►
From YouTube: IETF105-DNSOP-20190722-1810
Description
DNSOP meeting session at IETF105
2019/07/22 1810
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/proceedings/
A
B
A
Warren's
our
ad
he's
out
I
saw
him
because
he
just
asked
me
about
something:
Paul's
doing
minutes
and
Paul
had
a
request
that,
if
there's
not
a
lot
of
my
clients,
if
you
could
use
this
one,
so
he
can
get
all
the
nametags,
and
if
there
are
a
lot
of
discussions,
then
well
that's
just
good
times
and
Dan
who
there
somebody's
doing
jabber
scribes
up.
There
is
Thank
You
mr.
York,
so
you
know
the
note.
Well
it's
early
in
the
ITF.
This
is
the
latest
one.
So,
whatever
you
say,
please
pay
attention
to
it.
A
The
blue
sheets
are
going
around.
Please
fill
those
in
this
is
the
only
the
our
session,
so
it's
gonna
be
pretty
short.
We'll
keep
things
to
a
minimum.
We've
got
an
update
on
the
on
the
current
work.
We've
got
some
hackathon
updates
and
some
other
current
working
group
business,
though,
because
some
notes
tomorrow
afternoon,
if
you're
looking
for
a
good
time,
there's
the
applications
you
doing
Venus
boffed
ad
D,
so
promise
to
be
excitement.
So
it's
right
after
lunch,
though
non
browse.
You
know,
as
you
can
well
imagine
it's
a
week
good.
A
So
lots
of
good
discussion
in
there
so
just
giving
you
a
heads
up
on
that.
There's
a
draft
in
the
interior
that
came
to
our
attention
on
provisioning
domains
and
the
terminology
is
a
little
different.
You
know
everybody
uses
overloads
the
word
domain
a
lot,
but
it's
in
this
working
group
last
call
and
it's
about
doing
stuff
with
multiple
interfaces
and
it's
it's
definitely.
There
is
some
relevance
there
and
it's
sort
of
like
that
stuff
to
resolve
a
problem
worried
this.
This
stuff
has
to
sort
of
keep
track
of.
A
What
domain
is
doing,
what
what
interface
is
doing?
What?
Basically
so
this
seems
to
be
big
in
the
mobile
world
and
also
b6
with
mobile
stuff
going
on.
So
of
course,
this
happened
today.
The
RTF
workshop,
but
tomorrow
afternoon,
during
the
open
meeting
they'll
be
there
a
good
discussion
under
storing
the
role
of
registrar's
in
Jena
SEC
deployment,
and
so
that
was
a
hot
talk,
so
guys
should
pay
attention
to
that.
A
A
A
list
approve
a
publication,
don't
approve
it.
You
have
comments,
I,
think
they've
done
a
great
job
of
cleaning
it
up.
Mark's
been
patient
with
me,
so
I
appreciate
that.
So
please
we'd
like
to
hear
some
stuff
about
that.
Even
if
you
want
to
get
up
into
my
clan
and
just
yell
about
it,
I
think
it's.
You
know
this
is
the
time
28:45
biz.
Finally,
we
finally
got
this
they're
working
for
glass
call.
I.
Think
this
started
in
Prague
two
summers
ago
and
it's
it's.
It's
done
the
right
updates
it
fixed.
A
It
takes
a
problem
so
again
that
one's
ready
to
you
know
please
send
some
comments
about
that
serves
Dale,
it's
working
for
Glasgow
until
tomorrow
till
the
23rd.
So
we've
definitely
hear
about
that
and
there's
one
more
yes,
extended
error.
This
is
partially
my
fault.
I
need
to
wrangle
the
author's
a
little
more
on
that
there
are
some
comments.
A
C
Yeah
so
Warren
and
I
actually
met
a
month
ago
or
so
and
worked
through
the
our
code.
Missing
number
of
bits
issue
got
it
all
done
and
then
an
hour
before
the
deadline.
Of
course,
I
finally
got
around
to
submitting
it
without
checking,
say
some
of
the
other
points
in
the
document
that
listed
the
wrong
number
of
bits,
and
things
like
that,
so
I
apologize
for
that.
That's
my
fault!
There
is
an
I
in
a
registry
section
always.
B
C
Hart
occur
from
is
I.
Yes,
there
are
other
outstanding
comments.
