►
From YouTube: IETF102-RFCPLUSPLUS-20180716-1810
Description
RFCPLUSPLUS meeting session at IETF102
2018/07/16 1810
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/proceedings/
A
Welcome
to
the
DLF
c,
plus
plus
book
we
have
one
hour
and
a
half,
and
now
we
have
I
mean
you've,
really
seen
a
lot
of
discussions
on
beliefs,
so
we're
gonna
try
to
be
efficient
and
you
know
there's
not
been
enough
time.
So,
let's
get
going.
This
is
the
note.
Well,
you
should
be
familiar
with
that
and
if
you
are
not,
you
should
go
on,
read
it
so
and
we
have
a
double
scribe.
So
thank
you,
Peter.
A
A
A
The
right
path
from
here
and
please
state
your
name
clearly
and
concisely
in
the
in
the
mic
and
let's
keep
this
professional
right,
I
mean
we
know
these.
These
kind
of
you
know
triggers
a
lot
of
emotional
responses
in
people,
but
we
want
to
keep
the
professionally
and
try
to
do
something
useful.
So
you
know
what
that
means
agenda.
A
We've
been
discussing
the
agenda
on
the
general
list
in
the
IDF
list,
so
you
brought
me
so
via
the
emails
we
chose
to
do
kind
of
you
know
very
simple
agenda
trying
to
explore
basically
the
province
pace.
So
this
is
what
we
put
together
and
we
have
a
few
requests
for
presentations,
but
we
thought
it
was
better
basically
to
to
give
from
the
chair.
Basically
a
very
high-level
introduction.
E
A
Okay,
so
we
got
this
like
just
a
percent
I
mean
you
know
for
basically
to
get.
You
know
everyone
at
the
same
level
of
understanding.
You
know
what
what
we
can
do
with
each
stream
and
we
have
been
having
a
conversation
again
on
the
generalities
that
supposed
to
be.
You
know,
F
C++
list,
and
you
know
Brian
and
I.
Think
Scott
were
pointing
out
that
maybe
some
of
the
data
that
you
know
that
is
in
the
RFC
a
diverse
database
is
actually
wrong
and
we
talked
to
some
other
people.
A
That
said,
maybe
he's
not
actually
wrong,
and
so
you
know,
I
talked
to
Robert
and
he's
gonna
actually
go
run
by
one
on
the
rfcs
to
actually
check
if
they
are
actually
independent
stream
submissions
and
they
are
either
proposed
under
DCP
or
they
are
not.
But
at
this
point
I
think
it's
enough
to
know
that
you
know.
Basically,
this
is
what
the
database
said,
and
you
know
the
database
may
be
conveying
you
know
wrong
information
or
not.
But
the
point
is
like
this
light
is
supposed
to
show
what
has
been
burned
on
the
next
slide.
A
A
A
A
So
in
that
sense,
we
felt,
like
you
know,
discussing
a
particular
solution
or
proposal
would
then
be
actually
a
good
use
of
our
time,
because
people
don't
seem
to
agree
on
whether
there's
a
problem
and
whether
the
problems
worth
solving
so
we
are
actually
backing
up
and
instead
of
you
know,
discussing
a
concrete
proposal.
We
are
trying
to
explore
in
the
profit
space
as
opposed
to
the
solution
space.
So
we
have
a
set
of
questions
here.
Three
in
particular
to
just
you
know,
try
to
understand.
You
know
what
you
know.
A
People
think
about
this
I
mean
what
is
the
issue,
whether
there's
an
issue
and
whether
we
actually
want
to
solve
it.
As
I
said
also
on
the
list,
I
mean
we
would
have
liked
to
have
much
more
concrete
questions,
but
we
don't
think
at
this
point.
We
could
have
more
concrete
questions.
Just
we
thought
basically
now,
let's
say
loading
the
dice
and
you
know
trying
to
you
know,
go
in
one
direction
or
the
other
and
hear
from
the
chair.
We
are
trying
to
be
as
neutral
as
possible
just
trying
to
facilitate
our
discussions.
A
So
I
understand
that
people
you
know,
could
be
frustrated
and
they
weren't
really
concrete
and
questions
and
investigate
their
favorite
proposal,
but
we
just
honestly,
don't
think.
Okay.
So
having
said
that,
the
questions
we
we
prepared,
on,
which
you
know
we
would
like
to
you-
know
people
going
to
the
night
to
try
to
address
them
and
then,
depending
on
how
the
work
goes,
we
may
take
a
ham
at
the
end
or
not.
We
will
play
by
the
ear
and
take
it
from
there.
So
the
first
one
is
obviously:
is
there
one
or
more
issues?
A
People
have
been
talking
about
different
issues
that
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
agreeing
an
agreement
on
and
what
they
extract
issue
is
over.
If
they
are
several
ones,
so
you
know,
there's
confusion,
there's
no
confusion.
So
we
would
like
to
hear
about
that.
The
next
one
is
assuming
there's
an
issue
or
several
issues
or
people.
You
know
half
perceive
issues
other
was
fixing.
We
have
heard
also
some
people
but
thought
sure
this
an
issue,
but
we
don't
think
is
worth
fixing
right.
So
that's
also
what
I
am
knowing
and
we
would
like
people.
A
You
know
when
they
speak
about.
You
know
whether
those
issues
to
also
address
these
and
I'm.
Finally,
in
from
this
an
issue-
and
we
want
to
fix
it-
you
know
how
we
would
go
about
to
address
that.
Obviously
I
mean
that
kind
of
you
know.
John's
are
big
into
the
solution
space
and
so
at
the
beginning,
I
think
it's
better
to
kind
of
keep
it
general.
A
E
E
A
So
I
mean
if
people
want
to
stand
out
completely,
okay,
otherwise
there's
a
lot
of
empty,
empty
chairs
here.
Okay,
so
without
you
know
keeping
in
mind
that
those
are
they
the
questions,
we
want
to
have
keeping
in
mind
that
you
know
that's
the
level
of
discussion
we
want
to
have
in
a
problem
space
instead
of
solution.
Space
I
know
thinking
in
terms
of
this
an
issue
yes
or
no,
and
do
we
want
to
solve
it
or
is
not
really
worth
it.
So
we
would
like
to
basically
open
the
mic.
D
D
I
J
J
So
my
main
issue
with
the
I
have
seen
brand
is
that
we
are
trying
to
stand
it
as
cold
with
Indian
models
and
I
think
how
we're
doing
it
that's
a
bad
way
to
do
it
and
that's
an
issue
in
my
opinion,
but
it's
a
Dacian
for
everybody
else
in
this
room,
I
don't
know
so
having
risk
is
you
know
some
of
the
issues
that
people
are
raising
would
have
been
helpful,
they've
known
what
were
to
discuss,
or
we
could
say.
