►
From YouTube: IETF Operations, Administration, and Technical Plenary
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We
get
started,
I
asked
them
a
couple
of
things:
I
asked
them
what's
the
best
thing
that
has
stayed
the
same
about
the
IETF
since
the
beginning.
What's
the
best
thing
that
has
changed
and
I
asked
for
some
anecdotes
to
be
able
to
share
so
I
wanted
to
tell
people
a
little
bit
about
what
I
learned
in
this
process.
A
The
first
thing
I
learned
is
that
this
isn't
actually
IETF
100
its
IETF
99
according
to
some
people
who
were
there
from
the
beginning.
This
is
the
front
page
of
the
proceedings
from
what
what
is
known
as
IETF,
1
and
you'll.
Note
that
the
title
of
the
meeting
is
not
that
doesn't
have
the
word
IGF
in
it.
A
It
was
actually
the
gateway
algorithms
and
data
structured
task
force
that
was
meeting
and
it
didn't
become
an
IETF
meeting
until
halfway
through
the
first
day
so
and
and
and
you'll
see,
you'll
note
that,
actually,
if
you,
if
you
look
closely
at
this,
which
you
maybe
can't
see
on
the
slide,
it's
like
this
piece
of
something
is
taped
over.
That
says
first
idea,
so
this
little
trickery
of
labeling
going
on
there
and
you
know
the
lesson
we
learned
from
this-
is
that
we
don't
actually
know
how
to
count.
A
A
A
A
And
if
you've
been
participating
since
the
80s-
and
you
already
have
those
35
year,
friends,
you
can
think
to
yourself
those
friendships
have
lasted
twice
as
long
as
the
average
marriage
already.
This
is
this
is
what
the
IETF
inspires.
Some
people
right,
it's
amazing,
but
we
must
be
doing
something
right
if
we're
bringing
people
together,
who
you
know,
remain
friends
for
that
long,
we
use
this
term
community
a
lot
in
our
in
our
daily
life.
Probably
you
probably
heard
it.
A
The
last
thing
that
I
learned
was
about
the
sort
of
spirit
that
permeates
the
halls
of
these
meetings.
I
asked
people
what
was
the
best
thing
that
hasn't
changed,
and
there
was
a
just
remarkable
consistency
to
the
answers
here.
So
one
person
told
me
that
talked
about
people
working
together
towards
a
common
goal.
Another
person
said:
there's
a
general
feeling
of
collaboration
for
the
greater
good,
essential
people.
Doing
the
right
thing.
A
I
mean
listen
to
this
stuff
right,
like
think
about
which
other
sdo
do
you
go
to,
and
this
is
what
they
they
tell
you
it's
about
the
commitment
of
its
people
to
help
the
Internet
grow.
There's
really
a
sense
here
that
people
come
together,
not
necessarily
because
they
are
you
know,
motivated
by
their
employer
or
even
personally
motivated,
but
motivated
to
give
something
back
to
contribute
to
something
larger
than
just
their
own
project,
but
to
but
to
come
and
collaborate
to
create
something
larger
than
themselves
and
I.
A
Here's
our
agenda
for
today
we're
going
to
hear
a
few
words
from
the
host
of
this
meeting.
Then
we'll
do
brief,
updates
on
hot
topics
from
me,
from
the
administrative
side,
Leslie
and
Portia,
and
from
the
NomCom
Peter
ghee,
a
quick
preview
of
ITF
101,
then
we'll
have
a
recognition
of
some
individuals
who
are
stepping
away
from
the
ITF
we'll
have
the
presentation
of
the
Postell
award
from
my
sock
and
then
we'll
have
the
technical
plenary
portion,
which
is
doing
a
forward.
B
Hello:
everyone
thanks
for
coming
to
the
hundredth
IETF
I'm
Dave
Ward
from
Cisco.
Many
folks
have
heard
of
Cisco
before
so.
I'm
gonna
skip
the
marketing
speech.
If
you're
not
familiar
with
you,
if
you're
not
familiar
with
us
our
rapid
sales,
seemingly
after
you
shortly,
but
there
are
a
couple
people
that
I
want
to
call
out.
Specifically
one
many
of
you
met
as
not
only
did
she
hand
you
your
cool
and
awesome
circuit,
Singaporean
lion
logo
t-shirt.
B
She
also
single-handedly
arranged
the
social
event
last
night
at
the
aquarium
that
I
thought
was
just
simply
fantastic
at
an
outstanding
venue
and
Kwan
Fong
took
the
day
off
today.
Well
deserved.
But
when
you
see
her
around
tomorrow
or
the
next
day,
please
say
thank
adore.
She
did
all
of
that
work
single-handedly.
B
B
A
All
right
so
moving
on
to
IETF
/I,
HG
hot
topics,
we've
covered
a
bunch
of
these
topics
in
a
written
report
that
was
sent
to
the
IHF
mailing
list
last
week.
So
there's
a
lot
more
detail,
they're
just
going
to
cover
the
highlights
in
the
interests
of
brevity.
So
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
participant
statistics
for
this
meeting.
We
have
a
few
requests
out
to
the
community
that
I
wanted
to
highlight,
for
people
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
side,
meetings,
experiment
and
the
code
lounge
at
this
meeting.
A
Hopefully,
people
have
made
use
of
those
is
a
2.0
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
and
the
ITF
website
revamp
so
the
participant
statistics
we
have
1011
people
on
site
and
142,
first-time
attendees,
so
a
participant
profile
pretty
similar
to
the
meeting
we
had
last
year.
At
this
time
and
Sol,
you
can
see
the
distribution
of
folks
from
different
countries.
A
A
All
you
need
to
do
is
send
name
email
and
qualifications
to
the
IAS,
G,
alias
and
those
nominations
close
at
the
end
of
this
week.
So
if
you
know
of
somebody
who
you
think
wants
to
jump
into
the
administrative
side
of
the
ITF,
please
send
us
a
note.
We
also
have
a
note
out
from
Spencer
seeking
people's
input
about
our
expression
of
our
expectations
for
bringing
new
work
into
the
IETF.
A
The
very
short
summary
is
that
we're
hoping
to
have
earlier
notice
when
people
want
to
bring
new
work
in
and
more
attention
to
the
specific
work
items
in
the
proposals
for
new
work.
There's
a
somewhat
lengthy
thread
on
the
IETF
mailing
list
about
this,
so
I
encourage
you
to
check
it
out
and
send
send
us
your
thoughts.
If
you
have
them,
there's
also
a
couple
of
requests
out
from
the
IAB
to
the
community.
The
IAB
is
not
giving
a
presentation
up
here,
but
I
wanted
to
flag
those
for
people
as
well.
A
We're
looking
for
volunteers
for
the
ican,
technical
liaison
group.
Again,
you
can
send
email
to
the
IAB
chair
and
the
executive
director
if
you're
interested
in
serving
in
this
capacity
and
the
deadline
for
that
is
November
29th
and
then
just
yesterday,
we
also
announced
that
we
are
seeking
candidates
to
join.
The
I
saw
cord
of
Trustees
there's
kind
of
a
staggered,
a
nomination
or
appointment
process
that
goes
on
for
that
board.
So
this
year
we're
nominating.
A
We
need
to
select
two
people,
so
please
send
your
nominations
to
the
executive
director
of
the
IAB
and
those
close
on
january
9th
side
meetings
and
the
code
lounge.
So
we
started
this
experiment
back
at
IETF,
99
with
side
meetings
having
an
online
signup
process
and
we've
adjusted
it
somewhat
at
this
meeting,
based
on
the
community
feedback
from
that
meeting.
So
this
time
we
had
both
a
larger
room
and
a
smaller
room
that
were
booked
Abul
in
advance.
A
They
both
had
projectors
and
the
sign
up
for
the
meal
slots
we
transitioned
to
being
only
on
site
because
they
they
became
very
contended,
so
didn't
really
work
out
that
well
last
time
we
also
have
included
now
in
the
sign
on
the
signup
page
and
then
the
emails,
a
reminder
about
the
IETF
meeting
rooms
policy.
There
was
some
concern
that
the
side
meeting
room
signup
was
being
used
to
circumvent
the
meeting
rooms
policy,
which
describes
which
kinds
of
organizations
can
use
the
space
for
for
free
and
which
need
to
pay.
A
So
folks
should
keep
that
in
mind
when
you're
signing
up
for
side
meetings,
but
hopefully
people
have
had
a
chance
to
make
use
of
the
side
means
room
and
we'd
appreciate
continued
feedback
about
how
we,
how
people
think
that
experiment
is
going.
We
also
had
the
code
lounge
for
the
first
time
at
this
ITF,
so
this
was
a
portion
of
the
ITF
lounge
that
was
set
aside
for
working
group
chairs
to
be
able
to
reserve
time
for
coding
sessions
amongst
their
participants
and
again
definitely
looking
for
feedback
I.
A
Those
arrangements
are
more
than
10
years
old,
so
it
seemed
like
a
good
time
to
revisit
there's
a
design
team
that
was
set
up
a
couple
of
months
ago
to
start
exploring
some
options
for
this,
and
they
have
a
very
nice
document
that
I
encourage
people
to
go.
Take
a
look
at
they've,
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
fleshing
out
the
problem
statement.
What
the
requirements
are
for
the
future
and
exploring
some
3
3
specific
options.
A
A
The
phase
that
we're
in
now
is
really
a
fine-tuning
phase,
so
we've
had
many
rounds
of
feedback
from
focus
groups
and
then
from
the
broader
community
over
the
last
several
months,
we're
hoping
to
move
it
to
production
after
IETF
100.
So
you
can
take
a
look
at
it.
It's
at
beta
IETF
data
work
and
continue
to
provide
feedback.
Some
folks
are
providing
feedback
on
the
IETF
mailing
list,
which
is
great.
A
You
can
also
file
issues
in
github
or
send
email
directly
to
webmaster
at
IETF
Torg,
there's
Greg,
wood,
where's,
Greg
wood
he's
also
has
who's
who's
been.
Managing
this
project
has
a
table
at
near
ITF
registration,
where
you
can
go
provide
feedback
as
well
another
couple
of
announcements
from
the
IAB
and
that
the
IAB
wanted
me
to
relay
they've
done
two
appointments
recently.
The
first
one
is
for
the
independent
series
editor.
A
So
after
many
years
of
service,
Neville
Brownlee
will
be
ending
his
term
as
IOC,
and
the
IAB
has
appointed
Adrian
Farrell
to
take
on
the
helm
in
February.
We
also
recently
reappointed
Heather
Flanagan,
as
the
RFC
series
editor.
That's
one
of
the
important
duties
of
the
IAB.
So
thank
you
both
to
Neville
and
Adrian
and
Heather
for
your
willingness
to
continue.
A
So
there's
a
bunch
more
in
the
written
report
online.
As
I
said
a
little
bit
more
about
experiments
note
about
Appeals.
There
have
been
none
since
I
HAF
99
status,
update
on
the
project
to
help
remediate
some
of
the
Demark
issues
on
the
ITF
mailing
lists
and
lots
of
other
reports
from
from
the
other
bodies.
You
can
also
always
check
out
the
ITF
blog,
where
we
try
to
keep
fresh
content
coming
all
the
time
about
what's
going
on
in
the
ITF
and
with
that
I
would
invite
Leslie
and
push
up
or
administrative
hot
topics.
C
D
F
E
E
Thank
you,
I'll
get
there.
Would
you
like
me
to
come
down
and
watch
what
you're
doing
all
right
and
I'll
be
checking
all
your
computing
as
we
go
along
through
the
evening,
all
right,
so
my
name
is
still
Leslie
Daigle
I'm,
chair
of
the
IOC
and
as
a
first
hot
topic
from
from
our
end,
it
is
my
pleasure
to
to
introduce
you
to
you
all
know
that
we've
hired
an
interim
IAD
since
you
all
read
your
email
right.
G
G
Thank
you
again
to
Cisco
for
sponsoring
the
hackathon
and
support
also
provided
by
Cisco,
and
we
also
would
like
to
acknowledge
our
volunteers
for
in
their
not
team,
and
our
line.
Speed
is
our
contractor
for
the
network
and
which
is
led
by
Rick
Alfred,
and
the
NOC
is
also
led
by
Jim
Martin
and
a
host
of
volunteers
that
are
listed
there
on
the
slide,
and
we
also
have
meet
echo.
Who
is
a
contractor
responsible
for
seamlessly
connecting
remote
participants
in
the
meeting
to
the
meeting?
G
E
Great,
thank
you.
So
a
few
IOC
updates,
particularly
the
much
long-awaited
privacy
policy
update
and
the
second
one,
the
document
authentication
policy.
If
that
doesn't
sound
familiar
it
may
have
been.
You
may
have
heard
it
referred
to
as
a
subpoena
policy.
They
are
updated
since
our
last
meeting
and
available
online.
E
E
We
are
under
budget
on
revenues.
So
if
we
look
at
the
Singapore
meeting
so
far,
and
these
numbers
are
slightly
different
than
the
ones
that
ELISA
presented
in
part
because
they
were
collected
I-
think
a
couple
of
days
earlier,
but
still
even
at
the
slightly
north
of
1000
number
that
ELISA
had
on
her
slide
were
a
couple
hundred
attendees
short
of
where
we
thought
we
were
going
to
be
for
this
meeting.
E
We
do
have
quite
a
number
of
registered
remote
participants
and
a
number
of
people
had
visas
had
visas
issued
so
that
they
come
could
come
and
participate
in
this
meeting.
So
the
Singapore
meeting
will
have
more
data
when
the
dust
settles,
of
course,
but
I
think
we're
beginning
to
see
something
of
a
I
won't
say
concerning
trend,
but
from
a
financial
perspective.
It's
a
concerning
trend.
E
E
E
E
You
know
our
crystal
ball
is
well
informed
by
data,
but
otherwise
no
better
than
anybody
else's
crystal
ball,
and
so
between
the
is
a
2.0
work,
where
you
know
we're
looking
at
possible
structural
changes
and
the
fact
that
you
know
we
know
that
we
need
to
have
a
look,
the
overall
financial
model
of
the
ietf.
Where
do
we
lean
to
get
financial
support
for
the
work
of
the
IETF
and
and
how
can
we,
you
know,
find
more
of
it
and/or,
better
support
ourselves.
E
All
of
these
things
may
change
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everybody
is
clear
on
sort
of
the
trend
lines
that
we've
got
and
to
expect
sadly,
more
discussions
about
this
in
the
coming
years.
There
is
no
specific
plan
in
hand
today
and,
as
I
said,
there
is
not
currently
meeting
registration
fee
increase
planned
for
2018,
but
we
have
to
figure
out.
We
can't
continue.
We
live
on
on
a
negative
incline
and
we'll
have
to
have
some
hard
discussions
in
the
coming
months,
so
not
to
end
on
a
downer,
but
thank
you.
