►
From YouTube: IETF 103 Plenary
Description
On 7 November (10:30-13:00 UTC) the IETF 103 plenary session included the usual topics and open mic sessions.
A
Welcome
everybody
to
the
ietf
103
plenary
here
on
our
first
visit
to
Bangkok
Thailand.
My
name
is
ELISA
Cooper
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
the
ITF
I
think
some
of
you
may
have
noticed
that
this
hotel
being
our
first
time
at
this
hotel
but
they've
they've,
already
figured
us
out.
I
saw
this
this
morning
when
I
got
off
the
elevator
and
I
was
like
wait.
That
way.
This
way.
A
I
wasn't
actually
there
in
the
room
myself,
but
I
understand
that
one
of
the
names
that
was
offered
was
Dave,
that
the
protocol
could
be
called
Dave,
but
it
seems
that
I
think
this
is
a
Mike
Bishop
slide
that
he
actually
had
a
particular
outcome
in
mind,
which
was
that
it
should
be
called
HTTP,
3
I'm
assuming
by
the
technicolor
3.
That
was
on
his
slide,
but
I
understand
that
it
was.
A
A
Here's
our
agenda
for
tonight
we're
gonna,
hear
from
our
meeting
hosts
and
appreciate
our
local
host.
We
don't
always
have
a
local
host,
but
we
had
a
very,
very
helpful
local
host
here
then
you'll
hear
a
brief
updates
from
from
myself
from
the
internet
architecture
board,
from
our
administrative
board
and
and
staff
and
from
the
IETF
trust
will
get
a
NomCom
update
and
an
update
from
the
RFC
editor
will
have
a
preview
of
IETF
104
from
our
co-hosts.
A
A
So
first
I
just
want
to
say
a
huge
thank
you
to
our
meeting
host
for
this
meeting,
kwame
and
Cisco.
We
cannot
put
these
meetings
on
without
the
support
of
our
sponsors
and
in
particular,
of
our
hosts,
who
provide
a
tremendous
amount
of
financial
support
in
order
for
us
to
be
able
to
have
all
of
the
not
just
cookies,
but
amazing
food
and
other
things
that
have
been
provided
at
this
at
this
venue.
So
huge
thanks
to
our
sponsors.
A
B
Thank
You
Alyssa,
Cisco
hobby
is
a
friends.
We
use
a
new
problem
so
good
afternoon.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
thanks
sorry,
TF
give
us
the
opportunity
for
hosting
the
first-ever
Bangkok
meeting
in
talent
and
also
saying
our
all
the
friends
and
also
thank
you
for
our
old
friend
Cisco,
and
also
the
local
hosting
the
should
be
technique
to
co-hosting
with
this
is
IO.
B
Three
one
was
remitting:
okay,
so
I
am
Ryan
and
I'm
the
standardization
VP
of
hallway,
and
we
are
responsible
for
all
far
we
ITF
activities
in
Hawaii
company,
then
Huawei
has
been
and
or
and
will
continue
to
our
strong
commitment
to
our
ITF.
We
are
working
with
all
the
talents
here
to
make
ITF
success
and
we
are
happy
to
have
a
meeting
here
in
this
very
beautiful
city
and
country.
We
all
know
Tarun
the
Bhutanese
pool
in
his
country,
and
we
understand
Bhutanese
country.
B
A
So,
as
mentioned,
we,
we
also
had
a
local
host
this
time.
Whenever
we
go
to
a
new
location,
it's
always
incredibly
helpful
to
have
a
local
host
who
can
assist
with
all
matter
of
logistics,
of
visa
issues
bringing
in
local
other
local
sponsors
and
our
local
host.
This
time,
th
NIC
was
just
incredibly
helpful
on
all
of
those
fronts,
helping
us
navigate
this
this
new
city
in
this
new
country
for
us.
So
please
join
me
in
thanking
th
NIC.
A
We
had
146
attendees
on-site
170,
170
matenda,
and
if
you
compare
back
to
a
year
ago,
when
we
were
in
Singapore,
that's
we're
a
little
bit
down
on
attendance.
From
from
that
meeting,
we
have
attendees
from
56
different
countries,
which
is
which
is
fairly
standard
for
for
our
meetings,
so
people
might
be
looking
at
that
overall
participation
number
it's
it's
definitely
on
the
low
end,
I
thought
it
might
be
useful
to
kind
of
put
that
into
a
little
bit
of
context.
A
There's
many
many
different
theories
about
why
there
are
fewer
people
at
this
meeting
than
there
have
been
in
a
very
long
time.
I,
don't
think.
On
the
ITF
side,
we
have
really
enough
data
to
be
able
to
explain
that
so
people
can
make
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
guesses
a
lot
of
assumptions,
but
we're
going
to
be
gathering
some
more
data
in
order
to
try
to
figure
out
what
it
was
about.
A
This
particular
meeting
this
particular
time
of
year
that
that
caused
fewer
people
to
show
up
than
than
usual
so
we'll
be
sending
in
our
post
meeting
survey.
Some
specific
questions
about
this
and
we'll
be
targeting
that
specifically
to
people
who
we
know
have
attended
in
the
past,
but
didn't
attend
this
meeting
to
try
and
gather
some
more
data
to
help
us
understand
what
happened
here
at
this
meeting
but,
as
I
said,
I
thought
it
might
just
be
interesting
to
to
put
this
in
a
little
bit
of
context.
A
So
this
graph
shows
you
the
meeting
attendance
back
to
ITF
72,
and
you
can
see
that
it
fluctuates
based
on
time
of
year
and
based
on
location
of
meeting,
but
that
this
one
is
indeed
quite
a
bit
lower
even
than
the
recent
past
history.
You
can
also
see
on
this
graph.
The
first
time
attendees
total,
and
that
too,
in
this
instance,
is,
is
a
bit
down
from
from
where
it
normally
is,
or
even
from
it's
from
its
normal
fluctuation.
A
If
you
look
at
attendance
by
country
I,
just
cherry
picked
a
few
countries
and
regions
so
as
not
to
clutter
clutter
the
slide.
But
if
you
look
at
these
five
countries
and
regions
representing
that
the
the
most
the
places
from
which
we
have
the
most
participants
attending
the
meetings,
you
can
see
here
too
that
this
is
this
very
much
fluctuates
based
on
meeting
location.
I
didn't
actually
write
the
meeting
locations
on
the
slide,
but
you
can
probably
guess
the
regions
for
each
meeting
by
looking
at
the
trends
in
the
graph.
A
So,
typically,
when
we,
when
we
meet
in
Europe,
we
have
more
Europeans.
When
we
meet
North
America,
we
have
more
North
Americans
and
when
we
meet
in
Asia
in
particular,
you
can
see
like
the
Green
Line.
Often
when
we
meet
in
Japan,
we
have
a
huge
spike
in
the
number
of
Japanese.
Attendees
same
thing
happened.
When
we
met
in
China,
you
can
see
the
spike
when
we
met
in
Korea
from
South
Korean
attendees.
A
People
are
always
asking
about
the
trends
and
remote
participation,
so
I
thought
it
might
be
interesting
to
look
at
that
a
little
bit
as
well,
so
that
the
top
graph
just
shows
you
the
total
number
of
remote
participants.
This
does
not
include
IETF
103
because
we
actually
don't
have
the
full
data,
yet
we
still
have
a
day
left
of
the
meeting
and
people
kind
of
register
and
attend
throughout
the
week.
So
we
didn't
want
to
give
me
incomplete
data
there,
but
you
can
see
that
this
is.
A
You
know,
fluctuating
between
about
400
and
700
remote
participants,
the
bulk
of
whom
attend
one
or
two
working
groups,
usually
at
the
bottom
of
the
slide.
You
can
see
some
statistics
about
the
the
nature
of
remote
participation,
the
number
of
times
that
people
get
into
the
my
queue,
the
number
of
remote
presentations
given
and
the
number
of
remote
presenters.
So
you
know
if
you,
if
you
look
at
those
as
compared
to
the
the
total
number
of
people
who
are
attending
it's
actually
quite
a
good,
a
good
ratio.
A
So
we
have
active
participation
from
our
remote
folks
also
wanted
to
look
at
trends
from
the
hackathon.
So
we
don't
have
data
going
back
quite
as
far
on
the
hackathon
that
we
really
trust.
But
we
can
look
at
the
data
throughout
this
year
and
we
see
that
the
the
trend
line
on
the
hackathon
is
is
going
upwards
and
I.
Think
in
particular,
given
the
fact
that
attendance
in
the
meeting
was
down
this
time.
A
A
So
on
to
our
experiments
at
this
meeting,
we're
running
an
experiment
where
we
do
not
have
working
group
sessions
meeting
on
Friday.
So
we
have
approximately
the
same
number
of
sessions
that
we
normally
do.
We
just
shortened
some
of
the
slots
so
that
we
could
accommodate
the
same
number
of
groups
in
a
shorter
number
of
days.
A
We
also
provided
for
meeting
space
to
be
available
all
day
on
Friday
for
people
have
ad
hoc
meetings
do
further
and
more
intensive
collaboration,
and
we
have
four
side
meetings
scheduled
on
on
Friday.
So
the
idea
of
this
was
to
introduce
more
time
into
the
week
where
people
could
have
that
kind
of
ad
hoc
collaboration
and
also
to
allow
people
who
were
coming
in
or
who
are
getting
accustomed
to
coming
in
for
the
hackathon
too.
To
not
have
it
extend
over
multiple
weekends.
A
Necessarily,
we've
received
a
lot
of
feedback
even
before
this
meeting
started
about
the
fact
that
Friday
is
not
an
ideal
day
for
ad-hoc
collaboration,
and
maybe
we
should
have
partial
days
where
we
do
this,
instead
of
a
whole
day
that
the
pressure
that
this
has
put
on
scheduling
conflicts,
interaction
with
other
co-located
meetings.
So
in
this
case
we
have
the
I
Triple
E
802
meeting,
which
is
happening
next
week,
so
freeing
up
that
Friday
didn't
necessarily
help
people
who
were
going
to
be
attending
both
meetings.
So
this
is
an
experiment.
A
We
definitely
want
your
feedback
about
this.
What
you
thought
of
it,
if
there's
other
ways
that
you
think
we
could
make
the
IETF
meeting
week
and
the
agenda
work
better
for
you.
We
definitely
want
to
hear
about
that.
So
please
send
email
to
the
IHG
and
we
will
be
engaging
with
the
community
on
that.
A
We're
also
experimenting
with
different
ways
of
presenting
information
about
unofficial
side
meetings,
so
this
grew
out
of
some
feedback
that
we
received
at
the
last
IETF
about
the
fact
that
events
that
aren't
listed
on
the
official
IETF
meeting
calendar
are
hard
to
track
down.
It's
hard
to
keep
track
in
your
calendar
of
what's
happening
when
and
as
we've
made
it
easier
for
people
to
sign
up
in
a
first-come,
first-served
manner
for
the
for
the
side
meeting
space.
A
A
So
the
idea
of
this
is
to
have
short,
lightning
talks.
I
think
this
time
they
were
four
minutes
long
for
people
to
find
collaborators
to
raise
awareness
about
new
areas
of
work
that
they're
intending
to
pursue
and
to
promote
barbed
offs
and
side
meetings.
It
was
a
packed
house
on
Sunday
lots
of
really
interesting
talks.
A
A
Aaron
Falk
is
the
organizer
so
huge
thanks
to
him
for
for
putting
in
the
effort
there.
As
he
said
at
the
end
of
the
session,
people
have
kind
of
thoughts
about
having
it
at
a
different
time
or
having
it
in
closer
proximity
or
further
away
from
from
the
newcomers,
reception
and
other
events
that
happen
on
Sunday.
So
we
would
appreciate
your
feedback
about
all
of
that.
A
Next,
we
have
an
update
on
the
IETF
administrative
support
activity
2.0,
so
for
those
who
have
not
been
following
along
this
is
the
effort
to
refactor
the
IETF
administrative
structure.
In
August,
we
created
something
called
the
IETF
administration
LLC,
which
is
a
what
is
called
a
disregarded
entity
of
issac,
it's
its
own
legal
entity
that
is
now
housing,
the
administration
and
fundraising
for
the
IETF.
A
We
have
a
working
group
called
by
asset
two,
which
is
developing
and
documenting
all
of
the
changes
to
our
process
documents
that
we
need
in
order
to
essentially
effectuate
this
transition
from
our
previous
administration
administrative
structure
to
the
new
structure.
As
you
can
see,
this
working
group
has
a
very
long
document
queue
our
previous
structure.
We
had
the
the
IOC
and
so
we're
we
have
a
lot
of
documents
where
we
need
to
replace
the
text
about
the
IOC
with
text
about
the
LLC.