Oh
you
have
your
issues
raise
them
and
let's
have
a
discussion
about
that.
J
K
What
I
would
very
much
like
to
know
from
the
community
as
to
whether
there
is
urgency
to
be
solving
this
right
now
and
if
there
is
then
I
would
like
to
actually
having
much
more
structured
and
thoughtful
approach,
not
too
dissimilar
from
how
I
approach
the
forum
at
work.
I
can
tell
you
that
I
have
not
heard
anyone
from
the
community
say
that
this
is
causing
a
level
of
pain
that
has
to
be
addressed
right
now.
K
D
A
Before
talking
about
the
time
frame,
I
would
like
to
understand.
Is
this
an
issue
and
if
it
worth
fixing,
so
you
know
if
we
agree
on
that
I
fully
agree,
we
would
need
to
understand
the
timeline
and
the
urgency.
So
that's
a
very
good
point.
Thanks
I'm
too
busy
I
mean
we
are
showing
this
both.
We
are
never
proponents,
so
we
are
just
trying
to
make
kind
of.
You
know,
use
of
I
I.
Think
that's
Kiera,
so.
M
A
Donor
statement
is
not
on
this
light.
You
can
take
the
selectable
and
I'm.
Basically,
no,
as
I
said,
people
have
been
talking
about
several
issues,
so
that's
the
reason
why
we
don't
have
a
PR
problem
statement
and
this
is
what
we
are
trying
to
gather
so
clearly
you
know
knowing
the
issues
or
or
what
is
the
consensus
around
that
that
would
be
actually
what
we
need
to
do.
G
I,
don't
think
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
solved
now,
but
for
future
evolution,
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
other
SDI
and
other
industry
consortium
and
where
I
do
see
is
people
that
do
have
a
grasp
of
how
RFC's
are
working
deliberately
raising
confusion
about
stages
of
certain
RFC's
and
people
coming
in
with
individual
or
experimental
and
raise
the
point
that
yeah.
But
it's
nourishing
show.
This
is
an
ITF
consensus,
product
and
I.
A
G
A
N
Cover
just
random
internet
citizen
I
actually
think
that
there
is
a
another
problem
not
about
Arab
seas,
but
I
have
a
data
point
recently.
I
am
getting
a
lot
of
my
friends
who
has
very
little
idea
about
how
HIV
work
sending
me
links
to
various
drafts
which
have
been
adopted
and
sometimes
expire,
asking
me:
what
are
we
smoking
here?
N
B
I
A
I
O
O
Had
when
I
stood
up
here
was
asking
the
first
question
and
my
comment
was
I-
think
it's
what
in
legal
case
would
be
called
leaving
the
witness
that
the
question
was:
is
there
some
confusion,
or
is
there
no
confusion
and
most
of
these
six
billion
people
on
the
planet?
Possibly
one
of
them
is
at
least
a
little
confused.
So
it
makes
this
posing.
This
is
a
binary
question.
I
think
is,
is
a
bit
misleading.
Yes,
there
will
always
be
confusion.
O
Even
among
the
standards
track.
Rfc's
some
like
DNS
and
DHCP
are
really
widely
used,
and
some
of
them
flopped
and
are
kind
of
irrelevant
and
the
stamp
at
the
top
of
the
RFC
is
not
going
to
tell
you
that.
The
same
is
true
right,
at
least
as
some
are
very
successful
and
some
are
failures
because,
frankly,
they
don't
work
and
when
they
they
found
it
didn't
work
in
the
fact
the
committee
agreed
on
it
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
it
doesn't
work.
O
So
when
you're
evaluating
technology,
you
have
to
apply
some
critical
thinking
to
deciding
what's
good
and
what's
bad
and
trying
to
have.
Somebody
else
make
a
binary
decision
on
that,
for
usually
you
don't
have
to
think
about
it.
It
is
not
going
to
work
I
think
if
we
do
have
this
kind
of
disc
differentiation,
that
early
standards
are
RFC's
and
other
things
are
something
else.
We
may
get
this
unintended
consequence,
but
now
there's
a
big
push
to
get
things
published
to
standards
that
really
shouldn't
be
because
people
want
the
RFC
numbers.
A
I
I
I
If
the
purpose
of
this
is
for
a
national
consumption-
and
you
know
maybe
inclusion
as
as
possibly
referenceable
in
a
you-
know-
purchasing
decision,
right,
government
and
then
actually
the
question
will
the
wrong
people
to
answer
most
of
these
questions,
because
because
other
people
need
to
answer
them
and
and
I
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
what
we
want
from
this.
So
that
seems
to
me
to
be
something
that
maybe
we
should
answer
and
then
we
would
be
able
to
make
some
sort
of
progress
forward.
I
The
one
thing
that
I
will
say
in
response
to
something
that
Ted
said
is
when
I
was
ia.
Teacher
and
I
was
dealing
with
a
lot
of
outside
people
and
there
were
discussions
that
I
had
that
very
definitely
turned
on
the
fact
that
there
was
this
informational
RFC
that
somebody
was
beating
us
with
or
or
even
better
yet.
I
I
can
recall
a
particular
case
where
it
was
an
historic,
RFC
and
I
had
this
phone
with
a
good
hour
and
a
half
explain
to
somebody,
but
that
historic
at
the
top
literally
means
that
we
decided
it's
obsolete
and
they
didn't
care
because
it's
an
RFC,
and
so
it
must
be
a
standard,
and
so
they
that
I
have
personally
experienced
some
cases
where
there
was
there
was
harm.
Now
it
was
hard
to
make.
Is
it
wasted
my
time?
Maybe
nobody
else
cares,
but
but
that
was
a
that
was
an
example
and
I
could
think
of.
A
Thanks,
you
may
want
to
ask
Russ
at
some
point
about
implementing
an
April,
Fool
RFC
anyway,
so
I
think
Andrew
made
a
good
point,
which
is
that
yeah
and
I
mean
following
opportunities
before
which
is
like
yeah.
Maybe
here
there's
no
confusion.
What
about
out
there
and
I
know
some
of
you
we're
actually
reaching
out
to
other
community,
so
I
would
expect
people
to
go
to
the
mic
and
explain
what
they
figure
out
when
talking
to
people
outside
here,
because
yeah,
obviously
probably
I,
would
expect
people
in
this
room
to
understand.
P
Well,
as
a
process
point
I
would
appreciate.
Having
somebody
tell
me
what
the
problem
is
with
precision
before
I'm
told
that
it's
not
important,
I
had
not
been
following
this
stuff.
