 Hello. Yeah, sorry. You know how breakfast sounds good Excuse me. All right, let's go and get started three after I don't think there's any eyes as worth calling out Other than although Kathy did do her PR for the thing. I was merged. So thank you Kathy Okay, so the face-to-face meeting last time I checked in the doodle poll or the face-to-face meeting for Shanghai Only six people said they're gonna be there and And we never actually agreed on what the formal number would be for a quorum for a formal meeting But I think six is a little low given that we have I think 17 or 16 voting companies Six definitely feels low. So we'll work on defining what the actual number should be but I think six is too low for us However, I did want to ask the question if anybody does agree with that assessment Okay, not hearing any so of those six people I am gonna reach out to you guys to see who is interested in participating in the intro and deep dive sessions And who wants to present and all that other stuff. So I'll take those conversations offline work with you guys The material that we present I assume we will produce it in a way. They'll be available to the working group at large To participate in putting it together, but I assume of those six people We'll find the presenters to actually do the thing All right And as I just want to point out there is a brainstorming doc that I created to gather ideas for the next possible interrupt Now whether we do that at Shanghai or Seattle or some other event is still TBD But I did want to start getting some brainstorming going So if you guys get a chance, please do look at that document and put some ideas down there For things we can start considering Okay Are there any other Questions comments or anything related to potential face-to-face meetings that people want to bring up All right, not hearing any moving forward then Is there any community related topics? This is just a short time for people who don't normally join the phone call But are from the broader community for issues that they'd like to bring up for consideration by the group All right, not hearing any moving forward then I don't believe Austin's on the call um And I don't think anything's happened with the sdk work other than I think Austin It will plan on or is planning on setting up another call Now that the extension discussion is is behind us So look for an invite coming up really soon. I'll ping Austin offline to make sure that happens Um Kathy, I don't believe it's anything there or I guess I should ask Is there anything you want to mention about the workflow group other than your prs been merged? Um No, yeah, not really. So after that pr merge people can start a pulling your prs to modify it To make it better. So that's the whole point. That's that currently that draft is just a starting point which the Work workflow subgroup has worked out and reached consensus, but that's just a starting point So I hope you know more people could join and then you know to evolve this document to make it better Yep, sounds good. And so Kathy, what what is your plan or desire relative to? Uh moving forward on the document. Do you want all work to be done through? Through prs or do you still want to have some sort of regular phone calls to discuss Things that go on in the document So I think uh, you know, um, the work will be the new trends will be committed through pr But if there is uh, you know, um, how to say if there is a topic that needs, you know more, um, Meeting this that needs meeting discussion to To to move it forward. I think, you know, we can call a meeting As needed that that's I'm not sure what was under people's thought Okay, what are the people think people okay with pretty much doing everything through prs and then having one off phone calls as As the need arises. Is that okay with people? Yeah, I think that makes sense We've had quite a lot of phone calls. So at this point going through prs and then having calls as needed would probably make sense Okay, sounds good. Any other comments on that one? All right. All right. Thank you. Kathy. I think that ends that one Thank you. So people, please go look at the documents. Um, and submit prs and moving forward All right jumping into I don't think we have any maintenance issues to discuss so we can jump right into some of the prs Sarah, are you on the call? I don't think I see Sarah. Okay So I can take this one unless rachel you want to talk to it Yeah, we can we I'm happy to talk through this one. Okay. The proposed change here is that we should Take offline voting to be the norm. So instead of doing the roll call vote We would just say this is up for a vote and you have however long to go in and vote on the on the comment with a comment So just to be just from my own understanding to be clear For some prs we don't actually do a formal vote. It's is there any objection to adopting it? This doesn't impact that It's with the genetics consent. We just let it go through. It's only for black and bitter phrase contentious prs That causes us to do a formal vote. We're just putting down into words. Well, we've kind of been doing all along, right? Yeah, yeah, the idea is that we wouldn't have to do the long roll call where we call everyone's name and wait for it Right. Okay I believe this was out there since tuesday or so. So I don't think that made major changes. Um Any questions or comments on this one? I have a question. So is this like majority vote like for example, if If a pr, you know People vote differently. So how we This make the decision. Yeah, so where is it in here? It's talks about There is somewhere in here where it talks about it's a majority vote a majority of people who vote I know it's in here someplace Oh, I sorry. A vote passes if more than 50 percent of all Works cast Okay, thank you Okay, thank you. I don't know why I couldn't see that. Thank you. Thank you All right, any other questions or comments this one? Okay, any objection to adopting it