►
From YouTube: IETF102-PLENARY-20180718-1710
Description
PLENARY meeting session at IETF102
2018/07/18 1710
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/proceedings/
A
So
we
went
in
and
dug
up
a
video
and
it's
a
song
from
a
musical
from
the
1960s.
A
funny
thing
happened
on
the
way
to
the
forum
by
Stephen
Sondheim.
Thank
you
sourcing,
but
the
lyrics
are
so
on
point
something
familiar
something
peculiar
something
for
everyone.
A
comedy
tonight
welcome
to
the
IHF
102
plenary.
A
People
might
not
remember
this,
but
this
particular
meeting
was
originally
scheduled
to
be
next
week
in
San
Francisco
and
when
he
ended
up
changing
it.
Due
to
some
concerns
about
visa
issues
and
immigration
issues
in
the
United
States,
we
decided
to
move
it
to
Montreal,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
had
to
change
the
dates
we
had
to
move
it
back
to
this
week.
A
A
So
getting
on
with
our
agenda
will
first
thank
our
hosts
are
briefly
and
then
we'll
have
updates
on
hot
topics
from
all
of
our
different
constituencies.
So
I'll
give
a
ITF
chairs,
update
Ted
will
talk
about
the
IAB
or
maybe
not
I.
Can't
we
crossed
you
out
you're
coming
on
later,
allison
will
speak
briefly
about
the
IRT.
F
will
have
administrative
hot
topics
and
then
we'll
hear
from
the
NomCom
chair
we'll
have
a
section
in
memoriam
we'll
do
some
recognition.
A
A
Juniper
is
one
of
our
global
hosts,
which
means
they've
made
a
multi-year
commitment
to
support
the
IETF
host
three
meetings
over
the
span
of
nine
years,
a
support
that
we
really
can't
function
without.
So
we're
extremely
appreciative
for
that.
Typically,
we
have
a
host
presentation,
but
juniper
wanted
to
donate
that
time
back
to
us
for
the
rest
of
the
plenary
and
wish
everybody.
A
Wish
everybody
a
productive
meeting
so
on
to
the
ITF
chairs
report
I'll
cover
some
typical
items,
participant
statistics
for
this
meeting.
A
little
note
about
the
hot
RFC
session
that
we
had
on
sunday,
an
update
on
I
asset
to
doe,
a
preview
of
an
agenda
experiment,
we're
running
at
ITF
103
and
then
just
a
reminder
about
respectful
behavior
at
our
meetings.
So
here
in
montreal
we
have
1020
people
on
site.
We
have
137,
first-time
attendees,
which
is
a
pretty
typical
sized
group
of
first-timers
first
time
our
meeting.
A
Yeah
I
took
the
ITF
hackathon
took
place
on
Saturday
and
Sunday.
We
set
another
new
attendance
record
at
the
hackathon
227
people
showed
up
in
person,
they
had
more
than
300
registered
41
people
remote
and
we
had
25
different
project
teams
so
that
event
continues
to
just
grow
and
grow.
We
also
did
the
hack
demo
happy
hour
on
Monday
night,
where
teams
could
present
their
projects
and
talk
to
other
attendees
about
what
they
accomplished
on
the
weekend.
A
We
also
have
the
World
Cup
streaming
at
the
hackathon,
an
additional
benefit
of
a
change,
and
some
people
worked
very
very
hard
as
you
can
see,
while
they
were
watching
the
game.
The
next
hackathon
will
take
place
again
on
the
weekend
prior
to
the
working
group
session,
starting
November
3rd
and
4th
in
Bangkok
prior
to
ITF
103.
So
please
plan
your
travel
accordingly.
A
This
is
a
second
meeting
where
we
ran
an
event
on
Sunday
night
called
request
for
conversation
hot
RFC.
This
involves
lightning
talks
to
encourage
brainstorming
to
socialize
new
ideas
to
find
collaborators
to
advertise.
Bar
buffs
and
side
meetings
took
place
on
Sunday
and
there
were
10
talks.
There
was
a
packed
room.
There
are
more
than
100
people
there
and
you
can
find
the
proceedings
on
on
the
web.
This
is
something
we've
done,
experimentally,
it's
only
the
second
time,
so
the
IHG
is
looking
for
feedback
about
this.
A
A
A
The
current
plan
is
to
create
a
limited
liability
corporation
IETF
LLC,
to
house
the
the
IAF's
administration.
It
will
be
a
legal
entity
within
the
internet
society
where
we
are
currently
organized
as
an
activity
on
Tuesday,
the
I
asset
to
working
group
met
and
in
the
room
at
least.
There
was
rough
consensus
about
the
final
big
open
issue
that
we
needed
to
resolve
about
related
to
the
LLC's
board
structure.
So
the
next
steps,
as
that
consensus,
is
being
confirmed
on
the
list.
A
So
that's
the
plan
for
is
a
judo
as
it
stands,
I
wanted
to
give
people
a
heads
up
about
an
experiment
with
the
agenda
that
we're
going
to
be
running
an
IETF
103.
This
has
been
mentioned
on
various
mailing
lists,
but
I
wanted
to
call
people's
attention
to
it
in
case
you're
planning
or
travel
and
I
take
103
we're
going
to
run
working
group
sessions
only
from
Monday
to
Thursday.
A
At
the
same
time
when
we
open
working
group
scheduling
so
we're
trying
to
do
this
to
see
if
we
can
have
a
little
bit
more
focused
time
and
in
the
working
groups,
we
have
a
lot
of
working
groups
who
typically
request
not
to
meet
on
fridays
anyway,
and
we've
we've
heard
the
suggestion
that
we
try
to
schedule
more
ad
hoc
time.
Friday
might
not
be
the
best
day.
We're
gonna
try
this.
They
might
try
something
different
in
the
next
go-around,
but
we
thought
we
would.
A
We
would
do
a
little
bit
of
an
experimentation,
we're
definitely
looking
for
more
feedback.
We've
gotten
a
lot
of
feedback
already,
which
we
appreciate,
and
certainly
once
we
actually
run
the
experiment,
we'll
be
asking
everybody
for
their
feedback.
I
just
wanted
to
remind
everybody
about
our
guidelines
for
a
respectful
behavior.
A
It
always
seems
weird
to
me
that
we
have
this
slide
in
here
on
Wednesday,
when
everybody's
already
been
here
for
three
days,
so
hopefully
I
think
everybody
is
already
aware
of
our
guidelines
for
respectful
behavior,
but
we
have
a
number
of
different
documents
that
outline
what
our
policies
are,
that
that
govern
how
we
treat
each
other
here
in
the
IETF.
So
please
be
cognizant
of
those
and
I
think
in
particular
we're
really
trying
to
establish
an
inclusive
and
open
community.
A
We
always
publish
a
report
in
advance
of
the
ICF
meeting,
so
there's
a
bunch
of
other
topics
that
are
covered
in
there
that
give
more
updates
about
working
groups
that
have
closed
and
opened
notable
documents
that
we
publish
since
the
last
meeting
and
so
on
also
currently
running
experiments
that
we
have
of
Appeals.
We've
had
one
appeal
since
the
last
IETF
meeting
and
lots
more
detail
from
all
of
the
other
entities
that
support
the
ITF,
the
IAB,
the
IOC,
the
RSC
editor
Ayanna,
the
NOC
Secretariat,
and
also
some
reporting
from
the
hackathon.
A
So
please
check
that
out.
We
like
to
use
the
IETF
blog
to
expound
a
little
bit
more
about
what's
going
on
in
the
IETF.
If
you
have
something
that
you
think
is
interesting
to
the
outside
world,
and
you
want
to
publish
on
the
blog,
please
let
me
know
we're
always
looking
for
more
content
and
we
would
be
happy
to
have
more
contributions.
B
Don't
have
slides
this
time
if
you
want
to
see
slides
about
the
IRT
F
there
in
the
IRT
F
opens
proceedings,
but
I
wanted
to
just
tell
you
that
we
are
a
growing
group.
We
had
a
tremendous
we're
very
grateful
to
everyone
who
cooperated
with
this,
because
we
have
a
our
yearly
workshop,
which
is
called
the
applied
networking
research
workshop,
which
is
co-sponsored
by
ACM
I,
saw,
can
I
RTF
as
well
as
some
corporate
sponsors,
whom
we
thank
gratefully
and
we
had
it
on
Monday
of
ITF
week
for
the
first
time.
B
This
was
the
third
of
them
and
we
were
asked
by
the
participants
to
make
it
during
IETF,
so
that
researchers
could
come
here
and
participate
and
become
involved
in
in
working
groups
and
research
groups
as
well,
and
would
be
interested
to
hear
your
feedback.
Those
of
you
who
may
not
have
registered
for
it
are
not
the
people
who
came
specifically
for
it
about
how
that
felt
to
you.
But
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
attendees,
it
was
a
great
success.
B
It
huge
difference
because
we
knew
that
the
sessions
were
surrounded
by
people
who
were
working
actively
on
the
deployment
of
protocols.
While
this
research
was
being
aired
and
that's
a
very
inspiring
thing,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
inspires
people
to
come
to
ITF
is
that
there's
a
chance
that
their
work
will
be
used
and
deployed.
So
thank
you
for
that.
B
C
B
Yeah
and
I
should
also
thank
the
the
magnificent
schedulers
of
AMS,
because
we
actually
worked
to
avoid
scheduling,
relevant
working
groups
against
sessions
so
that
people
could
drop
in
and
out
of
the
a
and
RW
and
I'm
glad
that
you
appreciated
that
glad.
You
notice
that
the
magnificent
schedulers
of
AMS.
D
Just
as
I
thought,
the
workshop
was
great
and
I
want
to
commend
to
folks
in
the
audience
who
weren't
there
Sharon
Goldberg
the
workshop
chairs
introductory
presentation
on
how
to
help
new
people
get
traction
for
their
proposals
in
the
IDF.
It's
I
understand
it's
posted
on
the
proceedings
page
and
it's
a
few
slides
and
if
I
run
into
anybody
who's
from
outside
the
community
who
wants
to
get
something
going
in
the
IDF,
it's
the
first
thing
I'm
going
to
show
after
the
demo.
That's.
B
F
E
E
I've
been
here
and
actually
get
to
know
people
on
a
different
level
and
of
course
it
takes
a
lot
to
make
oops
to
make
these
meetings
work,
and
we
really
appreciate
the
efforts
of
our
host
and
our
sponsors
and
everything
that
it
takes
to
really
go
out
there
and
get
the
the
the
funds
to
make
the
this
meetings
a
success
for
everyone,
who's
coming
from
so
far
away.
So
our
global
host
for
IETF
102
is
Juniper
Network
and
we
really
appreciate
I
hope
everyone
has
enjoyed
the
the
venue
this
time
it
has.
E
E
E
E
Our
silver
white
silver
sponsors
are
or
going
akame.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
your
efforts.
We
also
have
our
bronze
buzzer
as
Verisign
and
connectivity.
Sponsors
tell
us
and
met
rafacz
and
open
face,
and
we
have
two
circuits
that
came
in
and
I
hope.
Everything
has
gone
well
with
your
connectivity.
E
E
And
in
addition,
we
would
also
like
to
acknowledge
everyone
who
works
on
the
data
track,
our
enhancements
in
the
code
spread.
It
takes
a
lot
to
make
sure
that
we
are
enhancing
the
the
tools
to
make
sure
that
it's
working
well
on
your
path,
our
hackathon
Juniper,
Cisco,
Deb,
net
and
NBCUniversal.
Thank
you
very
much
and,
of
course,
the
NOC
volunteers
for
the
NOC.
E
We
have
everyone
who
works
with
line,
speed
and
me
deco,
bringing
the
meeting
to
participants
on
a
remote
level
and
now
we'd
like
to
acknowledge
that
IETF
is
going
to
be
in
Bangkok
in
November.
We
are
still.
We
are
actually
in
negotiations
for
a
global
hosts
for
this
meeting,
and
hopefully
we
have
some
negotiations
that
are
going
on
for
for
hosting
opportunities.
We
do
have
a
local
host
that
has
been
very
instrumental
and
helping
us
get
things
going
there
on
the
ground,
th
Nick.
E
G
You
may
notice
I'm,
not
Andrew
Sullivan,
so
one
of
the
big
changes
that
happened
is
Andrew.
Sullivan,
of
course,
is
now
the
CEO
and
president,
as
of
September
1st
of
I
saw,
and
that
made
him
ineligible
to
be
the
ioc
chair.
So
that's
a
speedy
Andrew
set
down
from
the
chair
position,
but
he
remains
in
the
IOC
and
I
was
selected
as
the
hello
and
1
Dean.
If
you
don't
know
me.
G
So
the
IOC
right
now
is
clearly,
you
know,
keep
the
lights
on
mode.
The
LLC
is
under
way
being
developed
and
set
up,
and
eventually,
when
it's
in
full
operation,
the
IOC
will
dissolve
and
be
replaced
by
the
LLC.
So
we
are
still
in
business,
we're
keeping
the
lights
on
going
and
we're
doing
what
we've
always
been
doing.
G
G
So
one
of
the
big
changes
that
has
been
going
on
in
the
meeting
selection
process
in
the
last
year
was
the
development
of
the
meeting
venue
criteria
and
there's
been
a
working
group.
That's
the
media
now
for
about
a
little
more
than
eager
and
they've
come
to
closure
on
my
documents
going
through
the
secretary
or
Sir
the
RFC
publication
process.
G
Currently,
we've
taken
that
document
in
the
IOC
and
we've
updated
our
meeting
process
to
reflect
its
requirements,
and
so,
if
you
go
to
these
URLs,
you
will
see
the
new
documented
process
for
how
many
venues
are
selected.
You
can
evaluate
it
and
hopefully
it's
very
clear
now
and
very
well
document
itself.
G
The
other
thing
I
like
to
note
that
we
have
replaced
when
we
recently
old
meetings
committee
that
went
in
the
IOC
that
took
care
of
all
the
stuff
and
with
this
new
change,
new
meetings,
venue
review
process,
we've
created
a
new
committee
literally
called
the
media's
venue
review
committee,
whose
job
it
is
to
take
the
venues
we
were
examining
and
measured
them
against
the
criteria
that
were
developed
by
the
working
group.
So
that's
a
significant
change
about
how
meeting
spaces
will
be
selected
going
forward.
G
Okay,
so
here's
the
the
controversial
one.
Potentially
we
warned
you
a
while
back
that
with
the
media
rates,
we're
going
to
be
changing.
The
good
news
is
the
earlybird
fee
has
not
changed.
It
remains
at
what
it's
always
been
or
what
it's
been
currently
and
but
we've
missed
other
changes,
so
the
late
fees
will
increase.
Just
before
the
meeting
two
weeks
before
the
meeting
and
at
the
meeting
to
$1,000
us
and
the
standard
rate
for
those
who
don't
claim
the
early
birth
fee
will
be
875
and
I'll.
G
Two
weeks
prior
to
the
meeting
ups
are
up
to
two
weeks
prior
the
medium.
You
can
get
this
standard
rate,
which
is
875,
and
if
you
are
closer
than
two
weeks
you
will
pay
$1,000.
This
was
the
best
way
we
could
balance
out
the
charging
and
a
need
for
ITF
to
increase
the
rates,
give
people
an
option
that
allow
them
to
maintain
the
current
rates.
G
One
point
I
would
really
like
to
make
Thailand
is
a
brand
new
country
and
we
have
not
been
to
it
as
the
ITF
before
so
the
guidance
we'd
like
to
give
to
our
age
nd,
wherever
you're
from
even
if
you've
never
needed
visas
before.
Please
take
a
look
at
the
visa
situation
for
yourself
personally
and
see
if
you're
going
to
need
a
visa
or
not
now
on
visas.
Typically,
visas
require
letters
of
invitation.
The
process
that
is
now
in
place
going
forward
is
that
prioritise
IETF
meetings
can
request.
G
Once
we
open
registration
you'll
be
able
to
request
a
letter
of
invitation
for
attendees
who
have
not
been
tonight
to
have
bt
in
the
past.
You
will
have
to
register
and
pay
your
registration
fee,
and
then
you
can
request
your
letter
for
invitation.
If
it
turns
out,
is
where
I'm
able
to
get
your
visa
through
the
process.
If
you
can't
attend
because
of
a
visa
issues,
we
will
refund
your
fee,
okay,
clear
enough
and
we're
going
to
polish
all
this
on
the
website.
So
it's
very
when
we
do
registration
for
103
going
forward.
G
G
So
that's
so
far
for
this
beanie,
it's
actually
been
very
good,
very
convenient.
We
are
only
three
fewer
than
projected
attendees
we're
a
thousand
27,
which
is
wonderful.
We
issued
the
remote
participants
442.
We
should
221
the
letters
of
invitation
for
visas.
The
revenue
from
registrations
is
six
hundred.
Ninety
eight
thousand
sixty
sixty-five
and
sponsorship
revenues
for
forty
three
at
three
and
three
two
dollars:
it's
a
bit
convenient
looking
back,
I
tip
101
in
London
we
had
1211
prepared
attendees
85
more
than
were
projected
and
I
won't
read
every
last
number
out
here
bottom
line.
H
Hello,
ietf
community,
do
we
have
we
need
some
attention.
You
come
on.
Let's
get
some
energy
going
here.
This
is
NomCom,
it's
exciting
stuff,
so
the
so
I'm
your
new
Nam
Kham
chair,
coming
in
and
so
I
have
a
few
slides
that
I've
prepared.
So
the
first
slide
is
to
show
not
that
slide.
The
first
slide
is
to
show
that
it
is
actually
possible
to
herd
cats,
and
this
is
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
for
the
next
six
to
eight
months
and
so
I'm
not
going
to
tell
you
which
who
the
cats
are.
H
Any
of
that
you
can
figure
that
out
for
yourself.
But
the
the
important
thing
here
is
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
we
have
a
large
number
of
volunteers
that
are
helping
out
with
this
process
of
Allah.
The
next
set
of
leaders
for
the
ietf
I
would
like
all
of
the
voting
and
non-voting
members.
If
you're
in
the
room,
please
stand
if
you've
got
your
orange
dot
wave,
it
proudly
one
there's
one
there's
another
one
over
there,
a
couple
back
there.
H
So
these
are
the
people
that
I'm
going
to
be
relying
on
heavily
I
am
a
non-voting
member,
which
means
all
I
can
do
is
make
sure
the
cats
fill
in
the
right
boxes.
So
it
is
very
important
to
provide
feedback
and
the
way
that
we're
going
to
interact
with
the
community
is
through
our
wonderful
set
of
IETF
data
tracker
tools.
So
if
you've
never
used
it,
you
can
probably
have.
H
But
if
you've
never
looked
at
it,
I
provided
the
link
to
the
website
and
there
are
some
tabs
at
the
top,
and
so
when
you're
ready
to
nominate
yourself
or
someone
else,
you
can
click
on
the
nominate,
tab
and
fill
out
the
forms
and
then
emails
will
happen.
And
then
you
know
magic
occurs.
And
then,
when
we
get
to
the
point
of
having
all
the
nominations
and
nominees,
then
you'll
be
able
to
provide
some
feedback
and
there's
going
to
be
some
new
behavior.
H
So
look,
you
know,
keep
your
eye
out
for
some
new
behavior
and
new
ways
to
provide
feedback
to
the
NomCom
this
year.
If
you're
looking
to
see
what
type
of
experience
we're
looking
from
the
community,
we
will
have,
we
have
some
information
there
now,
but
it's
based
on
whether
that
information
is
current.
There's
a
couple
of
places
we're
still
looking
for
some
more
details
about
the
experience
and
so
I'll
I'll
point
that
out
in
a
slide
or
two
and
then
there's
questionnaires.
H
If
you're
going
to
be
a
nominee,
we
have
a
questionnaire
that
you
need
to
fill
out.
Those
are
work
in
progress.
You
can
see
what
we
did
last
year
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
some
work
on
those.
So
that's
some
hard
work
that
we're
going
to
be
working
on
soon
like
in
the
next
week
or
two.
So
here
is
my
proposed
timeline.
This
is
published
on
the
NomCom
main
page.
The
important
date
here
that
we
really
are
striving
for
is
the
August
16th
date.
H
So
please
take
time,
provide
some
consideration,
read
the
background
and
really
provide
the
this
NomCom
with
a
reasonable,
wonderful
set
of
candidates
for
this,
so
I
am
going
to
end.
This
is
my
last
slide,
I'm
going
to
end
quoting
the
famous
American
philosopher,
Fiona,
Apple,
that
there
are
a
couple
lines.
We
are
an
extraordinary
community
right,
there's
a
song
that
she
has.
It
says,
but
he's
no
good
at
being
uncomfortable,
so
he
can't
stop
staying
exactly
the
same.
She
also
says,
but
I'm
good
at
being
uncomfortable,
so
I
can't
stop
changing
all
the
time.
H
What
I'm
asking
this
community
to
do
is
embrace
the
uncomfortable
we're
going
into
a
world
where
things
are
changing.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
think
outside
the
box,
thinks
of
think
of
ways
to
make
the
ietf
community
even
better
than
it
is
and
so
look
around
the
room.
This
is
your
community.
It's
up
to
you
to
make
it
awesome
so
help
me
do
that.
Thank.
A
B
B
Joyce
is
also
gone
now
and
also
very
much
missed.
The
people
who
remember
about
working
with
Bob
will
remember
his
his
work
on
the
end-to-end
task
force
and
then
research
group
RSVP.
Maybe
some
of
you
remember
that
he
was
a
fierce
advocate
for
the
earliest
days
of
internet
multimedia
when
so.
This
is
the
starters
to
just
talk
about
him
technically,
because
we
are
a
technical
body.
B
But
then
the
other
thing
is
that
the
other
night,
a
group
of
us
who
had
known
him
well
met
together
with
his
two
sons
and
with
two
nieces
of
his
who
came
here,
because
ITF
was
such
an
important
part
of
Bob's
life
and
reminisced
about
him
and
I.
Just
want
to
say
very
briefly
that
everybody
who
spoke
spoke
of
his
humour,
that
it
was
acute
and
mostly
gentle,
and
they
spoke
of
his
genuine
and
warm
willingness
to
teach.
B
B
And
then
finally,
people
kept
mentioning
his
great
dedication.
He
was
supremely
dedicated
to
the
Internet
and
to
the
IETF
and
carried
out
kind
of
heroic
efforts
on
the
part
of
us
that
we
still
use
full
standards,
such
as
the
post
requirements
standard
that
required
just
heroism
on
his
part
to
pull
off,
and
he
he
is
being
memorialized
here.
Because
of
that
tremendous
and
and
formative
role
that
he
played
in
in
our
organization
and
our
technology.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
wants
to
say
a
few
words
about
Bob,
but.
I
Philip
Rin
de
Ville,
I,
remember
being
on
my
second
job
out
of
college
25
years
old
working
for
Wellfleet
as
a
contractor
on
basic
security
options
and
ripping
my
hair
out
about
the
ambiguities
of
precedents
of
the
options
and
what
options
in
felony
before
or
after
and
so
forth
and
bob
was
extremely
patient
with
me.
Walking
me
through
the
logic
of
how
everything
worked
and
they're,
giving
me
great
insight
in
what
wasn't
stated
in
the
RFC
and
I.
K
Since
his
death
and
his
stuff,
the
award
of
the
first
award
in
1999
9
17
times
this
award
has
been
given
to
esteem
members
of
this
community.
I
myself
have
had
the
amazing
privilege
of
doing
the
last
4
and
now
the
final
time
I
do
this,
the
fifth?
What
is
very
special
about
this
award?
It
is
a
peer
award,
so
the
prior
winners
of
the
award
are
picking
the
next
person
who
is
Stephen
G
hooters.
L
L
You
know
kind
of
flashed
back
and
I
thought
1996
Montreal
and
the
last
time
I
was
here
was
the
the
joint
inet
IETF
meeting
that
was
here
in
Montreal
and
I
was
one
of
the
volunteer
of
AIESEC
folks,
helping
out
with
the
inet
workshops
and
and
there
I
made
friends
with
with
a
guy
named
idea
at
Google
menu.
You
know
him,
he
he
was
came
from
know
made
Togo
for
the
workshop,
and
you
know
we
were
when
it
was
over.
We
went
to
the
IETF
meeting
to
go.
L
You
know
check
that
out
and
we
were
riding
on
an
escalator
and
he
said:
hey
man,
how
do
I?
How
do
I
get
this
dot?
T
G?
You
know
my
country
code,
you
know
top-level
domain
isn't
delegated
yet
and
in
a
great
moment
of
serendipity,
John
was
coming
up
the
escalator
as
we
were
going
down
and
I
just
said,
see
that
guy
with
the
long
gray
beard,
we
need
to
talk
to
him
and
you
know
I
said
John.
L
You
know
that
TT
was
on
the
net
and
so
I
kind
of
thought
back
to
how
how
in
a
way
nice
and
simple
you
know
things
were
things
were
back
then,
and
it
gave
me
a
nice
time
to
reflect
about
that
experience
with
John
I'm
happy
to
receive
this
award.
You
know,
on
behalf
of
the
network,
start-up
Resource,
Center
and
I
feel
strongly
that
it
really
should
be
a
group
award,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
contribute
to
this
from.
L
You
know,
folks,
at
the
University
of
Oregon
to
international
contractors
and
dozens
and
dozens
of
volunteers,
some
of
whom
are
in
this
room,
but
you
know
when
I
first
started
working
with
it
in
1993
quite
some
time
ago.
You
know
it
already
had
roots
well
before
that
and
in
the
original
you
know,
vision
and
inspiration
and,
frankly,
sweat
was
all
Randy.
L
So
folks
could
basically
do
nutrition
education
with
people
in
their
countries
about
this.
So
they
wrote
a
grant
to
the
National
Science
Foundation
to
formalize
what
they
were
doing
and
that's
really
the
roots
of
it
and
and
another
great
moment
of
serendipity.
There
was
a
guy
named
Steve
Goldstein.
Some
of
you
may
know
him
and-
and
he
happened
to
be
appointed
as
the
international
interagency
networking
coordinator
about
this
time
and
really
needed
to
start
internationalizing
the
NSF
net
and
getting
connections
into
countries
where
u.s.
scientists
were
being
funded.
L
To
do
you
know:
paleontological
research
in
Mongolia
and
geophysics
research
in
the
Rift
Valley,
and
all
sorts
of
things
like
that.
So
several
other
people
got
involved
in
Randi
was
awesome
that
you
know
recruiting
people
for
the
inet
training
workshops
and
and
then
starting
to
cultivate
network
operator
groups
and
always
infusing
a
spirit
of
cultivating
network
operators
helping
each
other,
and
that's
really
the
essence
of
how
the
SRC
still
operates.
L
Today
and
you
know,
we've
evolved
the
model
and
techniques
to
today's
Internet
to
do
the
training
and
things
are
virtualized
and
all
sorts
of
other
other
advancements,
but
but
the
heart
and
spirit
still
really
go
back
to
the
roots
that
that
I
learned
that
we
all
learned
from
Randy
and
and
John
and
Jon
Postel
was
a
close
peer
of
theirs.
I
was
fortunate
to
meet
him
by
association
with
Randy
and
John,
and
really
grateful
to
receive
this
today.
So,
thank
you,
I
suck,
Thank,
You
ITF.
L
A
Okay,
so
next
we
have
a
somebody
special
to
recognize.
We
thought
you
were
gonna,
get
off
the
stage
Cathy,
but
you're
gonna
have
to
come
on
back
up,
not
just
yet.
You
can
wait.
I'll,
give
you
a
little
break,
so
I
knew
of
Cathy
before
I
knew
Cathy
going
back
to
her
days
as
a
in
government
and
nad
Verizon
working
on
telecom
policy.
A
The
other
day
was
that
she
would
say
I
love
him
for
it,
and
that's
really
the
spirit
that
Cathy
that
I've
seen
Kathy
brings
to
her
role
at
I
sock
in
her
role
in
the
Internet
community,
when
I
did
get
to
work
with
her
starting
in
the
Ayana
transition
process
several
years
ago.
That
was
always
the
mentality
that
she
brought.
Even
if
we
have
opposing
views
different
parts,
different
constituencies,
she
was
always
striving
to
see.
What
are
the
commonalities
get
us
to
focus
on
our
common
goals
and
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
together.
A
She
has
really
combined
an
openness
of
mind
to
allow
the
IETF
to
explore
all
different
avenues
of
what
it
is
that
we
might
want
to
do
as
an
organization
as
a
community,
well
also,
at
the
same
time,
constantly
reaffirming
I
Sox
support
for
the
IETF
and
the
desire
to
provide
whatever
it
is
that
we
need
in
order
to
succeed
and
continue
to
make
the
internet
work
better,
and
for
that
I'm
very
grateful
and
I
think
I
think
we
all
are
so.
Thank
you
so
much
Kathy
for
all
of
your
contributions.
A
A
A
We
know
that,
unlike
some
folks
in
our
community
whose
retirement
involves
sending
many
many
emails
on
mailing
lists,
your
retirement
sounds
like
it's
going
to
involve
potentially
staring
at
the
ocean
and
we
wouldn't
want
you
to
forget
about
us
while
you're
staring
at
the
ocean.
So
we
got
you
an
IETF
emblazoned
beach
towel
again,
not
the
real
towel.
The
real
towel.
F
K
You
this
is
a
bit
of
a
surprise.
It's
it's
been
a
experience,
an
honor
and
a
privilege
to
be
part
of
this
community
to
be
part
of
the
Internet
Society.
The
work
you
do
work
the
Internet
Society
does
is
crucial
to
the
to
the
evolution
of
the
Internet,
to
its
continued
opportunities
that
it
provides
for
the
people
of
the
world,
and
so
it
is
with
great
appreciation
and
I
appreciate.
This
Powell
I
now
intend
to
look
at
the
ocean
and
figure
out
what
it
all
means.
M
N
O
B
Q
Q
T
U
S
Some
of
you
might
have
heard
that
we're
working
on
changing
the
RFC
format
is
this.
Is
this
a
shock
to
anyone
in
this
room?
Wait
I
saw
a
hand,
okay,
what
there's
two
I,
don't
believe
you
yet
so
this
is
a
project
we've
been
working
on
for
quite
some
time.
The
good
news
is
that
we
are
in
the
phase
that
the
RFC
production
Center
is
actively
testing
the
tools.
S
So
it's
it's
moved
from.
You
know
a
gleam
in
my
eye
to
actual
code
that
we're
trying
to
make
sure
is
running
once
we
have
it
to
a
state
that
it
works
for
the
production
center
that
we're
going
to
be
reaching
out
to
the
community
and
asking
you
all
to
be
testing
it
as
well
to
make
sure
it
works
for
you
at
this
point,
I'm
expecting
that
to
happen
around
the
next
meeting.
Things
have
taken
a
little
bit
longer
than
that.
I
have
certainly
hoped,
but
progress
is
being
made
just
slow
and
steady.
S
So
there's
that
other
projects,
however,
are
on
my
list,
some
of
which
are
a
little
bit.
I
would
call
edgy
there's
things,
I
want
to
try
and
do
like
when
we
have
RFC's
that
are
actual
proper
HTML
with
the
CSS.
Wouldn't
it
be
really
interesting
to
have
a
sandbox
place
to
say
well
what
else
can
we
do
with
this?
S
Can
we
actually
annotate
these
with
some
of
the
errata?
Would
that
cause
problems
in
terms
of
the
the
where
people
reference
archival
version
of
a
document?
I,
don't
know
this
is
something
I
want
to
explore.
There's
a
lot.
I
can
do
with
the
metadata
in
documents
that
can
be
improved,
and
that
can
do
that
doing
that
as
an
add-on
effect
of
making
the
documents
much
more
easily
easily
indexed
in
other
organizations,
sites
and
services
and
to
be
very,
very
clear.
I
should
have
put
this
in
my
email
to
the
to
the
IETF
list
earlier.
S
S
If
any
of
the
projects
that
I
come
up
with
look
like
they're
going
to
impact
the
rate
of
publication,
that's
something
I
do
with
a
lot
of
consultation,
and
otherwise
the
projects
have
to
wait,
because
we
want
to
get
your
documents
out
the
door.
That's
the
most
important
thing
that
the
RFC
editor
does.
D
So,
there's
a
few
questions
here:
some
information
mostly
trying
to
get
some
information,
so
I
used
to
way
back
in
to
be
part
of
the
IRC
editor
I'm,
currently
part
of
something
called
the
RCA
editorial
board.
There's
another
group
called
the
part
of
CSeries
Oversight
Committee,
which
my
understanding
is,
is
the
support
group
serving
at
the
pleasure
of
the
ivy
wondering
if
you
could
maybe
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
relationship
between
that
group
and
the
ie
how
the
IDE
uses
them.
D
Maybe
a
little
bit
about
their
involvement
in
last
night
was
something
I
didn't
see,
come
up
on
the
list
or
in
the
box,
and
I
understand
that
the
entire
group
is
being
is
up
for
potential
replacement.
I
was
what,
if
you
could
sort
of
talk
a
little
bit
about?
Well,
first,
is
that
true,
and
if
so,
why
Thanks
so.
M
W
M
So
during
the
whole,
like
many
other
programs,
it's
part
of
how
the
IB
maintains
long-term
commitments
that
may
continue
past
the
lifetime
of
any
single
IAB
member.
So
the
whole
program
effort
there
has
been
put
in
place
to
make
sure
that
the
IV
can
keep
attention
to
something
over
a
longer
period
of
time
than
the
lifetime
of
any
single
member
or
chair,
and
in
this
particular
case,
the
the
artsy
sets
out
that
the
our
sock
will
be
part
of
the
oversight
of
the
RFC
series.
M
Sorry
Phil,
do
you
have
a
clarifying
question,
or
are
you
just
standing
up
for
later?
Okay,
so
the
our
sock
is
in
fact,
at
this
point
we
have
put
out
a
call
for
volunteers
and
there
are
interviews
going
on
this
week.
Some
of
them
have
happened
already
for
new
volunteers
or
continuing
members
of
our
sock,
and
it's
actually
pretty
typical
you'll
see
that
the
IAB
calls
for
volunteers
all
the
time
for
different
things,
and
the
appointment
process
will
go
forward
after
we've.
M
D
M
But
has
been
confirmed
since
then
my
apologies
for
not
having
it
on
the
tip
of
my
tongue.
On
the
question
of
the
buff,
as
you
may
have
seen
from
the
message
the
IAB
sent
out
earlier
today,
one
of
the
issues
there
is
we
did
not
do
some
of
the
coordination
that
we
would
have
normally
done
in
a
timely
fashion,
and
indeed
there
was
not
a
coordination
with
the
our
sock
in
advance.
So
some
of
that
is
certainly
one
of
the
things
we
feel
like.
We
did
wrong
about
that
and
we
apologize.
D
P
D
D
M
That
there
is
a
distinction
here
that
that's
important
to
draw
right,
the
are
suck
and
the
RC
and
the
editorial
board
all
do
things
that
are
very,
very
important,
but
primarily
relate
to
how
the
RFC
series
is
now
now
there's
a
role
that
the
RSV
plays
in
thinking
about
the
evolution
of
the
RFC
theory.
Sorry,
the
RSC
plays
and
thinking
about
how
the
evolution
of
the
RFC
series
is.
There's
also
a
role
for
the
whole
community
to
think
about
it.
M
As
I
I
noted,
this
particular
problem
has
been
called
to
the
fore
by
the
IAB
in
the
past.
There
have
also
been
other
suggestions
for
changes
to
the
RFC
series,
for
example,
the
best
current
operational
practices,
effort
that
was
discussed
some
time
ago,
that
came
from
external
bodies
to
the
ATF,
so
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
limitation
in
who
can
suggest
changes
to
the
series,
but
there's
a
very
important
principle
that
those
discussions
need
to
be
public
and
I.
M
Think
that
the
problem
that
we
ran
into
here
is
in
trying
to
pay
attention
to
that
principle
and
making
the
discussions
public
some
of
the
external
coordination
that
should
have
happened
before
that
public
discussion
didn't
occur.
Thank
you.
Okay,
so
I
have
Phil
next
and
then
I
believe
I
have
that
microphone
and
then
Bob
and
then
back
to
that
microphone.
W
Well,
I
choose
the
question
for
the
is
G
and
we
looking
at
the
RFC
series.
I
think
the
part
of
the
problem
is
that
we
have
this
frame
of.
How
do
we
fix
RFC's,
and
it
might
well
be
that
what
we
need
is
something
that's
a
little
bit
between
an
internet
draft
and
an
RFC,
because
many
times
all
the
people
are
coming
to
the
ITF
and
asking
for
an
RFC
is
simply
to
have
something
that
is
permanent
and
can
be
referenced
elsewhere.
W
Now,
we've
given
up
the
principle
that
drafts
expire
and
disappear
there
now
and
that's
great
for
me
as
a
patent
expert,
witness,
because
it's
my
prior
art
sources,
I
think
that
maybe,
rather
than
trying
to
reform
RFC's
and
solve
problem
in
that
prayer,
it
may
be
that
you
need
something
in
between
something
a
little
bit
less
than
an
RFC.
And
maybe
what
we
need
to
do
is
to
work
out.
Yeah
are
the
dress,
something
that
the
ihe
should
be
doing
should
be.
W
S
Think
it's
an
interesting
idea.
It's
something
I
want
to
explore.
I'm.
My
gut
reaction
is
a
bit
of
hesitancy.
Of
doing
one
of
the
things
we
had
is
feedback.
The
other
night
is
dividing
RFC's
into
a
host
of
other
things
means
you
have.
You
have
a
brand
to
build
and
you've
got
confusion
that
you're
introducing
to
solve
other
confusion,
how
you
handle
that
can
be
really
delicate,
so
I.
It
makes
me
anxious
to
consider
how
we're
gonna
do
it.
It's
not
a
no
it's
a.
We
have
to
be
careful
if
we
go
that
route.
X
Phrase
you
used,
which
was
continuity
of
information,
I
realized
that
can
be.
They
can
seem
like
a
motivation
to
keep
a
lot
of
stability
in
a
governing
board,
but
the
contrary,
or
what
that
makes
me
worry
about-
is
stagnation
and
a
lack
of
new
blood,
and
you
know
it's,
which
is
a
constant
problem
across
a
lot
of
groups
that
we
have
around
this
organization
and
so
I
encourage
you
to
keep
the
IAB
to
keep
in
mind
that
flow
to
get
new
ideas
and
new
blood
into
these
oversight.
X
Body
you're,
pointing
in
addition
to
maintaining
continuity,
in
fact,
having
a
regular
turnover
can
be
a
bit
a
way
to
maintain
constantly
because
you're
established
processes
around
the
in
your
life.
You
know
fallible
individual
needs
any
customer.
So
that's
why
more
grants
the
question
I'd
like
to
propose.
It's
opposed
to
the
folks.
I
mean
multistakeholderism.
Is
you
know
thing
that
we're
kind
of
keen
on
around
here
since
of
making
sure
that
all
the
people
who
are
affected
and
have
a
stake
in
a
decision
are
represented
in
making
that
decision
and
so
I'm
curious?
S
Let
intern
I
will
come
back
to
this
community
and
sort
of
the
heart
of
it
all
to
say.
Here's
who
here's
the
type
of
group
I've
been
talking
to
am
I
missing
anybody
I've
already
gotten
some
really
excellent
feedback
about
reaching
out
to
open-source
communities,
which
I
think
is
brilliant,
as
well
as
talking
to
ripe
and
a
few
others
so
open
to
pretty
much
anything.
S
M
One
thing
I
would
like
to
add
to
that
is
that
there
are
really
two
classes
of
stakeholders
here
and
that's
the
people
we're
producing
RFC's
and
the
people
are
consuming
them,
and
it's
much
easier
for
us
to
reach
out
to
the
people
who
are
producing
them.
We're
connected
to
every
single
one
of
the
streams
here,
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
like
to
hold
meetings
such
as
the
one
that
was
held
earlier
at
at
IDs,
is
because
you
have
ITF.
Irt
f
is
e
and
IB.
M
All
of
the
stream
managers
are
together
at
one
time
and,
and
that
can
be
a
failing
right.
It's
very
easy
for
us
to
look
at
the
production
side
of
that
and
it's
extremely
difficult
to
pull
in,
who
may
be
the
consumers
of
these
RFC's
and
as
the
stakeholder
community.
That
does
require
some
outreach
that
heather
is
going
to
be
taking
on,
but
that
is
very
general
and
we
could
use
your
help
as
a
community
with
I.
M
Think
one
of
the
things
she
just
mentioned,
for
example,
was
that
adament
suggests
that
the
D
open-source
community
might
be
one
as
a
consumer
of
RFC's,
for
which
we
don't
have
great
data
and
they're
gonna.
Try
and
work
together
to
get
some
additional
data
on
that
set
of
consumers,
even
though
they're
very
rarely,
producers
of
artsy's,
and
certainly
there
are
other
members
of
the
community
who
have
other
ideas
for
how
we
can
do
outreach
to
the
set
of
stakeholders
from
that
side
of
the
equation.
It
would
be
very
valuable,
Thanks.
X
The
only
addition
of
that
is
that,
given
that
I
think
this
consumer
stakeholder
group
is
the
entire
Internet
community
numbers
and
millions,
it's
gonna
be
difficult
to
take
kind
of
an
artisanal.
You
talk
to
people
approach.
If
someone
goes
and
talks
to
people
approach
it
so
I
think
I
would
encourage
you
to
take
some
innovation
in
collecting
data
in
different
minutes.
S
Agree
more
one
of
the
meetings
I'm
having
this
week
is
with
some
of
the
folks
who
do
communications
and
marketing
at
the
Internet
Society
to
figure
out.
If,
if
I
was
going
to
do
something
like
a
survey,
how
how
does
one
do
that?
How
do
they
do
their
outreach?
What's
that
going
to
look
like
could
I
work?
Could
I
potentially
leverage
some
of
the
Isocrates
or
you
know
it's?
It's
just
a
very
initial
exploration
but
I
think
you're
right
I
as
much
as
I
apparently
tried
to
I
can't
talk
to
everybody.
S
Y
Thank
you,
so
I'm
Bob
Hinton
I've
been
involved
in
different
degrees
of
the
RF
series,
RFC
series.
Since
you
know,
I
worked
at
Jon,
Postel
and
all
of
RFC
editors
since
written
a
few
RFC's
and
so
forth.
So
I
appreciate
the
alcohol
that
apology
you
sent
to
the
RFC
plus
the
IDF
list
about
this,
but
I
would
sort
of
like
to
chastise
the
IB
for
the
what
you
did
here,
the
you
know.
So,
if
I'm
gonna
read
from
you
know,
RFC
66
35,
which
defines
this
section
2.1
RFC
editor.
Y
The
RFC
series
editor
is
the
individual,
with
overall
responsibility
for
the
quality,
continuity
and
evolution
of
the
RFC
series.
This
activity
should
have
been
directed
to
the
RFC
editor.
The
IB
should
not
have
taken
it
on
it
doesn't
say
the
IAB
is
responsible
here
for
these.
The
evolution
in
these
things
so
I
think
you've
seriously
overstepped
your
responsibility
here
and,
and
so
I
think
you're.
Some
sense.
Your
apology
didn't
go
far
enough
because
it
didn't
get
the
impression
that
you
sort
of
we're
willing
to
take
it
back.
Y
It
was
more
of
you
just
didn't,
follow
the
right
procedure,
but
I
think
this
should
have
just
gone.
You
should
have
asked
the
RFC
editor
to
go.
Look
at
this
issue
and
come
you
know,
consult
with
the
community
and
come
back
with
a
recommendation.
You
shouldn't
have
done
above
the
I
guess
you
shouldn't
have
approved
it.
It
appears
that
you
did
this
in
a
rush,
so
the
IAB,
which
is
supposed
to
be
the
deliberative
body
who
says
they're
very
busy,
decided
to
take
this
on
themselves.
Y
Z
Z
Gonna
put
some
context
around
some
of
Bob's
and
and
also
maybe
some
of
my
remarks
would
have
fit
in
a
little
bit
in
the
in
memoriam
section,
because
it
occurs
to
me
that
there's
some
stuff
to
this
Kennedy
to
do
well
to
remember-
and
probably,
if
you
didn't
know,
Bob
rating,
then
you
probably
don't
remember
this
part
of
the
RFC
series
history,
namely
that
for
a
number
of
years
I
don't
know
about
a
dozen
years
ago
it
was
published
out
of
ISI.
It
was
funded
by
I
sock.
Z
It
was
funded
by
I
sock,
even
before
there
was
a
nyasa.
It
was
funded
as
a
separate
activity,
so
as
part
of
the
administrative
restructuring
that
we
did
the
last
time
around.
It
was
time
for
that
part
of
our
universe,
to
move
on
and
become
under
the
same
umbrella
as
the
other
activities
administratively.
But
at
the
time
it
was
the
RFC
editor
was
a
very
independent
beast.
Z
It
was
an
academic
function,
hosted
at
ISI,
like
I
said,
and
when
we
were
in
discussions
and
I
can
remember
which
airport
I
was
striding
around
having
those
discussions
of
the
head
of
ISI.
At
the
time
to
move
the
function
into
something
that
was
closer
to
the
IETF
administration,
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
over
how
to
make
sure
this
remained
true
to
the
spirit
of
the
RFC
series.
So
how
could
it
maintain
his
support
for
the
independent
activities
that
have
published
because
the
IETF
does
not?
Z
The
IV
does
not
look
after
the
RFC
series
for
the
IETF,
the
IAB
looks
after
at
the
RFC
series
for
the
internet
community.
So
it's
broader,
and
so
even
having
a
bob
here
to
talk
about
it.
Stuff
is
very,
very
focused.
It's
it's
as
Richard
outlined.
There
is
many
more
people
to
reach
out
to
you
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
another
piece
of
that
puzzle
was
how
could
we
make
sure
that
the
rnc
series
editor
was
adequately
supported
with
a
broad
base
of
people
who
were
familiar
with
both
technical
publishing
and
the
internet?
Z
AA
Z
The
purpose
of
the
Arisaka
was
to
be
that
collection
of
independent
advisers
for
the
independent
RFC
series,
editor,
so
I
think
it's
great
for
any
committee.
It's
absolutely
great
to
view
them
periodically
review
the
composition.
You
know
adjusts
the
the
mandate
if
necessary,
but
it
isn't
just
that
this
is
an
IAB
thing
to
you
know,
update
and
twiddle
with
you
know,
AB
off
on
a
Monday
night.
This
is
larger
than
the
IETF.
Z
M
Just
to
point
out
two
quick
clarifying
things:
the
independent
series
editor
also
has
an
editorial
board
called
the
I
set,
which
I
believe
Aaron
referenced
earlier,
which
does
editorial
advice
to
them.
That's
a
distinct
from
the
arishok,
both
or,
of
course,
available
to
advise
both
the
independent
series,
editor,
where
our
talk
is
more
for
the
RSC.
M
The
other
thing
I'll
point
out
here
is
that
one
of
the
issues
that
I
think
that
the
IAB
was
thinking
about
here
was
evolution
and
not
just
evolution
for
the
ITF,
but
in
particular
for
the
IR
TF,
and
for
some
of
the
other
streams.
It
was
very
clear
in
the
buff
on
Monday
that
that
particular
concern
was
not
well
expressed.
M
We
certainly
apologize
for
it,
but
the
the
evolution
of
the
streams
and
the
evolution
of
the
output
of
the
bodies
that
are
both
present
here
as
producers
is
certainly
something
that
we
continue
to
look
at
beyond.
Just
the
IETF.
As
we
said,
we're
also
going
to
be
looking
much
harder
at
working
out
how
we
can
look
at
the
consumption
side
of
the
stakeholder
body.
M
But
the
the
simple
fact
is:
the
movement
into
four
streams
has
started
but
not
completed
a
change
in
how
the
production
works
and
we
have
to
think
as
a
community,
not
just
the
ITF,
but
as
a
technical
community,
on
whether
it's
best
to
push
that
change
forward.
Let
it
evolve
on
its
own
or
make
sure
that
the
change
is
limited
in
order
to
keep
all
of
them
together
and
that's
the
conversation
we
think
Heather
will
be
having
as
she
goes
out
and
starts
the
rest
of
this
process.
Z
M
AB
Hi,
my
name
is
Andrew
Sullivan
and
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
the
IAB
and
to
the
iesg
for
approving
this
voff
I
thought
it
was
useful
and
the
reason
I
think
that
is
not
because
it
was
perfect
and
not
because
that
conversation
has
completed
or
the
right
results
has
come
out
or
anything
like
that,
but
rather
because
this
is
the
sort
of
thing
that
people
sometimes
go
off
into.
You
know
rooms
and
talk
amongst
themselves
and
don't
talk
about
in
public
and
I.
AB
Think
that
you
know
this
is
a
large
community
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
people
can
express
themselves
and
so
on,
and
this
is
a
way
that
we
can
get
out
amongst
ourselves
and
say:
look
here
are
the
people
who
are
producing
these
things
and
we
need
to
talk
to
each
other
about.
You
know
what,
though,
issues
are
and
so
on,
and
this
is
going
to
be
a
fraught
topic.
AB
N
But
I
actually
want
to
change
the
topic
slavery.
Several
people
have
referenced
transparency
and
engaging
the
community
and
conversation
and
whatever
and
I'm
I'm
a
person
who
likes
people
to
show
their
work.
That's
parkway,
I,
like
the
drafts.
That's
part,
go
ahead.
I,
like
the
archival
part
of
the
RFC
series.
I,
would
like
the
IAB
to
publish
their
agendas
and
open
their
calls
in
the
same
way.
M
N
F
F
AC
A
AC
M
S
And
just
as
a
side
note
for
folks
who
would
rather
drink
bleach,
then
listen
to
format,
conversation
I
think
there
might
be
some
of
you
I'm
trying
to
focus
the
RC
interest
list
on
on
discussion,
topics
and
whatnot.
Now
that
we're
moving
to
looking
at
actual
tools
and
testing
tools
and
whatnot,
there
is
an
XML
to
RFC
dev
list
and
I
expect
a
lot
more
of
the
operational
format.
Work
discussions
to
happen
there
when
we're
ready
to
release
the
tools
for
user
testing.
So
keep
that
in
mind
speaking.
M
I
Princeville
again
so
I
attended
the
nrw
I
think
that
was
the
first
time
that
they
were
here,
somebody
dabbles
in
security,
without
trying
to
make
too
much
of
a
fool
of
himself,
since
everything
has
security
implications.
These
days
anyway,
I
appreciated
having
the
academics
present.
Who
will
then
study
my
work
and
then
tell
me
where
I
went
wrong
after
race
or
possibly
even
during
these
meetings,
so
that
I'm
spirit
that
embarrassing.
So
is
that
going
to
be
a
regular
thing?
The
nrw
Allison
yeah.
G
Hi,
my
name
is
Shankar
I
apologize.
This
is
the
wrong
forum.
I'll
sit
down,
please
don't
yell
at
me,
but
I
been
to
a
lot
of
side
meetings
this
week,
which
were
held
in
the
venue
like
with
groups
of
30
or
40
people
discussing
topics
that
were
highly
relevant
to
some
of
them.
Working
groups
that
are
going
on
and
I
noticed
a
trend
towards
this
over
the
past
few
years
that
we
start
to
have.
G
G
I'm
just
showing
my
ignorance
of
how
the
ITF
actually
works
so
yeah.
So
when
you
that's,
basically
it
I
know
with
with
boss,
there's
a
restriction
you
can.
We
have
two
boss
for
some
reason,
so
I
know
within
certain
people
that
have
interest
in
topics
they're
kind
of
afraid
to
have
a
Boff
if
they
don't
want
to
waste
their
boss.
G
So
that's
where
our
boss
became
kind
of
a
thing,
but
now
you
have
to
register
a
barb
off
people
have
things,
and
they
don't
know
what
to
call
these
meetings
because
they're
not
allowed
to
call
them
anything.
So
I
guess
what
I
would
like
to
see
if
some
of
you
doesn't
come
to
every
idea,
but
when
I'm
here
likes
participate,
is
that
I
think
it
should
be
easier
to
have
some
sort
of
official
gathering
here
that
doesn't
run
into
all
these
issues
about?
What
do
we
call
it?
G
A
We
have
two
members
of
the
IHG
who
were
not
able
to
make
it
to
this.
The
meeting
this
week,
suresh
krisshnan
the
internet
area
director,
had
a
death
in
his
family
and
Spencer
Dawkins
is
out
with
a
family
medical
emergency
as
well,
so
Spencer
may
be
on
remote
participation,
and
we
have
we
have
their
photos
here.
So
people
know
what
they
look
like
in
any
event
and
we'll
start
with
introductions
with
Adam
Adam.
R
AH
A
Okay,
so
to
your
question,
Shane
I
have
just
a
few
thoughts
and
then
I'm
sure
lots
of
others
will
want
to
chime
in.
So
this
is
a
topic
that
I
know:
we've
been
wrestling
with
as
long
as
I've
been
on
the
IHG
and-
and
it's
probably
been
much
longer
than
that-
to
try
to
bring
some
clarity
to
you
know
what
is
considered
an
official
meeting,
and
when
does
that
note
will
apply
and
all
of
these
things,
what
we've
done
recently
as
the
IHG
to
try
and
facilitate
that
is.
A
We've
created
these
side
meeting
rooms
specifically
for
side
meetings
and
they
explicitly
do
not
have
remote
participation
capability.
They
don't
have
projectors.
The
idea
of
them
is
to
facilitate
ad
hoc
discussion
of
you
know
a
closer
interaction
between
a
smaller
group
of
people
than
what
you
would
normally
get
with
AB
off
with
microphones
and
presentations
and
slide
decks
and
so
on,
and
they
have.
We
have
this
sign-up
procedure
for
them.
A
They
open
up
at
a
certain
time
before
the
meeting
starts,
and
people
can
sign
up
to
book
them,
and
then
you
know
advertise
them
and
the
usual
way
ad
hoc
way
on
various
mailing
lists.
Now
it's
seen
that
part
of
the
ideal
of
this
was
to
bring
some
clarity
because
it
did
start
to
seem
to
us
like
there
were
these.
There
were
more
and
more,
you
know.
Barb
offs
that
were
happening
in
meeting
rooms
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
bar
and
they
were
looking
more
like
buffs
which
go
through
a
more
formal
approval
process.
A
U
So
in
this
specific
point
in
the
wiki,
you
can
also
see
which,
like
when
the
room
is
reserved
right.
So
at
least
you
have
like
a
notion
about
what's
going
on,
but
I
totally
understand
that
it's
kind
of
confusing,
because
you
don't
know
where
you
need
to
be
and
who
to
talk
to
and
so
on,
but
like
I
think
we
as
a
community
also
agree
that
this
is
kind
of
a
value
part
of
having
a
face-to-face
meeting
that
you
actually
have
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
each
other
in
the
hallways.
U
G
A
AI
You
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
couple
things
real
quickly.
One
is
that
the
ho
the
IAT
has
been
talking
about
stuff
like
this.
For
a
while
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
talking
about
ended
up
as
being
the
hot
RFC
session
it's
on
Sunday
night,
but
basically
trying
to
say
you
know
you
could
talk.
You
can't
put
together
we're
trying
to
provide
a
venue
where
people
can
put
together
a
group
to
go
off
and
talk
all
week.
AI
AI
It
would
take
like
one
sentence
to
do
a
change
to
that
BCP
that
says
through
working
group
forming
buffs,
because
you
know
I,
don't
think
that
our
we
used
the
word
buff
to
be
conversations,
but
also
efforts
to
form
a
working
group.
I,
don't
you
know
I,
you
know
there.
There
was
the
idea
that
you
don't
want
to
have
people
coming
back
and
try
to
form
a
working
group
with
the
same
proposal
like
35
times,
but
I.
Don't
know
why
we
would
ever
cut
off
a
conversation
that
we
just
happened
to
call
them
off.
AI
U
T
Have
done
the
the
eye
is
a
2.0
bops.
There
were
more
than
two
okay,
so
when
it's
the
right
thing
for
one
thing,
as
a
general
thing,
I
think
the
iesg
has
gotten
better
in
recent
years
at
doing
the
right
thing,
even
when
the
right
thing
is
not
exactly
along
the
letter
of
something
that's
written
and
I.
T
Think
we
should
continue
that
one
of
the
things
that
the
the
other
guy
mentioned
was
getting
having
the
ability
to
have
remote
participation
in
minutes
and
things
like
that
when
we
have
a
side
meeting,
however
large
or
small,
it
is
it's
not
connected
to
the
rest
of
the
community.
Very
much
and
I
think
I'd
like
to
encourage
the
iesg
to
be
more
lenient
about
approving
box,
realizing
that
there
are
real
scheduling
issues
involved
here,
so
that
more
of
these
side
meetings
can
be
accessible
to
the
community
in
those
ways.
T
D
Have
a
new
topic,
so
my
principal
area,
involvement
in
the
IDF
is
the
transport
area,
and
transport
is
obsessed
with
finding
qualified
area
directors,
because
it's
been
a
challenge
for
years
and
one
of
the
changes
that
I've
seen
I
think
across
the
whole
iesg
has
been
a
real
effort
to
reduce
the
workload
to
try
to
get
to
something
that's
closer
to
half
time,
instead
of
close
to
full
time.
And
so
this
is
a
question
for
the
whole
iesg
is
I'm
wondering.
Is
that
what
you're
doing
and
if
you're,
if
you're,
getting
it
down.
U
D
A
R
Have
a
mix
of
people
between
you
know?
Some
of
them
are
working
halftime
or
there
abouts.
Some
are
working
full-time,
I'm,
pretty
close
to
full-time
myself,
for
example,
I
believe
that
Alexia's
is
somewhat
lower
than
that,
but
between
among
the
three
art
area
directors.
We
can
cover
the
art
area,
because
we
have
sort
of
that
mix.
That
balance
and
I
know
that
it's
like
we've
we've
given
instructions
to
NomCom
that
we
you
know
we
can
have
people
who
aren't
full-time,
but
we
can't
have
everyone
not
full-time.
D
AF
So
yeah
I
think
I
said
them
said
it
depends
wildly
based
upon
the
person.
I
think
it
also
depends
a
lot
on
how
long
you've
been
doing
this.
For
I
mean
this
is
my
second
year
for
the
beginning.
I
was
definitely
overwhelmed.
I
didn't
know
what
I
needed
to
pay
attention
to
I
still
don't
know
what
I
need
to
pay
attention
to,
but
I'm
less
stressed
about
it.
You
know
I
mean
I,
think
that
one
learns
relatively
quickly,
which
things
you
need
to
be
paying
a
lot
of
attention
to
which
you
spend
less
on.
AF
I
mean
I
know
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
manage
to
get
this
done
and
a
lot
less
time.
So
I
think
it's
how
effective
and
how
efficient
you
are,
how
much
time
you
want
to
devote
to
it.
You
know
I'm
also
good
at
procrastinating,
so
some
of
the
time
is
spent.
You
know
rearranging
my
desk
and
sharpening
all
the
pencils,
but
as
for
my
head,
managing
to
keep
up
with
my
working
groups,
I
think
so
I
hope
so
no
chairs
have
complained.
AF
AJ
So
I'm
kind
of
in
the
opposite
situation-
I'm
in
my
fourth
year
as
an
area
director
and
due
to
some
job
changes,
I
have
historically
had
been
75%
the
full
time
most
of
the
time
due
to
some
job
changes,
I've
been
kind
of
forced
to
push
that
down
to
50
and
it
definitely
has
made
some
changes.
I
think
it's
doable.
AJ
AE
What
you're,
seeing
is
everyone
experience
various
a
little
bit
and
I
think
we
all
develop
our
little
tricks
and
tactics
of
how
to
deal
with
the
load,
but
to
add
is
that
keeping
up
with
the
working
groups
and
reading
for
the
telecast?
This
only
part
of
what
we
do.
We
are
also
responsible
for
all
the
policies
around
the
ATF
and
we
need
to
talk
about,
buy
offs
and
agendas
and
a
bunch
of
other
things.
So
what
that
means
is
that,
at
least
in
my
case
that
the
load
varies
quite
a
bit.
AE
This
is
not
that
easy
to
say
well.
I
have
every
other
week
tell
us,
as
I
have
to
read
600
pages
for
that,
but
it
varies,
preserve
different
topics
and
so
I
think
it's
important
to
keep
that
in
mind
in
terms
of
how
much
the
ABS
also
want
to
be
involved
in
those
other
discussions
and
those
other
things
which
made
being
driving
some
of
the
issues.
But
it
also
means
just
you
know,
commenting
and
keeping
up
with
those
discussions
as
well.
So
there's
a
lot
more
than
just
to
tell
chats.
D
AH
AD
AH
AH
AG
I
would
absolutely
concur
with
all
of
my
ad
colleagues
regarding
that
the
fluctuation
of
time,
the
the
other
observation
I
would
add,
is
that
being
an
ad
will
happily
chew
up
as
much
time
as
you're
willing
to
give.
So,
if
you
want
to
give
all
of
your
week,
your
weekends,
your
holidays
to
being
an
ad,
it
will
suck
it
up
and
it
will
love
you
for
it,
and
the
IDF
will
love
you
for
it.
But
you
must
have
some
discipline.
AK
AK
AK
The
fight
that's
my
receipt,
but
on
the
flip
side,
I
want
to
encourage
people
to
basically
put
their
money
where
their
mouth
is.
If
you
believe
in
an
idea,
you
should
implement,
sits
on
a
Banta
branch
or
something
internally
and
I'm,
not
asking
for
open
source
and
asking
for
running
coats,
because
I
think
the
same
Exchequer
predominantly
is
about
interoperability,
and
if
interoperability
cannot
be
demonstrated,
I
I
wonder
why
it's
in
is
you
when
it
comes
to
protocols.
AE
Just
like
every
time,
I
agree
with
you,
it's
a
principle
wholly
yeah.
We
are
the
ATF
right.
We
believe
in
running
code
and
I
think
that,
yes,
all
the
RCS
I
will
talk
about
implementation.
Sections,
for
example,
and
torts
are
important
in
the
routing
area.
We
have
several
working
groups
that
require
implementations.
Specifically
IDR
requires
two
implementations,
information
reports
and
everything
else,
which
is
actually
what
you
just
said
for
every
should
and
must
summon
documents
how
that
works.
AE
So
I
will
argue
that,
from
the
point
of
view
of
tightening
timeliness,
for
example,
of
getting
the
documentation
out
and
producing
actual
results
from
the
IETF,
sometimes
waiting
for
implementation
might
take
a
while
I
understand
your
point
that
if
people
don't
implement
them,
maybe
it
means
we
don't.
We
don't
need
that.
So,
what's
justice
either
one
of
two
things
one
is
a
specific
working
groups
talked
about
the
specific
needs.
AE
If
you
think
that
there
is
something
that
we
really
need
from
an
IETF
point
of
view,
that
would
change
the
requirements
of
how
the
RFC
stemis
trackers
hussar
are
produced
and
qualified,
which
would
mean
a
proposal
right.
So
you
don't
write
something
down
and
get
the
community
to
just
talk
about
that.
AF
So
you're,
following
on
from
that
I
think
that
this
is
best
handled
on
a
working
group
by
working
group
basis
and
sometimes
on
a
sort
of
case-by-case
basis.
Some
documents,
don't
really
even
standards
track
documents
don't
contain
stuff
that
can
really
be
implemented.
More
talks,
like
you
know
how
you
do
stuff
when
this
was
first
discussed.
Indiana
Soph
I
was
somewhat
resistant
to
it,
but
recently
I've
got
a
document
that
I'm
co-authoring
with
Duane
vessels,
which
got
implemented
in
the
hackathon
and
somewhat
because
of
what
had
been
suggested.
People
wrote
back.
AF
You
know
this
bit
is
not
clear
when
I
tried
to
implement
it.
When
I
tried
to
read
this,
this
bit
was
not
there.
So
I
think
this
is,
you
know
case-by-case
working
group
by
working
group,
but
I
think
that
there
is
definitely
value
in
even
if
it's
not
a
formal
implementation
report.
Just
you
know
implementers
providing
feedback.
I
tried
to
do
this
and
I
didn't
understand
what
on
earth
you
mates
at
section,
12.
AD
But
I
started
thinking
mutations,
pretty
important,
I,
don't
I
think
we
shouldn't
confuse
that
with
implementation
reports.
You
know
speaking
some
protocols,
I've
been
involved
with
post
TLS,
one
three
and
quick
like
seven
to
ten
independent
implementations
that
have
a
goatee,
and
you
know
on
one
three:
seven
are
seeing
already
a
pretty
substantial
fraction
of
lights.
A
loss
traffic
might
be
pretty
sad
if
we
have
to
spend
the
amount
of
time
would
take
to
document
every
derivative.
Every
2119
term
in
the
document
had
been
informed
by
somebody
real
wallet,
bookkeeping
and
I.
AK
AJ
AK
AF
You
so
on
the
opt-in
versus
opt
out,
etc.
Oh
a
while
back
I
can't
remember
when
I
think
it's
actually
all
of
routing
had
a
requirement
for
to
two
implementations,
but
then
there
was
a
RFC
published
I,
think
by
Fenner,
wrote
it
or
what
did
it?
Removing
that
as
the
requirement
and
going
back
and
looking
at
the
history,
for
that
would
be
interesting.
The
way
that
that
happened,
though,
was
there
was
an
RFC,
published
I.
Think
if
you're
proposing
this,
what
would
be
reasonable
is
write
it
up
in
a
draft
and
we'll
discuss
it.
A
U
And
so
I
think
about
structure.
At
this
point,
it's
very
unstructured
because
it's
an
experiment
if
more
structures-
and
you
know
what
I
was
needed-
it's
something
we
will
learn
from
this
experiment,
but
I
have
also
heard
ideas
about,
for
example,
research
groups
taking
the
opportunity
in
half
like
hold
a
meeting
on
that
day
in
these
kind
of
things,
I'm
really
excited
to
see
what
will
happen.
I.
W
W
You
know
everything
has
just
worked
and
I
think
congratulations
for
the
people
who
organized
that,
but
I
was
saying
that,
because
I
also
won't
give
my
thanks,
aware
see
which
I
have
found
to
be
very
useful,
because
it's
connected
me
with
a
lot
of
people
who
are
interested
in
the
ideas
I've
presented,
that
you
know
their
security
ideas,
but
are
not
really
relevant
inside
the
security
they're
relevant
in
applications
that
might
have
a
requirement.
I.
W
The
reason
I
come
to
IETF
meetings
is
because,
if
you
want
to
effect
the
internet,
you
don't
need
a
hundred
people
to
design
a
protocol,
but
you
need
a
hundred
people
bought
in
to
start
deploying
it
so
I
think.
There's
always
got
to
be
some
times
when
you're
going
to
say
a
small
group
is
gonna,
go
off
and
work
on
the
focus
thing
alone,
and
you
know
that's
just
the
way
that
you
have
to
do
so.
W
W
A
AM
The
first
is
that,
as
we
look
at
meeting
participation
figures,
we're
seeing
an
increased
number
of
remote
participants
on
whom
we're
getting
more
and
more
dependent,
including
I,
noticed
tonight
for
good
or
bad
reasons.
I
be
and
is
G
members.
We've
got
a
number
of
procedural
bars
to
treating
remote
participants
as
full
participants
and
I'm.
Wondering
is
for
a
general
question
when
or
if
the
is
G
intends
to
address
that
question.
AM
Second
question
somewhat
related,
actually,
is
that
you
mentioned
during
your
summary
that
there's
an
appeal
pending
that
appeal
interacts
with
some
of
the
things
to
club
tonight
about
the
openness
and
transparency
of
the
leadership
process
and
I'm
wondering
what
the
is
G's
timeframe
is
for
addressing
it.
So.
AM
Got
a
Nam
Kham
which
will
not
allow
remote
participants
to
participate.
We
have
a
number
of
things
tied
to
the
NomCom
eligibility
rules
which
discriminate
against
from
both
participants
unless
they're
getting
we
do.
We
have
historically
done,
as
others
have
mentioned
this
evening,
a
number
of
semi
informal,
but
not
very
informal,
because
they're
officially
authorized
meetings
which
do
not
allow
remote
participation,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
problem
or
not.
No
question
is
really
not
that
I'm.
Looking
for
particular
solutions.
It's
that
I'm
asking
if
the
isg
considers
this
important
enough
to
address
this.
A
You
so
I
think
just
on
the
issue
of
general
interaction
between
remote
participants
and
in-person
attendees
at
the
meetings.
The
way
that
the
IHG
has
thought
about
this
is
that
we
are
fully
supportive
of
the
remote
participation
facility.
We
think
it's
great,
we
think
it's
you
know
extremely
effective
at
helping
bring
new
people
in
and
support
people
who
can't
make
it
to
the
meetings
and
so
forth.
We
do
like
to
optimize
if
we
have
to
have
a
trade-off
between
the
accommodating
remote
participants
and
accommodating
people
in
the
room.
A
If
we're
going
to
be
in
the
room,
we're
optimizing
for
in
the
room
if
we
have
to
make
a
trade-off,
but
in
many
cases
we
don't
have
to
make
a
trade-off.
So
that's
good
I
think
on
the
issue
of
NomCom
eligibility,
that's
a
real
issue,
at
least
in
my
mind,
there's
been
a
few
others
pending
large
administrative
matters
before
the
IETF
and
it's
hard
to
do
too
many
of
them
at
once,
but
I
do
think
it's
something
that
we
need
to
talk
about
and
and
potentially
address
in
the
future.
AM
A
G
I
took
me:
one
of
the
chances
I
have
is
getting
people
to
know
where
it
is
and
be
able
to
find
it,
and
while
they,
you
know,
we
do
announce
things
over
email.
It
gets
lost
in
the
clutter
of
the
actual
ITF
week.
We
only
have
so
much
email.
It
would
be
a
big
help,
even
if
you
label
it,
as
this
is
a
totally
unauthorized
ad
hoc
thing.
That's
going
on
that.
We
have
no
control
over
so
you're
in
scary
territory,
a
slot
somehow
on
the
official
agenda
structure.
G
So
you
guys
should
say
we're
in
this
room
at
this
time.
Talking
about
this,
if
you
want
to
come
come
if
you
don't
want
to
come,
but
that
would
be
a
really
big
help
in
coordinating
these
little
sidings.
It
would
also
give
the
opportunity
for
a
bigger
part
of
the
community
to
be
aware
of
where
they're
and
where
they
are
and
put
them
in
their
schedule.
When
they're
laying
out
the
schedule
for
attend,
unum
and
planning
out
that
our
ITF
week
couldn't
agree
more
from.
A
V
V
A
AA
AA
A
A
G
G
AP
AO
G
Y
AG
AG
O
G
AQ
G
A
very
good
point,
something
we
have
observed
internally
as
well,
so
we
have
discussed
experimenting
with
switching
to
a
slightly
different
rotational,
remaking
Asia.
As
the
March
meeting
right
now,
we
have
booked
out
through
2021,
most
of
the
venues
or
in
negotiation
with
venues
already
but
past
that
date
we're
looking
at
doing
that
exactly
experiment.
Your
suggested.
Y
G
Absolutely
true,
as
I
say,
if
we
do,
it
will
be
an
experiment,
we'll
see
how
it
goes.
We've
tried
this
way
for
a
couple
years
and,
as
you
note,
if
you
look
at
ahead
in
the
schedule,
while
we
do
try
to
have
tried
to
keep
to
the
schedule
of
you
know:
North
American,
March
Europe
in
the
summer
in
Asia
in
the
fall,
we
don't
always
do
it
even
now
we
do
mix
them
up.
The
fact
that
we're
here
in
the
summertime
and
not
in
Europe
right
now
is
a
bit
of
a
change
for
us.
G
So,
like
I,
said
we're
considering
the
experiment,
we're
gonna,
look
at
it.
The
big
thing
that
really
influences
our
choice
and
our
ability
to
meet
at
a
particular
location
is
availability
of
meeting
venues
that
we
can
go
to.
One
of
the
challenges
we
have
faced
in
Asia
is
the
availability
of
venues
that
meet
the
IETF
requirements
in
November,
and
so
one
of
the
reasons
my
other
motivations
were
doing
is
little
to
see.
If
that
we
start
going
to
Asia
as
an
experiment
in
March.