►
From YouTube: IETF100-RTCWEB-20171115-1520
Description
RTCWEB meeting session at IETF100
2017/11/15 1520
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/proceedings/
A
A
A
A
A
So
first
jabber
scribe:
this
is
somebody
who
will
relay
into
the
jabber
such
important
information
as
slide
number
and
will
take
from
the
jabber
such
important
information
as
anything
preceded
by
an
EM
IC
:.
Really,
you
need
to
be
able
to
parse
a
string
people
who
can
do
it
now?
What
oh?
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
Jonathan
Lennox.
A
Yes,
you
don't
have
to
do
anything
except
slide
number
all
right,
then
just
parse
for
mic,
:
and
relay.
If
need
be
so
I
still
don't
see.
We
still
have
my
electric
co-chair,
but
we
don't
have
my
other
co-chair
yet.
So
we
have
a
moment
to
find
somebody
who
would
like
to
add
as
a
minute
taker.
So
you
will
recall
that
in
the
past
we've
had
our
minutes
taken
in
the
form
of
memes
haiku
and
simple
statements
like
we
decided
to
do.
X.
A
Really
we
decided
to
do
X
is
about
all
you
need
to
do.
We
don't
need
he
sheds
he
shed.
He
said
she
said,
thank
you
or
anything
like
detailed,
because
we
have
the
lovely
recording
from
Medeco
to
remind
us
of
whatever
shenanigans
we
got
up
to,
but
I
do
need
an
official
minute
taker,
because
I
have
to
write
that
down
in
some
place.
So
please
at
least
put
up
your
hand
and
pretend
you're
gonna
take
minutes
for
me,
because
that
would
be
very
nice.
A
A
B
So
my
name
is
Ruslan
I
just
want
to
you
inform
people
here
that
which
hasn't
been
particularly
clear
yet,
but
we
have
found
some
issues
around
minor,
mostly
around
simulcast
and
rid
it's
gonna,
be
discussed
in
the
music
meeting
tomorrow
watch
day,
I'm
using
mailing
lists,
because
those
issues
just
gonna
be
on
the
mailing
lists
as
soon
as
I've
finished
typing
them
up,
which
hopefully
is
before
the
end
of
this
session.
So
but
yes,
they're
gonna
be
issues
that
those
interests
in
simulcast
probably
should
participate
in
so
welcome
to
music.
Tomorrow
afternoon,.
C
We
have
these
drops
that
are
they're
kind
of
chilling
waiting
and
there's
more
gonna,
give
him
there.
These
are
just
are
drops
by
the
way
protocols.
Good
art,
speed,
just
create
a
OPM,
is
awesome
transport
or
took
a
little
bit
later
about
an
overview.
Is
there
now?
Thank
you
very
much.
Harold
for
coming
back.
I
knew
that
when
he
left
on
sabbatical
that
we
were
still
going
to
be
talking
about
this
when
he
came
back.
Unfortunately,
next.
C
That's
the
rest
of
it.
Thanks
:,
if
you're
listening
remotely
to
updating,
slides,
I
appreciate
that
I
looked
in
Google,
slides
and
I
was
like
whoa
I.
A
C
C
Medicine,
we're
not
gonna
go
through
this,
but
you
can
kind
of
tell
that
not
receive
parts
are.
Some
of
these
are
some
other
people.
If,
if
you
have
any
input
into
anything,
that's
not
getting
done
and
you
or
you
were
an
author
help
get
that
done.
Please
exert
pressure,
help
the
ADEs
help
us
get
done.
That's
really
what
we're
about
one
that
I
should
have
been
out
the
door
a
while
ago.
C
Let's
do
that
next,
all
right
Jason
great,
thank
you
for
our
authors
for
getting
through
this
one
for
the
longest
time
that
was
the
long
pole
in
the
tent.
It
no
longer
is
it's
with
our
ID
Adam.
Would
you
like
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
where
it
is
with
us?
Are
you
ready
to
rock
and
roll
as
a
ballad.
A
C
D
C
C
We
thank
you've
got
an
update
after
some
other
things
got
cleaned
up,
we're
we
went
through
once
they've
been
kind
of
like
lingering
around
it's
time
that,
after
we
get
done
with
this,
to
run
it
again,
it's
gonna
be
two
weeks
where
I'm
gonna
breathe,
eat
it
which
go
for
broke.