H
H
H
The
deadline
for
feedback
is
next
Friday,
the
24th
and,
of
course,
for
those
of
you
who
have
holidays
next
week.
Maybe
this
week
would
be
a
really
good
time
to
get
that
feedback
in.
If
you
wish
to
send
feedback
on
individual
candidates,
you
can
do
so
through
the
NomCom
website.
There
down
at
the
bottom,
you
can
send
e-mail
if
you
want
to
just
cover.
H
You
know
the
general
topic
of
an
area
that
you
want
to
send
input
on,
and
if
you
wanted
to
send
anonymous
input,
you
can
send
that
to
the
chair,
alias
and
I
can
enter
that
either
anonymously
into
the
data
tracker
or
share
it
without
attribution
to
the
rest
of
the
NomCom.
So
our
plans
then,
are
to
continue
working
through
the
nomination
nominee
interviews
and
we
hope
to
have
decisions
taken
by
January
and
then
submitted
to
the
confirming
bodies.
Thank
you.
A
So
just
a
quick
note
about
our
next
meeting,
ITF
101,
which
will
be
in
London
co-hosted
by
Google
and
I,
can
so
everybody
hopefully
is
planning
to
attend
that
one
and
big
thanks
to
Google
on
I
can
for
for
agreeing
to
host.
Typically,
we
have
a
little
preview
of
the
next
meeting,
but
they
both
thought
we
could
better
use
the
time
charging
forth
on
the
plenary
agenda.
So
thank
you
for
that.
E
So,
as
many
of
you
know,
ray
Pelletier
became
our
first
IETF
administrative
director
in
2005
and
double
bonus
points
for
those
of
you
who
are
reading
your
email.
You
know
that
he
retired
from
that
position
on
October
31st.
So
in
2005
the
IETF
had
met
only
for
about
60
odd
meetings
and
we
know
they're
pretty
odd
meetings.
It
was
supported
by
the
contributed
efforts
of
a
few
organizations,
integrated
administer
of
machine,
and
so
there's
just
one
more
thing
to
say
and
that's
Thank
You
ray
Pelletier.
I
J
And
I
usually
stood
up
here
as
usually
make
thank
yous
and
well
I
change.
Anything
I
do
when
I
make
some
thank
yous.
I
did
prepare
about
15
slides,
but
it
was
suggested
that
perhaps
I
shouldn't
do
that.
I
do
want
to
say
that
you
know
the
IAD
position
is
just
one
part
of
the
IETF
support
organization.
J
I've
been
here
12
and
a
half
years
and
I've
worked
with
a
numerous
people
on
the
IOC,
all
the
IETF
IOC
committees
that
we
have
all
the
volunteers
like
in
the
NOC
and
the
code
sprint
all
the
contractors,
the
Secretariat,
the
RFC
editor
veralyn
line,
speed.
All
those
and
me
deco,
my
Italian
friends,
all
the
sponsors,
global
hosts
and
all
the
other
hosts
and
connectivity
sponsors
I
sock
has
contributed
close
to
20
million
dollars
over
this
period
of
time
in
support,
as
well
as
providing
some
accounting,
legal
and
financial
support.
J
J
It
meant
a
lot
to
me
to
be
doing
something
that
meant
a
lot
to
to
others
and
I'm
very
happy
to
have
tributed
in
a
small
way
to
the
work
that
you
had
done
and
over
these
12
years
it's
been
four
thousand
plus
RFC's
that
were
developed.
I
didn't
write
one
of
them,
nor
could
I
I
couldn't
possibly
do
your
job
and
I
have
a
tremendous
respect
and
admiration
for
all
of
you.
J
So
it's
really
been
an
honor
and
a
privilege
to
have
supported
your
efforts
in
the
in
the
small,
in
the
small
way
that
I
could
possibly
do
that.
So
in
every
meeting
that
I
always
get
one
question
and
it's
not
about
the
cookies
and
the
question
is
something
that
come
up
to
me
after
a
16
or
17
weeks
in
which
we've
been
apart
and
they'll
shake
my
hand
and
look
over
my
shoulder
and
say
where's,
ro
and
so
for
every
meeting
my
wife
has
been
with
me.
J
J
A
J
I
get
to
say
thank
you
for
for
20
years,
we've
had
one
counsel
for
the
IETF
and
then
for
the
IETF
trust
and
Georg
Contreras
has
been
that
counsel
and
he's
been
the
person
to
who
I
have
turned
to,
and
we
have
turned
to
throughout
these
many
years
having
to
do
with
intellectual
property
and
subpoenas
and
documents
and
affidavits,
etc.
It's
just
trademarks,
it's
a
tremendous
amount
of
work.
George.
Where
are
you
you're
supposed
to
be
here?
We
told
you
to
be
here.
You
here
come
up
here,
come
on.
Okay,.
L
L
Don't
that
good
in
it,
but
the
t-shirts
good,
so
I
started
representing
ITF
under
the
administration
of
Fred
Baker
and
then
served
through
the
administration's
of
Harold
Alvis
Ron,
Brian,
carpenter,
Russ,
Housley,
er,
ER,
CO
and
now
briefly,
ELISA
Cooper,
and
you
know
by
DC
standards.
That's
pretty
good!
That's
pretty
good
record!
L
So
when
I,
when
Harold
became
ITF
chair,
he
came
to
Washington
to
meet
and
our
offices
were
at
the
the
Willard
office
building
Pennsylvania
Avenue
two
blocks
from
the
White
House
and
we
set
up
on
this
roof
terrace
and
had
this
conversation-
and
he
asked
me
in
that-
you
know
Norwegian,
charming,
Norwegian
accent.
I
was
like
what
do
you
do
and
I
don't
know,
I
didn't
know
how
they
I
still
don't
know
what
the
answer
is,
but
you
know
we've
done
it
for
a
long
time.
L
So,
thanks
a
lot
ray,
you
know,
has
been
a
stalwart
and
a
great
supporter
over
all
these
years.
He's
also
a
lawyer,
believe
it
or
not
that
he
will
not
admit
it.
I
have
it
on
good
authority
that
he's
a
lawyer
too,
but
he's
he's
been
great,
as
have
so
many
other
people
at
I,
ATF
and
I.
Do
want
to
thank
especially
Scott
Brandner,
who
I
know
is
not
here
in
Singapore,
but
he
really
is
the
one
who
is
behind
the
spirit
of
the
IPR
policies
and
many
of
the
policies
that
we
have
at
IETF.
L
M
M
Okay,
so
Neville
was
appointed
as
independent
submissions
editor
in
2010.
Now
that
was
in
the
midst
of
a
fairly
tumultuous
time
for
the
RFC
editor
in
particular,
because
that's
when
we
were
transitioning
from
ISI
to
ms,
we
worked
through
a
couple
of
RFC
series,
editor
transitional,
acting
and
current,
and
we
spent
some
quality
time
figuring
out.
M
What
we
needed
to
do
next
and
as
with
many
of
the
positions
in
and
around
the
ietf
Neville's
appointment,
as
is
II,
was
as
much
him
stepping
up
to
the
plate
as
it
was
him
not
running
fast
enough
when
Brian,
Carpenter
and
others
approached
him
for
applying
for
the
position.
So
Neville
is
a
editor
of
many
talents.
He
plays
a
piano
unless
there's
a
sign
on
it,
saying
don't
touch
it.
He
practices
yoga
and
the
skills
he
brings.
M
As
a
professor
and
a
grandfather,
no
doubt
served
him
quite
well
in
dealing
with
authors
and
let's
not
forget
the
phrase
you
know
if
I
need
help,
I'll
ask
for
it
a
phrase
he
used
quite
often
with
the
iesg
enough
that
they
gave
him
a
t-shirt
which
I
believe
he
was
wearing
earlier
today.
M
So
I'd
like
to
offer
thanks
on
behalf
of
the
RFC
editor
team
and
many
others
for
all
the
sanity
that
you
brought
to
the
role
and
all
the
help
you've
been
to
us
over
the
last
seven
years
and
I
hope
you
remember
the
fun
times,
because
there
were
some
fun
times
and
the
fun
times
sort
of
come
in
the
form
of
this
book.
Of
all
the
April
first
RFC's
that
have
been
published
since
1978.
M
N
D
D
I've
published
what
I
think
a
fairly
long
list
of
worthwhile
RFC's
and
I've
had
a
lot
of
fun.
Looking
at
the
April
first
RFC's,
which
are
very
special
because,
of
course
they
don't
exist,
there
are
no
internet
drafts
for
them
beforehand
and
along
the
way,
I've
certainly
met
a
lot
of
people
whom
I
would
not
otherwise
have
met
and
I've
really
enjoyed
working
with
them
and
helping
them.
So,
thank
you
very
much
for
all
this.
K
So
we
think
of
him
today,
as
we
honor
yet
another
one
of
our
outstanding
colleagues,
so
the
Jonathan
be
Postell
award
was
established
by
the
internet
society
to
honor
individuals
or
organizations
that,
like
John,
have
made
outstanding
contributions
in
service
to
the
data
communications
community.
The
award
is
focused
on
sustained
and
substantial
technical
contributions
service
to
the
community
and
leadership.
K
O
So
they
see
you're
not
going
to
get
the
award
just
now.
My
name
is
Olaf
Coleman,
chief
internet
technology
officer
from
the
internet
society.
Let
me
share
with
you:
I
am
so
happy
and
proud
that
I
am
allowed
to
hand
over
the
award
to
Casey
Casey
lates
Kara,
not
Qaeda.
I
was
just
explained
that
that
is
the
wrong
way
to
pronounce
it
the
center
of
a
plight.
Internet
data
analysis
kaida,
is
a
unique
place.
It's
one
of
these
places
where
scientific
rigor
applied
measurements,
open
data
and
the
Internet
come
together
on
the
science.
O
O
Jana
has
also
become
the
go-to
place
to
get
inside
on
the
large-scale
topology
of
the
internet,
the
place
to
get
neutral
data
that
will
inform
both
engineers
and
policy
makers
in
their
world,
and,
if
you
want
to
have
a
map
of
the
Internet
topology
know
more
about
spoofed
addresses,
IP,
reputations,
large
scale,
outages,
etc,
etc.
You
go
to
Kayla.
O
It
is
that
body
of
work
that
forms
the
basis
for
evidence
based
work
both
in
the
technical
and
the
policy
domain,
and
that's
not
all
Casey,
has
always
promoted
sharing
of
data.
The
core
of
scientific
work
is
that
data
that
experiments
are
reproducible
and
when
data
is
hard
to
gather
which,
on
the
internet
that
this
is,
it
is
very
important
to
make
it
available
to
the
rest
of
the
community
in
the
interest
of
science
in
Casey,
has
always
made
that
a
commitment
that
commitment
the
cornerstone
of
her
work.
C
P
P
Total
honor,
surprising,
honor,
total
shock
I
haven't
been
to
one
of
these
meetings
in
15
years.
Many
of
you
were
coming
up
to
me
and
saying
what
are
you
doing
here?
Casey,
it's
been
great
to
see
you
all,
and
some
of
you
haven't
yet
connected
with,
and
please
find
me
before.
I
leave
I'm
here
till
Saturday,
so
you
know
my
email
address
is
Casey.
It's
something,
and
the
other
reason
is
that
I'm
tend
to
focus
more
on
what
we
haven't
accomplished
yet,
rather
than
what
we
have
I
had
no
idea.
P
Then
the
editor
of
this
document,
the
host
requirements
document,
says
the
following:
software
should
be
written
to
deal
with
every
conceivable
error,
no
matter
how
unlikely,
sooner
or
later,
a
packet
will
come
in
with
that
particular
combination
of
errors
and
attributes,
and
unless
the
software
is
prepared,
chaos
can
ensue
1989
in
general.
It
is
best
to
assume
that
the
network
is
filled
with
malevolent
entities
that
will
send
in
packets
designed
to
have
the
worst
possible
effect,
no
IOT
back
then
1989.
Next,
he
gets
a
little
more
optimistic.
This
assumption
will
lead
to
suitable
protective
design.
P
Although
the
most
serious
problem
in
the
Internet
have
been
mysterious,
problems
have
been
caused
by
uninvited
mechanisms
triggered
by
low
probability.
Invents
mere
human
malice
would
never
have
taken
so
obvious,
of
course,
exclamation
point
30
years
ago,
that
is-
and
that
was
twenty
years
after
the
ARPANET
DARPA
in
1969,
so
we're
50
years
into
this
people.
We
are
old.
We
are
like
the
Bell
heads
that
we
used
to
call
the
old
people
thirty
years
ago,
and
then
we
were,
they
were
just
building
a
network.
P
They
didn't
well
in
1989,
even
in
1989.
They
knew
the
promise
and
perils
of
the
of
the
Internet
and,
of
course,
even
John
knew.
We
have
to
do
something
to
prevent
the
chaos.
There
needs
to
be
a
bureau
of
Internet
numbers
and,
and
he
became
it
today.
The
promise
and
the
perils
are
much
stronger
and
much
harder
to
measure.
They
go
up
many
layers
and
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
needed
in
the
next
twenty
years
than
in
the
last
twenty.
P
So
this
award
really
did
make
me
take
stock
of
where
we've
been,
although
I
didn't
count
papers
and
we
are
going
into
writing
our
programs
and
quedas
program
planned
for
the
next
four
years
and
came
in
a
really
profound
time
for
us.
So
just
to
give
you
an
idea,
one
of
the
things
we're
going
to
try
to
do
in
the
next
four
years,
the
fantastic
group.
There
was
a
slide
of
all
the
people
at
kata
that
are
doing
the
real
work,
so
I
feel
bad.
Taking
credit
for
all
the
real
work
happens
back
there.
P
As
you
know,
if
you
lead
a
group,
one
of
the
things
we're
gonna
do
in
the
next
few
years
is
tie
together
a
bunch
of
the
measuring
projects
that
exist
at
kata
that
are
a
little
bit
siloed
and
don't
have
a
unified
interface
and
try
to
create
a
bit
of
it.
Make
it
easier
to
get
access
to
some
of
this
data,
then
I
know
people
use,
but
I
know
it
could
be
easier
to
use.
P
So
in
that
line,
I'm
gonna
do
one
plug
for
a
kata
project
and
then
get
off
the
stage
and
watch
people
on
the
panel
talk
about
how
to
measure
the
future
of
the
internet,
maybe-
which
is
quite
a
few
things
about
the
Internet.
You
can
measure
from
anywhere
like
ipv6,
whether
if
something
is
supporting
ipv6
or
DNS
SEC,
and
you
might
get
really
depressed
if
you
do
try
to
measure
it
which
I
have
in
the
past.
P
However,
there's
one
thing-
and
it's
also
a
35
year
old
problem,
internet
called
ingress,
filtering
or
pcp
38
that
you
it's
very
hard
to
measure
from
anywhere
on
the
internet.
So
it's
very
hard
for
researchers
to
do
it.