I'd
been
coding
for
the
past
two
months,
so
I've
come
to
this
cold
and
I
had
no
idea
what
anybody
was
talking
about
and
by
the
way
red
herrings
are
called
kippers.
You
come
to
the
UK,
they're,
actually
really
tasty.
P
Now,
if
you
go
back
to
the
table
in
particular
I
am
concerned,
we
are
only
concerned
with
confusion
between
the
rows
over
columns
now,
as
in
terms
of
problems
that
are
caused.
There
is
a
problem
that
is
caused
by
a
conflict
between
the
assumptions
of
our
process
and
the
expectations
of
the
external
world
and
I've
heard
it
many
times,
because
there
is
an
assumption
built
into
many
ITF
processes.
P
That
document
required
or
RFC
required
is
a
trivial
bar,
and
there
are
other
parts
inside
being
idea
in,
particularly
in
the
security
area,
where
we
do
not
want
RFC
numbers
to
go
on
certain
things
we
do
not
want.
You
know
I
do
not
like
seeing
an
eye
an
RFC
number
going
on
any
cryptographic
algorithm
or
an
Wade
for
an
algorithm.
P
I
want
to
see
that
stop
unless
it
is
an
algorithm
that
the
ITF
has
specifically
developed
and
reviewed
thoroughly
in
CFR,
G
or
something
that
has
been
through
some
analogous
process,
because
when
people
pick
because
we
have
a
whole
load
of
people
come
to
ITF
with
garbage
crypto
to
get
our
implement,
and
you
can
be
sure
that
they
are
then
selling
that
crypto
as
good
crypto.
As
saying
that
the
ITF
is
back
you,
so
that
is
a
concrete
example
where
this
confusion
arises.
P
A
To
pray
for
once
more
I
mean
if
we
have
had
our
problem
statement,
we
would
have
put
it
there.
I
mean
we
are
working
on
understanding,
whether
people
agree
or
not.
This
opponent.
So
in
that
sense
that
what
we
are
trying
to
figure
out
and
as
I
said
I
understand,
people
make
be
frustrated,
but
this
is
where
we
are
so
I.
Don't
think
it
would
be
fair
for
us
with
a
problem
statement
and
I'm
just
go
there
without
discussing
you
know
what
is
the
basically
filling
in
the
room,
not.
I
I
Do
think
there's
a
problem
here
in
that,
as
been
said,
a
couple
of
times,
people
who
are
out
of
this
process
read
our
documents
and
they
don't
understand
the
context
and
we
look
at
that
and
say:
well,
it's
obvious.
You
just
go
to
this
website
and
look
up
this
status
and
or
you
look
at
this
boilerplate
and
you
can
tell
that
this
means
that
and
we
have
the
history
they
don't
they
don't
I.
I
R
Bots,
so
what
I'm
confused
with
is
the
purpose
of
the
boss?
If,
if
you
felt
that
you
know
I
I,
think
Heather's
done
a
good
job
of
listening
to
things
as
her
people
are
trying
to
give
her
some
sanity
checks.
We've
she's
done
pretty
good.
If
you're
saying
the
Boff
is
because
she's
not
listening.
Okay,
if
you're
just
saying
this
was
a
chance
to
get
community
input,
okay,
but
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
that
originates
from
the
way.
This
whole
process
hip
hit
up
so
I'm,
even
more
confused
than
the
questions.
R
I
I
see
many
things
that
we
need
to
do,
but
I'm
confused.
Why?
You
know
Heather's
gone
through
a
lot
of
this.
Why
you
didn't
have
her
stand
up
and
talk
about
some
of
these
issues
and
some
of
the
current
standard
stuff,
if
you're
going
to
do
give
me
more
meat
on
the
bones
to
make
some
substantial
comments
about
what
the
problem
is:
it's
just
not
normal
for
bath
guys
to
have
so
little
meat
on
the
bones.
Yeah
I.
A
S
Right
Chris:
well,
this
one
I'd
make
two
quick
comments.
Personally,
element
of
confusion.
Yes,
from
my
personal
experience,
there
is
much
confusion.
I
speak
to
many
people
who
have
you
know
similar
things
that
Janice
colleagues
friends
happen
to
have
that
they
great
individual
drafts
or
Darcys,
with
basically
everything
that
comes
out
the
way
Jeff
is
the
same,
and
they
consider
I
mean
it
goes
into
the
ITF,
a
good
idea
and
I.
Think,
oh,
no,
that's
not
the
case.
All
the
time
I'll
ever
know.
There's
a
problem
in
this
particular
form.
S
Yes,
so
it
also
claim
it
is.
Particular
parties
are
crazy,
equal.
We
all
know
that,
but,
like
I
said
maybe
before
I
talk
to
just
assume
that,
because,
as
an
RFC,
we
should
treat
it
the
same
way,
be
it
information
on
standards
or
anything,
and
they
let
that
influence
like
designs
and
cipher,
and
things
like
that
which
is
not
good
and
to
Stuart's
point
yes,
I
would
expect
individuals
to
sort
of
read
the
material
and
kind
of
understand,
and
you
know
figure
out.
What's.
S
B
I'm
Monica
Jennifer
networks,
listening
to
the
conversation
I
hear
that
we
don't
have
a
clear
crisp
discussion,
description
of
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve.
We
don't
know.
Well,
if
we
didn't
know
what
the
problem
is,
we
wouldn't
know
how
severe
it
is
and
we
don't
have
any
proposals
on
the
table
to
solve
the
problem.
T
Rick's
also
speaking
from
my
OpenSSL
experience,
yes,
there's
a
problem
and
yeah
I'd
like
to
see
it
solved
sooner
rather
than
later
back
in
January
back
in
December,
the
OpenSSL
team
got
together
and
we
said:
okay,
we're
gonna,
have
a
nice
bright
line
for
deciding
what
kinds
of
crypto
we're
gonna
implement
and
whatnot,
and
we
said
the
bright
line
will
be
IETF
standard
that
didn't
help
us
at
all
all
right.
We
have
people
who
spent
significant
time
and
effort
implementing
J
peak
because
it's
a
standard.
Well,
it's
actually
not.
T
We
had
to
point
out
no
see
it's
an
individual
and
it
comes
from
the
CFR
G,
but
you
know
it's
published
by
the
ITF,
and
so
there's
also
an
opportunity
cost
and
as
I
also
see
it
not
just
in
terms
of
people
wasting
time
doing
things
that
aren't
really
core
and
useful
to
the
whole
internet.
There's
also
customers
coming
in
and
saying
well,
I
want
this
thing:
I
saw
it
more.
T
A
R
Lynch
Minister
without
portfolio
I'm,
gonna
read
something
and
then
I
I
want
to
follow
up
on
something
that
Andrew
said.
