►
From YouTube: IETF103-TUTORIAL-BRINGINGNEWWORKTOTHEIETF-20181104-1345
Description
TUTORIAL meeting session at IETF103
BRIN/GI/NG 2018
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/proceedings/
A
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
all
to
the
bringing
new
work
to
the
IETF
tutorial,
I'm
Karen,
O'donoghue,
I'm,
part
of
the
leadership
of
the
education
team
here
and
so
there's
a
couple
things
I'm
going
to
ask
of
you
before
I
intro
to
speakers.
The
first
one
is
on
the
last
slide:
there's
a
link
to
a
survey.
We
would
really
appreciate
feedback
on
this
survey.
The
second
thing
that
we
would
really
like
feedback
on
is
what
types
of
tutorials
would
be
of
use
to
you
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
most
people
would
would
find
useful.
A
So
if
you
could
provide
that
both
of
those
sets
of
information,
it
would
be
very
appreciated.
So
the
second
thing
is:
it
gives
me
great
pleasure
to
introduce
this
tutorial.
We've
been
working
for
a
while
to
try
and
get
it
scheduled
and
with
no
further
ado
I'm.
This
is
Spencer
and
Aliyah
and
they
can
introduce
themselves
further.
B
So
the
first
thing
is,
since
we
don't
have
a
giant
room
or
whether
we
have
a
giant
room,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
folks.
Those
of
you
in
the
back,
if
you
want
to
come
forward
and
also
like
making
this
interactive,
would
be
really
nice
because
talking
to
a
dead
room
is
pretty
boring
and
we
won't
get
the
kind
of
discussion
and
quality.
That
said,
why
do
I
care
about
new
work
proposals?
Well
I've
been
doing
the
ITF
for
actually
this
is
like
20
years
and
at
the
end
of
it.
B
What
we
do
is
we
create
standards
for
the
internet
so
that
the
internet
works
better
and
the
internet
keeps
changing.
We
need
to
have
new
work,
we
need
to
have
new
people
and
we
need
to
accommodate
the
changing
industry
and
internet
usage.
I
stepped
down
after
serving
as
four
years
is
routing
ad
back
in
March
and
I
saw
some
of
the
challenges
for
bringing
new
work
in
I
chartered
a
few
new
working
groups,
irie
chartered
things.
B
I
was
also
our
the
routing
area
working
group
chair,
which
is
a
group,
that's
specifically
chartered
to
sort
of
foster
new
ideas
and
provide
a
forum
for
them
to
be
discussed
and
I've
also,
you
know
had
a
few
ideas.
Thank
you
for
coming
forward.
I've
also
had
a
few
ideas
that
have
turned
into
working
groups.
C
So
yeah:
let's
do
it
this
way,
so
I'm
Spencer,
I'm,
Bea,
currently
serving
transport
area
director.
Since
2013,
we
are
responsible
for
ensuring
that
working
groups
in
their
area
produce
coherent,
coordinate,
consistently,
consistent
and
timely
output.
It
is
a
contribution
of
the
overall
idea.
I
mean
this
is
what
we
do.
C
Basically
I
previously
served
on
the
IB,
which
has
oversight
of
the
of
the
internet
architecture,
including
including
the
standards
process,
including
buffs
I,
started
caring
about
this,
because
I
showed
up
at
the
IETF
very
quickly
had
a
topic
that
I
was
bringing
to
the
IETF
as
a
new
new
work
puzzle
I
figured
out.
It
was
how
to
get
chartered
after
asking
for
a
lot
of
help,
because
I
needed
a
lot
of
help.
It
was
not
chartered
yet,
but
that
was
chartered.
C
The
next
great
idea,
I
had
was
not
chartered
after
two
bolts
that
I
didn't
understand.
Why
really
my
Nick's
proposal
for
new
work
was
dispatched
and
we
will
talk
about
that
in
a
minute,
but
I
would
get
any
better
at
it.
But
it's
you
know.
It's
still,
there's
still
a
lot
of
people
that
don't
know
how
to
do.
This
I
kept
thinking.
We
can
do
better
than
this,
so
just
to
talk
about
what
you
can
do
on
your
own,
what
you
can
learn
on
your
own.
There
is
a
written
process
and
it's
not
very
long.
C
There's
one
RFC
that
describes
this
in
detail.
One
section
of
one
RFC
describes
this
in
detail:
that's
a
best
current
practice
and
there
are
two
RFC's.
There
are
informational
guidance
about
how
to
do
how
to
do
parts
of
this
and
that's
kind
of
that's
kind
of
what
you
can
find
out
on
your
own.
But
you
know
here
are
the
links
and
the
section
names
and
things
like
that:
the
informational
guide.
This
is
actually
helpful.
C
C
Almost
all
the
written
process
assumes
that
you
need
a
new
working
group,
but
you
might
not,
and
if
you
need
a
new
working
group,
you
might
not
be
above.
One
of
the
things
I
want
to
be
sure
and
say
is
that
a
lot
of
people
would
like
to
think
this
process
is
deterministic.
If
I
do
these
11
steps
in
this
order,
I'll
get
these
get
a
working
group
automatically,
and
that's
just
not
true
for
better
or
worse.
So
we
turn
our
attention
to
the
unwritten
process.
B
So
I'm
going
to
assume
that
you
all
can
read
the
slides
and
we
can
actually
have
a
bit
of
conversation
about
it.
I
mean
the
main
question
we
need
before
you
get
started.
Is
you
know,
are
you
trying
to
do
engineering?
Are
you
still
doing
research?
Are
there
people
who
care
about
this?
Have
you
talked
to
them
about
it?
Do
you
know
who
you
should
talk
to?
B
Can
you
talk
to
people
to
find
out
who
you
should
talk
to,
and
of
course
has
this
been
tried
before
and
why
is
it
different
this
time,
and
sometimes
things
are
really
different?
The
next
time
and
people
who
haven't
kept
up
with
what
the
changes
are.
Maybe
like
yeah,
we
tried
this
15
years
ago.
It
was
a
dreadful
idea,
so
it's
really
useful
to
understand
why
they
think
it
was
a
dreadful
idea
and
how
to
fix
it.
So.
C
Sure
yeah,
so
this
is
kind
of.
Are
you
in
the
right
place?
Do
you
are
you?
This
is
still
mostly
Internet,
although
we
do
some
widely
use
protocols.
Mpls
is
a
good
example
that
doesn't
traverse
the
internet
in
a
native
way.
