Hello everyone, I'm Haowen. I'm going to present our work computational robust fuzzy extractors for CIS dependent sources. This is joint work with Qiangtang. A basic goal of cryptography is to enable two parties, Alice and Bob, to securely communicate over an ultra channel that may be controlled by active attackers. As everybody knows, if Alice and Bob already share a perfect secret, we have a bunch of tools to enable them to establish a secure channel. But in many scenarios, they may just share a weak secret, or just a pair of clothes, but longer than equal weak secrets. Here a weak secret is a private, but longer than a string. It could be password, or biometric information like fingerprints. This might also be generated by some physical means or caused by leakage. In such a case, Alice and Bob have to run a primitive called an authenticated cake change protocol to agree upon a perfect secret. In the history, this fundamental primitive has been studied under different lengths. Among them, the robust extractor actually defines the one message a.k.a. And if it also works for a pair of clothes weak secrets, we can call it a robust fuzzy extractor. In general, it can be described by a generation algorithm and a reproduction algorithm. Alice can use this generation algorithm to produce a perfect secret along with a helper string. And after receiving this helper string, Bob can reproduce the same perfect secret as Alice does. It has two security requirements. The immediate one is the privacy. It says this producer's secret should be indistinguishable with the uniform randomness, even conditional on the public helper string P. This is also why we consider this primitive as the variant of a randomness extractor, because this generation algorithm actually extracts a nearly uniform string from a non-uniform string. The second requirement is robustness. An active attacker might change the helper string to another. The robustness ensures that any manipulation will be detected and rejected by the reproduction algorithm. There is a stronger notion called post-application robustness. It considers a stronger adversary than can obtain the extracted randomness from other applicable applications. This property ensures this adversary still cannot manipulate the helper string without being detected. To distinguish it, we call the original robustness pre-application robustness. The one message feature is of course appealing and useful, but it's also very expensive. Here, consider the setting of information theoretical security and player model, where the attacker can have unlimited computation power and there is no trusted setup. This is the most desirable setting. However, for robust extractors, dollars and weeks have given a tight bond on the admissible security source. That says, if there is a robust extractor for all secret sources with n bit lengths and k min entropy, the entropy rate k over n must be larger than the half. This requirement directly includes many natural sources, like fingerprints. In contrast, many interactive AKE protocols could work for sources with super-log min entropy. Or if we don't require robustness but ask for one message feature, the conventional randomness tracker can also work for sources with only super-log min entropy. On the other hand, there are triple solutions in the relaxing models. For example, in the random worker model, Alice and Bob can directly query the random worker with the weak secret to get a perfect secret. And in this case, the helped string is just empty, so it's surely a robust extractor. But the problem is, RAM worker clearly does not exist, so it's just a theoretical approach that we wish to avoid. We can also put the seed of a randomness tracker into the common reference string, and Alice and Bob can extract the same perfect secret using this seed. This also gives a robust extractor in the CRS model. But the problem is, the secret sources have to be independent of the CRS, since the seed of a randomness tracker should be independent of the sources being extracted. We found the CRS independence requirement is hard to justify. CRS is fixed and public, and everybody can say it. It's hard to ensure a source produced after seeing the CRS is not affected by the CRS. For example, if the source is from a maliciously manufactured device that contains the CRS, it should be CRS-dependent. And more generally, for any sources, once a CRS-dependent information is leaked to adversaries, the remaining secret is CRS-dependent. So, we are curious about that. Can we have a robust extractor for CRS-dependent sources without raising extra entropy requirements? To have a clear picture, let's recall the landscape. An information theory to secure a robust extractor in the plain model only works for sources with entropy greater than half. On the other hand, we know how to get around this lower bound by using a random protocol where introducing a CRS but require the sources to be independent of the CRS. However, for the CRS-dependent model, then we think it is stronger than the plain model, but more standard than the CRS-dependent model and the random protocol model. There is neither positive result nor negative result yet. And relaxing to computational security was not shown helpful as well. In this work, we first formally proved that the lower bound for plain model and information theoretical construction still holds for CRS-dependent and information theoretical constructions. So, to bypass this lower bound, we have to look at computational settings. Fortunately, we really solved this problem. We proposed a computationally secure robust extractor for general CRS-dependent sources with minimal entropy requirement. We also extended our solution to the fuzzy case and gave the first computational robust fuzzy extractors for CRS-dependent sources without requiring the half-interpreter rate. Now, let's present our first result in more detail. To begin with, a CRS model robust extractor can be described by a CRS setup algorithm, a generation algorithm, and a reproduction algorithm. It's equal to view this construction as a family of plain model instances and distribution over this family. Here, each instance is the generation algorithm and the reproduction algorithm with a fixed CRS. Electric security is like this. For any adversely and any CRS-dependent NK source W, a randomly chosen source instance is good. That says, this adversely only has very small advantage to win the security game. We obtained our result by proving that the quantiverse can be swept in this setting. That says, there must be an instance that is good for any adversely and any source. So, this instance is already a secure plain model construction. In other words, an information-theoretical CRS-dependent robust extractor implies an information-theoretical secure plain model construction. So, the same lower bound applies here. We proceed this proof by swiping the quantiverse one by one. The security definition for single property already guarantees that for each adversely and each source, a randomly chosen instance is good. We first apply standard techniques like Markov's inequality to show that for each adversely A and each source W, there is a set SAW of instances that are good for them. And the weight of SAW should be larger than a parameter delta. We then swap the quantifier between the set and the source. We prove that for each adversely, there should be a set SAW of instances that are good for this adversely A and any source W. Particularly, the weight of the set SAW should still be larger than delta. This step heavily relies on the fact that sources can be dependent on the CRS. Most diversively, we define the set SA as the intersection of all SAW for all sources W. And then, SA, the weight of SAW should be larger than the parameter delta. Otherwise, its complementary set should be with weight larger than 1 minus delta. Then, by definition of the complementary set, each instance in the complementary set should be bad for at least one source. Then, we can define a new source. Its conditional distribution on each CRS in the complementary is a bad source, which Arthur mentioned. Then, by definition, for the adversely A and the new source W star we just constructed, there is no set SAW star with sufficient weight larger than the parameter delta. In the last step, we swap the quantifier between the set and the adversely. We prove that there should be a set S of instances that are good for any source W and any adversely A. This step is similar to the last step we described and relies on the fact that the adversely A is information theoretical and it means it has unlimited computational power. And at this stage, we already have a good set with respect to a single property. We finally prove that the good sets for different properties have an intersection and then an instance in this intersection is a secure plane model construction that we need. Our second result is a computational robust tractor for CRS dependent sources with minimal entropy requirement. To make it a modular and easy to understand, we abstract a new MAC primitive which we call copy MAC and show how to use it to reach our result. Our intuition is very natural. As I mentioned before, a randomly set tractor can be used as a one-message K exchange protocol against passive adversaries. So, if we can somehow authenticate the public seed, such that even active adversaries cannot change it, then we'll already obtain a robust extractor. Let's see our framework in more detail. Since both Alice and Bob already share a weak secret, it's natural to use this weak secret as the main key. Then, the helper string will contain a public seed for random extraction and a MAC tag that authenticate this public seed. In reproduction algorithm, it first checks whether the MAC tag is valid. If invalid, the reproduction algorithm just aborts. Otherwise, it uses the public seed to reproduce the same perfect secret. One tricky part here is that we actually use the weak secret for both random extraction and MAC tag duration. So, to ensure the final construction is secure, the component must provide some level of composition security. Most versically, it's easy to say long macs are insufficient. For random extraction, since the helper string already contains a MAC tag, this MAC tag must contain sufficient amount of information about the weak secret. So, we cannot ensure the extracted randomness is still still random, and for MAC. And since we want to post an application, the public seed and the extracted randomness will be leaked to the adversary. So, we cannot ensure, in this case, the MAC is still unfurgeable. So, we need additional properties to ensure the composition security needed. Most versically, to ensure the randomness extraction is not affected by the MAC, we require key privacy. That is, the MAC tag does not