Please,
repo,
like
I,
would
like
to
catch
anything.
We
need
to
now
their
github
repos
for
both.
If
you
think
of
anything
that
needs
to
get
changed,
please
throw
them
in
there
and
these
the
other
ones
that
are
up
there.
Faq
is
Bernard.
Here.
C
He's
got
one
outstanding
common
in
the
Justin's
repo
that
I'm,
hoping
that
we
could
figure
out.
I
did
send
him
an
email
that
I
was
gonna
embarrass
him
at
the
microphone.
If
he
was
here
or
remote
he's
not,
we
will
try
to
figure
that
out,
because
Justin
basically
is
like
hey
give
me
some
feedback
and
I
haven't
heard
anything
so
I'd
like
to
make
sure
we
can
get
to
that
point.
C
I
be
handling,
is
going
to
go
essentially
wet
we're
glass
calls
after
the
security
drops,
because
they're
kind
of
grouped
together
we've
fought
and
presented
a
lot
of
slides
about
that
particular
graph.
I
think
we
can
get
there
and
the
STP
examples
were
updated
recently
and
I.
Think
that'll,
be
it's
also
an
equally
technical,
technically
dense
draft
and
I
think
that
I
thank
the
people
that
did
reviews
of
that
and
thanks
whoever
do
that.
So
that's
it's
not
blocking
correct.
C
So
that's
like
it's
probably
gonna
go
last
so,
but
is
is
a
good
draft
pretty
dense
if
you're
implementing
that's
great
I'll
help
what
I
don't
know
sue
us
I
think
see
us
see
what
so.
E
E
G
Hey,
that's
so
exciting.
I
could
talk,
I
explained
that
you
know
yeah.
Some
scripts
were
used
here
and
there,
but
basically
these
are
hand
generated
SPP
and
have
the
type
of
errors
the
hand
generated
st
p
e--
there
may
not
have
the.
I
will
say
my
experience
with
machine
generated
s.
Dt
is
just
as
bad
so
yay.
G
I
you
know,
I
mean
I'm
sure
there
will
probably
I
mean
with
these
guns
you're
quite
a
bit
of
review
and
I'm
sure
there
have
mistakes
in
them,
I
think
there's
really
declining
returns
and
getting
them
perfect.
I
think
it
would
be
better
to
to
get
them
than
done
and
then
try
and
figure-
and
this
is
clearly
with
my
individual
contributor
had
on
and
and
if
we
find
mistakes
in
them
go
go
fix.
G
G
Not
full
of
mistakes,
they
are,
they
are
probably
less
full
up.
They,
they
have
a
low
number
of
mistakes.
So
I'm
not
saying
there's
no
mistake
in
them,
but
most
of
the
mistakes
are
in
them
will
be
like
some
incredibly
weird
little
thing
of
like
oh
well,
you
know
I
did
a
fire
like
wasn't
before
you
know
it
wasn't
correct
for
what
people
were
supposed
to
do
so.
I,
don't
like,
like
we've
run
these
through
various
parsers
we've
done
various
things
with
them.
I
mean
you
know.
H
A
G
I
mean
look
I'm
glad
to
help
work
on
on
that
type
of
stuff.
I've
helped
do
those,
but
not
if
this
documents
not
going
anywhere.
So
if,
when
this
document
is
moving
forward,
then
yes
I'll
be
happy
to
figure
out
how
to
extract
the
data
out
of
it
and
test
and
put
it
into
the
test
website.
But
if
we're
not
publishing
it
I
don't
care.
No
one
else
cares
I,
don't
care!
I!
Guess
that's
pretty
much
where
everyone
is
on
this.
One.
G
B
Let's
figure
this
out
and
see
what
we
do
with
it,
but
yeah
it
should
be
I
mean
we
need
any
way
to
put
good
examples
in
the
or
better
examples
of
India
simulcast
document
itself.
So
probably
I
write
something
up,
so
hopefully
we
can
combine
it
in
a
nice
way,
so
you
can
actually
put
them
together,
etc.
So
they
get
a
complete
example
in
in
this
document.
The.
J
E
This
this
should
be
pretty
short,
as
only
got
four
slides,
and
that
was
one
of
them.
So
now,
J
Sepp
is
pretty
much
done
and
you
know
I,
don't
think
else
to
do
my
time.