The
content
of
an
nwg
note
may
be
any
thought,
suggestion,
etc
related
to
the
host
software
or
any
other
aspect
of
the
network,
notes,
are
encouraged
to
be
timely
rather
than
pouched
philosophical
positions
without
examples
or
other
specifics.
Specific
sex
suggestions
or
implementation
techniques
without
introductory
or
background
explanation
and
explicit
questions
without
any
attempted
answers
are
all
acceptable.
R
The
minimum
length
for
an
nwg
note,
it's
one
sentence,
these
standards,
or
lack
thereof,
are
stated
explicitly
for
two
reasons.
First,
this
is
the
important
part.
There
is
a
tendency
to
view
a
written
statement
as
if
so
facto
authoritative
and
we
hope
to
promote
the
exchange
and
discussion
of
considerably
less
than
authoritative
ideas.
A
U
C
U
Right
in
order
for
our
documents,
anything
you
write
here
to
be
effective.
You
know
this
would
didn't
gonna
make
that
happen.
It
may
need
to
be
taken
up
and
understood
and
put
in
context
by
a
whole
big
community
of
developers
and
users
and
among
that
community,
in
all
of
the
conversations
I've
had
there's
a
tremendous
deal
of
confusion,
not
just
confusion
in
the
universe,
in
the
abstract,
confusion
among
populations
and
people
for
which
getting
the
clear
message
it
matters
when
I
ask
people
about
what
they
think
the
RFC
series
is.
U
There's
almost
universal
surprise
run
about
the
fact
that
our
request
for
comments,
our
university,
immutable
and
unchangeable
I
think
that's
water
under
the
bridge.
We
can
live
with
that,
but
the
other
thing
that
they
that
people
are
always
surprised
by
is
that
there's
not
you
know
it's
consumable,
consistent
process
by
which
these
things
are
produced.
The
IETF
is
not
the
owner
of
that
process.
People
think
in.
In
my
you
know,
my
anak
data
is
that's
the
case,
so
I
write.
U
My
experiences
several
other
people
have
said
is
that
there
is
confusion
and
it's
confusion
in
communities
that
matter
for
the
efficacy
of
our
work
in
a
now.
Is
that
harmful?
Is
that
a
concrete
point
of
harm?
I
can
point
you
I
think
for
the
mothers
there's
some
anecdotes
you'll
hear
about
that,
but
I
think
for
the
most
part,
it's
not
gonna,
be
you
know
this
Network
failed
or
this
project
failed
or
this.
You
know
bad
concrete
bad
thing
happened
because
of
a
specific
point
of
confusion.
I
do
this
more.
U
You
know
Rome
taking
five
hundred
years
to
fall
right.
We've
all
had
our
worries
about
the
relevance
of
the
IETF
to
the
internet,
and
this
is
a
contributing
factor
in
that
in
that
friction
between
our
community
here
and
the
Internet
community
writ
large.
So,
given
that
that
kind
of
gradual
grinding
a
paper
cut
sort
of
problem
we
have
and
given
that
you
know
our
experience
with
things
like
the
RFC
format-
is
that
it
takes
multiple
years
to
make
any
change
here.
V
They
so
Gabe
cynical
in
the
interest
of
brevity.
I'll
just
add
my
support
to
those
that
have
made
comments
regarding
that
there's
confusion
to
the
external
community,
the
other
stos
you
know,
or
they
have
a
view.
All
up,
see
is
created
equal
and
we
have
to
explain
to
them
is
some
are
more
equal
than
others
right
timing-wise.
V
This
doesn't
need
to
be
solved
tomorrow.
It
didn't
get
caused
in
one
day.
It's
not
going
to
get
solved
in
one
day
and
as
far
as
harm
goes
it's
the
time
and
effort
that
it
takes
to
explain
that
el
RFC's
are
not
created
equal,
that's
the
harm
it
takes,
it's
it's
an
onerous
effort.
It
takes
a
tremendous
amount
of
time
and
therefore
money
to
what
Lucy
just
led.
W
It's
sort
of
like
trying
to
add
semantics
to
the
ipv6
address,
thinking
that
somehow
that
will
reduce
I,
don't
know
solve
somebody's
problems.
I,
don't
think
that
adding
semantics
there
is
a
solution
and
here's.
Why
I
don't
think
it's
a
solution?
The
confusion
is
brought
about
by
the
fact
that
there
are
some
proposed
standards
that
are
not
worth
the
paper
it
would
take
to
print
them.
W
There
are
some
informational
artsy's
that
I
personally
widely
demand
vendors
implement
because
they
are
worth
a
whole
lot
more
than
some
standards
and
the
reason
one
became
a
proposed
standard
and
one
didn't
is
because
consensus
which
didn't
involve
necessarily
the
consensus
of
eventually
use
it.
So
you
have
that
the
other
reason
I
don't
think
that
adding
the
semantics
will
work
is
because
I
see
that
there
is
even
confusion
among
drafts.
W
I
see
people
pointing
to
draft
as
here's
what
the
IFT
IETF
says,
and
not
only
do
they
wait
to
drafts
that
have
IETF
in
the
draft
title.
They
point
to
drafts
that
do
not
have
IETF
in
the
title.
So,
if
you're
going
to
try
to
solve
the
confusion,
it
it's
not
going
to
happen
and
I
think
the
draft
stuff
is
just
a
case
in
point
and
I.
Think
really.
Education
was
the
way
to
go
and
I
really
recommend
making
any
changes
by
adding
semantics.
W
A
F
F
F
F
X
Hi
I'm
Ted
Hardy,
not
the
previously
speaking
Ted
lemon,
but
a
difference,
Ted
I'm
here
to
point
out
two
things
and
to
make
one
claim.
First,
a
number
of
people
have
looked
at
the
back
matter
for
this
buff
and
somehow
missed
that
one
of
the
back
pieces
of
back
matter
was
a
an
RFC
published
at
something
like
23
years
ago
now,
which
described
a
portion
of
this
problem,
and
so
the
question
of
is
this
urgent
or
not,
is
definitely
been
answered
because
it
clearly
is
not.
X
It
came
back
to
the
fore
to
some
degree
with
Christian
returning
to
the
ivy
and
going
20
years
ago.
I
left
you
this
problem
and
I
think
that
that
that
clearly
answers.
That
is
this
something
that
has
to
be
an
answer
today.
No,
this
is
an
something
that
we've
lived
with
for
very
long
I.
Think.
The
second
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
there
is
in
fact,
more
than
one
stream
trying
to
speak
here
and
we've
made
several
evolutions
since
the
text
that
Lucy
read
out
so
feelingly,
the
first
of
which
was
we.