A
So
many
of
these
documents
are
have
small
or
minimal
changes,
but
some
of
them
have
have
big
changes,
because
the
IOC
and
the
previous
structure
were
very
much
embedded
in
in
some
of
our
processes.
So
you
can
follow
along
that
working
group.
If
this
is
of
interest
to
you,
it's
going
to
be
it's
going
to
be
churning
out
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
process
document
updates,
hopefully
in
the
next
months
and
finally,
just
a
quick
reminder
about
our
standards
of
professional
behavior.
A
The
IETF
strives
to
maintain
an
environment
in
which
everybody
feels
welcome
and
in
which
everybody
is
treated
with
dignity
and
respect,
and
we
have
that
documented
in
RFC
71
54.
We
have
a
series
of
guidelines
and
policies
for
cases
where
you
need
guidance
where
you
need
to
know
what
to
do
need
to
understand
what
what
our
policies
are,
and
that
includes
policies
around
anti
harassment
and
our
meeting
photography
policy,
which
was
established
earlier
this
year
to
allow
people
an
opt-out
for
having
their
their
photo
taken.
A
You
can
reach
the
Ombuds
team,
our
our
crew
of
three
who
can
who
will
field
complaints
and
concerns
from
people
about
behavior
at
the
meeting
their
address
is
on
the
slide
and
that's
it
from
me.
There's
a
lot
more
online.
We
publish
a
report
in
advance
of
every
IETF
meeting,
so
you
can
see
that
in
the
data
tracker
it
covers
a
few
other
topics.
We
had
one
appeal
over
the
summer
and
we
sent
a
response
to
that
appeal
and
you
can
read
about
it.
A
There
find
the
links
and
there's
also
lots
of
reports
from
all
of
our
other
parts
of
the
organization.
Ibi
EOC,
RFC,
editor,
Secretariat,
I,
Anna
and
report
about
the
hackathon
I
also
encourage
people
to
check
out
the
IETF
blog.
We
put.
We
have
contributions
from
people
all
the
time
talking
about
different
technologies
that
are
getting
developed
in
the
IETF
and
we
usually
also
have
a
preview
in
advance
of
the
IETF
meeting
and
a
summary
afterwards.
C
Howdy,
so
this
is
the
IV
report
or
ITF
103
some
recent
activity.
There
was
a
request
that
the
last
ITF
that
the
IB
make
its
agenda
is
public
and
that
it
make
the
meetings
open
to
observers.
Those
are
both
now
our
current
practice.
The
first
link
if
you've
downloaded
this,
is
to
the
agendas,
and
the
second
is
to
a
subscribable
calendar
which
will
enable
you
to
keep
track
of
when
they
are
and
how
to
dial
in
we've.
C
Also
had
a
couple
of
RFC's
published,
RC
8477
was
report
from
the
IOC
workshop,
which
is
the
IOT
semantic
interoperability
workshop
and
RFC
84-62.
The
report
from
the
Marny
workshop,
which
was
to
the
managing
radio
networks
in
encrypted
world
both
of
those
are
very
very
late.
So
we
also
sent
out
a
question
to
the
to
the
ITF
community
to
see
whether
you
would
consider,
possibly
as
being
a
little
bit
more
flexible
on
what
our
formats
were
for
that
there's
been
some
discussion
on
architecture
discuss
already,
but
you're
welcome
to
join
that
discussion.
C
C
We
also
have
made
a
number
of
appointments
since
the
last
ITF
we've
appointed
Tim
was
in
ski
to
the
CCG,
which
advises
the
ITF
trust
we
reappointed
all
ajacobson
to
the
ICANN
NomCom
and
the
RFC
series.
Oversight
Committee
has
a
new
group
they're
headed
by
Sarah
banks
as
chair
with
Toni
Hansen
Adam
Roche
Peter,
st.
Andre,
Robert
sparks
and
Christian.
We
dimas'
the
current
set
of
members,
as
you
can
tell.
C
C
It's
not
issued
yet,
but
we
are
coming
up
on
the
time
when
the
IB
also
issues
a
call
for
the
I
saw
Board
of
Trustees.
As
you
know,
the
IB
is
responsible
for
selection
of
one
or
two
trustees
in
any
particular
year.
This
is
a
one
year.
We
also
have
two
workshops
in
preparation:
one
called
escape,
which
is
focused
on
web
packaging
and
one
called
cyber,
which
is
thinking
a
great
deal
about
consolidation
and
asymmetry.
C
E
So
I
get
a
chance
to
actually
be
nice
and
offer
thanks
again
to
our
host
our
global
host.
Well,
not
our
global
host,
but
our
host
for
this
meeting
Huawei
and
Cisco.
We
really
appreciate
you
it's
hard
to
see
you
from
up
here
and
on
this
podium,
but
we
really
do
appreciate
everything
that
you've
done
to
make.
This
meeting
happen
for
us
and
one
out
three.
E
For
this
meeting
is
ELISA
mentioned,
it
took
a
lot
to
get
acclimated
to
Bangkok
and
we
could
not
have
put
this
meeting
on
without
the
help
of
th
neck
Foundation.
They
were
instrumental
and
getting
our
letters
of
invitation
done
for
us
and
and
also
securing
local
sponsors
for
us.
So
it
was
instrumental
in
doing
that
and
we
really
appreciate
everything
in
the
teach
Nick
foundation
representative
that
helped
us
out
was
conch
in
China
I,
know
Sutton,
and
we
really
appreciate
that.
E
E
E
E
E
And
our
next
meeting
will
be
IETF
104
and
Prague
March
23
through
29.
We
do
have
a
co-host
already
lined
up,
but
we
are
looking
for
another
co-host
to
to
share
bringing
that
meeting
to
Prague
and
you
can
please
visit
or
get
in
contact
with
Ken
Boyden
who's
in
the
audience
someplace
and
he's
standing
up.
Thank
you
and
our
future
meeting
venues
are
here:
Prague
Montreal
105,
one
of
the
six
will
be
Singapore
107,
Vancouver,
108,
Madrid
and
109
is
Asia,
110
Europe
and
then
111.
E
F
Hello,
I'm,
Glenn,
Dean
and
I
am
the
curly
chair
of
two
groups
here
at
the
ITF
at
the
end
of
this
meeting,
I'm
going
to
be
down
to
one
share
of
slot
because
we're
gonna
kill
off
when
these
committees,
by
the
end
of
this
presentation,
so
I'm
sure
the
IAO
see
and
I'm.
Also
the
chair
of
the
IETF
Administration
LLC.
Now,
as
ELISA
mentioned
back
in
August,
we
created
the
LLC,
it
was
actually
legally
done
and
the
papers
were
signed
and
filed
in
Delaware
and
we
became
a
legal
entity.
F
F
John,
Peterson
and
Jason
Livengood
of
the
co-chairs
was
I,
asked
to
work
group
and
they've
done
a
really
great
job
at
shepherding
all
that
work
through.
So
what
does
it
mean
that
we've
become
an
LLC
and
I'll?
Be
very
quick
about
this?
It
means
that
we
are
now
a
legal
entity
that
can
sign
contracts
for
ourselves.
In
the
past,
I
Sauk
had
to
sign
all
the
contracts
for
the
ITF.
We
are
able
to
take
donations
directly.
F
We
are
able
to
hire
staff
and
contractors
and
do
resource
planning
for
ourselves,
and
we
have
our
own
budget
that
we
have
to
live
within.
So
it's
going
to
be
fun,
going
forward
a
couple
changes
that
were
brought
about
by
they
asked
to
and
the
LLC
creation.
First
of
all
under
the
IOC
we
had
an
IAD
and
that
in
the
past
was
repelled
here
and
Porsche
Wednesday
Lea
family
has
been
the
interim
ID
for
the
last.
F
What
year
now-
and
that
is
the
IV
position
has
been
eliminated
and
it
has
been
replaced
by
the
ITF
executive
director
and
so
portions
title
going
forward
is
the
ITF
executive
director.
She
will
be
filling
that
as
an
interim
position.
The
permanent
position
of
that
will
be
for
the
permanent
board
when
it's
filled
in
IETF
104.
F
One
of
those
tasks
is
to
select
who
will
be
there
permit
long
term,
a
director
and
they'll
be
doing
a
executive
search
process
for
doing
that
position.
So
they,
let
me
change,
was
that
the
IOC
has
gone
away.
There
is
been
replaced
by
a
Board
of
Directors,
currently
they're
structured
to
have
five
members
and
additionally,
the
board
can
appoint
two
additional
members
if
they
finally
need
two
more,
but
is
five
core
ones.
F
F
But
our
main
mission
is
to
transition
from
the
creation
of
the
LLC,
keep
the
lights
on.
Do
the
minimum
that
we
have
to
and
establishing
that
organization,
and
our
plan
is
to
hand
it
off
when
the
full
board
is
actually
seated
in
around
ICF
104
and
then
they'll
take
up
from
there
and
do
all
the
hard
work.
F
So
I
told
you,
I
gave
a
bit
of
a
spoiler.
We
are
killing
off
the
IOC,
so
this
actually
serves
as
the
last
meeting
the
IOC
will
be
around
and
so
I
their
names
of
the
last
IOC
is
on
the
page.
There
I
wish
to
thank
all
of
them
for
their
great
service
and
I.
Think
we're
gonna
be
doing
something
a
little
bit
later
about
that.
The
big
thing
that's
going
on
right
now,
the
reason
we
haven't
killed
off
the
IOC.
F
The
first
time
that
the
LLC
gets
spun
up
was
that
it
turns
out
that
people
very
cleverly
said
for
the
ietf
trust
we
put
in
the
rules
that
to
be
an
ITF
trustee,
you
had
to
be
a
member
of
the
IOC,
and
so
if
we
had
turned
off
the
lights
on
the
IOC
back
in
August,
it
turns
out
the
ITF
trust
all
the
trustees
would
have
vanished
and
who
would
have
been
no
trustees
for
the
trust.
So
we've
been
busily
updating
those
legal
agreements
that
work
is
done
and
so
now
we're
able
to.
F
Finally
sunset
the
IOC
there's
a
detailed
report
up
on
the
website.
There's
a
new
website
for
the
LLC
board.
It's
part
integrated
now
with
the
revamped
ITF
say
that
was
done
a
little
while
ago
and
all
our
immediate
reports
are
up
there.
I'll
make
one
addition
comment
about.
Our
media
reports
are,
we
are
very
committed
to
to
transparency,
and
so
one
of
the
first
resolutions
we
did
as
a
board
was
to
say
that
our
meetings
will
be
public,
and
so
they
are
public
there.
They
were
posted
up
on
our
that
web
page.
F
You
can
come,
you
can
join,
you
can
list
it
in
the
only
time
we
close
them
is
where
we
have
to
go
into
executive
sessions.
You
talked
about
things
like
finances
which
unfortunately,
have
to
spend
a
lot
of
time.
Talking
about
in
an
administrative
oversight.
Group
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
numbers.
So
one
of
the
things
we
worry
about
in
the
administration
side
is
the
budget,
and
so,
as
ELISA
said,
the
numbers
for
this
meeting
are
down
attendance.
F
Wise
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
numbers
in
terms
of
registrations
and
in
terms
of
revenue,
because
one
of
the
big
changes
we
had
coming
into
ITF
103
was
that
we
actually
changed
the
breakdown
of
what
you
pay
to
come
to
the
ITF
Moody
and
when
the
various
cut-offs
were
for
earlybird
standard
registration
and
late
fees.
So
the
numbers
today,
as
of
today,
where
we
have
833
paid
attendees,
we
are
actually
projected
for
157
more
people
to
attend.
F
We
have
issued
261
letters
of
invitation
to
come
attempt
here
and
our
total
revenue,
which
is
the
number
we
pay
attention
to
in
the
LLC,
is
six
hundred
and
eleven
thousand
dollars
was
raised
through
paid
attendees
and
that
is
53,000
less
than
we
have
projected.
But
it's
not
a
bad
number
if
you've,
given
that
we're
actually
a
hundred
fifty
seven
down
the
new
fee
structure,
is
that
helped
us
not
be
really
really
negative
on
the
revenue?
F
So
it's
a
bad
number
being
under
is
never
good,
but
it
could
have
been
far
worse
under
the
old
structure.
So
the
good
news
by
the
way
is
sponsorship
is
up.
We
actually
were
a
forty
thousand
dollars
over
our
projected
target
for
sponsorships,
so
we've
done
pretty
well
in
sponsorship
about
the
new
fee
structure.
F
If
you
register,
you
get
a
rate
of
seven
hundred
dollars
after
seven
weeks
up
to
two
weeks
before
you
have
a
standard
rate
which
is
eight
hundred
seventy
five
and
if
you
have
forgotten
to
register
up
to
two
weeks
ahead,
you're
gonna
pay
a
thousand
dollars,
and
this
is
the
breakdown
it
turns
out
that
we
got
the
word
out
successfully.