I
finally
got
around
to
working
on
this
a
little
bit
with
much
help
Richard
Barnes.
Actually,
almost
all
the
changes
we've
seen
the
last
job
in
this
traffic,
Barnes
or
other
people,
but
I
did
push
the
publish
button
so
Terry.
We
are
next
slide.
E
So
the
security
document
that
main
sort
of
the
overview
document
has
basically
had
trivial
changes,
I
think
a
certain
abstract,
courtesy
of
Sean,
my
citation
darts
to
IP
handling
there.
Now
no
more
github
issues
or
pull
requests.
So
I
think
this
is
a
complete
thing
and
we
should
be
like
stripping
out
of
the
door,
as
is
Captain
Kirk.
E
But
seeing
no
objection
ask
unanimous
consent
to
proceed.
Okay
next
slide.
So
sorry,
our
document
is
not
quite
in
as
good
shape,
but
actually
not
too
terrible,
largely
it's
sort
of
suffered
from
a
bunch
of
neglect
and
other
things
moving
on
behind
us,
so
everybody
seems
to
kind
of
decide
if
we're
going
to
get
user
media
to
secure
origins,
so
we're
I
made
that
change.
This
is
actually
a
topic
which
I
had
pointed
out
which
I
discuss
now.
So
all
the
browser's
I
believe
are
kind
of
converging
on
this.
E
F
E
L
E
There
used
to
be
this
API
requirement
that
so
as
people
we
know
some
browsers
like
basically
make
all
gate
using
media
on
permissions
permanent
and
some
of
them
have
like
an
ability
ephemeral.
We
initially
had
this
text.
That
said,
you
required
like
have
an
affordance
in
the
API.
That
would
say,
I
want
this
ephemeral
on
with
this
permanent
that
never
made
it
into
spec
I.
Something
was
an
okay
idea,
but
it
didn't
happen
and
chrome
and
in
chrome
doesn't
like,
doesn't
have
a
ephemeral
at
all.
E
So
so
it
doesn't
seem,
like
that's
gonna,
be
a
requirement
that
anybody
leaves
in
so
I
removed
it.
There
have
been
a
bunch
of
you
know
when
I
wrote
the
text
or
Martin
into
the
camera.
At
this
point
about
screen
sharing
versions,
there's
a
bunch
of
wrappers
around
that
about
how
we
know
consensus
on
it
and
the
reason
we
have
consensus
cuz.
The
outcome
was
so
terrible.
The
outcome
isn't
any
better,
but
apparently
apparently
people
to
decided
to
live
with
it.
So
so
Firefox
and
I
think
chrome,
like
just
basically
screw.
E
Firefox
now
has
like
a
big
scary
warning
when
you're
on
screen
sharing
a
screen
warning
you
can
understand,
but
still
we
asked
you
to
understand
it
and
I.
Think
Chrome
has
like
an
add-on
still
what
I'm
sure
they're
gonna
move
just
carry
warning
sometime
eventually
because,
like
I
saw
Intolerable
add
now
on
so
anyway.
This
is
the
resolutions,
those
what
it
is,
which
is
basically
the
socks
that
we're
sorry
about
that
so
I,
just
rue
the
open
issue,
warnings,
okay,
actually
say:
I
mean
Richard.
Once
again.
E
So
what's
gonna,
like
you
know,
keep
doing
that.
So
we
there
we've
cleaned
up
the
SRS
PPP
requirements
a
bit,
and
there
was
this.
There
was
a
bunch
of
crap
in
the
text
and
the
text
from
like
before
we
ban
des
des
that
we're
like
you
know
there
should
be
interface
elements
to
tell
you
if
you're
doing
as
des.
E
But
since
you
can't
be
doing
is
des,
then
this
interface
elements
are
relevant,
and
so
we
remove
that
on
and
a
bunch
of
and
stuff
like
browser,
ID
examples
in
the
appendix
and
stuff
iPad,
since
we're
no
longer
doing
browser
ID
and
pretty
much.
Nobody
is
I
think
we
can
assume
that
those
examples
are
not
helpful,
so
they
went
away
to
why
we're
getting
in
character.
So.
H
L
L
E
C
E
Okay
and
then
there
are
still
on
the
PI
think
there
are
11
github
issues,
lash
PRS,
I.
Think
I
only
put
the
issues
up
here,
I
tagged
them
other
couple,
PRS
baby,
they
were
straightforward
and
then
there
are
a
bunch
of
issues.
