►
From YouTube: IETF103-EXTRA-20181108-1350
Description
EXTRA meeting session at IETF103
2018/11/08 1350
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/proceedings/
A
C
D
B
To
the
extra
session
we
expect
going
to
finish
early,
given
the
the
length
of
time
we
have
in
there
positive
material
that
showed
up
for
this
one,
but
who
knows
how
long
I'm
at
4
M
2
will
take,
or
we
have
the
note
well
reminder
of
code
of
conduct
based
on
discussions
yesterday
in
the
plenary.
It's
a
good
time
to
remind
everybody
that
well
you're
quite
welcome
to
attack
ideas,
don't
attack
people,
oh.
B
E
B
B
F
B
C
This
working
group
is
very
good
and
very
productive
and
we
usually
fingers
girls,
don't
get
discusses
on
documents
we
do
have.
However,
I
get
some
comments,
so
the
document
safe
date
is
held
in
Point
Reyes
right
up
needed,
meaning
that
basically
I'm
waiting
for
it
to
go
through
comments
and
say
yes
or
no
I,
think
Stephin
actually
went.
He
replied,
but
he
didn't
post
a
new
version.
So
yeah.
G
B
A
C
B
C
A
C
C
A
F
C
Yes,
so
action
so
on
this
one.
There
were
two
comments
that
I
raised:
trying
to
implement
it,
one
about
use
of
optional
tags.
It
looks
like
consensus
from
people
who
are
interested
that
yeah.
We
should
ideally
use
a
tag,
but
it's
okay,
not
to
use
it.
If
so,
net
thought
that
was
okay
and
Jim
Schowalter
thought
that
well
we
can
relax
the
requirement
to
use
tags
to
should
and
yeah.
C
E
C
B
B
C
C
B
C
D
C
C
C
B
C
C
D
I
think
examples
will
help.
I.
Also
think
explanatory
text
will
help
I
think
the
it's
not
the
original
text
in
IMAP
was
not
very
explanatory,
just
say:
here's
what
you
do
bla
and
that
was
it
and
then
it
expected
you
to
go
to
the
a
BNF
and
figure
it
out.
So
I
think.
If
we
run
through
some
more
pros,
it
will
help
sure.
C
The
other
thing
is
what
they
typically
do
is.
There
is
a
big
example
that
shows
moderately
complicated
message
with
MS
body-part
numbering,
which
does
help
a
little
bit,
but
you
know
every
time:
I
have
a
bug.
I
go
to
this
example.
Then
I
check
what
Syrus
is
doing
and
that's
not
ideal.
We
really
need
to
have
enough
text
or
actually
to
be
able
to
extract
this
information.
Yeah.
C
D
I
also
think
that
putting
text
into
all
of
this
stuff,
just
pointing
out
that
you
can't
put
extra
blank
spaces
in
and
that
kind
of
stuff
will
help
because
people,
even
though
the
grammar,
if
you
read
the
grammar
carefully,
it
makes
it
clear
that
no
blanks
are
allowed
people
just
assume
that
in
between
parentheses,
you
can
put
blanks
yeah
and
they,
and
then
they
have
buggy
implementations.
So
I
think
we
need
to
put
words
in
that
make
that
very
clear
so
that
people
don't
trip
over
it.
Yeah.
A
C
Sure
the
other
thing
sort
of
related
to
body
structure
is,
we
probably
need
more
examples
of
body.
Part
of
mine
body,
part
dot
header,
because
again,
this
is
another
thing
that
I
always
use
my
own
server
or
Cyrus
to
test
against
to
see
what
the
behaviors,
because
in
some
case
for
some
body,
part
types
they
equivalent
and
for
others,
they
produce
entirely
different
results.
So
again,
probably
more
clarification.
More
examples
will
be
helped.
Yeah.
I
G
I
C
C
D
I
D
I
D
C
C
D
C
C
C
B
D
C
B
F
C
D
Right
and
so
the
part
of
the
question
is
a:
do.
Clients
actually
use
that
and
B
do.
We
want
to
say
we're
gonna
make
it
a
really
complicated
crap
for
the
server,
so
that
the
client
has
an
easy
way
to
archive
the
inbox.
I,
don't
know
I
hope,
that's
what
we
have
now,
but
it
is
what
we
have
now.
So
maybe
the
default
is.
We
just
have
to
keep
it
the
way
it
is,
and
oh
well.
