►
From YouTube: IETF106-RSEME-20191119-0830
Description
RSEME meeting session at IETF106
2019/11/19 0830
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/proceedings/
A
This
is
where
there
was
a
suggestion
to
bring
in
past
IAB
and
ITF
chairs
as
core
membership,
because
they
presumably
would
have
a
longer
term
vision
now
part
of
what
made
that
funny
is
the
person
who
suggested
it
at
the
time
also
said.
That
would
be
me,
but
I
don't
want
to
do
that
so,
but
the
idea
was
out
there.
A
They
really
wanted
the
group
to
look
to
the
the
long
term
structure
of
the
RFC
editor.
This
is
not
about
short-term
tactical
things.
This
is
a.
We
need
to
come
up
with
a
model
that
will
actually
survive
for
more
than
two
or
three
years,
we're
looking
at
more,
like
eight
ten
twelve
we'll
see
some
of
the
long
term
structural
issues
that
they
felt
this
group
really
need
to
clearly
focus
on
this
group.
A
Being
you
know,
whatever
program
or
working
group
is
put
together,
would
be
things
like
business
issues
where,
where
funding
should
come
from
administration
who
and
how
hiring
and
firing
should
be
handled
and
editorial
control,
how
does
that
work?
Who
gets
to
say
no
to
publishing
something
and
under
what
circumstances?
A
A
But
then,
if
that
individual
changes
people
want
the
role
to
change,
because
they're
not
sure
they're,
going
to
trust
the
next
person
as
much
as
they
trusted
the
original
entity,
that
makes
it
really
hard
to
actually
define
a
role,
and
if
you
put
something
out
for
contract,
you
can't
say
well,
here's
what
the
contract
is
and
we'll
add
more
later.
If
we
decide,
we
trust
you
trust
me
that
does
not
work
well.
A
So
there
were,
there
are
meetings,
here's
you
know.
Basically,
the
summary
we've
got
consistent.
You
know
open
and
open
participation
as
a
fundamental
necessity,
something
that
looks
like
a
working
group,
including
the
the
potential
for
an
initial
design
team,
did
I
mention
the
open
participation
and
making
sure
this
is
as
transparent
as
possible,
that
that
was
a
pretty
common
theme
throughout
and
focus
more
in
the
long
term
in
the
short
term.
A
So
the
proposal-
and
this
was
put
together
in
an
internet
draft.
How
many
of
you
have
read
the
internet
drafts
I
love,
you
guys
you're
awesome.
Thank
you
was
that
this
proposal
is
that
this
in
fact
become
an
IV
program
with
open
membership.
Strong
support
for
remote
participation
and
a
group
that
would
produce
regular
meeting
minutes
and
community
updates
in
whatever
forum
makes
the
most
sense.
The
scope
of
work
would
include.
A
But
I
suspect
there
are
things
that
could
be
improved
in
that
draft.
There
are
things
that
could
be
improved
in
the
proposal
of
how
to
run
this
and
that's
what
I
was
hoping
we
would
discuss
today.
We
already
have
a
jabber
scribe,
Thank
You
Adrian,
and
we
have
a
note-taker
Thank,
You
Sara
when
you
come
to
the
mic,
if
you
would
say
your
name
slowly
and
clearly,
I
would
appreciate
it,
as
wit
Sara,
and
for
the
folks
who
are
on
me
deco,
I
apologize
for
not
being
a
working
group.
Chair
I
will
do
my
best.
A
C
A
If
the
me
deco
folks
do
have
like
specific
questions
about
stuff,
let
me
know
I
guess
the
one
thing
I
would
really
focus
Terry
much
on
talking
about
the
process
of
making
decisions,
we're
not
talking
about
the
decisions
themselves
and
the
different
possibilities
for
how
they,
the
RC
edit
or
model,
could
go.
That's
that's
out
of
scope
for
today,
okay,
and
with
that
I
will
open
for
discussion.
D
D
A
D
A
D
D
A
F
G
G
Hello,
Brian
crock
and
sir
I
keep
annoying
Ted
with
this,
but
I
think
I'd
want
to
say
it
here,
because
it's
my
fault
that
the
IB
Charter
doesn't
actually
describe
what
the
IB
does
in
respect
of
the
RFC
editor,
because
it
has
some
very
specific
wording
in
which
possibly
was
originally
written
by
Christiaan.