then? All right, not hearing any. Thank you, Rachel for walking through that one All right, Kathy correlation discussion. Um, you want to share your screen, right? So let me just stop sharing Yeah, okay. Let me share Okay, there you go Um, could people see my screen? Okay, so let me go through this um So I'm going to go through some uh use cases um that you know shows why we need And some identity labels or attributes and for the correlation Purpose and so the first use case is a home security use case um, of course, you know in order to illustrate the issue The use case had been simplified the real use case could be more complicated than this so as showing the following burglary detection example a home monitoring application Involves two events or it could be more events But this example just shows it involves two events a motion event Which means a detector motion And and a door or window open event Since there are many homes and then there will be many old motion events and window open events from these homes So the event consumer needs to map each event to the correct home security application instance As showing the diagram the right side, you know, I have multiple yellow blocks that shows this instance And then on the left side, we can see there are two types of event stores or event types And then the event a represent the motion event event b represent the window open event And then it could go through some intermediate routing system Gateway and then reach the event consumer. So when the event consumer receives this event, it needs to know. Okay, which event a Okay, so that eventually delivered to which instance basically it needs to correlate The event a and even b correctly. So if it's like, you know send, you know, the motion event for for customer a's for customer a's To the to the instance for customer b. That's not right. So it needs to correlate, you know, the event a and event b correctly in order to do the right processing and produce the right result So this is a Any question on this? Okay, so um, if there is a door open event or other smoke detection event or this and only to correct it correctly And there must be some identity information there to help the event consumer to correlate them Um, so this is another use case. It's long application use case So we have two events here event a means that the user submit a long application And even b means that application is approved by some manager or by some banking system Again, similarly, there could be many event a and event b. So when the event receiver gets that event Gets gets these events. They need to know how to match them to the correct, you know, processing unit processing instance And third use case is streaming video use case. So for example when someone upload image file It needs to be transmitted a video file. It needs to transmit a different end user and then the end user's On display could in different might be might receive might Might be able to understand different format. For example, some will understand impact format Some will understand the hls format and other will understand the dash format So when that event a happens, which means the video files are uploaded to some storage Then it needs to, you know, do different transcoding and then each transcoding completion time could be different So event b means the MPEG transcoding is completed and event c means HLS transcoding is completed and event d means The dash transcoding is completed again when the event receiver received all these different events It also need to correlate, you know, the event a to the right event b event c and event d And to do the processing So this example is about travel employee travel application use case So event a is a travel application and event b is a travel approval Similarly, when the event there could be many travel Requires and approval events. So when the event receiver gets all this event you need to do the right To correlate the event a to the to the event correct event b So in summary, um, we can see that they are, um, There could be many such use cases, you know, smart home, you know, any smart home use cases From the finance, you know, and department like, you know, the stock trade you have buy you have sell You are going to have, you know, um, the validation And you know, when you want to sell, uh, sell stock it needs to do a validation and then when that validation returns result That's another event So need to map to the right stock sale Request And then they are like, you know, healthcare like, you know, some heart ecg monitoring that could trigger different events And also in education in government And like also that like some example like chop out that involves multiple events So all these involves all these use cases involve multiple events And then we need to correlate them correctly So to support such use cases, each type of the event must carry some identity Labels or identity attributes, whatever we call them To distinguish the that event from the other event instances of the same type Like, you know, the same motion Events, there could be many motion events We need to distinguish, you know, which one it is and then to correlate that event To the other events correctly using the identity information carried in that carried inside that event message So it is an event producer's responsibility to put some identity labels in the event context attributes Because if there are no such information, then there's no way To do the correlation. Sorry um, so in terms of, you know, if like a Producer could put some identity information in the event on context attributes And then, you know, it is a service application developer's responsibility To specify For that service app use case or that service app workflow Which identity label That is carried in the event should be used to correlate it with the other events So there are two these are two separate steps But I think first A requirement is In the event message itself the