leak partial information about the secret. And in the other way, to prevent the MAC being affected by the randomness extraction, we require the MAC to be secure against auxiliary input leakages. Another implicit requirement is that the key should be structurally, such that we can directly use a weak secret as the MAC key. Putting all requirements together, we define Kappa MAC. A Saturday in our definition is to identify the largest admissible auxiliary input class. On the one hand, it should be computational how to invert. On the other hand, it should not contain authentic text. Otherwise, adversaries can leverage the tag to break the unforgeability. We refer you guys to our full paper for the detailed treatment. Now, I will show how to construct Kappa MAC in the CS model from real study assumptions. Our starting point is using an auxiliary input signature as a MAC. This is the digit signature allows the adversaries to say some verification K dependent leakage. And the most standard way to use it as a MAC is to enable the verifier also have the signing K. But a problem here is that in the setting of MAC, we cannot directly assume a trusted verification K. So, we may put it as a part of the MAC key. But for Kappa MAC, we need the MAC key to be structurally, so we cannot put it here. The only choice is to let it be a part of a MAC attack. But now, the adversaries may have an extra advantage by modifying this verification K. To address this problem, we first directly leverage our CRS model. Most adversarily, we split the verification K into a user-specific part, YK and a common part, and put the common part into the CRS such that adversaries cannot modify it. The remaining challenge is to ensure verification on YK is still useless. That says, even if the attacker changes YK, the signature, and the message together, the verifier Bob can still find its invalid MAC tag. Another challenge is to ensure YK cannot depart information of SK. This is necessary for the K privacy property. To address these challenges, we choose to strengthen an auxiliary input secure signature scheme proposed by KAWS and Vekontana then. In their scheme, it contains two building blocks, a leakage-resonant heart-relation and a true simulation-extractable risk. In our Kappa MAC, we propose a so-called strengthened leakage-resonant heart-relation, which simultaneously guarantees that manipulation on YK is useless, and YK has partial information of SK. Let's recall the KAWS-Vokontana signature. Its building block, leakage-resonant heart-relation, is an NP-relation with a generator, such that, given the system Y and the leakage on Y and the weakness K, finding a valid weakness K prime for Y is hard. When using it to construct a signature, the weakness K will be the sign K, Y and a risk CRS will be the verification K, and the signature is a proof of knowledge of K. From the property of a true simulation-extractable risk, we can extract a valid K prime from a valid signature, which contradicts the leakage-resonant heart-relation definition. So, this signature scheme is unfeasible with respect to auxiliary input leakage. We strengthen the leakage-resonant heart-relation in multiple places. First, we split the generator to PG and SG. PG is independent of weakness, so it can be put into CRS to leverage the flexibility provided by our CRS model. The weakness is just sampled from a secret K source, and the YK is generated according to PG and K using SG. So, we can ensure the MAC, which for structure-less MAC case, PG and YK together are the statement. Regarding the leakage, here is just a function of K and PG. YK is not the input of the leakage function, because it is now a part of an authentication tag and only needs to be considered prior to leakage. This is something we can leverage to improve our construction. Then, the first we need to find, which is K prime, for YK prime specified by himself, instead of finding K prime for the honestly-generated YK. This is because YK is in the authentication tag that can be modified by the adversary. But the YK prime with PG should still be a valid statement with respect to K, since verifier has the original K to check whether YK prime is valid. Finally, YK and PG should hide the information about K since we need K for everything. With this strengthened leakage-reasoned-hard relation, we can build a couple MACs by following the framework of KTH and VK signature. The MAC consists of a YK generated from the WKK and a needs proof demonstrating the knowledge of K with respect to PG and YK. The verification checks both whether YK, PG, K belongs to the relation R and whether the needs proof is valid. Here, the message can also be bound to the proof using standard techniques. Then, we construct this SLRH relation. Recall that an SLRH relation ensures PG, YK, HK, which is necessary for privacy. And it prevents adversaries from finding YK prime, K prime and such that both PG, YK prime, K prime and PG, YK prime, K belong to the relation. We observe that privacy requirement really prevents from finding the same K from PG and YK. So, if we can further provide collision resistance, which means the adversary cannot find a different K prime to the K, we can have an SLRH relation. Following this observation, we first construct a private relation from deterministic public key encryption. Here, we just encrypt the WKK under a fresh public key and let the self-test and public key be the statement. It's an MP relation since it can be efficiently checked by just re-encrypting without using any remnants. It's also private, given the auxiliary input security of the underlying DPK scheme. But it's not collision-resistant because if the adversary changes the PK to a band PK, there might be multiple messages with respect to the same self-test under this band PK. The last step is to leverage the NISC to enforce the goodness of the chosen public key. That says the WK should contain a valid proof that demonstrates the chosen public key determines an injection. In this case, a self-test C and the public key can uniquely determine the underlying message key, so the whole relation is collision-resistant. From our primary result, if a relation is both private and collision-resistant, it's already a SLRH relation, surface for our need. As a conclusion, we first construct a robust tracker between CAPMAC and conventional RAM extractors to make the robust extractor work for any self-dependent sources with minimal entropy. This CAPMAC should also be secure against any unpredictable auxiliary inputs. Then we construct the CAPMAC from a true simulation tribal NISC and an SLRH relation. And this SLRH relation can be constructed from NISC and a DPKE scheme, and the DPKE scheme should also be secure against any unpredictable auxiliary inputs as well. Let's check the assumptions needed for the primitives and the leaf nodes. For RAM extractor, we have information theoretical secure constructions. For NISC, including true simulation tribal NISC, it can be constructed from RSA something or pairings. Or more recently, from the LRBE something or the DDHR something. For DPKE against any unpredictable auxiliary inputs, we have constructions from an exponentially hard DDHR assumption. So our robust extractor can be built upon well-studied assumptions. Our third result is an attention to the fuzzy case. We show that with a stronger CAPMAC, we have robust fuzzy extractors for CRS dependent sources without the half-intermediate requirement. And more interestingly, our CAPMAC construction already satisfies the stronger definition, so we can have the robust fuzzy extractors from the same assumption as the robust extractors we give above. Let's start from a standard construction of fuzzy extractors. It uses a secure sketch, which is an error-correcting code, whereas the code does not leak much information about the message. The help string now contains sketch information, with which the reproduction algorithm can convert the weak secret into another close secret that was used to generate this sketch. And then this weak secret can be used to produce the same perfect secret as the generation algorithm does. As before, we consider using CAPMAC to authenticate the help string such that the adversary cannot manipulate the help string without being detected. However, the standard CAPMAC is insufficient here. This is because we cannot ensure the weak secret key recovered from the secure sketch is identical to that one used in the generation algorithm, and the adversary can manipulate this secure sketch as well. By the definition of the secure sketch, we can only ensure the weak secret is close to the input secret of the reproduction algorithm. So we need a stronger CAPMAC which prevents adversaries from forcing an authentication tag being accepted by a close secret. We call this property fuzzy unforgability. Fortunately, although standard CAPMAC is insufficient, our CAPMAC construction actually satisfies this stronger definition. As Ja said, we construct robust fuzzy character using CAPMAC with fuzzy unforgability. We then construct this CAPMAC from a fuzzy S-I-L-R-S relation which requires the adversary cannot find k' and vk' such that vk' and pp is a valid statement with respect to some k star which is near to the original weightless k. For this fuzzy S-I-L-R-S relation, we don't need other fuzzy building blocks. Instead, we prove a private relation plus a creation-resistant relation implies this fuzzy primitive. The key idea is to show that the privacy already ensures that one cannot find a close secret from vk while we already prove that the exact secret cannot be recovered from vk. We argue this in two cases. First, it's easy to show the invisibility of finding a very close secret. Otherwise, one can guess the exact one with high probability. We also prove it's still invisible to find a not very close one. This is because one can always recover the exact one with the help of a secure sketch if it can find a not very close one. Note that our privacy definition is secure against auxiliary inputs. We can treat the secure sketch as an auxiliary input and give it to the adversary. So we have this result. Now let's have a summary. On the negative side, we prove the lower bound on the entropy rate requirement that was established for information theoretical and playing model robust extractors, studio holds, even when we introduce CRS and consider CRS dependent sources. On the positive side, we beat the bound in the computational setting by giving a concrete computationally secure robust extractors for CRS dependent sources with minimal entropy requirement. We also extend our solution to the further case. Along this way, we present a new Mac primitive called KappaMac that satisfies key privacy and auxiliary input security which might be of independent interest. That's my presentation. Thanks for listening.