Actually
in
the
previous
version
of
the
Charter
saying
that
what
the
IB
does
is
approve
the
appointment
of
an
organisation
to
act
as
RFC,
editor
and
and
its
general
policy
or
words
to
that
effect.
G
I
think
reality
is
for
the
last
10
years.
At
least
the
IB
has
done
more
than
that
and
I
think
one
outcome
of
this
process
should
be
that
the
IV
takes
it
upon
itself
to
propose
an
update
to
its
own
Charter
to
make
sure
the
Charter
actually
describes
reality
you're
all
we
just
reality
to
match
the
Charter.
In
that
you
know
the
discrepancy
shouldn't
shouldn't
survive.
I'd
also
make
a
request
to
the
IB
that
it
will
be
very
helpful
as
this
process
goes
forward.
G
F
No,
it's
okay,
uncle
I
just
wanted
to
know
if
I
needed
to
go
to
the
other
line
right
I-601
happening
another,
please
yeah.
Okay,
this
is
a
general
in
preparation
for
this
meeting.
I,
not
only
read
reread
the
RFC
editor
and
I
asked
at
2.0
and
I
read
your
document,
so
this
is
a
reflection
on
both
since
you're
proposing
a
since
bob
was
talking
very
generally
about
a
revision
of
that
document.
F
There.
It
seems
to
be
someplace
in
all
of
this,
for
a
respect
of
trust.
That
seems
to
be
missing
in
the
documents
in
in
in
modern,
oh
you're,
getting
coffee,
that's
a
very
important
thing
to
listen
with.
Tell
me
when
you're
ready,
okay,
good,
there
have
been
numerous
books,
read
about
written
about
the
speed
of
trust
and
and
a
respect
for
professionalism
and
the
startup
model
and
I
find
this
lacking.
F
So
it
all
of
this
discussion
I
know
it's
about
process,
but
the
thing
I
find
missing
in
the
process
is
the
place
for
the
respect
of
the
professionalism
that
we
have,
and
all
of
us
are
here
are
professionals
most
of
us
have
advanced
degrees,
a
person
who
comes
with
library.
Science
is
an
equal
professional
with
equals
standards.
I
I
the
feedback
is
I.
Don't
see
that
in
this
and
I
find
that
a
missing
piece,
because
in
a
contract
it
it's
under
at-will
employment,
at-will
employment
says
we're
both
working
together
for
a
professional
goal.
F
If
we
both
think
it's
not
working,
we
discontinue
because
it's
not
working
and
no
harm,
no
foul
we're
gonna
go
home
and
play
in
our
corners
by
ourselves.
That's
that's
not
here
at
all
in
this,
in
these
documents
or
in
this
dream,
or
in
this
discussion
and
I,
find
that
problematic.
Since
that
is
the
essence
of
what
makes
startups
go
fast
and
I
think
we
want
to
go
fast
with
our
publications
and
with
our
with
our
work.
Thank
You.
E
Brian
was
requesting
that
an
output
of
this
process
be
that
the
IB
adjust
its
Charter
to
match
the
reality
that
resulted
from
the
end
of
the
process
and
well
I
think
that's
a
valid
outcome.
It
can't
be
through
an
IEP
program
because
the
BCP,
because
the
IB
Charter,
is
a
PCP,
it's
an
ITF
output
and
it
needs
an
IETF
process
to
approve
it.
E
However,
one
possibility
here
might
be
that
the
the
results
of
the
IB
program
could
be
a
proposal
that
could
go
to
the
recently
minted
gen
dispatch
process
for
figuring
out
how
it
became
an
actual
DCP.
But
just
I
think
it's
quite
important
to
note
that
the
the
IAB
doesn't
update
its
own
Charter.
It
doesn't
have
that
right
or
power
Thank.
H
You
Leslie
Leslie,
Nagel
and
I'm
gonna
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
agree
with
what
Ted
just
said,
but
I'd
have
to
go
digging.
I
stood
up
here
because
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
in
that
and
talking
about
the
process,
the,
how
I
think
we
also
need
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
the
what
what
you
were
articulating
a
moment
ago
included.
You
know
talking
about
how
do
we
fund
the
RFC
editor?
How
do
we
do
this?
H
How
do
we
do
that
and
I'm
very
concerned
that
we
start
a
process
that
looks
like
saying:
hey,
let's
define
an
a
document
publication
system?
Let's
do
it
all
from
you
know:
table
Raza,
which
I,
don't
think
is
the
ask,
so
maybe
part
of
the.
