search or app insights or cloud watch is not necessarily designed for tracing so But yeah, I think we can design it in a way where it could be a dual purpose I'm just I'm wondering how that path which is like so for instance in in azure functions azure farce Just logs into the azure monitoring pipeline, which is used by all the other 200 services as well And so I'm wondering how this is specific to what we're trying to achieve here with in the working group Is that special No, I think it alleviates the complexity from the programmer side of trying to Integrate with each one of the logging facilities, you know, you write the code once I don't know if you're aware But nuclear can also publish events to azure app insights Uh, so it is possible for for serverless frameworks to publish to multiple You know logging services There's a bigger question about logging as well as like what what do you log, especially if you're working with a big payload Um, I think people that are doing logging. Maybe you haven't thought about that You have a 10 megabytes binary response from a function or input Are you really going to log that? And what does gdpr say about it? Yeah, yeah, but But that's why you have an explicit log explicit logging API In many places and not necessarily just saying, you know, everything that is standard output is being uh Logged and you may even have different severity. That's why I say once we'll dive into how to define it We may do a good job in defining it in a way that it solves those problems Okay, I think I think the concept here is pretty clear any any questions on the concept itself Okay, I think the next one is yours too. You're on you want to quickly talk about that one Or did you already mention that as part of your broader discussion? Yeah, so signature is one thing but let's assume we want a provision of function Which includes creating a spec, you know, maybe some code artifacts and publishing into uh, a serverless framework So, uh, there's no real standard around it. There are a couple of efforts, you know, samo, which is Amazon and is really very confined to an amazon set of services and the other one is from serverless Inc, you know dot com But that one doesn't necessarily have a common You know set of apis across the different functions because each function is different So if we come with a server spec of this is how you would define, you know Pretty much like a pod spec or a deployment spec where you have, you know the same deployment across different deployments Uh, you know, we can create like a function spec that may even encompass Other attached services like databases message queues api gateways, etc That could ease the burden of provisioning the same function across multiple providers Hi, any questions? Yeah, I think this is a Interesting topic also important topic because from the user side Um, you know the user does not want to you know To construct different deployment scripts for different platforms. So we if we can define some, you know, um common and deployment Language or not language primitives will be easier for the user to To be portable to different cloud serverless cloud serverless platform But I think, you know, it's I think, you know, it's not the deployment. It's not That's not just involve function. It also involves the events. So, um, Maybe if we really want to go for to work on this, I think we should call serverless deployment model Other than function because it I as yarn when your yarn explained he also mentioned, you know, quite some event sources Um, there's another aspect to this or another incentive for the different serverless providers to To standardize on this, um, you know, helping developers shift from one platform to another without having to relearn You know, how to how to define these files So the developer that works on one platform now wants to switch to another platform that will make the You know the learning curve much shorter Yeah I think given where we are in terms of developments, um, and and, you know, the velocity of the space It'll probably be more successful to have a framework that kind of sits inside of those platform and makes them makes them even and then is quick to adapt rather than trying to It'll make all the cloud providers Follow a common standard, which then would have to go and be adapted Um, I think I understand the motivation behind the bad this one the common function model also the common model logging model I just found it I found it pretty hard to um, you know Go into product development with with the committee spec effectively and then be constrained by it So so I think for If they're like the product does not want to make changes I think, you know, you know, we can do a mapping like to develop I mean for each company can develop a Mapping or adapter. I mean layer I've seen this in this what this is basically the premise of What austin is doing with his work with serverless ink is to to be that common It's yaml. I think the yaml file at the moment And he you know, he explains to me how many problems they've been because every provider is just so different with all the resources You have to set up and they are really focused on only doing serverless functions Is there anyone from his from his team here? I don't think they're very young because you know, um, it's for basically be reinventing What they're what they're doing um Yeah, I think this is a very very challenging This and the function signature probably to the harder ones. Yeah The the hard reality of this of like you can standardize some pieces And I think we can even find like on the on the top level Function signature piece for instance that like there's this I looked at the proposal. There's all the different the different signatures You can probably find a way to make it all look very much the same in node But then then you you click you click once and