Yeah
yeah
yeah
see
you
see
the
problem,
but
if,
but
is
this
protocol
work
is
it
at
or
above
the
IP
layer,
because
we
don't
do
link
layer
protocols
much.
C
B
And
one
of
the
pieces
to
think
about
for
the
doesn't
have
value
for
you
or
your
customers
or
people
would
be
using.
It
is
we're
not
protocol
police,
it's
really
disappointing,
but
we're
still
not
the
protocol
police.
So
getting
a
good
standard
is
wonderful
and
if
it
sits
on
a
shelf
so
to
speak,
because
of
course
they're
not
printed
either.
Then
there's
no
point
right.
The
point
is
doing
things
getting
standards
out
that
are
useful
for
the
industry
and
for
the
Internet,
and
so
the
question
is
who's
going
to
use
this.
B
Do
they
believe
in
the
process?
Do
they
think
this
is
a
good
idea?
Are
they
going
to
come
in
and
do
it?
Is
there
enough
forcing
function
to
convince
the
people
who
are
interested
and
doing
non
interoperable
implementations
to
come
and
talk?
What's
their
motivation?
It's
not,
as
most
things
aren't
just
technology.
C
Is
this
really
engineering
or
is
this
research?
The
e
and
IETF
stands
for
engineering,
which
means
we
know
how
to
do
this.
The
internet
research
task
force
means
we
will
the
R
for
research
means
we
will
find
out
how
to
do
this.
I
wrote
an
RFC,
that's
an
IRT
F
primer
for
IRT
have
participants.
It
basically
explains
a
lot
of
the
differences
between
the
two
organizations
in
scope.
C
Time
for
you,
you
can
read
this
but
recognize
like
I
say
you
need
to
know
how
to
do
at
least
a
high-level
what
you're
trying
to
do
before
you
are
talking
to
the
act.
You
know
before
coming
to
the
ITF,
when
the
new
proposal
makes
sense
talking
to
the
IRT
f
chair.
If
you
don't,
if
you
know
that
there's
a
problem,
but
you
don't
know
how
to
solve
it,
that's
a
great
place
to
start.
C
B
Spencer,
is
it
mentioning
that
we're
both
on
the
IR
s
J?
So
you
know,
if
you
think
you
might
have
research
ideas,
it's
not
just
the
IR,
the
F
chair,
who's,
Allison
and
really
also
by
the
way
to
talk
to
you.
But
you
know
any
of
us
with
a
Wichita
was
oh
yeah,
the
pink
dot,
really
nice
hot
pink
dot.
To
tell
you
we're
gonna
have
some
cool
research
stuff
going
on,
so
this
is
the
who
are
you
talking
to
right
because,
fundamentally,
when
you're
bringing
your
work
to
the
IETF?
B
What
you're
saying
is
we
think
this
matters
and
we
think
there
are
people
work.
We
know
there
are
people
who
are
willing
to
do
this
work.
You
can
talk
to
area
directors
for
process.
There's
a
lot
of
folks
who
have
been
area
directors
before
working
group
chairs,
you've
brought
new
work.
I
mean
it's
really
hard
not
to
run
into
people
in
the
hallway.
B
Who
might
have
some
ideas
about
this
and
the
general
thing
of
you
know
you
come
with
what
you
want
to
talk
about
and
enthused
and
take
the
introductions,
because
that's
the
main
piece
is
finding
the
10
to
20
other
people,
hopefully
more.
If
you're
trying
to
bring
something
big
in
who
desperately
care
about
the
same
things.
B
You
do
so
it's
about
finding
the
people
who
have
perspective
and
getting
the
introductions
to
form
a
community
of
people
who
are
interested
in
the
work
because
they
know
it's
necessary
or
alternate
literally
because
I
think
it's
a
horrible
idea
and
will
explain
to
you
and
gentle
detail.
Why
that's
the
case.
B
Everyone
has
a
different
UI,
but
it
of
course
does
help
to
not
come
in
thinking
that
you're
going
to
change
the
deployed
base
of
technology
over
the
last
20
years,
because
it
solves
your
key
niche
problem
right.
If
you
want
to
do
that,
you
might
get
some
pushback,
oh
and
talking
so
one
of
the
things
is
I'm,
sorry
yeah,
so
it's
not
just
the
IETF
folks.
B
You
want
to
talk
to
you
because
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
folks
who
are
here
sure
there's
an
awful
lot
of
people
who
aren't
and
one
of
the
things
is.
Sometimes
your
great
idea
might
be
pulling
in
folks
from
other
pieces
of
industry
or
academia
or
where
have
you
that
all
right
here
talking
to
folks
pulling
them
in
and
saying.
B
Let's
do
this,
the
IETF
can
be
extremely
open
to
having
new
groups
of
people
come
in
and
say,
hey
we're
working
on
this,
and
we
really
want
to
take
advantage
of
the
technical
negotiation
consensus-based
process
that
we
have
here
to
publish,
really
respected
documents
really
respected
standards,
and
we
need
to
understand
how
to
do
that.
You
know
that's
a
great
story
to
bring
in
the.
C
Related
thing
there
is,
you
know:
basically,
there
are
open
source
projects.
The
IAC
is
GE
has
actually
become
more
interested
in
who
was
talking
to
WHO
on
open
source,
about
incoming
proposals
for
new
work.
If
your
topic
is
interesting,
it's
probably
interesting
to
at
least
some
other
SDOs
and
four
of
us,
some
of
which
the
IETF,
so
the
the
ietf
has
liaison
relationships
with
them
that
are
managed
by
the
IAB
others,
not
the
IAT
ie.
C
The
IAB
and
isg
will
be
very
interested
in
hearing
about
those
earlier,
rather
than
later,
the
hands
had
been
tied
before
there
are
pro.
There
are
proposals
that
keep
coming
back
in
various
forms.
Sometimes
situations
change,
so
previous
failures
was
succeed.
I'm
a
transport
area
director
and
Transport
had
basically
stagnated
because
we
couldn't
get
anything
deployed
at
the
transport
level
that
wasn't
already
deployed
without
without
rolling
new
versions
of
operating
systems
into
the
house.
How
often
do
you
update
your
windows
or
I?
C
C
There
are
classic
things
that
you'd
like
to
you
wish
you
could
do,
but
I
mean
you
just
you
just
can't
you
know
how
do
you
guess
initial
path
capacity
without
probing
that
was
like
a
that
was
like
a
hot
topic
in
1985.