People
did
hear
about
the
earlybird
they
were
able
to
register
early
on
and
that
first
batch
we
did
encounter
a
couple
of
glitches
with
the
new
registration
system.
F
Fortunately,
the
secretary
was
very
quick
to
jump
on
that
problem
and
fix
it
and
make
it
go
away
and
the
rest
of
the
registration
went
without
a
hitch,
so
Thank
You
secretary
for
that
excellent
job.
But
we
had
440
I
people
successfully.
Do
the
earlybird
240
do
the
standard
rate.
73
did
the
late
registration
and
you
can
see
the
students,
the
one-day
pass
numbers
and
that
adds
up
to
a
number
of
833.
G
G
Yes,
so
at
the
moment
we
have
eight
trustees.
Normally
we
have
nine,
but,
as
you
know
later
so
you
see
before
shutting
down
had
eight
members.
So
that's
where
we
are
eskalene
mentioned
every
IOC
member
basically
had
an
option
to
become
a
trustee
as
far
as
I
know.
Always
they
have
always.
All
of
them
has
always
been
trustees,
but
then,
with
the
changes
we
needed
to
make
change
again
as
Glen
mentioned,
so
there
were
two
drafts
and
they
have
been
approved
for
publication.
Yesterday,
have
a
look
it's.
G
It
basically
changes
the
structure
of
how
people
how
appointments
are
made
to
the
trust
or
five
five
trustees
after
after
this
is
in
effect
and
the
ITF
trust
agreement
and
Trust
administrative
procedures
have
been
updated
to
basically
reflect
what's
in.
What's
in
those
documents,
I
know,
domme
in
transfer
is
also
complete
that
that
was
done
earlier.
This
year
it
was
by
design,
is
slow
process
because
we
wanted
to
all
kind
of
tests
and
did
did
them
one
by
one,
but
now
you
own,
basically
Iona
dot-com
net
and
org
and
2019
trust
budget
has
already
passed.
G
The
funding
is
moved
from
or
will
be
moved
from
iso
to
LLC,
so
traditionally,
Trust
was
funded
by
I
thought
this
year.
We
also
had
some
other
funding
members.
We
just
seek
to
order,
seek
out
other
organizations
and
we
have
received
two
and
we
hope
that
we
receive
another
two
contributors
before
end
of
the
year.
If
you
download
this
large,
you
will
find
a
full
budget
or
summary
budget,
basically
at
the
end
of
the
slides,
and
here,
if
you
want
to
be
a
trustee,
the
NomCom
is
looking
for.
H
H
That's
supposed
to
be
an
orange
dot,
not
to
confuse
people,
but
that
is
the
sorting
hat
and
like
I
did
at
the
last
time,
I
like
to
have
a
theme
that
this
presentation
is
about
in
this,
and
we
are
currently
in
what
I
call
the
spinning
wheel
part
of
the
process
and
for
those
old
enough
to
understand
what
spinning
wheel
means
you'll
see
when
I
get
to
the
slide,
so
so,
first
off,
it's
of
course
yeehaw
time
for
herding,
the
cats
you
can
see.
That's
me
on
the
horse
there
and
the
the
people
there.
H
That's
not
just
the
NomCom
members
and
the
NomCom
advisors,
but
it's
also
the
entire
community
we're
trying
to
get
people
together
and
move
them
in
the
same
direction.
So
this
is
our
composition
this
year.
So
if
you're
a
noncom
member,
please
stand
up
right
now,
because
it's
a
lot
of
work
and
we
need
to
appreciate
the
people
that
are
doing
it
so.
H
So
for
those
of
you
haven't
seen
the
250,000
announcements
I've
sent
out
I
wanted
to
point
out
the
website
so
that
we
can
continue
to
receive
some
feedback
and
it's
like
I'm
serious,
like
look
here.
Go
to
this
part
of
the
website.
There
have
been
some
issues
with
people
sending
things
to
pass
chairs.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
everybody
knows
it's
2018,
so
make
that
to
make
sure.
That's
in
the
address
that
you're
clicking
on
and
it's
a
very
simple
interface
I
mean
the
tooling
that
we
have
to
support
the
NomCom.
H
This
year
is
excellent,
and
so,
if
you
can
find,
if
you
want
to
nominate
somebody,
we
currently
still
have
some
nominations
that
are
open.
I'll
show
you
what
those
are
on
the
next
slide
and
if
you
want
to
provide
feedback,
I'll
talk
about
that
and
then,
if
you
are
really
interested
in
applying
for
something
there's
always
a
way,
you
can
look
at
the
desired
experience
that
we're
looking
for
and
also
the
questionnaires
and
a
gauntlet
that
the
people
that
are
actually
running
for
these
positions
have
to
go
through.
H
So
we
are
currently
have
three
waves
this
year.
The
top
wave
is
the
wave
that
we
have
for
the
IETF
chair,
iesg
area
directors
in
IAB
and
I
tried
to
make
this
color-coded
and
make
it
very
simple
to
follow,
but
we
do
this.
Basically,
this
is
a
slimmed
down
version,
but
it's
basically
five
things
that
have
to
happen.
We
nominate,
we
gather
feedback,
we
do
the
interviews
we
deliberate
and
then
we
deliver
the
slate
to
the
confirming
body
so
where
we
are
with
the
ie
ie
TF,
chair,
iesg
and
IAB.
H
We
have
closed
nominations
we're
currently
in
the
middle
of
a
feat
wall
which
will
be
closed
feedback,
including
feedback,
we're
still
we're
still
taking
feedback.
I'll
fix
that
anyway,
we're
in
the
process
of
doing
the
interviews-
and
we
are
deliberating
already
about
the
all
the
material
that
we
had
and
you'll
see
when
I
get
to
a
slide.
That's
coming
up
just
how
much
that,
how
much
material
we
have
to
work
with
and
I
want
to
thank
the
community
for
providing
it
for
the
LLC
board.
We've.
The
nominations
are
now
closed.
The
the
feedback
opens
today.
H
Okay,
so
if
you
have
feedback
that
you
want
to
provide
on
the
slate
of
people
that
have
signed
up
to
be
ll,
LLC
board
members,
then
now
is
the
time
to
start,
and
you
can
use
that
slide.
That
I
had
a
couple
ago
and
click
on
the
right
link
and
go
and
provide
feedback,
and
the
feedback
closes
on
in
January,
we'll
we'll
start
running
the
interview
sometime
late,
November,
early
December,
we
and
then
we'll
deliberate,
and
then
we
need
to
deliver
the
slate
to
the
confirming
body
by
February
and
then
for
the
ietf
trust.
H
We
just
opened
nominations
for
that.
We
currently
have
two.
We
need
more
than
two
we're
being
asked
to
fill
three
slots,
so
I
would
least
like
to
have
three.
So
please
consider
that
go
beat
up
people
and
like
like
they
said
it
even
says
in
the
job
description.
This
is
not
a
lot
of
work,
okay
and
then
so
will
open
up
feedback
and
go
through
the
rest
of
the
process.
So
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
where
we
are
in
the
process
of
the
various
waves.
H
So
what
do
I
want
you
to
do?
What
do
I
need
to
happen?
My
plea
very
important.
It's
so
important
that
I
have
a
slide
that
near
the
end
of
this
presentation.
That
says
almost
exactly
the
same
thing,
and
that
is,
we
need
community
feedback
for
IETF,
chair,
iesg
and
IAB.
It
closes
on
November
16th,
which
is
next
Wednesday.
Okay,
so
we
need
more
feedback.
We
well,
we
don't
need
more
feedback.
Let
me
put
it
this.
We
want
more
feedback
and
we
also
have
office
hours.
We
have
one
more
set
of
office
hours
tomorrow.
H
If
you
want
to
just
drop
by
and
say
hi,
and
then
we
have
a
cappuccino,
espresso
machine,
just
we've
seen
the
and
we
have
a
bowl
of
apples
that
I
don't
think
anybody's
eating
the
the
community
feedback
for
LLC
board
members
now
open
exclamation
point,
so
please
take
take
that
into
consideration.
We're
really
looking
for
information
about
what
you
think
is
important
for
people
that
are
going
to
be
leading
this
LLC
board.
H
Remember
we're
looking
for
people
that
have
experience
running
things,
not
necessarily
people
that
want
to
dive
deep
into
the
details
of
their
technical
problem.
These
are
the
business
managers
and
and
board
members
we're
looking
for
so
trust
nominations,
open
more
nominations
are
needed,
and
this
is
directed
at
everybody
that
signed
up
to
be
an
LLC
board.
Member,
get
your
questionnaires
filled
out
and
put
in
the
system.
Please
it's
hard
to
deliberate.
If
we
have
no
information
on
you,
otherwise
we
will
just
make
up
stuff,
and
you
don't
want
that
so
blood
sweat
and
tears.
H
Now
we
know
why
it
was
called
spinning
wheel
right
with
the
theme
of
this
is
getting
the
work
done
in
the
room
with
and
coming
up
with
doing
the
deliberations
for
what
we
need
to
do
in
an
IETF,
102
I
talked
about
the
community
come
on.
We
need
to
be
extraordinary.
Look
around
the
room.
This
is
the
group
that
you
need
to
take
care
of.
This
is
your
community.
H
You
need
to
you
need
to
take
it
seriously
and
really
provide
the
NomCom
with
with
people
that
can
do
the
job
and
then
comments
on
who
you
think
are
the
most
qualified
people
to
do
the
job.
This
time
the
theme
is
getting
the
work
done.
So
what
I'm
asking
from
the
community
is
to
keep
the
momentum
up
and
participate
in
the
process?
If
you
don't
like
the
way,
something's
done,
if
you
don't
like
the
way,
NomCom
works.
H
If
you
don't,
if
you
like
something
provide
feedback,
we
have
the
ability
to
provide
feedback,
that's
of
a
general
nature
in
the
tooling.
If
you
click
on
view
feedback
down
at
the
bottom.
There's
some
topics
and
if
you're
interested
in
filling
out
some
of
those
topics
and
providing
feedback
put
it
in
there,
and
so
the
theme
of
this
time
also
is
look
around
the
room.
H
So
what
I
did
is
I
looked
at
some
numbers
from
the
past
for
Nam
comms,
and
this
is
an
example
of
the
type
of
data
that
that
we
can
receive
and
the
thing
that
I
would
like
to
a
couple
things
I'd
like
to
point
out
here.
One
is
under
the
comment
line.
If
you
look
down
at
the
bottom
that
says,
717
I
took
this
picture
yesterday.
We
are
now
at
800
and
something
so
the
community
is
really
providing
us
with
with
a
lot
of
feedback
in
a
lot
of
different
areas.
H
But
what
I
wanted
to
point
out
or
a
couple
things
and
it's
like
there.
There
is
a
trend,
and
we
know
about
it,
and
we
understand
and
we're
taking
this
very
seriously,
that
there
are
positions
where
we
have
a
lot
of
nominees
and
then
very
few
people
accept
the
nomination,
so
we're
trying
to
figure
out
why
that
is.
We
have
speculation,
but
this
is
something
that
we
would
like
to
have
a
conversation
about
with
the
community
and
there's
actually
a
topic
in
the
NomCom
or
on
the
feedback
page.
H
That
allows
you
to
say
if
you
didn't
accept
the
nomination,
why
didn't
you
accept
the
nomination?
So
we
can
gather
that
information
and
try
to
figure
out
if
there
are
things
that
we
can
change.
Another
thing
that
that
we
can
point
out
here
is
that
there
are
places
where
we
had
very
few
nominees
or
we're
at
a
position
like
in
routing
and
in
Ops,
where
we
have
the
number
of
slots
that
we
have
or
the
number
of
people
that
accept
it.
H
H
So
some
some
of
these-
oh,
these
boys,
color,
didn't
turn
out
so
good.
But
what
I
wanted
to
show
are
two
different
ways
of
looking
at
the
data
or
in
one
would
I,
which
I
would
call
a
healthy
way.
It
looks,
and
one
that
is,
is
less
healthy,
that
that
we
need
to
start
looking
at
and
one
is
where
you've
got
a
number
of
accepted
members,
that's
more
than
the
number
of
people
that
decline
right.
H
You
know
just
I
thought
that
was
just
very
nice
and
then,
if
you
look
at
at
some
other
areas,
there
are
very
few
people
there
that
that
accept
and
a
large
number
that
decline
so
we're
not
just
picking
on
int,
that's
the
one
that
I
just
happened
to
see,
but
this
is
one
of
my
favorite
and
it's
really
hard
to
see.
But
what?
But
what?
If
you
look
at
that
line
that
starts
around
40
and
goes
to
38?
