Easwar Swaminathan

@Aditya-Sood Thank you so much for bringing up the issue of the failing tests. We had a discussion about this, and the decision is to ensure that an incoming LDS...

> hi @easwars, yes I can work on that change too, please share the details with me Here you go: https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go/issues/6259.

I'm setting the `Blocked` label on this one since we need to fix #6259 before getting back to this. Thanks for your help @Aditya-Sood

I finally caught up on this set of issues/PRs. I also spoke with @zasweq. To summarize: - The existing validation in the xdsClient to check that the last filter is...

> also regarding the changes to newInterceptor(), it seems like specifically the router type filters need to be ignored and not appended to the interceptors slice I think what we...

The following are some good docs to read to understand what we are trying to do with xDS and how we implement things in gRPC: - Overall xDS design: https://github.com/grpc/proposal/blob/master/A27-xds-global-load-balancing.md...

Apart from what is mentioned in the docs listed above, a very high level flow would look like this: - User application creates a `grpc.ClientConn` and uses the `xds:///` scheme...

> 3. one query - in the `resolver.SelectConfig()` code, would it be semantically better to replace the `rt.actionType != xdsresource.RouteActionRoute` check with `rt.actionType == xdsresource.RouteActionUnsupported`, since the latter is already...

> 3. One query: As clarified in the previous comment, the client requests will always be assigned the `RouteActionRoute` action type by the xds client ([source code snippet](https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go/blob/cd24581cdf52d773b8d07950ff79f5b3391a0822/xds/internal/xdsclient/xdsresource/unmarshal_rds.go#L299-L390)) > Since...

It is not clear to me whether you are seeing an increase in memory utilization of about 10-15MB between your server application running gRPC version 1.27 and server application running...