►
From YouTube: IETF104-WGLUNCH-20190326-1230
Description
WGLUNCH meeting session at IETF104
2019/03/26 1230
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/proceedings/
A
B
F
D
D
D
Lead
everybody
in
a
moment
of
silence.
Okay,
we
about
ready,
excellent,
so
I'd
like
to
work.
Welcome
you
to
the
working
group
chairs
forum
here
at
IETF
104,
the
co-chairs
of
the
edgy
team,
currently
Miriam,
Kuhn
and
I.
The
first
thing
I
wanted
to
do
is
actually
to
publicly
thank
her,
because
I
have
no
other
opportunity
to
do
this
for
over
15
years
of
working
in
the
edgy
team
and
it's
she
has
done
us
a
great
service
and
we
owe
her
some
gratitude.
So
I'd,
like
a
round
of
applause
for
Mary.
D
Will
say
it's
sort
of
an
example
of
how
you
end
up
doing
things
in
the
IETF
I
went
to
a
boss
that
she
was
chairing,
I
could
have
sworn
I
said.
I
would
take
the
minutes
and
the
next
thing
what
I
had
actually
said
was
I
would
co-chair
Reggie
with
her,
which
I
don't
actually
recall
ever
saying,
but
that's
okay.
D
So
anyway,
this
is
the
working
group
chairs
forum,
it's
still
part
of
the
IETF.
Here's
our
note.
Well,
our
agenda
for
today
we're
gonna
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
working
group
chair,
design,
training,
working
group,
chair
training,
design
team,
which
is
looking
at
the
organization
and
content
of
all
of
our
training
materials
for
working
group
chairs,
we're
going
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
talking
about
the
agenda,
time,
experiment
and
also
just
scheduling
in
general,
and
then
we're
going
to
have
an
open
mic.
So
with
that
I
would
like
Francesca.
I
I
So
the
goal
of
this
design
team
is
to
perform
an
inventory
of
the
existing
training
material,
such
as
an
including
website
data,
tracker,
wiki,
etc.
Our
first
goal
is
to
map
the
gaps
in
this
material
and
to
gather
ideas
for
how
and
where
the
material
should
be
organized
and
also
to
identify
any
ideas
for
filling
the
gaps.
I
This
is
the
set
of
inventory
we
have
done
so
far,
so
we
have
gone
through
all
of
these
or
most
of
these
and
make
a
summary
of
what
is
there?
What
is
not
there?
What
we
would
have
liked
to
see
in
general.
As
a
summary,
we
think
that
there
is
a
lot
of
information
that
can
be
found
in
all
of
these
places.
I
So
I
just
wanted
to
focus
on
on
two
particular
resources
that
we
looked
at.
We
we
thought
these
were
the
most
important
and
with
most
information
in
it,
one
is
the
working
group
chair,
resources
that
are
at
ATF
dot,
org,
slash
chairs,
and
this
page
links
several
resources
about
procedure
and
tools
and
is
really
for
anybody
not
only
for
working
of
chairs,
and
there
is
a
section
there
about
new
chair
resources,
which
has
a
link
to
the
wiki.
I
Second,
is
the
wiki,
so
the
working
group
chairs
wiki,
which
is
a
great
place
to
start
for
new
chairs
and
some
information
is
links,
are
updated.
Some
information
is
missing
and
it's
way
more
info
than
just
as
a
new
working.
Your
chair,
you
would
want
to
see.
So
there
is
a
lot
of
details
there,
as
well,
so
just
to
go
through
the
wiki
a
bit
more
in
detail
here.
At
listed,
so
the
the
main
bullets
are
the
sections
in
the
wiki's
and
the
sub
bullet
are
what
we
thought
are
gaps.
I
So
there
is
an
introduction.
We
would
like
to
see
a
new
section
this,
so
this
is
a
gap
about
obligations
and
responsibilities
for
work,
working
group
chairs.
That
is
missing
right
now.
There
is
a
section
about
rules,
so
so
we
in
there
we
would
like
to
see
maybe
a
summary
of
what
a
new
working
group
chair
must
read.
That's
a
BCPs
and
and
references
then
about
tools.
I
We
identified
some
some
some
more
gaps
like
info
and
links
to
meeting
material
management,
medical
jabber
and
leather
pad
are
now
missing
text
on
how
to
use
them
for
for
people
who
have
not
seen
those
before
and
links
to
mailing
list,
archives,
eating's
and
and
this
useful
link
would
have
been
good
to
help
there.
