►
From YouTube: IETF106-GENDISPATCH-20191118-1810
Description
GENDISPATCH meeting session at IETF106
2019/11/18 1810
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/proceedings/
A
A
C
D
E
A
All
right,
let's
get
rolling
blue
sheets
around
about.
If
you
are
here
for
Jenn
dispatch,
you
are
in
the
right
place.
We
have
been
taking
notes
in.
Are
you
taking
notes
in
etherpad?
If
anybody
would
like
to
join
Ben
and
etherpad
that
I'm
sure
he
would
be
thrilled
to
have
the
help?
Murray
is
back
there
doing
jabber,
scribing
and
and
relaying.
A
If
anyone
wants
to
join
Murray
in
the
jabber
room,
I'm
sure
he
would
appreciate
it
and
blue
sheets
are
going
around
and
if
you
are
in
the
back
and
actually
plan
to
talk
come
to
the
front
and
if
not
well,
fine
just
play
in
the
back
all
right.
All
of
the
appropriate
information
is
up
on
the
screen
and
oh
and
look
at
that.
We
have
magic
button
and
everything
it's
early
in
the
week,
but
everybody
in
here
I
expect
should
know
how
to
note.
Well
the
note.
A
Well,
please
do
make
sure
that
minutes
you
understand
that
minutes
are
being
taken,
the
meeting
is
being
recorded
and
your
presence
is
logged
on
the
blue
sheets.
If
you
have
any
issues
with
intellectual
property
and
any
of
the
things
that
are
being
discussed
today,
you
probably
want
to
read
up
on
the
rules
and
check
with
a
lawyer.
A
A
Or
what
have
you
so
we're
trying
to
get
enough
information
out
of
the
proposals
to
understand
which
one
of
those
things
it
is
we're
not
trying
to
argue
the
proposals
in
here
and
then
we're
going
to
at
the
end,
make
a
recommendation
to
Alisa
or
whoever
else
might
be
involved
about
what
to
do
there
anything
else
you
wanted
so
Joel.
Why
don't
you
flow
it
up
and
give
us
your
dog
and/or
pony,
show.
F
Hello,
I'm
Joel
Halpern.
This
is
a
very
short
draft
and
in
fact
I
did
not
make
any
slides
for
it
as
it
seemed
pointless.
The
slides
would
be
longer
than
the
draft,
so
the
history
is
very
simp.
The
relevant
piece
of
history,
our
history
as
a
whole
is
not
simple,
but
the
relevant
pieces
of
history
are
very
simple.
F
Rfc
2026
says
you
can
put
that
the
that
the
RFC
editor
can
publish
informational
and
experimental
drafts,
which
I
do
not
have
IETF
consents
rough
consensus,
I'm
paraphrasing,
which,
when
2026
was
written,
was
absolutely
necessary
because
there
were
no
streams
so
that
covered
IEP
documents.
It
covered
RTF
documents.
It
covered
the
things
that
John
Postell
published,
which
are
now
independence,
dream
documents.
F
They
have
done
this
and
recently
proposed
to
do
so
ago,
ad
proposed
to
do
so
again,
which
is
what
caused
me
to
go,
because
that
just
makes
the
ITF
stream
is
the
ITF
stream.
It
should
be
ITF
rough
consensus
documents
so
the
now.
So
this
are
this
one
says
simple,
update,
2026
to
say
the
is
T
will
must
not
publish
informational
or
experimental
documents
in
the
IETF
stream
without
IETF
rough
consensus,
and
then
it
goes
through
and
discusses
the
few
corner
cases
we
could
think
of.
F
It
does
note
in
the
very
bottom
that
if
this
doesn't
happen,
the
IB
should
probably
look
at
the
boilerplate
cuz.
The
IAB
owns
the
boilerplates,
because
the
boilerplate
difference
it
turns
out,
if
you
do
take
this
path,
is
simply
that
the
non
consensus
document
is
missing.
The
sentence
that
says
there
was
consensus,
not
exactly
clear
but
I.
Consider
that
a
minor
issue,
because
the
right
fix
is
dead,
simple
right
there
on
the
screen.
So
what
I'd
like
is
feedback
from
other
people.
B
Hi
this
is
Barry
liebe
I'm,
the
ad
whoo-hoo
Joel
just
mentioned
I,
didn't
suggest
that
we
would
that
we
should
do
it.
