-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
Add WG AI Integration #8519
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add WG AI Integration #8519
Conversation
👍🏼 |
wg-ai-integration/charter.md
Outdated
|
||
* Identify appropriate auth(z) patterns for AI connector identities, its | ||
closest caller, and Kubernetes RBAC. | ||
closest caller, and Kubernetes RBAC. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Typo. Same as previous line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed, thanks!
wg-ai-integration/charter.md
Outdated
project should or should not integrate with these emergent systems. This could | ||
include a recommendation for Kubernetes to adopt and/or evolve tools (e.g. MCP | ||
connectors, benchmark or environment validation tooling, etc.) and evolve its | ||
own governance model to provide proper stewardship within the project (new SIG or integration with existing SIGs). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the space at the start of these 4 lines intentional? The line before it doesn't have a space at the start.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed, thanks!
sigs.yaml
Outdated
email: [email protected] | ||
- github: zvonkok | ||
name: Zvonko Kaiser | ||
company: Nvidia |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
company: Nvidia | |
company: NVIDIA |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed!
36508bc
to
4be737a
Compare
sigs.yaml
Outdated
meetings: | ||
- description: WG AI Integration Weekly Meeting | ||
day: Wednesday | ||
time: 9:30 Amazon |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
time: 9:30 Amazon | |
time: 9:30 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed, thanks!
4be737a
to
9add742
Compare
/hold |
Hi Team, I missed our last meeting. i am interested in contributing and maintaining this area. can i get my self added as committee member here ? |
* SIG Apps | ||
* SIG Auth | ||
* SIG CLI | ||
* SIG Network |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The big areas where SIG Network has been hearing about / dealing with AI are DRA (aka "Manage accelerator devices", which is marked out-of-scope) and inference-related Gateway features (which would seem to fall under "Deploying inference workloads", which is also marked out-of-scope, and which is the subject of a different AI WG proposal anyway). None of the things you list as "In scope" above seem like they need input from SIG Network.
@kubernetes/sig-network-leads ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One area where SIG Network could have input is for protocol (such as MCP) proxies or gateways.
I can add that to the list of areas to explore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I defer to Dan, I really not very familiar with these protocols you mention but it seems to me both WG-Serving and the AI-GW proposal Dan is indicating will overlap on that area
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the review. I added an item for this in the charter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So do we still need sig-network here or not? And where is the updated point, I can't find it 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@aojea what are your specific concerns here?
What are we currently doing with these WG
Are we actively involved? Should we reduce this list? I know dev-mgmt, however are we as sig-net still playing a daily role in this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let me try to answer, those WG touch areas from the SIG Network charter, node lifecycle with endpoints, device management with network endpoints, serving as inference ... we asked a fair question on what is the overlap with SIG network charter and the answer is A2A and MCP protocols that are the same as websocket, is not in SIG network charter... I dont have more interest than resolving a conversation, and I talked with mrunal in private to clarify... If any SIG network lead had approved without an unresolved conversation I would not have any objections, I trust other to make the call they think is good for the SIG ... But I found surprising to approve when the conversation was open and waiting for an answer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe @shaneutt had a distinction between the current AI related working groups and the proposed. The question is fair, I am not contesting that, more asking for information on how to appropriately prioritize. We should have clear defined boundaries, however slight overlap isn't a bad thing at all. Shane is currently OOF, we should give him the benefit of the doubt this comment was missed? @shaneutt if you could address the concern from @danwinship? In the interest of transparency lets keep all conversations related to this PR here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let me explain myself better, I'm totally in favor of this WG and I was on my way to +1 from my steering hat thinking this conversation was solved. This WG is going to be created with or without SIG Network, there are already 5 SIGs sponsoring it so let's not make a big drama of this
Now, from the SIG Network hat, what is the role of SIG Network here? and as Dan correctly pointed out, we already have another WG on this area and a proposal for a new WG #8519 (comment)
So, if you say SIG Network has a role here because of foo and does not intersect with any of the other WG then it is ok .... BUT at one point WGs want their things to get done and then go to the SIGs ... and I really want to avoid that in SIG Network we need to deal with conflicts of interest between WGs, because that burns people and breaks communities, people that get frustrated because they were working on the WG with one goal and people that has to say no or has to choose between competing implementation ... this mean that we didn't do our work as leads on reviewing the WG proposal, that is what we should do here, be objective and talk and discuss and agree and review thoroughly for the best of the project ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just dropped SIG Network from the list. I would leave it up to sig-network leads if/how they engage with the WG. Thanks!
@rr-paras-patel Hi! You are very welcome to participate in the WG :) We do want to limit number of chairs to 3 for now. Note that one doesn't have to be a chair to participate. The intent for the WG is to be wide open to the community. The chairs are responsible for organizing the WG. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 from SIG Apps!
@soltysh I believe we have the ACKs from the sigs (Thanks folks :) ) so we should be ready for re-review :) @liggitt had previously acked in https://docs.google.com/document/d/13OJvWKGKZL0V4nPpv9anitL5je92FCdQyXePcrY2N84/edit?tab=t.0 for SIG-Auth and @deads2k (API/Auth) has also supported in this PR. Thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
Signed-off-by: Mrunal Patel <[email protected]>
4b699c9
to
637a950
Compare
+1 (steering) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 (steering)
I’m happy to move forward with this proposal. 👍
+1 for sig-auth |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 (Steering)
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, janetkuo, mrunalp, pacoxu, saschagrunert, soltysh The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@soltysh I believe this is ready. |
/lgtm |
Er, so is SIG Network included or not? We wound up with SIG Network listed in the charter, but not sigs.yaml / README.md The charter also references some things that seem in scope for sig net: Listed: Not Listed: It seems to me like we should probably reconcile this to include SIG Network, or drop that scope and reconcile to exclude SIG Network. |
@mrunalp the agreement was that SIG Network was dropped because we were not able to define the relation, and removing it from the SIGs just removed the discussion to unblock the merge. Said this , this is not set in stone, but repeating myself, in all the discussions we were never to define the relation with SIG Network, if something changes we can always revisit |
This is a living document as well, so +1 to update as things change |
I've opened this #8546 to align with both of the pages. |
@aojea @BenTheElder I had missed removing it from charter (just an oversight) and it should be fixed with @ardaguclu PR https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/8546/files . Thanks! |
This PR is to follow up from https://docs.google.com/document/d/13OJvWKGKZL0V4nPpv9anitL5je92FCdQyXePcrY2N84/edit?tab=t.0 to get WG AI Integration started.
cc: @ardaguclu @rushmash91 @zvonkok
Thanks for volunteering as chairs for the group! We hope to work with the broad community that has expressed interest in this WG.
cc: @derekwaynecarr @dims @johnbelamaric