How
is
to
first
articulate
what
are
the
top
order,
problems
that
we
think
we
have
to
solve
and
stay
focused
on
those
Thank.
I
Yeah
it's
Erica,
scroller
I
mean
this
overall
plan
seems
generally
sound,
I
I
think
I.
Wouldn't
there
have
been
the
document
about.
How
did
we
should
I
shares
my
view?
Could
candidates
first
in
this
I
think
probably
that's
not
a
good
plan.
Okay,
excellent
I,
guess
I
I'm
restraining
myself,
oh
no,
but
I
guess
I've
asked
others
written.
Those
would
probably
don't
have
to
have
discussion
about
the
substantive
outcomes
right
here.
I'm
sure
we
also
at
them,
but
I
think
right,
I.
I
Think
less
whose
point
about
what's
the
scope
is
relevant
I
think
certainly
we
should
be
he's
read
that
money
from
this
comes
from
the
LLC
and
light
that's
sort
of
that
sort
of
stuff,
but
I
think
you
know
the
the
a
from
from.
From
my
perspective,
you
know
that
we
should
be
assuming
that,
but
that
the
overall
question
is
at
what
best
serves
the
needs
of
the
community
I'm
going
forward
into
the
next.
As
you
say,
ten
or
whatever
years.
Thank.
K
Mike,
st.
John's
I've
got
three
things.
Let
me
hit
eckers
first,
one
of
the
problems
were
having
is
who
gets
to
call
consensus.
The
reason
for
suggesting
the
chairs
was
a
passed,
a
level
of
expertise
with
respect
to
the
IETF
and
the
community
and
some
measure
of
crust,
if
you
will
so
that
was
the
set
of
P
set
of
people
that
might
have
made
made
sense
for
that.
K
K
Okay,
people
may
disagree
with
that,
but
I
think.
If
that's,
where
we're
going,
that's
what
we
should
be
looking
at-
and
the
third
thing
I
think
is
the
IAB
ought
to
think
about
what
it
wants
its
role
to
be
in
this
thing
and
actually
come
forward
with
a
consensus
document
from
themselves
about
what
their
what
they
think
the
role
should
be
going
forward.
So.
L
H
H
It
is,
as
my
exceed
John's,
articulated
a
question
of
getting
community
consensus
on
any
changes,
but
speaking
as
somebody
who
used
to
sit
in
the
ivy
chair
role
and
went
through
many
years
of
you
know
feeling
me:
what
can
we
do?
But
what
can't
we
do
if
it
comes
to
updating
the
IAB
charter
first
order.
Priority
is
to
do
the
right
thing
and
make
it
read
the
right
way
and
if
the
IB
has
to
you
know
have
a
glaring
match
with
the
is
G
over.
You
know
approve
this
or
not.
H
That's
the
job
anyway.
My
point
being
really
that
it's
in
some
of
what
Ted
said
and
I'll
be
glad
to
have
him
clarify
so
that
I
don't
walk
away
out
of
the
room
feeling.
This
way
it
sounded
a
little
bit
like
well
we'd
like
to
do
that,
but
we're
not
sure
we
can,
or
you
know
whatever
the
IB
is
not
subject
to
the
IAS
G.
Okay,.
E
Now,
if
you
want
to
put
that
as
a
ESG
approval
of
it
sure
I
think
it's
more
important
that
the
community
is
a
whole
approves
of
it,
and
so
it
has
to
go
through
the
ITF
last
call
process
and
the
other
processes.
Jen
dispatch
has
been
created
for
mechanisms
like
that,
where
some
other
thing
has
been
created
externally,
that's
more
or
less
ready
for
ITF
discussion
and
that's
the
point
I
was
making
I
continue
to
think,
however,
that
if
the,
if
the
folks
in
this
room
agree
with
Mike
st.
E
K
I
think
Ted
misunderstood
me
or
was
conflating
a
couple
of
different
things:
I'm
I'm,
suggesting
that
the
output
of
this
thing
is
a
BCP,
which
means
it's
community
consensus,
I'm,
suggesting
that
the
IAD
separately
look
at
its
role
and
provide
input
into
the
BCP
and
then,
as
its
own
action
figure
out
what
it
needs
to
do
about
its
Charter.
Okay,.
N
Faulk,
full
disclosure
I
served
as
part
of
the
IRC
editor
at
one
time.