look at the next level and that again is different because the underlying infrastructure and all the configuration stuff and all this is in a way platform dependent um, and and it's also constrained by By rules that the platform makes and that's not for instance in azure the functions team Themes to decide right there their management api has a certain shape because that's the same thing across the hundreds of azure services So that there are liberty to go and break out of that So the let's let's let's move on though because I don't want to dive too deep into each one of these yet I think everybody understands what the what the proposal here is at a high level Um, but we have one more to go through then we can talk about next steps and how we're going to resolve What to work on and talk about that process So you're on you want to talk about the last one? I think that one's yours as well Yeah, uh, you know the last one is just talking about benchmarking and the need for uh, some common one Just like there is spec vert or in the sort of no sequel space Ycsb or For anyone else so something that instead of each one inventing his own benchmark We come to some consensus how we benchmark the efficiency of uh, service All right, any questions on that one I think there needs to be some parameters around that. Um, when you benchmark something on on the cloud, I mean Compare that to an open source fans. There's a very big difference But perhaps at least a common ground should be that they are all running on kubernetes Or they all have the same um api I saw some of the the benchmarks there from the link and they they weren't done with kubernetes It was done with a raw docker socket. I believe on localhost Now these tests really need to be representative of how a user will access functions So they should pass through an elb. They should be checked for authentication. So there is a real world comparison Not just a number that makes one project look good because it takes shortcuts Agreed, uh, and if you look at how spec vert for example, uh works It's it's not even those even from a sense of an ROI Okay, so it's like for a given cost. What do you get? So it does allow you to normalize also the cloud provider solutions So there are different ways and not saying that we know the answer I'm just saying let's sit together and define how we measure it. So, uh, customers can say Okay, this is more expensive or less expensive or slower Foreign individual use case because maybe one framework will be good at one thing and the other one will be good Any other questions or comments on that? Okay, so in terms of next steps, I was trying to think of ways to move forward here and I could Top my head. I could think of three different options going forward One is we can have an offline meeting for people who are interested in trying to come back with a proposal for the One or more things that we want to work on next if we want to do more than one in parallel Two I could put up some kind of voting mechanism some place where people just vote from this list and we see which one wins Or which ones get the highest votes Or And these aren't necessarily exclusive But the third one I could think of is have people send a note to the mailing list expressing their opinions on why We should either avoid one or why we should focus on one over the others first Are there other ideas or Any of those you guys Have preferences for how to move forward on trying to decide what to work on next Yeah, you I mean logistically you could create a github issue put a comment for each and people can use the the thumbs up buttons That's true too might work That works Are people ready to I guess you could also then have a conversation within that issue too So you don't have to worry about the mailing list thing. So what about that idea? I like that one What if we open up an issue for each one of these and then people can Vote and comment on the issue and have a little back and forth And when things seem to die down then we can look at it and say okay time to resolve the the voting How does that sound Okay, any other suggestions Okay Okay in that case. Are there any other Things that people want to bring up relative to this? Relative to this whole idea of figuring out the next work stream to work on Can't kind of relative to that relative to the 0.1 work stream and the demo that was shown at kubecon Is anybody able to say which? Event sources have implemented cloud events to some extent. I know that Event grid from azure has and we've used that I heard that aws had but I I couldn't find any Anything about that online Do you have anything on that one? I believe the aws one was just translated through the serverless.com event gateway So it was just the regular webhook subscription and then they transformed it right Okay, so is is that is that the the current state of play event grid for object storage only? Yeah, I think that's true. Yeah, okay. I just want to know um, have a talk Like the next week and I'd like to talk about it Clemens I thought that you had Cloud events across all of event grid now Uh, we do yes For every event source the event grid supports. Absolutely. Okay. It's a it's we have a generic we have a generic, um Um remapper Okay, effectively Thanks, uh, thanks for your help anyway clement on um on twitter We we managed to get uh your event working with open fuzz without changing anything, which was neat That makes me happy. Yeah It's as yeah, we still need to get the uh, the You know webhook specification done so we can go and finalize all that So, um, john mccabe that actually did the work for that He said that there was a there was a bug that the content type wasn't being set correctly for the subscription But I mean we can take that offline. Yeah, I was gonna say let's take that discussion offline if we can Okay, cool in that case with a whopping 10 