People
still
want
to
do
it.
People
have
bought
me
proposals
in
the
last
year
to
do
it,
and
you
still
can't
I
mean
it's
just
you
know.
C
B
And
so
then
there's
a
question
of
how
much
work
are
you
talking
about?
Are
you
saying
here,
let's
toss
a
new
TLV
into
a
routing
protocol?
Are
you
talking
something
or
something
nice
and
small?
Theoretically,
are
you
talking
about
something
fairly
large?
It
needs
to
say
to
a
new
protocol
or
have
a
serious
extension
of
one.
Are
you
talking
something
like
yeah
there's
this
whole
industry
out
there
and
we
need
to
define
all
of
the
standards
for
it
now
right.
B
C
So
I
think
this
here
is
about
the
point
at
which
we
move
from
things
that
everybody
at
the
IETF
leadership
would
kind
of
agree
with
to
the
things
that
Spencer
has
been
talking
to
the
ISP
and
I'd
be
about
for
the
last
couple
of
years.
We
have
not
been
talking
about
these
things
very
much
in
front
of
the
community
and
I
think
it's
time
for
that
to
change.
So
what
you're
getting
here
is
kind
of
the
way
the
were
the
world
looked
to
me.
B
What
working
group
is
a
good
thing
to
do
it?
In
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
different
areas
have
routing
has
a
routing
area.
Working
group
art
has
the
dispatch
working
group.
Security
now
has
a
sec
dispatch.
Transport
area
has
a
transport
area
working
group
you're
getting
the
sense
here.
Ops
has
an
OPS,
AWG
or
kin
group.
It's
there's
a
usually
a
working
group
which
is
a
good
place
to
come
and
say
at
least
to
the
chairs.
I've
got
this
idea,
I'm,
not
sure
where
it
fits
sort
of
see
a
Jesus.
B
B
What
you're
doing
when
you're
coming
with
a
large
proposal
is
you're
saying
here
is
a
non-trivial
amount
of
work.
That's
probably
going
to
be
multiple
years
to
do
and
are
there
folks
who
are?
Is
there
enough
of
a
community
of
interest
to
sustain
it?
Is
there
a
clear
enough
vision
of
what
to
do?
It's
fine
to
have
a
long
term
vision,
but
do
we
understand
the
steps
to
actually
turn
this
into
something
real
and
who's?
B
C
C
We're
both
jet-lagged
welcome
working
with
the
ITF.
So
key
question
is:
do
the
benefits
outweigh
the
cost
of
not
doing
this,
and
you
know
that
that
if
the
answer
is
the
benefits
outweigh
the
cost
by
a
significant
amount?
This
should
be.
This
should
be
pretty
easy
large
proposals,
the
kind
of
ones
that
Leah
was
talking
about.
That's
actually
what
the
BC
piece
and
the
informational
guidance
documents
are
mostly
talking
about.
There
may
be
an
approach
with
working
group
now,
but
it
would
be
to
be
reach
harder
to
take
this
work
on.
C
You
may
need
a
new
working
group,
which
means
you're
talking
about
chartering,
a
new
working
group,
so
you're
probably
talking
to
working
group
chairs
and
area
directors
about
that,
in
addition
to
the
things
for
poll
for
a
small
proposal
steps,
you
know,
you're
also
building
a
community
if
you
bring
in
and
if
you
bring
in
a
new
help
me
out
whether
they
call
it
attribute
or
whatever
the
heck.
It
is
for
B
key
that
basically
basically
go
died,
er
and
there's
people
there
would
we
care
whether
it
happened
or
not?
C
This
is
what
I've
been
spending
most
of
my
time
talking
about
with
the
ihe
IHG
and
the
IEP,
which
is
the
huge
proposals.
So
you
think
about
what
the
difference
between
large
proposals
and
huge
proposals
are,
so
the
large
proposals
did
in
one
area,
they
mapped
to
one
working
group
which
may
or
may
not
exist.
You
may
have
to
create
it.
The
huge
proposals
also
may
often
map
on
the
public's
and
types
of
networks.
So
you
have
lots
of
interfaces
to
lots
of
different
things.
C
They
don't
all
use
the
same
protocol,
they
don't
use
the
same
procedures
and
they
don't
really
match
the
defined
IETF
standards
process.
If
you're
going
to
succeed,
you're
gonna
have
to
break
them
up.
Bi
HP
will
try
to
do
this.
If
you
don't
give
them
any
other
choice,
but
you
really
want
to
do
the
work
for
them
because
they
really
don't
know
as
much
as
you
know
about
what
you're
trying
to
do.
B
So
you
know
why
do
we
want
to
break
up
the
huge
proposals?
Well,
it's
the
interconnections
of
dependencies
right
if
you've
got
multiple
protocols
and
multiple
interfaces,
it's
hard
to
get
down
to
enough
level
of
detail
in
any
of
them
and
get
the
focus
you
want
to
have
working
groups
that
could
focus
on
a
concrete
smallish
set
of
things
to
get
done.
It
involves
potentially
work,
an
expertise
in
multiple
areas
and
someone
who's
deeply
fascinated
by
the
Ministry
of
BGP
may
not
be
similarly
fascinated
by
the
minutiae
of
crypto
algorithms,
for
instance.
B
Even
though,
of
course
they
should
be
so
there's
you
know,
having
having
working
groups
split
up
based
on
the
areas
really
helps
pull
in
the
communities
who
might
be
engaged,
and
it's
not
just
the
communities
of
intellectual
curiosity
right.
It's
the
communities
of
people
who
are
working
in
in
this
three
in
academia,
etcetera
to
use
this
stuff
to
turn
it
into
running
code
and
one
of
the
problems
here
is
it's
a
standard
problem
with
an
elephant.
You
say:
oh
well,
that's
a
trunk.
We
don't
do
trunks
or,
oh,
that
has
legs.
B
C
So
this
happened.
This
happened
at
the
first
IETF
that
I
was
on
the
IAB
for
this
happened.
This
is
why
we
do
not
have
a
clouds
working
group.
This
is
why
we
need
to
know
they
have
a
clouds
area.
We
got
a
proposal
for
a
clouds
working
group,
so
a
request
for
new
work.
What's
it
gonna
do
well,
they're
gonna
be
cloud
application.
Called
transport
cloud
will
request
routings
cloud
by
hop
stuff
cloud
security
cloud
operations
that
mapped
on
to
six
different
ITF
areas.
