From 95acd44db78b1f4d2ddeba83dad1ba3f03b4c2d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: JoeWrightss <42261994+JoeWrightss@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:26:37 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Fix some typos: ips -> IPs (#11456)

---
 .../2015-05-00-Weekly-Kubernetes-Community-Hangout_18.md    | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/en/blog/_posts/2015-05-00-Weekly-Kubernetes-Community-Hangout_18.md b/content/en/blog/_posts/2015-05-00-Weekly-Kubernetes-Community-Hangout_18.md
index 51ec30dbf1d..5a8d7f4ec0c 100644
--- a/content/en/blog/_posts/2015-05-00-Weekly-Kubernetes-Community-Hangout_18.md
+++ b/content/en/blog/_posts/2015-05-00-Weekly-Kubernetes-Community-Hangout_18.md
@@ -37,11 +37,11 @@ Every week the Kubernetes contributing community meet virtually over Google Hang
     * additional status - additive, backward compatible
     * elimination of phase - won't make it for v1
 * Service discussion - Public IPs
-    * with public ips as it exists we can't go to v1
+    * with public IPs as it exists we can't go to v1
     * Tim has been developing a mitigation if we can't get Justin's overhaul in (but hopefully we will)
     * Justin's fix will describe public IPs in a much better way
-    * The general problem is it's too flexible and you can do things that are scary, the mitigation is to restrict public ip usage to specific use cases -- validated public ips would be copied to status, which is what kube-proxy would use
-    * public ips used for -
+    * The general problem is it's too flexible and you can do things that are scary, the mitigation is to restrict public ip usage to specific use cases -- validated public IPs would be copied to status, which is what kube-proxy would use
+    * public IPs used for -
         * binding to nodes / node
         * request a specific load balancer IP (GCE only)
         * emulate multi-port services -- now we support multi-port services, so no longer necessary