We
wanted
to
hit
the
are
code
one
because
that
seemed
like
the
biggest
and
I
wanted,
especially
the
implementers
that
have
started
tinkering
with
it.
Go
look.
We
did
change
the
packet
format,
so
unfortunately
it
had
he
done
so.
Go
look
at
that,
but
the
other
comments
are
more
minor
inner
disk,
texture.
Okay,
so
I
will
try
and
get
that
out
in
a
couple
of
weeks
cool.
Thank
you
so.
A
G
With
respect
to
the
Ayana
registry,
specifically
I
think
it
was
me
that
flagged
that
and
I
think
there
was
some
question.
One
of
the
things
I
was
hoping
people
will
pay
attention
to
when
we're
revealing.
This
document
is
whether
the
extension
mechanism
proposed
and
the
policy
on
the
IANA
registry
is,
is
optimizing.
The
usefulness
of
the
the
document
and
the
mechanism.
A
And
the
reason
I'm
looking
back
is
because
this
this
fancy
monitor
here
is
not
working
so
I
have
no
idea
why
a
couple
things
in
call
for
adoption,
yeah,
Dena
server
cookies.
Actually,
we
believe
that
has
wrapped
up
and
should
be
adopted,
and
then
the
yang
model,
that's
in
going
through
some
interesting
discussions
and
kind
of
understand
where
things
are
going
on
that.
So
those
are
wrap
up
here
pretty
soon,
and
then
we
have
some
updates
on
some
current
stuff.
A
So
sumon
sent
us
this
about
the
multi
provider
D
in
a
sec
they've
made
some
changes
to
it.
They've
added
some
sections
and
actually
looks
like
they've
cleaned
up
some
stuff.
You
know
they
and
from
looking
at
the
updates
and
looking
at
and
talking,
it
does
seem
like
it's
getting
close
to
working
group
last
call
we'd
like
some
folks
to
review
it,
but
it's
getting
a
lot
more
discussion,
especially
among
the
vendors
and
stuff
about
how
to
do
in
a
sec
across
multiple
riders.
A
So
I
appreciate
that
so
I'll
TLD,
so
one
of
the
authors
came
to
us
and
said
hey.
We
think
this
is
still
useful.
We
want
to
know
if
the
working
group
wants
to
work
on
this.
We
have
you
know
we.
If
we,
you
know
we're
not.
You
know,
we
felt
that
we're
not
sure
if
the
working
group
actually
has
the
energy
to
sort
of
discuss.
Namespaces.
Is
that
that
sort
of
turns
and
do
not
really
dns
but
more
architecture
kind
of
discussions?
A
So
you
know
if
we
feel
that
we
get
a
lot
of
feedback
like
oh,
yes,
we
want
to
discuss
this
and
kind
of
beat
this
down
to
some
more
our
suggestion.
We
thought
about
this
and
we
feel
this
will
be
a
great
document
to
sent
through
the
internet
area
and
send
it
through
the
general
area
and
have
the
ATS
basically
Shepherd
it,
because
it's
a
standard
track.
A
It
discusses
you
know,
Caesar
application
or
Internet
I
said
I've
seen
an
application,
they
said
internet,
but
have
it
through
the
general
area
and
have
it
discussed
that
way,
and
then
you
can
still
get
the
standards
track,
which
we
feel,
which
is
what
the
AI
is.
G
is
basically
trying
to
get
us
to
do
anyway.
Then
I'll
still
get
the
proposed
standard,
that's
better
than
doing
ad
sponsored,
for
example.
A
So
now
I
haven't
told
the
entities
this,
but
you
know
it's
like
surprise,
but
because
I
do
think,
if
you
think
about
sort
of
TLD
space,
it's
it's
more
I.
Think
it's
more
in
that
area.
So
then
it
is,
you
know,
sort
of
in
the
it's
sort
of
an
ops
area,
sort
of
thing
it.
You
know
we
can
have
a
former
ad
stand
up
to
the
mic
and
tell
us,
you
know
I'm
sure,
there's
one
back
there
sort
of
hiding
in
the
corner,
though,.
D
Hi,
my
name
is
Andrew
Sullivan
and
I
work
for
the
internet
society,
but
I
don't
speak
for
them
right
now
on
the
previous
item,
if
this
working
group
can't
come
to
agreement
that
this
is
a
good
idea
or
a
bad
idea-
and
you
send
this
off
to
say
the
Jenn
area,
my
prediction
is
that
they're
gonna
say
I
wonder
what
the
DNS
offed
weenies
yes
about.