The
only
real
way
to
measure
it
now.
This
is
not
quite
true,
but
I'll.
Oversimplify
for
right
now
is
to
get
inside
each
network
and
measure
it.
P
Misaligned
configuration
that
you
would
have
to
put
into
your
routers
in
order
to
protect
the
rest
of
the
internet
from
somebody
in
your
network
sending
traffic
that
maybe
a
tagged
traffic
that
has
a
fake
address
and
you
can't
then
easily
trace
back
to
the
source
of
the
problem.
So
group
akkada
good
for
folks
akkada,
have
built
a
tool
called
spoofer.
A
org
and
I
guarantee
you
well
I
propose
there
is
nothing
else.
You
can
do
in
60
seconds
that
will
have
an
impact
on
Internet
security.
Like
this.
P
P
You
go
around
the
world
and
it
will
test
that
weather
that
Network
can
spoof
by
sending
various
types
of
speed,
packets
back
to
trusted,
servers,
akkada,
and
then
we
analyze,
which
networks
can
and
can't
spoof,
and
you
can
see
all
of
the
data
you
can
opt
out
to
having
it
be
published
on
anonymized,
and
then
we
share
aggregated
versions
of
this
data.
For
with
we
share
aggregated
versions
publicly,
we
share
a
nun,
anonymized
versions
with
remediation
authorities
to
help
clean
up
this
35
year
old
problem.
P
So
we're
still
going
with
the
protocol,
where
you
can
put
a
fake
source
address
in
the
packet
guys
I'm
a
little
worried
about
that.
But
as
long
as
we
still
have
that
be
the
protocol,
we
better
get
better
measurement
of
it.
So
that's
one
of
the
small
pieces
that
we're
working
on
and
I
will
end
on
that
note
and
give
you
a
business
card
to
deploy
it.
If
you
want.
Thank
you
very
much
guys.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
A
A
R
S
I
could
evening
I'm
Brian
Trammell,
as
you
may
have
noticed,
this
is
ITF
100
from
the
champagne
and
whatnot
we've
done
some
looking
back
and
often
the
tech
plenary,
we
look
forward.
We
look
at
things
that
are
happening
right
now
or
happening.
You
know
in
the
coming
year
or
two
years,
things
that
we
think
are
short
upcoming
developments,
we're
going
to
do
something
a
little
different
tonight.
S
We
have
we're
gonna,
look
a
little
bit
further
ahead
at
this
milestone,
so
we've
had
100
meetings,
as
we've
heard
in
a
couple
of
speeches
before
the
Internet
has
changed
a
lot
during
that
time.
In
some
ways
it's
changed
a
little
less.
A
lot
of
that
is
in
part
to
what
we
do
here.
So
the
question
that
we
want
to
ask
is:
what
will
the
internet
look
like
at
the
time
of
IETF
200?
So
we've
asked
a
panel
of
people,
some,
some
of
whom
many
of
us
know.
S
The
talk
was
tonight
about
this
question
for
variety
of
different
perspectives.
So
we
have
first
jr.
I,
he's
the
founder
of
the
wide
project,
professor
at
Keio
University,
with
a
focus
on
global
computer
networking
and
communication
he's
known
as
the
father
of
Japan's
internet
or
the
internet
samurai.
We
have
hitting
children
a
chair
of
the
department
of
computer
science
at
Columbia,
University
in
New,
York
and
juanique
Moreau
president
and
co-founder
of
the
human
internet,
humanized
internet.
Sorry,
a
nonprofit
organization
focused
on
providing
digital
identity
for
those
individuals,
most
underserved.
R
T
T
Okay,
good
evening,
everybody,
this
is
Jim
Wright
and
from
from
wide
project,
K
University
and
the
eyes.
I
put
my
total
internet
civilization.
But
you
know
it
means
that
any
of
the
space
of
the
life
on
this
planet
then
I
know
it's
a
it's
a
no,
no,
no
place
without
the
internet,
no
activities,
no
life,
no
industry
without
the
internet
when
we
think
about
the
200
ITF
time
right,
and
so
we
already
understand
that
kind
of
a
situation
already.
So
therefore,
I
called
it
internet
civilization.
T
But
anyway,
I
myself
have
been
in
a
participating
on
the
ITF
long
time
ago,
like
I,
feel
gross
time
and
then
I've
been
participating
on
a
developing
the
technology,
and
then
they
know
when
we
are
working
as
a
part
of
the
university
activities,
and
then
they
know
around
connecting
with
the
universities
around
the
world
and
the
dad
was
academic
network,
and
then
they
know
that
we
didn't
understand
the
national
boundary
at
all.
So
that's
how
we
developed
the
internet
and
that
therefore,
there
it's
a
very
interesting
space.
T
So
we
have
been,
you
know,
developing
the
internet,
bridging
the
the
other
space
beyond
the
border
about
Nations,
and
then
we
didn't
even
think
about
the
nation's
border
and
probably
that's
one
of
the
reason.
I
was
sitting
here
and
discussing
with
many
of
the
people,
because
I'm
the
other
side
of
the
Pacific
Ocean
and
then
many
people
sitting
in
the
know
this
place.
Is
there
my
site,
I'm?
Sorry,
when
I
first
participated
in
the
United
States,
you
know
that's
the
time
but
anyway.
T
K
T
The
Internet,
then
they
know
that's
a
lot
of
beyond
the
data
beyond
the
silo
be
under
particles,
bridging
impacts,
it's
happening
and
they're
there
for
the
that
impact
of
the
Internet
and
the
Internet
State
in
the
single
internet
around
the
world.
In
the
global
space.
That
kind
of
a
concept
and
a
principle
is
a
very
much
you
know
creating
the
any
possibility
on
the
human
being
that
the
collaborations
are
beyond
the
borders
in
the
den
I
know.
Also,
a
service
platform
is
a
created
on
top
of
it,
and
probably
the
data
necessary
be
IOT.
T
But
you
know
the
digital
data
is
a
transmitted
and
exchanged
over
the
Internet
and
then
a
service
platform.
Like
you
know,
people
can
utilizing
their
creativity
and
the
wisdom
to
on
the
platform
of
the
first
platform.
Like
you
know,
web
architecture
and
the
other
thing,
therefore,
the
a
lot
of
new
things
happening,
and
then
ideas
can
be
implemented
on
the
common
platform
that
standardization
by
technology.
But
when
we
think
about
the
standardization
with
technology,
then
IDF
is
concentrating
on
in
a
bottom
of
the
idea,
an
internet
part
only
in
the
10.
T
A
knows
that,
as
we
all
know,
that
web
architecture
html5
standard
HTML
standard
is
a
split
into
the
w3c.
So
as
the
many
of
the
service
platform
application
area
is
a
creating
the
different
type
of
their
standard.
So
that's
one
of
the
concern
we
are
now
facing
at
that.
The
internet
Committee
here
is
a
thinking
about
the
internet
layer
in
the
de
Nino,
but
we
a
long
time
ago
we
worked.
We
worked
on.
You
know
many
of
the
application
area
as
well
and
then
I,
sometimes
it's
written
into
the
various
technologies.
T
Therefore,
there
no
no
specification
about
how
to
connect
the
medical
devices
in
your
hospitals,
operation
system,
so
in
a
patient
room.
So
you
know
I'm
started
to
worry
about
those
segments
of
the
industry,
started
to
utilize,
a
digital
communication
thing,
but
not
not
necessarily
be
working
with
us
winging
that
you
know
running
from
us.
So
but
that's
a
probably
one
of
the
concern
that
we
should.
T
T
You
know
I
recently
used
for
the
many
of
the
cases,
and
then
you
know
when
the
society
is
reviewing
the
internet
space,
then
they
you
know,
take
call
it
whatever
the
thing
the
Internet
I
mean
ITF
definition
of
the
Internet
is
pretty
specific,
but
not
for
the
everybody,
but
everybody
is
now
utilizing
the
Internet.
Therefore,
the
you
know
what
we
are
working
on
is
not
sometimes
they
recognized
in
the
global
society
who
are
really
depend
on
the
internet.
T
Therefore,
that,
as
I
said,
different
type
of
a
technical
standard
you
know
going
on,
which
is
the
part
what
I'm
worried
about.
So
the
you
know
beyond
the
surface
of
their
was
beneath
the
surface
of
the
ocean,
then
there
is
a
lot
of
work
going
on,
but
the
people
not
always
noticing
that
our
our
in
the
den
I
know
a
lot
of
services.
T
Applications-
and
you
know
the
business
is
on
top
of
it-
is
always
at
their
concern,
but
it's
a
really
important
that
they
should
recognize
the
work
on
the
beneath
of
the
surface
of
the
ocean.
So
that's
a
you
know
the
definition
of
the
Internet
today.
So
that's
basically
the
thing,
then
the
one
more
thing
is
that
the
this
is
since
this
is
a
year
than
the
last
century,
then
in
the
u.s.
T
T
It's
a
it's
going
to
be
a
very
difficult
but
anyway,
so
that
kind
of
things
happening
everywhere
so
internet
is
for
everyone
is
a
kind
of
a
motto
of
the
I
sock,
mid-90s
I,
believe
we
worked
on
the
phrase,
but
then
they
know
this
committee
is
working
for
everyone
now
and
by
the
IOT
devices
and
everything,
then
everything
and
everyone.
But
we
are
so.
The
technology
have
to
be
concerned
about
the
new
technology
coming
with
the
new
devices
new
area
of
industries.
T
I
really
need
think
that
the
internet
communities
should
consider
about
the
each
of
the
areas.
So
no
area
of
life
without
internet
can
be
considered
in
next
30
years
of
the
internet
store
history.
So
the
technical
challenges
is
always
interesting
and
then
we've
been
working
on
that
and
then
they
know.
So
this
planet
is
a
date-time
planet,
but
one
of
my
friend
two
times
master
owners
observing
the
us
from
the
spaceship
or
mr.
Morrison
in
the
den
they
know
he
was
talking
about
the
date-time
planet.
In
the
night
time
planet
nighttime
planet
is
alight.
T
Therefore
it's
a
technology
is
the
environment.
This
is
environment.
This
is
the
environment.
So
now
technology
is
imbibed.
We
are
all
working
for
the
environment
for
this
planet
and
that
so
that
was
a
very
encouraging
message.
I
received
from
him.
So
the
last
message
is,
you
know
some
of
my
friend
it's
too
late
to
say
in
the
IDF
and
rwan
to
say:
don't
politicize
the
internet.
Thank
you
very
much.
U
So
let
me
do
kind
of
four
kinds
of
predictions.
I
illustrate
I,
think
different
perspectives
for
IAT
f200,
which
would
be
around
20
47
or
so
the
first
one
which
actually
give
the
largest
chance
of
being
roughly
correct,
is
probably
released
exciting
in
some
way,
namely
that
we
collectively,
as
the
Internet
will
really
be
the
third
or
major
utility
that
we
have,
namely
water
and
electricity.
U
Hopefully,
gas
won't
exist
at
that
point
anymore,
kind
of
a
natural
gas
type
of
stuff
that
we
will
be
moving
Tina
of
one
of
a-kor
civilizational
infrastructures
that
most
people
outside
just
will
not
know.
Just
like
most
of
us
probably
have
no
idea
who
standardized
ism.
It
must
be
organizations
for
that
electricity,
delivery,
waterworks
and
all
of
those
type
of
things.
U
The
next
possibility,
which
is
not
contradictory
to
that
is
we
will
see
new
applications
as
Jim
was
mentioning
that
a
roughly
linear
extensions
of
what
we've
already
seen
autonomous
vehicles
and
things
of
that
nature.
The
challenge
there
is
to
get
those
new
communities
to
actually
find
us
in
that
they
can
indeed
know
that
we
are,
can
contribute
to
their
project.
Most
of
them
don't
seem
to
see
the
need.
At
the
moment,
medical
community
was
a
good
one
mentioned
this.
U
Have
you
know,
and
is
that
something
we
will
be
able
to
handle
at
that
point
and
and
obviously
been
kind
of
brain
computer
interface
type
of
model
where
we
into
action
model
that
it's
largely
visual
and
audio,
which
has
dominated
so
much
of
our
work
here
is
no
longer
relevant
or
as
well
event.
You
know,
I
think
those
are
kind
of
disruptive
forces
less
likely,
but
that
might
occur.
K
U
We
shouldn't
be
even
in
30
years
projects
too
far
of
a
difference
between
what
we
have
now
or
not.
It's
instructive
to
look
at
our
in
kind
of
little
legacy
networks
like
we
own
what
we
like
to
call
them
and
not,
and
we
probably
a
high
point
of
a
legacy
network-
was
the
5
ESS
telephone
switch,
at
least
in
North
America,
for
that
it
was
designed
and
I
bought
into
service
in
1982.
It
still
carries
for
vast
majority
of
voice
traffic
mobile
voice
traffic
in
the
world.
U
Even
today,
and
indeed,
as
particularly
in
Japan
Japan
and
the
u.s.
medical
community
knows,
the
fax
machine
still
cannot
be
replaced.
So
technologies
tend
to
last
quite
a
bit
longer
than
we
think
they
will
so
I'm.
Pretty
confident
that
we
will
still
probably
both
telephone
numbers
and
ipv4
addresses
around
in
2047
I
try
to
look
back
to
kind
of
see
if
I
can
do
a
little
bit
of
extrapolation.
U
Gonna
be
early,
but
not
quite
the
ietf
one
days
simply
because
the
transition
that
happened
kind
of
in
the
first
20
I
ATF's,
was
much
larger
than
we
can
reasonably
expect
for
a
relatively
mature
technology,
and
these
are
pages
from
we
still
printed
versions
online
as
well.
I
mean
a
PDF
version
that
will
laborious
ly,
put
together
as
we
on
I-80
f25,
which
was
roughly
kind
of
when
I
got
involved
on
a
little
bit
idea
of
what
was
going
on
and
well
clearly.
But
working
group
titles
have
changed
about
DHC
vis
me
one
surviving.
U
So,
let's
look
at
instead
of
looking
at
technologies,
what
drives
new
development
and
fundamentally
for
the
Internet
I
believe
it
is
the
economics
that
drive
it
besides
a
little
bit
and
talk
about
that,
the
politics
and
the
regulatory
side
and
the
transformation
that
I
think
we
have
observed
in
the
past.
100
is
when
we
started.
It
was
very
much
about
hardware
limitations,
arguments
about
variable
length,
addresses
versus
fixed
addresses,
advertisers,
memory,
time
sizes
of
command
words
and
FTP,
so
that
they
would
fit
into
32
bits.
U
All
of
these
things
were
largely
driven
by
hardware
limitations
that
slowly
faded
we're
having
fewer
arguments
as
to
whether
CPUs
can
I
handle
text
or
binary
encoding
I
mean
all
of
our
favorite
discussion
topics
so,
but
it
has
now
morphed
and
we
bait
out
IETF
side
kind
of
illustrates
that
a
little
bit
I
was
noticing
is
a
topic.