C
We
struggle
with
stuff
that
maps
into
two,
and
that's
now
this
wasn't
in
2010,
so
this
really
happened
and
for
extra
credit
there
was
a
proposal
to
do
this.
That
went
to
the
IAEA,
the
isg
in
the
IETF,
and
about
two
days
later
there
was
a
proposal
that
went
to
the
IRT
F
to
do
about
80%
of
the
same
work
to
create
a
reactor
to
create
a
proposed
research
group.
So
it's
like
well
this.
C
You
may
hear
an
area
directors,
say
maps
and
gaps.
So
what
is
that?
So?
Basically,
what
are
the?
What
are
the
protocols?
What
are
the
interfaces
and
the
functionality?
Those
interfaces,
because
we
do
protocols
and
and
operations
operational
practices
around
protocols?
We?
What
protocols
are
going
to
be
used
to
reuse
that
they
can
provide
the
functionality?
C
What's
going
to
be
reused,
what's
going
to
be
extended
and
what's
going
to
be,
have
to
be
invented
because
you're
not
talking
about
adding
an
attribute
to
bgp
you're
talking
about
coming
up
with
entirely
different
protocol?
That
does
that
you
know
it's
gonna
be
used
on
this
interface
to
identify
the
existing
working
groups
that
do
existing
protocols
talking
to
them
about
those
talking
about
existing
your
new
working
groups
to
invent
new
protocols
they're
important.
This
is
important
for
large
proposals,
but
it's
critical
for
huge
proposals.
B
D
Yeah,
so
this
is
Bret
Bret
Jordan,
yes,
it
has
helped,
but
I
still
have
some
fundamental
concerns.
One
things
are
being
are
very
slow.
Things
tend
to
be
very
subjective
and
not
that
you
really
want
something,
that's
deterministic
or
prescriptive,
but
on
the
other
end
the
subjective
side
of
it
seems
to
be
like
too
far
the
other
way,
and
so,
when
I
look
at
the
process
of
doing
box
and
setting
those
up-
and
those
can
only
be
done
at
a
meeting-
you
can't
do
those
or
virtual
meetings
and
like
for.
B
D
I
told
right
so
so
I
have
talked
to
ecker
and
been
extensively
about
this,
and
you
know,
and
Bangkok
is
really
far
for
a
lot
of
people
to
attend
and
we
have
an
existing
community
that
is
significantly
large.
That
is
wanting
to
work
on
this
and
so
we're
trying
to
figure
out.
How
do
we
do
this
in
the
IETF,
or
do
we
go
to
another
SPO?
And
it's
like
it's
like?
How
do
you
get
things
going
is
sure
why
I'm
here
so
so.
C
So,
like
I
say
thank
you
for
asking
the
question.
Thank
you
for
asking
it
to
help
us
level
set.
You
know,
of
course,
our
thing
won't
be
to
make
sure
that
we
do
not
have
the
buff
here
in
this
room,
but
say
you
know.
My
thing
on
this
is
basically
and
just
in
general,
if
you're,
trying
to
finish
quickly
waiting
to
start
is
the
wrong
thing
to
do
so
talking
about
the
ITF,
but
also
talking
about
people
who
are
bringing
work
to
the
ITF
as
well.
C
They
do
a
lot
of
stuff
helping
the
isg
with
that.
If
you
check
out
these
are
these
are
links
in
the
presentation
download
that
and
click.
If
you
check
out
the
IV
member
rolls
document,
that
was
something
that
the
iaea
be
approved
in
2012
I
want
to
say,
and
basically
they
provide
what
is
called
buff
coverage
called
Abbas,
doing
feedback
and
things
like
that
showing
it
you
know
saying
this
is
the
way
it
looks
to
the
IAS
G.
Most
people
don't
know
about
that.
You,
those
unless
they're
specifically
marked
private
anybody,
can
see
them.
C
Is
the
sponsor
EAD
about
that
drove
off,
but
the
other,
the
one
which
I
was
actually
talking
to
the
IAB
and
IHG
about
right
before
I
came
up
here?
Is
the
IB
provides
Shepherds
for
new
work
proposals
when
APD's
request
them
Shepherds
can
provide
architectural
guidance
or
can
help
improve
above
proposal
to
help
that
you
maximize
the
chances
of
a
useful
outcome.
So,
like
I
say,
if
you
don't
remember
anything
else
that
I
talked
about
remember
this
because
most
people
don't
know
this.
C
It's
often
honestly,
it's
often
it's
it's
a
surprise
to
some
of
the
people
that
join
the
IE
every
year
that
if
this
exists,
we
we
had
some
stuff
to
hope.
You
remember
did
three
ATF's
ago.
I
was
talking
to
the
iesg
about
this,
but
basically
there's
these
things
that
we
see
from
time
to
time
and
by
off
request
and
charters.
C
You
know
say
I'm
going
to
solve
all
the
problems
of
the
universe,
so
our
call
it
the
call
it
boiling
the
ocean
so
by
the
time,
were
looking
at
a
proposal
we're
looking
at
something
that
can
be.
You
know
done
in
the
relatively
one
to
two
year,
time
frame
and
limited
scope,
not
the
Gordian
not
doing
multiple
things
that
can
be
used
independently
in
one
in
one
clump.
The
picture
that
I
have
of
the
knife
there
on
the
only
is
the
third
one
at
third
one
from
the
left.
That's
an
actual
knife.
C
But
these
are.
These
are
hoping
you
get
to
above
so
things
that
you
could
do
and
in
bankok,
without
a
Boff,
where
we've
created
a
lot
of
mailing
list
requests
we
provided
more
and
more
at
oxide
upper
ohms.
We've
made
it
more
easy
to
reserve
them
in
advance.
Not
you
know
you
don't
have
to
wait
till
you
get
to
an
ITF
meeting
to
do
that.
We've
been
providing
coach
black
coat
lounge
and
ITF
lounge
space
for
usually
fairly
significantly
sized
groups.
C
This
Eve
at
seven
o'clock.
We
do
the
hover
sea
talks
and
if
you
talk
to
Aaron
Falk
real
fast
you
can
you
can
you
can
you
could
probably
even
still
get
on
a
list
for
this,
but
basically
this
is
you
get
four
minutes
in
front
of
the
in
front
of
people
with
no
opportunity
for
questions,
but
you
say
this
is
what
I.
This
is.
What
I
want
to
be
working
on.
I
want
to
I
want
to
work
with
other
people
and
I
want.