Currently,
a
member
of
the
RFC
series
advisory
group,
two
comments
and
I
have
to
say
my
thoughts
are
still
kind
of
forming
on
this,
but
one
when
we
talk
about
sort
of
creating
this
activity,
and
it
is
without
sort
of
talking
in
a
detail
about
the
what
it's
a
blank
box
I
feel
like
it
would
be
important
as
an
early
output
would
be
sort
of
a
statement
of
principles.
Right
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
I
think
that's
defined.
N
The
RFC
series
advisory
group
has
been
a
sense
of
stewardship.
There's
a
lot
of
history
here,
there's
a
real
attempt
to
have
continuity
in
how
our
documents
are
handled
and
I.
Think
that
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
there
should
be
some
sort
of
guideposts,
for
whatever
the
the
output
of
this
activity
comes
that
it's
is.
You
know
the
things
that
the
group
believes
it
supports
as
principles.
That
would
make
me
feel
a
lot
better
as
a
participant
or
just
an
observer
of
of
that
activity,
and
the
other
thing
is
kind
of
an
it.
N
But
it
really
got
to
me
that
in
one
of
the
calls,
the
third
call
I
think
the
summary
said.
The
group
should
come
up
with
the
process
for
the
long
term,
six
to
eight
years
for
a
50-year
document
series,
and
then
somebody
else,
maybe
it
was
Ted
said
our
baby
was
eckers
ten
years.
I
think
that
we
should
believe
whatever
we
come
up
with
can
survive
at
least
10
years,
preferably
longer,
but
I.
Think
six
to
eight
years
is
if
too
short
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that
Harold.
O
Thank
you.
So,
in
this
particular
context,
I
am
worried
that
we
are.
We
have
a
discussion
of
substance
of
getting
to
the
right
decision
and
we
have
a
decision
of
formalities
which
is
getting
the
result
of
that
decision
through
the
process
to
be
published
and
we're
mixing
them
the
basis
for
this
whole
shenanigan
was
that
our
recent
escapades,
starting
with
our
fc+
person,
some
well
before
and
after
that,
have
shown
that
there's
a
disconnect
between
leadership
and
community
in
what
we
should
do.
O
O
However,
when
that
process,
whatever
it
is
concludes
we
will
run
the
standard
process
of
the
IETF
to
have
the
resulting
documents
stamped
with
whatever
stamps
they
need
to
have.
If,
at
that
point,
someone
wishes
to
refight
the
battles.
I
am
sure
that
the
recent
discussion
about
recall
possessions
will
become
significant
again.
I
hope
will
not
get
there,
because
I
believe
sincerely
that
this
community
has
a
strong
will
to
get
to
do
the
right
thing.
No
matter
what
our
differences
of
opinion
have
been
in
the
past.
E
P
Paranal
outgoing
IAB
first.
Thank
you
very
much
for
running
this
process
in
this
document.
I
think
the
the
principles
of
the
process
that
are
laid
out
here
are
perfectly
reasonable.
Insane
and
like
everything
here
is
just
a
tweak
to
that.
I
want
to
reiterate
what
Erin
said:
I
think
it
is
very
good
guidance
to
say
we
should
split
the
principles
from
the
process
discussion
first
year
and
then
in
this
program,
because
I've
seen
through
this
entire
thing,
we
get.
P
We
get
really
tied
up
on
the
details
of
the
process
and
we
can
lose
track
of
what
it
is.
We're
actually
trying
to
do
so.
I
think
we
should
come
to
agreement
on
what
it
is,
we're
trying
to
do,
and
then,
let's
argue
the
point
to
process.
Having
said
that,
I'm
gonna
nitpick
the
process
here
a
little
bit.
A
P
I
would
caution
in
saying
in
taking
a
document
like
this
and
making
it
more
than
informational
like
so
that
the
framework
around
the
earth
Sauk
essentially
says
the
IAB
you
this
program,
the
IB
can't
close
the
our
sock
that
if
we
have
a
process
document
that
then
you
know,
creates
the
program
separate
from
the
IEP
as
well
to
create
and
destroy
the
program
it
will,
which
I
think
is
possibly
a
good
idea
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
that
can't
happen,
that
it
be
time
limited
in
summary,
in
some
way,
because
otherwise
we
will,
for
this
particular
run
of
the
process,
create
a
little
bit
more
bureaucratic
technical
debt
and
I.
P
H
Leslie,
Daigle
and
I
think
Harold
articulated
it
well
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
we
make
it
separation
between
how
we
achieve
an
articulation
of
what
good
looks
like
and
improve
our
future
from
what
is
the
process
by
which
we
will
produce
the
output.