That's
number
one
listed,
there
is
no
longer
a
software.
U
Related
topic
is
really
about
Network
automation
and
if
we
Sdn
were
mentioned
just
a
minute
ago,
which
is
largely
not
about
the
software
part
but
of
optimizing
human
resources
also,
we've
had
we
like
to
think
pride
ourselves
justifiably
that
we
introduce
novelty
and
new
ideas
into
the
internet,
but
in
reality,
like
good
engineers,
the
requirements
are
brought
to
us
from
the
outside.
So
you
could
argue
in
1970s.
U
Another
thing
to
consider
is
that
what
we
work
on,
at
least
traditionally
in
the
lower
layers
is,
has
become
a
really
small
part
of
what
carriers
actually
spend
money
on.
Roughly
speaking,
only
15%
of
what
you
pay
for
services
goes
into
hardware,
capital
investment,
routing,
the
embedded
software
that,
in
that
70%
of
VAT,
is
actually
a
civil
engineering,
not
electrical
engineering
and
computer
science.
U
U
The
other
one
which
we
probably
don't
like
is
that
many
carriers
have
essentially
become
like
Airlines.
They
buy
equipment
that
they
did
not
design
in
some
cases
may
barely
understand
they
largely
a
marketing
organization
that
slap
their
colors
onto
my
services
and
equipment
designed
by
others,
and
what
matters
a
price
and
reliability
not
so
much
novelty
and
engineering
feats.
That
is
a
different
environment
in
what
we
are
used
to
in
the
previous
kind
of
IETF
100
type
of
model.
The
other
one
is
that
the
economic
base
is
unfortunately
shrinking.
U
Indirectly,
the
IETF
has
benefited
tremendously
from
the
shift
of
voice
revenues
to
data
revenues
that
has
largely
funded
set
aside
our
operation,
because
money
was
available
that
traditionally
went
into
by
PSS
switches.
Now
that
money
was
available
on
Wow
go
to
Cisco
in
other
ways,
just
to
mention
a
name.
U
We
also
seem
to
exist
in
three
tribes,
namely
in
the
tribe
that
is
used
to
be
called
a
kind
of
enterprise
network.
Nobody
uses
that
term
anymore,
now,
probably
better
called
the
data
center
network.
We
access
network
and
the
backbone
network.
I
suspect
most
of
us
are
kind
of
more
familiar
and
spend
a
lifetime
in
what
we
think
of
the
Internet
backbone.
Then
we
do
about
enterprise
and
data
center
network,
but,
economically
speaking,
the
backbone
part
is
becoming
increasingly
small
part
of
it.
U
U
U
U
Take
the
US
version,
just
a
because
I
know
it
and
be
because
it's
somewhat
matches
pretty
well
is
that
we
actually
had
organizations
that,
even
if
they
had
never
heard
of
layers
and
working
groups
and
areas
map
pretty
well
to
boast,
namely,
we
have
kind
of
a
Federal,
Trade,
Commission
law
enforcement
side
in
it
below
Leo's,
the
Federal
Communication
Commission,
for
example,
in
the
US
and
equivalents
elsewhere.
So
that
model
was
relatively
simple.
It
was
clear
who
was
responsible
for
what
who
could
govern
what
and
who
would
stay
out
of
certain
areas.
U
As
importantly-
and
it
was,
the
notion
was
pretty
much
a
global
one,
while
we
all
recognize
that
some
countries
weren't
quite
there-
that
was
always
seen
as
a
temporary
aberration.
They'll
just
get
with
the
program-
eventually
it's
just
not
quite
there
yet.
But
it's
a
temporary
trend
of
transition,
kind
of
unfortunately
kind
of
like
the
ipv6
transition
in
terms
of
duration.
U
And
I
believe-
and
this
is
the
challenge
part
we've-
had
it
a
little
bit
too
easy.
It
used
to
be
that
when
you
worked
on
the
internet,
you
pretty
much
didn't
have
to
explain
your
value
wasn't
like
when
you
were
an
automotive
engineer
and
you
had
to
account
for
sprawl
or
accidents
or
pollution.
It
was
and
I'm
siting
here,
a
kind
of
not
too
dated
2004
type
of
one
where
the
internet
was
simply
a
tool
of
empowerment
and
economic
I'm,
no
economic
engine,
no
ifs
and
buts.
U
Now
we
are
in
a
much
more
ambiguous
circumstance:
I
posted
the
I'm
one
resistor,
we
first
to
not
kind
of
classical
or
alia,
IETF
company,
but
we
are
certainly
working
on
the
internet
isn't
seen
as
completely
just
a
good
thing.
Stop
easy.
We
are
kind
of
saving
humanity
type
of
thing.
All
of
these
things
are
now
much
more
complicated
than
they
used
to
be
I'll.
Make
one
point
running
out
of
time:
is
economics
went
through
a
similar
transition?
U
Some
of
you
might
have
heard
about
this
year's
Nobel
Prize
in
Economics,
which
was
something
called
behavioral
economics,
namely
men.
The
transition
from
looking
at
a
mechanical
model,
largely
mathematically
driven
but
we're
simple
equations
about
lying
completely
rational
human
actors,
that
maximize
utility
to
a
much
more
complex
and
somewhat
fallible
notion
of
humans
as
real
human
beings
with
all
their
foibles
and
limitations.
U
I
suspect
in
the
next
thirty
years
will
be
largely
dealing
with
that
transition,
where
we
can
no
longer
ignore
human
limitations
and
we're
obviously
seeing
that
already
we
may
not
like
Pedroni
fluent
and
next
thirty
years
it
will
be
much
more
complicated
than
that
I.
What
we
have
increasing
concerns
about
content,
it
won't
not
just
be
China
and
North
Korea
anymore,
that
are
suddenly
worrying
about
content
they
don't
like
and
maybe
that
we
don't
like
I
will
have
national,
but
not
on
regulation
and
policies
that
have
international
impact.
U
Piracy
is
one
of
those
speech,
restrictions
and
and
think
this
is
already
starting
to
happen.
That
people
worry
more
about
the
ability
to
restrict
communication,
as
opposed
to
simply
enable
it.
You
can
see
that
in
apps
you
can
see
it
in
the
transition
from
the
open
web
to
lying
to
more
closed
environments
from
phone
I,
an
email
to
closed
environments
simply
because
people
don't
want
to
deal
with
the
bad
stuff
out
there.
U
U
We
collectively
know
how
powerful
the
stuff
is
that
we
develop
the
technologies,
how
much
it
can
be
used
for
not
just
the
good
things
that
we
all
value,
but
for
also
for
spreading
hate
I'm
for
enabling
repressive
societies
for
not
bringing
people
together
but
driving
them
apart.
So
we
are
also
beyond
just
IETF
members,
all
of
us,
our
citizens
we
vote.
Hopefully
we
are
shareholders
and
corporations.
We're
parents,
okay
season,
I,
wish
our
neighbors
and
we
are
drivers
of
cars
that
might
get
us
distracted.
U
Thus,
we
have
to
think
much
more
broadly
about
human
perspective
and
particularly
humans
that
are
not
like
engineers
that
have
other
values
that
have
other
limitations
and
other
goals,
and
we
do
so
I
would
argue
that
we
should
at
least
mentally
extend
the
motto
of
the
IETF,
namely
not
just
to
make
the
internet
work
better
in
and
of
itself
as
an
engineering
artifact,
but
make
it
work
better
for
people.
Thank
you.
V
Okay,
so
it's
very
fine
to
be
here
amongst
great
friends
and
and
colleagues,
and
so
when.
Looking
at
my
homework,
we
were
looking.
I
was
looking
sort
of
way
way
in
the
future,
and
one
of
this
are
more
posing
questions
about
where
our
internet
is
going
and
whether
or
not
it
will
be
relevant.
So
let
me
frame
it
up
the
conversation,
because
there
are
some
patterns
and
there's
some
thoughts
and
questions
that
we
need
to
think
about.
V
One
of
the
notions
is
that
we
are
confronted
by
parallel
worlds
and
that
which
we
recite
today
and
that
which
is
developing
in
front
of
us
and
whilst
technologies
one
you
know
an
enabler
of
the
Internet
there
has
been
sort
of
there
are
patterns
that
may
challenge
it's
very
consistence
and
some
of
them
implied
a
little
bit
by
henning,
which
is
you
know,
controlled
by
the
few,
and
there
is
a
growing
trust
deficit.
Or
should
we
ask
ourselves
whether
or
not
there
is
a
growing
trust
deficit?
V
Hence
the
sort
of
this
new
development
of
what
I'll
call
what
we
have
often
called
the
flow
of
value.
So
we
may
have
me
thinking
about
the
enhanced
brain
and
we
have
humans
as
software,
and
then
there
is
the
tension
between
weapons
of
mass
empowerment
and
those
of
mass
destruction
with
all
the
human
enhancing
tools
that
are
at
our
disposal,
including
personalized
home,
robots,
the
ability
to
heal
ourselves.
We
can
eventually
detect
that
we
could
be
the
miscreant
actors
ourselves.
V
Could
we
imagine
perhaps
this
is
the
frame-up
stalemate,
as
the
risks
are
so
high
towards
the
community-driven
mass,
let's
say
destruction,
so
some
observations,
as
I
said,
is
that
there
are
there.
Is
this
central
tending,
and
this
is
a
question
that
we
need
to
ask
ourselves
if
there
is
consolidation
by
organization
is,
are
we
tending
to
have
fewer
large
organizations
there's
whilst
there's
also
this
wonderful
appetite
of
societal
experimentation,
some
of
which
have
been
alluded
to
by
by
June
in
terms
of
the
Internet
as
an
enabler
for
health?
V
The
internet
is
enabler
for
education,
but
how
does
complexity
if
at
all,
enable
the
individual,
and
so
that
is
another
question
that
we
need
to
ask
ourselves
this
slide.
This
is
very
interesting
because
it
was
produced
in
2014,
but
it
it's
already
happening
when
we
think
about
the
hundred
years
and
that
we
can
have
and
now
have
live,
transact
life,
translation
of
languages,
that
people
were
talking
about
autonomous
cars
and
so
on,
and
so
now
we're
thinking
about
other
kinds
of
realities
that
are
starting
to
develop.
V
The
brain
as
the
interface
is
is
interesting
in
itself,
because
now
we
have
to
look
at
what
our.
If
we
are
looking
at
this
dial
now
I
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
call
it
a
dialectic
so
much
as
a
polarity.
We
no
longer
want
to
swipe.
You
know
where
we
no
longer
swipe
devices.
I
mean
there's
one
hand,
there's
that
which
is
good,
but
what
could?
Actually?
V
What
could
we
think
about
if
we're
reading
someone's
thoughts
and
if
there
is
this
key
to
actually
think
about
controlling
the
brain
as
an
interface
to
the
Internet,
the
creepy
factor
will
set
in
pretty
quickly,
and
that
is
where
we
will
require.
Perhaps
I
do
not
share
capability
controlled
by
the
mind.
V
V
V
You
can
be
really
put
in
the
bucket
of
you
are
desired
or
you
are
undesirable
and
there
may
be
also
this
polarity
between
the
haves
and
the
have-nots,
and
this
is
from
apply
magic.
Sauce,
calm
heading
has
actually
alluded
to
general
data
protection
and
regulation
privacy.
These
are
this
is
privacy
by
design
and
if
you're,
not
ready,
may
25th
2018
is
coming
upon
us.
So
this
is
a
very
interesting
interpretation
of
privacy
because
it's
very
restrict,
and
so
that
is
something
that
we
are.
You
know
that
we
have
to
think
about
this
polarity.
S
T
Okay,
yeah,
first
of
all,
the
you
know
a
lot
of
a
new
technology
coming
in
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
during
my
speech
and
then
I
know
the
new
industries
coming
me
and
the
which
has
never
been
actually
a
part
of
the
community
like
in
a
medical
area,
hospital
area,
agriculture
area.
In
the
you
know,
the
agriculture
machine
actually
is
very
similar
to
the
automobile
industry
itself.
T
So
but
then
they
probably
they
gonna
use
the
common
in
technology
like
an
internet,
but
then
they
know
in
different
ways,
so
that
kind
of
a
segment
is
gonna,
be
you
know
what
we
are
worrying
about
ended
and
then
you
from
the
you
know
the
the
application
and
the
other
usage
is
gonna,
be
you
know
very
much
expanded,
but
then
they
know
they
are
not
always
a
connected
in
terms
of
the
technological
development
and
the
you
know.
We
really
want
to
see
the
harmonies
between
the
you
know.
U
U
We've
always
had
this
kind
of
a
notion
that
we
do
this
bottom-up,
not
just
in
terms
of
engineering
but
also
in
terms
of
kind
of
multi
stakeholder
discussions,
and
you
didn't
mention
the
term,
but
that's
the
notion
largely
of
a
set
of
equals,
at
least
in
theory,
who
would
often
driven
by
NGOs
as
opposed
to
governments
and
certainly
not
the
ITU
model,
or
not
the
UN
model
of
one
country.
One
vote
in
that
and
I
think
indirectly.
U
What
I
would
you
refer
to
that
I
found
interesting
and
it
may
be
worth
digging
into
it
a
little
bit
more.
That
model
is
under
strain
in
debt,
namely
why
we
still
have
these
organizations-
and
we
always
Internet
policy
to
happened
in
governance,
type
of
things
in
our
space,
the
willingness
of
countries
to
participate
and
actually
implement
or
zoo,
what's
happening
or
even
pay
attention
to
is
diminished.
I
don't
have
to
mention
countries.
U
Well,
that's
the
case,
even
countries
that
are
when
traditionally
more
have
been
more
responsive
to
that
are
no
longer
at
responsive
and
in
Dutch,
not
just
the
u.s..
It's
a
lot
of
other
countries
in
Europe
in
to
some
extent
Asia
where
that's
similarly
the
case.
So
dr.
Mia
is
one
of
a
challenges.
We
have
the
assumption
that
the
IAT
F
model,
largely
bottom
of
a
organised
in
governance
type
of
models,
will
continue
to
be
as
if
not
necessarily
love,
but
at
least
respected
by
others.
V
So,
for
me,
I
think
the
I
think
June's
call-out
don't
put
politicize.
The
internet
could
have
been
done.
Several
internet
meetings
I'll
go
probably
at
the
beginning,
because
we
see
the
dynamics
that
are
happening
and
although
one
one
goes
by
the
sort
of
mantra
that
we
are
not
political
there's,
this
swimming
dynamics
that
are
suggesting
that
you
cannot
avoid
it
or
you
are
politicized
and
I
think
that
politicization
as
a
verb
is
very,
very
important.
You
and
to
your
point.
W
Thank
you
very
much.
Well,
things
have
a
lot
to
do
all
the
speakers.