You
know,
I
want
to
have
so
forming
a
community.
C
C
You
really
don't
want
the
IHG
to
try
to
figure
that
out,
because
we're
really
not
very
good
at
it.
We're
gonna
want
to
figure
out,
what's
in
scope
for
the
ITF
versus
other
SDOs,
we're
going
to
want
to
make
a
chartered
a
decision
to
charter
a
working
group
or
hold
up
off
fairly
quickly,
and
we
want
new
proposals
for
new
work
to
be
transparent.
C
Then
that's
actually
one
of
the
newest
things
I
think
I've
seen
a
change
in
the
last
two
or
three
years
at
the
IETF
is
warning
wanting
to
be
put
people
in
front
of
the
community
where
they
can
be
forming
a
you
know,
forming
communities
of
interest
and
to
can
start
to
work
on
things
and
figure
out.
What
the
next
steps
are,
and
things
like
that
maybe
much
faster
than
you
expect
if
you've
been
around
the
idea
for
a
while.
B
So
one
of
the
things
is
how
the
IETF
deals
with
new
work
has
been
changing.
It
used
to
be
that
you
had
simply
had
to
have
a
Boff
before
you
could
have
a
working
group.
That
is
not
the
case
now
and
has
not
been
the
case
for
three
years
or
so
or
more
you.
There
are
certainly
working
groups.
One
can
well
yes
30
years
but
Adrian
in
practice.
It
used
to
be
more
so
this
is
one
of
those
it
turns
out
the
iesg
you
could
be
like
oh
yeah
right.
We
can
try
to
write
groups.
B
Let's
just
try
to
a
working
group.
You
don't
have
to
have
a
Boff
while
I
don't
know
of
any
specific
virtual
buffs.
It's
certainly
something
that
has
been
discussed
multiple
times
and
if
that
makes
sense
for
the
community,
then
that
can
be
the
thing
to
do.
I
did
have
one
community
that
turned
an
basically
debatable
working
group
where,
for
the
Boff
we
had
to
be
very
careful
about
having
it
during
the
European
IETF
that
was
meeting
in
Europe,
because
that's
when
that
community
could
make
it
and
it's
quite
possible
different
working
groups,
work
differently.
B
It's
based
on
the
community
and
you
can
get
the
right
pieces.
All
of
that
said.
One
of
the
errors
I
think
that
a
lot
of
proponents
come
in.
Is
they
think
that
if
their
initial
charter
or
what
they're
talking
about
doing
initially
isn't
everything
they
wanted
to
have
then
they're
not
succeeding
and
getting
the
working
group
that
they
need,
and
the
reality
is
that
if
you
have,
you
can
come
and
say
look
this
is
the
maps
and
GATS.
B
We
want
to
give
you
what
we
think
will
take
a
year
to
do,
and
then
you
see
how
well
it
goes
and
Edie's
in
general
tend
to
be
pretty
open
to
reach
are
during
working
groups
that
are
doing
well
right,
one
of
the
things
to
think
about
at
least
the
way
my
perspective
right
and
used
to
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
subjectivity.
One
of
the
things
to
think
about.
This
is
basically
it's
kind
of
like
interviewing
for
a
position
in
a
lot
of
ways:
you're
trying
to
convince
the
ad
this
I.
B
He
was
really
jet-lagged.
That's
like
it's
nothing,
but
basically,
when
you're
doing
this
you're
trying
to
get
an
88
to
decide
to
hire
you
either
to
be
a
proponent
of
the
group,
but
basically
are
saying
I
want
to
bring
this
work
in
and
I
can
make
it
succeed.
Okay,
and
so
they
need
to
trust
that
you're
able
to
listen
and
take
input
doesn't
matter
if
you're,
the
most
brilliant
person
in
the
world
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
them
here.
B
If
you
can't
work
with
others
and
take
input,
that's
gonna
be
a
red
flag
right
and
we
certainly
have
had
issues
with
that
kind
of
thing.
You
need
to
show
that,
even
if
you
can't
build
the
community
yourself,
because
everyone
comes
with
different
skill,
sets
that
you
can
reach
out
to
other
people
and
help
make
that
happen.
B
I
do
like
to
talk,
and
then
the
third
piece
is
that
you
actually
have
a
concrete
problem
that
you
understand
how
it
is
the
ietf
we
like
to
talk
about
the
technology
and
the
engineering,
and
sometimes
when
folks
come
in
with
too
much
I
won't
say
marketing
jargon.
But
that's
really
what
I
mean
right
if
you
come
in-
and
you
say
this
is
the
basic
I.
B
You
know
this
is
the
high
concept
and
so
on
that
people
can't
boil
it
down
to
what
you're
really
trying
to
solve,
and
people
who
talk
at
a
higher
at
that
kind
of
a
level
sometimes
don't
have
all
of
the
understanding
of
the
details.
So
one
of
the
questions
is:
can
you
talk
all
the
way
down
to
the
details?
It's
an
interview,
your
truck
you're
saying:
can
I
not
oh?
B
Not
only
can
you
hire
basically
hire
me
to
come
in
and
have
this
work
happening
in
the
IETF
and
there's
a
trust
piece
and
there's
a
I
know
what
I'm
talking
about,
and
this
is
really
needed
in
the
industry.
It's
a
persuasion,
piece
right.
It's
not
that's
part
of
why
the
process
is
subjective
because
it
depends
so
deeply
on
what
the
industry
scenarios
are.
B
B
Is
a
working
group
called
beer
and
they
came
in
with
a
radical
transformation
for
how
multicast
IP
forwarding
would
work
well,
MPLS
multicast,
as
it
turns
out
basically
MPLS
forwarding,
and
it
was
really
great
as
really
cool
technology
and
at
the
time
there
were
a
few
operators.
You
said
yeah,
this
looks
kinda
neat
I,
don't
know
if
we
deploy
it,
but
you
know
it's
a
neat
idea
right
and
in
this
case
it
was
coming
from
I
know.
Adrian.
Is
that
your
recollection
sorry.
B
B
It
was
a
bunch
of
folks
who
had
been
around
the
IETF
for
a
long
time,
so
they
didn't
have
sort
of
credibility
piece
to
do,
but
it
really
wasn't
clear
if
it
was
going
to
catch
on
in
the
industry,
and
so
in
that
case,
I
basically
made
the
call
and
we
charted
as
experimental
I
said,
look
I
hear
you.
