 I think Lee's coming, but he's got the wrong date in the doc, so I'm not entirely sure. He put February 21st and like, we'll see. Hey Lee, thanks for sending over the document. I'll try to fill it in by this week in the latest and send it back to you, okay? Nice. Yeah, thank you, Michael. I'm hoping it's mostly a copy and paste. Yeah, it should be. There's one caveat. There's some users that are using Contour that are not willing to speak about it publicly. We may have to figure out, you know, either you guys will trust us. I want to say leading financial institution, they're using it, or we might have to set up some private meeting for them to disclose that to you. Ingress is one of those things that people are trying to guard fairly, keep it close to the vast in terms of them not communicating they're using it. So we'll have at least five of such customers are not willing to speak publicly. Oh, okay. Okay. I remember a conversation with Ross Kugolinski about a year ago. Probably he'd mentioned a three-letter acronym, Japanese centric organization that was, maybe that was in context of Gimbal, but yeah, he, for my part, I'm convinced. Yeah, that was Gimbal, the one in Japan. Oh, I see. Okay. But still Contour underneath. Nice. Well, I'm hopeful that we'll have Watson, who was on the call last week or last, last time we met on today's call. By the way, since we haven't started yet, I have a quick question from Matt Klein and Amy. So when we basically pushed Contour for donation, we had three sponsors, Alexis, Matt and Joe Beta. And we started the process. It, you know, we did the TOC presentation and now it's in sick review. Are we going to be forced to go back and find new sponsors now that the other folks are no longer in the CNCF? I mean, I wouldn't say forced, but we will definitely work to be able to find you new sponsors. We will. So we have to go find you. We will need to have different sponsors because they're no longer on the TOC. Okay. Yeah, we should, we should start that process. It's obviously unfortunate that this happened during the turnover, but I suspect that we won't have too many issues finding other sponsors. Matt, would it be possible for you to send a note to the private TOC emailing list and see, I mean, we don't need to be privy to that and see if anybody's willing to sponsor Contour. Yeah, let me make sure. I would actually wait until we get through the assessment here simply because it's just easy to be able to point towards here. The assessment is done here, like go forward. Simply because with TOC and Sandbox, we don't need to be able to bring it to a vote. This is for donation. I thought Sandbox was a done deal if we wanted it. Sorry, this is for incubation. I thought Sandbox was a done deal. So incubation would require a vote. Yeah, that's why I'm thinking. So yeah, for Sandbox, I thought it was a done deal if we wanted it. And we said, let's go for incubation. For Sandbox, that's where you need those three TOC sponsors. We had them at that point and we said, let's not go for Sandbox. Let's go for incubation. So I thought Sandbox, if we wanted it, would have had it back in January. Okay, we can take this one offline because I know we've got other things to be able to cover today. No problem. Very good. Okay. Well, another short call, I suspect, which is probably good. I think so the other project that's under review or up proposal currently is service matching interface, SMI. I believe we are in context of SIG network. I believe we're done there. I think we, for those that were on the call when they proposed, we gave them the commensurate questions and facilitated pointing over to PR, the same due diligence template isn't necessary for SMI as they're kind of refactoring to come in at a Sandbox level. And as such, I think the most important criteria there is TOC member sponsorship. So the link to the PR is in the meeting minutes. On the PR, I believe, so we've got Matt as a, you know, a volunteered sponsor. I believe Jeff Brewer as a second. And so Jeff continues, Jeff is, with all of the TOC change up, Jeff is still on the TOC. That's correct. Okay. Which is two. And then I think the third and fourth were, I'm not sure if there are open question marks in terms of Michelle and Brandon being, coming from the, I don't know, in terms of those who coming from Microsoft, kind of the parent company of the project, if you will. I don't know that there's a. Yeah, I think we can review that later. What I am looking for in this particular PR is a link over to the review from this particular group. Right. Amy, that's a good, educate me if you would. We didn't produce, other than the meeting minutes and kind of the questions that were asked on the call. We didn't produce a separate dock. Yeah, let's review that. Simply because we should, we should definitely have something to be able to point to. I can point you towards what app delivery is just done for volcano, if that would help. Yeah. Here, I'll just put it into the dock. Give me a second to be able to do so. Okay. Cool. All right. Yeah, we might have a short meeting today. Okay. And then after, as you're retrieving that, Amy, then the third topic today I was hopeful for, and I was a little bit late getting to Watson on this or W Watson who had raised up this question earlier this week, I think, about cloud-native-principles.org, which I think his suggestion was, was when we had had the deep dive at this last QubeCon about SIG Network, he was in the audience and had asked, inquired about whether or not there was interest in adopting such things, these cloud-native principles. I had been aware of some authoring of some, some such definitions. And I think in the time that we had had the deep dive and now there's a cloud-native-principles.org, which is hyperlinked in the meeting minutes. Between this cloud-native-principles.org and the proposal for patterns and architecture that we spoke of last time we met, one looking to have a conversation, I suppose, in a map maybe with Liz or with the TOC at large about the proposals for patterns and architecture that we spoke of a couple of weeks ago, that those are surface mesh-centric in nature, which is fine, there's a lot to go through in there. But I think the way in which it's couched is that it would be much broader for all cloud-native architecture and