These
are
the
percentage
of
people
that
decline.
H
The
only
the
only
group
of
people
that
seem
to
stay
within
with
below
50%
of
the
people
declining
is
I
is
IAB.
There
are
some
that
have
a
very
large
number
of
people
that
that
decline.
So
we
just
like
to
figure
out
why
this
is
so.
This
is
my
penultimate
slide.
So
the
thing
I
would
like
to
do
here
is
to
thank
the
community
for
your
response.
H
You've
done
it,
you've
done
a
great
job
and
it's
great
to
have
feedback
on
the
candidates
and
keep
up
the
work
and
I'm
want
to
really
seriously
thank
the
people
that
have
accepted
the
call
to
run
and
are
going
through
the
process
of
setting
in
rooms
with
us
going
through
the
going
through
the
questionnaire
going
through
the
the
interviews.
We've
had
a
number
of
people
that
are
providing
is
debrief
information.
All
of
that
is
very
great
and
then
so.
H
The
last
slide
so
again,
I
said
I
was
going
to
ask
again
what
I
need
y'all
to
do
is
keep
the
feedback
coming,
find
great
candidates
for
the
trust
and,
as
I
said
before,
I'm
looking
I
know,
this
community
can
be
extraordinary,
so
I
have
faith
that
we're
going
to
exceed
the
expectations
that
I
have
for
this
so
I.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
H
I
I
Mary
and
I
were
talking
with
the
transport
area
work
group
chairs
and
with
the
review
team
on
Monday
night
about
this
and
a
couple
of
data
points
popped
into
our
minds,
and
let
me
begin,
please
tell
me
if
I
tell
him
I'm
getting
this
right,
but
I
we
were
saying.
Oh
well,
you
know,
there's
these
positions
with
only
one
person,
you
know
that's
the
willing
nominee
but
routing,
there's
two
positions
and
to
know
to.
I
Two
nominees-
it's
not
as
reassuring
as
we
might
have
wished,
but
the
larger
the
larger
thing
basically-
and
this
is
why
I
was
talking
to
the
working
group,
chairs
and
transport
and
to
the
review
team
or
senior
participants-
is
that
this
is
not
your
problem
to
solve
and
it's
actually
not
Alyssa's
problem
to
solve
either
mm-hmm.
This
is
a
community
problem
and
it
is
a
big
problem.
You
know,
and
it's
not
going
to
go.
I
was
on
the
hook
to
write
updates
for
the
last.
I
I
In
order
for
us
to
get
to
a
better
place.
I
asked
the
transport
area
working
group
chairs
to
think
really
big
realize
really
outside
the
box,
and
it
wasn't
quite
at
the
level
of
do
you
guys
need
a
transport
area
director
at
all,
but
it
you
know
he
was
you
know
what
what
from
that?
Because
not
only
do
we
have
one
nominee,
we
have
one
nominee
who
served
before
what
you
know.
So
it's
like
this
is
what
it
looks
like
when
you.
This
is
what
it
tastes
like.
I
When
you
eat
see
corn,
you
know
how
many
more
times
do
we
think
this
is
going
to
come
back.
You
know
Magnus's
make.
This
is
a
young
guy
Lords?
Also
a
transport
area
working
group
chair
who
has
served
with
vagueness
and
his
eyes
got
very
big
when
I
started
talking
about
bringing
back
past
area
directors
as
returning
area
directors.
I
You
know
you've
never
seen
fear
like
that
in
the
man's
eyes
and
in
my
life
but
I
mean
it's
like
you
know,
I'm
64
years
old,
I'm
not
coming
back,
and
you
know
for
years,
so
so
I
mean
like
yeah.
This
is
not
a
winning
plan,
you
know,
so
this
is
a
good.
This
is
a
good
time
for
the
community
to
be
talking
before
the
next.
You
know
what
do
you
want
to
do
before
the
next
nominating
committee
is
seated.
I
I
K
L
H
H
A
It's
really
really
hard
to
make
adjustments
between
March
and
June
and
for
people
who've
been
around
in
the
community
for
a
long
time.
You
know
that
this
is
a
persistent
issue,
not
just
this
year,
but
going
back
many
years
so
I'm,
hopefully
that's
something
that
we
can.
We
can
work
on
together
in
the
next
little
while
and
with
that,
we'll
turn
it
over.
D
Right
so
it's
been
a
while,
since
I've
actually
been
on
stage,
I
have
been
submitting
reports
and
I'm
sure
all
of
you
have
been
reading
them
with
breathless
anticipation
for
me
actually
to
come
up
with
like
real
code
for
the
format
work.
How
many
of
you
know
that
I've
been
working
on
changing
the
RFC
format?
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
be
here
all
week,
so
for
those
that
you
that
are
new
to
the
IETF
and/or,
otherwise
have
perhaps
missed
the
memo.
I've
been
working
on
changing
the
RFC
format
from
plain
text,
ASCII
only
documents
to
something:
that's
a
little
bit
more
flexible
and
allows
a
bit
of
a
better
representation
of
what
the
modern
Internet
is.
The
underlying
format
is
XML,
that's
pretty
darn
common
in
the
publishing
world,
as
it
transforms
reasonably
well
into
a
variety
of
formats,
the
format's
that
we
are
going
to
be
working
on
our
text.
D
Pdf
a3,
is
the
archival
target
and
HTML
with
an
actual,
proper
CSS
and
all
that
other
good
stuff
SVG
line
art
in
black
and
white.
No,
there
will
not
be
color
if
you
really
want
to
know
why.
There's
not
color
I
point
to
some
of
the
slides
that
we've
had
today
where
people
say
wait,
those
colors,
don't
uh-huh.
Yeah
color
is
really
hard
and
we're
also
looking
to
allow
non
ASCII
characters.
All
of
the
specifications
were
drafted
and
published
a
couple
years
ago.
D
This
slides
makes
me
happy
because,
instead
of
having
a
lot
of
here
tools
that
we
are,
you
know
thinking
about
or
think
we
need
to
have
or
are
working
on
contracts
for,
etc,
etc.
There's
a
list
of
here's
the
stuff
that
is
now
released
to
the
community
that
you
can
see
it's
not
production,
yet
no
I'm
not
going
to
let
you
post
something
tomorrow
with
you
know,
published
an
RFC
with
SVG
in
it
yet.
D
But
if
you
want
to
start
playing
with
the
tools
and
seeing
what
that
looks
like
you
can
start
doing
that
now
for
the
stuff,
that's
in
progress
where
it
says
prep
tool,
think
ID,
knits,
ID
knits
and
the
last
publication
formatter
to
get
the
PDF
done.
Html
was
actually
added
to
the
XML
to
RF
CV
2.12
release
last
week
and
you
can
actually
be
playing
with
some
of
that
over
on
the
experimental
page
for
the
xml
tools.
Tools,
page
for
xml
to
RFC.
D
What
does
that?
Look
like
I'm
not
doing
a
live
demo,
because
you
all
can
run
code
yourself,
but
to
give
you
a
quick
glimpse
as
to
what
we're
talking
about
what
is
it
really
going
to
look
like
this
is
a
screenshot
from
my
screen
using
my
browser
at
the
size,
I
normally
use
it
at
so
you
can
see
a
table
of
contents
on
one
side.
You
see
content,
you
see
it
actually
laid
out
and
something
that's,
perhaps
a
little
bit
more
in
the
way
of
attractive.
D
However,
if
I
squish
my
screen
down,
you
see,
you
know
things
that
the
internet
figured
out
how
to
do
15
years
ago,
where
the
table
of
content
disappears
and
becomes
a
menu
that
you
can
work
with.
There
is
JavaScript.
Javascript
is
not
required
to
read
the
documents,
but
it
is
there
for
people
who
have
not
turned
on
no
script
and
want
to
use
some
of
the
features
of
the
web.
D
That's
sort
of
that
the
biggest
news
that
I
have
with
regards
to
the
format
work.
If
you
were
in
the
working
group
chairs
launch,
you
got
to
see
a
little
bit
more
in
the
way
of
gory
details
in
terms
of
transition
plans.
If
folks,
here
in
the
audience
who
weren't
there
are
curious,
what
we're
looking
at
is
six
to
nine
months
before
we're
actually
going
into
production
on
this.
What
else
did
we
do
on
our
summer
vacation?
We
did
participate
in
the
first
half
of
an
experiment
on
well.
D
It
was
a
bit
time
can
zooming
just
a
bit,
but
the
document
was
published.
This
was
our
c8
446
GLS
1:3.
We
have
not
started
the
second
half
of
the
experiment.
I
mean
for
something
like
this.
You
can't
do
it
one
time
and
then
make
firm
decisions
as
oh
well
that
we
did
it
one
time.
Therefore,
this
is
how
it's
always
going
to
be.
So
we
do
want
to
do
this
again
with
another
document
that
perhaps
is
not
as
long
or
challenging
and
we're
working
with
the
ISD
to
identify
the
correct
next
target.
D
The
Jessup
draft
was
there
as
a
contender.
We're
still
talking
about
that.
There's
a
couple
other
drafts
that
may
work
a
little
bit
better.
So
if
you're
curious
as
to
what
was
the
process
that
we
followed,
there's
a
link
here
and
you
can
go
on
my
wiki
and
you
can
see
what
that
looks.
Like
we'll
publish
a
final
report
once
we
get
the
second
document
done,
and
the
last
thing
I
have
is
so
in
case
folks
are
curious.
D
My
contract
as
RSC
and
the
RPC
slash
publisher
contracts
have
been
with
the
Internet
Society
as
all
these
related
contracts
are,
and
the
assignment
for
these
as
well,
is
looking
to
go
to
the
IETF
LLC.
So
that's
something
that's
in
progress
now
and
I'll
be
up
with
the
IAB
for
open
mic.
If
you
have
questions.
O
O
O
O
O
Well,
I
have
a
couple
of
slides,
showing
some
places
outside
Prague,
so
take
it
as
a
tip
for
trips.
If
you
want
to
spend
some
days
before
after
the
meeting
first
is
this.
Nice
castle
is
color
stained
that
was
built
by
the
Emperor
Charles,
the
fourth
in
14th
century,
and
it
also
served
for
for
storing
the
Imperial
insignia.
O
This
castle
is
quite
close
to
Prague
southwest
of
product,
and
it's
also
reachable
by
train.
Actually,
the
railroad
railroad
track
is
pretty
scenic,
so
that
would
be
one
recommendation.
Then
cesky
krumlov
is
a
picturesque,
medieval
city
in
South
Bohemia
services,
or
they
a
bit
farther
south
from
Prague.
O
But
it
is
a
small
city
very
nicely
located
in
along
the
banks
of
meandering
lava
river
and
this
town
used
to
be
the
property
of
the
Rosenberg
family,
who
was
opposed
to
the
king
most
of
the
time,
and
they
also
wanted
to
show
their
property
by
building
houses
and
castles
that
are
even
bigger
than
what
the
king
did.
They
didn't
quite
succeed
in
this,
at
least
not
in
ski
to
ski,
come
off,
because
the
cesky
krumlov
castle
is
only
the
second
big
second-largest
in
the
czech
republic
after
the
prague
castle.
O
O
There
is
no
silver
there
anymore,
but
I
see
the
architecture
remained.
What
you
can
see
here
on
this
picture
is
the
Church
of
Santa
Barbara
that
could
now
I
could
now
rightist
east
of
Prague,
some
I
don't
know
30
kilometers
40,
maybe
more
slightly
now
and
finally,
I
have
a
few
slides
showing
places
in
park
that
are
a
little
bit
less
known.
So
if
you
already
know
all
the
main
dominance
of
proud,
that
might
be,
which
might
be
good
places
to
go,
stray
off.
Libraries
I
believe
one
of
the
most
beautiful
libraries
in
the
world.
O
Having
over
200,000
books
and
other
prints,
and
also
some
cabinet
of
curiosities
from
17th
century,
but
last
but
not
least,
next
to
the
library,
is
a
very
nice
strong
blue
area
that
Bruce
very
tasty
logo
lager.
Actually,
so
that's
another
place
that
I
recommend
you
to
visit.
Then,
as
you
probably
know,
cubism
was
star.
O
Cubism
was
started
by
Pablo
Picasso
and
Georges
Braque
in
Paris,
but
in
fact,
in
early
2010
cherry,
they
were
quite
a
few
followers
and
contributors
to
cubism
in
in
Prague
painters,
sculptors,
architects,
as
well
so
I
recommend
you
to
visit
this
nice
cafe
and
the
house
is
called
house
at
the
Black
Madonna.
It's
really
very
nice.
Both
the
building
and
the
furniture
is
in
this
style
of
cubism
a
nice
place
and
finally
I'm
sorry.