X
X
Adaptive
radiation
and
I
think
the
question
that
I
want
the
group
to
think
about,
as
we
go
forward
is,
is
that
the
right
engineering
balance
for
the
different
communities
that
read
these
different
streams,
whether
it's
a
single
community,
I
I,
think
it's
actually
more
than
one
and
given
that
we
actually
now
have
the
opportunity
to
do
lots
of
publications
that
can
comment
on
our
season.
Many
different
ways
that
don't
need
to
be
within
the
series.
Are
we
missing
something
by
missing
that
evolution
and
I?
Think
that's
a
question.
That's
worth
asking
thank.
A
Y
I
can
definitely
tell
you
there
is
absolute
confusion
about
you.
Know:
standards
track
versus
informational,
every
single
RFP
I
have
responded
to
in
20
years.
Has
informational
documents?
Are
you
compliant
to
it?
It
really
really
bothered
me
at
first
and
I
tried
to
explain
to
the
sales
guys
and
all
that,
but
you
know
they
didn't
like
it
when
I
said
put
all
that
text
in
there
about
that,
and
you
know
what
in
20
years,
nothing's
broken,
we've
not
had
a
customer
come
and
complain
right.
Y
Show
me
how
you've
implemented
this
sort
of
thing
right,
so
I
I,
don't
think
we
have
a
real
problem
to
solve
and
when
someone
comes
up
and
finds
an
individual
draft
and
they
do
sometimes
show
up
in
RFPs
to
me,
that's
an
opportunity
for
dialogue.
Okay,
why
do
you
want
this
and
you
know
open
discussion
about
it,
but
I
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
real
problem
to
solve,
at
least
in
my
experience
in
20
years.
Thank.
Z
You
Mary
told
us
Eckhart
that,
just
speaking
for
myself,
not
on
my
employer,
a
good
luck,
if
you
change
anything,
be
if
you
change
anything,
please
very
carefully.
Look
at
the
current
default
IP
our
disclosures
try
to
figure
out
which
actual
type
of
stream
they
apply
to
and
try
to
make
sure
that
you
know
any
change.
We're
doing
on
the
whole
system
is
accompanied
by
modification
to
the
IP,
our
disclosure,
that
will
rather
make
it
easier
to
get
IP
our
disclosures,
you
know
clearly
for
more
streams.
Z
Then
we
have
right
now
are
not
less
right,
because
right
now
there
is
a
good
likelihood
in
court
that
you
could
basically
get
you
know
the
IP,
our
disclosure
applicable
to
informational.
Maybe
not
even
you
know
some
of
the
disclosures
to
any
idea,
but
also
individual
streaming
right.
So,
let's
make
sure
that
we
rather
get
you
know
more
IP,
our
disclosures
than
less.
If
we're
going
to
tackle
it.
Thank.
AB
When
I
was
a
ATF
chair,
we
had
a
meeting
with
the
ITU
leadership
and
they
were
very
confused
about
which
of
the
RFC's.
It
was
appropriate
to
have
one
of
their
standards
reference.
We
sat
down,
explained
it
in
West
half
an
hour
wrote
some
text,
they
put
it
in
their
policies
and
procedures,
and
it
hasn't
been
revisited
for
ten
years.
It's
work,
I
think
that
kind
of
education
can
happen
to
reduce
the
magnitude
of
the
problem.
A
AC
AA
Yadi
Erica,
so
it's
my
personal
opinion
is
that
we
actually
do
have
multiple
problems.
You
know
in
the
different
parts
of
the
RFC
system
and
for
different
uses
or
different
streams.
We
I
think
we
have
an
issue
with
sort
of
the
you
know:
more
dynamic,
github
file,
style,
working
and
and
how
that
fits
fits
their
RFC
model
and
on
some
part
of
the
community.
AA
We
have
some
question
about
the
you
know,
confusion
around
me:
what
does
this
RFC
actually
stand
for
I've
sort
of
certainly
personally
witnessed
that
the
number
of
times
we
have
an
ongoing
discussion
about.
You
know
how
well
the
RFC
series
its
the
purposes
of
the
IRT
F
and
then
the
other
other
issues.
Now
the
question
of
course,
is
you
know
how
serious
are
these
problems
and
can
they
be
faked?
Neri
asked
also-
and
you
know,
my
personal
opinion
has
varied
over
the
years.
AA
I
at
least
certainly
right
now,
I'm
not
losing
sleep
over
at
least
the
confusing
confusion
thing,
but
I
do
perceive
it
as
a
problem,
and
the
other
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
it
is
important
that,
like
for
a
living,
serious
or
live
living
system,
we
actually
consider
some
of
these
issues
that
we
might
actually
have
to
discuss
in
the
community
and
and
otherwise
to
to
look
at
if
we
have
problems
and
then
if
we
do
have
problems
that
we
go
and
fix
them
in
some
fashion,
so
I
think
that's
important.
Thank
you.
AD
So
I
think
Andrew
asked
the
question,
though
I'd
like
to
get
up
and
ask
and
I
think
this
probably
is
a
concession
to
Heather
in
that
we're
talking
about
the
wrong
thing.
We
started
in
the
log
frame
for
all
of
this
I've
come
to
the
realization,
after
having
this
discussion,
that
there
are
some
fundamental
problems
here
and
the
I
think
to
a
large
extent
the
problems
that
we're
seeing
our
as
a
result
of
the
evolution
of
the
series
and
the
evolution
of
the
streams
over
time.
AD
AD
What
was
considered
good
and
useful
and
and
valuable
in
1983
is
very
different
to
what
we
use
is
the
serious
point
today
and
to
Ted's
point
that
is
reflected
in
a
little
bit
of
tension
between
the
different
uses,
my
streams
and
and
often
even
potentially,
within
the
streams
for
the
ITF
string
with
the
diverse
uses
that
it
has
in
maybe
some
tension
there
between
what
we
use
experimental
in
the
processes
that
we
applied
for
those
first,
those
to
be
put
on
stands
track,
I'm
less
concerned
about
that
attention.
There.
AD
C
AE
Yeah
I
think
that's
important,
Cullen,
Cullen,
Thanks,
I'm
gonna
just
speak
so
I
think
there
is
a
problem,
but
I'd
like
to
start.
Why
I
think
it's
important
is
I.
Think
our
RFC
brand
is
is
the
most
valuable
thing
IETF
actually
has.
When
you
go
to
developers
that
aren't
deep
in
Internet
technology
people
in
this
room-
and
you
say:
hey:
can
you
implement
RFC
x4u
the
general
assumption?
It's
probably
good,
its
RFC
X?