patterns, which I don't know is that any, any particular working group could chew through that seems pretty gnarly. Yeah, I mean, from a practical perspective, it seems like we would be better served by being focused. Patterns would not apply to PubSub systems? No, I mean, I think that we can expand it out to do what makes sense. I think doing something around patterns that cover both PubSub as well as RPC makes sense to me. Okay, yeah, thanks. And Ed, since you're on the call and occasionally interact with, I think, you know, some of the same folks who've authored the cloud-native networking principles or cloud-native principles, do you have any context that you can share about the definition of the... I can make a few guesses that I just came across this website when I looked at the agenda today. So I'm still adjusting it, although, but effectively, I think part of what it is is we're also used to living in a cloud-native world that we sort of, it's very easy to lose sight of the degree to which this is a giant mental shift for most folks. And particularly, I think these guys are trying to figure out how to articulate that cloud-native is not just, you know, open stack with containers to the broader networking world that lives below L7. And I think that's an articulation that would be helpful for a lot of people because we're all in different places in our journey of having wrapped our heads around this space. Yeah, I agree. And so my understanding of the cloud-native principles is that the genesis of it was, or it seems to be within the tug, the telecom user group? It seems to have a lot of those folks, but they seem to be drawing from some of the concepts from the TOC's cloud-native definition. So things like, you know, loosely coupled immutable infrastructure. Those are some of the aspects in the TOC's definition of cloud native. And they're generally in motherhood and apple pie, but how do you sort of project those down into a different domain is an interesting question. Yeah. I know that on this particular, on this set of this paper, these topics, I know Dan Kahn has, I think, helped facilitate the some of this work. So just another touch point. This is also somewhat random and happenstance that the individual that raised up this question on W. Watson, who was on last, the call that we had had a couple of weeks ago, I think he'll actually be at tonight's meet-up in Austin. I know Watson, he's a very thoughtful guy. So he thinks deep thoughts about things, and then he comes back and you realize he's thought even deeper thoughts about the thing. So, all right. So then, so this is very well aligned with the Charter of SIG Network, and so is the proposal from Paul Bauer about also cloud-native networking-centric things. Either of the two of which or both of which seem like good topics of discussion for this group. It seems like there could be some, I don't know, some casting or some characterization of one versus the next and helping each of them lean into slightly different verticals, if you will, or slightly different layers maybe is the other way of putting it, and asking, maybe seeking out whether or not there's a desire to coalesce these into... That would certainly be, I mean, if coalescing is possible, that's certainly lovely. It's one of these things where I've routinely said, not so much in this venue, but in other venues, that mindless diversions is bad. But if you actually are dealing with the problem spaces that are different enough that the solutions need to be expressed differently, then that's perfectly fine, but you kind of figure that out by talking to each other. Yeah. Okay. So Matt, unless you have different thoughts here, I think that the thing that I'm trying to do is gain an audience with Liz, who's been involved in the other suggestions around patterns, and I forget what it's called, but the ones that we were talking about earlier from Paul Bauer, and to come to understand whether or not she'd had an appetite. It sounded like she'd had an appetite for that effort to be not just on cloud-native networking, but cloud-native, the whole kit in Kaboodle. Yeah. I mean, why don't we talk to Liz? I'm going to be honest in saying that I don't really have any experience producing these types of white papers. So I'm not really sure what people are looking for and the right process by which we will find resources to go and do it. From a project management perspective, like I said before, I would rather see us start small and targeted and do something that covers like we're saying before RPC and PubSub and maybe ServiceVesh and not block on some giant thing, but happy to chat with Liz first. Yeah. I totally agree that there is a need across the giant thing, but that would need to be its own SIG and then with many sub-working groups, I would think. Because there was at one point, Dan Kahn was hosting a CNCF reference architecture discussion I think every couple of weeks to once a month. And part of that was a reflection and refinement of the CNCF landscape and just solicitation of opinions from those that would attend. But that was just for purposes of trying to categorize icons into a landscape and not for purpose of writing practices and principles across all of cloud-native infrastructure. I very much like the notion of breaking the world into small pieces. I think trying to boil the whole world is in addition to being relatively futile, almost guaranteed to produce a radically suboptimal outcome. The one thing I would say that we might be helpful is to have enough interaction with folks to help. Because I'm also with you, Matt. I'm very much on team. I don't read white papers. I don't write them. I don't even viscerally understand them personally, but I understand they're important to people. And so I'm supportive of the fact that they're helpful to people. You just spoke my mind. The one thing I have been able to find over time that is helpful that I can do for the white paper people is not so much to read the white paper doc review because I'm terrible at that, but that just periodically having conversations can be helpful. Particularly, as I said, with people at different levels of their journey through this process. Just for what, yeah. I suspect that neither of the two of you put much stock into Gartner or Forrester or 451 reports either. I love talking