O
Finally,
this
is
the
real
dominant
of
Prague,
this
TV
tower
and,
of
course,
as
it
is
the
case
with
many
such
buildings
and
construction,
it
divides
the
prat
population
in
into
two
parts.
The
tower
is
at
the
top
of
the
dish,
cough
hill
and
it's
nicknamed
the
rocket
so
I
believe
the
haters
of
this
TV
tower
would
laugh
if
the
tower
really
flew
away
and
never
come
back.
O
F
M
O
F
F
P
A
C
Q
K
X
Neilson
uber
University
of
Amsterdam,
thanks
ivy,
for
publishing
a
new
internet
draft
on
consolidation,
even
though
I
am
very
appreciative
of
you
focusing
on
this
topic,
I
think
the
draft
has
a
few
understandings
that
I
might
not
necessarily
share,
such
as
that
efficient
markets
create
enable
winners
to
take
large
market
chairs.
I.
Think
that's
not
really
the
understanding
of
how
efficient
markets,
work
and
I
think
there
are
also
other
few
problematic
and
also
not
consistent
understandings
of
weather
economy,
shape
technology
or
technology
shapes
economy
and
vice
versa.
V
So
one
of
the
things
that
we've
discussed
but
not
put
in
the
document
too
much
yes,
yet,
is
that
there
there
is
a
need
to
be
able
to
measure
how
the
internet
is
doing,
for
instance,
in
this
centralization
or
consolidation
trend,
and
any
researchers
who
would
be
willing
to
look
at
various
measurements
on
on
this
base
would
be
that
we
really
welcome
so
happy
to
take
your
feedback
and
we
can.
We
can
talk
offline
of
the
of
the
deal
with
the
details.
Thank
you.
U
So,
despite
what
Sean
said
about
not
picking
a
random
topic
and
making
everybody
sit
here
longer,
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
liked
about
the
plenary
was
when
we
had
a
successful
topic.
We
had
one
that
was,
you,
know,
sort
of
large-scale
and
allowed
us
to
have
this
sort
of
cross-pollination
of
some
of
the
ideas.
U
L
Whoops:
okay,
Wow,
geez,
okay,
we
are
soliciting
members
for
the
technical
plenary
program
and
we
are
planning
on
having
a
technical
plenary
in
Prague,
so
yeah
we've
just
had
some
problems
pulling
stuff
together
that
we
feel
is
of
the
quality.
That's
needed
for
this.
This
audience
and
this
circumstance.
W
Hi
Aaron
Falk,
so
I
have
been
concerned
about
the
drop
off
inbox
and
new
work
in
the
IETF
and
I'm
asking
you
about
this,
because
the
IAB
I
think
sort
of
has
this
role
of
both
shepherds
and
so
I'm.
Thinking
that
maybe
you
guys
are
get
some
contact
with
people
who
might
be
thinking
of
bringing
work
here.
Maybe
you
need
some
help
and
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
there's
a
way
or
maybe
there
may
be,
there
already
exists
a
way
where
that
information
could
be
shared
with
the
broader
community.
W
You
know
I'm,
sorry
thinking
this
with
the
hot
IRC
hat
on
it's
like,
maybe
there's
a
to
try
to
broaden
the
pool
of
helpers
beyond
just
the
IB
and
get
some
conversations
going
and
maybe
making
some
of
that
information
public
would
be
helpful
and
I
realize
this
is
much
a
question
for
the
IHG
as
it
is
for
the
IAB,
but
you
guys
are
up
there.
So
I'm
asking
you
well.
A
A
A
The
other
thing,
though,
is
that
we
have
changed
our
way
of
working
a
little
bit
so
that
you
don't
need
to
have
a
buff
in
order
to
have
a
workin
group
chartered
and
that's
something
that
we're
doing
more
and
more
and
that
I
could
shortens
the
cycle
and
allows
things
to
get
started
more
quickly.
So
I
think
I
would
at
least
my
personal
view
is,
would
look
at
this
more
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
Y
I
I
Wasn't
here,
wasn't
in
Montreal
for
the
IETF
one
or
two,
when
the
IRT
F
had
the
applied
networking
research
workshop
meeting
during
the
ITF
week,
instead
of
of
the
weekend
before,
as
it'd
been
done
in
previous
years
and
I
think
that
that
really
helped
to
kind
of
cross
fertilize
a
lot
of
stuff,
I
think
I
think
doing
what
you're
talking
about
doing
with
smaller
mini
plenaries.
During
the
meeting
the
meeting
week,
that
you'd
be
able
to
do
more
targeted
things
and
stuff
like
that.
I
That
seems
really
really
positive,
because
I'm
saying
it
because
I
was
already
standing
here
to
say
that
just
responding
to
the
errands
thing
and
please
feel
free
to
remember
that
we
had
this
conversation
when
the
is
genius
up
there.
But
I
was
also
freaked
out
about
the
the
number
of
offs
that
we
had.
I've
convinced
myself,
that
when
you
look
at
the
amount
of
of
people
coming
in
for
hot
RFC,
I
mean
like
I,
don't
you
know
it's
like?
I
We
had
a
200-person
room
and
I'm
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
were
to
having
people
bouncing
off
because
they
couldn't
find
a
seat.
You
know
this.
Is
that
that's
that's.
What
a
success
looks
like
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
so
like
people
are
trying
to
do
things
so
I'm
not
worried
about
people
finding
their
way
here
do
want
to
do
things.
I
We
can
do
I,
think
a
better
job
of
training
people
I've
just
mentioned
also
I
did
with
Aliyah
of
Atlas
a
tutorial
on
bringing
new
work
to
the
ITF
on
Sunday
night
that
it
has
a
lot
of
material
in
it
that
I've
been
talking
to
about
the
app
to
the
isg
into
the
IEP
over
the
past
couple
of
years.
I,
you
know,
I,
think
it's,
educational
or
I
wouldn't
have
done
it,
but
it
might
be
informative
to
people
who
are
thinking
about
what
else
we
could
do
as
well.
Thank
you.
R
There,
in
answer
to
Erin
a
couple
of
things,
I
just
want
to
point
out.
We
had
a
really
successful
side
meeting,
not
everything
that
we
work
on
here
at
the
ITF
has
to
turn
into
a
working
group
or
a
Boff,
and
we
had
a
really
good
meeting
on
IOT
onboarding,
thanks
Christian
for
participating
it
we
had
and
Gabe
also
participate
in
it,
which
was
great
for
those
people
who
are
interested
in
the
problem
of
the
plethora
of
mechanisms
that
are
proliferating
across
different
standards
bodies
and
indeed
across
working
groups.
R
Here,
just
drop
me
an
email
but
we're
gonna
start
a
mailing
list.
Sarah's
gonna
help
me
on
that
a
little
bit
and
we're
doing
some
github
gathering
of
information
just
to
catalog
all
the
different
things
that
are
going
on.
One
other
comment
about
the
hot
RFC's
function
function
that
was
really
successful,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
the
conflict
of
events
that
are
going
on
in
Sundays
is
actually
a
big
issue,
because
I
think
it's
really
helpful
for
you
guys
and
for
the
iesg
to
actually
show
up.
C
A
AI
I
come
to
you
today
with
my
ITF
guidance
co-chair
head
on,
as
hopefully
most
people
know,
the
IETF
guides
for
program
is
part
of
the
edge.
U
program
and
it's
responsible
for
introducing
new
IETF
attendees
to
the
procedures
and
the
culture
of
the
IETF.
Our
culture
is
unique
in
many
positive
and,
admittedly,
a
few
negative
ways,
and
it
is
our
job
to
bring
new
participants
up
to
speed,
so
they
can
actively
participate
in
our
working
groups.
I
distinctly
remember
some
vigorous
fiery.
Conversations
that
occurred
during
the
first
working
groups
of
the
IETF
I
ever
attended.
AI
I
was
fascinated
by
the
immense
passion
transmitted
at
the
microphone
over
what
comes
down
to
simply
whether
the
ones
or
the
zero
should
come.
First,
it
was
always
fun
to
watch
and
it
made
me
wish.
I
had
brought
popcorn,
and
it
wasn't
until
later,
though,
that
I
realized
that
my
entertainment
came
at
the
expense
of
others.
Fortunately,
the
participants
at
the
time
had
a
ETF,
well
hardened
skins,
I
also
distinctly
remember
shaking
in
my
boots.
AI
The
first
time
I
spoke
at
a
microphone
or
gave
my
first
presentation
concern
that
some
of
that
heated
passion
would
be
directed
in
my
way,
not
because
my
ideas
might
be
wrong
as
I'm
freely
willing
to
admit
that
many
of
my
ideas
aren't
perfect,
but
rather
that
the
words
would
be
directed
at
me
rather
than
the
technical
accuracy
of
my
work.
Far
too
many
times
still
today,
I've
heard
phrases
like
that's
a
stupid
idea.
Instead
of
I,
think
I
see
some
technical
flaws
in
your
approach.
Can
we
talk
about
it?
AI
There
is
a
huge
but
subtle
difference
between
telling
somebody
that
they
are
wrong
versus
showing
them
where
their
thinking
might
have
gone
wrong
so
to
the
ietf
participants,
both
seasoned
and
newcomers
alike.
I.
Ask
you
to
carefully
consider
the
wording
that
you
use
an
email
or
at
the
microphones
pause
and
re-read
before
you
hit
Send
and
use
the
time
and
the
microphone
lines
to
compose
your
phrasing.
So
you
concentrate
on
the
technical
message.
AI
AI
Authors
I
ask
a
simple
question:
what
will
you
do
to
ensure
that,
when
the
time
comes
that
your
document
does
to
last
call
that
enough
people
will
stand
around
willing
to
review
it
to
the
working
group
chairs
I,
encourage
you
to
build
an
environment
where
participation
grows
over
time
with
active,
constructive
debate
rather
than
the
shrinks
under
the
weight
of
toxic
statements
and
to
the
iesg
I
ask
what
tools
can
you
provide
to
the
working
groups
and
the
chairs
that
allow
consensus
to
be
built
rather
than
shut
down
and
finally
to
the
newcomers?
I.
AI
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
extent
of
this
issue
to
our
attention.
Your
stories
have
been
eye-opening
and,
frankly,
many
of
them
purely
shocking.
We
all
will
retire
someday
and
stop
participating
in
the
IETF.
Please
help
me
ensure
that
our
work,
our
culture
and
our
is
a
distinct
process
of
engagement
through
consensus
remains
in
place
long
into
the
future,
encourage
our
new
participants
through
example,
and
how
to
engage
in
vigorous
but
technically
focused
debate.
AI
AI
A
AI
I
was
thinking
about
that
very
question
earlier
today.
I
was
writing
this
up
and
I
realized
I.
Think
I
failed
that
process
as
well
and
to
be
perfectly
honest,
I'm
I'm,
quite
sure,
I've
been
on
the
the
negative
attitude
side.
You
know
nobody's
perfect
I
just
asked
us
all
to
look
at
ourselves
carefully
and
see
if
this
is
really
how
we
want
to
behave,
but
no
I
did
not
I
do
encourage
the
people
that
have
talked
to
me
to
please
do
bring
your
story
to
the
Ombudsman
or
things
like
that.
A
A
One
thing
that
I've
noticed
is
that
when,
when
you
put
that
hat
on,
like
you,
did
the
ITF
guides
that
you
think
about
this
through
the
lens
of
the
newcomer
but
I
think
a
lot
of
times,
people
who
have
been
around
here
for
longer,
you
get
to
know
each
other
really
well,
and
you
don't
think
about
applying
the
same
standard
evenly
to
everybody.
Even
your,
even
your
good
friends
who
you
know
even
yourself,
right
and
so
I
think
the
more
that
we
exercise
some
of
those
tools.
A
AG
So
yeah
I
mean
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
validity
to
what
you
say:
I've
introduced
a
bunch
of
new
people
and
specifically
had
to
warn
them.
You
know
don't
mind
if
you
see
people
shouting
at
each
other
at
the
mic,
chances
are
they're,
gonna
go
off
and
have
beers
after
that,
but
that's
not
a
reasonable
thing
to
have
to
warn
people
about
one
thing
that
I
think
would
be
a
good
way
to
help
sort
of
mitigate.
AG
Some
of
this
is
to
simply
remind
people
when
they
start
doing
that
sort
of
behavior
that
it's
probably
not
particularly
friendly
for
newcomers
who
come
along
just
sort
of
at
the
end
of
it,
be
like
those
things
you
said,
I
agree
with
them,
but
possibly
could
have
worded
in
a
way
that
wasn't
quite
so
confrontational
right.
This
is
a
culture
that
we
build
ourselves
and
sometimes
just
pointing
things
out
to
people
helps
an.
AI
Important
point:
one
thing
that
I
tried
to
put
into
my
statement,
which
I
really
read
statements,
but
this
was
far
too
important
to
get
wrong.