Half
of
them
I
think
I
can
resolve
myself
with
any
help.
So
I
was
did
not
present
discussed
them.
The
remainder
we
could
probably
discuss
for
a
little
bit
Sean.
You
can
hold
up
Issac,
cleverly
typed
him
for
you.
E
J
E
H
Don't
include
the
fine,
you
don't
include
identity,
dot
example:
calm
in
the
yeah,
just
deny
it
forever.
Man,
you
know,
doesn't
need
to
do
anything.
You
don't
include
identity
in
the
example,
but
Soros
also
points
out
that
you
have
the
redirect
question
and
might
that
might
benefit
from
a
a
little
bit
of
text,
but
I
think
you
can
sort
this
one
out
yourself.
Okay,
yeah
I
can
make
sense
of
this.
H
Yes,
it
is
correct
that
it
can
be
redirected.
There
are
rules
about
what
redirections
are
permitted,
but
it
is
correct
that
it
can
be
redirected.
Okay,
so.
E
M
E
E
E
E
So
the
relevant
point
is
that
the
certificate
all
right,
that
the
that,
yes,
you
can
have
a
domain-
need
a
port
number
in
this
field,
but
that
one
that
port
number
cannot
be
verified.
Cryptographically.
It's
just
a
bare
assertion.
You
know
one.
You
can
verify
the
Dominion
yes,
but
that
you
put
it
off
the
warranty.
Doesn't
that
you
can't
distinguish
it.
That's.
E
H
E
Okay,
so
same
three
points
are
one
you
should
only
put
one
in
to
the
semantics
are
undefined.
If
you
put
in
more
than
one
and
so
three
implementations
need
only
process,
one.
E
H
H
B
B
H
E
That
and
that's
how
much
works
right.
It's
either
the
problem.
The
problem
is
it
I
mean
I
mean
mocks.
Basically,
what
I
mean
MUX
just
replicates
a
situation,
all
one
five
tuple
right,
I
just
think
it's
not
like
as
a
practical
matter,
I'm,
not
aware
any
implementation
which
tries
to
do
that
for
more
than
more
than
fight.
Oh
okay,
yeah.
B
M
E
A
I
So
they
would
drag
like
to
make
that
an
experiment,
but
if
using
the
prior
to
model-
and
they
started
diddling
with
the
DGP
markings,
they
also
build
the
the
queueing
priority.
Well,
that
isn't
implemented
either,
but
still
I
felt
that
this
was
not
right.
So
they
wanted
to
controls,
not
one,
because,
even
though
it
mostly
makes
sense
to
have
those
those
be
the
same
for
experimentation
purposes,
they're,
not
okay.
Next
side.
I
C
C
Stuff
up,
but
we're
not
slowing
stuff
down,
but
this
does
mean
incorporating
this
change
means
we
have
to
pull
the
crank
to
redo
a
targeted
working
group
last
call
on
this
particular
change
and
and
we're
gonna
require
our
a
our
Adi
can
tell
us
whether
or
not
we're
supposed
to
do
an
ITF
last
call
as
well
targeted
just
on
these
particular
changes.
My
theory
is
that
we
can
do
a
targeted
one
and
it'll
be
fine,
because
cluster
238
go
anywhere
and
yes
Adam.
This
is
the
second
one.
So.
A
Beyond
that
point
understand
that
if
you've
already
got
code
that
uses
the
single
parameter
in
the
way
it's
currently
described,
it
will
suddenly
be
turning
up
as
two
parameters.
If
we
approve
this
because
the
change
to
the
w3c
API
will
occur
so
if
you've
got
a
a
working
implementation,
that
does
it
this
way,
and
you
don't
want
to
change
it
now,
would
be
an
awfully
good
time
to
explain
what
I
think.
D
I'm
I'm
gonna
have
to
look
at
this
more
carefully.
I
I,
don't
have
any
context
for
what
happened
here,
but
in
terms
of
2:38
there's
actually
the
stuff
in
front
of
WebRTC
there's
like
twelve
documents,
and
most
of
them
are
like
really
close
to
being
done.
There's
not
as
much
in
the
way
of
publishing
these
you're
implying
but
like
I,
said
I,
haven't
time
to
look
at
this,
and
so
I
can't
even
really
speak
to
it.
All
that
well,
Colin.