That
is.
H
D
A
You
know
I,
don't
know
what
problem
I
want.
You
know
and
I
want
the
group
to
tell
us
what
problem
to
give
us
right.
You
know
this
is
a
group
want
us
to
sort
of
chase
this.
You
know
che
and
and
I
think
if
we,
you
know
I,
don't
think
they
have
the
energy
for
it.
You
know,
maybe
they
do
and
maybe
I'm
gonna
be
shocked,
but
you
know
I'm
thinking
of
how
can
we?
A
A
D
Iii
mean
I
I,
guess
what
I'm
suggesting-
and
you
know
my
name
was
I-
don't
know
if
it
still
is,
but
it
was
on
this
at
one
point
on
my
my
feeling
is
that
it
would
be
wise
for
us
to
make
the
decision
you
know
to
put
this
to
bed
or
to
death
yeah,
you
know
sort
of
expeditiously.
If
that's
what
we
actually
plan
to
do,
because
I'm
I'm
just
nervous
that
what's
gonna
happen
is
we're.
Gonna
spend
another
spin.
We're
gonna
send
this
to
the
gin.
I
F
Focus
I'm
also
a
little
uncomfortable
with
this
document,
not
fine
if
the
content
of
it,
but
because
when
this
whole
mess
happened
with
the
Torah
and
their
special
domains,
we
sort
of
froze
all
new
special
domains
so
that
we
wouldn't
get
more
people
trying
to
quickly
sneak
in
more
of
these
proposals
and
now
we're
coming
up
with
our
own
proposal
to
do
this.
So
it's.
It
feels
a
little
weird
to
me
to
continue
this
document.
No.
A
It
does
and
I
think
one
of
the
conversations
there
was
there
was
a
slightly
different
history
of
that
yeah
was,
we
probably
you
know
like
somebody's
guilty
for
enok.
So
maybe
we
needed
killed
me
for
you,
know
answerable,
domains
etc,
which
seems
like
wow.
That's
you
know,
that's
lots
of
TLPs
right.
So
yes,
okay,
but
very
good
point.
G
One
of
the
things
that
was
suggested
that
we
go
back
to
was
this
document
which
actually
predated
the
problem
statement
RFC
another
another
document
we
were
asked
to
consider
was
a
draft
that
I
wrote
and
that
the
working
group
was
not
interested
in
taking
up.
So
it's
not
that
we
stopped
and
then
and
then
proposed
our
own
change
to
the
registry.
C
The
reason
that
this
document
has
tumbled
so
much
in
this
group
is
that
we
can't
come
to
some
decisions
that
turned
out
to
be
hard
right.
They're
they're,
not
easy.
Some
of
them
are
political,
some
of
our
more
technical,
whether
you
delegate
it's
signed
or
unsigned.
You
know
how
you
deal
all
of
that.
C
C
We
have
a
solution,
there's
a
lot
of
other
people
that
have
indicated
a
high
level
of
frustration
for
not
having
something
like
this
in
a
delegated
play
space
of
their
own
and
and
granted
I
hate,
first-come,
first-serve
that
the
horrible
answer
to
anything,
but
if
they're,
if
they're
unable
to
to
register
themselves
in
the
global
namespace,
that's
problematic
now
I,
don't
know
why
they
can't
use
your
ends
either,
but
they
don't.
So
if
we're
unwilling
to
solve
this
problem
and
the
world
thinks
that
this
is
a
problem,
we're
at
a
odd
space.
J
Warren
kumari
with
no
heads
other
than
Delta
quickly
responding
to
what
poor
voters
said.
Much
of
the
purpose
of
this
was
actually
sort
of
corel
stuff,
like
onion,
open
its
own
place,
but
I
think
that
both
myself
and
I
haven't
spoken
to
my
co-author,
but
I.
Think
both
of
us
are
fine.
If
the
skies
we
just
don't
know
what
the
working
group
wants.
J
K
A
A
A
I
believe
it's
all
very
it
with
eyes,
did
a
great
job
on
sort
of
putting
it
all
together
and,
and
then
at
that
point,
we'll
do
some
data
tracker
stuff
and
we'll
send
it
over
to
Warren
and
we'll
start
that
process
to
move
everything
that
historic.