So
there
is
a
culture
of
people
that
know
each
other
well
and
are
willing
to
yell
at
each
other,
and
they
have
the
thick
skins
and
you'll
see
them
drinking
a
beer.
An
hour
later
and
I
tell
that
story
a
lot
of
times
to
newcomers.
AI
The
problem
is:
is
that
those
types
of
statements
prevent
newcomers
from
standing
up,
worried
that
that
same
passion,
you
know,
will
be
directed
then
before
they
have
the
skin
that
they're
used
to
so
so
be
careful
that
even
if
you're
good
friends
fighting
at
the
microphone
on
you
and
I,
for
example,
clever
but
love
fighting
it
microphones,
we're
really
good
at
it,
but
I'm
all
wrong
most
of
the
time.
But
the
reality
is.
Is
that
will
prevent
newcomers
from
participating
and
that's
a
real
problem.
AJ
I
I,
just
I
just
wanted
to
to
thank
Russ
for
serving
in
the
role
that
he's
serving
because
I
suspect-
and
please
take
this
as
a
compliment
to
the
community.
Our
increased
awareness
of
how
difficult
we
are
to
live
with
is
because
we
started
paying
attention
to
it.
You
know
it's
not
because
it
got
worse,
but
because
we
started
noticing
and
I
you
know
so.
We've
been,
you
know,
doing
things
with
newcomers
for
the
past
two
or
three
years,
but
you
know
now
we
have
someone,
you
know
who
you
know
the
so
yeah.
I
I
You
know
when
I
started
attending,
you
know
I
I'm
sure
you
know
I'm
sure
there
were
people
even
back,
then
that
didn't
know
what
to
do
with
it
and
kind
of
went
away,
and
but
you
know,
but
like
they
kind
of
vanished
without
a
ripple,
and
you
know
so
what
you're
talking
about
here
is
giving
us
a
better
being
of
us
and
the
community
a
better
awareness
of
what
the
way
it
looks
from
the
other
from
the
other
end
of
the
room
and
I
really
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
AI
AK
Kathleen
Moriarty
just
a
little
easier,
maybe
five
or
six
years
ago,
a
new
ad
was
added
to
routing
and
when
apps
and
why
we're
combining
into
art-
and
we
had
three
a
DS,
so
I'm
wondering
how
is
that
working
in
each
of
the
areas
is
it
still
necessary?
Is
there
a
plan
for
change
either
in
other
areas
or
those
so
I
I
have
no
idea,
not
being
you
know,
having
insight
to
the
discussions,
but
is
this
something
that
was
discussed?
AK
AL
AD
Only
we
actually
had
a
conversation,
the
three
of
us
earlier,
either
day
or
yesterday
about
the
fact
that
the
work
in
art
is
it's
kind
of
contracting.
I
mean
the
there
was
this
huge
wave
that
came
through
with
the
WebRTC
work
that
was
kind
of
this
is
bulge
moving
through
the
snake
and
we're
about
to
put
the
last
bits
of
those
documents
into
the
RFC
editor
queue
and
there's
there's
a
good
chance
that
become
a
year
from
now.
AD
AC
At
the
same
time,
I've
really
enjoyed
having
three
from
the
idea
of
having
two
people
to
bounce
things
off
of
I
found
that
very
helpful
I
mean
one
of
the
person
to
vows
things
off
of
it's
great,
but
to
people
if
more
than
twice
as
good
from
just
the
the
the
way
the
group
works
together,
I
realize
it
doesn't
scale
to
have.
Everyone
have
three
but
I've
enjoyed
it.
AH
AB
Yeah
in
the
Browning
area,
we
talked
about
it
because
we
were
thinking
about
it
and
we
still
have
a
huge
publication.
Cubicle.
You
know
from
each
of
the
groups
and
by
having
the
three
of
us
we
hope
we're
keeping
that
queue
down
that
we're
getting
things
fast
through
without
having
long
delays.
So
we
decided
definitely
keep
it
going,
even
though
I
closed.
AB
I
Yeah,
so
I'm
kind
of
answering
is
a
funny
story:
I'm,
the
guy
who
wrote
the
RFC
that
gave
us
three
ad
areas,
although
transport
doesn't
have
one,
but
the
I
when
I
was
when
I
was
working
on
that
RFC
on
the
draft
that
became
at
RC,
but
I
talked
to
Scott
Brandner
and
he
was
talking
about
a
proposal
that
he
had
done
coming
off.
The
is
G
lo
these
many
years
ago,
and
the
idea
was
basically
that
you
had
most
of
the
IAS
G
working
at
large.
I
In
the
in
Scott's
mind
you
know,
ops
was
always
opposite.
Security
was
always
security,
but
the
that
the
it
would
be
better
if
the
is
G
was
the
other
directors
were
serving
at
large.
We've
got
a
little
bit
of
the
ability
to
do
that
now
because
you
can
have
an
area
director.
That's
not
you
know
not
for
the
area
that
you're
working
group
is,
and
that
happened
when
Benoit
was
doing
so
much
work
with
yang.
So
we've
we've,
we
know
so
we've
got
the
capability
to
do
that.
I
A
little
you
know,
I
mean
you
know
the
tools
supported
when
when,
when
I,
when
a
transport
Area
Director
was
not
chosen
in
2013,
it
was
very
difficult
for
the
one
remaining
area
director,
because
the
tools
didn't
support,
assigning
direct.
You
know,
assigning
working
groups
outside
the
area,
I
had
to
be
a
one-to-one
mapping.
I
That
was
that
work
was
done
to
support
Benoit
moving
to
moving
to
work
on
yang,
but
they
say
it's
just
and
that's
the
kind
of
thing
I'm
talking
about
with
the
community
having
a
conversation
with
itself
about
what
we
could
do
that
doesn't
require
BC,
be
change.
That's
the
only
thing.
That's
required,
there's
the
descriptions
we
send
along
Kyle.
T
A
AG
I
mean
something
along
the
lines
of
I'm
warren
Kumari
I
work
for
Google
I
have
never
received
any
sort
of
pressure
from
my
employer
to
push
a
specific
position
when
balloting
on
documents,
I'm
extra
vigilant
for
from
ones
for
my
employer
I'm
also
know
if
he
consultant
to
USC
for
Peru
and
that's
my
fault.
Okay,.
AA
AB
AG
AB
S
Okay,
hi
miss
inform
is
yes,
so
through
the
years
here
in
the
plenary,
I
have
often
heard
that
you
know
the
surveillance,
isn't
a
tech
on
the
internet
and
we
want
to
protect
you,
those
privacy's
this
week,
I
was
in
a
working
group
and
I
could
first-hand
observe
that
why
we
got
privacy
reviews
people
were
basically
told
in
their
in
their
face
that
go
away.
We
don't
want
you
here
and.
S
Okay,
so
I
think
there
is
some
issues
with
that.
I
think
we
take.
This
is
taken
care
of,
but
when
we
in
the
discussion
it
basically
came
down
to
end
when
there
was
no
arguments
left
that
yeah
there
is
no
process
for
doing
this.
We,
you
know
there
is
no
requirement
for
privacy
section
in
the
are
see.
There
is
no
our
see
that
says
how
we
should
do
this.
So
just
let
don't.
Let's
do
it
and
I
would
like
to
encourage
you
or,
but
he
was.
A
So
I
was
one
of
the
authors
of
RFC
69
73,
which
is
an
IV
stream
document
which
talks
about
privacy,
considerations
for
internet
protocols
and
the
discussion
that
happened
at
the
time
as
to
whether
this
section
should
be
mandatory
or
not
essentially
concluded
that
there
are
some
cases
where
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
some
some
protocols
have
you
know
long
complicated
privacy
considerations
that
are
distinct
from
the
security
considerations.
And
so
certainly
that
would
be
a
logical
place
to
have
a
privacy
considerations
section.
A
But
there's
other
cases
where
that
just
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
and
we've
had
enough
experience
through
the
years
with
mandatory
sections
of
various
different
kinds,
which
we
already
have
to
show
that
sometimes
it's
just
not
a
good
fit.
So
you
know
that
document
was
published
five
years
ago
and
the
feeling
of
people
at
the
time
was
that
we
should
leave
it
more
open
and
have
it
be
flexible.
But
the
document
does
provide
a
lot
of
guidance
about
the
kinds
of
privacy
considerations
that
should
be
looked
at
and
addressed
its
advisory.
A
It's
not
mandatory,
but
I
think
between
69
73
and
35
52,
which
is
the
document
about
how
to
write
a
security
consideration
section
there
is
and
and
some
of
the
other
IV
documents
that
have
been
published
there's
there
is
fairly
comprehensive
guidance
about
many
privacy
issues
that
arise
in
protocol
design
now.
But
if
you
think,
there's
more
that
we
need
to
draw
them
together
or
if
we
should
revisit
the
the
decision
in
69
73,
then
that's
that's
certainly
fodder
for
community
discussion.
AC
One
of
the
comments
there
is
that,
regardless
of
whether
the
section
is
it
required,
it's
not
uncommon
at
all
for
drafts
to
hit
iesg
evaluation
and
get
comments
and
sometimes
even
discusses
about
privacy
issues.
So
these
are
things
we
pay
attention
to
and
there's
things
to
get
paid
attention
to
and
last
call
and
such
so
I'm,
not
too
worried
about
the
structure,
but
I
think
you
know
we
we
do
care
about
this.
AD
It's
yours
is
not
the
first
story,
I've
heard
recently
or
seen
people
showing
up
in
working
groups
to
provide
their
input
and
being
told
to
go
away
and
I
think
that's
that's
very
damaging
that
it's
as
damaging
as
any
of
the
behaviors
that
Wes
was
talking
about
so
I
want
everyone
in
here
to
to
think
very
carefully
about
how
their
their
actions
could
be
perceived.
When
someone
shows
up
in
that
way,
Wes.
AI
AM
Max
palak
CableLabs
speaking
as
an
individual
I,
wanted
to
follow
up
what
Wes
was
saying
about
some
negative
attitude
that
might
affect
the
ability
for
some
people
to
bring
some
work
here.
I
fear
that
the
answer
that
you
guys
gave
was
a
kind
of
symptomatic
of
the
fact
that
this
problem
I
fear
it's
underestimated.
AM
I've
been
recently,
you
know,
I
suffer
from
that.
My
first
day,
IDF
was
almost
20
years
ago
and
I'm
very
committed
to
ATF
I
love
open
standards.
This
is
why
I
I
do
a
lot
of
work
in
many
different
areas,
but
sometimes
I've
been
very
discouraged
and
I
think
that
this
has
got
gotten
worse
and
worse
in
the
recent
years.
This
is
my
personal
opinion,
of
course,
but
I've
seen
things
happening
in
work
groups
and
also
outside
work
groups
that
were
not
our
best.
It
was
like
not
idea
that
is
best.
AM
So
what
you
were
saying
about
you
know
we
are
passionate
and
you
know
we
want
to
to
bring
passion
now.
Work
I'm
very
passionate
about
it,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
want
to
block
work
just
because,
just
because
not
because
of
technical
reasons,
this
is
this
has
happened,
trying
to
block
some
work
and
then
there
was
humming
and
the
work
shut
down.
AM
Just
because
of
this,
and
personally
I
was
very
discouraged
to
bring
the
work
back
here,
we
I
have
other
venues
that
I
can
go
to
I,
don't
want
to
I
would
like
really
to
have
the
standards,
open
standards,
etc.
That
can
really
improve
the
internet,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
be
attacked
or
Tarek
put
so
much
heifer
in
my
work
and
then
the
work
got
shut
down,
because
not
because
of
technical
reasons,
but
for
other
and
in
in
not
very
nice
ways.
So,
let's
put
it
this
way.
AM
AM
I
really
hope
that
we
can
improve
from
this,
because
I
think
that
in
the
recent
past
this
has
gotten
worse
and
worse
and
worse
as
well
as
testimony
probably
there's
many
people
that
feel
this
way,
but
also
saying
this
here
is
not
easy
right,
because
some
of
the
people
might
might
think
that
well
now
you're
going
to
suffer
for
that-
and
this
is
probably
this
is
how
people
will
feel
if
I
say
something.
I
would
probably
get
retaliated
against
because
of
this
type
of
toxic
environment
in
some
in
some
cases.
AM
A
You
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
standing
up
to
the
mic
to
come
and
tell
us
that
and
I
apologize
if
it
seems
like
we
aren't
taking
it
seriously.
Although
I
feel
like
it's
something
that
we
talk
about
quite
a
lot
and
I
guess,
the
struggle
is
that
this
is
a
bottom-up
organization
and
and
there's
limited
vectors
that
we
have
for
changing
people's
behavior.