G
I'm,
not
speaking
to
whether
this
is
a
good
idea
or
a
bad
idea,
but
I'm
speaking
to
what
it
what
the
change
is
is
right.
Now
the
transport
document
is
largely
written
on.
You
know.
There's
this
one
value,
there's
there's
one
one
value
that
can
be
set
to
for
enum
values
from
low
to
high,
and
it
controls
a
bunch
of
things
with
just
some
point
markings.
It
controls
a
bunch
of
other
things.
G
Instead,
they're
just
changing
it
into
two
things
with
the
same
four
enums
for
both
of
these
things,
the
WebRTC
part
of
it
is
done
in
the
backwards
compatible
way
where
nothing
changes
from
current
behavior.
You
know
you
have
to
use
a
new
and
different
API
to
set
these
things
independently.
I
I
think
this
change
is
really
pretty
minimal
in
the
what
you
need
to
review
or
how
much
what
it
changes
in
the
document.
G
The
questions
about
when
you
would
set
these
things
differently
or
what
it's
useful
for,
become
much
more
complicated
as
they
always
are,
with
priority
of
what
you
want.
You
know
how
well
users
know
what
to
set
these
differently
to
and
all
of
those
things,
but
the
experimentation
argument
is
fine
and
like
this
doesn't
stop
anyone
from
doing
it.
The
other
way
so
I
I,
don't
I
think
this
is
a
really
minor
change.
I
guess
is
the
argument
I'm
trying
to
make
for
so
so.
H
Fluffy
I'm
I'm
wondering
whether
or
not
because
the
transport
focuses
primarily
on
the
dscp
markings
and
the
translations
from
these
priorities
to
those
markings.
Is
it
possible
or
somehow
finagle
this
so
that
we
just
say
in
the
WebRTC
document
that
we
really
are
talking?
The
the
marking
priority
is
the
one
that
actually
applies
and
the
other
one
is
just
something:
that's
local
because
then
check.
A
Ten
Hardy
from
floor
might
I
I
think
you
may
have
just
handled
my
my
issue.
Let
me
confirm
my
understanding.
After
your
update
to
the
WebRTC
PR
somebody
who
uses
the
currently
shipping
mechanism
will
continue
to
use
this
mechanism
if
they
do
not
wish
to
experiment
with
having
these
sets.
Two
different
priorities
is
that
correct.
That
is
my
intention.
I
A
A
Yet,
okay,
because
that
actually
makes
a
pretty
basic
change
to
my
my
view
of
this,
because
my
honest
impression
is,
although
you
might
use
this
in
experimentation,
the
number
of
cases
in
the
wild,
where
you're
gonna
have
a
different
internal
queue,
priority
and
statement
to
the
wire
about
the
config.
The
actual
priority
for
this
set
of
enums
you
know
for
low
to
high,
is
really
kind
of
like
yeah
you're,
gonna
experiment
with
it
you're
gonna
decide
you're,
never
gonna.
A
Do
it
and
you're
always
going
to
set
them
to
be
the
same
I'm
not
willing
to
stake
large
sums
of
money
in
it,
but
I
would
bet
you
a
beer,
so
I
understand.
There
are
cases
people
are
floating
around,
but
I'm
gonna,
guess
the
90th
95
percent
of
the
time.
It's
it's
going
to
be
the
same
and
that
the
rest
of
the
time
it's
gonna
make
no
practical.
That's
I
could
be
just
cynical,
but
if
you're
gonna
be
able
to
keep
the
old
way
of
doing
things,
I
don't
care.
H
B
Is
done
so
I
mean
on
the
mailing
list.
We
had
the
discussion
around
this
issue
to
some
degree
and
and
I
not
convinced
it.
This
kind
of
use
case,
for
example,
for
all
the
Kodak,
is
that
you
really
set
a
low
bitrate
priority.
It's
yes,
that
you
want
to
cap
the
bitrate
at
some
given
level,
which
in
many
case,
makes
more
sense
in
this
kind
of,
say.
Okay,
this
is
an
important
stream,
but
when
you
get
into
this
point,
don't
give
it
more
bits
or
actually
change
the
priority.
B
That
you
say:
okay,
you
first
take
the
highest
rate,
give
them
certain
amount
of
bits,
and
then
you
use
one
to
the
next
cue
etc.