It's
probably
worth
you
know
well-thought-out
worth
doing
and
that's
that's
a
that's
a
very
valuable
thing.
AE
Something
that
has
not
really
had
very
wide
review
and
then
they
go
and
represent
it
as
having
wide
review
and
wide
consensus,
and
we've
all
seen
this
governments
with
vendors
and
endings
and
multiple
people
who
stood
up
this
might
consent.
Hey,
that's
not
a
real
big
deal.
You
spend
some
time
with
them
and
educate
them.
That
is
a
little
bit
true,
but
I
don't
think
that's
the
cost.
The
real
cost
is
the
ones
we
never
get
to
explain
to
because
they
never
come
to
us.
AE
AE
Obviously,
it's
been
around,
we've
been
bleeding
for
25
years
and
we
should
either
just
accept
we're
going
to
keep
bleeding
forever
or
we
should
urgently
try
and
solve
this
problem.
But
what
we
should
not
do
is
just
continue
boiling
frogs
right
that
one
way
or
the
other
I
don't
really
care
which
but
I
think
it's
actually.
The
fact
you've
been
bleeding
on
something
for
twenty
years
might
mean
it's
more
urgent
to
deal
with
then
yeah.
Let's
do
it
for
another.
Ten
years,
Thank
You
Colin
go.
AF
You
know
my
name
is
Jeff
Maya
I'm
with
sweet
GPP.
We
have
something
like
I
think
some
people
in
this
room
are
striving
for.
So
we
have
a
clear
distinction
between
normative,
like
real
standards
and
informative,
like
something
like
your
best
current
practice
or
studies,
and
this
is
nice
to
have,
but
the
problems
that
you
are
raising.
They
also
happen
in
our
standards
body,
so
people
putting
just
TR,
which
is
an
informative
paper
on
on
slides
and
saying
this
is
now
done
by
3gpp.
Well,
this
is
just
a
study.
This
my
diet
includes
several
solutions.
AF
Maybe
the
person
shows
you
only
one
solution,
so
there's
no
clarity
or
there
is
from
the
outside
world.
Let's
say
that
way:
they
still
need
to
come
back
to
us
look
into
our
specifications.
They
need
to
be
willing
to
learn
and
to
understand
what
we
are
doing
and
usually
when
things
are
put
on
a
slide
or
in
some
general
paper.
These
things
are
not
discussed,
and
these
things,
unfortunately,
are
not
understood
right.
So,
whether
you
call
it
differently
or
not,
people
don't
usually
don't
see
the
difference.
AF
On
the
other
hand,
we
are
referencing
a
lot
of
your
documents
and
obviously
we
have
a
lot
of
discussions
about
drafts,
so
it
took
us
a
while
to
fully
understand
what
the
different
types
of
drafts
mean
and
what
the
different
stages
are,
but
nowadays
we
have
a
good
understanding
and
it's
a
learning
process,
and
it
also
means
that
those
people
who
are
interested
in
drafts
come
here
and
learn
from
you.
So
I
think
this
is
also
a
mechanism
to
tract
people
here.
AG
AG
Did
have
some
problems
with
several
SEO
s.
I
had
separate
meetings
with
the
itu
and
also
ones
with
nist,
and
we
had
literally
plenary
lines
and
if
sean
stood
up
to-
and
I
stood
up
at
that
planner
in
line
talking
about
standards
track
documents,
and
why
don't
we
put
an
effort
towards
making
document
standards
track
and
that
would
have
gone
a
long
way
at
that
time
for
that
problem.
So
is
that
part
of
this
problem
too?
AG
And
I
suspect
yes
and
the
other
thing
I
you
know-
I
think
Heather
made
a
really
good
point
in
the
beginning.
Let's
see
what
she
could
come
up
with,
because
some
of
this
might
be
user
interface
display
things
that
could
easily
be
solved,
but
I
think
that
standards
track
and
us
making
him
concerted
effort
to
you
know
push
documents
to
standards.
Internet
standard
would
be
important
and
helpful.
AG
L
One
is
intentional
process
abuse
people
getting
RFC's
to
masquerade
as
something
that
they're,
not
I,
haven't
heard
compelling
evidence
that
it
exists
in
a
way
that
we
should
be
concerned
about,
but
I'm
open
to
that
I
think
the
actual
much
bigger
problem
is
what
Barbara
and
Randy
were
talking
about,
which
is
our
technology
is
hard
to
understand.
You
know
we
produce
documents
a
very
fragmented
way
that
is
driven
more
by
the
engineering
process
than
by
trying
to
make
the
design
that
we're
describing
easily
consumable
by
the
people
who
need
to
understand
it
and
support
it.
L
L
AH
AH
Really
needs
a
lot
of
debate.
We
can
all
cite
some
examples,
however,
that
doesn't
mean
that
some
unspecified
change
is
going
to
make
things
less
confusing.
It
could
easily
be
worse.
Some
confusion
is
inevitable
because
people's
attention
is
in
short
supply,
and
it
takes
time
to
understand
this
stuff,
not
just
the
technical
stuff
but
the
politics.
So
there
is
a
limited
ability
to
improve
things
that
doesn't
mean
it
might
be.
This
trial,
that's
fine.
We
shouldn't
get
all
freaked
out
about
it.
AH
It
should
be
part
of
our
ongoing
process
just
to
think
how
do
we
make
stuff?
How
do
we
address
the
public's
confusion
about
it
as
an
ongoing
effort?
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
some
of
you
can
cite
examples,
but
I
can't
think
of
a
single
technical
specification
series
that
I
can
look
at
it
and
immediately
tell
whether
this
is
relevant
or
high-quality.
If
somebody
has
what
I'd
like
to
know
about
it.
In
my
opinion,
the
biggest
problem
in
IETF
is
not
independent
stream
submissions.
AH
So
you
know
I
think
we've
got
some
fundamental
problems
with
that
process
and
if
we
want
our
documents
to
be
more
reliably
relevant,
we
have
to
look
at
ourselves
and
we
have
to
look
at
our
own
processes
and
how
do
we
produce
better
quality
documents
that
are
more
relevant
and
I'll?
Tell
you
something
it
doesn't
mean
ignoring
tussles
and
hoping
that
the
problem
will
go
away
and
just
split
every
problem
to
the
point
that
those
tussles
are
not
obvious.
AH
AI
AI
We've
also
got
confusion
between
documents
of
high
quality
and
documents
of
low
quality.
Unfortunately,
that's
independent
of
stream.
We've
got
high
quality,
independent
submission
of
documents
and
low
quality
of
events.
We've
got
high
quality,
I
asked
gief
documents
and
some
really
abysmal
quality
fixing.
That
would
certainly
be
worthwhile.