My
name
is
Juan
Carlos
when
you
get
excellent
presentations,
I
also
want
to
follow
up,
follow
up
on
the.
What
is
the
message
that
I'm
getting
and
starting
actually
from
ELISA
I
think
this
is
both
reflection
and
inspiration,
because
we
can
reflect
on
what
has
happened
up
until
now.
W
Lisa
pointed
out,
it's
great
what
I
eat
EF
has
done,
but
it's
very
interesting
to
hear
and
I
share
the
views
that
you
guys
are
giving
on
what's
coming
and
that's
when
I
think
that
the
big
shift
is
going
to
happen
where
we
are
moving
from
we've
done
great
technical
job
to
now.
We
have
to
be
more
responsible
and
ethical,
not
only
doing
great
technical
job,
but
thinking
about
what
exactly
this
technology
can
be
used
for
and
what
are
the
consequences.
W
So
I
think
that
you
guys
have
given
a
great
view
very
different,
but
very
interestingly,
similar
views
on.
Let's
not
be
political,
let's
think
about
exactly
what
this
technology
can
be
used
for
in
the
next
100
years
or
100
IETF
us
what
you
want
to
measure
it.
But
if
you
wanted
to
give
a
message
and
money,
you
mentioned
that
privacy
by
design
is
a
good
example.
Security
by
design
I
think
those
are
great
things
to
keep
in
mind.
What
else
do
you
think
we
should,
and
this
is
a
question
for
all
of
you,
what
weather?
V
A
stand
on
the
ethics
I
think
is
really,
or
at
least
the
defining.
The
intentionality
of
the
technology
that
it
that
you
are
developing
is
going
to
be
very
important.
That
has
a
direct
relationship
with
governance,
if
you
will,
but
this
notion
of
ethics
is
I,
think
going
to
be
more
important
in
now
and
then
future
that
makes
sense.
V
U
U
Think
we've
discovered
that
just
about
any
technology
that
we've
developed
includes
and
that
others
kind
of
in
our
orbit
web
technologies
wireless
technologies,
whatever
you
want
to
do,
I
I've,
yet
to
find
a
technology
that,
despite
the
best
intentions,
every
engineers
in
a
sense,
and
none
of
them,
presumably
wanted
to
engineer
technologies
that
could
get
people
killed
while
driving
I
not
even
probably
wanted
to
engineer
technologies,
basically
ever
more
sophisticated
ad
delivery
mechanisms,
primarily
so
on
I,
but
I.
It's
not
obvious
to
me,
certainly
that
we
could
have
done
collectively
anything
dramatically
different.
U
So
what
I
would
actually
argue
for
is
that,
instead
of
simply
saying
there
is
another
status
code
or
there
is
another
protocol
or
another
X
consideration.
Sections
that
we
can
add
to
the
back
of
the
internet
draft
is
that
it
is
important
for
us
to
see
our
role
as
professionals
as
Internet
technology
professionals.
That
goes
beyond
kind
of
our
own
closed
environment,
where
we're
comfortable
talking
to
each
other
that
all
speak
roughly
the
same
language,
maybe
not
human
language,
but
the
same
kind
of
cultural
language.
U
Many
wise
technical,
cultural
language
is
to
go
out
and
be
part
of
a
broader
discussion,
and
that
includes
not
being
shy
that
we
can
often-
and
we
should
be
able
to
anticipate
some
of
things
that
could
happen
and
that
we
can't
by
protocol
design,
can't
prevent
I.
But
we
can
win
by
governance
by
political
choices
we
make
collectively
and
by
the
advocacy
at
least,
be
aware
that
we're
not
just
become
shields
for
technology
and
just
ignore
that
there
risks
involved
yeah.
T
Actually
yeah
I
wanna
add
the
one
thing
that
you
know
the
multi-stakeholder
and
then
in
a
lot
of
application.
You
know
application
coming
in
and
there
is
a
requirements
for
the
basic
sub,
the
internet
and
then
Minnesota.
But
you
know
it's
a
very
difficult
for
the
engineer
to
you
know:
engineering
ethics
and
engineering
privacy.
T
X
X
You
know
it's
a
good
thing
and
we've
done
a
good
thing
for
the
world,
but
I
I,
admit
being
more
concerned
as
we
see
it
being
used
for
things
which
are
not
good,
and
you
know,
we've
certainly
built
something
that
allows,
gives
people
who
want
to
do
bad
things,
a
very
easy
way
to
multiply
their
work
a
lot
and
they
could
be
far
away
from
the
thing
they're
doing
it
to
or
the
people
they're
doing
it
to
or
trying
to
get
money
from.
You
know
we
know
all
of
these
things
and
I
fear.
X
This
is
gonna,
only
get
worse
and
I,
don't
I
mean
I
want
to
keep
thinking.
This
was
a
good
thing
for
everyone,
and
you
know
the
people
who
aren't
connected
yet-
and
it
clearly
has
been,
but
there's
this
sort
of
dark
side
that
I
you
know,
I,
don't
know
what
I
don't
know
what
you
know.
We
do
point
solutions
around
this,
but
I
don't
know
what
we
should
be
doing
about
this
that
because
it
it
could
get
a
lot
worse.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
what
you
guys
think
and
I'll.
U
U
It
will
be
manageable.
All
that
but
much
harder
challenge,
and
is
this
way
of
we
all
indirectly
talked
about
kind
of
a
human,
a
computer,
brain
interface.
We
tend
to
think
of
it
as
the
brain
controlling
of
a
computer.
I
will
be
much
more
about
the
reverse
direction.
I
we
already
have
essentially
engineered,
not
we
probably
others
who
are
somewhat
at
higher
layers
systems
that
play
to
you
and
you
can
call
them
weaknesses,
but
maybe
are
just
human
characteristics.
U
V
One
comment
one
comment:
Bob
that
I'd
like
to
make
here
is
that
yes,
it's
for
good,
but
there
are.
There
is
always
this
tension
of
polarity
between
miscreant
characters
and
that
you're
never
going
to
get
away
from
that
I
think
that's
one
one
thing
in
terms
of
abuse
of
the
internet.
However,
it's
more
cognizant
being
more
cognizant
of
of
that
fact,
and
yes,
the
stakes
are
higher
I.
Think
that's
really
an
allusion
to
your
question.
So
I
don't
have
a
direct
answer
for
that,
but
I
think
it's
more
being
aware.
U
Well,
I
think
knowing
what
it
can
do,
the
best
remedies
that
I
think
I've
heard
from
for
those
type
of
more
non-criminal
kind
of
a
divisive
parts
of
it
is
we
teach
students,
kids
earlier
and
we
provide
a
healthy
media
landscape,
namely
where
journalists
can
do
their
work.
They
can
get
paid
for
their
work,
they
can
add
facts
to
the
environment.
We've
often
not
been
we've
indirectly,
not
us
individually,
but
by
the
technology
undermined
those
things,
as
opposed
to
sir
I
am
bill
foundation
for
I.
T
S
V
So
now
great
question:
I,
you
know
again
it's
it's.
It's
more
awareness
than
anything
else.
I
think
it's
I
think
the
do
not
politicize
the
Internet
is
is
something
that
should
probably
occurred
some
time
ago
and
I
think
this
is
the
cognizant
of
it
is
as
being
aware
of
that
now
I
know
you're
working
on
human
rights
protocol
and
cell
biology
for
that
work.
V
The
the
only
thing
that
I
can
say
is
that
defining
intentionality
of
use
and
being
more
declarative
about
it
of
what
it
is
you
develop
is
perhaps
something
I
know
you
do
it,
but
I
think
even
more
so
stronger
today
than
ever
before,
being
varied.
This
is
the
intentionality.
This
is
what
this
is
for
used
for
anything
beyond
that
point,
you
know
you're,
not
responsible
cool
that
makes
them.
U
I'll
just
I'll
made
subtly
disagree
is
I.
Think
the
notion
of
saying
don't
politicize
me
Internet
is
that's
not
our
choice.
I
mean
I.
Think
the
in
a
good
sense.
It
is
on
my
politics
is
nothing
but
when
the
origin
of
the
word
is
after
the
Polish
name,
only
the
community
that
we'd
like
to
emphasize,
namely
governance,
all
the
terms
that
we
use
so
in
a
good
and
why
the
Internet
should
be
part
of
a
political
discussion.
It
doesn't
mean
that
it
is
in
itself
becomes
a
tool
of
that
discussion.
O
O
S
V
U
Think
this
is
influenced
didn't
exist.
I
tried
to
show
that
a
little
bit
by
example,
is
that
we
have
not
always
been
good
about
recognizing
that
these
influences
exist
and
probably
pretended
more
often
than
was
warranted
that
we
just
did
this
out
of
our
own
kind
of
volition,
just
like
when
we
pretend
often
it
things
if
we
weld
it.
U
I
may
be
a
little
bit
more
reactive
and
would
like
to
give
ourselves
query
then
we'd
like
to
give
credit
for
and
so
I
think
it's
more
realization
much
of
what
we
do-
and
this
is
good
I
mean
that's
what
engineers
are
supposed
to
do-
we're
not
just
kind
of
when
some
a
debating
society.
That's
when
doing
science
fiction
here.
Why
not?
No
we're
not
doing
we
singularity
here,
so
we
are
respecting
and
reacting
to
external
demands.
We
just
have
to
be
cognizant
of
what
they
are
and
where
they
come
from,
and
who's
driving
Bo's.
Z
AA
AB
AA
Really
really
glad
that,
can
you
hear
yeah,
okay,
no
eeny,
Elkins
I'm,
really
glad
you
brought
up
this
topic
and
we're
talking
about
it.
This
is
a
conversation
that
I've
had
four
different
times
already
at
this
IETF
and
every
single
time
that
I've
brought
up
something
that
actually
Bob
hinden
brought
up
about
the
dark
side
of
the
internet.
You
know
everybody,
a
lot
of
people
said
to
me:
don't
talk
about
that!
Don't
bring
that
up!
There's
a
lot
of
things!
I!
AA
We
have,
and
we
probably
understand
things
in
a
way
that
most
policy
organizations
do
not
understand
and
people
who
are
setting
policy,
for
example,
encryption
policy.
They
actually
don't
understand
what
they're
doing,
whereas
we
do.
But
that's
a
lot
of
what
comes
up
here
is
we're
not
a
policy
making
organizations.
We
can't
talk
about
that
so
and
I
don't
know
and
I'm
not
saying
we
should
I'm
not
saying
we
should
I'm
just
saying
that
we
do
need
to
talk
about
the
dark
side
and
the
possibly
unintended
consequences
of
what
we're
doing
so.
Thank
you.
T
Yeah
yeah:
that's
what
I
meant
by
the
you
know
the
kind
of
proactive
to
the
the
any
areas
as
much
as
possible
by
the
some
of
the
people
from
this
Community
to
you
know
to
the
other
areas,
and
you
know
the
other
stakeholders
policy
people.
You
know
the
government
and
the
other
things
I
mean
so
because,
as
you
mentioned,
then
that
they
don't
understand,
then
they
don't
understand
it.
You
know
they
don't
understand.
Therefore
we
are
not
communicating
it's
not
the
way
we
should
take.
T
U
Activity
I
mean
I'll,
just
add
one
thing,
which
I
think
is
one
of
the
values
that
we
hate
ATF
has
had,
namely
that
we
participate
as
individuals,
not
as
representatives
as
organizations
involved,
wouldn't
be
a
for
travel
and
make
sure
that
we
still
have
a
paycheck
next
month
or
all
of
that
and
my
sense
and
I
didn't
mention
it,
but
that
was
relatively
in
most
cases
relatively
easy.
In
the
past
thirty
years,
they're
just
a
the
organization's,
tended
to
be
when
plumbing
organizations.
U
In
many
cases,
if
you
like
internet
plumbing
organizations,
the
organization's
tended
to
be
involuntarily
non
influential
in
terms
of
policy
non
influential
in
terms
of
just
public
perceptions.
As
in
most
of
the
organization
we
work
for
nobody
had
ever
heard
of
outside
of
a
relatively
small
community,
except
maybe
a
carrier
that
you
might
work
for.
That
was
a
consumer
facing
one
I.
Think
that
will
be
hard.
Oh
well,
many
of
us
now
work
for
organizations,
particularly
in
commercial
space
that
are
dominating
in
many
ways.
S
AD
AE
V
Interesting,
yes,
of
course,
the
analogy
of
cyborgs,
because
you're
walking,
you
know,
you're
walking,
technology
bits,
yeah,
I,
think
the
thing
of
it
is
is
when
you
become
the
cyborg,
is
understanding
what
you
were
doing.
You
know
and
its
implications.
You
know
it's
it's
like
people.
When
you
have
a
pack
of
cigarettes,
it
could
cause
cancer
or
something,
and
you
you
understand
that
I
think
understanding
the
implications
are
are
clearly
important.
Some
people
believe
also
that
privacy
will
be
lost
in
all
of
that.
V
T
Okay,
the
yet
two
things
are
obvious
in
this
committee:
the
development
and
developing
the
technology
in
their
operating
the
technology,
but
that
led
into
that
comment
and
the
questions
I
think
it's
really
important
for
the
future
that
the
designing
the
technologies
in
the
you
know
designing
the
Internet
are
or
Internet
space
to
society
that
basically
include
everything,
but
that
really
the
important
thinking
about
the
design
of
the
future.
Oh.
U
And
I
think
we
have
one
advantage
and
I
think
this
discussion.
Whenever
you
particularly
go
microphone
contributions,
I
indicated
that
and
it
we
are
not
the
first
engineering
discipline
that
has
had
large
effects
on
the
environment.
Probably
you
could
argue
others
mainly
mechanical
engineers,
if
you
blame
them
so
to
say
for
the
internal
combustion
engine
and
other
machinery,
I
might
have
probably
at
least
as
large
an
effect
on
our
human
environment,
but
I
mean
I.
U
Think
we've
had
one
advantage,
maybe
because
it
happened
faster,
maybe
because
it
in
some
sense,
more
obvious
and
just
gases
in
the
atmosphere
is
that
we
can
see
it
earlier,
and
so
that
gives
us
I
think
maybe
a
little
bit
of
more
lead
time
in
a
little
bit
more
of
a
opportunity
to
react
to
it
again.
In
my
others,
this
is
not
the
first
engineering
discipline,
which
has
fundamentally
we
shaped
not
how
humans
live
a
miracle.
None
of
us
can
imagine
going
back
before
individualized
transportation
just
to
take
out
whatever
form
it
takes.
U
None
of
us
can
imagine
going
back
when
there
was
no
electricity.
None
of
us
can
imagine
going
back
to
an
environment
where
we
didn't
have
many
of
the
other
engineering
contributions
where
they
are
sometimes
not
so
great
impacts
as
well.
So
I
don't
think
we're
unique,
but
I
think
we
have
I
think
it's
come
son.