C
C
C
B
G
D
G
D
D
C
Using
the
search
result
in
other
commands,
you
can
do
sub
search
by
including
it
in
other
the
more
complicated
search
you
can
fetch
or
copy
move.
You
know
delete.
You
know
whatever
I'm
sort
of
of
two
minds
about
this
I
thought
it
was
fairly
useful
because
I
am
one
of
the
co-authors
and
then
there
are
specific
cases
where
you
sort
of
want
to
do
automation
that
thing
in
interactive
clients.
It's
probably
less
useful,
but
I
would
like
to
hear
what
people
think
about
this.
D
B
D
C
B
C
H
B
C
B
B
C
C
J
C
B
I
will
take
an
action
to
email.
They
do
various
IMAP
related
mailing
lists
that
still
exist
out
there.
They
are
met.
Protocol
yeah
I'll,
send
a
send
an
overall
message
to
every
we're
saying
he's
what
we're
discussing
and
then
and
then
yeah
come
to
extra.
If
you
want
to
discuss
the
individual
items,
cool.
B
B
Right
back
to
snippet
slash
preview,
the
new
draft
was
posted
the
other
day.
Has
anyone
had
a
chance
to
read
through
it?
Yet
sorry,
I
haven't
either
do
do.
One
question
I
had
was
whether
200
characters
is
enough,
whether
we
should
say
that
the
server
can
do
up
to
255,
which
will
align
it
with
J
map
and
is
a
power
of
2
ish
number
rather
than
a
random
number
I.
Think.
D
J
Yeah
I
I
do
think
there
is
a
small
battle
looming
using
empower
2-1
in
which,
if
you're
storing
affixed
your
records
and
fixed
sizes,
new
allocating
size
for
the
preview,
you're
probably
gonna,
want
it
to
be
a
power
of
2.
It's
unlikely
I,
give
you
the
the
J.
My
respect
simply
says
it
can't
be
more
than
that.
It's
not
saying
it
has
to
be
long.
D
J
B
B
All
right
seems
special
use.
We've
already
discussed
a
little
bit.
Yeah,
everyone
seems
happened
with
the
feedback
and
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
submit
that
for
publication
after
today's
meeting.
Unless
anyone
has
during
any
objections,
all
right,
you've
been
told,
go,
go,
go,
go,
let's
go
right
up
there.
First
64-bit,
we
decided
to
put
it
away
before.
Do
we
say
it's
all
too
hard
and
labored,
or
do
we
want
to
revive
64-bit.
E
B
J
J
J
D
J
This
is
nearly
an
in-game
app.
The
server
doesn't
have
to
implement
more
than
32
bits,
because
that
would
I
don't
think,
there's
anywhere
where
it
has
to
accept
something
about
that
big.
It's
just
that
it
must
not
return
something
more
than
53
bits
in
that,
because
it
may
not
be
presentable
in
clients
or
it's
not
guaranteed,
to
be.
B
A
F
C
B
B
C
D
D
E
D
H
D
Exist
anymore,
so
so
yeah
right,
because
23
21
and
23
22
were
proposed
to
n,
so
they're
draft
standard
doesn't
exist
anymore.
We
can't
elevate
it
to
internet
standard
because
of
edits
that
need
to
be
done
so
yeah
I
think
we
should
attack
those
mine.
We
can
just
fluff
on
because
there
is
no
internet
standard
version
of
mine.
Yet
so,
while
we
would
like
to
take
mine
to
internet
standard,
we
don't
have
to.
C
H
D
Can
certainly
ask
the
working
group
if
it
would
rather
recharter
or
spin
off
another
working
group,
but
I
mean
that
people
can
come
and
go
and
the
people
who
don't
want
to
work
on
it
don't
have
to
work
on
it
and
people
who
didn't
want
to
work
on
this
crap
but
do
want
to
work
on
that
will
show
up
yeah.
So
the
main
thing
is
I
think
we
need
to
loop
in
John
cleansin,
discuss
that
with
him,
but
Pete.
J
D
H
D
The
problem
just
a
little
background
before
he
comes
out
there
just
a
little
background
for
the
people
that
weren't
here
at
the
time
we've
tried
a
couple
of
times
to
do
this,
and
one
of
them
was
an
experiment
that
we
said
we
are
going
to
write
a
contract
with
the
iesg
in
advance.
That
says
this
is
gonna,
be
tight
work,
it's
gonna,
get
done
very
nothing
and
don't
make
us
update
things
that
we
that
we
don't
want
to
update
like
don't
make
us
conform
to
current
standards
of
how
we
do
this
stuff.