So
I
think
that's
important
to
keep
in
mind,
because
my
earlier
comment
about
scope
top
order.
H
Priority
I
think
is
that
to
address
the
fact
that
the
problems
that
we
have,
the
ONC's
that
we
have
felt
about
our
FC
series
over
the
course
of
the
last
18
months
has
often
circulated
around
the
concern
of
whether
or
not
the
RFC
series
is
an
IETF
document.
Publication
stream
only
which
it
historically
has
not
been
arguably
should
not
be
going
forward.
H
So
unless
it
has
already
been
decided
that
the
IETF
that
the
RFC
series
is
an
IETF
publication
series
period,
the
location
for
the
discussions
of
what
is
necessary
for
the
outcome
should
not
be
uniquely
within
the
IETF,
which
is
why
a
working
group
is
not
an
IETF
working
group
is
not
the
appropriate
location
for
this
discussion,
even
if
the
ultimate
documents
have
to
go
through
the
IETF
process.
For
approval.
E
E
E
If
folks
are
willing
to
do
that,
I
think
we
may
end
up
in
a
situation
in
the
future,
where
we
get
multiple
streams
to
agree.
We've
certainly
had
documents
in
the
past
like
the
an
a
transition
documents
where
more
than
one
body
indicated
its
assent
to
a
document
as
it
went
through
the
process
and
that
we
may
be
able
to
move
forward
that
way,
but
I
think
I
would
very
much
like
to
get
some
agreement
today
on
the
process
that
we
want
to
use
moving
forward.
E
A
You
Wes
the
Necker.
J
West
heard
Acharya
say
I
like
what
Ted
just
sent
but
to
rephrase
it
in
a
different
way.
It
was
just
how
I
was
planning
on
phrasing.
It
is
it
feels
like
we
are
trying
to
come
up
with
the
results
and
how
things
are
going
to
flow
without
even
gotten
through
the
design
phase
of
knowing
what
it's
me
and
it's
very
hard
to
go.
I
need
to
figure
out
how
to
get
to
point
B.
My
final
conclusion
and
this
this
architecture
without
knowing
you
know
what
we
actually
want
as
a
result.
J
I
want
the
entire
community
to
be
happy
with
these
results,
and
that
brings
me
to
my
final
point,
which
is
that
calling
consensus
is
not
nearly
as
important
as
getting
the
community
to
agree
that
that
was
the
right
call
right.
If
one
group
has
to
call
for
consensus
and
then
there's
gonna
be
a
fight
over
it,
that's
a
huge
issue,
because
that
means
that
there
is
it.
J
There
is
a
disagreement
and
it's
much
more
important
to
get
into
a
forum
where
consensus
is
gonna
happen
anyway,
and
that
the
the
end
result
of
the
groupthink
will
be
yeah.
You
know-
maybe
not
everybody
agrees,
but
but
everybody
does
agree
that
that
you
know
the
majority
of
the
opinion
went
that
direction.
Thank.
I
I
I
think
you
know
it's
pretty
clear,
like
the
idea
she's
gonna
have
to
sign
up
on
this,
like
actually
is
all
the
representative,
the
ietf
and
like
what
do
you
think,
there's
a
night,
if
only
thing
or
like
an
ITF
important
thing,
it's
clearly
I
gives
an
enormous
consumer
of
the
service
as
the
idea
that,
like
we
may
change
that
in
the
I
issue,
we
hate
it
just
off,
not
something
a
function.
What
kind
of
output
may
be
people
differently
about
that?
I
Actually
screws
didn't
say
that
the
in
terms
of
process,
you
know
I,
don't
say
like
a
huge
amount
of
difference
between
like
functionally
between
like
an
IETF
working
group
and
and
what
suggested
here,
I
think
wasn't
perfectly
fine.
You
know
I
guess
what
I
would
say.
I
think
in
particular
the
primary
difference
seems
to
me
to
be
like
a
points
to
chairs.
I
I
certainly
would
like
Mike
want
this
to
be
run
at
least
somewhat
like
an
ITF
working
group,
and
it
seems
like
we
might
as
well
voiced
the
mechanisms
we
already
have
for
trying
to
have
like
consensus
legitimacy
out
of
the
ITF
process.
Don't
we
can
I've
been
on
a
number
of
IV
programs?
