hi all, really sorry about this but last minute childcare demands mean that I have to miss today's call at short notice. a

+1 (non-binding)

+1 (non-binding) /john

+1 non-binding Thanks & Best Regards, 徐翔轩 ---------------------------------------------------- 上海得帆信息技术有限公司 SHANGHAI DEFINESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO.,

+1 nb -- Randy AbernethyManaging PartnerRX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@...o 415-800-2922c 415-624-6447

+1 (non-binding) I second Chase's statement.

+1 nonbinding

Here's the agenda deck for today: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1umu-iT5ZXq5XsMFmqmVeRe-tn2y7DeSoCebhrehi7fk/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0 We will be hearing from the Dragonfly/OpenMessaging

+1 non-binding <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

+1 non-binding thanks -Doug _______________________________________________________ STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@... The more I'm

+1 (non-binding)

+1 non-binding How awesome would it be to have common nomenclature and practices across similar methodology for CNCF projects. This in and of itself would be a huge value add CNCF can bring to the

+1 (non binding)

+1 non-binding

+1 (non-binding) -- Thomas Phelan Chief Architect 650 533 6462Try BlueData on AWS: www.bluedata.com/AWS

+1 binding

+1 (non-binding) From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] SAFE

A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens): https://github.com/cn-security/safe Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and

> why did you feel it necessary to add an additional layer of application flow control on top of what TCP already provides? This is discussed in the FAQ of the project:

> Other than to support non-TCP transports (like UDP), which I would assume are fairly uncommon, This is actually something we leverage in production: - TCP for server-to-server - WebSocket for