C
K
K
The
only
reason
that
I
grumbled
in
the
back
is
the
there
is
no
longer
serious
difference
in
overhead
between
reach
our
Turing
and
making
a
new
working
group,
and
the
only
advantage
to
making
a
new
working
group
is
it's
a
separate
mailing
list
and
therefore,
if
some
people
want
to
participate
on
one
and
not
the
other,
they
can
do
that
and
likely
I'm
going
subscribe
to
both,
because
all
I
have
to
do
is
subscribe
to
it.
With
my
IMAP
client
on
the
ietf,
IMAP
server
and
I
can
read
them
or
not.
D
D
H
D
To
somebody
who
does
so
yeah
anyway,
I
think
we
should
just
bring
it
to
the
list
and
see
what
people
think
and
make
sure
that
cleanses
copy
what
I
got
up
for
was
a
bit
of
a
digression
on
stuff.
So
we
want
to
think
about
it
and
in
any
other
business
I
wanted
to
talk
about
what
Braun
said
at
the
plenary
last
night
was
I.
Think
it's
worth
it
a
few.
A
few
words
see
he
brought
up
what
happened
in
Montreal
with
the
people
who
came
with
the
client,
ID,
stuff
and
I
know.
D
I
particularly
was
aggressive
about
telling
them
I
thought
it
was
a
bad
idea
for
the
following
reasons
and
we've
been
through
this
before,
and
they
kept
pushing
back
and
I
kept
pushing
back
and
I.
Don't
remember
whether
other
people
pushed
back
also,
but
yes,
they.
They
definitely
left
with
the
impression
that
we
were
telling
him
to
go.
The
away
and
I
certainly
was
not
intending
to
tell
them
that
and
I.
Don't
know
that
other
people
were
either,
but
that's
the
that's
the
feeling
I'm
sure
they
got
do.
B
D
H
B
D
I
John,
as
I
said
yesterday
fairly
well,
because
he's
he's
been
he's
one
of
these
little
cottage
email
providers
has
been
around
forever
yeah.
You
know
and
I
think
it
was
mostly
unfortunate.
I
think
he
kind
of
didn't
understand
how
limited
his
understanding
was
and
and
I
think
this
sort
of
goes
back
to
beam
up.
You
know,
I
wish
there
were
like
an
orientation
core.
You
know
it's
sort
of
like
before
you
get
into
the
pool.
You
have
to
take
a
shower
yeah,
it
would
be
nice
if
there
are
some
way.
I
B
D
H
D
It
was
not
productive,
maybe
they
were
talking
past
me
and
I
didn't
catch
it,
but
I
was
definitely
talking
past
them.
Yes,
yeah
and
somebody
pointed
out
it
might
have
been
John
that
last
night,
that
just
because
you
are
passionate
about
your
idea
and
you
speak
well
about
it
doesn't
mean
it
isn't
a
bad
idea.
Yeah
so
I
don't
know,
but.
H
D
B
Looking
back
at
my
experience
of
it
because
I
was
talking
to
them
via
email
before
they
came
to
the
meeting,
maybe
I
didn't
make
it
clear
enough
that
what
they
needed
to
present
was
a
technical
argument,
not
a
sales
pitch,
because
they
came
in
with
a
sales
pitch
and
I
felt
quite
bad
for
them
that
they
they
came
in
with
the
wrong
expectations,
and
maybe
I
could
have
done
a
better
job
of
setting
their
expectations
before
they
arrived.
This.
D
C
C
D
I
D
J
B
D
Went
from
promoting
this
as
a
security
measure
to
promoting
it
as
a
way
to
get
more
adoption
of
dkm
and
Demark
by
giving
it
an
encouragement
to
do
it
and
given
the
if
that
were
the
only
emphasis
there
if
they
were
only
selling
it
as
a
we'll
get
your
logo
in
front
of
people.
If
you
implement
Deacon
I
wouldn't
be
worried,
I'm
worried
because
there's
still
the
undercurrent
of
this
being
a
security
solution
and.
G
E
C
Comment,
I
have
just
with
no
hats,
I
think
that
things
like
various
governments,
like
UK
and
US
government's
Monday
gingy
mark
probably
have
bigger
effect
and
I-
think
there
is
way
more
to
mark
deployments
because
of
this.
So
it
feels
like
there
is
actually
much
more
critical
mass
these
days,
so
it
doesn't
need
an
extra
portion.