event message itself should carry some identity labels In the event context attributes That's all Any questions Yeah, two things one, I apologize. I probably should have said something before you started Kathy this The reason we're talking about this is because on previous phone calls There's been a lot of discussion about Correlation and stuff like that and we thought it'd be useful to have some people who Who cared deeply about the correlation use cases to explain some of the The driving scenarios that were pushing them to make sure that they that these things were supported and that's why we're doing this And the other thing is Kathy, can you give me the url to this presentation? So I'd include it in the notes Oh, yeah, sure. I will um, we need to send you now or I can send you after the meeting later I just want to make sure it's in the notes at some point Okay, all right, cool. So any questions for Kathy or comments? Uh, it's Luciano from Ito. Um, I'd like to try something and no get feigns that uh, uh, another use case for The correlation ID And the operation uh, daily days if I'm using a choreography microservice uh I can use the correlation ID to To track and make the lineage of the events that uh, it's going to start in a chain of events So I believe there's another uh, it's more useful than And then I was already presented Yeah, I think that makes sense and actually when when we were done taking questions for Kathy's thing I was going to ask if there are other use cases that people would like to to talk about or Or to to a present So, yes Oh, yeah, I think the use cases I presented just some Um, simplified the real Um scenarios that try to illustrate the need For the correlation. It's there are many other use cases. This is just a some, you know Some example some simple example I have one comment we we had this, um The open tracing was that open tracing I forget what the names of these things are um a specification where I think what you presented here all the use cases were effectively it's a Application level concern And not necessarily a infrastructure concern. We have these cross cutting scenarios where um, you have these tracing things which are Effectively injected by the middleware and then carried in the event and then evaluated by some other middleware And I'm just I just want to point out that the correlation mechanism is good for that as well And then for those we also need to have correlation information that's likely different from the correlation information that's being put into the event by the publisher Um, that can then also be carried and of course that can also be carried as extensions at the at the at the envelope level Yeah, and hey, this is jam. I had a similar comment and I'd be a bit leery if you were conflating um distributed tracing with Event correlation because I think they're slightly different. I one is You know diagnostic and and all that sort of thing and the other is really business process Monitoring so or control so, you know Clearly indicating when you should use one versus the other. I think would be a good statement to make And I believe I believe if I may may comment on that that having These the model that were that we've been starting with where you know, if you look at the extensions the few extensions that we already have um, where you can basically define an extension for um Open tracing and then you could also define an extension for a particular smart home Consortium and they can all exist in parallel and everybody kind of just you know picks picks out the metadata that they need um, and The the metadata is really defined for scope use cases Yeah, yeah, I get that and I guess my concern is that If you look at open tracing, I'm sorry to come back to that one again Um, you know, I believe that body defines how their Properties are propagated across different transports. Yeah, so you get this sort of contention between You know, if I'm sending a cloud event over http Do I put the open tracing attributes in the http headers as defined by open tracing? Or do you put them inside the cloud event extensions as potentially? You know described by the cloud events group so But but my question was more around or my comment was more around clearly separating um Diagnostic tracing, which is what I view open tracing as versus business process Monitoring or control, which is what I think event correlation is. Yeah, you're trying to group Events together To to form some sort of logical Um unit. Yeah Yeah, I think I agree. I agree with this comment. I think this one is more um for the um For the use in the business logic how to correlate correlate one event Um one event to the other event In the case, you know, if there are multiple event instances of each type And I believe that Go ahead. Sorry the information Sorry The information are you really, you know originated from the By a you really should should be put in by the event producer um, not, you know, the um The intermediate routers Of course the intermediate router can add more, you know, um information or more labels But you know the original um the information used for correlation Will come originally from the um from the event producer or event um, how to say it the the event, you know the the event source that that Send out originally sent out this event So I guess that raises another question. I may be related to um, apologize I can't remember the guy's name that was talking earlier um About you know, where is it the consortia's sort of View on how stuff should be correlated and does that go in their extension And and is it possible to sort of generalize This pattern and elevate it up Because in your example of a home, you know security system, I would imagine that Those devices are emitting source information and the The security company or whatever is correlating those together and saying Oh, that's going on in this building. Yeah, so It's they would be decorating the event to sort of Allow downstream