This
is
really
cool,
but
if
it's
not
gonna,
be
as
if
it's
not
gonna
catch
on
and
be
used,
there's
no
point
in
having
it
be:
standards
track,
it'll,
just
mock
up
the
internet
architecture.
B
Let's
try
to
experimental
and
see
how
it
goes.
Last
thing
I
did
before
I
step
down.
His
ad
was
recharter
it
to
be
standards
track
all
of
their
drafts.
Now
our
standards
track
going
forward
right.
So
this
is
a
you
didn't
get
everything,
but
if
you
do
it,
you
prove
you're,
confident
you
build
the
industry
enthusiasm.
It
becomes
clear
that
this
is
a
good
thing
to
do
and
I
think
that
was
the
case
with
beer.
Another
one
was
Babel,
so
this
was
a
little
of
an
outside
community.
B
To
some
extent,
coming
in
Babel
is
an
open
source
project.
There's
another
working
group
home
net
that
really
likes
it.
It's
basically
an
evolved
drip,
but
the
question
was
okay.
This
isn't
being
pushed
by
any
of
the
major
vendors
major
audit
vendors,
but
there
is
a
community
here.
It's
an
open
source
community,
a
lot
of
folks
don't
come
to
the
IETF.
Can
we
try
and
get
work
done
anyway?
Can
we
get
work
done
on
the
mailing
list?
Can
we
be
open
to
let
it
work?
And
so
it's
going
it's
going
along
pretty.
B
Well,
it's
a
little
slower
than
I
had
hoped,
because
it
turns
out
that
when
you
have
volunteers,
it's
still
the
same
thing,
no
matter
what
community
they
come
from
right,
but
so
there's
ways
of
being
flexible
about
what
the
working
group
is
and
the
thing
that
the
thing
is.
The
reason
that
this
isn't
a
you
must
go
through
this
process
steps
in
order
to
do
it
is
because
each
working
group
proposal,
each
of
their
large
proposals,
is
different.
C
So
I
think
is
that,
with
this,
with
this
slide,
that
I'm,
showing
now
is
not
to
make
make
a
particular
set
of
proponents,
feel
bad
because
I
don't
want
to
do
that,
but
I
want
you
to
learn
from.
Is
that,
basically,
if
somebody
comes
in
with
a
hot
product
topic
and
comes
into
the
IETF
and
says
we
want
to
be
able
to
build
that
product,
which
is
what
you're
looking
at
here,
it's
very
difficult
for
the
IETF
to
know
what
to
do
with
that.
C
If
you've
done
the
maps
and
gaps
the
thing
and
say
well,
you
know
we
know
we're.
Gonna
have
to
have
transport
there,
but
we
think
that
TCP
will
be
good
enough
or
we
think
that
we
needed
to
use
SCTP
or
we
think
we
need
to
use
SCTP,
but
we
need
to
do
two
things
that
SCTP
doesn't
do
so
we
don't
need
to.
We
don't
need
a
cloud
transport
we
need
to.
We
need
two
extensions
to
SCTP
and
there's
a
working
group.
That
knows
how
to
do
that.
So
the
this
is.
C
C
E
C
Months,
nine
months
no
months
once
you've
been
off
the
ice
G
for
eight
months,
which
I
think
was
how
long
it's
been
since
alia
was
on
the
is
G.
You
start
to
see
things
more
clearly,
because
the
is
G
doesn't
change
very
much
from
week
to
week.
So
people
are
on
the
is
G,
don't
ever
notice,
but
looking
back
it
seems
like
the
is
G.
It
is
a
lot
more
open
to
consider.
C
Taking
taking
you
know,
taking
a
taking
a
taking
a
chance
on
something,
we've
talked
about
on
the
is
G.
We
talked
about
a
thing
called
fast
fast
charter
fast
fail
where
there,
instead
of
you
know
it
used
to
be
not
only
Adrienne,
is
exactly
right.
The
the
BCP
on
the
first
page
of
my
of
my
slides
never
never
required
to
pause,
and
it
still
doesn't
because
we
haven't
updated.
C
C
B
Were
talking
about
fast,
fast
work
in
your
charter
and
fast
fail
and
one
of
the
pieces
I
think
there's
it's
useful
to
think
about
the
balance
right
when
a
DS
charter
or
working
group,
when
you
charter
a
working
group,
what
you're
telling
the
King
there's
there's
a
cost
to
that
in
terms
of
how
much
attention
the
community
ends
up
paying
how
many
people
are
focusing
in
on
it.
Sometimes,
depending
upon
the
enthusiasm
around
the
working
group,
there
ends
up
being
press
and
stuff.
B
But
the
main
point
is
that
there's
a
feeling
I
think
from
a
lot
of
Adz
they're
sort
of
you.
You
want
to
make
sure
that
you're
chartering
things
that
are
reasonable
ideas
right
that
you're
not
going
to
cost
the
community
too
much
in
terms
of
people's
time
and
attention
on
things
that
are
just
not
well
formed
or
understood
or
gonna,
succeed
and
so
figure.
What
that
balance
is
between,
on
the
one
hand,
really
wanting
to
pull
in
new
work
and
continue
to
expand
and
grow
understanding,
and
it's
just
changing
what
the
internet
needs
is
changing.
B
Absolutely
you
need
to
do
that,
but
on
the
other
side,
if
you
pull
in
the
wrong
work,
which
is
to
say,
work
that
is
not
well
scoped
and
that
it's
very
possible
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
a
lot
of
people's
time
wasted
on
stuff
that
doesn't
actually
go
someplace.
And
so
the
question
is
to
have
a
charter
it
to
be
quick
to
6
to
get
chartered
what
sorry
I
said:
quick.
Oh
that's
fun!
You
twitch
what
I
say
quick
all.
C
Transport
area,
directors
twitch
a
little
bit
every
time
they
hear
the
word
quick,
but
just
since
I
got
the
microphone
anyway,
I
just
to
reinforce
something
that
alia
said
a
minute
ago,
which
is,
if
you
look
at
the
quick
charter,
a
quick
working
group
charter.
Now
it
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
are
named
as
explicitly
out
of
scope
for
what
the
work
that
they're
did
to
do
now.
C
One
is
Porsche,
reliability
and,
and
once
poured
error
correction,
so
they're,
basically
we're
saying
we
know
we
may
go
there,
but
adding
that
at
the
same
time
as
supporting
the
HTTP
protocol,
which
is
what
quic
is
chartered
to
do,
would
be
too
much
to
succeed
and-
and-
and
you
know-
and
this
this
working
group
was
ambitious
from
the
start.