So
anybody
have
any
sort
of
feedback
on
that.
That
would
be
great,
but
document
is
simple.
Straightforward
well,
well-written,
can't
say
anything
can't
say
anything
but
good
stuff
about
it.
So
and
we
get
rid
of
the
elbe
right.
That's
I
think
it's
a
good
day.
A
The
TCP
requirements
they
did
a
version
recently
and
it
looks
like
we've.
I
went
through
the
document.
It
looks
like
they've
covered
all
the
two
news
and
the
missing
things
that
they
were
sort
of
trying
to
fill
in
and
it's
getting.
We
feel
it's
pretty
close
to
working
group
last
call
so
we'd
like
to
get
a
little
bit
review
and
we'll
probably
do
that
here
are
some
kinds
of
summer.
A
The
next
one
is
zone,
digest
yeah
another
one
of
doing
and
the
last
update
introduced
a
you
know,
some,
a
bigger
change
than
sort
of
you
know,
and
we
haven't
heard
much
comments
on
that,
but
that's
in
the
same
place
we
feel
that's
really
ready
for
working
through
class
call
as
well.
Once
we
hear
some
good
reviews
and
things
of
that
nature
and
then
718,
7816,
biz,
actually
I,
don't
know.
What's
going
on
with
that,
we
have
to
go
figure
that
out,
though,.
A
That
it
yep
so
what
else
we're
working
on
steps
in
the
data
tracker,
we
have
things
in
github.
The
links
are
in
there
so
today
the
agenda
cuz,
it's
only
an
hour
I'm.
Actually,
the
first
thing
is
the
hackathon
results.
Well,
it's
gonna
be
doing
those
and
then
he's
going
to
give
us
an
update
on
the
server
cookies
and
then
Paul's
gonna
talk
about
76006
biz,
which
we
first
thought
was
ready
for
working
group
last
call.
A
L
L
So
we
had
a
lovely
areas
and
hands-on
work
on
shots,
but
which
is
jean
transfer
of
TLS.
They
worked
on
a
client
implementation
for
it
in
the
Tina's
Java
library,
but
as
Patrick
created
a
don't
proxy
with
a
fast
CGI
interface
so
that
it
can
be
used
with
any
web
server
and
we
had
whittled
preparing
by
9
for
dot
and
out
then
the
the
DNS
for
specific
Network
environments,
Stefan
boards
Maya
he
already
implemented
earlier.
L
L
Ipv4
addresses
into
ipv6
prefixes
for
the
unit
six
for
not
check
for
environment
for
a
benign.
So
if
you
download
the
slides-
and
you
want
to
try
out
some
of
the
hex
there's
a
link
to
the
github
repository
with
patches
so
that
you
can
patch
by
line
and
try
it
for
yourself
and
dinners
provisioning,
so
I
worked
with
Andre
and
beetles
and
remote
participant
it
Alexis
on
Venus
cookies.
Interoperability.
We're
going
to
tell
you
a
bit
more
about
that
later
on.
L
Yeah,
this
is
also
interesting.
Mark,
Andrews
and
Tim
bottom
bear
built
on
the
D
next
time
out
resource
record.
It's
a
resource
record
for
professional
ad
nation,
with
Venus
updates
will
be
short
records
that
have
a
expiry
time,
and
so
here
again
are
the
references
to
the
IOC
github,
which
contain
these
fetches
Oh.
L
L
E
E
E
L
L
L
We
use
only
ship
hatch
to
the
file
for
the
algorithm,
the
create
that
I
am
a
shut
registry
for
different
versions
for
different
recipes
to
make
cookies
and
the
drafts
we
had
some
operator
advice
on
service.
It
was
well
over
yeah
implementation
at
five
on
how
to
facilitate
smooth
roll
over
and
a
appendix
it
test
factors.
So
different
implementations
can
check
if
the
recipe
is
the
same
as
the
one
described
in
the
twelfth
so
lost
hackathon.
The
has
again
a
new
round
of
implementing
the
initial
cookies
with
this
new
recipe
and
had
interoperability.
L
Another
thing
that
came
from
the
hackathon
is
that
in
the
draft
it's
stated
that
the
client
cookie
or
it
recommends
that
the
client
cookie
is
generated
from
the
client
IP
Atlas,
but
this
is
quite
impractical
to
implement
so
that
the
reason
for
this
is
I
believe
sheiks
privacy
extensions
so,
but
you
would
like
to
avoid
it
is
that
cookie
revealed
that
the
the
same
sort
certified
if
the
IP
source
IP
address
changes,
but
there
is
no
easy
way
to
do
this.