to them. They're fantastic people. But I don't read things. I understand that white papers are very important for people. I understand academic papers are very important for other people. Neither of them are subjectively important to me, but that doesn't mean they're not important. Yeah. Yeah, you know, actually, just since we're talking about this, I think that there is just even to the extent that they normalize nomenclature so that we can, conversations can be hastened and facilitated through a common use of a word or a descriptor is helpful. I did post into a chat and into the meeting minutes, an example of the work that we had done within the serverless working group and the production of a white paper there. There was a parallel or corollary serverless sub-landscape or sub-landscape for serverless. That was kind of part and parcel to the creation of this white paper as well. And so just as something to reference in terms of what that might look like when it comes out. And Colin, yeah, I vehemently agree with Matt in terms of PubSub being inclusive to that and also being refreshingly specific vertical to actually gain traction on, get something down on and So anyway, I'm trying to just to discuss that a bit further. Like what, what, can you give me an example of what vertical that would be? Are you talking about technology stack or you're talking about market technology stack or yep. Sorry, I was just trying to say that not basically being in opposition of trying to form of the cloud native principles and architecture white paper or set of white papers overarkingly, but rather just saying, hey, let's choose something small and get some traction. Oh, sure. Good. So I don't necessarily have a proposal here other than just to circle the wagon with or circle the wagons, I guess with both Watson, I guess this evening and then hopefully Liz shortly to get a sense of the appetite that each of those groups have and then hopefully begin to facilitate something here. If you want a deadline, not that you needed one, but our next TOC meeting is Tuesday, March 3rd. You don't like deadlines, deadlines are fine. Come on. No, this means that you can actually have like, you know, something to be able to put forward the next sig update around sig network. That particular call. I was thinking. Hey, Lee, would you happen to have a reference or anything of sort of what level you'd be looking at as patterns and example or something? Because I can certainly try to take a stab at one. Yeah, the probably the best reference is within the, you know, within the meeting minutes and I pasted in the chat, the zoom chat is the CNCF serverless white paper. But kind of a definition of terms definition of the space. Genesis is sort of purpose for that set of those set of technologies to come forth. Well, there's a little bit of reading here, huh? Oh, this is thorough. This is good. And then so very good to Amy. I see your link about the proposal template for SMI to. Yes, look at that one. Don't look at the graduation one. The graduation one will make you a little crazy. But I think the volcano one is probably going to be a little better for you. Sure. Okay, fair enough. Well, we're, we might be about at the end of topics. Since we're a small group, I figured I'd say hi to Naveen. And Naveen, I don't know if you're inclined to introduce or say hi. Please do. Sure. Hey, Lee, thanks for that. So my name is Naveen. I work for a telco software provider. I moved from, so a lot of what you guys are talking about is kind of relevant to me, but I'm also new to the telco world. I came from the enterprise because they're trying to do containers. I work for a company called Mavineer, which is a very small Ericsson, if you think about it. And I hear a lot of things in the tug and I figured I'll hop on and see what you guys talk about here. So I think it's kind of relevant, but it's a little bit new for me, at least from a telco world. So just listening right now, thanks for asking me to at least introduce myself, Lee. Oh yeah, this is great. Actually, to the extent that, to the extent that if you end up spending any time looking through the cloud native, the cloud native principles.org, that if any amount of reflection or opinion that you might express there, as to the benefit of that document would be of interest. Naveen, are you on the CNCF Slack at all? I am. I just joined a couple of days ago. Yeah, pick me. I'll let her issue a bunch of folks in that area. Okay. Thanks, Ed. Perfect. Very good. And then I think the other, another item that I didn't put on here was I put in a request for a similar deep dive on SIG network in at KubeCon. And so I think we're going under the schedule there. Does anyone else have topics for today? Ed, I hope you like pizza, because that's what we're having at tonight's meetup. So that's fine. I'll be doing my, I'll do, I'll spend most of my time doing a little software. So. And then Colin, I guess the kind of the same, same call for reflection from your perspective after you get a sense of the topics that are touched on within the serverless white paper, as you go to reflect on how that might look like, you know, from a pub sub perspective. Yeah, yeah, I could take a look. You know, the first pass certainly wouldn't be to the extent that they've done that there. But you know, it's you got to start somewhere. Yeah, it would be good to begin to produce some some artifacts within the SIG. Yeah, happy to do it. All right. Matt, others anything that we missed today? I don't think so. One other item that just came to mind was there was a couple of other groups that that we want to intentionally liaise with that for my part, I've done a bad job of requesting them to come and kind of give an update on activities within their those groups. I think UDP is one of those. I think the tug is another one of those. But it would be yeah, I think it's just kind of it would be nice to get it general. Here's here's what that group is up to here's how and to do some exploratory exploration and whether or not there's collaboration to be done. Nice. Okay. We're meeting a couple of weeks. Hopefully we'll have some progress on both of the projects that are up for review and maybe some traction on initial white paper. All right, fair enough. Thanks. See you all on the fifth. Bye all. All right. Bye everyone.