We have now had three seasons of Tips with a Hand of Lime, three seasons of bringing the art of rhetoric, acting, and storytelling to YouTubers to help them perform even better in their videos. And this season we have talked about storytelling, we have talked about the power of a story, the emotional and persuasive effects that they have exclusive access to. We've talked about the importance of telling your story to make your audience connect with you and even to control how they perceive your performance. We've talked about what kinds of stories that you want to tell and why. We've talked about conflict and forward motion, two things so important in a story that big Hollywood productions depend on them for their success. Certainly something that you want to master for your channel as well no matter what you do. One thing I especially remember because of how difficult it was was me drowning in a bathtub. Now I did this because I wanted to give an example of a strong personal story and so I wanted to illustrate a panic attack and how much that can feel like torture and even if I knew that I wasn't in any danger, even if I knew that I could get up at any time putting that cloth over my head, getting under that grating and feeling the water rising was scary. And then the cloth got wet and it felt like I was breathing water and so I actually waterboarded myself a little and so I was very relieved when it was over. Now what I didn't tell you was that when I tested this clip on my friends it turned out that it wasn't really clear what was going on. The camera wasn't such an angle that you couldn't fully see through the grating and the water was so clear that you couldn't really tell that there was water there and so I had to do a retake. I had to do a retake of that take of all takes. So I just had to grab the bull bite horns and shoot the whole scene at a different angle and I had to color the water a little bit so that you could see that there was water there and then get under the grating again. So we have learned some things but we have also had lots of fun. Too often I see people in the comments or in the chats going hey anybody want to collab? Four swords says hey anybody want to collab?   That was me just wanting to share something fun and the thing is I actually worked there that was my previous job and it was a night job and that enabled me to put music in my ears and just sing my heart out with nobody hearing and when I did I kind of got these mental images like music videos in my head and this was me turning one of them into reality. Now the last one actually has a message. This was me trying to illustrate how weird things can get when an image of you clashes with the words that you're saying. Making you feel like the singer doesn't really mean what they're singing about or even know what they're singing about in your experience of that song. So yeah that wasn't only it for this video that was it for this whole season thank you so much for watching bye


Stay close to the candles to stay away Can they try tries? What? You don't know that line. What is that? You I don't need to repeat the line, right? Yeah, it's from young Frankenstein. Oh, yeah.   Sorry for missing it. You should be sorry.  I know Because it's mohanlal. Yeah, it's called our this is new. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, our R2 or R2 R2 D2 Yes, our it's a biography or R2. It's a biopic about R2 D2 R2, what I tell it to man But it's mohanlal and if big B is Chewbacca Unless that's some other AOR that I don't know. I don't know why you'd put those letters there. It's A.R. Raman Yeah, it'd be very weird if they do very strange if someone else is Using those letters because I'm pretty sure he owns those letters in that order Music and background score Rahul Raj. So what's the A.R. R? It says A.R. Ron in the hashtag. So what the flying circus monkeys is going on? Maybe Maybe he produced it Could be Could have been a person just giving input That'd be a great credit on a film person giving input And give your mom some input Let's get into this. You have headphones because it's telling we should use that for the better. Yeah It's always the case with headphones during sex headphones always make the experience better I'm not a gangster Oh I mean, what is he? I'm not a monster Yeah, I am sister Ghanabhushanam the etiquette gobin. I am a Ghanabhushanam. I am Ghanabhushanam the etiquette gobin Singular Mudalak Kothi I'm on the gun I'm on the gun I'm on the gun I mean from us I want I have the sound was so great it really does help I bet if you had headphones but I want to experience that in the theater I want the big sound the big screen that's I really like that trailer and it looks a Ramon's playing himself yeah that's why I'm confused oh man which was cool which would have I mean I could have talked to a Ramon for like you didn't tell us that toast could have talked to a Ramon for like in a couple hours yeah we were while we were blessed if you've seen that interview we were we sincerely we went in having been told we would have 15 minutes and we were like we'll be in and out done respect his time and we got to spend a long time yeah yeah we got to be like with him almost two hours two hours with him just hanging out you're so gracious yeah but anyways yeah it was a really cool trailer why do you suppose in a lot of Indian films they do that big massive dub voice that's too frickin cool for like the heroes yeah it's too fricking cool exactly now at first like when we were first introduced to this I guarantee if you look at some trailers I it would be for me this whole I don't know why it's dubbed it's over the top I've I'm slowly grown to really like that a lot yeah it's oh it's obviously the style of what they're going for right very like it's just good you're just kind of like what film did we see you know the larger one where you were like he just we could tell like Pushpa we had a lot of style yeah you could tell like well and I don't remember feel like there was another one what did we what trailer it was either when we saw 83 or Pushpa there was a trailer for another film coming out that had that exact thing and when you're in a theater and you hear that voice yeah it's just it grabs you by the shirt collar yeah it's great yeah and I did notice somebody in there as well that you when you yeah I recognize her familiar to me and I couldn't place her but I'm I'm almost a hundred percent certain we've we've seen her she's in Jersey yes Jersey must be I think is she the is she the wife in Jersey I'm sorry I'm trying to find it Sarah yeah the wife that's the wife yeah yeah I knew we'd seen her before and I think we've seen her in something else too but I can't I might have just seen her in videos you turn no was she on anything yeah no I know that's the main yeah I think it was from Jersey yeah the obviously the original if you haven't seen our review for that you can go watch that but yeah it looks cool it look like it's gonna be this big massive like gangster yeah mohanbo film please here's my one request and my hope is that you didn't show us virtually all of the action in the film huh in that trailer yeah hopefully because what this sets us up for is the fact that this is gonna be especially when you set right in there and I love this it's in kick-ass action I love that so please if this is a three-hour film please give us an hour and 15 kick-ass action I hope I'm wondering if it's always interesting when people play there like in a fictional film somebody's playing their real personality right like obviously a would it be just wash it go model I'm a talk box and was playing I'm a talk box shot right it's always fun though but I've never seen a remando so that'll be yeah it'll be cool to see yeah and mohanbo we obviously he's an actor that we have not explored at all not at all but like yeah with his catalog in consideration yeah it's basically at all we see but those stuff we've seen are is classical stuff outside of drissium tube right of last year that we saw but we saw you right and then it was loved it was the green face that I forget that it we don't know that that's hard to pronounce the title of that film but even even for example in drissium 2 as much as I didn't like drissium 2 I didn't have a problem with his it is acting in it now it was just I think the film is a whole and but but yeah you're a var yeah you are great yeah and so was the other one who's just we I don't think we understood we couldn't understand it as much as like a carolite could yeah so let us know what the next mohan love film I don't even think it says it's releasing like it's released it I think it's just coming soon to theater good well I want to go see it looks like fun let us know what you thought about the trailer and what else we need on our next mohan lot film down below


So Alex had something that came up. We can't join. So Thank you for having everyone add their notes to the agenda. I think what we wanted to cover today was to go over the template that Luis was working on if he happens to join and then also the database paper The so who was working on and and if there are other agenda items that people want to add Please go ahead and add them here. Let me repost the link on the chat For the database Yeah, yeah, I had it down here further. I was gonna grab it as well. I'll add it to the agenda Okay, and did I print your name right? Is it Sugu? Is that? Yeah, so good Sugu or Sugu And is Luis on Wasn't sure we'll be able to do the second one. I think he might be on Portworx webinar or something today. So I think we can go ahead and get started. It's five after We all want to Not sure I can record Does Alex generally record Steve? It's already recorded It already started it all right. So let's can everyone get into that white pop white paper document Actually that That document I don't think has it. I wrote a separate Doc for to be later added to the document. Let me get the link for that. Did you put it in the chat? I don't see it. It looks like that doc Requires permissions that I don't have I'm trying to get the link Okay, if you want to put it in the agenda You have edit permissions that'd be great. If not, just put it in the chat and I'll add it there. Where was it? Here and I can only stay for half an hour except catch plane But Quinton should be here by then and he's gonna take over for the second part of the meeting Computer is refusing to move forward. Oh, no Well, we can go over these Process reviews for the TOC if you want why you're doing that. Yeah, I'll just take me only a minute Okay Do I mean to wait for you or? I'll open it soon There you go, I found it great Oh, I don't have edit permissions Okay, just go ahead and put it in the chat and I'll add it to the document then yeah, the white paper link opens for me Another doc the hero separately. Yeah, I just Here it is Great. I've added that to the doc. Can everyone get inside there? It says it's the same thing database edits So it's a different copy of it. I'm in there Yeah, I'm in Okay, everyone else can get in I Think generally a common problem with these sigs and working groups is that the permissions generally are tied to the mailing list of But if you have multiple Google accounts and end up logged into the wrong one, that's a common problem for not being able to get in I think the permission is restricted. It's not like I cannot write To that doc the agenda doc Yeah, I think that's locked down. I had to have out any direct permission. So I Believe you should have full permissions on on this. I made it. Yeah, okay. Yeah, it looks like I can Okay So pardon me. I wasn't able to make the last call Did we get partially to the stock or do we want to start at the top? I? I this is the first time. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, the the one thing I did was Because Key value stores and databases have similarities those parts. I'm not covering. I just said look at key value stores for the trade-offs so I've only So it's kind of additive The stuff that I added here is things to consider beyond what you would otherwise Think about when moving a key value store into Cloud storage Okay, sorry. I'm just reading through that Do we want to say? The every database vendor is required to provide drivers that conform to these APIs. I mean, you could be if you want to be cloud native and Have the interoperability, but This is just the old Yeah, the old on the jet the ODBC JDBC That kind of stuff. Actually the newer database vendors I don't know if they do provide these things like I think Spanner for example doesn't I don't think it provides any standard. Yeah, that's why I think that's Maybe an inaccurate statement. Yeah, you can say is Encouraged to provide drivers, yeah There you go Okay There we go. Yeah, that's much nicer way to put it. Okay and do we consider No SQL databases to be Database them because this one with the heading of databases were yeah, the key value stores are the no SQL ones So this section section nine in the in that document and Actually, I later noticed that Yeah, tidy be might have been mentioned in the section nine. So we should remove that because Ty KV would be I Think it wasn't tidy be it might have been cockroach. Let me check Are you looking back at the old document? Yeah, I need old document In section nine is a big document. Yeah, so in section nine where did I see? Yeah, so Spanner cockroach Ty KV fauna DB provide distributed key value store API So I believe Spanner and cockroach DB are more databases than key value stores So you think they still belong here. I'm highlighting in the dock if people can see that Yeah, so I wasn't sure whether we were restricted to just open source or Anything that's considered generally popular like Popular nowadays, so I was I wasn't sure whether cockroach DB should be mentioned But then I saw it mentioned in section nine But that might have also been written before cockroach DB decided to change their license It's not considered open source anymore by many standards. Okay, I Guess I'd like to hear what people's opinion is on that I mean, I would think we would probably limit it to open source Just because that's Would be the view of the CNCF community But I don't know if we're just trying to cover generalized I think if you do that you should change the title of that section 10 to open source databases just to communicate that That's a good idea reduce the scope of coverage Because there are people who choose to put even commercial software in containers you know it I Don't think the CNCF is going to accept a non-open source as a project or Promoted aggressively, but still the user community Sometimes is in search of help in terms of how to do them even if it's only to support a legacy application yeah, we had a similar discussion in the context of the white paper last year and The topic came up in a context of like object stores and people were wondering whether we could mention things like s3 Etc. And the decision we came to at that point was that it does make sense to mention the non-open source stuff Particularly where they are like household names in a particular category in Oracle database would be one perfect example, of course And that we don't you know pretend they don't exist or anything But we don't necessarily go into great detail on them and focus, you know more of the attention on the open source one Makes sense It does and not only that there there's been sort of a few instances of people converting from open source licenses to other licenses and if it would be You know a mission to try to keep up to date on all of these and then go back and retroactively edit documents Well Yeah, so we should add them it to say open source databases and I mean cockroach is a perfect example of that Steve. So maybe we delete it from here Yeah, that or we can do we can just leave it as databases in which case we should add spanner Some people that also talks about Things like Aurora as new sequel, but I don't know if I agree with that point of view Because it's not but definitely not cloud native so Sorry, I joined the conversation dates I'm lacking a little bit of context, but I think I think where we landed last time with a similar conversation was essentially if there are Names of commercial things or things that are not open source or things that are debatably open sourced That we omit from the paper that causes confusion and so therefore we should mention them And if there is you know debate about whether something is open source, we should just say you know it is not universally Agreed upon whether this should be considered open source or something along those lines if that is the case and Definitely, you know cockroach DB is is you know verging on a household name And I don't know whether the debate was whether or not that is open source, but Irrespective of whether it is it should be mentioned on the basis that it's an open that it is Household name in that category Or we could change it saying that The I guess yeah, that's true I was thinking maybe we can call it out that cockroach DB is source available But I don't know if that and then we go into explaining all these differences, which is not the focus of this paper Yeah, I wouldn't get to hang up about the definition of open source I think that is a as you say a topic for a different discussion and we could put a reference if there is a sort of reasonably good Reference to the debate we can put a link in there and say that you know Depending on what definition of open source you use some of these may or may not be considered open source something along those lines I think it's better to Do not be that strict and what I would prefer to do instead is just add spanner also into this list So you can say with this Spanner tidy be and cockroach provide relational features and just leave it at that Should we just had like add a one paragraph kind of categorize those two like open source ones and the non open source ones so that Just at one place We show whether they are open source or not I think people will figure it out when they go look for it, right? They realize that okay tidy bees open source not cockroach TV Tests is open source the span and no source available Think those I would I would suggest against that I would I would make it very upfront here So I don't think we should expect people to go digging through websites to figure out whether or not things open source I think that's Important enough we should put it right here in the paper How are just an appendix at the end or something that keeps track of this I Don't like the idea of it scattered throughout the document as each thing comes up because it's tough to maintain Do What what is the What is the thinking against making a distinction in the document is the problem that there isn't that it's not Oh, I don't mind putting it somewhere in the document But if we do it on every instance of a name of an open source Entity that's a pain to keep up if we do it on the first one. It's still tough to find them all So perhaps an appendix at the end Yeah, or what no maybe Yeah, just a crazy Thought I had was you know, maybe just change the typefaces, you know Non-open source stuff in italics or something and so that it's very clear when you're reading the document when you Refer to a non-open source or an open source one just a thought Yeah, or or just some sort of footnote symbol that the footnote says You know, not a standard open source license or something like that. Yeah Anyway, we've probably beaten this one to death Okay Shit So in which case we are we going So we are are we leaning towards keeping these names For now and then qualifying them if needed Yes, I think we're gonna be So we should change the title back to just databases then yeah Done and I will add cockroach here for now and then we can You know the one of the easier thing maybe is Provide links to tidy be and car we test and no links to cockroach and sorry not cockroach spanner Provide no links for spanner or cockroach Sorry, I came in a little late. What document are we talking about? Oh? It's in the chat Luis it's in the agenda as well Here Yeah, tidy bees Apache license to I think they are pretty clean So we can maybe provide links to with this and tidy be and no links to spanner and cockroach What's the thinking behind some with links and some without? the fact that there is Cockroach TV is not considered open source and there is no and spanner is not open source. I Would either put links to everything or links to nothing and I would put a footnote if something is Totally not open source or if there's some controversy around the open source License you could just put a footnote with a link to something saying yeah, that was Stevens a suggestion to have an appendix thing just One thing is I trying to understand as the cloud-native foundation parallel Linux foundation and Again, I'm looking at this for the big picture. Nothing. I'm not made to say it like I'm Anyway, so I'm trying to think that we should be very open source friendly and I'm thinking in that model. We should not even have my opinion It shouldn't probably have at all anything with that's close source At all in the paper because then that becomes a marketing thing since then yeah There is what I was afraid of is somebody else with commercial industry. Why didn't you mention us? Yeah, so so I think we should focus very very clearly on something as open source And anything that's close or just not in the paper and paper at all Again, I feel that way because we are part of the Linux Foundation now if we were some other type of Foundation that dealt with both close and open source projects Then then I'll be fine, but I think a part of the Linux Foundation. I feel we are very should be very clear And we are looking at only open source projects And yeah, I agree, but I mean how often do we plan on updating the stock as well? Because at one time cockroach was open as well. So should we even mention names in here? Because that then there puts a requirement on us to make sure that these are updated. I Think I think one can get around that by saying at time of writing Version to Cockroach you can if it was open source one time you can go back to the open source version on shore, right? Yeah But regarding we had this whole debate in the in the white paper Louisa I don't know if you remember it that the problem with your approach so firstly To be clear we do not intend to be exhausted about listing all non-open source or open source databases and we Decided to list a few Close source ones in particular Where they provide useful information to contextualize people's brain. So when you talk about object stores and we people Understand what S3 is the understand it's it's the definitive open Object store it was the first one and it sort of defines the category and so we mentioned it explicitly And I think there are other Categories that have similar things. We did not exhaustively mention every single possible closed source Object store, but we did mention S3 and maybe another one I don't remember and I think we should be consistent I think personally that that principle is sound and I think we should continue with that well in the S3 specifically it's because I Feel that S3 itself is becoming a protocol more than the look than the implementation so when we say S3 we mean the protocol today and We mean the APIs so we're gonna put Minio for example and we say S3, right? so I Feel that that was okay, but I feel that if we start moving towards the needle towards that location we may find I Against is my opinion. We may find that it may become difficult I'm trying to pull the needle back to the open source only model and we can definitely represent. Yeah, I Agree with Quinton where I think we don't want to promote the non open source, but mentioning them if it's a Just a commercial reality that they're popular and people will want to run them in containers is Okay, so long as you don't cross the line into promotion and you indicate that these are in a different category Yeah, just raising my opinion Yeah, I mean Spanish another good example Spanish was you know, there was a lot of Publicity around that there were papers published It was the thing that started a lot of this discussion around distributed databases, etc It happens not to be an open source as far as I'm aware And it's now actually I believe either available on Google Cloud as a commercial offering, but I think it should definitely be here I mean everybody just about everybody has heard of Spanner and and it helps contextualize what the other things are and what the categories are Yeah, just my opinion. Yeah, I guess we'll get to visit each one as they come I didn't quite understand that visit what so visit like, you know, we'll talk about each one as they come in the paper for example Like we're doing right now with the database one I'm just saying we don't need to like make a Blanket statement as they come in the paper. We'll look at each one and we'll make a judgment on each Well, I think we do need to have a principle on which the judgment is made and the principle I'm proposing is that Where it is a name of a commercial product, which is reasonably well known and helps to contextualize people's thinking Then we should mention it. We should not try to be comprehensive Yeah, that's the basic principle Yeah, I find both sides of the argument valid. I don't know which way which way to lean towards But the other the other side is to be clear is to is to not mention anything. That's not open source. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know They both have their merits Yeah, and again that one trying to say is that if we were not part of the Linux Foundation I'd be all for it. But being part of it. I feel that we should be very strongly focused on open source projects Table this we can have the discussion separately rather than spend the next half hour on it. I Can understand both sides of the argument Maybe we should just table either have it in the document in comments or a follow-up discussion specifically on this topic Okay, so We've changed it back to databases We're going to leave this in here for now Louise if you want to add your comments into the Side, that's fine. So we can Also add that if we decide to remove cockroach, we should also remove it from section nine I'm just gonna add comment here Unless Louise was gonna add a comment That no Whatever Let me know what to do. Okay, I'll just add it in Erin, I think you said you wanted to run up to Yeah, I got to catch my plane Was there anything in particular left on the agenda after this Louise's Template he was working on and then you could talk more about what we talked about yesterday with the sandbox draft But I'm sure you haven't been able to go through it. So I maybe we could table that Okay, we'll just put it on the us people to look through it. Is it available? Would you like to make it available more broadly yet or yes, let me do No, I think I'd like you guys to review it first. I was hoping all right We'll try and get it up later this week. Let's say Okay. All right. Sorry guys. I got a jet literally I Can't edit the agenda. I can fix that. Sorry. There were some Strange events with people putting strange things in CNCF documents. So we are a little bit more Pedantic about it. No problem. I Can give that to you. What is your email address? I'm requesting access right now Very somewhere in my email. Okay. I'll I'll see it's Louisa pot works calm. Okay, but Okay, yeah, you should have access Okay, sorry, we derailed your review a little bit there Subu do you want to continue? Is someone talking? I don't see I'm not hearing anything. Oh Can you hear me? Hello? Yes. Yes. I was saying would you like to continue you? Sorry, we hijacked your your document review Actually people were just reading and Uh commenting I wasn't walking anyone to okay. Yeah, so I'll wait for comments So any any other sections of the white paper? We kind of broken into categories and then we discussed along various axes This is just from memory. I've just read your document now. Sorry, sir One we had you know the distributed versus centralized, etc And secondly, we had the relative properties availability scalability performance, etc sort of sketched out in a Sort of summary table. Is that something you've considered for this or essentially if you look at the paragraph after After the mention of the databases because key value stores and databases share similar usage of how they similar way You storage similar in similar ways all the trade-offs that apply to key value stores apply to databases also So I've just said look at the section 9.4 for that Okay, that makes a lot of sense Are there any additional considerations around transactions and those kinds of things? From memory be most of these databases support some form of multi operation transactions where key value stores up and down typically don't That's a good point. I we could get into that because Different systems offer different trade-offs based on the type of transactions they support, but I even I'm not too sure about It'll it'll require the we can say that these provide these days the systems provide a spectrum of trade-offs between Consistency and availability But there are like very strange nuances about examples spanner has one very different transaction model. I believe cockroach is Very very strict acid Yes, and then tidy be may offer trade-offs. We test also offers trade-offs. So it's It's all over the map. So I don't know if we can We should definitely not get into the details because that itself is a huge You like people have each of those things that were covered in like multiple blogs and papers Yeah, yeah, I feel like it should be more like a I didn't mean to talk geology finish first. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's all I was going to mention Yeah, I completely agree if we start getting too deep into the details, we're gonna start creating white papers for each one of these companies. So I think with It I think the goal really is to get enough information for the user to then read those white papers understand them, right? and Not really to describe each one It might take me to the kind of give them like if we were creating if this is an engineering school we did this be the one-on-one of databases, right and They will read it and it will be a true document that would live a long lifetime because it kind of describes What are they used for what, you know, what are some of the models and then from there? They can then understand the specific product, right? It's just my suggestion Yeah, yeah, so what I can do is I can stay away from specific features offered by the databases But I can cover about which parts of acid These systems make trade-offs on Most of them go trade-off between atomicity and isolation and I can mention that I can write a short paragraph about that It's so cool. I think that would be serious Are you going to cover other type of databases like a Cassandra? That's also open source, right? Cassandra is many people think of it as still a key value store Store is that yeah, so I think it fits better in section nine Okay Section sorry Yeah, I don't remember. Oh, okay. So it's like I don't think it's mentioned there. Oh, you mentioned there. I just saw it Okay, it's here actually Yeah, it's on page which pages this I'm not sure which pages, but it's there. It's Cassandra H base Okay, I Think it's ambiguous as to whether it's a database or a key value store I certainly think a lot of people have in their heads that it's a no-sequel database. Yeah That's a common Understanding so at the very least we can just put a reference in both sections we can say Put it in here if people don't see it in here They'll say why the hell they're not mentioned Cassandra under databases. Hello Hello Hello Yes, we can hear you Hello We can hear you Maybe you can't hear us Suga, can you hear me? I just connected Okay, let's wait for him to reconnect Louise just to get back to your point about leaving out the details. I agree the details. Sorry. I got disconnected Were you saying anything the last two last minute or so? No, we actually noticed you getting disconnected We waited for you. I'm just gonna respond to Suga's point about not getting into the details of the specific projects And I agree 100% we can't we can't go into detail about every one of the projects What we definitely want to do is I mean, I think the crux of of the whole issue is this trade-off between essentially strict acid and Isolation of various other things and I think we have to deal with that in a reasonable amount of detail In its generality that there are these fundamental trade-offs that all of these databases make and what the spectrum of trade-offs is and we could even Just taking the CNCF databases as an example TIDB and the tests we could Point out where those fall, you know on the spectrum And they do, you know, they're both configurable and they both have you know configurable trade-offs In general, they fall somewhere on that spectrum. I Think that would be very useful Yeah, yeah That's a very good idea. I can add that And then as for the Cassandra my my personal feeling is that it is you right It is ambiguously a key value store or a database is definitely a lot of people who think of it I will have read about it as a no sequel database. So I think we should mention it here Even if it's just to say we dealt with it in the key value store section see there We didn't forget about it here I think The the I think many of these key value stores are beginning to add transactions as one of their core features and That is the reason that is the bigger reason why they are calling themselves database In that case, it would actually push Cassandra more towards a key value store that supports transactions Okay, well in that case do we We are the way I would put it is I would extend section 9 and say that Key value stores are now beginning to add Transaction support to their systems and are beginning to like Get closer to the features of a database That's a good idea and maybe just make it very clear where we drew the line in our paper You know, we're dealing with some things and calling them databases and some things and calling them key value stores And as you say, there's a bit of a blurry line between the two So maybe we just need to make a statement as to where we Officially drew that line for the purposes of this paper. So I think the line would be in my eyes Being able to use Being able to speak pure SQL with the database right where that's I think that's where databases come from where you connect and Then just send SQL commands and the database does everything for you Well, I think there might be people who disagree with you on that First of all relational databases are only, you know, one kind of database historically There were many before them network databases and all sorts of others objects door. Yeah So so that that's the one Point and the other point is that even within relational databases, you know, SQL is not a given either So I think that would be a little bit of a contentious statement to make it may be a little vitec-centric. I'm not sure Yeah, I believe I'm pretty sure actually a spanner may be it may be the only one that Doesn't understand pure SQL I think there are some things you have you need to call into APIs for I'm pretty sure Cockroach tidy V and we test do full SQL But yeah, I think the lines are blurring now There's there's because it's becoming a spectrum from key value store to your database So, yeah, I mean we can just add Cassandra saying that Cassandra can be Considered by depending on how you look at it Cassandra can be considered a key value store or a database Yeah, yeah, if we if you go by the pure relational database Theory most purists will reject. I think pretty much all these systems as pure databases As relational databases, absolutely and I think relational databases are one kind of database All the you know all the Contention around distributed and no sequel and all of that stuff, but that that distinction existed a long time ago Yeah, yeah, the 90s. We had, you know object relational mappings or m's and all these kind of things and they they in fact Don't even explicitly support an SQl right Provide an object interface Not in the sense of block stores or Yeah But actual just they tried to design a language called oql. Yeah, exactly I'm not saying it's a good idea. I'm just saying they do exist and they are databases And they're not relational and the same goes for hierarchical databases and network databases And I mean that there are many of them outside of the relational database family and they definitely are databases Yep, in people's minds Cool. So in my notes, I have I will add Cassandra maybe with an asterisk with saying that There are systems like there are some key value stores that are Beginning to look more like databases Cassandra is one such example. I think I'll add that Sounds good. And then I will cover add a paragraph that covers the trade-offs that databases make About acid versus availability Sounds good Sorry Shing, I think I might have interrupted you. Did you want to add something? Oh No, I'm all set. I think Suku said he's going to add Something about Cassandra. So yeah, yeah, and a section on and the section on the trade-offs That people make with acid Okay. Yeah, thanks. And Louisa. I think I might have interrupted you too Do is Chatted saying that he has to drop off. Okay This is good feedback Thank you. And sorry it didn't come earlier. I actually only Came across this paper. I was on vacation when you wrote most of the stuff And I kind of lost a few weeks of my life while I was on vacations I mean the the acid part I completely forgot to think about That's definitely an important part to add I Mean we are thinking beyond that The other thing that's common is being able to provide table joins and stuff But I don't think I think that part can be left out. Yeah, even that's Debatable at the risk of dragging this out too much, but I Mean one of if you just zoom out of the detail I think our one of our Responsibilities here is to Educate people as to the spectrum and Differences between all these things that people call databases. Yeah, and focus on the important ones So so obviously, you know consistency All of that stuff the asset stuff is is very Important and some of the things people call databases particularly in the cloud native world do have them Spanner and Cockroach come to mind and some of the anti IDB for that matter and some of them definitely do not have them and I think this is part of what causes all the confusion in this