consumers to then You know correlate that stuff more explicitly for instance Is that right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a good question. So that's why um So here is so in the the event producer will put some identity information in the event context attributes And then it is an event application developer, which you know developed that motion that burglary and detection security system Is that developer, you know, because he knows, you know, how many other events are involved in that security application and then in his In his security application workflow, he need to specify say What event what identity label in the motion event Should be used for the correlation and which identity label in the Window open event should be used for the correlation. For example for that Motion application under the motion sorry in that security application use case And now when they transferred to serverless serverless implementation it's going to It will specify in the serverless applications service security application workflows back that, you know the The correlation label might be like a home address something like that Yeah The way the way how I imagine that is that so for they So you have this alerts the window is open And there's a home automation specific island of data. That's the Effective that's a correlation for the home automation app That's probably even defined by a consortium which says this sensor is in is the the third window In this room on this floor in this building on this campus And then there is another data island which has nothing to do with that It's mostly orthogonal to it Which says the causality id is this and that's something that a tracing particular tracing framework understands So you can go and take one event you can populate it with metadata that's understood by separate different consumers And you can go and have the home automation application correlate and know where that sensor is you can have the tracing application know Correlate all the causality ids you could so it's like different modules can go different stuff from from that particular event And you can even if you want to support multiple different tracing frameworks because building these things Building these things seems to be popular these days You could probably go and and feed metadata required for one or two or three of them Into the same event but have them separate So so it seems to me though that the net of this is though All right the net of this is to just make sure that whatever we produce has the flexibility to Not only just support all these use cases that you guys are talking about But the ability to put the required information into a cloud event so these cases can then be possible Right that's basically the net of all of this right Yeah, yeah, I think the the point no matter how so there are two this How it this This information is use that's another issue But they all comes to the key point that in the cloud event We must the put some the event producer must put some Identity attributes in there so that you know Whatever the application on the event consumer application On you how the the event consumer application use it the they have their way of defined You know, which label should be used or which combination of the Identity information that should be used for the correlation or for the tracing or for other purpose But bottom line is we need to have those information in the event Context attributes otherwise those use cases these use cases will not be supported Yep Okay, yeah, I think we are concentrating for the event This sorry for the event discussion. We're concentrating on number three I do not know why, you know, there's always a pretty please move this window away from the I have no idea. I've never seen that before. That's kind of weird A little bit where I do not know why it's kind of it's blocked. Okay. Anyway. Yeah, okay I think number three is, you know, what we the summary the key summary here number four is a separate thing You know, it's like how from the event consumer point of view or the serverless application point Application point of view how they should use this information but you but numbers the number three is, you know It's the key point for the from cloud events point of view. We need to have some It needs to have some identity information in the context attributes. Yeah Sorry Was there someone else to say something in there before Kathy started talking I was I was curious why it is that this is it's important for these These identity labels that as far as I can tell are purely meaningful within the application context To be a part of the context attributes as opposed to something like the payload You know, when you were you were showing the diagrams earlier, maybe you could switch to one there was a event receiver and and it appeared to me that the event receiver is owned by the serverless application itself and and that That means that it would be How to it not express as well Maybe maybe to come at it from the different point of view If if that event receiver was an infrastructural component that needed to make a decision about how to say Which partition of a of a sharded system to send the event to then then An idea that would help make that decision seems like it would be something that would be important for the envelope But for something that is entirely within the application's domain and and definition and model of existence that it seems like perhaps Elevating that into the context context attributes is maybe less important Yeah, I would agree and it seems like at that point the event producer or I'm sorry The person or the component that's adding these attributes or making the decision about whether to add the attributes Almost has to know whether the receiver That's going to process that information is part of quote. As you said the application versus infrastructure And base and and use that information to determine whether it's okay to keep