More
suddenly
and
probably
I
mean
others
way.
S
S
AF
B
Y
AF
M
W
S
Z
L
K
U
E
U
U
E
So
that's
that's
frankly
the
analysis
that
we
have
to
do
now
more.
We
have
been
doing
some
when
we
have
to
do
more
of
for
any
individual
meeting.
You
can
come
come
up
with
a
reason
for
why
the
numbers
might
be
down.
What's
the
industry
doing,
you
know
we
had
a
period
of
four
meetings
where
no
matter
where
you
started
in
the
world,
the
for
meeting
stretch
was
going
to
be
expensive,
so
I
think
it
is
need
a
combination
of
having
a
look
at
what's
going
on
in
the
industry.
What's
you
know?
AK
A
But,
interestingly,
if
you
look
at
the,
if
you,
if
you
do
some
of
that
and
you
try
to
clean
up
the
data
a
little
bit
based
on
your
own
intuition,
there's
trends
in
both
directions,
so
some
companies
sending
more
people
at
the
at
the
end
of
the
spectrum
of
corporations
that
send
lots
of
people.
Some
of
them
going
up.
Some
going
down,
I
haven't
looked
at
the
lower
end.
I've
only
looked
at
the
at
the
upper
end.
AE
AE
It
seems
to
me
that
for
the
last
couple
of
years
anyway,
you
know
we've
been
pointing
out
that
there
are
a
number
of
trends
that
that
could
push
the
this.
This
number
a
little
bit
lower
and
and
we've
sort
of
been
setting
the
stage
for
the
idea
that
this
this
could
happen
and
I
guess.
The
question
that
I
have
now
is
whether
there's
a
plan
for
a
plan
to
to
do
with
it.
Assuming
that
it's
a
long
term
thing
I
mean
who
knows
whether
it
is,
but
just
suppose
that
it
were?
E
So
I
think
as
I
trying
to
articulate
earlier
in
part
it's
a
question
of
revising
the
budget
to
understand
you
know
we're
expecting
fewer
people
which
has
trickle-down
impacts
in
terms
of
our
now
that
we
have
our
hotels
lined
up
for
your
sin
advance.
You
know
we
are
expecting
expecting
meetings
of
certain
sizes
beyond
that,
I
think
it's
a
question
of
understanding.
E
Yeah
I,
think
that
there's
work
for
the
isg
to
do
in
terms
of
understanding
how
this
relates
to
the
work
that
needs
to
get
done
and
there's
further
work
to
do
in
terms
of
figuring
out
well,
do
we
then
just
jack
up
the
meeting
attendance
fee
and
you
know
make
make
the
five
people
who
still
come
pay
a
lot
or
or
or
is
there
a
better
balance
for
for
funding
the
work
that
needs
to
get
done
in
order
to
continue
to
have
open
standards
for
the
internet?
So
again,
it's
it.
E
AE
Maybe
about
this,
but
you
know:
there's
there's,
there's
two
sides
to
the
budget
right
and
one
side,
of
course
is
the
is
the
income,
but
the
other
side
is
the
expenditure,
and
we,
we
haven't
been
very
good
about
controlling
that,
and,
in
particular,
for
for
good
and
proper
reasons.
We
have
been
extending
more
and
more
the
efforts
in
in
remote
participation,
which
of
course,
is
one
of
the
potential
contributions
here
and
I.
E
So
that's
that's
part
of
why
I
put
this
slide
up.
This
was
this.
Is
the
extra
slide
in
my
deck
from
earlier,
so
there's
costs
associated
with
providing
really
excellent,
remote
participation
and
there's
the
possibility
that
you
know
maybe
everyone's
saying
well:
heck
I
hate
Airlines
anyway,
they're
just
a
little.
You
know
tin
cans
of
germs.
E
Remote
participation
means
that
we
can
tap
into
resources
that
would
no
longer
be
available
to
us
if
we
only
had
on-site
participation,
which
also
I
think
leads
to
I,
think
what
you
were
getting
at,
which
is
do
we
start
charging
for
remote
participation
and
and
that's
a
possibility,
but
I
think
we
don't
understand
the
answer
to
that
question
until
we
have
the
further
work
that
we
talked
about
earlier,
which
is
what
what
is
the
right
financial
model
for
how
we
float
this
boat?
Anybody
else,
John.
AJ
Think
that
there's
there's
a
there's
a
you
know,
there's
a
related
issue
that
you
know
the
average
age
of
people
here
is
high
and
you
know
and
I'm
like
yeah
I,
have
this
great
beard
and
you
know,
and
and
an
adult
adult
child.
That
means
I'm
sort
of
a
sort
of
a
median
age
here
and
many
of
these
remote
participants
from
developing
countries
are
young,
which
is
good.
You
know
and
they're
doing
interesting
work,
so
I
think
there's
there's
a
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
interacting
issues.
You
know
it's
like
you
know
we
need
to.
AJ
We
need
to
do
that.
You
know
we
have
this
work
to
do
you
know
we
may
well,
it
may
well
be
the
model.
Is
that
that
you
know
we
can't?
We
can't
expect
to
get
as
much
money
from
part
from
the
participants
as
we
have
in
the
past,
and
we
look
at.
We
look
at
other
places,
you
know
and
wearing
my
eye
sock
hat.
This
is
certainly
an
issue
that
I
I
sock
is
thinking
about,
and
I
sock
has
always
been
thinking
about
development.
AJ
You
know
and
I
sock
is
not
exactly
poor,
so
you
know
so
the
you
know
this
isn't
I,
wouldn't
say
it's
a
can
of
worms,
but
I
would
certainly
you
know
it's
it's
it's
a
it's
a
challenging
opportunity.
You
know
that
we
all
need
to
think
more
about,
because
because
our
future
is
not
necessarily
assured
you
know,
and
we
need
to
figure
out
where
the
people
are
gonna
come
from
they're
gonna,
they're
gonna
do
the
work
and
what's
the
model
that's
gonna
actually
allow
them
to
do
it.
So.
E
I'll
observe
that
some
of
the
squares
on
the
table
actually
say
no
data
and
that's
in
part,
because
we
actually
only
started
requiring
instead
of
we
started
with
offering
the
opportunity
to
register
for
remote
participation.
But
we
only
started
requiring
registration
for
remote
participation
relatively
recently
and
it's
all
part
of
a
hand,
wringing
exercise
of
you
know.
E
How
should
we
approach
this
beast
and
you
know:
do
we
ask
people
for
their
information
for
remote
participation
and
as
a
result,
we
actually
don't
have
we
have
intuitions
in
some
sense
of
who's
participating
remotely,
but
we
don't
yet
even
have
that
information.
So
we
had
thought
about
possibly
attaching
a
survey
to
the
opportunity
to
fill
in
the
survey
as
part
of
remote
registration
for
this
meeting.
A
So
what
your
first
question
Andrew,
you
used
the
phrase
dealing
with
it
and
I
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize.
There's
the
budget
impact,
but
then
there's
also
just
the
impact
on
the
work
that
is
done
in
the
ITF
I.
Think
people
sort
of
seem
to
assume
that
there's
this
like
ideal
number
of
people
who
shows
up
at
a
particular
meeting
and
for
seven
years
it
was
1200,
but
it
wasn't
always
1200
right,
I'm
sure
people
remember
when
it
was
2000
and
other
people
remember
when
it
was
50.
A
So
you
know
it
might
be
that
the
new
normal
is
a
thousand
people
showing
up
in
a
meeting
and
then
we
can.
We
also
have
to
think
not
just
like
okay.
Well,
we
lost
$700
ahead
on
those
200
people,
but
is
a
thousand
people
coming
here
to
do
work?
That
needs
to
be
done
and
are
there
people
who
are
missing?
Maybe
maybe
it's
the
right
thousand
people?
A
AM
So
I
mean
this
trend
is
concerning
and
I
really
strongly
agree
with
Alyssa
that
the
strength
of
the
IETF
is
in
our
intellectual
capital
is
in
the
multi
stakeholder
perspective
that
we
have
across
the
network
and
the
concern
on
reducing
the
diversity
and
participation
and
ability
of
folks
to
actively
participate
remotely
in
will
hurt
us
I
mean
that's.
That's
really,
my
concern.
The
other
part
is,
you
know,
there's
a
reason:
I'm
working
on
IETF
outreach
instead
of
fun,
routing
algorithms
and
it's
not
because
I
don't
prefer
the
funny
routing
algorithms.
AM
It's
because
we
need
to
work
on
pulling
in
from
the
right
industries
for
our
colleagues
in
the
area,
not
just
those
who
come
here
but
participating
locally
on
the
mailing
list.
We've
got
much
higher
mailing
list
attendants,
but
we
need
to
be
working
on
this
because
yeah
I
mean
look
around
the
room,
there's
a
lot
of
gray
hairs
and
we
keep
having
people
retire
and
that's
not
going
to
change.
So,
please
think
about
this
a
lot.
Sorry,
it's
not
a
question
to
the
IOC,
but.
AG
Aaron
Faulk,
so
I
was
fairly
apprehensive
about
making
this
trip.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
it
as
we
got
closer
and
I
was
watching
the
attendees
100
list.
I
got
even
more
apprehensive.
I
will
admit
that
I
broke
several
rules
on
the
way
here.
Chewing
gum
may
or
may
not
have
been
involved,
but
I
have
to
say
that
I've
been
uniformly
impressed
and
pleased
by
the
venue.
The
a/v
support
at
the
hotel.
AG
AN
AN
AN
E
E
That
fact
that
this
is
late,
an
announcement
has
been
something
we've
been
talking
about
for
quite
a
while,
but
we
do
struggle
in
finding
locations
that
fit
us
that
have
the
the
right
balance
of
our
hotel
requirements,
our
meeting
venue
requirements
and
availability
and
some
manner
of
affordability-
and
you
know
this
is
clearly
us
and
hopefully
we're
getting
a
little
better
at
it.
But
the
long
and
the
short
of
it
is
we
have
been.
We
had
been
struggling
to
find
a
location
for
next
years.
E
We
we
believe
we
have
one
in
hand,
but
we
don't
announce
before
we
have
the
details
finalized,
because
that
would
undermine
our
ability
to
close
a
reasonable
set
of
contracts.
So
again,
I
can
only
apologize.
It's
taking
this
long,
it's
not
because
we're
insensitive
to
the
fact
that
everybody
needs
to
make
their
plans.
It's
just
that
we're
working
hard
at
getting
better
at
figuring
out
how
to
get
ourselves
to
good
locations
in
Asia,
and
this
took
longer.
AO
AO
It
was
kind
of
amazing
and
having
the
space
to
be
able
to
sit
down
around
a
table
and
do
that
kind
of
thing,
because
we
didn't
know
that
we
were
going
to
need
that
extra
bit
until
we
got
here
and
the
working
group
meeting
didn't
quite
go
as
smoothly
as
we
would
have
liked.
But
having
that
space
to
be
able
to
do
that,
that
was
a
little
bit
more
formal
than
just
piling
everybody
into
you
know
the
hotel
lobby,
or
something
like
that
was
incredibly
helpful
for
us.
AO
AP
Very
quick
announcement,
so
just
so
you
know,
Computer
History
Museum
in
California
is,
has
it
started
archiving
all
of
the
RFC's
and
I'm
just
announcing
it
all
of
the
work
has
done
by
header
or
from
our
lovely
RFC
editor
team
I'm
just
announcing
because
it
went
through
ITF
trusts
but
from
first
RFC
till
the
current
one,
and
it
will
continue
being
archived
from
now
on
so
hopefully
ITF
1000,
now
its
proper
archive,
also
its
proper
museum
grade
or
kovalev
of
of
the
service.
So
your
work
is
being
okay.
AQ
AQ
AH
X
AW
AI
AI
There's
been
a
couple
of
attempts
in
transport
over
the
past
few
years
to
do
something
in
anticipation
of
encrypted
protocol
headers.
These
were
gone
by
the
interesting
names
like
spud
or
spoot,
if
you
like,
that
or
plus,
and
to
oversimplify
they've
gone,
not
much
of
anywhere,
because
the
privacy
concerns
have
been
have
been
obvious
and
forefront
and
they've
been
dealing
with
something
that
isn't
broken
because
none
of
our
transport
headers
are
encrypted.
Now
that's
about
to
change,
and
rather
quickly
we
have
a
protocol
called
quick
coming
at
us.
A
So
I
would
say
we
are
paying
attention
to
it
through
many
many
efforts,
some
of
which
you
mentioned,
and
so,
if,
if
the
point
was
to
raise
our
attention
to
it,
I
think
is
the
IHG.
Nobody
up
here
would
disagree
with
me
that
we
are
paying
a
lot
of
close
attention
to
this.
If
people
have
suggestions
about
what
more
we
could
do
that
that
would
be
helpful,
but
it's
certainly
been
I
would
say
a
dominant
topic
of
discussion
in
the
IAS
G
lately
Kathleen
thank.
AT
It's
in
last
call
right
now
and
it's
a
collection
of
monitoring,
network
and
security
monitoring.
That's
somehow
impacted
by
encryption
right
and
it's
meant
to
be
a
starter
for
conversation.
So
anyone
not
aware
of
this
draft.
How
can
we
make
progress
in
in
these
discussions,
and
so
it's
trying
not
to
take
any
any
position,
but
if
we
don't
tackle
the
problems,
our
protocols
won't
get
deployed
is
one
of
my
concerns,
which
is
why
you
know
been
working
on
this
particular
draft.
AT
This
is
just
documenting.
The
problems
is
just
the
first
step
once
we
do
get
a
little
bit
further
in
the
document
or
get
the
documentation
published.
You
know
I'm
sure,
there's
gaps
in
this.
So
if
you
have
operational
experience
and
can
take
a
look
at
the
draft,
that'd
be
helpful
or
if
you
have
colleagues
that
you
think
should
take
a
look
at
it
to
make
sure
we're
getting
as
much
documented
as
we
can.
That
would
be
helpful,
I
think
so
we
have
to
think
of
a
bit
more
about
what
are
our
next
steps?
AT
It
might
be
per
protocol
that
we
go
back
and
look
at
this
and
we
expand.
You
know
sections
to
figure
out
what
considerations
might
be
necessary.
I
would
like
to
figure
out
if,
if
we
could
have
a
more
structured
plan
around
it,
you
know,
do
we
run
a
workshop?
You
know
how
the
IAB
run
a
workshop
on
next
steps.
Is
it
around
one
protocol?
Is
it
around
multiple
protocols?
AT
How
do
we
advance
this
conversation
between
the
end
user
and
the
network,
and
it's
not
just
about
privacy
privacy's?
What
you
hear
about
in
the
arguments?
It's
about
control
right,
so
who's
controlling
the
metadata
at
the
endpoints
or
is
it
the
network
and
there's
lots
of
money
in
that?
So
I
think
it
adds
contention
to
this
discussion
and
that's
I.