general storage space but in particular in the so-called cloud databases space is Is how big those gaps between Things that people call databases really are and and some of them, you know, obviously the the projects and the products with gaps like lack of acid for example or lack of Consistency in general They don't exactly advertise what they're missing And so people really have to go and dig around and figure this stuff out for themselves So what we're trying to do is help people not have to do all that homework Yeah, and in one place say these are the you know, these are the properties that Can be present in a cloud database If you if you choose these properties, you typically can't get these other properties because they're inconsistent. We've got the And and these are the trade-offs that that have to be made they're not you know Flaws in a particular engineering teams thinking. They're just fundamental trade-offs Yeah Pick which one is picking off. I will also add The other consistency trade-off, which is the read after write consistency, which yeah I mean every one of these fields is actually a whole nightmare in itself There are some sections on these things in the rest of the white paper and you can refer to them We're possible. There's there's for example, I wrote a specific section on consistency I think and we can expand that if you if you have some more thoughts on it. Oh, yeah, I can That may be actually a good idea because That's it because some of those things apply to other systems, too I think the way I would do it is do the read after write consistency as a generic section because that applies to multiple other data stores but acid specifically to databases because They are kind of you don't talk about acid if you are not talking about a database Yes, you you tend to talk about parts of it sometimes like you know object stores have a concept of Atomicity sometimes, but yeah, I agree as a group of four properties. They usually apply to databases. Yeah So I will I will then add a section on I will take a look at the consistency section See if that can be enhanced to Cover read after write. Yeah, it's not very comprehensive I wrote it in a rush and the main aim was just to tell people that consistency means a whole lot of things So don't don't believe that you understand it until you've read all of these various papers about consistency But if you want to if you want to add some Detailed stuff there or some more stuff about read after write. I think that should be valuable Sounds good. I should start taking notes now Sorry, we could have done that too, I think the last items on the agenda were all Okay, so I think we have two more items on the end of that I'm aware of and sorry I dropped in late I hope this is up to date. So Louise has been doing some work on various papers Which we'll ask him to give us a sort of an update next time The other thing we have been doing an error in particular has been there's been a little bit of a concern I think about inconsistency of Dealing with projects that apply to the CNCF and I think particularly the sandbox level. There's been Some complaints leveled and so I think it would be useful for us to Put together a detailed Workflow this is how you apply to the to the sandbox and and this is exactly what the responsibilities of the TOC are specifically with respect to Timelines, you know, you will get an accept or a reject within a certain bounded time frame Etc rather than some of these projects which kind of drag on and drag on and can't find sponsors and this and that so It the documents not ready for broad review But hopefully it will be within the next week and we'll send it out to the mailing list But it is there is a first draft of it out that Erin's just tidying up for general consumption Anything else that anyone wanted to cover before we wrap up? There's any four of us left No, all right, if that's it. Thanks very much everyone. We'll see you again in I think it's two weeks Thanks


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering Dell EMC World 2017. Brought to you by Dell EMC. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live at Dell EMC World 2017. This is theCUBE's coverage of Dell EMC, the combination, the big news here. I'm John Furrier with SiliconANGLE and my co-host, Paul Gillan. Our next guest is Steve Finger, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Storage Product Business Unit at Toshiba and Ravi Penteconti who's the SPP of Server Solutions and Product Management at Dell EMC. Guys, welcome to theCUBE. Good to see you, Ravi. Steve, nice to meet you. Thanks for having us. Steve, so tell us what's going on at Toshiba because I want to hear what you guys are doing and your role in relationship with Dell EMC and what is going on with your architecture because we've been hearing a ton about IoT at the edge, centralized pushing intelligence to the edge, new architectures. The world is kind of moving to a new architecture. What's your pitch? Sure, well Dell and Toshiba have a long history, 20 plus years of working in both strong innovators. We're engaged on both our hard drive products as well as our SSD products really across every aspect of Dell's portfolio, client, server and storage. And we're really taking the architecture, both of those product categories are really popular as everyone, you know, data explosion is happening. A lot of that is ending up on storage and our focus areas there on hard drive are around the near line storage, which are the high capacity eight terabyte and higher, really popular with cloud architectures. We have a 14 and 16 terabyte helium based drive coming out next year, which will put us in a strong leadership position. And then on the SSD side, what we're highlighting at the show today is our latest generation NAND. And we've moved into 3D NAND and we're showing our wafer with 64 layer 3D flash, as well as the first public demonstration of any company of an SSD using that 64 layer 3D flash. So we're on that cutting edge and we see that really growing. And you mentioned IoT, that's really driving a lot of the big data growth. That a lot of that data will reside on hard drives, right, for the long-term storage, but then you bring that into an SSD tier for the very rapid analytics work that you want to do to make decisions with that data. Talk about the impact of the latest state of the art, because to me it's, oh my God, speeds and fees, but storage, people always care about storage. I mean, go back to the original iPod and iPhone. These are in devices and mentioned IoT. The state of the art has to get better, faster, cheaper. What's the impact to some of those specs on that you guys just released in terms of the media and the SSD? What's the impact going to be for customers scenario-wise? What's some of the impact that'll look like? Sure, well, I think the number one impact, as I talked to customers here at the event, and it's no surprise, but every... Give me more of that they say. Every customer, every Dell executive says we need more. So really it's just the SSD adoption is exploded. Yes, we do need more. Yeah, exactly. So that's exploding and so the number one thing this will do is each individual die on the wafer doubles in capacity and then it will soon double again and double again after that. So this 3D technology really allows us to drive density and that means lower cost. It means more capacity. It also means we can develop denser SSDs. So more in the same space or smaller space. So for the consumer it's obvious it's all the devices that wearables, but the business it's really more fundamental than that. Things that are going to be connected to the network, the microwave, the air conditioning, all the sensors in the world are going to be now digitally connected. Once analog, now digital. I mean that's kind of where I... Does that kind of get that right? Absolutely and that same technology will be used in a lot of end devices. It's in your smart phone, it's in your smart watch. It'll be in a lot of those smart devices capturing the temporary data but then that all gets consolidated in a massive pool and companies are looking for how do they efficiently scale to capture and analyze that data and turn it into revenue and profit and that's where the performance of SSDs and even in the future the higher capacity levels will allow efficient scaling at the data center. Well, Robbie in the hyper-converged market now all of a sudden you've got the storage coming back into the server. What are customers looking for in terms of performance on that storage side? Are they driving you for the same kind of constant drive for more capacity and better performance? Absolutely Paul, I mean if you think about it the workloads that today are vastly different than the workloads that they've passed. Think about it, I mean today people are not looking for data to be just collected. Data is really, it doesn't have the complete value or in my view it doesn't give you anything other than just lots of bits and bytes. What really gives you the power to act upon is information and so to create information you need to take the data, go process it and get you to the same, to the level of detail that you can act upon, right? So that's the analytics engine. So having said that, today when you look at any of the industries, whether it is genomics, whether you're looking at machine learning, deep learning these require a sense of performance to be provided for our customers because they're looking at analyzing data quickly enough and that's when they can act on it. So our customers absolutely are asking for better performance and higher capacity and they're needed now. So Toshiba's not a new player to you though. You guys, they've been a supplier to the power. It's right for- Absolutely true, I mean they've been a fantastic supplier for the last 20 years. We look at them more as a partner. They've been with us through the journey. I mean we've been, if you think about it for the last couple of decades we've been shipping a product and they've been working through us. We've been working together just not as, it's not really a, it's not just a supplier kind of relationship. We actually track the new technologies. Steve just talked about the 3D cross-point and things of that kind. We are working on those technologies together to ensure that we give our customers just not the latest technology but also to provide them with the right price performance. Again I emphasize price performance because it's just not one of them on its own that has merit to our customers. Is brand important to your customers in terms of a storage provider? They ask for Toshiba brand or does it matter? What they do ask for is, they ask for reliability. They want to make sure that they have a reliable product and then if you think about it that really translates to them to certain vendors. So yes, they could have a potential propensity for a certain vendor, but it all starts with reliability. If you really can't have a reliable component in the servers that we sell, it really doesn't help our customers. And that's where it goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is that this long standing relationship with the companies, because we have built that reliability to the product and Toshiba has been providing it for us. Steve, talk about the relationship with SSD and the enterprise. I mean, everyone knows people want more solid state. That's, everyone kind of sees the consumer products. Where's the progress bar in terms of adoption because we, I hear stories and we actually report them on SiliconANGLE. I'm buying capacity of all flash drives. Server certainly has their share of flash as well. David Floyer and Wikibon have been covering that for years, but now in the enterprise and all the other mainstream products. Where's the analogy here? What's the tipping point? Are we there? Well, from a, if you look at it from a dollar spent perspective, actually this year is the crossover where enterprise SSDs will consume a higher amount of the spend than enterprise hard drives. So people are putting their money. Spending jiscumine. The old hard drives, spending rough. And so that crossover will happen. It has happened if we had more supply, if the industry had more supply, I'm sure it would have already happened. And now if you look at it from a gigabytes perspective, though of course hard drives are much, much, are still the vast majority of the bits shipped. And so it really is about that intelligent use of flash. It's fast, it's very reliable, it consumes less power, but it is also more expensive. So you have to pick the right applications or the right ways of deploying those. And that's where Dell and Toshiba work together with partners like VMware. We're talking about a certified solution around Toshiba Dell, VMware vSAN, as well as Nutanix. And both of those solutions in a converged architecture and