it in the payload versus in the envelope So so my understanding is different I think what what one of you guys said is the event consumer is part of the application context I actually think it's part of the infrastructure context But I think it's the infrastructure that will have to look at the correlation and then basically route that event to the appropriate serverless function or the serverless instance that's going to serve Am I right Kathy? Is it the application context? I assume the event consumer is going to be in the infrastructure context, right? The point at which the routing based on the correlation labels happens Yes, yes, you are right. It's in the infrastructure context, you know, they need to decide which you know Would that look like having a specific function that a Event should be sent to if it's from a specific house Or or location in a security system Or what what does that mean in the real world? I guess is my question Is this an event gateway? And which one started your question again Is the event consumer more of an event gateway? Going into the payload and doing say more than an event gateway It's more than even get away. It's not intermediate routing gateway. It's more like an event consumer, you know when the event It's like an instruction component that receive this event Which you know, it has to process this event And then pass it to get that information that even all the event metadata or context attributes and then From those information it decide how to you know and send the event to which application instance so I'm trying for out the way, you know, I Go ahead daddy. Sorry. It depends on Sorry, I think you can It depends how you define this event gateway. You can say it whatever the name But the functionality is you know, it will pass It will pass all the context attributes and then from those informations and decide How to you know how to set from the from the correlation point of view it's going to get that Identity information and then decide And you know, which you know, which counter application instant to send that event so so it seems to me that this is getting into a discussion about A possible text that we need to add someplace whether it's in for a spec or into the primer That talks about when things should go into the payload versus the envelope And Kathy's opened up a pull request to start that that discussion and put up some proposed text I'm wondering if it makes sense to defer The rest of this discussion or around that part of anyway to Kathy's pr Does that make any sense or do you guys feel like that's important to have that discussion right now? I would believe that it might be something you might want to defer having done all of those use cases Other than the video where the correlation ID was absolutely required and important. It was only one of several Factors that were in the either payload or in the protocol headers That were used to actually do the actual correlations So using just the correlation ID may not be enough You may need to have like a map or some other series of ID as opposed to just one or else these applications are not going to work with just one At least that's what we found in three of those four use cases Oh, yeah, yeah, I agree with that. I don't think you know, there will be just one Label called correlation ID. It's not that case. I think it's you know, the it could be you know One event's identity Information could map to another event's Another identity information so might not be one. Yeah, but I think I want to separate, you know The two things one thing is what the event producer what information the event producer put into the events What identity information the event producer put into the event and another thing is, you know, how the different You know for different use cases, right? on how they specify in the on the receiver side how they specify which Identity label in the context attribute to be used To do the correlation. These are two different things. I think in the from the cloud events point of view We just concentrate on the first thing So how we should put I think the the whole presentation purpose is to just to illustrate why we need this Identity label information in the events To support I think the the goal is to support such use cases and there are many such use cases right So with that, um, I think Kathy's part of the presentation is done Are there other people on the call who would like to present their use cases that they feel like fundamentally Add new information to the discussion I'm here. Okay. I represent a tau Luciano had to leave. I'm not sure I'm still here, but I'm still here Okay One I'm not sure if the use case were said but on our our perspective the correlation idea was meant to Uh segment little business event that Together represent a much more abstract business event for example in our case we work in a financial company and for a transaction put it simply would be a A debit from one account and a credit into another That would be two different events, but the second one would need a reference from the first one to Encapsulate the whole transaction So that would be a use case for our scenario Okay, make sense I would just add that in our scenario Probably most of the events will be asynchronous. So the reason that we must have some kind of connection between them All right, make sense Anything else? All right, cool I have a question Vlad here, uh, is there a concern that the identity information might be too big? In Kathy's presentation, there was a line that Each event must identify itself What if the event wants to use Certificates might they be way too big in size? This is related to the concerns that this info might be better in the event payload Any comments on that one? Oh, okay. So So your question is whether the um identity information is too big Um, uh, I just I just send the info from the event itself Maybe uh Alternative option from what Kathy present. I just send ID from the