I
They
tend
to
be
a
tiny
bit
chaotic
and
if
we're
looking
for
a
broad
community
consensus,
we
already
have
a
core
set
of
processes
are
designed
to
do
that
that
the
IEP
program
is
really
designed
to
but
IIIi,
don't
know
not
to
say
like
it
has
to
be
like
MIT
or
working
group
in
the
sense
it's
like
on
the
data
tracker
in
this
bitter
place,
or
you
know,
or
that
it
has
to
have
like
a
it
be
in
the
general
area
and
with
that,
but
like
let's
not
spend
like
a
year
like
reinventing
all
our
processes
for
like
for
like
having
discussions
and
committee
consensus.
Q
Rich
sauce,
Akamai,
I
guess
I'm
also
like
I,
share
the
concern
of
the
previous
five
people
who
spoke
about,
let's
not
get
wrapped
up
in
process,
because
I
think
we
have
a
time
line
that
we
need
to
consider.
Working
groups
are
not
good
at
meeting
timelines
and
I
think
also
there's
an
acknowledgement
that
it
this
is
bigger
than
just
the
IETF.
Q
Therefore
bigger
than
just
the
iesg
I
found
it
really
interesting
that
the
readouts
from
three
sessions
you
held
over
the
course
of
time
the
opinion
of
the
quality
or
the
word,
the
value
of
the
IAB
went
up
significantly
right.
No,
no,
never
yeah,
maybe
yeah.
We
should
so
I
yeah.
Let's
first
get
some
documents
written
I,
don't
care,
maybe
get
just
a
mailing
list
on
the
you
know,
on
data
tracker,
that's
fine
and
then
we'll,
then
you
shop
appropriately.
Thank.
C
:
Perkins
I
just
like
to
echo
some
of
those
previous
comments.
The
the
RFC
serious
publishes
documents
for
much
more
than
just
the
IETF.
So
while
the
IETF
is
send
me
an
important
body,
I,
don't
think
this
should
be
an
IETF
working
group,
because
it's
a
broader
discussion,
although
a
working
group
like
process
seems
very
reasonable.
N
N
A
Actually
mentioned
that
in
the
draft
that
I
felt
the
RC
series,
Oversight
Committee
should
focus
much
more
on
the
immediate
operational
issues.
While
this
is
running
and
and
not
while
our
sock
members
should
absolutely
be.
You
know,
a
part
of
whatever
program
comes
together,
that
it's
not
their
purview,
to
run
it
or
bless
it
or
share
it,
or
anything
like
that
or.
R
Just
ask
Aaron:
do
you
have
a
concern
with
the
are
sock
participating,
as
in
do
I
totally
agree?
This
is
not
a
statement
for
the
are
sock
previous
disc
on,
don't
know,
take
or
Sarah.
C
R
N
Guess
if
I
would
be
uncomfortable,
if
folks,
who
are
in
a
in
an
administrative
or
oversight
role
in
how
things
have
been
operating,
were
in
a
leadership
position
for
this
sort
of
reforming
activities,
so
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
participating.
I
think
that
it
should
be
open.
The
more
informed
members
of
the
community,
the
better
but
I
think
when
it
comes
I.
N
Think
that
the
issue
of
like
getting
agreement
and
calling
consensus-
and
you
know
somebody
invoke
the
ITF
process
so
that
maybe
there's
appeals-
and
you
know
I-
think
that
there's
I
think
that
the
that
and
I
think
this.
This
is
kind
of
a
principle
that
comes
out
in
the
proposal
that
the
idea
is
to
have
this
be
kind
of
a
community
driven
thing
and
that
it
will
feel
more
like
a
community
driven
thing.
If
folks,
who
are
sort
of
in
the
current
administration
and
leadership,
aren't
in
the
administration
leadership
of
the
effort,
so
you're.
R
A
S
That
has
legitimacy
to
the
extent
that
we
can
rely
on
the
decisions
that
it
makes
and
the
question
of
whether
I
be
members
are
chairs
of
this
processes
is
I,
think
critical
if,
if
the
IAB
are
going
to
be,
for
instance,
on
the
appeals
chain,
which
is
something
you
haven't
mentioned
in
your
document,
then
I
can't
see
that
any
there
being
any
way
of
putting
them
in
both
tiers
of
that
chain.
I,
don't
think
that
makes
any
sense
at
all
for
the
legitimacy
of
the
process.
S
We
don't
put
area
directors
as
chairs
of
working
groups
that
they
oversee
themselves
and,
generally
speaking,
we
don't
have
area
directors
as
working
group
chairs
period
because
of
the
requirement
to
have
this
sort
of
second
level
check
which
gets
me
to
the
next
point.