For
you
to
be
you
to
be
shocked
at
its
stateless.
L
If
you
create
it,
it
does
not
have
a
source
IP
address
yet
early
after
it
sent
out,
and
then
it's
too
late.
The
we
want
to
modify
this
text
a
little
bit
to
recommend
for
visual
of
us
to
not
use
the
client
IP
address
and
selling
out
or
when
creating
cookies,
but
recommend
for
step.
Read
offers
to
indeed
use
the
client
IP
address,
because
those
are
the
parties
that
benefit
the
most
from
the
privacy
extensions
as
well.
L
E
So
thank
you
for
the
implementations
that
Interop
test.
So
we
would
actually
with
two
days
ago
we
wanted
to
go
straight
for
a
working
group.
Last
call
but
I
understand
the
artists
want
to
straighten
out
some
issues,
but
it's
also
for
the
room
to
pay
attention
on
this
document,
because
it's
already
very
good
work
very
well
shape
and
we
want
to
put.
M
It's
okay,
probably
gonna,
be
out
in
time
cuz,
both
this
and
the
next
one
will
probably
be
fairly
short.
So
hopefully
everyone
is
familiar.
This
isn't
gonna
work,
Warren
and
I
are
writing.
7706
Biss
we've
talked
about
it
before
it's
still
in
process,
but
we're
getting
close,
we're
so
interested
in
stuff
like
these.
M
So
it's
getting
close
to
done,
but
it
is
not
done
done
and
what
we
have
done,
which
everybody
asks
for
the
obvious
stuff.
Is
we
updated
the
examples
from
7706,
because
now
we
have
a
bunch
of
implementations
in
common
software
so
that
we
think
is
done,
and
we
would
love
people
to
take
a
look
at
the
examples,
but
we
actually
have
some
to
do's
that
we
left
in
that
we
haven't
to
done
so
we
need
to
do
those.
M
M
Think
a
lot
of
people
remember
Andrew
was
the
one
who
got
up
to
the
mic
and
was
very
active
on
the
list
for
7706,
but
a
lot
of
people
are
like
yeah
what
he
said
or
no
I
disagree.
So
there
may
be
that
much
here
and
that's
okay.
Getting
the
use
cases
correct
in
this
document
is
going
to
be
very
important
for
people
reading
at
5
and
10
years
later,
because
in
fact,
the
way
that
the
root
zone
happens,
changes
over
time
and
people
need
to
understand.
M
Why
were
we
talking
about
it
in
a
certain
way
in
2019
or
2020
depending,
and
we
also
have
to
explain
more
exactly?
Why
are
we
here
on
this?
So
not
just
the
use
cases,
but
what
got
us
to
this
point
so
again?
What
Warren
and
I
will
put
words
in
will
do
a
new
draft,
but
we
do
expect
the
working
group
to
actually
look
at
it.
I
mean
if
anyone
only
wants
to
do
in
working
group.
Last
call.
M
So
we'll
have
I,
haven't
told
more
on
this,
but
we
will
have
another
draft
by
the
end
of
August,
not
your
head.
Yes,
that's
a
month
from
now,
okay,
so
a
scrunched
up
face
with
a
nodding.
Yes,
so
we
will
most
likely
get
a
draft
before
the
end
of
August
and
then
we'll
ask
for
working
group
last
call.
But
if
what
no
warned
saying
end
of
July
and
I'm
saying
no,
because
I
also
have
a
life
and
I
would
like
to
go.
M
H
H
H
M
You
go
back
one
slide,
so
the
make
the
use
case
is
explicit.
We're
gonna
have
that
conversation.
That
I
was
hoping
that
no
one
would
say
that,
but
since
you
have
that
wording
will
cause
this.
So
so
it's
not
as
simple
as
saying.
Oh,
let's
just
loosen
this
up,
because
that's
why
7706
actually
said
it
has
to
run
on
localhost
we've
expanded
it
off
of
running
on
localhost,
but
now
saying
oh,
it
needs
to
be
closest
yeah
that
may
not
work
so
we'll
have
that
discussion
thanks.