original event on the On the metadata and then I can recreated everything from an event store I don't know. It's something that we are discussing. It's an option And I can envelope on the extensions all the other information if We'll get better performance to us Yeah, yeah, yeah, so you are so your point is you put this identity information In the envelope in the I mean in the context attributes right now in the payload. Is that what you mean? So for better performance Yes, and but I But I would make a uh explicit the Correlation idea or the casualty idea. I don't know what's the best name to it But for the chain of events that we went to map And have the lineage and traceability. I would just please have a natural boot for that So you can The problem is that your your causality that you care about for your use case May not be the same causality that someone else cares about for their use case So we have all these frameworks all we talked about all these tracing frameworks They all have their own idea of you know, what tracing is and how correlation works And then you have on the same event A framework that cares about that event from a Device management perspective and you have another framework or application that cares about that event from a home automation perspective And so you have now three competing contexts of what the correlation Context means And so having a single ID Is not going to satisfy the needs of any of these three contexts Yeah, I'll second that that was my same concern This is very virtual Right. I do think a single idea will work. Yeah, I think you know the could different event producer could put different um identity Information there. So the what what had this identity information that's up to the um, that that's you know, we cannot predict because there's so many different types of events, right But they I think the the common point is no matter what kind of application Or use cases the common point is the event producer need to put some information in the context attributes that you know The application or whatever Um tracing or whatever they can use to do their own specific correlation purpose um that's And I think this information As I think one gentleman mentioned is you know these identity information um Should be put into the context attribute field for better performance instead of you know The event consumer has to pass a big payload to get that information That's my that's my um that my point Okay, and Kathy before I forget I'm assuming that when your charts say Huawei confidential That's just a typo and that will be removed before you share those So should I say it again your presentation at the very bottom said Huawei confidential I'm assuming that's just a typo and that will be removed before you share those Oh, yeah, sure. Okay Thank you. Just wanted to get that out there Okay, just copying the template. So yeah, that's what I figured. That's why that's why I called it a typo. Yeah Okay, right any other points on this topic As I said, it was not clear because obviously isn't the only time we can talk about this I just my preference though going forward is to talk about uh correlation or identity or whatever within the context of a Poor request that people want to see you know a change to the spec I think it's easier to have that discussion rather than the abstract one but at the same time This this conversation did come up enough times that we thought it'd be useful to have the abstract discussion at least once more In one of our calls, which is why we're doing it now But going forward, please let's let's talk. Let's try to work these things through PRs and talk about you know changes people want to see in spec Now they'll help focus the discussions All right, but that Um What I'd like to do is talk about sarah's pr. I know rachel. Are you able to talk to this one from sarah since I don't believe she's on the call This was about the change about qualifying projects Um, yeah, yeah, I can talk about this. Okay. I think that's say those are just things I think the bulk of it is right in this section right here pretty much Do you have an outstanding comment on this pr that hadn't There was I I think clemens had one just this morning here And that's why I wanted to talk about this one because this this this PR is kind of blocking for some other ones So I thought it'd be good to have that discussion now if possible So, um, I like maybe the right way to handle this one is to summarize the conversation that you and clemens and I had with brian Because I think that impacts us Okay, you want to summarize that one I'd be happy for you too Okay, um, so let's see lots of different things we talked about. So as a result of the protobuf pr Clemens brian grant from google rachel myself had a conversation yesterday Um, let's see if I can remember everything we talked about. So first off there was some potential legal governance whatever you want to call it concerns around the protobuf protocol itself and those discussions Will or will not happen outside of our project here meaning outside of cloud events because that's not really for us to decide here Whether proto stays where it is goes to some other foundation or something like that. We don't know. We don't care It doesn't really impact us directly. That's a different conversation Our our project though Can decide on our own whether we want to adopt use reference, whatever Any particular protocol regardless of the governance model for the most part we can choose to do whatever we want It's up to us to decide So we have our own destiny in our own hands for the most part within within the scope of whatever cncf rules are finding us So relative to the proto discussion itself We will decide on our own whether we like that pr or not on our own Governance legal reasons are not going to really impact us unless someone Chooses to let that impact their vote, but as a group Uh, it has no impact on us The other thing I think we talked about