Michael Pleshakov

@CountPickering Thanks for implementing those suggestions! > Additionally, because port 1936 is not used for regular traffic like ports 80 and 443, but rather the admin traffic, is it possible...

@CountPickering that sounds good! thx

note for the implementer: - will require a custom image with oss dev endpoint - NGF installation in test needs to be updated to not disable telemetry - GKE cluster...

What do people think about the following approach to support the static Gateway mode in the conformance tests? In the static mode, a Gateway implementation can only support one Gateway,...

@mlavacca > I'm concerned about this approach, as what happens when tests are run in parallel? There is a high probability of tests failing because the needed gateway has been...

I'd like to propose another approach that can enable the static mode in the conformance tests. I wonder what people think. Compared to the [previous one above](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/issues/1687#issuecomment-1530309080), it doesn't require...

The proposed approach above was discussed during the community meeting on May 8, and the group suggested not to go with that. The suggested way forward (hope I got it...

I wonder if combined with here https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/issues/2166 , a generalized case here is implementation specific routing - data plane provides some parameters which can be used to make a routing...

NGINX supports retries per route too with [proxy_next_upstream* directives](https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_proxy_module.html#proxy_next_upstream)

@robscott > @pleshakov would proxy_next_upstream_timeout be similar to the backendRequest timeout proposed by GEP 1742? (https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/geps/gep-1742/#timeout-values) unfortunately, no. `proxy_next_upstream_timeout` limits the time during which NGINX tries multiple backends. However, it...