Think
a
really
important
going
to
consider
as
as
we're
working
on
this
right,
because
the
motivations
are,
if
you
think
of
it
in
that
way,
are
pretty
clear.
AV
AV
AV
Kathleen's
draft
is
is
headed
that
direction.
There's
another
word
on
in
TSP,
whe
I've
been
talking
with
David
about
specifically
on
encrypted
transport
headers
and
basically,
what
the
impact
of
that
is,
and
things
like
that.
I
think
that,
if
we're
going
to
do
engineering,
we've
got
to
be
able
to
do.
We
got
to
be
able
to
describe
reality
first
so
that
we
know
what
so
that
we
know
what
problems
were.
What
way
to
try
to
solve.
AV
I
think
that
the
IETF
can
do
what
needs
to
be
done
and
I've
been
telling
the
people
that
all
week,
it's
not
like
nobody's
working
on
it.
I've
had
probably
15
hours
of
conversations
on
this
specific
topic
outside
working
group
meetings
this
week,
so
they
say
I
would
I
would
encourage
everyone
who
is
touching
this
space
to
to
help
us
move,
move
forward.
AU
So
I
fully
agree
with
your
analysis,
and
I
would
extend
that
not
only
to
transport
but
also
to
ops,
obviously
right,
because
there
is
an
impact
on
ops
whenever
in
the
pervasiveness
ring
RFC,
we
added
a
small
sentence.
That
encryption
is
good
and
privacy
is
good,
but
we
have
to
do
need
to
have
a
balance
with
the
way
to
monitor
networks,
and
so
yes,
I
agree
with
you
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
future
of
the
internet.
If,
on
your
couple
of
people
could
innovate.
AM
AM
We
can
see
the
technology
change
needing
to
happen
for
other
reasons,
but
this
is
one
of
those
places
where
we
have
an
opportunity
both
to
change
or
tilt
the
field,
as
David
Clarke
talked
about
at
a
previous
plenary
to
think
about
the
ethics
and
the
implications
of
what
we're
doing
here
and
more
to
the
point
and
equally
critical
or
Professions
a
board,
appoint
equally
critical
to
make
sure
the
internet
keeps
working
so
think
about
what
you
could
do.
What
kind
of
research?
AM
What
kind
of
problems
are
you
going
to
see
in
your
enterprise
networks,
because
we
all
have
them
in
your
customer
networks?
What
kind
of
changes
would
I
for
the
vendors?
What
kind
of
new
technology
could
we
use
to
do
better
network
management
and
operations?
Obviously,
I
would
like
you
to
think
about
what
impact
it
will
have
in
a
routing
potentially
as
a
result
of
those
things.
But
the
key
point
is
we
need
you
to
be
thinking
about
it
and
bringing
the
work
to
the
IETF
to
get
done
and
standardized
Thank
You.
AF
Ted
Hardy,
maybe
you
remember,
may
remember
us
from
Coby
we're
the
thing
you
associated
with
it.
That's
not
the
beef,
so
the
role
of
the
IAB
anymore
is
not
to
tell
the
ITF
what
to
or
we
do,
try
and
think
about
issues
like
this,
and
we
have
been
thinking
about
this
one.
For
a
very
long
time.
We
ran
the
Marnie
workshop.
We
contributed
a
great
number
of
people
to
both
the
effort
around
spud
and
Plus,
and
we
continued
to
work
on
this.
AF
In
fact,
we
suggested
yet
another
workshop
on
this
and
we're
asked
to
delay
it
because
there
were
such
active
contention
around
the
topic
and
tell
us
that
it
would
look
like
the
IB
was
trying
to
step
in
I
think
that
what
we've
been
trying
to
articulate
through
the
couple
of
years
we've
been
working
on.
The
problem
has
essentially
boiled
down
to
this.
The
the
messages
which
carry
state
mechanics
between
endpoints
and
the
messages
which
carry
signals
to
the
path
have
divorced
and
we
do
not
intend
to
marry
them
again.
AF
That
means
that
the
messages
which
carry
path
signals
now
need
a
whole
new
type
of
creation
and
analysis
than
we've.
Seen
in
the
past
inside
the
quick
working
group,
there
was
a
design
team
looking
and
analyzing
the
impact
of
a
single
spin
bit.
This
is
one
bit
worth
of
signal
to
the
path
and
over
several
months
we
got
a
whole
bunch
of
academic
information
and
a
whole
bunch
of
practical
experience
that
told
us
yeah
from
a
geolocation
threat
analysis.
This
isn't
actually
a
big
deal.
AF
What
it
can
actually
provide
the
operators
isn't
actually
any
data
that
we
can't
get
any
other
place
else,
but
it
may
be
more
convenient
for
that
than
other.
That's
the
level
of
analysis
that
we're
gonna
have
to
do
bit
by
bit
as
we
put
these
things
onto
the
path,
because
from
now
on,
we
have
to
realize
that
we're
responsible
for
these
path
signals
they're
not
going
to
be
accidental.
AV
Spencer
again,
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
more
thing.
First
I
would
I
would
think
that
at
least
the
IB
semi
workshop
was
also
relevant
to
this
space.
So
basically
we
we've
gotten
to
the
point
on
this
with
leadership
to
where
the
IAB
can't
chair
can't
remember
all
the
stuff
that
they're
doing
trying
to
help.
AF
AV
And
the
way,
the
way
the
IEP
and
isg
do
annual
retreats
is
this.
Past
year
the
IB
met
for
two
days.
We
met
jointly
for
a
day
and
the
ISG
met
for
two
days.
I,
don't
know
what
the
IAB
did
a
lot,
but
I
know
that
we
talked
about
this
on
our
joint
day
and
we
talked
about
on
Thursday.
We
talked
about
a
Friday
and
if
we
were
still
there,
we
would
probably
still
be
talking
about
it.
F
So
we
have
the
manageability
statement,
which
is
only
there
to
explain
to
the
network
what
the
bits
mean,
how
you
can
use
them
and
what
you
can
use
do
with
them,
and
the
audience
is
really
not
like
between
us.
The
audience
is
the
outside
the
operators,
the
people
that
install
the
stuff
and
I
still
actually
learn
how
to
pray,
sit
and
like
feedback
I
got
this.
For
example,
I.
Don't
read
RFC's,
so
it's
really
hard.
If
we
want
to
document
this
in
an
RFC
but
we're
on
it.
So.
F
A
AX
AY
This
is
you
know:
I
brought
up
a
thread
and
I
use
G
just
a
few
weeks
ago
about
I
guess
the
best
way
to
phrase
it
is
the
relevancy
of
the
IETF
and
how
to
bring
users
here
with
real
requirements
and
the
things
I've
heard
in
the
industry
is
we're
arrogant.
We
don't
listen
people
other
people's
solutions
are
broken.
We
you
know
better
and
we
just
seem
to
be
a
one-way
filter
and
the
problem
is,
is
I,
think
these
people
would
come
here
if
they
felt
welcome
and
I,
don't
think
they
feel
welcome.
AY
They
feel
very
intimidated
and
I
can
see
a
lot
of
reasons
why
it's
because
when
they
come,
they
say
they.
If
they
come,
they
ask
for
solution,
X
and
we're
engineers
where
we
want
to
know
the
problem
when
they're
standing
first
before
we
provide
solutions,
I
always
use
the
SD
when
market
as
an
example,
we've
been
doing
overlays
and
tunnels
for
so
long
in
the
IETF
and
there's
a
you
know:
50
million
dollars
worth
of
VC
funding,
at
least
in
two
dozen
Sdn
vendors
that
are
implementing
all
these
proprietary
things.
AY
Why
aren't
they
coming
to
the
standards
group
and
using
this
technology
that
we
have
now?
They
say
they
want
to
do
their
own
intellectual
property
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
vendors
can
make
a
lot
of
money
to
do
a
lot
of
cool
stuff
by
taking
our
protocols
and
creating
good
features
and
good
products
and
services
around
it,
but
they
feel
like
they
have
the
need
that
they
have
to
build
it
themselves,
it's
kind
of
scary.
What
why
are
we
being
pushed
into
your
relevancy
I?
AY
Think
we
need
to
go
to
these
groups
of
people
and
we
have
to
really
show
them
that
we're
not
arrogant
that
we're
really
going
to
listen
to
them
and
we're
going
to
work
together.
They
do
need
help
and
they
they
want
to
build
better
solutions.
So
I
don't
have
a
question,
but
I
just
want
a
reaction
or
any
comment
from
any
of
you.
AY
AM
AM
We
also
suffer
from
the
fact
that
the
IETF
is
made
of
volunteers
and
going
to
going
out
has
its
own
challenges.
It
really
takes
the
part
of
individuals
who
decide
to
be
ambassadors
between
the
organizations
to
help
do
that.
One
of
the
things
I
mean
I,
trying
to
start
ITF
outreach
pieces.
Is
it's
a
start
right,
but
it
can't
just
be
me
and
it
can't
just
be
a
few
plate.
You
know
one
or
two
places
I'm
trying
to
get
parts
there.
AM
One
of
the
challenges
is
also
like
in
the
sd1
case,
figuring
out
and
seeing
early
markets
and
industries
where
there
will
be
a
benefit
from
having
an
interoperable
standard
and
where
that
benefit
can
be
articulated
and
communicated
back,
but
doing
all
of
those
things
is
not
our
business
as
usual
for
the
working
groups
and
we're
volunteers,
and
we
need
to
have
people
volunteering
to
help,
decide
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
brainstorm
about
it
and
I
have
been,
but
I
can't
do
it
all
myself
right.
We
all
need
to
it's.
AM
How
do
we
pull
more
people
in?
How
can
we
have
folks
be
interested?
I
would
love
very
much
to
see
more
operators
and
to
see
these
types
of
things
coming
into
the
IETF
and
I
gleefully
jump
at
each
relatively
practical
new
technology
that
does
come
in
it's
a
hard
problem,
but
we
can
at
least
keep
making
head
rotor
on
it.
So.
AY
We
know
we
know
that
these
people,
we
know
that
standards
groups
are
important
or
people
want
to
build
standards
because
there's
you
know
the
Emmy
C.
There's
all
these
consortiums,
not
really
international
standards
groups
that
do
stuff.
So
we
know
that
there's
a
need
there,
but
one
particular
user
group.
That's
interesting.
Is
this
ona,
the
open
network
user
group?
AY
It's
started
in
New
York
with
the
financials,
and
these
are
guys
that
first
came
out
and
said
we're
going
to
build
working
groups
to
figure
out
problems
in
the
enterprise
and
how
to
do
things
and
they're
actually
turned
into
building
solutions
and
they're
really
kind
of
inferior
solutions,
and
they
know
about
it,
but
they
don't
want
to
come
here.
I
mean
we
want
to
encourage
them
to
come
here
and
talk
and
talk
to
us.
Why
don't
we
just
invite
these
people?
All
of
us
can
do
it.
AY
AM
We
need
to
asking
them
to
come
short,
but
we
need
to
be
listening
absolutely
and
that
may
be
part
of
that.
It
ain't.
We
have
people
at
the
IETF
who
go
to
nog
and
participate
there,
one
of
the
ways
that
we
all
of
our
liaisons,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
we
have
a
formal
liaison
work
by
having
overlapping
communities.
We
have
that
overlap.
What
we
need
to
do
is
figure
out
how
to
grow
it
and
to
do
the
encouragement
so.
AY
They
have
agreed
to
come
here
and
I
told
them.
I
would
help
them
to
get
people
from
here
to
go
there
and
we're
gonna
get
agenda
slots
at
the
next
meeting.
So
if
anybody
wants
to
talk,
there's
just
some
rough
areas,
they
want
us
to
focus
on
security,
routing
some
application
level
stuff.
So
we
should
do
this,
so
anybody
interested.
AY
AX
I
mean
a
couple
of
years
ago:
Chris
Grundmann
from
I
sock
did
a
whole
bunch
of
sort
of
surveys,
of
the
industry,
operators,
etc,
found
a
bunch
of
really
useful
info.
As
you
said,
we
often
come
off
as
arrogant.
Some
of
that
is
people
who
are
well
known
in
the
operator
community
could
sort
of
arrive
here
and
we
don't
know
who
they
are
and
so
there's
sort
of
a
disconnect
on
us
not
listening.
AX
We
did
have
a
bunch
of
momentum
at
the
time
like
we
had
a
couple
of
tables
at
some
operator
groups
to
get
feedback,
etc.
We
lost
that
momentum.
You
know
some
of
that
is
my
fault.
Some
of
that
is
just
we
ran
out
of
steam.
We
were
planning
on
doing
it
again,
alvaro
myself,
Ignace
presented
to
some
of
the
russian-speaking
logs,
etc.
So
we're
planning
on
doing
it
again.
A
AV
I
want
to
just
say,
say
two
things
real
quickly.
One
one
is
that,
as
long
as
I've
been
coming
to
the
IETF,
we've
been
talking
about
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
get
input
from
operators,
and
that's
a
that's
a
that's.
A
good
and
beautiful
thing
for
us
to
be
thinking
about
you
mentioning
the
enterprise
network,
guys,
that's
something
that
we
have
really
not
spent
a
huge
amount
of
time
on,
because
I
don't
know
how
the
heck
you
find
them,
and
we
were
talking
in
the
IB
stack
evolution
program
meeting
this
morning
about
that.
AV
So
again,
this
is
not.
You
know,
thank
you
for
saying
it
out
loud.
It
is
something
that
some
people
here
are
aware
of
and
thinking
about,
and
we
welcome
help
the
next
time.
Somebody
tells
you
that
people
at
the
ITF
are
arrogant.
Tell
them
that
elastic
planaria
you
were
at
one
of
the
members
of
leadership
was
wearing
a
t-shirt
that
said,
I
smile
because
I
have
no
idea.
What's
going
on.
A
We
can
do
the
work
on
the
mailing
list
and
that
actually
helps
a
lot
I
think
to
kind
of
prepare
in
advance
before
you,
you
know,
try
to
get
people
up
on
the
front
of
a
stage,
so
the
the
work
in
the
background,
I,
think,
is
extremely
important,
but
the
other
thing
is
that-
and
maybe
this
is
like
a
little
bit
of
a
contrast
from
what
some
people
have
said
here.
The
the
ITF
is
a
two-way
street
right.
A
What
the
it's
an
extremely
open
organization
I
cannot
prevent
anybody
else
from
coming
and
criticizing
your
thing,
if
you're
going
to
bring
it
here
and
pardon,
there's
an
education
piece
to
that,
that's
different
from
you
going
off
into
a
consortium
with
two
of
your
friends
and
and
building
a
protocol
that
suits
the
three
of
you.
That's
not
what
we
do
here
and
so
I
think,
if,
to
the
extent
that
people
are
used
to
operating
in
that
kind
of
environment,
it
does
take
a
while
to
realize
that
it's
not
the
same
here.