creeping on wrong here, rachel mox. I want to make sure I get this right is That we're going to be looking for the pr to change slightly to focus more on Just the binary representation of proto a proto And not necessarily the the jason representation. So I have that right To be clear, we're not talking about this pr. We're talking about spencer's protobuf proposal Correct the 295 I I think it's the number. Yes, right, okay and so That that's about that pr now the reason I think this ties back into this one Rachel, I think the reason you wanted to mention here was because You guys were then looking for changes to this pr That loosened it a little to talk about how protocols Or bindings could come from places other than consortia basically so it could come from our I guess what was the word that we used before Yeah, instead of just multi-company consortia you basically wanted to open it up to Just ecosystems in general as opposed to just formal consortia like oasis and stuff like that. Is that correct? I think the phrase that we used when we talked about this but wasn't captured in When we when we wrote the words down was de facto like widespread de facto standard where it's not a standard But it has wide use That was the thing that we're trying to capture. Right. Okay So with that Clemens, would you like to address your concern if you raise with the change in the wording? Yeah, so the the if you just look at the change as it is it looks like a type of correction But it really just dramatically changes the semantics of of that particular sentence So here let me show the sentence. Hold on. Yeah, so I believe it's the change of The ore in here. So it was uh, it's an ore Yeah, so if you if you if you go to view the entire document, it's probably easier to read if you go there Yeah, I part it up Um, no, no, no, no, but this only shows the oh, okay So so widely used protocols basically what this what this was intending to do It just introduces the notion That there are protocols which we should consider that are defective Standards and so what this said? Some widely used protocols have become de facto standards emerging out of strong ecosystems of top-level multi-company consortium projects and now with that change where it says ore It's basically breaking that term strong ecosystems of top-level multi-company consortium projects apart into two terms Losing the previous ones, right And that's and that's for me. That's a little odd, but it appears to be doing is is saying There are strong ecosystems which are not the prior prior one And then and then there's the other ones which are top-level multi-company consortium projects And so what I proposed was basically in in my comment was basically teasing those things apart because I don't think it's like It seems like it seems a little odd to go make a make a correction where you where you You know break apart the term in a sentence where you change order off to ore But rather really go and be explicit about the attempt what you do So that's what I'm putting proposing here because the juxtaposition here to make this really there's top-level multi-company consortium projects and the other ones are proprietary projects So it sounds like you're not objecting to the the desired Semantic change it was more of a sink tactical thing that concerns you It's just that there's a there has been a There's a semantic change that breaks apart The statement that is being made And instead of breaking that apart it would be good to go and just add a A part a sentence or a part of the sentence that clarifies the what the change intent is because that's what it seems to be Okay, so we didn't Think that we were making a typo change. We thought that we were changing the meaning of it It is a semantic difference and we think this is a better one No, I'm sorry, Gerard should just be clear what I meant was clements wasn't disagreeing with your semantic change He was I I was interpreting his thing as more of a syntactical change on top of your semantic change But that's what I meant. I understand you're looking for semantic change I apologize if I wasn't clear You were they were making an addition or their intent was to make an addition And I think I just made that decision more explicit because the it was Basically the term strong emphasis of proprietary projects. Sorry, strong emphasis Of top of the multi-company consumption projects was broken apart and that's one firm so Rachel, do you think I know you probably need you guys probably need some time to think about this and you probably need to have Sarah look at it since this was originally her pr But in general, do you think this this type of change that clements is talking about here is something that Is still consistent with the goal of what your pr was trying to do. Yeah, we can address clements concerns. Okay Okay, in that case, let me turn let me switch this discussion around then from clements question Um for anybody else on the call. Are there other concerns with the change in this pr? Okay, because I'd like to see if we can resolve those Uh, you know by next week's phone call and just to be clear like the point of this Was that we wanted to make sure like the motivation for this is that we want to make sure that this is applicable to many different projects That's why we're doing this. We want to we wanted to broaden what we see is like people that we welcome to Uh, join this community like who who are we making this spec for we want to like make that a broader tent That's that's the motivation behind this Yep, I think that I think that's clear So I I think here is a top-level Multi-company do we need to define what that matter company how many is considered like multi-company? I think there's there are comments say, you know, if we can be more explicit that be more objective Rather than, you know, um, if we can define that I think it would be better Like five or ten or or three Are you showing a comment on that one? I guess my