Maybe
we
need
to
reconsider,
giving
the
RFC
editor
the
power
back
to
say
no,
this
work
as
acceptable
quality
for
the
series,
regardless
of
specular
content.
AI
If
we
were
to
solve
that
problem,
this
was
pointed
out
about
three
TV
big.
It
is
Martin.
Durst
pointed
out
list.
Almost
every
standards
body
has
confusion
among
its
various
kinds
of
documents,
ISO
used
to
have,
and
they
still
have
a
class
of
technical
reports
which
we're
known
internally
as
some
standards,
but
externally
they
were
type
three
technical
reports
and
nobody
knew
the
difference
unless
they
took
the
trouble
to
understand
and
read
introductions
and
pay
attention
to
what
was
careful
attention
to
what
was
normative.
Law
was
not
murdered.
AI
It
seems
to
me
that
the
other
issue
here,
which
has
not
been
mentioned,
is
the
RFC
series,
including
the
quotation
from
RFC.
Three
did
you
see
read
started
out
in
a
way
which
is
part
of
the
defining
characteristic
of
the
idea,
which
is
that
we
are
an
engineering
body
which
also
produces
standards,
and
it's
an
engineering
body.
We
are
and
need
to
be
very
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
we
are
not
emissions.
AI
Everything
we
write
is
not
going
to
turn
out
to
be
either
useful
or
in
the
long
run.
Even
true,
and
the
critiques
and
evaluations
of
our
own
work
are
very
important,
that
engineering
process
and
to
blow
any
of
that
away
on
the
theory
that
we
ought
to
control
streams
differently
or
that
some
document
categories
are
more
valuable
or
more
important
by
virtue
of
where
they
came
from
than
other
document
categories
moves
us
closer
to
the
bone
of
standards,
bodies
that
the
IETF
has
spent
years
and
years
criticizing,
sometimes
in
very
aggressive
language.
AI
S
AI
Of
expertise
is,
to
put
it
mildly,
well
above
the
average
of
the
IETF,
for
the
people
in
this
room,
and
if
we
think
we
have
a
problem,
then
we
should
be
handing
our
description
of
the
problem.
Don't
think
we
have
one
yet
to
Heather
and
asking
for
recommendations
and
taking
those
very
seriously,
and
if
we're
not
going
to
do
that,
we've
got
much
more
serious
problems
than
confusion
about
the
RFC
series.
Thank.
A
P
Now
there
was
a
point
when
anything
to
net
draft
will
expire
after
six
months,
and
then
summers
who
knew
patent
work
pointed
out,
hey,
you're,
destroying,
and
so
now
they
don't
expire.
I
would
like
to
propose
that
you
can
take
an
internet
draft
and
turn
it
into
an
Internet
proposal
or
anything.
Something
and
all
he
means
is
that
that
name
is
now
fixed
in
it's
never
gonna
change.
Now,
what
does
that
do
for
us?
P
Well,
all
of
those
people
who
all
they
need
to
do
is
to
get
a
big
document
together,
a
code
point
assignment
Ayana
registry,
whatever
they
know
a
series
which
is
just
that
now.
The
objection
that
I
would
down
here
was:
oh,
the
whole
world
is
gonna,
come
in
demand,
thinks
of
the
ITF
and
they're
gonna
get
that
success,
because
one
of
my
concerns
here
is
that
the
ITF
has
lost
traction
with
the
internet.
Development
community
is
no
longer
too
people
come
to
write.
Q
Me
and
I
just
would
like
to
provide
some
personal
observations.
The
first
one
is
that
we
are
today.
We
are
talking
about
computing
confusions.
Confusion
are
not,
but
I
really
want
to
ask
you.
One
question,
for
is
that
it
is
ITF
is
ready
for
me
to
make
yourself
understood
from
more
people.
I
propose
this
question
because
clear
today
the
April
Fool's
documents
they're
published,
and
there
is
a
case
that
I
can
restate
ipv6
and
out
IP
win
I
fight
there
continually
in
China,
so
I
provide
my
reservation
here.
Q
So
unless
we're
not
when
I
first
come
to
IETF,
I
I,
don't
think
it's
a
very
serious
because
they
published
that
that
took
document
so
that
so,
if
I
give
one
more
people
to
understand
it
from
says
it's
document,
I
think
it
should
be
underway
to,
after
it
first
first
things
to
cut
out
the
April
April
first
jobs
document.
That's
my
one
reservation.
Q
Second,
when
I
first
entered
one
field,
for
example,
that
yes
field
I.
Finally,
it's
very
hard
to
for
now,
entry
are
I
compared
with
a
standard
if
like,
if
a
thing
stand,
buddy
of
like
the
H
Bowie,
the
they
can
be,
or
some
structured
some
directory
structure
way
for
newcomers
to
reduce
the
learning
curve,
so
that
people
can
be
most
easy
to
follow
the
surrett
mainstream
threat
and
and
to
grab
the
the
stander
are
serious.
So
that
I
think
that's
that's
a
the
second
excellent.
Thank.
AJ
I
AJ
Of
the
things
that
I've
heard,
people
saying
is
that
people
get
confused
between
proposed
standards
and
informational
and
PCP,
and,
oh
my
god,
that's
a
problem.
Thank
you
because
course
sure,
okay,
so
I
mean
I,
should
point
out
that,
if
you
add
up
informational
and
BCP
and
some
of
the
others
experimental
that
gets
too
close
to
40%
of
our
documents,
a
lot
of
the
stuff
that
is
informational,
saying
that
is
on
RFC's,
very
much
makes
them
second-class
citizens,
and
you
know.
AK
AJ
A
H
H
Would
you
say
that,
like
these
documents
that
we
spent
so
probably
spit
out
like
72,
color
ASCII
or
like
not
entire
conversation
and
like
a
huge
amount
of
that
conversations
happening
other
places
on
github,
the
tapping
on
you
know
I'm,
squeezing
people's
blogs
a
medium
on.
So
like
we're
already
concentrating
we're
like
we're
like
the
like.
The
the
conversation
is
only
on
our
series
now
doesn't.
Does
that
mean
we
have
like
split
the
series
up?
H
No,
but
things
like
they're
like
that's
no
longer
like
the
way
things
play
out
and
as
he
was
saying,
different
things
require
different
on.
You
know
levels
of
trilliant
and
different
levels
of
behavior,
and
you
know
there
are
things
that
like
may
tends
to
be
like
immutable
documents
and
things
that
always
being
royal
documents
and
things
that
may
say
is
to
have
like
PI
bars
for
for
approval
dissemination,
stuff,
a
brochure
approval,
and
so,
as
a
press
requirement
like
we
need
to
support
those
kinds
of
things.