Then
there
is
a
section
about
known
tools
and
there
it
would
have
been
nice
to
have
some,
inter
about
how
to
plan
and
run
a
meeting
consensus
and
the
role
of
the
chair
in
between
meetings.
I
I
I
So
you
can
help
you
can
identify
more
gaps,
anything
we
have
missed,
so
we
have
Google
Drive
folder
when
we
have
a
document
called
caps
and
there
we
have
listed
anything
that
brainstorming,
whatever
we
think
yeah.
If
we
couldn't
find
information
about-
or
you
can
also
send
to
the
chairs
mailing
list-
or
you
can
also
contact
me
and
and
be
part
of
the
of
the
design
team
and
and
participating
in
trade
calls
as
well.
J
Seven
there
we
go
so
two
things.
First,
I
didn't
see
on
your
list
of
materials
that
you
had
already
looked
at
I
know
the
routing
area
directors
have
been
running,
a
working
group,
sort
of
sessions,
training
sessions,
I've,
know
I
participated
in
one
and
they've
got
recordings
of
I
think
if
not
all
of
them
a
lot
of
them,
so
that
might
actually
be
a
good
source
of
material
that.
J
I
D
K
K
L
K
L
G
Hi
we
have
things
that
we've
been
discussing
in
the
isg
that
I'd
like
to
have
bring
up
here.
One
is
the
free
time,
the
the
the
unstructured
time
and
what
the
hell
that
has
affected
scheduling,
there's
been
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
that
and
I
just
I.
Don't
really
have
much
to
say
about
it.
I'd
like
to
turn
this
to
you
and
say:
let's
have
a
discussion
for.
G
Please
come
to
the
microphone
and
talk
to
me
about
this
for
right
now
and
while
nobody's
getting
up
to
the
microphone
I'll
say
the
experimenting
with
this
unstructured
time
in
different
ways,
by
putting
it
on
Friday
in
Bangkok
and
putting
it
on
Wednesday
here
has
been
the
result
of
comments
from
people
saying
they
needed
the
unstructured
time.
It
may
be
that
non-working
group,
chair
participants
and
working
group
chairs
have
a
different
view
of
the
need
for
this
and
how
it
affects
your
working
groups.
M
Rich
salt
I'm
curious
because
this
seems
to
have
been
a
concern
of
the
iesg
growing
but
non
constant
drumbeat
over
the
past
times
and
I
know
you're
on
and
off
the
I
is
GC.
You
may
not
know,
but
I'd
like
to
know
where
they're
getting
the
input
or
hearing
that
this
is
coming
from,
may
be
divided
between
chairs
and
non
chairs
or
other
or
the
people.
I.
Just
I
hadn't
heard
much
of
a
request
from
that,
or
seen
much
of
a
request
for
that
in
the
little
area
where
I
work
so
I'm
just
curious.
G
K
So,
in
terms
of
like
the
between
last
time
and
this
time,
we
based
the
decision
to
try
this
try
some
experimenting
with
unstructured
time
again
off
of
the
hf
103
survey,
showing
like
two-thirds
of
people
who
filled
out
the
survey,
thought
that
unstructured
time
could
be
valuable
midweek.
So
we
put
some
on
structor
time
in
the
agenda
midweek
prior
to
that,
though,
before
the
103
experiment,
I
think
it
was
more
ad
hoc,
we
had
mailing
list
discussion
in
various
places.
N
Hi
Tommy
Polly,
so
I
think
as
far
as
the
experiment
come
last
time
to
this
time,
it
certainly
seems
to
be
that
the
Wednesday
location
is
going
to
be
more
successful,
based
on
what
I've
seen
of
people
scheduling
things
in
various
groups
and
I.
Think
as
both
a
chair
and
a
participant,
I
think
this
unstructured
time
is
looking
to
be
very
valuable.
N
It
to
some
degree
means
that
your
week
gets
even
more
filled
up,
but
these
are
useful
things
so
in
one
example
like,
as
a
chair
I've,
it's
nice
to
have
these
outlets
for
things
that
would
otherwise
become
rat
holes
and
take
up
a
lot
of
time
in
the
group
to
have
focused
areas,
go
off
and
meet
and
be
able
to
come
back
and
report.