A
lot
of
this
rides
on
who
we
put
in
this
critical
consensus,
calling
position
I
assume
that
the
responsibility
for
assigning
those
individuals
will
also
be
on
the
IEP
as
a
whole.
A
A
C
A
S
T
S
U
U
Just
one
point:
I
thought:
rich
I
almost
touched
on
it,
but
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
give
some
clarity
to
the
IAB
as
to
when
you're.
If
the
ivy
is
picking
chairs
are
doing
something
in
this
space
are
forming
a
program.
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
get
some
input
as
to
plain
you
would
like
that
to
happen,
because
I
just
don't
want
to
see
the
I
be
surprising.
The
community
yeah
so
telling
us
when
to
do
stuff
as
well
as
well.
U
A
V
W
It's
apparent
to
me
just
by
listening
between
the
lenses
that
were
here
that
that
you
know
there
are
still
a
lot
of
strongly
felt
healing
feelings
here
and
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
the
proposal
in
that
it's.
It's
saying
that
this
is
a
program
of
the
IAB
and
it's
gonna
run
on
consensus
as
defined
rough
consensus,
as
defined
in
Pete's
document,
which
is
it
not
standards
track.
W
You
know
the
chair
has
to
make
a
call
sometimes,
and
the
document
explicitly
lays
out
that
you
know
there
are
cases
where
there
are
five
people
who
are
correct
and
there
are
a
hundred
people
who
are
wrong
and
you
go
with
the
five
because
they're,
the
ones
who
have
made
the
technically
correct
argument
and
I
think
that's
a
again
a
fantastic
document.
But
in
the
dynamics
of
this
situation,
that
puts
a
tremendous
amount
of
power
in
the
chairs.
W
Hands
and
what's
making
me
nervous,
is
not
necessarily
that,
but
that,
in
combination
with
the
fact
that
the
appeals
chain
is
very
fuzzy,
I
am
worried
that
we're
gonna
get
to
a
situation
where
this
group
comes
to
some
rough
consensus.
By
that
definition,
and
it's
gonna
be
rough
I,
don't
think
everybody's
gonna
agree
and
somebody's
going
to
be
unhappy
or
a
group
of
people
are
gonna,
be
unhappy
and
they're
gonna
want
to
take
it
forth
and
it's
not
defined
explicitly.
W
But
because
it's
an
IB
program,
it'll,
probably
get
taken
forth
to
the
IAB
and
then
passed
that
because
it's
an
IAB
program,
it
gets
even
fuzzier,
and
so
that
could
be
a
recipe
for
a
really
bad
situation.
So
I
would
ask
you
to
think
a
little
bit
more
carefully
about
explicitly
laying
out
how
that
kind
of
situation
would
play
out,
at
least
so
that
we
go
into
it
under
standing.
That's
a
risk.
Mm-Hmm.
A
What
I
was
hoping
with
using
a
little
bit
of
author
license
is
my
my
observation
of
the
community
over
the
last
eight
years?
Is
that
it
each
group
as
they
try
and
define
you
know
what
consensus
is
going
to
be?
It
gets
squirrely
and
I
wanted
to
just
cut
that
conversation
right
out
and
say:
look
you
know
this.
This
is
a
reasonable
way
so
use
this.
A
Don't
have
that
conversation
about
what
what
is
consensus
in
this
forum
and
that,
in
a
way
that's
what
the
role
of
the
I
be
would
be
is
when
consensus
is
called
by
the
chairs.
If
there's
any
issue
with
how
that
was
done,
and
if
it
wasn't
done
according
to
the
guidelines
as
set,
that's
where
the
I
be
should
be
stepping
in
and
saying
wait
something
broke
and.
W
I
think
that's
good
I
think
maybe
just
spell
that
a
little
more
explicitly
that
you
know
the
IAB
is
that
has
that
role
and
if
there
is
a
role
beyond
that,
it
would
be
good
to
say
that
and
if
there
isn't
it
would
be
good
to
say
that.
But
but
let's
not
get
into
a
situation
where
it's
unclear
and
we're
already
in
a
crisis
sounds.
S
S
A
Am
right
there
with
you
and
actually
on
the
are
sock
agenda
on
Thursday
I
point-blank
asked.
You
know
the
are
Sox
opinion
they
don't
they
don't
know
this,
yet
they
haven't
seen
the
slides.