minutes left I'm not sure we have time to dive too deep into a really meaty pr Um, and I think most of them actually do involve a fair amount of discussion except for the first one Which I think is strictly syntactical And it's the idea of moving the data out from under the contracts attributes into a another section So it's presented as a sibling to all the other attributes um, which are Metadata about the event itself I was wondering people had a chance to look at this one and what people thought of it Because I haven't really seen any comments on it about whether it's good or bad or I'm hoping that I'd start from Kathy I'm wondering if you will feel comfortable accepting this one or do you need more time? I only saw the headline and found it good, but Sorry, I didn't comment on it, but it's good good for me Okay, anybody else have any comments Do people want more time or can we accept it and then tweak it later? It's necessary with additional prs I can go either way Okay, I'm not hearing anything. I'll go ahead Okay No, go ahead. Was that Rachel? Oh, yeah, I just think this looks good. Okay You can interpret like silence I'd like to I don't want to rush it. Okay. So let me ask the question then. Is there any objection to adopting this pr? All right, cool Are there any other prs people can think of on this list that are relatively small otherwise I'd like to defer the bd discussions for later when we have more time because I think I only have like eight minutes left I don't think there's anything Small, unfortunately Okay Not hearing anything. So before I go back and do the final roll call Is there any other business people would like to bring up any other topic that's relatively light? I would like to have more eyes on the htp webhook specification, especially because I made it made its Beefy change this week. So uh further reviews would be welcome and then it's something that I would like to Uh Sorry get into the repo soon Okay. Yeah, are you all done with edits? Is it is it really I addressed all the comments in there? I yes, I did all the I addressed all the edits and now I added based on the comments a Basically a callback mechanism so that You can if you get a if for the validation steps So if you get a call you can actually go and fish the URL from the log And then call the URL manually and with that unblock this the sender Rather than then forcing the client to implement a particular protocol All right, cool on that note Clemens it I just opened your spec and the first well the second paragraph says that htp post must use a token Orf nz What does that mean? Does that mean that? Um Webhooks can have to have authentication with a token Um every single cloud event would have to 100 do this Make a comment No, I mean it's it's literally the second paragraph it's yeah, I I'm a strong believer in authentication Um, but let's yeah, let's let's discuss it and I'm let me just pull this up. So I mean hang on there's quite a lot of GitHub sort of integrations things like github and the way they do that isn't is not through an orf header They use something like hmac with symmetric key That's quite widely adopted as well Um, are you sure you want to push people? Too far down one. Oh For me token is not a a particular thing. It's uh, it's It's so it can just be as well be a key So, but I'm not I'm not sure what you're referring to um, see Yeah, what line number do I go to so I clicked on the line for htp webhook specifications. This is the github issue So you're not on the get you're not on the github issue you want something else Oh, I'm look at the pr. Is that the right look at the conversation tab Oh, sorry Because I'd rather look at the specific changes if because that's usually there's a Says specification defines notifications of the livid by post. Yeah, of course must use token orf nz scheme um So integrations like github that are very You're not looking at the actual at the actual pr. Are you I just clicked on the link in the white group? We we've got to open on the screen now if you can see it. Okay No, no, that's that's no this Um Look at the actual document. That's what counts not my comments The the spec says the client may use a token based off them. Yes Well, the pr comment, which is the second summary says it must Yeah, I care I care more about what's in your Yeah, I care about both because the first is the intent of the person that wrote it and the second is what will go in Well, I actually I I This is the normative text and the normative text has changed quite a bit since I posted that comment and I don't Look at the look at the text. Yeah, I will take the text and not at the PR. I can go and clean out the PR comments Thanks, okay. Anyway, good. We got clarity obviously. Yeah, okay Anything else high level before I go back and do final world call rachel. Did you have a comment? Um, I just wanted to make sure that we're going to go back and update the comment because when people Okay, yep, Clems, let's go do that. Thank you All right with that let me just go back and do final world call. Um Ginger could call us on Yeah, Sean. Yeah, you got it. Thank you. All right, Sean Smith Yep fraud fraud Or it already so there Or it already I'm here. Okay. Uh, adit or eat. I'm here. Okay. I apologize for butchering your name. Ehor. No, why? Ehor you're still there. I'm here. Excellent. Uh, stevo I'm here as well. All right, Aaron He's here with me All right, Joe Sherman. Yes, I'm here. Excellent and rob dolin I was late, but I'm here now. Excellent rob and back to fraud All right, is there anybody on the call that is not on the agenda or on the attendee list that I missed? Yes, hey, this is uh, Svetloberg Svet, okay. Got it. Thank you Anybody else? All right, but dad, I believe we're done. Thank you guys very much. I'll talk again next week. Thanks. Thank you Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye