►
From YouTube: IETF102-HRPC-20180719-1550
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF102
2018/07/19 1550
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/proceedings/
A
C
B
B
B
Go
to
the
agenda
so
first
I
was
in
the
beginning.
We
need
a
scribe.
We
have
a
note
taker,
beatrice
martini
has
volunteered,
but
we
need
a
jabber
scribe.
Is
there
someone
willing
to
be
Thank,
You,
Alison?
Okay,
now
the
agenda
review,
which
is
what
we're
on
the
first
thing,
will
be
a
brief
research
group
status.
Then
there's
an
update
from
the
hackathon
I
do
not
have
slides
for
that
I'm,
not
sure
who
it
is.
B
That's
one
of
going
to
want
to
speak
on
that,
but
is
there
a
notion
of
who
wants
to
speak
on
the
hackathon
or
is
that
something
we're
just
skipping
you'll
speak
on
it,
meals?
In
fact,
I
think
you
had
said.
If
no
one
else
speaks
on
it,
you
will
so
thank
you.
Then
we
have
the
talk
by
Roya
on
well.
Actually,
the
title
is
is
different,
but
we'll
get
to
that
then
draft
update
on
anonymity,
Association,
political
and
on
implementation
of
451,
then
there's
the
Human
Rights
review
team.
B
Now
it
was
mentioned
to
me
that
the
Human,
Rights
and
architecture
for
IOT
devices
should
be
before
the
update
discussion
on
the
the
the
draft
guidelines.
Was
that
what
you
were
suggesting
else,
so
we
don't
have
any
slides
on
the
guidelines.
So
we
really
don't
need
to
change
anything
that'll,
be
a
discussion.
B
Then
there's
there's
open
discussion
if
time
necessary
and
under
any
other
business.
If
we
get
it,
we
had
gotten
email
of
us
Jim
Fenton.
Was
it
yes
and
did
I?
Remember
your
name
correctly.
Yes,
good!
That's
an
achievement
for
me.
So
I
wanted
to
discuss
this
this
this
draft
in
relation
to
the
the
HR
PC.
So
hopefully
we'll
have
time
for
that.
If
we
make
it
through
the
schedule
so
other
than
the
one
change
that
was
already
made
on
Neal's
request
is
the
agenda
fine
and
he
need
to
bash
it.
B
Okay,
then
move
on.
Oh
you
did
that.
Okay,
so
folks
probably
know
that
that
Neil's
has
left
the
role
of
co-chair
but
still
remains
our
most
prolific
author
at
the
moment.
So
so
thank
you.
Niels.
We
cooperated
in
informing
this
thing.
Together,
we
argued
a
lot.
You
did
a
lot
you
made
this
happen,
so
thanks
and
Malorie
has
joined.
Hopefully
everybody
saw
the
note
as
in
the
role
of
co-chair.
So
thanks
and
good
luck
talk
to
Niels,
it
could
be
painful.
B
No,
so
we
have
to
research
group
drafts
in
progress
the
one
on
anonymity,
the
one
on
guidelines.
There
are
several
other
drafts
out.
You
know
being
worked
on
and
I
noticed
that
at
least
in
one
of
them
there's
once
again
the
question
of
I.
Think
it's
Association
the
question
of.
Do
we
want
to
make
it
a
research
group
draft,
so
we
can
get
to
that
after
Niels
talks
about
it
and
I
wanted
to
give
an
apology
for
lack
of
minutes.
B
B
A
E
Diamond
my
research
focuses
on
security
and
privacy.
We
didn't
emphasis
on
protecting
users
from
hostile
networks.
In
my
lab,
we
try
to
develop
frameworks
to
be
able
to
detect
Network
interferences
and
use
this
techniques
that
we
have
or
frameworks
that
we
developed
to
understand
the
behavior
of
those
DPI's
or
intermediaries.
That
does
the
interference
and
then
to
our
understanding
and
whatever
you
have
discovered,
come
up
with
a
defense,
a
sustainable,
let's
say
situation.
E
We've
have
seen
a
much
more
censorship
happening
around
the
world
in
the
past
couple
of
10
years
or
so,
and
there
is
no
day
pass
by,
or
there
were
no
month
passed
by,
that
you
don't
hear
that
government
in
somewhere
freaked
out
and
they
shut
down
the
internet.
Just
in
this,
this
happened,
or
they
act
very
irrationally.
For
example,
Russia's
will
try
to
block
telegrams
and
to
be
able
to
do
so.
They
had
to
block
the
whole
on
the
zone
because
it
was
wasted.
There
so
introduces
her.
E
She
was
a
very
overloaded
Ward,
so
I'm
gonna
just
simplify
it
and
say
that
what
I
mean
by
that,
basically
is
the
internet.
Censorship
from
the
lens
of
network
researcher,
which
means
that
the
communication
between
the
user
in
the
server
is
going
to
be
disrupted
or
interfere
in
different
ways
such
as
the
DNS
manipulations
or
poisoning
the
IP
blacklisting
ports
blacklisting
like
TCP
IP
interference
like
port
443
being
blocked,
but
for
the
dissolution
so
that
it
cannot
establish
handshake.
The
TLS
can
be
intercepted
or
keyboards
filtering.
All
of
these
stuffs
is
under
the
umbrella.
E
Before
I
dive,
deep
I
want
to
say
that
it's
constantly
comes
a
constantly
question
that
why
do
we
care
about
measuring
internet
censorship?
A
little
background
about
me,
I
grew
up
in
Iran
I
moved
to
us
eight
years
ago,
and-
and
there
were
two
three
reasons-
that
I've
studied
internal
censorship-
one
because
constantly
I
noticed
that
our
focus
is
in
Iran
and
China
and
study
the
censorship
there
and
sometimes
I,
found
that
the
reports
coming
for
studying.
Internet
censorship
are
biased
are,
are
not
that
done.
E
So
it's
only
like
a
weakening
like
a
capital
city
of
the
country,
running
some
measurements
and
claiming
censorship
for
the
whole
country.
That
was
really
not
the
way.
I
wanted
things
to
be
done.
So
I
found
out
that
well.
Internet
censorship
is
not
just
a
phenomenon
that
is
being
observed
in
suppressive
regime.
It
should
be
done
in
a
larger
scale.
It
should
be
studied
in
a
more
systematic
way.
So
obviously
you
know
advocacy
transparency
matter.
We
want
to
know
where
who
why
also?
E
E
E
E
Well,
the
state
of
art.
How
like
the
most
important
way
of
thinking
about
is
like
well,
we
can
instrument
the
user
or
decide
to
run
measurements
to
collect
this
data.
For
example,
a
user
can
run
a
software
or
we
can
hand
give
give
a
very
Raspberry
Pi
that
our
equipted
to
run
measurement
from
them
right
Atlas.
You
know
doing
that
or
only
probes,
our
samples
of
that
or
and
as
you
can
expect,
that
all
these
direct
measurements
depend
on
volunteer
participation.
E
E
So
coverage
is
a
big
issue
and
there
is
also
something
with
respect
to
internet
censorship
that
stands
out,
which
is
risk
risk
management.
We
want
to
be
able
to
and
then
live
in
your
communicating
with
the
end
user
or
volunteer
to
participate.
You
need
to
be
able
to
tell
them
these
measurements.
You're
running
is
risky
and
hey.
We
don't
know
how
to
quantify
it.
We
don't
know
the
law
of
your
countries,
we're
not
familiar.
E
What
is
gonna
piss
your
government
up
so
you're
on
your
own
in
that
regard,
but
know
that
you're
contributing
to
a
big
cause.
So
there
is
ethical
issue
with
respect
to
that
and
when
you
are
dependent
on
the
end-user
participation,
all
of
you
guys
know
that
they're
gonna,
the
measurement
is
not
gonna,
be
continuous,
so
it's
gonna
be
in
one
day.
The
mission
is
gonna
happen.
The
network
will
go
down,
there's
someone
who's
gonna,
turn
off
the
laptop
and
not
run
a
measurement.
E
E
I'm
gonna
give
a
shout
out
to
me
one
of
the
project
that
I
know
about
them
from
like
2012,
and
they
was
starting
it
when
they
started
thinking
about
this
project
and
launching
it
and
working
on
that
I
was
one
of
the
skeptical
people.
I've
said
that
how
can
these
guys
find
people
everywhere?
I
mean
how
can
they
get
a
con
from
the
users
running
measurements?
This
seems
like
a
lot
of
work,
but
over
the
past
six
years
they
have
done
quite
amazing
job
they
and
they
incentivize
participation
in
only
really
well
for
people.
E
So
just
a
quick
summary
of
how
only
works.
They
have
a
software
that
you
can
install
on
your
desktop
or
you
can
receive
a
unni
Raspberry
Pi
or
you
can
actually
run
an
app
on
your
Android
or
iOS
everything.
Basically,
and
then
you
can
after
you
look
at
them,
you
have
to
a
give
it
to
a
consent,
and
after
that
they
start,
you
can
say
that
hey
I
want
to
run
a
measurement
now,
so
you
launch
a
measurement.
E
First,
it's
going
to
be
the
experiment
that
you're
interested
or
they
are
interested
and
then
as
a
control.
They
send
they
create
another
measurement
to
a
core
network
and
the
understanding
is
that,
if
the
results
they
get
back
from
tour
is
equivalent
of
the
results.
They
are
that
they
did
through
the
test
network.
Then,
okay,
there
is
no
censorship,
but
if
not
well
might
be
an
evidence
of
censorship,
but
they
don't
make
a
call
because
they
know
that
tor
is
subject
to
some
sorts
of
discriminations
of
its
own.
E
E
For
a
long
time,
they
attended
every
possible
conferences,
debates
panels
to
discuss
that
hey.
How
can
we
tell
people
from
different
culture,
different
countries,
different
political
situation
before
economy,
how
we
can
tell
them
about
the
risk?
And
so,
if
we
were
in
their
page
everywhere
in
their
policy,
they
try
to
explicitly
say
that
that
hey,
if
you're
participating
your
government,
know
bad
and
that's
how
far
they
could
go.
Basically,
that
was
their
best
one
of
the
good
efforts
they
made.
The
other
was
was
the
other
one
that
I
appreciated
a
lot.
E
Is
they
attended
a
lot
of
local
events
and
they
talked
to
activists
and
civil
society
organization
that
specifically
focuses
on
different
regions,
so
they
tried
their
best
to
communicate
with
the
locals
and
say
that
okay
is
that
safe?
Should
we
run
and
because
the
team
is
super
dedicated,
they
are
very
good
at
stopping
the
measurement.
When
things
go
wrong,
we
can
trust
them
that
these
guys
are
gonna,
be
on
the
right
side.
E
How
about
the
coverage,
so
how
did
they
convince
people
to
run
the
measurements?
Well
again,
I'm
impressed
that
how
many
people
around
the
world
download
their
app
or
running
the
measurements
for
them?
And
this
is
the
data
I
found
from
their
website.
You
can
see
that
for
a
while,
they
weren't
as
popular
or
they
weren't
collecting
as
many
measurement
but
in
the
past
year
because
of
the
a
lot
of
networking
advertisement,
good
marketing,
good.
E
Communications
and
so
on,
they
actually
ended
up
having
a
good
network
of
users
to
participate.
Measurements
and
I
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
the
ground
ages
since
that
supported
their
work,
because,
for
example,
OTF
has
been
one
of
the
biggest
supporter
so
that
they
actually
have
financial
support
to
go
to
different
countries.
To
give
a
talk
about
the
work
to
try
to
make
it
happen,.
D
E
I
started
thinking
about
this
problem
differently
and
the
idea
that
I
was
pursuing
was,
as
seen,
the
last
looking
at
the
IP
before
and
saying
that
all
these
machines
are
running
and
somehow,
following
some
certain
protocols
existed
now.
The
question
is:
how
can
I
use
this
machines
to
run
measurements
from
them
and
I'm
not
talking
about
exploiting
running
there,
but
on
them
and
make
them
a
participant
in
the
measurements?
No,
but
is
there
any
specification
in
the
protocols
that
I
can
use
to
be
able
to
learn
about
Internet
censorship.
E
E
E
How
can
you
do
that
remotely
off
the
path
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
this
through
the
talk
and
explain
how
this
can
happen,
but
in
the
past
couple
of
years
I
told
about
how
can
we,
after
inventing
that
technique,
we
were
thinking
about?
How
can
we
come
up
with
systems
that
are
escapable
and
a
statistically
robust?
So
we
can
run
these
measurements
weekly
and
collect
about
a
data
about
tcp/ip
reachability
globally,
and
so
we
came
up
with
a
technique
called
other.
E
And
it's
preaching
to
the
choir?
You
guys
know
about
PCP,
obviously,
but
just
at
the
background
and
for
any
a
connection
that
is
based
on
the
TCP,
there
is
a
TCP
handshake.
There
is
a
scene
seen
a
connect
and
in
each
of
the
packets
there
is
a
header
in
the
header,
TCP
header,
there's
a
field
called
identification
and
it's
there
for
fragmentation
reasons
and
when
the
packet
is
said,
there's
one
arkady
and
their
response
counter
is
another
ability,
and
I
will
come
back
to
that.
E
You
have
to
keep
repeating
it
if
you
send
the
scene
and
you
send
a
syn
ACK
back
if
you
didn't
receive
the
AK
or
reset
or
stream,
so
you
have
to
treat
transmit
it
and
for
different
operating
systems.
There
is
different
number
of
repetitions
of
this
retransmission
of
the
syn
ACK.
So
these
are
the
properties
in
a
protocol
I'm
not
inventing
them
it's
just
there
and
for
the
spooky
scan
to
work.
E
I
need
to
find
the
Roosters
or
we
call
it
reflector,
but
I
need
to
find
the
users
that
maintain
a
global
IP
ID,
which
means
the
value
of
that
identification
field
should
be
globally
assigned.
It
means
that
that
value,
no
matter
who
the
destination
is
when
it's
created
and
it's
putting
there
it's
gonna,
be
increment
by
one.
So
just
tell
me
if
you're
looking
at
the
global
IP
ID
value
of
a
machine-
and
it
shows
you
changes
what
that
does
represent.
It
represent
the
noise
of
the
machine.
E
How
many
other
packets
sent
from
the
first
query
you
sent
to
the
second.
The
difference
would
tell
you
that
noise
of
the
machine
and,
of
course,
the
site
that
I'm
interested
she's
had
a
shootable
open
port
and
respond
of
like
Facebook
and
so
on
and
the
measurement
machine
we
should
be
able
to
expose
packets,
yes,
I
know
a
spoofing
has
been
used
for
malicious
and
stuff
and
attacks,
and
so
on.
E
E
That
guy
is
gonna,
send
a
reset
back
to
the
site,
but
as
a
result
of
that
communication,
the
IP
ID
is
gonna
changed
because
I
told
you
this
is
a
global
IP
ID,
it's
a
globally
assigned
sorry!
If
I
read.
If
I
then
again
ask
what's
the
current
value,
your
IP
ID
I'm
gonna
see
a
jump
of
two
like
that:
the
diff
type
it
is
if
it's
gonna
be
two.
So
I
learned
that
these
two
communicated.
E
If
I
do
ask
again,
there
is
not
going
to
be
in
a
noiseless
model.
There's
not
going
to
be
any
change
so
now
consider
a
scenario.
Then
there
is
a
firewall
between
the
side
and
the
user,
so
everything
is
the
same
and
the
site,
the
the
packets
that
site
will
send
it's
not
going
to
get
to
the
reflector
and
by
the
way,
look
syn
ACK
vendor
your
response.
So
it's
gonna
be
retransmitted
three
times,
but
what
I
see
as
a
measurement
machine
I
would
see
that
they
did.
E
The
IP
I
did
eaves
being
one
and
one
now
and
the
third
case,
when
the
blocking
happening
from
other
direction
from
the
client
to
the
site,
so
sticks
Enoch
would
get
there.
The
reset
will
be
generated,
the
IP
ID
will
changed
and
I
will
observe
the
change,
but
there
are
other
retransmitted
syn
ACK
is
going
to
happen
as
well,
so
there
are
gonna,
be
jumps
of
the
IP
ID
in
the
continuous
IP
ID
queries.
So
let
me
put
them
together.
E
I
have
three
cases
where
the
Saito
reflector
is
being
blocked
or
no
direction
or
reflector
to
site
and
I
have
different
IP
IB
gifts,
one
one
two
one,
two,
two,
theoretically
speaking,
they
are
recognized
about
different.
You
can
detect
them
and
differentiate
them,
I'm
sure,
right
now
you
are
saying
that.
Well,
these
are
machines
with
the
noise.
They
are
talking
to
many
people.
This
disc
global
I
keep
I,
D
value
is
going
to
be
noisy
and
so
on
and
I
agree
with
you.
So
there
are.
E
There
were
different
techniques
that
we
develop
to
be
able
to
deal
with
that,
for
example,
instead
of
sending
is
one
as
we've
seen,
we
can
send
ten
we
can
send
in
so
we
can
see
that
that
the
diff
is
going
to
be
one
plus
snow
is
whatever
1,
plus
n,
plus
noise
or
1,
plus
n
noise
and
1
plus
n
noise
in
the
second
dish.
So
basically
you
can
amplify
the
signal
in
a
way
that
you
can
detect
it
and
also
because.
D
E
So,
basically,
if
the
fire
board
is
a
stateful,
I
cannot
use
this
book
this
guy,
but
the
problem
are
they
did.
The
benefit
of
a
spooky
scan
is
like
we're
using
it
to
measure
internet
censorship
in
a
national
level.
So
you
can
see
that
the
national
level
firewalls
usually
cannot
be
a
stateful,
because
there's.
E
D
E
Some
other
so
another
good
point,
I'm
trying
to
abstract
the
topic,
but
not
mentioning
about
these
teachers.
So
the
way
to
deal
with
the
false
positive
is
to
having
the
control
measurements.
So
if
the
and
you
can
eliminate
like
false
positive,
like
that,
if
connection
to
a
domain
that
you
know
that
should
not
be
block,
it's
a
control.
That's
a
mountain
web
server.
If
that
shows
blocking,
then
you've
figured
out.
That's
not
censorship!
That's
actually
something
went
wrong
and.
D
E
G
E
H
H
I
J
E
Question
to
be
a
specific
about
the
slides
you
you
uncovering,
so
how
the
other
framework,
if
I,
want
to
run
it
in
a
larger
scale.
Is
that
the
base
of
the
steps?
So
what
we
do
is
we
scan
the
ipv4,
try
to
find
a
global,
IP,
ID
machine,
we
decide
what
countries
were
interested
and
and
we
find
the
reflectors
or
the
global
IP
ID
machines
that
are
suitable.
It
means
that
they
are
not
as
Luisi
but
because
some
of
them
are
really
noisy
and
detecting.
E
The
noise
out
of
news
is
really
harder,
so
we
just
eliminate
those
and
then
we
decide
what
sites
we
are
interested,
what
type
of
measurements
the
size
of
measurement
we
want
to
run
and
characterize
those
sites,
and
then
what
we
do.
We
schedule
measurements
in
a
way
that
we
make
sure
that
no
site
and
a
reflector
or
running
measurement
at
the
same
time,
so
we
don't
have
like
one
measurement
affect
the
other
one
and
so
on
so
forth
and
then
get
the
measurement
running
I.
J
E
Idea
so
so
after
that
probing,
then
we
start
running
the
app
detection
and
validation
and
at
the
end,
our
output
is
going
to
be
this
reflector
to
site
blocking
observed
for
these
countries
and
this
percentage
of
the
nodes
we
use
show
that
so
we
we
started
talking
throughout
the
talk.
We
talked
about
the
coverage
being
an
issue,
so
how
this
augur
is
gonna
help
with
that
there
were
more
than
22
million
machines
that
are
running
global,
IP
ID
that
are
following
the
global
IP
ID
behavior,
and
if
you're
asking
what
are
those
machines?
E
Well,
there
are
windows,
XP
freebsd.
I
can
tell
you
like
windows
7,
for
example.
It's
not
like
that
Linux
versions,
they
randomized
it
and
so
on
and
like
the
direct
measurements
right
pathless
is
doing
the
best
in
there
are
ten
thousands.
So
you
see
how
different
it
is.
Who
was
the
person
who
you
were
talking
about
ethics
and
you're?
Damn
right
about
that?
Basically,
the
reflector
doesn't
know
that
somebody
is
is
participating
in
this
measurements
and
might
not
want
to
so.
How
do
we
deal
with
that?
E
Well,
the
solution
that
we
came
up
with
is
walking
away
from
end-users:
let's
use
routers
infrastructure
routers
and
not
in
user.
So
what
we
do?
We
actually
looked
at
the
caters
arc,
three
shafts
data
and
we
choose
IPS
that
are
too
hot
back
from
the
end
users
IP
and
we
use
those
as
a
vantage
point
and
of
course
it
affects
the
coverage,
it's
become
53,000,
but
52,000
is
already
good
enough.
It
covers
a
lot
of
countries,
and
so
on.
Is
that
good
enough
for
you.
J
G
E
Absolutely
so
the
under
the
the
argument
here
is
that
this
router
is
going
to
be
a
core
router.
It's
gonna
be
all
squeezed.
Rather
it's
going
to
be
organization
rather,
and
if
there
is
a
seen
act
and
act,
it's
not
as
a
complete
handshake,
it's
just
a
scenic
and
reset
sorry
scenic
and
reset
they
can
easily
explain
that.
Oh
did
you.
They
have
it's
very
easy
for
them
to
justify
that.
Okay,.
G
E
G
E
G
E
And
another
thing
that
I
want
to
point
here
is:
what
is
the?
What
is
the
other
option
that
we
have
just
think
about
it?
If
this
bothering
you
that
there
like,
there
is
a
scenic
and
reset,
then
the
other
option
is
we
are
asking
people
to
participate
so
we're
trying
to
minimize
the
risk
here.
We're
not
saying
there
is
no
risk.
E
There
is
I
argue
that
there
is
no
approach
that
that
someone
can
commit
that
there
is
zero
risk,
because
you
never
know
what
you're
dealing
with
so
about
the
continuity
of
course,
when
you're
dealing
with
routers
and
the
running
measurement
from
routers
and
the
teachers
that
they
go
down
or
they
stop
working
is
really
low.
So
it's
not
like
your
end.
Users
changing
networker
and
start
measuring
our
mister.
E
It's
a
nonprofit
organization
that
keep
track
of
the
domains
that
are
being
blocked
somewhere
around
the
world
and
the
other.
Thousands
were
Alex's
10k
or
randomly
selected
at
from
Alex
a
certain
K
and
the
argument
was
well.
We
should
we
should
use
this
Alex
as
a
control,
because
there
are
less
sensor
sensor,
domains
in
Alexa,
because
they're
popular
versus
citizen
lab,
which
is
actually
a
best
of
list
of
sensor
domain.
We
ran
this
measurement
and
we
collected
the
data
and
we
looked
at
the
websites
to
see
whether
it
makes
sense
or
not.
E
We
solve,
for
example,
Human
Rights
websites
at
appeared
at
the
top
or,
for
example
like
Journal,
but
we
also
saw
something
else
which
was
Amtrak
calm,
and
this
is
an
example
of
them,
false
positive
that
we
couldn't
explain
why
and
by
digging
further.
We
found
that
that
Amtrak
is
using
a
DNS
service
that
redirect
to
IP
that
other
sensitive,
like
let's
say
and
other
sites
are
also
being
redirected
to
that
IP
and
that
IP
is
being
blocked.
E
So
it's
like
equilateral
damage
and
actually
we
have
a
publication
right
now,
which
is
studied
at
sue
nominal
in
a
deeper
how
many
domains
are
being
blocked
because
of
collateral
damage.
So
that's
that
is
coming
up.
So
next
we
looked
at
their
how
many
of
the
website
a
reflector
to
the
site
thing
block,
and
we
saw,
for
example,
in
acid
gotta
stay
at
the
top
and
considering
the
next
nature
of
their
site,
which
you
can
you
can
assume
that
it's
the
decide
itself
blocking
certain
countries.
E
It's
like
a
server
side
deciding
that
oh
well,
this
client
I
don't
want
to
have
them
contact
me,
which
makes
sense.
A
government
website
usually
do
that
and
that's
another
follow-up
research
that
they
have
done,
which
is
how
many
other
servers
are
blocking
content
to
different
regions
just
because
they
don't
see
revenue.
E
E
So
so
you
mentioned
that
you
mentioned
that
oh
well,
this
is
just
as
tcp/ip
blocking
and
only
even
detecting
the
scenic
reset
is
not
even
a
stateful.
So
what
else?
What
about
the
rest?
So
we
we
came
up
with
the
system.
I
raced
for
satellite,
both
of
them
are
the
same
basically,
and
we
should
actually
try
to
detect
DNS,
poisoning
or
manipulation
removes
me
and
the
way
they
do.
That
is
basically
choosing
open,
DNS
resolvers,
but
they
were
like.
E
E
If
there
are
named
servers,
they
usually
choose
them
so
from
11
million
resolver
that
are
out
there
out
of
which
6
menu
are
working
correctly
and
out
of
which
we
only
use
14
thousands
of
them,
and
then
we
develop
this
satellite
that
beam
that
can
detect
the
NS
manipulation
remotely
from
all
this
166
countries.
I
cannot
go
deep
and
how
we
do
that,
but
you
can
imagine-
or
you
can
read
a
bit
well
what
about
the
next
layers?
How
do
you
detect,
for
example,
TLS
or
as
an
eye
blocking
there
or
keyboard
blocking?
E
How
do
you
do?
How
do
you
do
that
remotely?
Well,
we
taught
a
long
time
about
this
problem,
because
my
understand
when
I
was
thinking
about
this
problem,
my
understanding
was
like
to
get
to
the
application
layer.
There
should
be
a
TCP
handshake
and
they
should
be
client
establishing
that
handshake
to
decide
and
I
cannot
do
that
without
exploiting
the
client
or
the
user.
How
can
I
do
that
like
and
that
was
the
block?
I
was
blocked
there
I
was
like
oh
well.
E
How
can
I
get
to
the
application,
but
Internet
is
always
surprise
you
but
I
forgot.
Let
me
just
say
what
I
mean
by
application.
China,
for
example,
does
a
lot
of
keyboard
blocking
or
sni
blocking?
Basically,
if
you
establish
a
handshake
from
your
computer
to
the
server
and
then
you
send
a
get
request
and
they
see
that,
for
example,
it's
for
google.com,
then
that
keyboard
caused
the
DPI
to
act
and
they
send
a
reset
to
the
post
party.
E
That's
how
China
does
it
the
other
countries
like
other
countries
like,
for
example,
then
they
they
see
a
keyboard
that
they
don't
like.
They
basically
drop
every
connection.
They
just
don't
send
anything
back.
So
that
was
the
example
of.
But
how
do
you?
How
did
we
resolve
this
problem?
It
turns
out
there
is
a
protocol
called
echo
which
is
RFC
862
and
it
is
a
predecessor
to
pink
whatever
you
send
to
that
/
like
that
port
7,
which
is
running
echo.
It's
gonna,
send
you
back
like
whatever
is
then
it's
gonna
get
you
back.
E
So
it's
gonna
echo
it
back
to
you.
So
then
the
question
was
like:
how
can
we
use
a
cool
for
our
youth?
Obviously,
from
a
measure
machine
we
can
craft
a
get
request,
get
HTTP
request
and
send
it
to
the
echo
server.
It's
gonna
send
back
to
us
exact
same
thing
and
if
it's
there's
a
dpi
in
between
it's
going
to
act,
because
if
there
is
that
packet
is
going
back
and
forth
and
yeah,
it
works.
So
basically
that's
what
they
do.
E
E
So
where
I'm
heading
side
channels
and
the
designing
them
are
really
hard
and
that
information
you
learn
from
them
is
not
as
much
as
a
direct
measurements
like
Hoonah
can
get
so
I'm
leading
a
project
called
sensor.
Planet
which
tries
to
run
all
these
techniques
weekly
and
collect
data
from
all
these
countries,
and
then
our
goal
is
to
join
force
with
only
which
do
analysis
in
a
more
detailed
way
to
come
up
with
basically
censorship,
a
data
repository
for
censorship,
measurements
and
so
on
so
forth.
H
Okay,
let's
start
with
some
DMS
question
using
the
open
with,
although
because
the
IETF
says
that
it's
bad
open
with
of
those
are
typically
not
the
real
result,
worse
used
by
people
on
at
least
in
the
Western
Europe,
where
DNS
lying
with
of
those
is
the
most
common
since
a
shape
technique
open
with
Argos,
will
not
see
the
same
thing
as
a
regular
weather.
Well,
the
big
ISP
so
I'm
wondering,
for
instance,
was
your
tool
able
to
detect
censorship
in
Western
European
countries.
Yes,.
E
So
what
we
do
is
we
develop
heat
series
of
heuristics,
for
example,
we
have
our
own
domain,
let's
say
since
Atlanta
and
our
own
site
and
we
use
the
open,
resolvers
and
check
whether
it
works
like
does
it
resolve
that
don't
mean
that
you
know
it
should
resolve
correctly
or
not.
So
that's
basic,
that's
like
consistency
check
for
the
open,
resolvers
and
then
we
also
check,
for
example,
for
that
domain
that
basically
were
interested
the
IP.
That
is
getting
results.
E
We
go
to
that
IP
and
if
it's
HTTPS
running
I
should've
said
yes,
for
example,
we
look
at
the
search
we
get
from
there
where
and
the
cert
that
we
get
from
issues
like
Taylor
and
the
one
that
we
get
from
the
control
and
are
they
equal
or
not?
If
it's
equal,
then
we
say:
that's
not
censorship.
So
there
is
a
series
of
tests
that
we
do.
Then,
if,
if
the
response
is
passing
any
of
these
heuristics,
then
we
say
that:
okay,
it's
not
censorship.
E
H
H
H
K
H
H
D
E
Because
our
results
that
true
they're,
using
open
resolvers
and
the
results
that
the
other
like
we
already
knew
about
them,
were
basically
we
could
confirm
them.
We
validate
our
results,
so
I
don't
think
they
were
dad.
But
I've
seen
were
I
agree
with
you
that
we
necessarily
don't
see
the
users
response,
and
maybe
our
guru,
granth
granularity
is
not
as
they
and
I
agree.
E
And
there
is
an
example
that
I
can
talk
to
you
offline
about
it,
but
let
me
come
up
with
the
example,
that
is
that
I
can't
say
it.
M
E
E
The
history
of
how
network
diagnostic
tools
worked
and
one
of
the
people
who
are
saying
that
hey
guys
have
you
heard
about
this
predecessor
to
being
pingas
like
simplified,
but
there
is
something
that
you
can
send
and
back
and
sprung
on
port
seven
there's
another
one
called
discarding
like
you
send
it
and
you
just
discard
it,
so
you
can
actually
check
the
direction
that
way
and
and
then
immediately
after,
like
in
that
even
bar,
we
just
I
just
stopped.
It
was
like
this.
Is
it
seriously
this?
E
Is
it
and
and
I
asked
one
of
the
students
there
to
run
a
measurement
and
see
whether
this
protocol
is
deployed
and
University
of
Michigan
has
one
of
the
best
network
to
run
Internet
widest
scanning,
and
the
student
came
like
in
morning
and
I
mean,
like
literally
like
I,
believe
there
is
like
50,000
running
this
and
we
basically
if
the
technique
was
developing
like
matter
of
a
beaker,
we
needed
to
hear
that.
But
I
can
tell
you
a
follow-up
to
work
to
that
work.
E
So
basically
didn't
follow
up
to
that
workers
was
just
my
undergrad
is
doing,
is
using
HTTP
servers
that
are
that
are
organizational
especially
server
within
the
countries.
So
what
we
do
is
we
are
sending
it
a
certificate
request
for
google.com
from
let's
say:
I,
don't
know
a
government
that
are
you
and,
of
course
it's
not
hosted
there.
E
So
they're
gonna
send
us
something
back
and
saying
that
oh,
the
content
is
not
available
here
or
god
knows
what,
and
we
do
that
for
a
control
which
is
the
domains
that
we
know
it's
not
going
to
be
censored.
If
random
string
get
requests
random,
that
let's
say
whatever,
and
then
we
do
that
for
a
domain
that
we
know
it's
sensitive
and
then
we
develop
a
technique
to
be
able
to
differentiate
they
control
measurement
versus
the
response
that
we
get
when
there
is.
There
is
a
disrupt
interruption.
You
know
you're
happening
in
between
so
there's.
E
B
M
Yes,
at
the
hackathon,
we
were
with
several
with
people
working
on
Public
Interest
technologies.
There
was
the
and
several
people
I
are
here.
So
if
I
misrepresent
you
please,
please
tell
me,
I
did
so
I'm
doing
so.
There
have
been
people
working
on
MLS
and
actually
have
come
up
with
somewhat
of
an
MLS
implementation
came
along,
I
came
along
problems,
came
along
solution,
so
that
was
useful.
People
have
been
working
on
four
or
five
one.
M
We
especially
had
super
good
contributions
from
Mauritius,
where
the
group
there
has
been
improving
the
Drupal
plug-in
for
four
or
five
one
and
some
other
work
on
four
or
five
one
has
been
happening
as
well,
because
I
think
the
measurements
plug-in
was
improved
by
elf
right.
Some
work
on
that.
Yes,
and
then
we've
been
working
on
doing
interviews
for
the
Human
Rights
review
for
quick,
but
it's
actually
a
teaser,
because
we'll
talk
about
that
later
in
this
session,
okay.
B
H
Bosnia,
so
we
know
real
news
about
this
draft
in
no
activity
there
was
one
review
by
Verdi
with
a
lot
of
good
remarks,
but
apart
from
that,
I
didn't
notice
any
activity.
So
in
while
wondering
if
that
I
mean
I,
we
could
always
publish
something,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
it
wouldn't
be
a
very
collective
walk.
So
it's
maybe
a
problem.
H
B
M
Think
it
is
still
relatively
wireframing,
so
I
think
it
also
depends
a
bit
on.
Where
would
you
like?
Maybe
you
could
Shepherd
us
a
bit
because
I
could
provide
reviews
and
say
you
could
look
there
and
there
we
could
add,
and
this
and
this
or
could
like
start
dramatically
typing
large
pieces
of
text,
but
that
might
also
be
going
in
different
directions.
All
over
I
already
have
it
with
the
drafts.
I
write
myself.
So
you
know.
H
That's
simple:
any
input
now
seriously.
Of
course,
I'm
lazy,
so
I
prefer
that
people
send
text
I
just
have
to
copy
and
paste,
but
any
input
would
be
useful
by
showing
that
there
is
interest
and
by
guiding
about
what
is
interesting
again,
it's
not
a
personal
work.
It's
not
like
if
I
write
a
book
or
an
article
on
my
blog
and
thing
like
that
it
has
to
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
working
group.
Otherwise
it's
less
useful.
H
B
I
Read
for
quite
a
while
I
think
it's
the
same
comment
I
had
previously
is
that
I,
you
know
anonymity
is
like
really
really
hard
towards
impossible
and
I.
Don't
think
the
drafts
gets
that
across
or
in
sufficient
detail.
So
because
I
think
one
issue
that
we
be
useful
to
have
in
a
document
like
this
and
I
didn't
offer
text
so
pregnant.
I
M
I
F
I
M
D
Think
the
anonymity
draft
is
a
good
place
to
discuss
some
of
the
things
that
this
research
group
might
have
been
set
up
to
discuss,
which
is
that
anonymity
in
law
is
a
relative
concept.
So
you
can
be
anonymous
if
it's
sufficiently
economically
difficult
for
somebody
to
reaiiy,
don't
affiuent
Oriya
thority,
they
will
determine
everything
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
considering
normally
the
fact.
H
Can
add
also
one
thing
that
anonymity
is
probably
one
of
the
areas
of
computer
network
security
and
privacy,
where
there
is
a
widest
gap
between
what
non
experts
think
on
what
experts
know.
I
mean,
as
Stefan
said,
a
lot
of
people
claim
that
this
databases
I
know
anymore,
something
like
that
on.
There
is
always
a
job
between
the
experts
and
on
an
expert,
but
in
the
when
it
comes
to
anonymity.
It's
it's
a
notion.
B
M
B
Okay,
that
was
good
discussion
on
anonymity,
who's
doing
the
is
it
Niels
or
that's
doing
the
the
Association
draft?
Okay,
if
she
online
and
wanting
to
talk,
I
see
her
but
I
don't
see
her
in
the
queue
asking
yes
now
I
press
the
red
button.
O
B
B
O
O
O
O
Also
well
incorporate
all
the
doubts
and
confusions
that
were
put
forward
just
to
make
this
point
I
it's
one
of
the
things
that
I
liked
the
most
about
the
draft
infrastructure
is
often
taken
for
granted
and
I.
Think
in
this
context,
human
rights
are
also
taken
for
granted.
Sometimes
when
we
worry
too
much
about
technology
and
infrastructure,
then
Association
is
seen
as
merely
people
or
things
coming
together
and
not
necessarily
as
something
that
we
also
have
to
build
on
from
a
normative
perspective.
Next,
please!
O
So
these
are
two
research
questions.
You
know
them
very
well.
Well,
the
first
one
at
least
the
second
one
has
been
tweaked
and
changed,
so
it
could
make
that
the
the
methodology
a
little
bit
better,
so
the
affordances
of
internet
architecture
in
terms
of
their
right
to
freedom
of
association
and
assembly,
and
then,
if
this,
if
the
Internet
is
used
for
association
and
assembly,
what
are
the
consequences?
This
was
modified
because
we
eliminated
section
6.3
I
will
get
to
that
further
on
next,
please,
the
objective:
it's
very
much.
O
M
Yeah,
so
what
I
think
is
is
important.
We've
been
working
on
this
draft
quite
a
bit
and
initially
we
have
added
a
lot
of
stuff
and
then
about
two
meetings
ago.
We
have
started
deleting
stuff
and
I'm
afraid.
If
we
might
change
direction
again,
then
we
need,
then
we
need
to
good,
then
we're
going
through
that
process
a
couple
of
times
again.
So
that's
why
I
just
wanted
to
remind
people
what
we've
been
trying
to
do
here,
and
that
is
that,
we've
being
we
want
to
try,
expand
and
deepen
relation
between
specific
rights
and
protocols.
M
So
it's
like
a
more
individualized
pro
right
version
of
RFC
80
to
80.
So
in
this
sense
you
could
see
that
this
is
like
going
deeper
in
the
research
field
of
RFC
80
to
80,
but
not
in
the
field
of
application,
so
we're
not
trying
to
analyze
specific
protocols
for
HR
impact,
because
that
is
what
we're
doing
in
the
review
team
and
we're
also
not
trying
to
produce
new
guidelines,
because
that's
more
like
the
application
of
RFC
80
to
80,
about
which
we'll
talk
in
a
bit
and
is
more
speculative
and
theoretical
research.
M
O
Just
to
make
consensus
flow
a
little
bit
better.
We
completely
deleted
section
6.3
regarding
the
discussion
on
the
internet
Association
and
what
that
would
mean
in
terms
of
a
SS
I,
think
Neil's
frame
sent
really
well
when
saying
the
obligation
to
pass
packets,
we
discussed
on
the
list
if
we
should
touch
upon
net
neutrality
or
not,
but
in
the
end
we
just
decided
to
eliminate
our
elephants
because
it
was
causing
too
much
noise
and
too
much
confusion.
O
This
led
us
to
clean
up
the
conclusion
and
typos
and
also
taking
into
consideration
what
Mallory
suggested
last
session
rather
than
determining
the
relationship
between
a
as
an
association.
We
thought
it
was
be
more
interesting
to
explore
the
nature
of
the
activity
was
an
association
itself,
so
I
know
it
seems
like
a
small
thing,
but
I
think
in
terms
of
methodology.
It
really
makes
sense.
Next,
please
no.
M
O
I'm,
like
yeah,
it
was
a
small
thing,
it's
a
grammatical
thing,
but
no
I
guess
it
is
a
bigger
thing.
Sometimes
next,
please,
okay,
so
we
also
thought
it
was
important
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
about
the
methodology,
especially
because
this
overview
does
not
aim
to
cover
all
the
possible
ways
in
which
people
can
organize
or
reach
out.
It's
obviously
an
ethnographic
approach,
it's
taken
certain
experiences
and
then
obstructing
from
there.
We
definitely
do
not
want
to
cover
it
and
everything
and
I
really
asked
a
human
rights
lawyer.
O
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
cover
anything
to
make
a
human
rights
impacts,
assessment
consideration
and
then,
of
course,
the
part
of
the
literature
review,
which
I
think
is
really
rich.
There
were
some
doubts
and
confusion
last
session
regarding
somebody
I,
don't
remember
well
who,
but
somebody
asks
why
are
you
being
really
explicit
with
all
the
technical
arguments
in
this
draft
and
from
my
perspective
again
as
a
human
rights
lawyer?
Ietf
drafts
are
not
only
being
read
by
engineers
these
days
and
I
really
want
to
underline
this.
O
Ietf
drafts
should
and
must
be
read
by
a
lot
of
other
people
that
are
also
in
the
policy
arena.
So
that's
why
it's
important
to
have
literature,
a
clear
literature
review
and
a
clear
set
of
the
finishes
in
the
dress.
Next,
please,
this
is
well,
then
I,
don't
want
to
talk
a
lot
about
this.
I,
don't
know
meals.
You
have
something
to
say
about
the
last
light:
okay,
okay
and
well.
Here
are
our
conclusions.
Meals
I'll
shoot
it
over
to
you,
so
you
go
over
them.
M
Yeah,
so
we
established
the
relationship
between
assembly,
Association
and
the
internet
and
we
derived
it
from
the
different
cases
we
linked
it
between
protocols.
Then
we
talked
a
bit
about
the
affordances
of
centralized
and
decentralized
and
then
on
the
trends
on
interoperability
and
Federation
and
centralization
that
Stephen
brought
up.
That
is
also
included
now.
So
that
is
pretty
much
the
draft
as
it
is.
It's
not
yeah,
it
does
what
it
says:
how
to
do
so
and
we
removed
the
parts
that
were
problematic.
So
I
think
it
is
pretty
tight.
M
B
B
You
know
stick
around
for
this
piece:
okay,
but
while
you're
packing
up
and
gathering
all
and
finding
all
the
pieces
of
pens
that
are
hiding
under
the
tables
and
such
okay,
so
I
don't
know
getting
getting
back
to
to
the
to
the
story
at
hand.
How
do
people
feel
about
adoption?
I?
Don't
see
anybody
at
the
microphone
with
things
to
say,
Neil's
did
make
the
point
that
what
was
bothering
people
last
time
has
been
removed.
So
should
this
be
adopted,
is
there
any
objection
to
abducting
this
in
the
room
or
that,
yes,.
Q
Q
H
Bosnia
just
a
practical
problem:
we
we
had
to
draft
if
I'm
correct
we
are
discussing
about
adopting
more
on.
It
seems
that
HIPC
is
a
bit
less
active
than
before
less
people
in
the
room.
There
were
so
just
be
sure
that
we
adopt
only
thing
that
we
will
really
be
able
to
work
on
it,
send
reviews
we
marks
etc.
So
this
is
being
said,
the
draftee,
it's
a
good
idea
for
me
and
I
really
would
like
it
to
advance.
H
B
Yeah
in
terms
of
drafts,
at
the
moment
we
have
the
guideline
which
I
think
is
going
to
be
an
ongoing
piece
of
work,
that
sort
of
matches
with
the
reviews
and
as
we
learn,
and
I
want
to
talk
about
that
more
later
and
then
the
anonymity
one
that
we
mentioned
so
adding
a
third
given
that
but
you're
right.
That
may
be
a
place
where
we'd
want
to
stop.
If,
if
for
a
moment
until
we've
seen
real
progress
on
things,
I,
don't
know,
you
were
going
to
talk
before
I
interrupted
well,.
M
B
Well,
we'll
take
the
question
to
to
the
list,
then,
since
there
is
a
little
bit
of
ambiguity,
but
it
seems
like
there's
a
sort
of
feeling
that
yeah
we
should
pick
one
more.
You
know
this
one
looks
like
it
may
be
a
good
one
to
take
to
adopt,
but
let's
try
and
see
if
we
can
get
some
more
conversation
going
on
it
then-
and
yes,.
B
M
I'm
I've
tried
to
answer
that
on
the
list
and
then
III
read
looked
at
the
different
versions
and
I
think
what
we
did
is
so
the
level
we
did
and
that's
why
data
actually
was
exactly
the
reason
why
I
put
in
this
so
I
think
the
layer
extract.
Abstraction
is
very
similar
and
also
in
the
methodology
to
RFC
80
to
80,
namely
that
we
take
the
ethnographic
approach.
Look
at
different
protocols
that
are
examples
of
of
implementations
of
those
rites.
M
Do
the
description
where
there's
an
inter
relation
and
then
come
to
the
and
draw
conclusions
from
that,
how
there's
a
specific
relation
between
those
rites
and
protocols
and
and
leave
it
at
that,
and
then
the
other
part
is
done
in
the
review.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
another
abstract
another
abstraction
level
would
either
be
a
higher
level
and
then
it
would
not
be
specific
rights
or
specific
protocols
which
which
it
has
relation
or
about
specific
protocols
and
then
we're
not
analyzing
for
Association,
and
then
it
should
be
an
exhaustive
list.
M
M
So
the
the
step
down
is
from
all
human
rights
to
Association
and
assembly.
So
it
was
to
show
that
so
because
we
start
because
the
the
relation
between
freedom
of
expression
and
privacy
is
all
that's
the
all
the
one
we
always
hear.
So
this
one
was
used
to
try
to
to
to
break
that
open
a
bit
and
come
up
with
a
bit
more
discourse
so
and
that's
what
it
tries
to
do
and
I
think
that's
what
it.
M
B
You
seem
to
have
most
III
think
that,
as
I
said,
even
even
the
one
person
that
had
a
comment
said
it
wasn't
an
objection.
Just
you
know
just
clarify
it.
I'll
clarify
it
on
the
list
and
then
you
probably
didn't
want
to
just
quickly
put
out
a
different
version
with
a
different
name,
but
you
probably
wanted
to
yeah.
M
B
B
B
B
M
So
we're
trying
to
understand
the
political
aspect
of
protocols,
because
in
our
research
and
on
our
list
we
had
several
discussions
and
it
keeps
on
coming
back
about
the
neutrality
of
of
Technology
and
the
neutrality
of
protocols,
and
so
we're
doing
this
because
the
Internet
is
a
basic
infrastructure
of
our
information
societies
and
protocols
are
in
very
inherent
for
a
part
of
that,
and
so
a
part
of
this
process
is
political,
which
includes
economics,
but
it
is
not
described
in
in
any
RFC's.
So
what
we?
M
My
economics
is
also
ordering
the
infrastructure
and
society
in
other
ways,
and
we
think
we
should
be
taking
that
into
consideration.
We're
not
making
any
comment
about
whether
that's
good
or
bad,
but
we're
simply
saying
this
is
a
part
of
that
and
then
trying
to
argue
with
that
for
that
with
scientific
literature
and
so
on
then
need
to
take
it
into
account
in
the
decision-making
process
as
well,
and
then
making
this
explicit.
That
helps
us
to
understand
how
to
do
that,
and
even
though
it
is
sometimes
uncomfortable
type
house,
it's
a
returning
thing.
M
M
The
the
thing
that
was
right
very
rightfully
pointed
out
last
time
was
that
this
was
a
bit
of
a
pot
pourri
of
different
ideas,
of
how
our
protocols
are
political,
but
it
wasn't
really
neatly
lined
up
so
I've
been
trying
to
create
a
new
structure
and
flow
to
to
address
that
and
do
better
signposting.
We
were
here
never
going
there,
and
this
is
where
we
are
in
the
argument.
I
also
created
a
new
conclusion
based
on
all
the
steps
and
dairy.
Thank
you.
M
Very
much
is
Ella
for
helping
on
editing
as
well
as
Mallory,
who
both
wrote
me
in
strong
language
and
told
me
what
I
should
do
wrong
and
that
I
should
read
my
own
drafts
out
loud
and
that
soft
would
help.
So
where
is
this
going
so
the
question
is:
is
anything
missing
or
should
we
add
stuff,
and
how
does
the
research
group
think
about
where
to
take
this?
Is
this
still
controversial
if
this
something
will
feel
comfortable
with
after
five
iterations?
M
So
I'd
be
curious
to
hear,
because
there
is
a
lot
of
literature
on
this
stuff,
I
could
put
in
more
and
more
and
more
but
I'd
be
very
curious
to
hear
whether
you
think
we
need
more
depth
or
more
breadth,
because
I've
now
jumped
into
the
literature
of
self-regulation,
and
it
is
far
and
deep
and
growing
so
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
want
to
import
more
than
we
have
but
I'm
curious
to
hear
what
you
think
is
useful.
Okay,.
B
Anyone
have
any
comments.
I
see
you're
asking
about
adoption
again.
This
one
has
one
fewer
author
than
the
last
one
right,
no.
B
K
B
C
M
Sure
so
it
is
so.
We
have
talked
about
the
ten
thousand
different
ways
in
which
the
some
people
see
that
the
internet
is
neutral
and
sample
people
see
it's
not
so.
First,
it's
a
documents
that
discussion,
then,
if
there's
an
overview
of
the
literature
that
shows
how
different
power
structures
have
an
influence
in
in
the
development
of
protocols
and
standards,
bodies
and
any
self
regulation,
and
how
different
end
a
position
on
technological
determinism
and
social
determinism
of
of
sociology.
M
So
there
it
shows
like
different
the
history
of
political
thinking,
visa
vie,
standardization
and
standards
bodies
and
and
standards
and
protocols,
and
then
it
comes
to
the
conclusion
says.
Maybe
we
do
not.
This
research
group
is
not
the
place
where
to
define
exactly
what
political
is,
but
the
discussion
and
the
literature
definitely
shows
out
that
we
should
take
it
in
consideration
in
in
the
process
of
in
our
own
processes,
in
making
and
producing
and
developing
standards.
I
M
But
and
I
felt
like
this
as
well,
but
I
think
we
should
see
this
as
modular
building
blocks,
because
every
time
I
get
too
excited
I
get
I.
Think
rightfully
so
also
called
back
by
the
research
group,
because
I
think
with
the
work
that
we
are
doing
in
here.
It's
definitely
not
the
same
as
that
people,
necessarily
all
the
people
feel
like
outside
of
this
room.
So
I
think
we
we
have
the
building
block
that
now.
I
I
I
I
So
let
me
finish
the
sentence,
the
reasons,
the
reason
I
kind
of
expressing
that
you
know
well
reasoned
opinion
is
that
there's
always
a
tendency
to
adopt
stuff
and
then
it
just
eventually
kind
of
turns
into
an
RFC
at
some
point
in
the
future
and
I'm
not
sure.
That's
the
right
thing
to
do
at
this
document
enough.
If
we
can
figure
out
first,
is
there
going
to
be
a
and
what
you
do
a
better
part
that
the
research
group
takes
on
ok,.
B
One
of
the
thoughts
that
I've
already
had
looking
at
these,
but
it's
way
too
early
to
think
about
it-
is
a
lot
of
these
short.
Things
may
not
be
RFC's
by
themselves,
but
they
may
be
part
of
a
bigger
story.
I
don't
know
it's
just
that.
You
know
a
lot
of
these
single
things,
but
perhaps
they
that
they
are
pieces
of
work
so,
but
we
could
adopt
it
I,
don't
think
it
necessarily
means
it
becomes
an
RFC
I
think
that
that's
a
different
step.
B
M
I
think
if
we
start
looking
at
if
we
start
making
conclusions
making
suggestions
for
implementing
a
specific
processes
to
to
to
to
include
tweaks
and
do
different
things
to
take
those
things
into
account,
I
think
that's
a
very
different
draft.
I
think
this
is
very
much
the
theoretical
underpinning
for
for
coming
up
for
guidelines
for
the
process,
and
we
also
mentioned
some
ways
to
go
like
the
UN
guiding
principles
for
business
and
human
rights.
We've
looked
at
that
now
on
the
protocol
level,
and
then
we
could
also
think
about
those
on
the
process
level,
but.
M
So
I
actually
think
that
that
this
is
that
that
should
not
be
in
this
draft
because
the
or
at
least
not
right
now,
I
think
this
is
very
good
because
I
think
is
like
we
still
hear
a
lot.
Maybe
you
don't
but
I
hear
it
a
lot.
They're
like
I,
still
hear
technology
is
neutral
a
lot
here
at
the
idea.
Like
a
lot
a
lot
a
lot
and
I
want
then
to
just
answer
this
RFC
knob,
this
ID,
you
know
and
then
like
yes,.
B
S
Your
Maya
I
haven't
read
this
version
so
I.
That's
why
I
hold
held
back
before
when
I
read
it
like
a
while
ago,
I
found
it
useful
and
I
just
would
like
to
understand.
If
other
people
who
have
read
is
read,
the
draft
at
the
current
version
have
an
opinion
on
this,
because
I'm
a
bit
surprised
that
we're
not
discussing
to
not
adopt
it
I
thought
it
would
go
forward.
Thank
you.
Thank.
J
I
think
I
hear
some
discussion
about.
What's
the
purpose
here,
because
it's
a
mixture
of
a
research
survey
and
some
observations
of
the
organization
which
may
or
may
not
be
necessarily
a
good
study
from
this
research
group.
Just
because
of
the
there
are
politics
about
observing
the
organization
and
its
processes.
J
That
said,
I,
don't
know
why
you
couldn't
do
a
short
thing
kind
of
like
the
like
the
pervasive
surveillance,
whose
title
is
protocols,
are
not
valuing
their
neutral
and
include
some
of
the
key
things
if
the
if
an
important
part
of
this,
for
you
is
making
sure
that
people
can't
easily
say
that
that
they
have
no
values
and
there's
plenty
of
material
on
here
that
could
be
transported
to
that.
And
then
you
could
later
think
about.
Where
are
the
ways
to
comment
on
the
process
and
the
product
and
the
organization
yeah.
J
I
Stimulus
in
Berlin,
it's
something
that
I
would
even
changing
the
title
to
say
it's
like
really
background
and
not
stick.
The
title
is
a
little
bit
overstating
what's
in
the
document
from
my
point
of
view,
so
it's
not
on
the
politics
of
standards.
It's
like
some
background
about
politics
and
standards.
If
you,
if
that
was
the
title
of
the
document,
I
probably
would
have
no
problem
at
all
of
it.
Okay,
I'll.
B
K
K
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this,
so
I
I
think
I
addressed
most
of
the
coast
of
the
concerns
relate
to
the
content
in
the
new
draft
version,
but
feedback
would
be
great,
so
basically,
the
recommendations
that
I'm
sticking
with
are
the
two
that
were
original
original,
which
is
the
geographical
scope
and
the
blocking
Authority
disambiguation.
Those
seem
to
be
accepted
by
everyone
who
did
respond
to
the
draft
and
yeah
I.
K
B
B
T
M
B
P
So
we
made
a
review
of
the
idea
of
re
meeting
venue
selection
process
draft.
P
And
affordability,
we
also
requested
a
few
additions
to
the
basic
planning
criteria
about
gender,
not
a
rostrum,
infant
feeding,
room,
a
family,
restroom
accessibility
for
no
smokers
and
folks
with
respiratory
conditions.
It
Wilson
College
the
discussion
on
matters
that
could
be
clarified
better
in
the
drop,
so
childcare
spaces
and
services
and
processing
case
of
competing
requirements.
It's,
for
example,
if
someone
needs
a
service
dog,
but
someone
else
is
allergic
to
pets
which
happens.
P
So
we
got
a
very
good
response
to
the
review.
The
work.
What
about
the
discussion
pretty
long
threads
on
the
affordability
of
meeting
venue,
because
the
was
very
it
wasn't
very
clear,
and
they
released
accessibility.
Of
course,
of
the
event,
went
to
discussion
about
accessibility
for
those
were
spirit
or
conditions.
There
were
quite
a
lot
of
memories
for
an
ITF
meeting
in
Singapore,
where
there
are
problems
of
this
kind,
even
mold,
very
long,
discussion
about
child
care
facilities
and
services
with
reference
to
a
problems
that
happening
so
and
general.
P
As
well
so
the
outcomes
are
that
the
several
items
struck
a
chord
with
folks.
The
musicians
were
quite
lengthy,
but
the
organizational
matters
that
we
raised,
we're
in
more
relevant
to
event
management.
So
they
were
not
added
to
this
draft,
but
there
were
suggestions
to
consider
to
consider
this
type
of
informations
and
edits
for
documentation
related
to
the
event.
A
P
P
B
F
P
P
Respond
with
very
long
and
detailed
conversations
as
I
said,
especially
about
services
that
are
not
yet
provided
in
the
IDF
meetings,
so
child
care.
It's
quite
an
issue
also
like
specifying
that
spaces
can
be
welcoming
for
folks
with
who
are
non-smokers
or
whoever
spirit
or
problems,
is
definitely
something
that
became
a
very
heated
conversation
because
I
was
not
there,
but
it
seems
like
there
was
a
people's
meeting
in
a
venue
where
there
were
mold
problems,
and
some
people
had
quite
here.
It
says
what
big
problems
seemed
Singapore
with
that.
P
You
know
sort
of
a
big
conversation
about
the
affordability
of
the
meeting
venue
and
I
think
we
shouldn't
underestimate
this,
because
there
are
so
many
conversation
about
the
fact
that
the
idea
of
community
has
problems
with
growing
and
doing
outreach.
But
if
the
venue
isn't
affordable,
it
means
that
you're,
basically,
assuming
that
every
time
everyone
that
comes
here
has
the
level
of
privilege
or
having
big
funds
to
go
very
far
three
times
a
year.
P
So,
therefore,
the
ratio,
the
venue
is
something
that
definitely
impacts
the
community
that
you
have
here,
which
means
that
the
protocol
developers
might
tend
to
be
right,
Western
with
a
certain
level
of
economic
income,
which
then
brings
us
back
to
the
politics
of
protocols.
Money
is
part
of
the
conversation,
so
everything
connects.
B
D
D
D
So
we
asked
them
to
change
that
which
was
an
easy
solution
to
the
problem
in
some
parts
of
the
report
before
that
there
was
a
mix
of
technical
and
regulatory
requirements
and
for
clarifying
to
the
readers
of
the
report,
which
requirements
that
were
addressed
during
the
workshops,
our
technical
requirements
on
the
protocols
and
technologies
being
designed
and
which
our
regulatory
requirements
applied
to
the
economic
space
where
actors
are
operating
that
just
that
just
makes
it
easier
to
understand.
Also
the
human
rights.
D
In
fact,
we
also
recommended
that
they
give
more
insights
into
quick
and
TCP
and
how
that
might
help
address
some
of
the
issues
that
were
discussed
in
the
workshop.
And
then
we
concluded,
with
kind
of
general
comments
from
the
RFC
80
to
80
rights
guidelines
on
the
various
sections.
I
think
we
made
specific
remarks
on
privacy,
connectivity
and
content
agnosticism
and
found
that
most
of
the
other
human
rights
aspects
weren't
actually
relevant
to
the
draft
report
to
the
report.
K
D
So
yes,
structure
is
definitely
important
in
following
a
document
that
is
already
structured
as
RFC
80
to
80
actually
is.
I
will
also
say
that
I
overheard
earlier
the
week
that
at
least
one
person
found
this
review
to
be
somewhat
helpful.
So,
if
that's
inspiring
to
anyone
in
the
group,
you
know
you
can
actually
make
a
difference
by
just
reading
through
documents
and
pointing
out
to
the
people
when
they
complete
various
things
or
forget,
to
mention
positive
developments
that
are
worthy
of
mentioning.
So,
if
know.
B
B
You
can
you
leave
the
clicker.
B
B
A
F
F
Not
just
to
explain
sometimes
which
I
used
in
the
tops,
the
firmware
image
is
the
update
they
want
to
deliver
to
the
IOT
device.
The
manifest
contains
metadata
of
the
firmware
image.
This
manifest
will
be
used
by
the
device
it
will
be
evaluated
Bala
dated
by
the
device
and
then
to
find
out
whether
the
firmware
image
should
be
installed,
etc.
I
will
explain
more
in
a
minute.
F
F
Since
they're,
looking
it
from
an
industry
sort
of
perspective,
they've
dissected,
the
operators
into
two
categories.
For
now
one
is
the
network
operator.
You
can
imagine
in
a
factory
the
person
administering
the
network
and
a
separate
identity
which
might
be
the
same
as
a
network
operator,
which
is
the
device
operator
and
the
network
operator.
Has
this
communicator
which
contacts
the
firmware
server
and
the
device
operator
has
a
status
tracker
through
which
they
can
see
where
the
update
is
in
its
progress.
I
could
excite
Lee's.
F
F
This
this
describes
the
serialization
format.
We
didn't
have
to
look
at
it
in
detail
for
our
review
exactly
so
far:
human
rights
reviews
from
analyzing
the
human
rights
considerations
given
in
RFC
82
80.
Exactly
as
you
know,
it
has
19
categories
of
considerations,
and
these
are
all
listed
here
and
exactly
these,
we
didn't
have
to
address
a
lot
of
the
slide.
Shouldn't
say
out
of
scope.
F
It
should
say
not
relevant,
oh
so
I
will
quickly
skip
through
this
line,
but
I
have
basically
a
wall
of
text
which
lists
out
why
these
aren't
applicable
and
where
they're
addressed,
and
we
found
no
concerns
related
to
these
categories.
The
integrity
and
authenticity
of
the
manifest
etcetera
they've
maintained
through
the
author
basically
signs
the
manifest
and
that's
how
it's
validated
at
the
device,
operators
and
X
I,
please
so,
but
I
just
quickly
get
into
the
actual
recommendations
we
made
so
basically
in
seven
categories
from
the
19
and
RFC
80
to
80
exactly
exactly
so.
F
L
L
F
A
little
security
requirement
with
this
firmware
encryption
and
it
says
that
encryption
helps
to
prevent
third
parties,
including
attackers
from
reading
the
content
of
the
firmware
image.
This
can
protect
confidential
information,
disclosures
and
discovery
of
vulnerabilities
to
reverse
engineer,
and
since
the
vendor
and
class
ID,
which
is
basically
device,
information
is
compiled
into
the
firmware
image,
not
encrypting.
The
firmware
may
lead
to
third
parties
gathering
device
information
and
in
fact,
what
we
found
was
that
the
TAS
were
a
little
ambiguous
about
the
requirement
level
of
the
encryption
of
the
firmware
image.
So.
F
Makes
it
optional,
while
the
information
bottle
begins
with
that
the
information
module
must
enable
encrypted
payloads
next
Typex
yeah?
So
the
concerns
are
basically
that
it
feels
it
infringes
on
the
privacy
of
the
operator,
because
device
information
is
sensitive
and
because
this
information
is
available
to
third
parties
freely,
it
means
that
the
attack
the
device
is
more
susceptible
to
attacks,
because
attackers
can
now
mount
targeted
attacks,
since
not
only
do
they
know
the
device
information,
they
also
know
the
version
of
the
firmware
and
manifest
which
was
delivered
next
slide
please.
F
So
what
we
recommended
was
that
the
architecture
recommend
the
encryption
of
the
firmware
rather
than
making
it
just
optional,
and
we
didn't
recommend
a
foundation
of
the
form
very
much,
because
the
architecture
is
applicable
to
very
resource
constrained
devices
which
may
not
have
the
decryption
facility
at
all.
Next
time,
please
I'd.
F
So
the
next
suggestion
was
on
the
encryption
of
manifest
the
manifest
actually
contains
the
device
information
again
and
what
was
surprising
was
that,
though,
the
drafts
at
least
have
a
mention
of
encryption
of
firmware
image,
but
they
made
no
facility
for
encryption
of
manifest
Oh,
considering
that
it
contains
the
same
information,
so
it
should
be
equally
confidential.
Next
I'll
fix
it.
Slab
leaks
so
same
concerns
here,
and
we
recommended
that
the
draft
identifier
we
do
encrypt
manifest
as
well.
F
Next,
at
least
I
think
we
can
skip
this
one
because
the
drafts
already
support
internationalization,
but
maybe
it
could
be
more
made
more
explicit
in
the
terms
this
one
also,
we
can
skip
next
slide
and
in
the
reliability
concerns.
This
is
a
question
from
RFC
82
80.
We
have
a
documented
way
to
announce
degradation.
It's
like
the
answer's,
no
for
the
sudras
next
slide,
please.
So
what
we
found
in
the
draft
was
that
if
the
status
is
tracker
which
I
described,
which
is
in
control
of
the
device
operator,
its
mechanism
wasn't
exactly
clear.
F
So
if
the
update
failed,
will
it
be
apparent
to
the
device
operator
we're
not
sure
the
status
tracker
good?
So
this
function?
But
it's
it's
not
abundantly
clear
in
the
drafts
expertise
next
active
so
again
from
the
reliability
section.
We
have
that
the
question:
do
you
have
measures
in
place
for
recovery
or
partial
healing
from
failure,
and
currently
the
recovery
mechanism
is
optional
in
the
drafts
and
as
I
said,
though,
in
resource
constrained
devices,
failure
or
success
of
the
update
may
not
always
be
apparent
to
the
network
or.
F
F
So
this
is
a
suggestion
that
we
actually
detracted
after
some
discussion
of
the
suit
mailing
list,
the
there
was
a
fundamental
difference
in
how
we
were
approaching
the
drafts.
I
think
the
working
group
is
looking
mainly
at
the
parry
resource-constrained
embedded
devices,
in
which
a
lot
of
features
be
assumed
for
devices
that
are
associated
with
humans
may
not
be
applicable.
So,
let's
consider
the
this
was
an
example
given
by
a
member
of
the
suit
working
group.
F
Then,
if
we
have
a
water
metering
company
and
they
have
distributed
devices
to
customers,
they
should
have
the
ability
to
sort
of
push
updates
without
authorization
from
the
device
operator.
So
this
is
a
suggestion
like,
though
they've
separated
the
communication
and
authorization
policy,
so
this
is
one
suggestion
that
wave
actually
retracted
from
the
review
next
slide.
Please,
yes,
so
the
sent
this
on
the
mailing
group
on
July,
12th,
I
think
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion.
F
In
fact,
it
was
mentioned
in
the
session
at
IETF
session
of
the
sort
working
group
at
ITF
102
versa.
So
this
is
just
a
summary
of
our
recommendations
and
three
of
them
have
actually
been
discussed.
I
think
they'll
be
some
progress
on
the
others
as
well
as
we
continue
the
discussion
on
the
list.
Yep.
L
F
N
N
You
may
have
a
discussion,
and
maybe
already
did
about
exactly
when
is
the
most
appropriate
time
to
do
a
review
in
the
sequence
of
the
lifetime
of
a
document
from
the
working
groups
perspective,
this
one
was
really
early
meaning.
This
is
long
before
we
got
consensus
on
things
from
the
working
of
curious
perspective.
I
think
this
time
was
great.
It
meant
more
work
for
Gersh
Abad,
because
there
he
found
things
that
we
probably
would've
found
eventually,
but
from
the
receiving
side.
N
This
was
great
for
us
all
right,
more
work
for
him
great
for
us,
so
think
about
that.
If
that
works
for
you,
please
keep
that
up
right.
You
could
do
it
later
and
it
would
still
be
valuable
doing
it
as
early
as
possible
means
that
it's
more
work
for
the
reviewer,
but
hey
the
working
group,
loves
feedback
early.
Thank
you
and
then
the
last
comment,
the
that
may
I
mean
you're.
Sure.
Bob
knows
this
because
we
had
this
discussion
the
suit
list,
but
for
other
reviewers
were
pointing
out.
N
That
said,
you
know
some
of
the
use
cases
are
ones
where
there
were
devices
that
had
no
association
with
a
human
and,
if
you
make
things
we
mandatory
for
them,
and
so
that
was
the
kind
of
the
discussion
we
had
and
so
when
reviewers
make
recommendations
think
about
whether
the
recommendation
should
be
a
must
or
recommendation
or
whether
it
should
be
conditional.
Maybe
she
had
made
mandatory
for
things
that
are
associated
with
humans,
that
type
of
thing,
and
so
that
would
be
feedback
for
future
reviewers
to
keep
in
mind
so,
but
otherwise
thank
you.
B
P
Video
we
are
doing
using
the
human
rights
guidelines
and
is
going
to
be
quick.
You
can
read
more
about
quick,
it's
a
new
multiplex
and
secure
transport
on
top
really
theme,
and
it's
very
interesting.
It
has
some
key
features
that
go
beyond
the
way
you
could
have
a
TCP
deal
as
HTTP
to
and
specifically
some
key
new
features
are
the
de
materials
connection
established
in
time,
improve
congestion,
control
and
also
connection
migration.
You
will
see
the
next
slide,
why
they're
so
important
to
us,
so
our
research
focus
is
mainly
on
three
drafts.
P
First
of
all,
the
core
draft
transport.
Now
in
the
13
version
than
TLS
and
in
variants,
the
outcomes
for
us
are
the
following.
We
wish
and
improved
relevance
and
quality
of
the
drafts
that
we
are
reviewing.
Of
course,
we
also
want
to
expel
the
experience
of
new
methodologies
in
which
the
group
can
use
the
human
rights
guidelines.
I
just
joined
the
group
recently,
but
I've
been
told
that
in
the
past
I
received,
we
receive
the
feedback
that
are
suggested
to
come
with
early
engagement
with
draft
authors
and
editors
as
Kosovar
did
as
well.
P
So
that's
what
we
did.
We've
also
recommended
to
have
a
sort
of
dialogue
with
authors
and
editors
and
that's
why
we
thought
about
using
the
methodology,
the
research
methodology
or
interviews.
So
we
are
conducting
interviews
with
the
draft
authors,
editors
and
Kiko
users
of
the
working
group.
We
started
this
week
here
in
Montreal.
P
We
had
so
far
six
interviews,
we're
going
to
have
a
seventh
and
there
is
another
couple
of
possible
folks
that
we
could
our
get
in
touch
with
and
so
far
the
feedback
that
we
receive
was
that
they
appreciated
both
our
timing
because,
as
you
may
have
heard
from
the
quick
working
group
meeting
a
couple
of
morning's
ago,
they
are
about
to
ship
it.
So
it's
a
good
time
for
them
to
be
focused
and
they
also
appreciated
our
dialogue
and
I'll.
Tell
you
more
about
that
later.
P
So,
of
course,
then
we
want
to
mainstream
the
humorous
review
in
the
ITF.
What
we
hope
to
do
with
us
is
for
sure
in
internet
draft,
not
the
kind
of
internet
draft
that
you
would
like
to
turn
into
an
RFC,
but
more
of
an
internet
draft
that
you
have
online
and
you
have
a
permalink
and
you
can
refer
to
it,
then
possibly
academic
paper
and
other
write-ups.
P
So
we,
since
we
had
this
interview
this
week
and
already
have
quite
some
good
findings,
we
thought
we
could
give
an
update
or
what
we
are
finding
during
this
meeting.
So
we
are
following
so
basically
what
we
did
was
reading
these
drafts,
taking
notes
of
everything
the
words
are
notable
to
us
as
a
meaningful
from
a
human
rights
perspective,
and
then
we
organize
our
thoughts
in
a
second
step
following
the
categories
of
our
guidelines
for
Human
Rights
review.
So
you
will
see
that
you're
defining
throws
organized
following
the
guidelines,
so
we
started
with
connectivity.
P
Quick
is
very
interesting
because
it
improves
connectivity
on
low,
latency
and
high
loss
connections,
which
makes
a
lot
of
it
gives
a
lot
of
relevance
when
it
comes
especially
to
accessibility
to
countries
with
more
difficult
connection,
especially
in
non-western
countries,
and
we
care
a
lot
about
that.
Then,
of
course,
it
strengthens
end
to
end
encryption,
and
what
is
very
interesting
is
that
it
is
an
attempt
to
address
ossification.
You
can
read
more
about
that.
There
are
different
ways
in
which
they
happens.
P
The
transport
headers
are
encrypted
and
decryption
prevents
Joseph
occasion
of
the
protocol
by
mean
the
boxes.
In
addition
to
this,
the
group
has
also
decided
to
add
grazing,
so
the
quid
packet
format
is
designed
to
allow
future
changes
to
the
protocol
privacy.
On
the
positive
side,
we
creates
a
higher
opacity
for
the
observer
because
establishes
connection
with
multiple
streams
and
it
decreases
link
ability
through
the
use
of
connection
ID
when
it
comes
to
connection
migration.
P
There
are
a
couple
of
interesting
proposals
that
we
also
discussed
with
our
interviewees
padding,
which
could
help
to
avoid
traffic
analysis
for
protected
packets
and
the
additional
latency
spin
bit
a2.
Quick
short
header
and
I'll
tell
a
bit
more
about
the
spin
bit,
because
this
is
very
interesting
and
it
was
also
part
of
the
conversation
of
the
new
proposed
research
group
on
privacy.
P
So
this
pin
bit
is
basically
a
bit
in
the
header
that
FIPS
wants
a
round
trip,
so
it
observes
the
observer
can
estimate
RT
team.
What
does
it
mean?
So
this
is
a
specially
designed
for
passive
measure.
Ability
of
the
protocol
is
very
interesting
for
measurement
researchers,
but
also
for
corporations
as
well,
so
against
the
spin
meet
is
the
argument.
One
of
the
argument
is
that
it
reveals
information
on
the
locality
of
the
endpoints,
and
this
could
be
a
privacy
concern
on
the
other
side
on
the
defense
side
of
who
is
proposing
this
pyramid.
P
You
can
check
on
the
slides.
You
will
see
more
considerations
about
security
and
internationalization
censorship,
resistance
and
outcome
transparency.
This
is
very
interesting
because
there
is
a
whole
conversation
about
the
power
shift
that
happens
from
the
network
operators
to
the
endpoints,
and
we
also
think
that
we
could
hinder
the
analogy
unknown
discrimination
of
users,
and
if
you
have
questions
you
can
tell
us
on
the
list
personally
directly
and
we'll
keep
giving
out
their.
B
Degree,
yeah,
thanks
and
and
and
I
think
next
time
we
can
put
this
one
sort
of
at
the
beginning
and
cuz
this
one's
going
to
be
going
on
for
a
while,
but
but
thanks
for
that,
I
never
got
a
chance.
You'll
send
mail
to
the
list.
Thank
you
and
thank
you
all
and
sorry.
I
wasn't
a
little
bit.
Yes
Niels.
What
did
I
forget
so.
M
B
Think
next
time
put
a
major
emphasis
on
looking
at
guidelines
and
and
seeing
how
they're
working
doing
so
so
I'll
try
and
make
that,
as
opposed
to
a
thing
that
we
do
at
the
end,
something
that
we
actually
put
a
little
bit
more
focus
on
this
time.
But
thank
you.
Thank
you
all
and
really
good
stuff.
Thanks.