Tim, Thanks! I think we would all be interested in your reasons for liking gRPC. alexis <tim=netflix.com@...> wrote:

Go, java, js and c++ would be a convincing portfolio, if interop worked.

I'd like to add to Ben's comments that this pattern is implemented in many message brokers which de facto support relays a->b->c. The appeal (to me) of rsocket is to make the pattern part of the proto

Yes I agree with Quinton

+1 congratulations and good work

How much interoperability testing have you done? Especially in the multi hop multi implementation cases

Colin, your feedback is essential, please do share Rsocket team, key questions for me are: - what are main differences/USPs Vs prior art (nats, grpc, 0mq) - is rsocket more of a lib or a "product' - w

thanks! posting this was a great idea, and Sets A Precedent imho

Chris is managing the backlog of these project proposals.

Hi all, I am travelling tomorrow and will miss the TOC call.

Dan These are great questions. There is some additional discussion in the GitHub issue for Helm. A

+1 binding

Excellent - thanks.

Sugu Thanks. Would be great to get some of that over to cncf marketing (cc'd Dee) if not already done ... For the TOC I think key points are: - project progress and health - interlock with SWG if any

Great, please could you work with Ken, and pull in the other serverless WG folks, to create an update for next TOC?

Hi all Kubecon was excellent. A few things: * If you made an announcement, gave a talk or posted a blog about kubecon that is relevant to TOC business (including WGs) please could you publish a link o

thanks Dan

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

thanks Chris! all --- please DO shout for agenda items this week and during May 2018

CNCF TOC, Trying to get this survey to as many as possible hence posting here. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Farina <matt.farina@...> Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:40 AM Subje