A
So
we've
tried
some
things,
there's,
certainly
more
that
we
can
do
but
again
this,
even
if
the
15
people
up
here
you
know
lead
by
example,
and,
and
you
know,
do
all
the
things
that
are
expected
of
us.
This
is
a
it's
a
community
of
thousands
and
it
needs
to
be
something
that
everybody
takes
into
consideration
and
not
just
us,
but
I
do
think.
There's
there's
probably
more
discussion
to
be
had
amongst
the
ihd
about
what
more
we
think
we
can
do.
A
P
Was
already
a
Braun
gondwana
I
want
to
talk
about
something
that
happened
in
one
of
my
working
groups
at
last
ITF
at
the
extra
working
group
we
had
somebody
come
and
present
something
that
they
wanted
us
to
accept
just
work
into
the
working
group,
and
we
looked
at
it
and
said
this
is
a
special
case
hack
that
should
be
handled
more
generally.
Please
come
back
and
we're
happy
to
help
you
and
we
got
a
fair
bit
of
pushback
of.
P
Why
won't
you
just
accept
what
we
want
to
do,
because
it's
easier
for
us
and
that's
a
really
difficult
situation.
The
answer
can't
just
be,
yes
will
accept
your
stuff
because
you're
newcomers-
and
we
want
you
to
feel
welcome
when
it's,
it
clearly
doesn't
fit
the
existing
standards,
and
there
was
a
fair
bit
of
look
we'd
love
to
help
you.
But
this
is
this
is
not
the
right
venue,
and
this
is
not
the
right
thing.
P
A
Think
there's
an
important
distinction
that
comes
out
of
your
comment
and
also
from
max.
Is
that
there's
sort
of
two
different
things
to
talk
about
here?
One
is
a
kind
of
aggressive
attacking
behavior,
inappropriate
behavior,
where
you
have
a
message
to
deliver,
but
you
deliver
it
in
a
way
that
is,
you
know
not
what's
to
be
expected
in
in
a
friendly
environment.
The
other
is
the
fact
that
you
know
some
work
progresses
in
the
ITF
and
some
work
doesn't,
and
so,
even
if
you're
sending
the
same
message,
there's
two
different
ways
to
send
the
message.
A
It
sounds
like
you
know
the
first.
The
first
problem
was
not
the
problem
in
this
case.
Second
problem
I
agree
with
you
is
much
harder
to
tackle,
because
it's
just
the
fact
of
the
matter
that
not
every
piece
of
work
that
comes
into
the
IETF
will
will
come
out
of
it.
So
anyway,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
I
think
those
are
kind
of
separable
problems
in
a
way,
and
that
might
make
it
easier
for
us
to
figure
out
what
more
we
can
do
on
either
front.
Q
Following
up
on
yeah
yeah,
this
is
Barry
Lee,
but
I
was
there
with
that
discussion
and
it
definitely
was
attacking
the
technical
aspects
of
what
they
were
bringing
forward,
not
attacking
them,
and
that's
that's
the
main
difference
there
that
I
saw
there.
It
was
certainly
a
very
vigorous
discussion,
but
it
was
specifically
talking
about
the
technical
aspects
and
no
one
was
saying:
you're
stupid
go
away
or
anything
like
that.
However,
I
do
agree
with
Braun
that
the
message
they
got
was
that
they
should
go
away
and
I.
Don't
know
what
to
do
about
that.
Maybe.
A
J
You
know
there
I
think,
there's
a
few
things.
It
seems
to
me
that
there's
some
fundamental
problems
in
achieving
consensus
that
I've
seen
and
part
of
it
has
to
do
I
think
to
with
them
in
in
some
groups.
You
know
you
tend
to
get.
You
know
what
what
we
you
know,
you
start
to
call
the
in-crowd
and-
and
you
can't
help,
but
be
that
way.
J
Is
that
you
know
if
you've
got
an
idea,
you
can
see
the
camp's
sort
of
sort
of
starting
to
coalesce,
and
neither
side
wants
to
move
and
I've
seen
it
happen
over
and
over
again
and-
and
you
end
up
not
working
together
very
well,
and
you
read
you,
things
get
turned
away
that
are
actually
that
will
come
back
again
because
it
led
to
a
it
was
a.
It.
I
I
This
week,
where
you
know
just
explained
explaining
to
the
proponents,
it's
like
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
these
poor
things,
and
there
are,
you
know
for
one
of
those
things
there's
like
three
or
four
other
communities
that
I
can
think
of
off
the
top
of
my
head
to
care.
You
know.
Take
that
one
thing
and
talk
to
them.
I
You
know
you're,
not
gonna,
get
your
whole
thing
as
a
working
group,
but
you
know:
there's
there's
other
people
who
have
pieces
of
the
same
problem
and
you
can
work
on
it
together,
which
is
kind
of
what
you
know.
A
consensus-based
technical
organization
like
ours
needs
to
do
is
to
work
work
on
things
together
and
and
produce
things
that
high
quality.
AG
J
You
know
actually
I
started
working
on
a
draft
with
Henning
to
go
about
this.
It
has
to,
but
it's
a
psychological
dynamics,
kind
of
a
draft.
You
know
what
I
mean,
so
let
me
I'll
finish
it
because
there's
it's
not
an
easy
solution.
You
know
what
I
mean
there
there's
a
because,
because
I
do
totally
want
to
work
together,
but
I
find
that
we
don't
come
together
too
often,
because
we
don't
listen
to
each
other
and
everybody
gets
really
stuck
in
their
own.
J
You
know
it
is
human
nature
to
get
stuck
in
there
in
their
sides,
and
let
me
let
me
do
this
is.
If
anybody
wants
to
work
on
this
with
me,
it's
gonna
take
some
time
to
figure
out
how
to
do
this.
Then
I'll
go
ahead
and
finish
that
draft,
but
I
totally
think
we
need
this.
So
just
you
know
anybody
come
you
know.
It
come
talk
to
me
and
we'll
work
on
it.
Yeah
Thank,
You
Warren.
Thank.
AN
You
minashi
two
points
with
and
topic
that
we've
been
discussing.
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
that
it's
not
only
affecting
newcomers,
but
everybody
we've
been
Kenneth's,
saying
new
newcomers,
but
it's
actually
everybody.
A
second
point
is
more
something
that
to
me
is
a
problem
is
when
people
are
presenting.
AN
People
come
to
the
mic,
interrupting
with
barges,
excuses
such
as
clarification,
question
and
then
you've
come
into
multiple
people
having
a
side
conversation
over
the
mic.
While
the
actual
question
was
answered,
the
next
slide
coming
to
me:
that's
a
lack
lack
of
respect
to
the
presenter
so
for
when
I'm
sharing
working
group
I
usually
ask
people
to
wait
until
the
end
of
the
presentation
to
ask
their
question
to
me:
that's
a
that
would
be
an
improvement
and
better
respect
for
the
presenter
yeah.
A
AO
AO
The
relevant
anecdote
and
then
a
comment,
and
the
anecdote
is
my
wife
used
to
be
the
clerk
of
our
local
Quaker
meeting
and
I
watched
the
process
they
use
and
they
don't
call
they
don't
call
their
process
consensus,
but
everybody
else
does
and
it
requires
a
great
deal
of
listening
and
patience,
but
a
key
aspect
that
I
didn't
I
didn't
know
about.
I.
Think
a
lot
of
other
people
don't
is
there
is
there
is
what's
called
standing
aside?
You
know,
which
is
basically
it's
their
version
of
rough
consensus.
AO
You
know
and
for
consensus,
basically
consistent,
doesn't
work
if
people
are
people
are
in
a
filibuster
and
there,
and
there
has
to
be
a
point
at
which
every
people
look
at
something
and
says
say:
I'm
not
crazy
about
it,
but
I'm
not
unhappy
enough
to
block
it.
I
will
stand
aside,
you
know,
and
that's
that's
a
key
part
of
a
process
into
something.
AO
I
think
that
many
of
us
who
are
passionate
are
not
very
good
at
you
know
and
with
all
due
respect
to
our
desire
to
get
people
get
people
passionate
involved,
I've
seen
too
many
times
that
you
can
work
really
hard
on
something
and
feel
really
passionately
about
something,
and
it's
still
a
bad
idea.
You
know
and
the
the
the
the
episode
the
bran
was
talking
about.
AO
I
happened,
I
happen
to
have
known
the
guy
for
a
long
time,
and
he
you
know,
and
he
was
basically
a
tourist,
you
know,
and
he
and
he
did
not
understand
our
processes
at
all
and
he
wasn't
really
interested
in
learning
about
them.
He's
like
he
wanted
his
thing
and
when
we
said
nobody
said
well,
actually
it's
this
long,
complicated
thing.
He
said,
never
mind,
you
know,
and
on
the
one
hand,
you
know
I
think
it's
sort
of
a
shame
that
he's
not
coming
back.
AO
On
the
other
hand,
I
think
you
mean
we,
you
know
we
have
this
complicated
process,
which
you
know,
and
this
is
sort
of
ties
in
with
what
the
matali
was
talking
about,
which
is
I.
Don't
think
we
understand
our
own
processes
well
enough.
You
know
and
I
think
that,
along
with
not
being
mean
to
people
there's
a
certain
amount
of
this
is
necessary.
Humility
that,
like
I
know
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
but
I
guess
I
haven't
persuaded
everybody
else.
So
I'll
stand
aside.
AP
A
AP
From
article
19,
so
I
have
two
procedural
issues.
Maybe
three
inserting
the
iron
skews
view
the
case
that
a
privacy
consideration
in
the
standard
in
a
draft
at
the
IETF
would
ever
be
prohibited
and
does
it
need
to
get
the
approval
of
the
iesg
before
it
is
formulated,
and
then
I
would
also
like
to
know
if
your
answer
would
differ
if
this
concerned
a
human
rights
consideration
instead,
it's
just
because
it
came
up
earlier
in
the
week
and
so
I
just
like
to
have
some
clarification
from
the
IOC
on
this
point.
Thank
you
sure.
A
A
For
a
working
group
draft
it's
up
to
the
working
group
to
decide
what
content
goes
in
as
far
as
you
know,
getting
through
the
iesg,
then
we
have
a
process
at
the
end
where
the
ihe
reviews
all
the
drafts,
and
we
have
to
come
to
some
agreement
on
whether
they
should
be
published
as
RFC
s.
So
but
there's
there's
no
prohibitions
other
than
color.
Thank.
AP
AQ
AQ
AQ
I'm
relatively
new
to
I've
followed
the
IETF
for
years.
But
it's
only
been
the
past
three
years
that
I've
been
more
or
less
active
and
trying
to
bring
stuff
and
trying
to
work
on
things
and
help.
Various
working
groups,
but
I
am
quite
frankly
getting
to
the
point
where
I'm,
just
ready
to
say
screw.
It
and
I'll
go
back
and
work
in
other
areas
because
it
has
become
so
difficult
and
so
painful
and
there's
just
vile
disagreement
in
some
of
these
working
groups,
and
it
just
it
just
needs
to
stop
end
of
comment.
AQ
A
You
well,
first
of
all
thank
you
for
being
our
Thank
You
ferry.
It's
very
much
appreciated.
I
would
like
to
make
a
request,
because
we've
had
now
like
many
people
in
the
same
theme
and
I
think
I
know
some
of
the
examples
of
people
are
thinking
of,
but
certainly
not
all
of
them
and
as
a
group,
the
15
of
us
should
should
be
able
to
be
aware
of
all
of
them.
A
So
if
there's
there's
particular
cases
that
people
are
concerned
about
I
would
ask
you
to
find
an
area
director
and
talk
to
them
about
these
within
the
next
day.
If
you're
still
here,
we
have
a
wrap-up
meeting
on
Friday,
where
we
usually
go
over
the
week
and
talk
about
what
the
hotspots
were
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
all
of
these
out.
So
that
aware
of
so
the
whole
ie.
She
can
be
aware
of
the
full
scope
of
this
problem
as
its
as
its
manifest
this
week.
So
please
do
that.
A
AD
Want
to
make
one
real
quick
point,
also
I've,
seen
both
on
mailing
lists
and
heard
in
this
discussion.
A
couple
of
different
terms
used
almost
interchangeably,
that
would
be
newcomer
and
tourist,
and
the
only
difference
as
far
as
I
can
tell
between
a
newcomer
and
a
tourist
is
a
newcomer
as
a
tourist.
You
have
not
chased
away.
L
Okay,
now
I
disagree
with
that
a
little
bit,
because
sometimes
we
get
people
just
popping
into
working
groups
who
aren't
really
participating
and
those
are
the
people
I
tend
to
think
of
this
tourists.
They're
just
there
to
be
in
the
audience
and
they
aren't.
They
said
they
don't
cleanse.