That
seems
to
be
a
very
valuable
thing
and
also
as
a
contributor
to
a
working
group,
I've
I
have
a
site
meeting
that
we're
doing.
N
O
Requests
for
unstructured
time
were
happening
like
in
these
working
group
chairs
meetings
and
at
the
plenary.
It
was
it's
something
that
has
been
asked
for
quite
a
lot.
I
have
individual
comment
that
I'd
like
to
throw
and
I
think
that
the
ability
to
assess
the
experiments
would
be
enhanced.
It
would
be
easier
to
understand
whether
things
are
working
or
not.
If
and
it
would
be
easier
for
people
to
take
advantage
of
it
if
the
shape
of
the
experiment
at
any
given
meeting
were
telegraphed
earlier
than
it
has
been
so
far.
P
So
I
think
yeah.
The
first
thing
that
should
happen
is
that
we
should
decide
what
we're
experimenting
with
write
that
down
and
then
write
a
report
on
it.
So
we
can
see
there
is
the
results,
because
I
think
it's
supposed
to
be
reports
for
experiments
that
we
run
on
process
in
the
IETF.
Just
like
some
I
recommend
of
the
process.
P
This
has
been
better
than
the
previous
one.
The
previous
one
either
gave
people
a
day
off
to
do
some
tourism
between
that
and
the
I
Triple
E
meeting
that
followed,
or
it
gave
people
the
opportunity
to
sort
of
leave
halfway
through
Thursday.
That
was
a
disastrous
way
of
doing
it.
In
my
view,
I
think
we
understand
that.
P
Yes,
this
one
is
a
bit
better
because
actually
it's
quite
tiny
because
of
the
unstructured
time,
there's
a
really
first
class
tutorial
that
anyone
who
ever
wants
to
know
what
a
Rooter
looks
like
and
the
implications
that
has
on
their
work
should
probably
go
to
so
we're
kind
of
you
we're
really
only
down
to
about
two
hours
of
unstructured
time
if
we
start
to
put
to
talk
decent
tutorials
in
the
first
half
of
that
remaining
time.
However,
I
am
really
worried
about
the
number
of
overlaps.
P
Why
can't
we
do
some
decent
big
data
collection
like
who
was
at
which
meetings
who
is
writing,
which
drafts
and
what
the
overlap
set
really
is,
as
opposed
to
what
happens
at
the
moment.
The
chairs
guess
the
ADEs
sort
of
sometimes
guess
a
bit
more
for
them,
but
not
always,
and
the
net
result
is
that
lots
of
people
who
should
be
in
the
same
room
at
the
same
time,
art,
and
so
we
don't
do
the
work.
We
should
do.
G
Don't
sit
down,
Stewart
I
have
a
question
for
you
on
the
second
thing
you
said:
okay,
do
you
think,
do
you
have
any
okay?
Is
it
you?
Is
it
a
perception
or
if
you
actually
looked
at
your
schedule
now
I
know
there
are
several
working
groups
where
there
are
two
I
believe
I
believe
that
what
I'm
asking
is.
Is
it
demonstrably
worse
this
time
because
of
the
unstructured
time
than
it
has
been
at
other
meetings?
That's
the
question.
P
Advantage
of
that-
and
the
really
fundamental
thing
here
is
the
face-to-face
time.
There's
many
non
structured
times
available.
There
are
four
evenings
at
least
there
are
lots
of
lunch
hours.
You
know,
we've
always
managed
to
work
the
unstructured
time
within
the
unscheduled
time,
in
the
normal
format
of
the
meeting,
so
I
have
not
quantified
whether
I've
lost
any
more
this
time,
but
it
seems
to
be
pretty
reasonable
to
expect
that
there
were
four
hours
that
we
could
have
used
deconflict
some
of
the
meetings.
Okay,
thanks
Dave
altameyer.
N
Is
there
any
thought
about
maybe
doing
a
hum
or
something
during
the
plenary
asking
people
some
question
relating
to
this
this
topic
to
get
a
broader,
you
know
sense
of
of
the
room
cuz
its
own
I
fear
a
little
bit
that
maybe
we're
talking
to
ourselves
that
there's
you
know
some.
You
know
confirmation
bias
around
around
these
kinds
of
topics,
it'd
be
interesting
to
see
where
the
where
the
consensus
is
in
the
room.
