17:00:42 #startmeeting 2016-07-06 discussion 17:00:42 Meeting started Wed Jul 6 17:00:42 2016 UTC. The chair is vbatts|work. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:42 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:42 The meeting name has been set to '2016_07_06_discussion' 17:00:45 in 17:00:47 mrunalp: oops sorry i cant join today. not having a stable network :( 17:00:55 dqminh, No problem 17:01:25 vbatts|work: chair me? 17:01:32 mrunalp: any image-spec items? 17:01:46 possible topic: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/164 17:02:01 philips: I was on vacation yesterday. stevvooe sent an email about Docker v2.2 yesterday, but I haven't read it 17:02:16 philips: there was an open vote (v0.3.0) and it just closed 17:02:38 philips: first pass through the vote went pretty well 17:03:08 #link https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/FoYcImNQg4c 17:03:22 discussion of the procedure used in that vote: 17:03:24 #link https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us 17:03:37 my mic is struggling 17:04:44 #chair wking 17:04:44 Current chairs: vbatts|work wking 17:05:39 #topic runtime-spec command line API specification 17:06:01 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/511 17:06:08 #link https://github.com/wking/oci-command-line-api 17:06:24 https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/510 17:06:40 #action wking to submit an oci-command-line-api PR to runtime-spec 17:07:04 #topic limit extensions to annotations 17:07:09 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/510 17:07:16 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/164 17:07:30 mrunalp: maybe add text about reserving opencontainers.org 17:09:01 why are we claiming space inside annotations? 17:09:40 vbatts|work: you can do whatever you want inside annotations, but we're reserving opencontainers.org 17:10:06 duglin: one example would be an experimental feature 17:10:49 stevvooe: so this is for testing features that we intend to eventually move into specified, top-level fields? 17:11:03 vbatts|work: I'm not sure that they will all eventually move out of annotations 17:11:52 arg 17:11:58 my mic is not unmuting 17:12:03 so this is sort of like the kernel's staging, where some things graduate to the top level, but some just linger in staging forever 17:12:13 duglin: what's the harm in reserving namespace 17:12:15 it's just reserving a name space, one of infinity 17:12:33 stevvooe: no harm in reserving it, I'm just not clear on the need / workflow around it 17:12:41 +1^ 17:13:02 mrunalp: thinks the experimental feature workflow is useful 17:13:27 duglin: also for adding new features without changing the schema 17:13:28 it tells people when they see an annotation whether it's a known annotation or not within the oci group 17:13:45 duglin's new-feature workflow doesn't sound good to me ;) 17:14:19 stevvooe: Browsers have vendor extensions that eventually graduate to the top level, but that fragments experimanal features 17:14:30 stevvooe: claiming space in annotations seems like it's building in fragmentations 17:14:35 just seems odd to me that we’re allowing everyone except ourselves to add annotations 17:14:53 e.g. perhaps runc adds one 17:15:02 don't see all annotations as fragmentation 17:15:10 but we have the unique ability to coin new top-level settings^^ 17:15:19 vbatts|work: claiming space is just hedging against fragmenting, we may not end up using it 17:15:54 #link http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 17:16:07 ^ suggesting not namespacing experimental features to make stabilizing them easier 17:16:40 ^ suggest discussing experimental features in PRS 17:17:26 discussing experimental features in PRs sounds good to me 17:18:01 vbatts|work: we've discussed additional nuances for platforms (flavors of arm, etc.) 17:18:15 vbatts|work: that may be too much for platform, but useful enough for an annotation 17:18:36 I think "too much for platform?" is not something we want to be arging over ;) 17:18:39 *arguing 17:18:46 if it's useful for someone, put it in platform ; 17:20:01 duglin: what do we do with unspecified top level properties? Should the runtime ignore? Error out? 17:20:12 it's useful to know that space is reserved for future use, should a use be discovered and agreed upon at some future point in time... 17:20:46 mrunalp: I think we should error out, because we don't want to silently ignore something that the user expects to be acted on 17:21:14 vbatts|work: this has come up in the past, and the consensus is to ignore it 17:21:28 stevvooe: from experience, ignoring is the right way to go (otherwise ignoring is hard) 17:21:43 duglin: that's where I started, but I'm worried about folks using that for top-level extensions 17:22:01 vbatts|work: who cares? They can go in annotations if they don't want to get stomped on 17:22:23 vbatts|work: but if they want to go with top-level settings (and risk getting stomped on), then they are free to do that 17:22:46 julz_: I want it to be explicit about whether we do or don't allow it, but I don't really care which way it goes 17:23:10 stevvooe: we're recently adding foreign-layer support in Docker (we hope to get it into OCI soon) 17:23:21 stevvooe: we can add it transparently knowing that old clients will ignore it 17:23:57 julz_: my very slight hesitation is that if we add a security field, say "this image needs seccomp", then we don't have a way of knowing if it would be ignored 17:24:40 julz_: maybe this is a breaking change, and we can handle it in versioning 17:24:48 you could also bump the minor version 17:25:22 julz_: there was some conversation at the face-to-face about what ociVersion ment (min or max?) 17:25:47 duglin: the image-spec only has "2", not a SemVer version 17:27:52 we need to clarify that 1.1 runtimes will error on a 1.2 spec 17:28:02 ^ Should this be updated to SemVer or was this a carry-over from starting from Docker and important for compatibility ? 17:28:22 #sction duglin to file a separate PR about version compat 17:28:40 ^ Typo? 17:28:58 RobDolinMS? 17:29:13 #ACTION duglin to file a separate PR about version compat 17:29:26 ah, thanks ;) 17:29:33 :) 17:31:04 day off?? 17:31:05 #topic Do we reset votes after changes to the proposal? 17:31:21 #link https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/UIZgqXo7CQAJ 17:31:58 #action philips to sent a new email 17:32:03 maybe a new thread^ 17:32:12 #endmeeting