They
aren't
working
in
this
area
they're
there
to
learn,
basically,
which
is
cool,
but
that's
a
little
bit
different.
They
aren't
necessarily
newcomers,
but
actually
did
I
mentioned
I'm
Melinda,
Shore
I.
L
We
do
consensus
really
badly,
I
mean
really
badly
and
I
think
I'm
increasingly
convinced
this
is
a
training
problem.
We
could
write
because
you
know,
if
you,
in
a
lot
of
working
groups,
we
see
humming
being
treated
as
sort
of
a
vestigial
form
of
voting,
for
example,
that
one's
really
common,
the
that
consensus
isn't
being
called
frequently-
and
you
know,
people
the
working
group
isn't
being
checked
in
on
in
terms
of
where
they
are
with
decisions
in
thinking.
L
I
absolutely
agree
with
John
that
we
have
a
fundamental
problem
with
training
participants
as
well,
and
you
know
this
business
of
not
being
able
to
say
I
disagree
but
I'm
not
going
to
block
this.
You
know
people
need
to
be
a
lot
more
willing
to
say
that,
but
I
think
that
circling
back
to
the
training
question,
there's
something
we
can
do
there
I.
You
know
I
think
that
their
training
is
D
and
IAB
members
on
on
consensus
and
then
filtering
that
down
to
work
in
group
chairs
would
help
make
some
progress
on
this.
L
I
think
that
it's
I
know
it's
really
difficult
to
find
working
group
chairs,
but
we
should
also
check
it
as
we're
making
these
decisions
about
hiring
new
chairs.
We
should
maybe
be
checking
in
with
them
about
what
they
know
about
consensus
decision
making,
and
you
know
in
collaboration
and
so
on,
because
I
know
that
I've
never
been
asked
that
and
I've
showed
a
bunch
of
working
groups.
So.
A
AR
Yeah
Michael
Richardson,
so
actually
I.
This
wonderful,
segue
I
actually
got
up
when
Jordan
was
speaking
and
I
was
gonna
stand
up
earlier
than
I
decided.
We
were
gonna,
close
I
would
like
some
training.
That's
what
I
would
like
as
a
working
group
here,
I,
don't
know
where
it
fits
into
the
week.
That's
a
difficult
part
problem
and
I
would
like.
Actually
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
act
come
up
and
ask
for
is
I
would
like
some
evaluation,
not
actually
necessarily
from
you
guys
who
I'm
pretty
sure.
AR
None
of
you
are
Human
Resources
experts,
but
I
actually
am
thinking
that
we
should
have
someone
who
understands
that
kind
of
stuff
come
into
our
working
group
sessions
pay
attention
for
an
hour
to
on
our
mailing
lists
and
try
and
give
us
some
constructive
feedback
as
what's
going
on,
I
think
that
would
be
you
very
useful,
particularly
in
the
working
groups
where
it
has
become,
as
the
word
was
very
vile.
The
question
is,
you
know.
AR
All
of
you
guys,
you
know,
would
also
benefit
from
it,
but
also
would
benefit
from
having
that
feedback
and
that
somewhat
impartial
person
come
back
and
say
well,
I
wasn't
listening
to
any
of
the
technical
stuff
because
I
don't
know
it,
but
what
I
saw
was
these
interactions
and
I
also
saw
this
other
thing
happening
in
the
back
of
the
room.
That
was
weird
right,
that
the
chair
couldn't
even
notice
or
something
like
that.
So
I
would
really
appreciate
that
that
I
think
would
be
very
useful
to
me.
AR
I
So
doing
things
that
are
new
is
really
okay,
you
know
and
for
us
to
say
we're
gonna
be
more
intentional
about
helping
to
helping
people
learn
and
the
people
who
are
really
busy
during
the
week.
You
know
helping
you
know,
helping
them
learn
some
other
time
they
could
be
a
beautiful
thing.
I
know
routing
has
done
an
awful
lot
with
working
group
chair
training
over
the
past
several
years,
and
maybe
you
know
maybe
that
could
catch
on
and
be
something
the
rest
of
the
community
and
do
something
with.
But
you
know
I
say
it.
AE
So
Spencer
actually
read
my
mind
of
what
I
was
gonna
say:
we've
been
doing,
we've
been
doing
chair
training
for
the
last
few
years,
and
some
of
the
topics
we
talked
about
are
precisely
management
topics.
You
know:
how
do
we
manage
working
groups?
We've
done
several
talks
that
people
dressing
has
done
on
consensus,
how
to
call
it.
You
know
we're
different
cases,
you
know,
etc.
We've
also
done
an
interesting
talk
on
managing
conflict.
That
Linda
was
the
ISO
HR
person
with
one
of
our
chairs.
Did
you
know?
AE
I
was
also
really
really
thanks
for
our
chairs.
We
don't
always
get
all
our
chairs,
because
you
know
there's
no
good
time
to
get
everyone
on
there.
At
the
same
time,
we
have
recorded
these
sessions
and
you
know
would
like
to
offer
that
can
we
can
find
out?
Well,
we
know
where
the
link
is
so
we
can.
You
know,
post
the
link
somewhere
so
that
people
can
go.
Take
a
look
at
those.
We
do
these
periodic
disease.
AE
AS
Hi
Brian
Dixon
I
was
just
about
to
ask
about
the
recording
of
the
sessions
I
was
at
was
watching
one
of
the
sessions
it's.
It
was
one
of
the
working
groups
that
I
don't
normally
attend,
but
it
had
an
overlap
with
another
area.
I
would
definitely
say
it
was
highly
toxic
and,
and
that
particular
one
it
actually
appeared
to
be
the
working
group
chair
that
was
making
it
worse,
so
I'll
take
it
offline,
but
I
think
being
able
to
go
back
and
review
the
sessions
and
possibly
getting
somebody
who's.
AS
P
Branko
and
wanna
s,
a
relative
newcomer
I
joined
in
Chicago
at
98
and
kind
of
a
strange
introduction
to
ATF
I
guess
there
was
a
chair
working
for
care
of
my
very
first
meeting.
I
was
ridiculously
lucky
that
I
went
to
morgue
just
before
hand
and
got
facilitation,
training
and
the
first
time
when
I
met
a
lot
of
the
the
big
voices
that
were
going
to
be
in
the
room
at
ITF.
P
I
met
them
in
a
context
at
morgue,
where
I
was
facilitating
a
group
and
I
just
had
the
training
on
how
to
deal
with
with
that
sort
of
situation.
That
was
that
was
a
really
nice
way
into
this.
I
didn't
want
to
answer
that
idea
that
newcomers
and
wrists
are
the
same.
I
think
that
newcomers
are
people
who
come
in
expecting
to
to
do
work
as
well
as
to
get
the
results
they
want.
P
Whereas
my
impression
of
a
tourist
is
someone
who
comes
in
with
a
goal
in
mind
and
all
they
want-
is
to
get
that
goal
out
of
ITF
and
they
don't
want
to
contribute
an
equivalent
amount
of
effort,
so
they're
coming
to
take
from
ITF,
rather
than
also
to
give
and
I
think
it's
worth
having
that
distinction
and
for
people
who
are
coming
into
ITF
to
explain
that
this
is
not
just
somewhere.
You
come
to
get
your
work
done
for
you,
it's
somewhere,
you
come
to
contribute,
and
there
is
that
equal
give-and-take
expected
of
you.
P
AK
Moriarity
two
points
on
the
consensus
and
humming
one
when
this
has
come
up
with
my
work
when
I
was
in
ad,
there
wasn't
a
universal
agreement
that
on
consensus
and
humming
RFC
was
our
method
right.
So
that's
that's
a
key
problem.
We
have
to
solve
there
and
make
sure
that
we
either
agree
that
that
RFC
is
what
we
follow
if
we're
going
to
start
providing
training
or
that
we
come
to
a
common
definition.
AB
AJ
A
AJ
Actually,
there's
a
number
of
things
I
could
respond
to,
but
since
it's
808
I'll
be
really
short,
I'm
kind
of
Donahue
I'm,
the
lead
of
the
edgy
team
for
the
IETF.
This
is
a
very
small
team,
but
it's
an
open
team
and
anybody
can
join.
We've
talked
about
working
on
working
group,
chairs,
training,
we've
added
the
webinars
we've
redone
the
newcomers
overview.
AJ
We've
done
a
lot
of
things
to
sort
of
try
and
improve
the
training,
but
we
could
really
use
your
help
and
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
great
ideas
here
and
please
come
help
because
we
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
it.
Linda
has
offered
to
help
us
build
some
of
these
training
things
that
we're
talking
about.
We've
talked
about
looking
at
the
routing
stuff
and
opening
it
up
to
everybody.
We
specifically
talked
about
doing
things
first
for
working
group
chairs
and
once
we
get
it
formulated
open
it
up
to
the
Sunday
tutorials.
AJ
AJ
A
AT
Lu
lu
berger,
I
think
the
idea
of
more
training
on
consensus
for
everyone
for
chairs
and
participants
is
a
great
idea.
I
am
NOT
opposed
to
a
document
that
formula
formalizes.
How
we
do
consensus
I
would
ask
that
you
take
into
account
that
not
everyone's
ears
work
the
same
way
and
make
sure
that
if
you
have
a
document,
it
doesn't
say
that
humming
is
the
only
thing
that
we
can
do,
because
for
some
of
us
it
just
doesn't
work.
We
can't
hear
it
well.
AT
AF
Alexandra
DeMuth
curator
lips,
I'm
speaking,
not
for
myself,
but
for
a
person
that
is
not
present
here.
He
had
to
leave
early
already.
So
the
problem
here
met
in
one
of
the
working
groups
is
that
there
is
a
working
group
and
there
was
a
significant
progress
and
it's
nearly
ready
to
provide
version.
2
version
1
for
a
protocol,
but
he
finds
a
problem
and
a
real
operational
problem,
and
it's
even
confirmed
by
some
of
quarters,
but
he's
a
bit
afraid,
that's
in
the
working
group.
AF
If
he
will
start
shouting
insane
that
no
no,
no,
we
need
to
fix.
We
need
to
change
the
proper
of
the
protocol.
That
is
nearly
ready
here.
We
find,
as
you
will
find
himself
alone,
because
a
lot
of
people
have
invested
a
lot
of
time
in
designing
it
and
were
thinking
already
that
it's
nearly
done.
So
what
of
the
suggestion
that
he
got?
Is
it's
only
version
1?
We
will
update
it
in
version
2,
the
the
the
way
of
in
essence
or
the
way
it's
already
made.
Investments.
AF
A
So
this
is
I
think
a
fairly
common
problem.
This
is
for
sure,
not
the
only
time
something
like
this
has
happened
and
I
think
you
know
how
its
dealt
with
this
kind
of
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
So
not
really
knowing
the
details.
It's
like
it's
hard
to
assess
exactly
in
this.
In
this
case,
what
has
happened
but
I
think
you
know.
Sometimes
we
do
end
up
putting
the
brakes
on
and
incorporating
some
change
to
a
protocol
before
it
gets
finished
and
sometimes
to
wait
for
a
new
version.
A
It's
kind
of
its
kind
of
up
to
the
working
group,
but
I
guess
to
me
the
more
concerning
thing
that
you
said
is
that
he
was
afraid
to
to
raise
this
right,
that
that
seems
like
a
serious
problem,
because
nobody
should
be
afraid
to
raise
an
issue
and
a
technical
problem
that
they
find
in
a
protocol
design
out
of
fear
right.
That's
that's
not
a
good
dynamic,
so
for
that
bit
again,
I
would
I
would
encourage
you
to
like
let
one
of
us
know
the
specifics
of
the
situation
so
that
we
can.
A
A
M
F
AA
Yes,
sir
Terry
Madison,
no
hats,
now
that
the
LLC
board
is
getting
on
its
way
to
being
well
constructed,
I'd
like
to
ask
you
to
live
in
within
your
budget,
and
that
means
when
you
present
something
you
tell
us
about
the
revenue,
and
you
also
tell
us
about
the
projected
expenses,
because
you're
talking
about
pnls
now,
I
noticed
your
slides
tonight.
I
only
gave
us
revenue
and
didn't
give
us
the
other
side
of
a
story.
Please
consider
that.
F
AU
AU
Okay,
after
noticing
that
we
had
been
unable
to
progress
any
internationalization
work
for
a
rather
long
time
and
that
documents
with
internationalization
aspects
were
not
systematically
being
reviewed
by
experts
AB
office,
held
in
Montreal,
to
discuss
the
issue
and
make
a
plan.
The
buff
concluded
that
a
special
Directorate
should
be
created
to
work
through
those
issues
and
lay
out
a
plan
to
make
progress.
Has
the
Directorate
been
formed
and
started,
making
progress
in
private
or
have
we
concluded
now?