As
far
as
you
know,
the
general
participation
and
in
the.
G
G
N
K
Elisa
Cooper,
so
with
respect
to
the
interaction
between
the
unstructured
time
and
the
conflicts,
there's
actually
the
same
number
of
slots
available,
because
we
slightly
changed
the
length
and
the
distribution
of
the
lengths
of
slots
in
order
to
make
that
unstructured
time
work,
and
that
was
true
both
at
103
and
here.
So
strictly
speaking,
if
there
is
a
person
you
increase
in
conflicts,
it
doesn't
have
to
do
with
the
number
of
slots
available,
because
the
number
of
slots
is
the
same
or
it
can
occur.
K
H
B
I
think
it's
actually
a
little
bit
because
of
the
format
of
providing
that
big
block
of
time
without
the
usual
schedule
of
function,
how
that
works.
So
a
number
of
things
I'm
interested
in
and
then
my
working
group
is
interested
in.
You
know
self-organized
for
these
side
meetings,
which
is
great,
but
then
they
made
like
a
three-hour
agenda
which
is
a
little
unnecessary
and
becomes
on.
You
know
untenable
to
get
them
all
in
so
we
took
perhaps
the
same
block
of
time
and
dribble
them
out
an
hour
at
a
time
through
the
week.
C
Run
gondwana
elicit
covered
most
of
what
I
was
going
to
say,
but
just
generally
the
idea
that,
if
you
say,
would
you
like
some
unstructured
time,
everyone
will
say.
Yes,
if
you
say
to
you,
what
do
you
not
want
you're
making
this
a
conflict?
Everyone
will
say.
Yes,
if
you
don't
propose
it
in
the
way
of
a
trade-off
and
what
the
pros
and
cons
are.
Then
people
are
just
going
to
say.
Yes,
I'd,
like
one
of
everything,
please.
Q
Speaking
both
as
a
chair
in
as
a
general
participant
people,
who
kind
of
have
an
expectation
of
what
their
ietf
week
is
going
to
look
like
and
I
think
in
the
book
case
of
both
103
and
104,
it
would
have
been
better
to
have
gotten,
certainly
a
lot
more
warning
that
the
schedule
was
going
to
look
different,
and
this
is
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
differently
than
what
we've
done
in
the
past.
That
would
have
been
useful
and
and
then
just
looking
ahead
for
scheduling.
Q
G
Two
things
there
are
the
last
first,
we
the
first
time
I
recall
us
doing
a
shift
for
that
was
Paris
in
2004
where
we
permanently
it
turns
out,
changed
the
schedule
and
illuminated
the
evening
things
by
shifting
things
later
and
stuff
like
that.
So
you
know
we
are
responding
to
that
and
looking
at
how
they
work
out.
Q
G
Q
L
Ben
Gaelic
again
interesting
ly
enough
I
had
gotten
into
the
queue
to
raise.
Essentially
this
topic
before
Andy
started
talking
and
I
guess
the
situation
is
maybe
a
little
bit
less
clear
than
anybody
has
been
saying
so
far.
I
guess
Robert
had
also
started
to
ask
about
sort
of
the
question
of
warning,
and
so
may.
Yes,
we
think
that
we
did
say
we
were
thinking
about
having
unstructured
time
well
in
advance,
but,
as
we've
been
discussing
on
the
working
group
chairs
list,
we
didn't
really
say.
L
The
answer
to
is
whether
this
unstructured
time
is
sufficiently
useful
and
good
enough
that
we
do
want
to
make
that
early
commitment,
because
I
think
for
for
104.
We
were
perhaps
not
entirely
sure
that
we
were
gonna,
do
it
or
how
it
was
gonna
look
like
until
we
knew
what
session
requests
we
got
and
how
we
could
schedule
it.
K
With
everything
that
been
said
for
one
on
three,
we
announced
this
in
May
and
the
meeting
was
in
November,
so
we
announced
for
103
before
a
couple
months
before
102
I
think
we're
unlikely
to
ever
do
better
than
that
for
something
which
we
call
an
experiment.
That's
a
lot
of
lead
time,
and
we
knew
we
wanted
to
do
that
because
it
would
affect
people's
travel
plans.
That's
why
we
did
it
that
far.
R
Brian
Rosen
slightly
very
small,
a
slight
variation
on
this
topic,
but
specifically
to
side
meetings.
I've
there.
There
is
a
policy
against
not
allowing
remote
participation,
not
a
resource
limit,
but
a
policy.
You
can't
have
remote
support
for
a
side
meeting.
I
think
that's
a
problem.
It
is
a
problem.
I
have
this
very
problem.
I
have
four
or
five
people
who
desperately
wanted
to
get
into
a
side
meeting
and
can't
and
I'd
like
to
have
that
dealt
with
noted.
G
K
R
R
G
S
S
Just
up
here
to
make
the
observation
that
the
instructor
time
seems
to
be
filling
with
structure,
and
so
so,
which
makes
me
wonder
how
much
people,
how
much
these
people
are
getting
it
to
be
able
to
ad
hoc
thing.
It's
like
I
just
realized
five
minutes
ago.
I
need
to
have
a
conversation
to
find
the
right
people.
J
Yeah
this
beat
to
echo
what
he
just
said.
I
went
looking
for
some
time
to
get
together
with
the
Directorate
that
I
run,
and
there
was
no
time
left
on
that
structured
schedule.
Whereas
if
it
was,
you
know,
yeah
making
room
reservations
is
nice,
but
having
some
of
these
big
rooms
available
with
corners
that
could
just
be
assigned
to
people
would
be
a
much
easier
way
to
go.
So
you
in.
G
Some
of
it
has
gotten
better.
Some
of
it
has
not,
and
I
have
a
list
of
some
things
that
if
I
should
drop
my
reading
glasses
but
I
didn't.
But
you
know
we're
talking
about
things
like
name-calling
and
other
overtly
nasty
language
that
I
think
most
of
us
can
agree.
We
shouldn't
do
two
things
that
there's
a
line
somewhere
there's
and
that
line
is
gonna
vary
from
person
to
person,
things
that
aren't
black
and
white
things.
G
We
might
call
unprofessional,
behavior
and
bullying
and
and
sarcasm,
and
things
like
that,
where
at
some
point
it's
still
okay
and
at
some
point
it's
not,
and
it's
tough
to
judge
so
I'm,
not
gonna
not
going
to
go
through
the
list,
but
I'm
gonna
say
what
the
bottom
line
is.
That,
in
my
notes,
is
that
we
want
to
encourage
people
to
stick
to
technical
arguments
and
not
talk
about
a
person's
affiliation
motives,
qualifications
country.
They
come
from
any
of
that
stuff.
G
Stick
to
the
technical
arguments
and
explain
why
you
disagree
rather
than
saying
that's
a
stupid
idea
or
otherwise
being
dismissive.
What
I'd
like
to
see
and
when
I
say
I,
we've
discussed
this
in
the
IES
G,
but
I'm
really
giving
my
personal
opinion
right
now
is
for
the
community
as
a
whole
to
say
essentially
dude.
We
don't
treat
people
that
way
here,
so
that
people
who
come
can
see
that
that's
it's
the
culture
and
I
think
it's
it's
you
guys
it's
it's!
T
T
It's
been
noticed
by
a
number
of
people
that
operators
are
rather
underrepresented
and
they
seem
surprised
to
me
when
I
tell
them.
One
of
the
reasons
operators
stay
away
is
because
often
a
list
goes.
A
discussion
is
along
the
lines
of
well,
those
operators
are
stupid
and
they
don't
know
what
their
doing,
and
it
may
come
as
a
surprise
to
people,
but
that
kind
of
turns
off
a
lot
of
people
as
well.
T
So
that's
an
additional
demographic
of
why
a
lot
of
people
I
know
and
I
work
with
really
try
to
avoid
the
ietf
I
do
think
it
is
something
and
I
think
it's
something
where
I
have
tried
in
some
of
the
things
I
chair
or
contribute
to
to
simply
push
back,
and
you
know
that's
not
a
good
thing
to
say
and
oftentimes
I'll.
Do
it
privately,
sometimes
I'll.
Do
it
on
the
list.
So.
G
Well
that
just
leads
me
to
tell
a
story
about
that:
the
what
do
we
call
it
right
before
the
newcomers
meet-and-greet
when
we've
got
the
West
was
running
this
thing,
where
the
the
newbies
go
from
table
to
table
and
I
was
at
one
of
the
tables,
and
some
people
came
over.
One
of
them
was
an
operator
and
he
said
he's
been
avoiding
the
IETF
for
years
and
finally
got
sort
of
pushed
into
coming
to
one
and
I
said
well.
G
Tell
me
something
about
why
and
he
said
because,
frankly,
I'm
I
belong,
I
participated
in
enough
toxic
organizations
and
I
don't
need
another
one
now
to
be
fair.
He
added
Nanog
to
that
list
of
toxic
organizations.
So
it
isn't
just
us,
but
that's
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
that
I'm
looking
at
and
he
and
as
an
operator
he
felt
particularly
called
out
there
Mary,
okay.
U
Mary
bar
so
I
mean
I
agree
with
your
point
that
we
shouldn't
behave
in
certain
ways.
I
think
yeah
make
it
for
normal,
high
people,
okay,
not
been
high,
okay
and
so,
and
so
my
challenge
and
you
called
me
out
right
I
had
there
was
a
sarcastic
thread.
It
wasn't
a
technical
thing,
it
was
about
the
agenda
and
I
personally
thought:
I,
don't
know
if
any
of
those
people
are
in
the
room,
but.
H
U
Was
one
of
the
silliest
discussions,
I
thought
I
ever
had
and
I
got
sarcastic
because
you
know
I
was
grumpy
and
some
of
the
people
were
fine
with
it
like.
What
are
the
people
I
know
really
well
and
I
know
he
didn't
take
it
personally
right
and
the
other
person
was
an
experienced
person,
although
I
don't
know
them
very
well,
so
they
probably
hate
me
now.
So
the
thing
is
you
called
me
out.
We
had
to
you
know:
I
need
to
find
nicer
words
to
use
sometimes,
and
that's
fine
I'll,
do
it.
U
The
thing
is
you
need
to
call
people
out
when
you
see
it
cuz,
we
don't
always
realize
that
we're
causing
that
problem
right.
We're
just
and
I
made
that
point
on
the
worker.
Tears
list
we're
not
the
most
socially
attuned
people
in
the
world
right
and,
like
I
said
my
mother
has
tried
to
deal
with
it,
but
she
failed
miserably.
So
we
need
to
help
each
other
right.
Let's
talk
to
somebody
after
a
meeting
right
or
if
it's
really
bad
during
a
meeting,
stand
up
and
say:
that's
not
acceptable
right.
U
G
M
I
think
a
common
practice
is
that
people
will
say
you
know
echo
Mozilla
or
rich
Sol's,
akamai
or
whatever,
and
therefore
the
newcomers
come
up
and
say
it
and
figures
prove
it
random
operators,
you
know,
or
enterprise
data
center
people
they
feel
like
they're
painting
a
target
on
their
back.
So
maybe
we
should
actively
discourage
that
and
just
say
when
you
come
into
Mike,
say
only
your
name:
okay,.
F
Kent
Watson,
when
this
conversation
came
up
on
the
list,
I
made
this
suggestion
that
perhaps
a
something
akin
to
the
note
well
could
be
made
or,
and
then
I
each
chair
could
flash
a
slide
beginning
of
their
working
group
session
they're,
just
something
along
the
lines
of
you
know.
These
are
the
parameters
and
we
try
to
run
our
working
groups
by
not
that
we
would
have
to
do
this
for
every
ITF
meeting
going
forward.
But
you
know
one
meeting
once
a
year.
F
Perhaps
that's
all
we
need
the
reason
for
that
is
because
he
gives
the
chairs
the
cover
to
then
make
a
statement
during
the
meeting
of
hey.
You
know
remember
that
slide
from
the
isg.
You
know,
because
if
the
chairs
are
just
having
to
make
a
statement
on
their
own,
they
may
not
feel
empowered
right.
They
don't
have
the
backing.
They
don't
have
to
take
the
blame.
They
don't
need
to
the
heat,
they
can
say.
I'm,
just
I'm,
just
referring
or
repeating
the
information
that
was
provided
from
above.
J
So
a
couple
of
things:
first,
something
Mary
said
we
kicked
in
my
head,
which
is
a
lot
of
the
people
who
are
ill
socialized
enough
to
do
goofy
things
not
because
they're
being
mean,
but
because
they're
ill
socialized
also
don't
react
too
badly.