So
saying
you
know
there
are
there
are
there?
Are
there
are
things
you
could
ask
me
to
do
as
the
chairs
the
chartering
ad?
There
are
things
you
can
ask
me
to
do
that.
C
I,
don't
believe,
can
succeed
now,
but
that
it
doesn't
make
them
a
bad
idea
that
it
doesn't
mean
I,
wouldn't
consider
them
in
the
future.
Please
deliver
the
first
version
and
and
then
we'll
talk
and
very
much
what
Ali
was
saying
about.
You
know,
deliver
the
experimental
version
and
get
you
know,
get
a
little
understanding
of
what's
going
on
and
then
we'll
talk.
B
B
C
E
I
think
it's
it's
a
really
useful
subject
to
cover
in
a
tutorial,
but
I'm
think
newcomers
struggle
because
they
are
engineers
and
they
do
need
a
process
to
follow
and
that
you
say
yeah,
it's
it's
a
dark
art,
it's
not
a
strict
process.
It
is
clear,
but
it
doesn't
really
help
because
we're
engineers
we
need
to
follow
a
process.
So
I
have
a
proposal
which
is.
Would
you
like
to
turn
this
slide
set
into
a
flow
chart.
E
Possibly
with
lots
of
lines
and
arrows,
and
possibly
actually
relatively
simple,
so
it's
a
sequence
of
think
about
this
think
about
that
make
a
decision
move
on
think
about
something
else.
Make
a
decision
that
takes
you
into
a
general
area
of
this
is
the
type
of
way
you're
introducing
new
work,
your
piece
of
new
work,
because
this
is
its
size
and
scope,
and
this
is
the
way
you're
likely
to
be
received.
E
C
I'm
holding
the
mic
now
so
let
me
enter
and
then
you
you
can
give
your
answer.
But
my
answer,
my
answer
is
not
before
March
for
me
because
giving
giving
getting
sitting
area
directors
to
do
anything
at
all
is
the
same
thing
as
getting
sitting
area
register
to
do
anything
at
all,
but
this
this
seems
interesting.
If
it
is
obviously
non-deterministic,
you
know.
Basically
it's
like
you
know.
Well,
you
know
I
mean
they
said
this
is
this.
Is
this?
Is
next
top
routing
right?
You
know.
So
it's
like
you
know,
you're.
C
Here
you
fight,
you
can
sure,
what's
up
what
your
offense
your
weight
here
somehow,
but
there's
not
like
a
flowchart
of
the
internet,
saying
where
the
packets
go.
You
know
so
I
think
I
think
that's
what
we're
talking
about
it
and
is
if
it
stays
obvious
that
it's
a
lot
of
judgment
is
involved,
but
hopefully
not
too
much
or
a
lot
of
judgment
is
involved,
but
it's
reasonable
or
a
lot
of
judgment
is
involved,
but
there's
a
conversation
that's
happening.
This
seems
like
this
seems
like
a
helpful
thing
to
do.
B
Seriously,
I'm
happy
to
help
I
guess,
to
my
mind:
they're.
Basically,
this
falls
into
one.
You
want
a
standard,
build
a
community
who
also
cares
about
it
and
define
what
you're
actually
doing,
and
it
needs
to
be
in
that
order,
because
you
can
come
up
with
an
idea,
but
once
you've
got
the
community
what
you're
actually
going
to
end
up
doing
ends
up
being
different,
and
all
of
the
rest
of
this
is
the
nuances
of
that.
B
Another
slides
are
definitely
I,
guess
the
other
pieces,
as
we
said
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation.
You
know.
Spencer
and
I
are
up
here
talking
about
this,
because
we
really
care
about
bringing
new
work
in
and
we
we
know
that
this
can
seem
capricious
and
dark
and
unclear
and
having
been
part
of
the
decision-making
process,
it's
still
Spencer
genetic.
C
That
was
a
revision
of
the
previous
version
of
that
best,
current
practice,
which
the
only
that
I
mean
like
if
you,
the
that
that
revision
changed
things
in
Section
two
that
were
like
the
IAB
used
to
approve
all
the
working
groups
after
the
isg
approved
them.
That's
how
far
back
it's
been
since
you
know,
since
we've
revised
this
stuff.
Okay,
so
like,
if
you
know,
if
you
don't
like
yeah,
if
you
do
this,
this,
the
the
the
Star
Trek
reference
is
the
Kobayashi
Maru,
which
is,
if
you
don't
like
the
simulation
change
reprogram
it.
C
G
D
So,
just
on
the
daunting
side
of
like
coming
up
to
speed,
you
know
some
individuals
in
the
organization
have
this
habit
of
saying
you
know
here's
a
thousand
pages
of
material
go
through
here
and
figure
out
what
you
and
you
know,
go
away
and
don't
come
back
and
so
I
would
very
much
support.
You
know
something
that
you
know
and.
A
D
Talked
about
Dave
Walter
Meyer
about
this
that
I've
written
my
first
draft
I've
submitted
it.
You
know
working
out
some
of
these
processes
and
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
I'm
gonna
make
a
little
vignette
videos
for
YouTube
they
go
through
and
says
you
want
to
write
your
first
draft.
Here's
what
you
need
to
do!
Here's,
how
you
do
it!
D
Here's
the
tools
you
need
to
do,
make
it
really
simple:
three
minutes
max
you're,
you're
up
and
going
and
I
just
know,
because
I
do
a
lot
of
work
in
other
SDOs
and
everyone
has
its
quirks
and
everyone
has
its
little
things
and
ideas.
One
way
and
I
Triple
E
is
another
way
whatever,
but
it
would
really
help
if
there
was
some
really
clean
and
crisp.
D
You
know
information
and,
like
you
know,
from
my
standpoint,
from
the
work
that
I'm
you
know
bringing
we
have
a
community,
a
very
large
community,
already
that
we
did
six
months
of
work
before
we
came
to
the
IETF.
You
know
weekly
meetings,
so
it's
just
I'm,
not
just
trying
to
figure
out
like
how
do
you,
like
you
know
this
fast,
like
create
pass/fail
awesome,
like
you
have
12
months
to
like
produce
your
first
milestone
and
if
you
don't
you're
at
you,
know,
you're
you're
cut
off
so.