If
you
have
that
model,
you
assign
a
lot
of
bits.
That's
not
going
to
be
used
by
that
stream.
Even
but
if
the
bits
becomes
few,
then
you
actually
wanted
them.
So
that
means
that
you
need
to
track
the
bitrate
and
change
the
priority
settings
for
the
bit
priority
when
it
gets
really
low.
B
Otherwise
your
aquatic
will
get
less
than
you
intended
to
so
I,
don't
know
which
you
get
into
some
user
problems
depending
on
where
you
are
in
the
envelope
so
I
understand
this
is
I,
mean
finding
something
which
is
both
giving
the
flexibility
and
easy
to
use.
It's
actually
quite
hard.
I
think
yourself.
C
C
So
I'm
leading
up
to
a
hum
and
I'm
putting
you
on
the
spot,
purposely
I,
don't
want
you
to
hum
if
you
don't
get
what's
going
on,
I
want
you
to
hum
also
if
you
get
what's
going
on
so
what
I
would
like
to
do
now
is
hum
if
you
agree
with
incorporating
this
change.
Please
please
home.
Now,
if
you
agree
with
the
corporative
change.
C
Please
now,
if
you
think
this
change
should
not
be
incorporated
so
I'm
feeling
with
this,
this
should
not
be
incorporated
at
this
point.
That
consent
I
think
it's
rough
consensus.
The
change
should
not
be
incorporated
this
time.
C
Correct,
so
we're
not
going
to
do
that,
we're
going
to
close
this
poll
request
and
we're
not
going
to
need
a
an
additional
group.
Last
call
and
I
take
less
call
to
incorporate
this.
Thank
you
at
this
point.
The
only
remaining
issue
that
I
would
like
to
bring
up.
If
anyone
would
like
to
say
anything
is
about
this
feck
question.
I
know
that
Bernards
not
here
I,
don't
know.
If
anyone
else
who
knows
anything
about
the
fact
once
the
say
anything.
C
C
What
do
we
do
with
this?
I
would
like
to
help
Justin
get
done
with
this
particular
draft
I'm
trying
to
drive
consensus
purposely.
Does
anyone
want
to
get
to
the
microphone
to
speak
this
particular
issue
or
not?
If,
if
nothing
is
said,
I
think
that
we
should
probably
close
this
and
move
on.
I
am
now
opening
the
floor
for
you
to
get
to
the
microphone
to
go
one
way
or
the
other
on
this
particular
issue.
A
Ted
Hardy
I
actually
think
that
the
point
that
fluffy
made
pretty
early
on
is
is
kind
of
salient
and
that's
that
opus
requires
the
effect
to
be
sent.
What
you
do
with
the
fact
once
you
get
it
I
mean
the
extent
to
which
to
apply
it.
It's
kind
of
so-so
what
you're
saying
man
Tory
implement
or
descend.
Well,
that's
that's!
Actually
what
the
opus
RFC
says
if
you're
it
requires
it
to
be
possible
to
send.
K
Don't
Lex
I
mean
you
know
it's
a
tuning
parameter
for
a
sender,
decide
whether
to
turn
on
effect
or
not
in
any
given
time.
You
know
you
can
say
I
think
this.
You
know
I,
believe
that
my
connection
will
be
perfect.
I
never
ever
mean
disinfect
information.
On
the
receive
side,
I
mean
there's
no
like
negotiation
as
to
whether
you
support
fecund,
payload
format,
but
you're
not
I
mean
the
decoder
process
is
not
required
to
use
it,
but
you'd
be
stupid
not
to
if
somebody
happens
to
be
sending
it.
G
So
I
think
we're
getting
a
little
bit
sidetracked
here
that
we're
reading
this
too
literally
I
think
that
Bernards
case
was
using
faq,
it's
not
really
very
and
that
using
the
opus
built.
In
fact,
it's
not
really
very
effective,
was
what
their
tests
found
compared
to
something
like
flex
family.
So
our.
G
Don't
we,
why
don't
we
construct
an
email
to
the
de
Bernard
and
see
if
that,
if
a
he
can
live
with
that,
and
if
be
it's,
it's
you
know
SUNY
consistent
with
what
he
was
thinking
and
if
he
is
that
I
think
that
you
know
thinks
there's
so
much
deeper
issue.
The
working
group
needs
to
deal
with.
We
can.
We
can
bring
this
back,
but
now.