If
you
say,
please
stop
that
because
they're
not
offended
by
you
telling
them
that
they
were
being
ill,
socialized
they're
used
to
it.
J
Thank
you,
mom.
That
was
very
good.
The
other
one,
though
that
I
thought
might
be
useful
a
lot
of
times.
People
get
wound
up
in
working
group
meetings,
especially
at
the
mic,
by
making
arguments
about
something:
that's
pissing
them
off
and
I.
As
a
chair,
I
think
it's
useful
and
you
can
set
this
up
by
putting
parameters
on
the
discussion
beforehand,
but
also
when
people
are
speaking
to
say
what
do
we
do
make
it
an
engineering
question?
What
do
you
want
the
document
to
say
what?
What
should
the
change
be?
Can
we
leave
this
alone?
J
S
S
Don't
do
it
personally
and
and
I
agree
with
the
idea
that
we
probably
shouldn't
I,
think
it
fits
what
we
at
least
claim
as
our
culture
better
to
not
do
it,
but
I
do
want
to
keep
in
mind
that
there
are
people
in
the
ITF
who
have
been
asking
us
to
do
that
and
I
think
they
do
that,
because
they
understand
that
corporate
money
influences
policy
and
etc,
etc.
So
there
there
are
concerns
both
ways.
So
I
think
we
have
to
be
a
little
careful
on
that
point
on
how
we
balance
things.
S
The
other
one
is
I
think
we
should
be,
and
this
is
just
kind
of
a
net,
but
we
keep
coming
up
with
new
things
and
we
keep
thinking.
Maybe
we
should
add
it
to
note
well
or
add
it
to
a
slide
at
the
beginning
of
working
groups.
Everything
we
add
to
that
dilutes
everything
else,
and
we
are
ready
to
the
point
where
the
note
well
is
very,
very
dense
and
pretty
much
a
lot
of
working
group
chairs,
myself
included,
just
throw
whatever
it's
like
note.
It
well
move
on.
S
L
Then
hey
Doc,
so
with
respect
to
the
whole,
you
name
your
affiliation
thing
personally,
I
don't
but
I
was
in
the
smart,
Baath
I
guess
it
was,
and
the
chairs
are
one
of
the
chairs
explicitly
slide.
Please
state
your
name
and
affiliation
and
I
thought
about
getting
up
and
objecting
to
it
at
the
time,
but
because
it
was
a
Boff
that
was
targeting
a
research
group.
I
did
not
really
feel
like
I
had
the
standing
to
make
a
formal
objection
and.
U
Mary
Bart,
see
and
so
I
have
two
points
on
the
thing
about
affiliation.
There
is
a
service
provider-
that's
not
here
this
time
and
you
will
never
get
him
to
stop
saying
his
affiliation
and
if
you're
try
and
get
him
to
stop,
then
he
gets
angry.
And
so
you
really
don't
want
to
do
that.
So
don't
make
a
big
deal
about
it
with
certain
people
and
then
on
the
you
know
the
snark
or
sarcasm.
That's
nice
I'm,
a
special
special
specialize
in
sarcasm
mine
was
on
a
discussion
with
an
ad
okay.
U
V
Adam
Roach
I
just
wanted
to
put
a
fine
point
on
what
Ben
was
saying,
which
is
presently.
The
note
well
slide
actually
does
have
pointers
to
at
least
two
documents
that
bear
specifically
on
this.
So
yeah,
it's
right
and
a
bullet
point
I
mean
yes,
so
I
mean
specifically
covered
in
the
note.
Well,
it's
just
that
there
is
so
much
stuff
there
that
unless
you
tell
chairs
you
need
to
spend
five
minutes
on
this
slide,
it's
going
to
get
lost
and
that's
not
a
useful
like
way
to
spend
people's
time.
Yeah.
G
C
C
F
F
D
I,
just
I
didn't
want
to
get
up
and
walk
all
the
way
over
there.
If
you
don't
mind,
if
just
a
couple
things
I
wanted
to
point
out,
I
just
stuck
this
slide
up
here,
because
it's
in
the
newcomers
over
you
I'm,
not
real
fond
of
the
slide.
I
think
it's
kind
of
silly
to
tell
people
to
remember
to
sleep,
but
you
know
but
help
with
the
kind
of
language
that
we
have
here,
just
like
three
or
four
bullets.
D
So
this
is
what
we're
telling
the
newcomers
and
I
wanted
people
to
know
that
that's
we're
telling
newcomers-
and
the
second
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out-
was
we've
kind
of
glossed
over
it,
but
in
Francesca's
presentation
she
had
that
the
gap,
the
first
gap
was
obligations
and
responsibilities
and
we
were
sort
of
looking
like
you
know.
What
are
the
ten
things
that
we
you
know
one
sentence
each.
What
are
the
ten
things
we
wanted?
D
The
working
group
chairs
to
remember
that
they're
responsible
for
and
one
of
them
would
be
maintaining
appropriate
decorum
in
their
working
group,
and
one
of
them
would
be.
You
know,
make
sure
you
pay
attention.
The
IPR
policy,
so
Francesca
could
probably
really
use
some
help
with
developing
that
so
talk
to
her
about
that.
Thank
you.
Well,.
G
D
G
If
again,
what
I?
One
of
the
reasons
I
got
up
here
was
to
encourage
the
chairs
to
help
us
pass
this
around
through
the
community
and
use
your
positions
to
do
that.
If
I
post
my
notes,
that
I
was
looking
at
on
my
iPad
to
the
working
group
chairs
mailing
list
and
start
a
little
discussion,
there
are
people
interested
in
doing
that.
Okay,
I,
see,
nods
I,
don't
see
anybody
running
out
of
the
room
thanks
for
giving
me
the
time.
G
D
At
this
point,
we
have
ten
minutes
left
it's
open
mic.
Does
anybody
have
anything
else
they
want
to
bring
to
the
work
under
chairs
for
them?
Okay,
I.
Don't
see
any
people
at
the
mic.
The
only
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
at
the
very
end
of
all
of
this
is
with
Miriam
stepping
down
and
some
of
the
other
changes
that
are
ongoing.
D
We're
going
to
take
a
look
at
a
number
of
these
programs,
and
so
if
people
have
any
thoughts
on
what
this
particular
forum
useful,
not
useful,
used,
it
used
to
be
training,
feel
free
to
mail,
the
edge'
mailing
list
or
or
send
feedback
to.
Whoever
will
be
more
details
coming
out,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
everybody
a
heads
up
so
go
ahead.
Then.
L
Thank
You
doc,
yeah
I
was
just
sort
of
curious.
If
anybody
had
had
issues
with
remote
movie
centers,
because
I
know
we
do
have
through
Medeco
the
option
to
give
them
like
a
special
presenter
mode
versus
just
standing
in
a
microphone
line
and
pushing
the
red
button
right.
No,
there
is,
but
not
everybody's
been
using
it
and
you
know
I
think
I
sent
an
email
out
like
Sunday
or
something
pointing
us
out,
but
was
that
email
helpful.
U
Very
much
scan
so
we
had
a
remote
presenter.
I
didn't
find
out
until
like
so
very
late,
and
so
we
did
it
the
way
where
we
just
pressed
the
button
and
I
think
it
worked.
Okay
right
so
I
mean
I,
think
you
know,
and
then
we
also
I
was
proud
of
us.
I
didn't
realize
we
had
a
newcomer
actually
present
in
our
session
yeah.
W
You
have
no
never
mind
my
affiliation,
so
I
see
this
a
lot
with
remote
presenters
that
it
always
starts
with.
Was
this
thing
on,
or
they
start
out
muted
because
they
needed
it
for
the
previous
presentations?
There's
always
some
technical
stuff
and
usually
they're
incredibly
loud
I
mean
compared
to
somebody
just
talking
to
the
room
mic
they're
incredibly
loud,
you
can
hear
them.
We
know
what,
when
somebody
is
remotely
presenting
in
the
other
room,
because
we
are
hearing
them
through
the
walls,
especially
here.
W
D
L
Caidic
yeah
I
have
also
noted
that
and
I've
also
noted
times
where
we
discovered
there's
gonna,
be
a
remote
presenter
like
during
the
session.
You
know
to
talks
later
and
Morocco
gets
them
set
up
like
during
the
session,
but
I
was
sort
of
you
brainstorming
on
the
fly.
Perhaps
Media
Co
could
like
give
a
presenter
like
backup,
URL
just
to
the
chairs,
and
the
chairs
could
have
that
handy
to
send
to
descendant.