hyper-converged architecture, they rely on SSDs in every node to ensure you get the performance scaling. The SSDs have been exciting because sort of hard disk performance peaked out about 10 years ago. And we've been sort of jury rigging ways to make it faster, but SSDs genuinely are getting faster and faster. What is the upper limit on speed right now? Are we looking at Moore's law type of growth in performance or does that top out at some point? We get to saturating the interface with performance, but I'll tell you the most customers aren't asking us for more IOPS performance or more bandwidth. Certainly it'll take it, but when you put several of these in a server or a storage box, it's more than the interface can consume. So certainly there's been, if you look at the bi-segment type of growth rates, it's moving into the how cheap can we make it? Can we reduce the endurance? It's still plenty fast, and that's kind of opening that up, but that's a growing tier. And so we're really seeing that kind of good enough performance driving a lot of the expansion. Ravi, talk about the architectural challenges. I was joking with Dave Vellante a couple of weeks ago about Dell, talk about Dell. They supply chain, was there big innovation? Everyone kind of knows that story of how they, I said data's the new supply chain, right? So data is now coming in. You got the form factor on the storage memory, which everyone wants more SSDs. Give me more, we heard that. How are you guys going to build your server architecture to handle the tsunami of data coming in from stuff that this is going to enable? I mean, everything in a business that will be instrumented with data, devices and sensors are coming in. Is there a server for that? And how do you think about that? It's a moving train, architecturally. So what are you guys doing? Give us an overview. It's interesting that you asked, John, because when we look at a server today, it does have to deal with lots of data coming in. And it's just not data, but if you look at it, there are, we used to talk about storage tiering. Now I think we got to start looking at memory tiering. And what this means is, we have to fundamentally change the way the architecture of the system is put in place. And for example, 14G, we are now coming out with one of our more important tenants. It's all about scalable business architecture. Again, this goes into the whole premise of, as we talk about the workloads, as workloads change, you talk about IoT, you talk about how all the data is coming and you got to synthesize it. You also now need to have an architecture that essentially says, I have to go get this data in and get it at the right time. It's not just getting data in. So we're working on things called MCA, which is Memory-Centric Architectures. Because end of the day, it's analogous to, and I'm from California, right?  It's crowded, we didn't even hear it. It's crowded. There's flying cars. There's flying cars. There's a lot of bottlenecks. Absolutely right. I owe problems. You're absolutely right. Yeah. There's riots. Elon Musk is going to figure this out. That's the goal, right? So as he figures it out, we on the server side are trying to do the same thing, which is as more data, like more cars on the road, we now have to go ahead and ensure that the connectivity between your memory subsystem, your storage subsystem, and the CPU actually comes out to be a low latency, high bandwidth kind of a solution, which is what goes back into what I call as the Memory-Centric Architectures. So that's essentially what we're working on to ensure that we have an optimal performance at the application level, because that's what customers really care for. What is tiered memory? And is that actually a thing now in the 14G server? It's a, so tiered memory is something that, I mean, we are setting the stage for the future, right? So we talk about tiered storage. We have tier one, tier two, tier three storage, wherein if data was not being utilized, you basically take the data, put it on the tapes, for example, right? In the current generation, a lot of people use hard drives as a way of putting data out. So likewise in memory, I mean, if you really think about it, you have the registers, you have got the L1 cache, L2 cache, you have got those caches, then we are coming into all kinds of NVMe drives. So that's what I mean by kind of clearing we have to deal with. There is normal memory, you've got persistent memory, right? So those are the new memory technologies that you're putting in. And by the way, state and stateless cloud native, really, and microservices use state and stateless apps, you have to differentiate between the two and SSD is great for that. Yes. So this is where, as going back to your question Paul is, that's the way, I think we are in the early stages of how we evolve. So that's where you'll see, we're going to support persistent memory, for example, when people look at SAP HANA, they want to have memory, it's basically in memory database. So these are the kind of things we are doing. So with 14G, for example, we are working on things like that. We'll have 14, I mean about 19X, more NVMe than we had in the prior generation. I wish I could get into more specifics, but we will do as we get into the formal shipment of the product. But again- Shipments in the summer though, right? This summer? Yes, it's the summer. Summertime frame, absolutely. A few months away. Okay, talk about the relationship between you guys. Obviously your partners, this is a significant component, I would worry about as a customer, availability concerns, allocation of the product. Are we good? Supply? Solid? I don't want to put you on the spot. No, absolutely. It's a great question. Let's put you on the spot. We need more. Absolutely, that's a great question. Get a checkbook out. And it is. And get a commission. It's a great teamwork. You think about it like the great teams in history, Jordan, Pippin, they've worked together, they've worked out on the King, exactly. And they can anticipate each other's next steps. And that's really how we're operating. Ravi mentioned that, we've worked hard to make sure we have product alignment up and down. And the next is Dell, technologies has massive scales. So aligning the supply chains is key. And we've done that to make sure we have the right products in the right place for Dell's customers. But in terms of supply, yeah, it really is about getting to that next generation where we can double our capacity for wafer or even more in some cases. So that'll really allow us to open the spigots. And we think 2018 is going to be a really great year. And the impact to customers, guys, just comment on the relationship. What's going to be the impact to your customers? So first and foremost, I mean, jokes apart, I know we know about the constraints in the industry on SSD drives. I mean, that's an industry wide thing. So one of the things we have been doing with Toshiba is we have regular interlock meetings and we discuss where the demand is and we help forecast where we are headed and we actually work through the process. And we do anticipate that something that Steve's team and our teams will be doing together. And- It's not new for Dell. This is their wheelhouse. It is, it is, but I will tell you, John, given the constraints we had in the industry, I must say that in the last couple of quarters, we had to put a lot more emphasis on how we go deal with this because going back to the prior comments that both the gentlemen made, there is such a demand for the SSDs right now that I wish the supply and demand were not out of balance, but they are, right? We've got to work through and try to ensure that we don't surprise them as partners, so we don't come back and say, hey, you know what, give us a truckload tomorrow. So that's something that we are actually finishing. And they're shaping your strategy too, because they're an indicator to where you can go based upon the tech, the state of the art. Absolutely. This is where I call it's a constant feedback mechanism we have built. I mean, they know the SSD drive market, the NAND flash technology is better than we do, right? They do. And then we understand the overall customer side and what the impact is from the compute side, for example, in our case. And now we go back in and try and see how we can do a better mechanism of shaping the demand and ensuring that the right product is available at the right time. Is there a relief in sight for the shortages? I think it's going to be linked to those next generation technologies as we ramp those and get them into production and to SSDs and into Dell EMC systems. Then you will see the balance come back in the industry. Steer, striers, less? That's, I think most people are saying it's going to last through this year. We're obviously working very hard to get the right products in the right place, but I think most people are saying it'll last through this year, but we'll see. Hard to predict. I think that's the consistent message we get is at least three to four quarters before things stabilize. Well, Ravi, congratulations on the scale. I think it's a huge advantage and certainly get some great supplier relationships with that scale. Congratulations, Steve, on the state of the art, new stuff coming, more faster.  Absolutely. Internet of Things is waiting. That market is waiting for you guys. So congratulations. Thanks for coming on. We appreciate sharing your insights. No, thank you. I mean, we couldn't have found a better partner as we announced our 14G and we're excited about it. And thank you for having us, both John and Paul. Thank you very much. Great stuff. Deli and Cyril bringing the state of the art content here in theCUBE, but more importantly, faster memory, SSDs in the enterprise, taking over the hard disk drive. Certainly a ton of data, a tsunami of data coming in from all angles, IoT in the enterprise, everywhere else. Mr. Cube, share in our data with you. We'll be right back with more live coverage. Stay with us.


I am Gujarat. I embody our nation's history. I represent the heroes of our country. I am Gujarat. I am art. I am culture. I am the present. I am the future. I am Gujarat. I walk with changing times. I build with the creators of tomorrow. I am the growth emblem of the nation. I am home to India's glory. I am the abode of unending cultural stories. I am Gujarat. I have sown the seeds of development. I have planned the map of progress. I am Gujarat. I am the farmer. I am the industrialist. I am Gujarat. I represent the new India. I take pride in my Bharat. I am Gujarat. I represent the essence of Vasudeva Kutumbakam. I am Gujarat. Vasudeva Kutumbakam. One earth, one family, one future.


The round-dodged city and in the territory on West, there's just one way to handle the killers and the spoilers, and that's with the U.S. Marshal and the smell of gun smoke. Starring William Conrad, the story of the violence that moved West with Young America, and the story of a man who moved with it. I'm that man, Matt Dillon, the United States Marshal. The first man they look for and the last they want to meet. It's a chancey job that it makes a man watchful and a little lonely. I sure would like to turn off here and go down to that stream and catch me a mess of fish, Mr. Dillon. Even the fish haven't have sense to lie low under a noon sun like this, Chester. And I'd just soon be lying low with them along the bank there under a tree. Yeah, sure. You'd be stretched out under a tree, and then the ants that come and the chickers, maybe a rattlesnake or two. I'm not just a minute here. Just as soon as you got rid of them, they'd probably blow up a storm. Well, now they... I think you're better off riding right back into town with me. Well, maybe we were right at that. I don't guess I really feel like eating fish today anyway. Say, look under there. Ain't that somebody walking up ahead of us? Yeah, it looks like it. Well, why on earth would a body be walking on a day like this? Probably has no choice. Well, everybody around here rides a horse, Mr. Dillon. Looks like he has been riding one. How's that? Well, he's carrying a saddle, Chester. Well, my man, I can see that. But what do you suppose he's doing? Well, we'll be up with him in a minute. Why don't you ask him? Oh, well, I wouldn't want to come right out and ask him why. Now, greetings, gentlemen. Hello. Costas. Essentially, Costas. Matt Dillon. Yeah, this is Chester Proudfoot. Please meet you. Is that a style you're wearing? Yeah. You has Marshall on a Dodge City. Well, Marshall, I feel a bit awkward without my horse. Rather warm for walking. Yeah, we're just wondering about that. Lost him, you know. Lost him? In this open country? Chester left the man talk. Well, yes, he left. I lost him in a card game, poker. Not very good at poker.  