N
N
So
my
question
is:
if
you
run
this
locally
or
you
know,
environment
there
and
every
record
under
the
roots
on
the
NS
records,
have
a
TTL
of
two
days.
But
if
you
ask
child
allegation
can
have
the
different
TTL
value.
So
if
your
clients
connect
your
server
and
our
show
discover
in
this
trap,
I
don't
think
it
is,
but
our
sighting
706,
but
which
TTL
we're
going
to
return
to
your
client,
the
one
in
the
red
zone
other
than
the
child
elevation.
We.
C
Yeah
and
I've
been
over
there's
a
bunch
of
times.
West
Hart
occur,
so
I
is
I,
so
I
created
the
local
reprojected
III
and
one
important
thing
to
understand
about
a
local
copy
of
the
root
and
the
way
that
7706
works,
Thank
You
Warren,
really
all
you
came
up
here
for
one
one:
important
concept
of
how
the
local
root
or
the
hyper
local
route
or
7706
works,
is
that
it
only
answers,
authoritative,
Lee,
on
the
address
for
as
if
it
was
the
root
server.
M
E
M
E
M
So
I
have
mentioned
this
at
a
previous
one,
but
a
bunch
of
people
have
questions
or
have
been
wanting
to
have
to
not
refer
to
technologies,
we're
working
on
now
or
have
worked
on
the
past
by
their
draft
name
and
by
their
RFC
number.
So
terminology
comes
up,
and
so
this
is
a
draft
with
very
limited
updates
to
the
terminology
document
just
for
these
next
slide,
so
that
came
out
smaller
than
I
want,
but
I
think
still
readable.
This
just
is
those
six
terms
at
this
point.
M
The
draft
is
just
those
six
terms
and
the
reason
why
it's
just
those
six
terms
is
that
seems
to
be
all
of
the
terms
that
people
have
sort
of
half
agreed
on
in
this
space.
It's
not
planned
to
be,
let's
open
up
terminology
for
all
the
other
new
terminology.
It's
just
these
and
these
terms
are
not
fixed
and
something
I
mean.
This
is
a
request
to
have
this
become
a
working
group.
Talk
and
people
might
want
to
change
the
names
they
might
want
to
change
the
abbreviations.
M
O
M
M
P
Excuse
me
Brian
Dixon
GoDaddy,
for
the
very
last
one
ad
D
I'm,
not
sure
whether
I
even
want
to
open
up
this
can
of
worms,
but
the
last
D
in
that.
Maybe
we
should
put
a
little
asterisks
to
say
any
of
those
first
for
t,
TLS
do
H,
53
or
whatever
ie.
We
don't
want
unnecessarily
for
a
DB
exclude
53,
okay,.
M
M
A
A
Q
M
R
R
Second
definition
of
what
is
an
application.
What
is
the
system
can
be
clear
in
some
cases
for
in
UNIX,
for
instance,
it's
quite
clear,
but
it
can
be
different
in
other
system
on
third
I
observe
that
currently
we
have
added
mailing
list.
The
name
comes
from
application.
Doing
DNS
on
the
list
is
going
in
many
directions,
most
of
them
unrelated
to
application
doing
DNS.
We
will
talk
about
that
at
the
box
tomorrow,
but
today
it
seems
to
me
that,
unlike
the
others,
odd
is
very
Jodi.
So.
M
This
is
just
the
list.
The
draft
actually
has
the
definitions.
If
the
definition
seems
to
scoochie
for
you
I
agree,
we
should
nail
it
down
and
if
it
doesn't
seem
like
we
can
nail
it
down,
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
take
it
out.
It's
just
that
many
people
have
been
using
that
because
of
the
problem
where
people
say,
dough
is
bad
because
of
X
and
X
would
apply
just
as
easily
if
an
application
was
doing
G
ot,
so
you
know
a
DV.
M
E
E
M
I
didn't
even
say,
I'm
sorry
I
meant
to
because
I
thought
that
was
what
this
was
about.
Is
that
certainly
anyone
updating
that
RFC
should
be
a
working
group
discussion
here,
I
think
yeah.
So
it
might
as
well
be
a
working
group
list,
but
if
people
don't
want
it,
that's
fine,
I,
just
I.
Just
think
that
people
are
using
these
definitions
enough,
where
it
would
be
good
to
actually
have
it.
You
know
be
stated,
as
updates
the
main
dog
right.