Well, this is not my pios to saris, but if I were to give my opinion about this, it would be um If there are two companies that are collaborating in the open on on a project then I would consider that multi-company, but um If people would like to see broader like we the the expectation is that there is strong community support behind whatever is happening Uh, so I wouldn't want to make any of these like necessary clauses. I wouldn't like I want to see like the overall like A whole system of indicators showing that there has their support behind this Yeah, it's funny because the entire purpose of some of the discussions we had around This text in the in the document or in the working group is because People want a little more clarity on how to how to measure these things, right? They didn't want to be quite so subjective um And that's a challenge So maybe you could talk to sarah and see if there's some sort of additional Well, I think if people have specific concerns the best like if you leave those comments and sarah will see them Yeah, that's true. So kathy, can you put a comment into the pr about your concern about the use of the word top level? Yeah, okay. I can put that in. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, then sarah will see it and hopefully take a look at it Okay, any other concerns or questions about this pr? This is ryan From what I understand now Is this top level multi company? Consulted doesn't seem to even Mean anything now Because this is all so Seems like all we need to say is it's uh Have as strong as as regimen mentioned It's basically what we need is someone has something that actually has a strong Ecosystem and has a wide community support And looks like whether it's coming out of multi company or single company Doesn't matter it will meet the bar anyway That's that's my I leave the comment there. That's that's my thinking now looks like that's With this or whatever this semantic change The the second part doesn't really matter anymore Yeah, interesting. So yeah, if you can leave a comment in there and at this And this This actually applies to both you ryan and as well as kathy If you guys could propose some alternate texts to try to not just To basically try to clarify the points. I think that'd be useful Um, yeah, that would that would help that would help sarah You know get it some clarity about what you're looking for to to clean this thing up Yeah, sure. Yeah, the To just to be clear looks like the original intent Was really only confined those Protocols with top level now with this or The confined the the restriction pretty much is gone then Yeah, anyway, I leave comment there. Yeah, I think that'd be best Because I like to get sarah's input on this obviously All right, anything else? We're almost out of time Okay, let me just double check it out So there is a new pr that kathy opened up. I wanted to draw people's attention to in 30 seconds 301 Um, this one. I'm sorry. Yes. This is Austin here I'd love to just speak to the stk2 real quick, but I could do that right after you you go over the pier Okay. Yeah, I'll be quick. Um, basically just want people to draw people's attention to this pr That kathy open because I'd like to get some eyes on it sooner rather than later It talks about The notion of Including identity properties for either correlation or identity purpose or something Into the message itself and like I said starts that process of Of opening up the discussion about when things go into the payload versus into the cloud event attributes and stuff like that So I think this is going to be a critical one for us to get right going forward So please when you get a chance take a look at it. Um, I think it's going to be an important one And it's 301 And with that Austin go ahead and mention the stk stuff Austin you're still there Yeah, just there you go with the mute button. Um, hi everyone. I we We came to a conclusion on the extension's work and I think now is time to is a great time to focus on the stks Um, so we'd love to kick off that effort again I'll send out a doodle poll later tonight. And if anyone is interested In contributing to the stk efforts. Um, just look out for that. I'll post it in the slack channels as well as the cncf message board Excellent. Cool. Thank you. I assumed you were going to do that. So that's what I mentioned earlier, but thank you for confirming it All right Yeah, go ahead Kathy. Yeah So the reason the poor the new pr is so the original pr we Is is proposed uh Identity label Back, right? So I think there are uh, that looks like I'm not sure what the people would like to go for that Or go for this new one. So yeah, you can take a look, you know, this one we didn't you know, we there's no Identity label back proposed basically, you know The producer can just whatever identity labels Kathy Kathy it's in your power to retract the the other one Because it's yours Yes, you can use it I think in the next Maybe I would like people to vote to say, you know, which way he's better Okay, well, we're technically over time. So we'll have that discussion next week then so let me just quickly get the roll call for people who are late Um, Christoph, you think you're still there? Yes, I'm still there. Okay. Doug, are you there? Doug Joe Sherman, yes, I am. Okay. Luciana heard jen. I heard Uh p birch. I don't I couldn't get your first name. I think I'd heard him though. Rohit What about alex debris? Yep here and matt rickowski. You're good. Okay. Um Marcello Marcello Yeah, it's me and then you're here. I thought I would throw it out you okay. That's what I thought. Okay, uh, austin I heard Uh christian for me tell yes, I'm here. Okay, uh, rove Yeah, rov Okay, what about dug is there? Okay, is there anybody I missed? And I got dug. Yeah, I got you to chat. Sorry about that. I forgot anybody I miss All right. Cool. Thank you guys very much. I appreciate it. We're sorry. I apologize for running so you're over time We'll talk again next week Bye