Do
I
publish
this
document,
you
know,
do
I
request
it
be
published.
I
agree
with
you,
I'm
not
actually
sure
it
should
be
published
as
an
RFC
I
think
having
it
written
in
a
familiar
structure
as
an
internet
draft
makes
all
the
sense
in
the
world,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
it
as
an
RC
yeah.
S
And
and
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
that
it's
it's
an
awkward
position
to
be
in
we're
going
to
be,
depending
on
the
procedures
that
are
written
down
in
this
document
and
if
we
do,
for
instance,
cite
the
consensus
and
humming
ROC
there
now
that
may
be
part
of
the
formal
process
that
this
follows
and
if
there
are
appeals,
those
appears
we'll
have
to
consider
that
document.
So
it's
a
little
bit
awkward,
but
as
long
as
everyone
here
and
and
on
the
mailing
list
are
comfortable
with
that,
I
think
we
can
proceed.
I.
Think.
A
I
Eric's
role
since,
as
we
mentioned
twice,
I,
feel
compelled
to
mention
that
document
has
no
normative
force
whatsoever,
so
will
be
a
concrete
decision
to
adopt.
That
document
is
not
part
of
idea
process
in
any
way.
Yes,.
A
O
I
I
R
I
just
want
to
go
on
the
record
as
saying
I
agree
with
mark
I'm,
a
little
surprised
that
we
are.
There
was
such
brouhaha
over
our
sock
and
IAB,
and
all
this
good
stuff
in
the
summer
and
yet
we're
back
following
trucking
down
a
process
that
puts
things
back
in
the
hands
of
the
IAB,
and
so
that's
fine.
We
can
totally
agree
to
do
that,
but
I
think
we
should
be
extremely
crystal
clear
as
to
exactly
what
that
means
and
what
that
doesn't
mean.
R
R
E
A
J
J
You
know
we
typically
we've
been,
we've
been
talking
about
chairs,
but
we
haven't
talked
about
number
of
chairs,
and
so,
when
you
look
at
other
models
like
Supreme,
Court's
and
various
countries,
you
know
they
include
lots
of
different
viewpoints
with
lots
of
different
bias
so
that
when
a
decision
is
made
like
calling
for
consensus
or
something
like
that,
both
sides
get
to
you
know
to
declare
their
opinion
there's
a
some
sort
of
vote.
Then
they,
you
know,
there's
dissenting
opinions
published,
and
you
know
the
United
States
now
has
nine
Supreme
Court
justices.
J
They
used
to
have
five
and
four
before
that,
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
number
is,
but
it
sure
seems
to
me
like
one
way
around
some
of
this,
this
processes
that
actually
include
a
lot
of
different
biased
viewpoints
so
that
when
a
decision
is
made-
and
hopefully
it
would
be
unanimous-
you'd
have
a
much
better
faith
in
that
final
decision.
That.
A
K
Mike,
st.
John's
what's
popped
up
something
and
it's
actually
not
the
worst
idea,
I've
heard
I
I'm,
sorry
I
didn't
need
to
say
it
that
way:
there's
a
model
that's
used
for
mediation,
sometimes
where
each
side
picks
mm-hmm
they're
their
person,
and
then
the
two
people
agree
upon
a
third
that
may
be
a
model
for
this
particular
thing
where
we
we
we
bring
that
down
and
then
the
vote
is
on
those
three
people.
O
A
Cage
match
at
the
chair
table
is
not
a
good
idea.
Agree.
Okay.
This
was
a
really
really
helpful
conversation,
I,
think
and
and
thanks
everyone
to
for
keeping
it
fairly
on
point
what
I'm
hearing
at
the
end
of
it
is.
You
know
the
as
I
as
I
said
before.
First
order
of
businesses
is
just
everyone
putting
their
heart
into
doing
the
right
thing
and
figuring
out
some
of
the
the
you
know
not
trying
to
define
the
process
end
to
end
right
now,
because
we
just
don't
have
enough
information
to
do
it.
A
It
does
sound
like
an
IEP
program
is,
is
still
more
or
less
the
way
to
go.
It's
it's
got
some
legitimate
concerns,
and
if
we
document
what
those
concerns
are,
we
can
at
least
say
we
we
consider
this.
This
is
where
we
are
worried
and,
as
future
Ivy's
look
at
the
community
discussion.
They
can
say,
oh
well,
this.
This
is
something
we
need
to
be
particularly
sensitive
to,
because
of
how
the
community
is
approaching.