AY
AT
AT
Just
I
mean
we
can
do
things
on
tone
setting
you
know,
I
know
as
an
area
director,
I
pull
people
aside
and,
and
you
know,
helped
to
try
to
correct
any
tone
problems.
But
if
something
is
getting,
you
know
personal
as
opposed
to
technology
focus
which
is
I,
think
what
alyssa
was
hitting
on,
not
not
these
other
pieces,
then
you
know
we
and
working
group
chairs
need
to
be
addressing
that
and
keep
the
tone
appropriate.
AZ
BA
I'm
Paul
Barrett
from
Netscape
just
on
the
Onaga
point,
I
just
wanted
to
say
I'm,
one
of
the
oh,
no
vendor
co-chairs
for
the
monitoring
and
analytics
group
I'm
here
all
week
as
they
say.
So
if
anybody
wants
to
track
me
down
and
talk
about
what
we're
doing
an
owner
around
monitoring
analytics
we're,
particularly
looking
at
the
challenges
of
cloud
and
multi-cloud,
very
happy
to
sit
down
with
you
by
the
way,
I'm
also
also
a
network
enterprise
guy.
So
you
know
happy
to
talk
about
that
as
well.
Thank
you.
Thank.
BB
BB
Our
workplaces
support
contacts
in
our
own
vendors
are
the
people
who
know
who
the
enterprise-d
working
people
are.
Similarly,
when
those
of
us
who
actually
work
for
vendors
like
I
no
longer
do
our
top
support
people
who
you
talk
to
to
find
the
people
you
want
to
talk
to
they're
follow
the
people.
Thank
you.
Thank
You,
Adrian,.
AZ
AZ
AZ
A
F
So
I,
at
least
from
my
own
ballots,
but
also
I,
can't
remember
any
of
the
other
members
on
the
ihd.
They
actually
said
it's
pointless,
I
think,
most
often
it's
like,
we
don't
see
they're
capable
value
of
it,
which
means
we
as
the
maintainer
of
the
stream
figure
out.
You
know
what
do
we
want
to
maintain
industry?
We
very
well
see
this.
F
F
AX
AX
AT
So
the
IMG
is
split
on
our
views
on
these
documents.
I
personally
see
the
value
and
the
archival
value
in
these
documents.
In
some
cases,
working
groups
that
I
work
with
are
interested
in
their
larger
community
because
they
have
a
few
people
here
and
a
much
larger
community
who
consumed
these
and
they
expect
to
read
those
documents.
So
I
think
this
is
something
that
will
shift
over
time
depending
on
the
membership
of
the
iesg.
In
terms
of
the
view
and
I've
seen
that
over
my
three
and
a
half
years.
AM
So
I
certainly
agree
that
at
ballot
time
is
a
time
to
show
appreciation
for
what
the
author's
the
work
the
authors
have
put
in
and
the
working
group
has
put
in
and
not
to
disregard
that
work.
I.
Think
that
part
of
the
reason
many
of
the
charters
leave
those
types
of
documents
up
to
the
working
group
is
because
sometimes
they
can
be
extremely
valuable
to
the
wider
community
in
explaining
how
our
technology
is
intended
to
be
used
and
setting
up
the
framework
that
we
do
a
very
poor
job
of
saying.
AM
This
is
how
you
can
connect
these
different
pieces
of
systems
together
the
applicability
of
particular
protocols,
and
so
sometimes
they
are
incredibly
valuable
and
sadly,
sometimes
they're
a
document.
That's
been
sitting
there
for
five
years
and
has
some
outdated
stuff
and
it's
being
rushed
through
so
giving
the
working
group
a
choice
on
how
to
handle
it
and
so
on,
and
then
respecting
what
the
working
group
in
the
community,
the
IHF
community
has
thought
about.
The
documents
is:
why
is
important
and
I?
Think
that's
why
the
statement
is
balanced.
AR
AR
K
AT
A
So,
just
to
build
on
those
last
three
things
that
were
said,
I
think
the
IHG
statement
reflect.
We
reflect
the
consensus
of
the
IHG
but
I
think
taking
it
further,
there's
a
diversity
of
opinions
on
the
IHG,
which
is
why
you
get
some
ballots,
that
that
come
down
harder
and
some
ballots.
That
are,
you,
know
more
open
to
those
kinds
of
documents,
and
that's
why
we
haven't.
We
haven't
revised
the
statement,
because
when
we
what
we
have
captured
the
consensus-
and
we
couldn't
really
take
it
any
further.
E
AX
I
guess
there's
one
kind
of
sake.
You
know
sometimes
you've
read
a
couple
of
hundred
pages
of
documents
and
when
you're
balloting,
it's
fairly
easy
to
sort
of
forget
that
there's
been
a
huge
chunk
of
work
put
into
this
and
when
you
write
your
comment,
you
know
you're
doing
it
in
a
Russian.
Sometimes
we
worried
things
list
diplomatic
ly.
Then
we
could.
BC
Hi
I'm,
Steve,
vinter
I,
do
sniffer
analysis
in
a
large
enterprise
network
and
part
of
our
analysis
of
application
and
network
problems
is
looking
at
all
the
fields
of
the
TCP
header.
We
look
at
sequence,
numbers
ACK,
numbers,
option,
fields,
windows
sizes,
we
typically
move
sniffers
around
to
different
locations
and
see
what
the
transport
header
looks
like
at
different
locations.
BC
We
need
to
see
what
those
headers
look
like
when
packets
come
in
at
the
Internet,
so
we
can
know
if
it's
our
problem
or
the
carrier's
problem,
and
we
can't
do
this
kind
of
analysis
on
a
load
balancer
that
might
terminate
a
protocol
with
an
encrypted
header
because
load
balancers
don't
have
the
robustness
to
run
a
full
packet
capture.
So
I
can't
picture
doing
this
kind
of
work
with
a
layer,
4
header
that's
encrypted,
it
seems
like
we
would
just
have
problems
that
we
can't
solve.
A
BD
A
BD
For
a
long
time,
I
am
an
enterprise,
you
know
large
scale,
network
engineer
very
large
scale
and
so
I
do
feel
the
pain
that
people
have
when
they
come
and
they
bring
up
ideas
or
they
bring
up
concerns
and
they're
shot
down.
I
have
pretty
thick
skin,
so
I'm
willing
to
fight,
but
I
know
a
lot
of
people
aren't,
and
so
there
is
a
consensus
view
that
the
IETF
doesn't
care
about
what
the
enterprise
needs
or
the
telco
space
needs,
and
that's
something
we
need
to
fix.
BD
BD
So
you're,
basically
saying
that
all
of
the
network,
engineers
that
are
called
on
on
a
regular
basis
to
say
hey
this
application
is
running
slow.
This
application
is
sluggish,
it's
broken
something's
wrong
help,
and
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
you
know
when
I
come
or
when
other
people
come,
that
our
enterprise-
you
know,
managers
and
and
have
lots
of
experience
doing
this.
BD
AF
I
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
in
for
your
comment
and
I.
Think
one
thing
that's
been
sort
of
a
disconnect
here
is
the
scale
of
change
that
happened
when
we
decided
to
recommend
that
the
that
the
network
be
by
default
encrypted
because,
as
you
know,
for
a
long
time,
they
were
always
encrypted
flows
on
the
network
and
we've
been
recommending
for
a
generation
that
encryption
be
available.
AF
What
changed
really
was
we
recommended
that
it
be
to
default
and
the
best
parallel
I
think
I've
heard
this
week
with
somebody
saying
it's
like
having
a
wireline
Network
and
somebody
turning
on
802
11.
Suddenly
the
stuff
is
going
through
the
air.
You
can't
see
it
at
all.
Anything
you
put
on
your
network
to
see
what's
happening,
can't
be
measured
and
can't
be
seen
and
with
AC,
who
was
here
before.
As
our
example,
you
realize
we
really
do
care
about
that.
AF
We
had
in
our
networks
when
we
went
from
wireline
networks
to
a
mix
up
wireline,
more
wireless
networks
and
that
we're
gonna
have
to
do
the
same
things
as
an
industry
that
we
did
then,
which
has
developed
new
techniques
for
looking
at
how
things
traverse
the
network
in
these
new
ways
and
if
there's
some
way
in
which
that
seems
like
we
haven't
been
listening
to
you,
I
truly
apologize.
But
if
there's
some
other
way
that
we
can
try
and
indicate
the
scale
of
change.
We're
trying
to
foster
here.
AX
And
as
a
responsible
ad
for
Kathleen
and
Elle's
mm
WG
or
mm
what
effect
encrypt
document,
how
could
you
use
this
as
a
sales
pitch
keys?
Read
the
document?
It
really
discusses
sort
of
the
things
that
are
going
to
change
in
a
world
of
pervasive
encryption
and
things
that
operators
should
be
aware
of.
It
doesn't
say
that
we
shouldn't
be
doing
encryption.
It
just
tries
to
make
people
aware.
AX
BD
No
issue
with
encryption
and
privacy
I
I'm,
a
big
proponent
of
that
my
concern
is
when
your
application
breaks
and
you
can
no
longer
talk
to
your.
You
know
SPSS,
you
know
or
Oracle
server,
and
you
can't
do
your
expense
report
and
you
need
to
call
the
network
team
to
say:
hey.
Can
you
troubleshoot
this
and
figure
out?
Why
we're
gonna
say
sorry
can't
help
you.
AV
AM
So
I
guess
the
other
piece
I
would
say
is
we
are
listening
and
one
of
the
things
that
as
ATS
we
do
is
help
with
the
conversations
and
the
introductions
and
adding
sometimes
that
little
bit
of
no
really.
This
person
is
here
and
you
need
to
pay
attention
to
the
kind
of
problems
that
they're
talking
about
and
the
use
cases
and
I'm
very
happy
to
see
large
enterprise
and
enterprise
operators
coming
and
trying
to
participate.
It's
really
necessary
and
we
do
I
mean
in
writing.
AA
So
I
wanted
to
say
that
it's
a
two-way
street
and
it's
it's
not
easy.
You
know
it's
not
easy
to
do
the
translation,
but
but
I
didn't
want
this
to
be
like
a
one-way
thing,
that
there's
no
question
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
very
unfortunate
misunderstandings
of
everybody's
statements
and
motivations
in
some
working
groups
and
I'm,
really
sorry
that
that's
happening
and
we're
really
trying
to
fix
that.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Guys.
AT
But
the
purpose
was
to
run
through
your
use
case
and
make
it
cluster
crystal
clear
as
to
what
that
use
case
is
so
a
broader
community
could
see
it
and
I
basically
threw
spaghetti
on
the
wall
with
a
solution
expecting
other
people
to
read
it
and
hopefully
come
with
with
brainstorming
ideas
on
that
specific
use
case.
So
you
know
so
there
was
outreach
and
there's
a
side
meeting
that's
happening
with
somewhat
related.
You
know,
I,
don't
know,
what's
gonna
happen
out
of
this,
but
you
know,
as
an
area
director
I
did
try
to
bring.
AA
Yeah
yeah
I
know
totally
Kathleen
I,
know,
I,
really
appreciate,
yeah
yeah
I
know
you
guys
have
really
tried.
It's
I
think
part
of
it
too.
I
mean
I,
you
know,
I'm
I'm,
we
we
have
work
to
do
to
on
our
side
is
I.
Think
that
one
of
the
things
we've
been
trying
to
really
make
clear.
Is
our
environment,
our
use
cases
and
and
try
to
do
a
translation
mechanism
and
I
really
appreciate
the
effort
you've
done.
I
am
gonna,
say,
though,
that
I
mean
we
I,
don't
need
to
tell
you
guys.
AA
BC
Thanks
Steve
yeah
to
me,
the
encryption
issue
is
like
protecting
financial
data.
We
all
want
our
financial
data
protected
and
yet,
when
we
go
to
the
loan
officer
to
apply
for
a
mortgage,
we
give
them
all
our
financial
data
because
they
can't
do
their
job
without
it
and
I.
Think
the
encryption
question
is
the
same
kind
of
thing.
There
are
people
like
me
that
have
to
see
the
layer,
four
headers
that
have
to
see
the
packet
payload
in
order
to
do
our
job
of
fixing
problems
and.
K
BC
We
don't
get
that
visibility,
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
our
job.
There
are
problems
that
will
not
be
solved
by
logging.
There
are
problems
that
will
not
be
solved
by
endpoint
analysis.
Only
or
they're
gonna
take
an
unacceptably
long
time
to
solve.
If
that's
the
only
visibility
we
have
I,
don't
think
this
is
blowing
you
up
yet
yet,
because
these
protocols
are
not
in
all
the
enterprise
data
centers.
Yet
we
have
already
seen
perfect
forward
secrecy
in
our
data
center
and
we've
had
problems
that
we
couldn't
solve
in
a
timely
manner.
AY
BC
AG
AY
Could
help
with
some
experience
I
had
doing
this
crypto
I
with
the
security
guys
helped
me
quite
a
bit
or
helped
Brian
and
I
quite
a
bit
to
do
this
and
it
was
great,
but
it
was
kind
of
funny.
There
was
this
economy,
they
said.
Oh,
you
don't
need
to
do
encryption
over
tunnels
because
the
end
systems
are
going
to
do
it
to
end
and
we're
gonna
have
this
wonderful
world
and
then
other
people
said
oh
no.
AY
We
need
to
look
at
the
packet
so
there
it
needs
to
be
clear
text
at
some
point
along
the
way
right.
So
you
should
you
should
do
it
right,
so
some
people
said
well
make
the
tunnel
go
all
the
way
at
the
endpoints
and
you
have
your
end
ended
security
and
then,
when
you
need
the
visibility,
you
bring
the
tunnels
like
this,
and
you
have
clear
texts
on
this
side.
So
you
could
just
move
this
thing
and
have
this
sort
of
flexibility
and
I
mean
people,
it
sounds
pretty
flexible.
AY
A
So
I
mean
this
being
ITF,
100
I
think
it's,
it's
probably
interesting
to
think
for
a
second.
If
you
go
all
the
way
back
in
the
history
like
what
did
people
think
that
they
needed
and
not
an
order
that
they
didn't
need
right,
and
how
much
has
that
probably
changed
over
time?
I
think
that's
one
of
the
interesting
things
about
when
you
come
to
the
IETF.
Is
that
how
much
that
perception
can
change
and
I?
Think
there's
probably
going
to
be
some
of
that.
A
That
is
going
to
happen
on
on
all
sides
here
right
like,
but
the
things
that
you
believe
and
then
that
you
feel
so
strongly
that
absolutely
it
cannot
be
any
other
way
it
turns
out
like
if
you
went
back
10
years
and
you
look
at
what
those
things
are
like.
None
of
them
are
true
anymore
right.
So
I
hope
that
the
the
kind
of
spirit
of
collaboration
that
word
I
think
the
ihd
is
trying
to
foster
around
this
topic.