All I had at the moment. I was temporarily embarrassed, you might say. Don't you know what's he talking about? He means he's out of money. I'm afraid that's correct. But you didn't lose your saddle, huh? Oh, I didn't wager my saddle, sir. No, that's the only one I've found to give me any comfort in your American style of writing. I feel I must keep it. That's a good idea in case you got another horse. Oh, I mean to win him back. That's one reason I'm heading for Dodge City.  A chap named Pete Newdson. We came up together driving cattle from Texas. We only won everything I had, and last night he won my horse. So, now I'm afoot. Well, Pete Newdson's a mean man in poker game. He's a mean man out of one, too.  I see. Well, at least we can give you a lift into town and you climb up behind me. You take his saddle, Chasse. Yes, sir. Very sporting of you. Perhaps I can repay you with some time. Just don't try too hard to repay Pete Newdson. It's, uh, somewhat an affair of honor, you know? You'd be better off just to think of it as a poker game and leave honor out of it. Now, just listen a minute. Well, if you will. I've got a little story to tell you. Well, it's not so little. It's sort of a tall tale. I don't know if you've heard of Joe Mascherac or not. If you've never worked in steel, then you probably haven't. But he was a legendary giant whose body was made of pure steel. It was Joe who invented riveting. Joe would stand there shaping rivets out of the hot steel with his thumb and fingers. And while the rivets were taking shape, he'd punch holes in the girders or plates with his little fingers. Then he'd plug the rivets into the holes and pound them over with his knuckles. Worked so good that they invented riveting machines to take his place on jobs he couldn't get to. Joe was a busy man, you bet. But in between jobs, he couldn't just stand around doing nothing, so he'd stockpiled cannonballs, making them out of white hot steel the way little children make snowballs by rolling them in their hands. For entertainment, Joe used to have what he'd call a taffy pull. Only he'd use steel instead of candy. And as he stretched it out, his fingers would be shaping it. When he finished each long tug, he'd break it off and lay down another length of rail to cool. Guess half the rails of the B&O were made by Joe at his taffy pulls. Yes, Joe Mascherac was the spirit of the steel industry, the spirit of those men who worked and sweat before the open hearts of the Alleghenies, who laughed and bragged about the strength of their giant while they turned out the finest steel in the world. Some of that steel was Joe Mascherac himself, to hear them tell it. It seems that during the year of the big lay-off, when the steel mills couldn't get metal to process, why Joe, he melted himself down in the flames of heart number seven, so as America could maintain its steel supply. Yes, old Joe was quite a legend, wasn't he? Say, isn't it nice being citizens of a country where you can laugh and talk about things free as a breeze and write and read and worship too? Yes, sir. Maybe you don't think about it much. But you should.  No, thanks, Doc. There's a little more coffee. I'll buy them. No, no, I've had plenty. Had plenty of that Carster's fellow, too, come think of it. What was that, sir? What's the matter with him? Well, Doc, what kind of a man would have a name like Sedgley Carstair in any way? I don't trust him at all. Oh, now a man can't help his name, Chester. Chances are, in England, a name like Sedgley Carstair is as everybody's common as Chester Proudfoot is over here. Oh, Proudfoot. Maybe so, but I tell you, Doc, he talks so fancy. He's just plain silly. Oh, he's not trying to talk fancy, Chester. That's just the way Britishers talk. He was born in England, wasn't he? Well, what's he doing over here, then? Why, didn't he stay at home where folks could understand him? Oh, now, I expect he's here for about the same reason the rest of us are. What reason? To make it a living. Oh, now, Doc, I don't leave nobody who talks like he doesn't know how to make a living. He sure doesn't know how to keep a horse. See, you know, I've run into a couple of these fellas before. They're what they call second sons. Second son? What's that? Well, it's the second son born into a British family. You see? Usually a wealthy family. Or sometimes even a tidal family. You mean lords and dukes and queens and all that? Could be. Oh, say, then, this Carstairs fellow might be rich. No, you can't be sure. In England, it's the first sons who get everything. Doc, do you mean them lords and dukes and stuff don't give their second boys nothing? Sometimes not, unless maybe they send them something a couple of times a year to keep them from hanging around the estate raising a fuss. You mean they brought their boys to stay away? It's been done. Sometimes those second sons turn out to become an ordinary once they find out that they're not going to get their share of the family loot. Well, that's a very good... You can't rightly blame them for that. Say, Doc, you reckon this Carstairs fellow is getting paid to stay away? Can't tell, Justin. That's something to think about, though. Now, give me a beer, will you, Sam? I'll take it over to the table. Here, Marshall. Here you go. No, thanks. Good evening, Kitty. Oh, hello, Matt. Sit down. Thank you. What are you going to talk to me? Are you just going to look around the room? Huh? Oh, I'm sorry, Kitty. I was just looking for somebody. He's over there at the far table. You can't see him too well with all the crowds standing around. Yeah. Now, how'd you figure I'd be interested in Carstairs? Everybody's interested in him. Now, here he's the willingness poker player to hit dodge since the Santa Fe railroad gangs. Well, on this loser, he doesn't seem to care who he loses it to, so he keeps on playing. I wonder where he gets his money? Well, they say all he has to do is walk into the bank and he comes out with all the money he wants. It could be gossip, you know. Yeah. He was down to betting his horse a few days ago. You worried about him, Matt? No, not exactly worried, Kitty. He's a likable fellow, and I just hate to see him losing all his money. I wonder why he's doing this. He wants to learn to play good enough poker so they can sit in on another game with Beat Knudsen. He wants to win his horse back. Well, you can't blame him for that. But if Knudsen hears about the money, they'll be a lot more involved than I am. The game's back enough. Yeah, looks like it. Then I'll be only two glass. Hello, Marshal. Miss Kitty. Hello, Sedge. Mighty pleasant chaps in here, Marshal. Why shouldn't they be pleasant? I understand you're supporting them. I am losing a good deal of money, that's true. But I'm learning, Marshal. I'm learning. Good day, Marshal. You must open the bank this morning, Sedge. Oh, no, Marshal, Mr. Butkin was there and the bank was open for business, but...  You better get that money out of sight. Seems hardly worthwhile, does it? I lose it as fast as I get it. Yeah. Sedge, I'd like to talk to you about that. Oh, it's my money, Marshal. Nothing shady about it. I'm not worried about that. I just think maybe you ought to be more careful or so. Careful?  It could be dangerous. Then you haven't a worry in the world. I'm certainly not a rich man. Maybe you ought to quit acting like one. No, it's just that my latest bank draft was waiting for me here when I got to town. Bank draft? Yes, from London. They sent me a remittance check twice a year, Marshal, to keep me safely on this side of the ocean. But it'll be gone soon. Well, it's your business. Just make sure that you don't lose more than your money. Thank you for your interest, Marshal. Now, if you'll excuse me. No. Now, I'll see you later, Sedge. What is it, Chester? Mr. Jones, Pete Newton and his crowd just got in from Abilene. They went right into Dodge House. How many of them? Well, there's four of them all together. It's a funny thing, though. Oh, what's that? They tied up five horses. One without a saddle, huh? I'm sure it's where it was. Pete's really rubbing it in, isn't he? Oh, well, shucks, Mr. Jones. If Sedge didn't have no better sense than to lose his horse in the first place... I just hope he wins it back, Chester, for his sake. And I also hope he rides it right out of town. Even Foster came from Alabama, and Al Jolson was always Alabama-bound. Even though there was no particular validity to these claims, there was a definite sincerity behind them. For Obama has a sense of charm and hospitality unlike any other state. Maybe Stephen Foster didn't come from Alabama, but Helen Keller did, and so did a lone wolf train robber named Rube Burrow. And what if Jolson didn't go there? George Washington Carver did, and his experiments at Tuskegee brought international fame to him and the state. For all the deep radical changes experienced by the Cotton State, some things never seem to change. Each spring, the fields and roadsides are carpeted with primroses. Green fields turn pale pink and roll wave-like in the wind. Alabama, like much of the South, seeks to combine 20th-century industrial progress with the barn raisings and candy pools of an earlier era. And what is more, Alabama succeeds. Oh, Newtson, it's about time you showed up. I thought you'd be down to the long branch for now. What do you mean by that? Well, the whole town's been waiting for you to come in so you could play poker with that English fellow. Why should I play poker with him? I already cleaned him out. I even got his horse. Yeah, that's what he wants to win back. I don't know why he put such a store by it, though. Why, he could buy a string of horses if he wanted to. Have you been winning? Sedge? Win money? Not hardly, but that don't matter. Why? Well, he's rich. He is. I mean, you didn't know that? Well, you didn't have no money on the way up from Texas. Well, it just come. It come from London, England to the bank. Well, he goes and gets some every day. I hear Teller got another big wad this morning. You know what you're talking about. Well, anybody will tell you. Well, maybe I will just mosey down there and play a little poker after all. Got to give the man a chance to win back his horse. Sure. Ain't the marshal. You heading for the long branch? I didn't know I had to report to you. You don't. There are a lot of stories that have been going around town. Noteson, I just don't want any trouble. You got a law against playing poker? There ought to be the way you play it. Well, Marshal, I just want to give the man a chance to win his horse back. Now listen, Noteson, I've told Sedge that if he's smart, he'll just try to win that horse and then quit. I'm telling the same thing to you. Well, thank you, Marshal, but I just figure I'll have to take my chances without any help from you. Just don't start anything, Noteson. No, no, no. Of course not, Marshal. There's something down right here going on around here. Well, that English fellow, he won back his horse from beating Noteson. That's what he said. Looks like Carstairs' luck has finally changed. No, no, no. Old Beat stood pat on a pair of sixes.  Oh, and he let Carstairs win that. But that's not all. They all went off to the liver stable. Noteson and his crowd to get the horse. Friendly as you please, Noteson had a jug and they was getting old Sedge all liquored up. Well, like, well, it don't make sense. Are they still there? Well, how's it getting there? They rolled off out of town. Oh, come on, Chester. I think maybe we better follow them. You reckon they took the road to Hay City?  Come on. Is there a jack just over the rise? Yes, there is. I figure they'd stop the first place they come to. Do you think they're going to gamble him for the rest of his money? They won't bother to gamble, Chester. This is often fun. All right, listen, Chester, you keep low when you go up to the window on the left side there, see? Now, you think you can make it? Yes, sir, I can make it. All right, good. I'll go around to the front. When I get to the door, you cover me through the window. All right, you ready? I'm ready. Come on, then. Come up against the wall. Yes, sir. Well, all right, step by, leave. Move along. You're too late for that fancy talker. Where is He, Noteson? Where's Costerz? He's in the gully, up back.   All you have to do is keep on playing poker with him. He'd have lost everything he had. You didn't need to kill him to get it. Marshall, you want to laugh? Isn't it funny, Noteson? That money they talked about, it was all spent. He just had three dollars on him. Three dollars. You know, Chester, man's life should be worth more than three dollars. Locked more. Which then directed by Norman McDonald, stars William Conrad as Matt Dillon, U.S. Marshall. Featured in the cast were Parley Baer as Chester, Howard McNeer as Doc, and Georgia Ellis as Kitty. George Walsh speaking. Join us again next week for another specially transcribed story on Gunsmoke. Is the United States Armed Forces Radio and Television Service?