H
If
you
want
to
be
sensible
people
and
like
make
the
world
work
and
like
we
come
as
long
as
for
Co
point
assignments,
we're
actually
like
you're
important
to
have
some
like
wave
like
stop
document
somewhere,
so
that
people
can
see
that
the
code
point
means
but
like
I,
don't
need
to
be
like
it
is
it.
It
may
need
to
be
immutable.
I
find
it
doesn't
need
to
be
like
go
through
any
actual
proof.
So
you
know
it's
like.
Is
there
confusion,
I?
Think.
H
On
is
it
urgent,
I,
don't
know
on,
but
I
guess
I
hear
some
people
I
think
I
feel
like
people
like
their
need
like
if
we
do
any
kind
of
segmentation
that
customer
out
of
the
conversation
and
I
think
that
may
be
true
like
at
one
point
but
I
just
think.
Is
it
true
now?
So
if
that's
people's
concern,
I
guess
I'm
watching!
Thank
you!
Eric!
Oh
yeah,.
AL
It
was
so
three
to
four
things.
First,
we
have
spent
since
the
internet
started
putting
out
standards
as
RFC.
If
people
haven't
gotten
the
idea.
This
is
where
our
standards
are
right
now
and
that
not
all
of
them
are
standards.
How
long
do
we
think
an
education
process
would
take
in
order
to
get
them
to
understand
a
change
we
have
invested
in
the
RFC
as
a
brand?
It
is
what
people
understand.
Our
standards
come
out
as,
if
folks
are
concerned,
that
there
are
some
RFC's.
That
should
be
more
important.
AL
That's
what
we
have
internet
standards
for
it'd
be
lovely
to
see
people
motivated
to
work
on
progressing
documents.
I
fear
the
point
not
all
RFC's
have
the
relevancy
when
you
start
that
at
the
history
of
it
changes
over
time
the
usefulness
of
the
changes
over
time
we've
talked
about
tagging
we've
talked
about
having
essentially
a
dashboard
equivalent
to
give
context
around
RFC's.
There
are
many
things
we
can
do,
but
throwing
away
the
brand
which
everyone
understands
this
is
where
standards
come
from,
is.
AL
AL
Informational
RFC's
matter,
BCPs
matter.
The
fact
that
I,
don't
have
to
write
code
doesn't
mean
the
architecture
for
how
to
use
it,
doesn't
matter,
that's
why
there
RFC
and
yes
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
bad
RFC's.
I've
read
them,
but
that's
not
the
point.
The
point
is
this
is
not
something
where
you
can
separate
out
and
say
these
are
the
ones
I
care
about.
Let's
trust
me,
but
once
I
care
about
very
different
from
the
ones,
some
other
people
care
about.
AL
The
fourth
point:
we've
already
a
header
is
already
taking
steps,
as
they
are
upset
with
the
new
format,
where
it's
going
to
be
even
clearer,
I
mean
I
know
we
can't
do
flashing,
but
everything
short
of
flashing
weren't,
doing
to
clarify
already
what
there
is
and
heather
and
the
RFC
enter.
The
oversight
board
have
spent
a
lot
of
time.
Thinking
and
hearing
about
what
these
things
are.
I
haven't
heard
why
they
were
not
adequately
involved
in
the
process
and
discussion
that
right
up
to
this
prom
I
haven't
seen
a
draft
to
read
about
it.
AL
A
AA
Hi
Bob,
you
did
sort
of
three
points,
I.
Think
a
lot
of
it's
been
said.
The
RFC
is
a
great
brand.
Everyone
wants
to
use
it.
Apparently
you
know.
So
this
is
a
nice
problem
to
have,
and
we
really
should
be
really
careful
to
not
break
it.
When
you
break
brands,
you
can't
ever
but
get
them
back,
and
so
some
of
the
proposals
that
were
made
I
think
our
job
would
be
negative,
I
sort
of
used.
AA
We
should
the
iatest
community
should
be
thinking
about
making
its
tent
bigger,
not
making
it
smaller
people
out
valuing
people
who
have
been
here
for
more
than
10
meetings
except
her,
except
where
we
want
to
make
this
bigger.
As
we
talk
about
not
having
enough
external
support,
I'm
not
gonna,
get
more
support.
If
we
make
it
harder,
we
make
the
tent
smaller
I'm,
not
convinced.
Yes,
everyone
is.
AA
L
C
AA
A
So
at
this
point
we
heard
kind
of
you
know
useful
feedback,
I
think
I'm
tensed
everyone
for
being
concise
and
to
the
point-
and
at
this
point
before
we
wrap
up
I,
would
like
to
give
Heather
the
the
possibility
to
come
to
the
mic
and
say
you
know:
you've
got
good
feedback.
Is
there
anything
you
would
like
to
us
to
ask
or.
K
Is
it
not
still
on
okay,
I
love,
the
mic.
Mike
loves
me.
So
what
I'm
hearing
from
all
of
this
is?
Is
it
super
urgent?
No
does
it
need
to
be
addressed?
Yes?
Does
it
actually
change
anything
that
I
had
already
been
planning
and
and
starting
to
socialize
and
talk
to
people
about?
No,
actually,
it
doesn't
I
do
think.
I'll
put
a
bump
up
in
urgency,
putting
together
the
kind
of
outline
of
what
problems
plural.
K
Do
we
have
what
tools
do
we
have
to
solve
them,
I'm,
also
very
inclined
to
reach
out
to
other
communities
that
I
work
with
the
archive
community,
the
library
community,
the
publisher
community,
or
with
the
internet
society
and
marketing
and
branding
people
folks
that
have
expertise
in
that
space
and
saying
how
you
guys
know
actually
more
about
this
than
I
do?
How
do
you
measure
this
kind
of
thing?
How
do
you
actually
evolve
a
brand
while
still
retaining
the
core
importance?
K
I
would
like
to
talk
to
the
IETF
a
little
bit
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
still
on
the
same
page
with
why
the
RFC
series
exists.
It's
not
it's
a
publication
mechanism.
It's
an
also
an
archival
mechanism.
Is
that
still
important
to
you,
it's
very
important
to
me,
but
it
that
that
seems
to
be
a
point.
That's
being
lost
quite
a
bit,
so
there's
work
here
to
be
done.
K
A
A
Okay,
so
I
think
from
from
yeah
exactly
no
I
so
from
our
site.
Basically,
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
the
end
of
the
session,
but
before
I
means
the
the
sponsoring
idea,
I
mean
do
you
do
you
want
us
to
do
anything
before
we
wrap
up
okay,
perfect?
So
thank
you
very
much.
As
I
said,
we
have
mixed
it
and
well.
The
meeting
is
adjourned.