C
I
joined
the
IRS
G
when
I
was
strolling
the
IB,
so
some
number
like
2012,
and
the
deal
was
basically
that
Laura's
Eggert,
who
was
the
IRT
F
chair
at
the
time,
was
getting
proposals
that
looked
an
awful
lot
like
they
should
have
gone
to
the
IETF.
You
know
it's
like
we
have
prototypes.
We
had
milestones,
we
you
know
and
he's
like
this
isn't
research.
You
know
you
know
how
to
do
this.
C
You
know
so
basically
that
the
reason
I
wrote
whichever
it
was
it's
in
the
slides,
but
whichever
RC
74
18
I
think
it
is.
There
was
a
primer
for
the
IETF
participants
who
thought
were
thinking
about
the
IRT
F.
They
say
you
know.
These
are
the
differences.
Okay,
but
one
of
the
things
that
happened
as
a
result
of
that
was
after
Laura's
spent
time.
C
Looking
at
a
lot
of
proposals
and
Loras
was
a
past
area
director,
he
was
actually
a
past
transport
area.
Director
like
I
am
now
so
he
had.
You
know
kind
of
the
ITF
view
of
the
way
you
consider
new
work
and
after
about
a
year
as
ITA
I
RTF
chair,
he
said
forget
it
I'm
going
to
basically
say
you
get
a
you,
you
know
you
get
rooms
and
you
get
a
mailing
list
and
you
get
a
year.
C
You
know,
if
you
can,
if
you
can
assemble
a
research
community
and
start
you
know
looking
like
a
research
group,
then
you
must
be
one
and
if
you
can't
do
that
with
a
year
head
start
and
the
resources
that
I
have
to
give
you,
you
probably
don't
need
to
be
a
research
group
bie.
The
is
GE
has
heard
that
and
we've
talked
about
Reese's,
that
that
might
not
be
the
right
thing
to
do
for
the
IETF,
because
we
know
what
we're
talking
about
is
engineering
stuff.
C
So
we
should
have
some
confidence
that
things
are
going
to
work
that
they
can
be
engineered.
But
you
know
the
light
if
you,
how
many
of
you
all
know
what
the
I,
what
the
internet
looked
like
in
1994
when
this
one
this
was
when
this
the
last
time
these
process
documents
were
revved
in
this
section,
because
that.
C
Yeah,
yeah,
okay,
okay,
so
this
so
that's
the
technology
is
the
technology
of
our
BCP.
Okay.
So
have
we
learned
anything
about
networks
in
the
past?
In
you
know,
mumble
years
I
can't
I
struggle
with
math,
even
when
I'm
awake,
but
have
we
learned
anything
about
engineering
since
networks
since
then?
Yes,
have
we
learned
anything
about
standardizing
them
since
then
and
I
think
that's
I
think
it's
a
really
good
question.
Do
that
that
the
community
can
be
talking
about.
B
But
also
to
your
point,
so
one
of
the
things
we
said
earlier
in
the
presentation
was
that
area
directors
depend
a
lot
on
the
proponents
to
do
a
lot
of
the
work,
and
while
it
can
be
very
tempting
to
be
like,
oh
I'm,
being
told
to
go,
read
this
large
quantity
of
that's
not
necessarily
a
go
away
message.
That
sometimes,
is
a.
B
D
I
personally
took
it
as
a
denial
of
service
when
one
of
the
individuals
that
told
me
to
go
off
and
read
RFC,
you
know
X
Y
Z
was
the
author
of
said.
Rfc
and
I
have
proposed
my
ideas
of
what
I
wanted
to
do
and
they
said
well,
you
need
to
go,
read
this
and
find
the
gaps
and
I'm
like
well,
you
wrote
the
document.
Could
you
potentially
just
you
know,
help
me
along
and
the
answer
was
just
no
yeah.
C
Well,
well,
it's
like
the
the
truth
is
always
appropriate.
You
may
quote
Spencer
I
wanted
to
say
something
about
this,
which
is
basically
that
recent
IAS
she's
going
back
to
when
alia,
was
on
and
I.
Think
even
I
could
make
a
case
for
even
back
when
Adrian
was
on,
have
been
trying
to
give
people
more
tools
rather
than
saying
come
in,
come
back
perfect
or
don't
come
back
basically,
and
you
know
so,
and
we've
made
changes
it
a
lot.
You
know
a
lot
of
changes
recently,
they're
they're
small
tactical
changes.
C
Do
we
need
to
change
something
strategically?
That's
an
interesting
conversation
to
have
with
the
community,
because
the
community
is
the
one
that
would
really
make
that
that
that
decision,
not
the
ivy
or
the
iesg,
but
so
like
I,
said
I.
Won't.
You
know
if
there
other
tools
that
we
need
to
be
providing.
Let's
talk
about
those
also
the
IEP
and
the
isg
meet
together
during
the
first
tutorial
slice
and
it
actually
the
way
we
was
scheduled
now
a
little
bit
of
the
second
one.
C
So,
like
I
said,
I'm
serious
I
walked
out
at
the
lunch,
but
I
didn't
know
that
we
were
doing
the
ITF
overview
as
a
webinar.
We
didn't
do
that.
We
didn't
do
that
for
a
hundred
I
eat
EF
meetings
in
a
row,
but
then
we
did
you
know
things
can't
change
around
here
and
not
just
the
technology
tell
us
what
we
need
to
change.
We
can
talk.
B
C
The
the
that
was
a
perfect
response
to
the
question,
except
for
the
part
that
you
didn't
say,
look
for
the
orange
dots
on
the
badges,
which
would
tell
you
who
the
NomCom
voting
them,
who
the
NomCom
members
are
Alya
I've
never
been
on,
come
as
a
voting.
Member
I
was
the
IAB
leza
liaison
in
2011
aleeah's,
a
voting
member,
so
you're
talking
to
1/9
of
the
voting
population
of
the
nominating
committee
so
so
like.
If
she
tells
you
that
they
she
tells
you
that
she
would
like
to
have
more
input.
That's
something
to
consider.
B
Yeah
in
the
usual
kind
of
feedback
right,
smart
actionable
details
under
you
know
not
just
oh
yeah
he's
a
great
guy.
He
shook
my
hand
in
the
hallway,
that's
not
actually
very
meaningful,
or
he
didn't
turn
and
run
when
I
said
hi
I
mean
those
are
nice
to
know
basic
functionality,
but
if
you
can
actually
give
anecdotes
or
specific
pieces,
everything
in
NomCom
is
confidential
and
you
know
we
have
people
who
understand
security.
So
it's
very
confidential.