I
suggested
that
it
was
possible
to
do
it
and
I
support
this
document.
I
think
it
is
generally
the
policy
right
now
that
we
do
this
and
I
think
making
it
cast
a
bit
casting
it
in
stone
is
better.
G
Thank
You
Philip,
Johan,
Baker
yeah
I
very
much
support
this.
Having
been
the
victim
of
it,
there
was
an
occasion
where,
at
an
early
stage
of
what
I
believed
to
be
an
independent
draft,
I
was
told
in
no
certain
terms
that
my
input
was
not
wanted
and
I
had
no
right
to
raise
it,
and
that
then
became
a
draft
and
it
is
now
an
RFC
with
ITF
and
standards
track
on
it,
and
I
was
really
really
pissed,
as
everybody
knows,
and
I
tried
to
appeal
it
and
was
not
able
to
appeal
it
either.
G
A
I
J
Not
Hardy
speaking
I
am
broadly
in
favor
of
this
I
do
believe
that
the
document
may
need
a
slight
revision
to
make
it
clear
that
what's
the
ITF
has
consensus
about
is
or
rough
consensus
about
is
to
publish
not
necessarily
the
content,
because
you
may
be
publishing
something
as
experimental,
in
particular,
with
the
results
of
the
experiment,
which
you
clearly
have
determined
failed,
and
therefore
we
don't
have
consensus
around
the
protocol.
We
have
consensus
to
publish
the
results
of
the
experiment,
so
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
extra
wording
or
a.
F
J
F
K
K
That
talking
about
the
streams
and
talking
about
what's
necessary
for
each
stream,
even
if
that's
the
idea
does
X
and
others
things
to
Y
rather
than
integrating
other
ones
stating
this
simply
in
terms
of
what
the
IETF,
the
stream
us,
but
the
IETF
must
juice
just
feels
wrong
to
me,
but
I
think
it's.
It
was
correct.
A
A
L
Elissa
Cooper,
it
would
be
useful
to
understand
these
alternative
things
that
people
have
just
spoken
about,
so
getting
a
little
bit
of
that
feedback
on
the
agenda.
Specialist
would
be
good,
and
my
other
question
is
whether
people
think
there's
any
specific
subsets
of
the
community
that
should
become
aware
of
this
before
it
goes
to
ITF
last
call.
L
A
A
A
This
is
for
those
who
may
not
have
read
about
changing
the
eligibility
requirements
to
be
on
a
recall
petition.
So
not
the
recall
committee,
not
the
NomCom,
but
the
recall
petition
the
requests
to
recall
an
ad
and
the
idea
was
to
provide
some
enfranchisement
for
remote
participants.
Moute,
that's
the
biggest
change
is
that
remote
participants
would
be
able
to
sign
a
recall
petition.
A
You
know
the
other
thing
it
does.
Is
it
changes?
It
reduces
the
number
of
people
on
a
petition
in
order
to
start
a
recall-
and
this
is
about
equity,
for
remote
participants.
More
than
anything
else,
and
it's
seen
as
a
small
step
that
could
be
done,
and
rather
than
go
and
going
into
the
big
thing
immediately
could
lead
to
other
changes,
so
the
eligibility
discus
list
was
set
up.
A
There
was
some
discussion
about
that
and
then
ekor
had
proposed
the
his
document,
which
was
more
about
addressing
efficacy
rather
than
equity,
which
is
to
say
the
point
of
the
second
document
is
look.
The
recall
process
does
not
work
in
general
and
maybe
the
better
way
to
approach.
This
is
to
have
a
new
recall
process
in
which
the
members
of
the
iesg
IAB.
What
have
you
can
a
petition
within
themselves
to
recall
each
other
I'm,
sorry
in
place
of.
M
I
An
echo
did
you
want
to
clarify
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
you
know,
let's,
let's
not
get
too
carried
away
and
like
that
details,
I
make
and
I
proposed
first
as
me,
and
my
st.
John's,
but
yes,
sorry
about
that's,
not
good
to
carry
with
it.
Here's
our
what
we
did
proposed
but
I,
don't
think
it
actually
did
replace
I.
Think
it
augmented,
I,
think
we're
just
like
I
think
in
our
version
we
didn't
you
could
still
do
the
ordinary
hall
procedure.
We
just
think
it's
useless.
I
A
Call
I
wouldn't
objected
that
so
and
but
I
think
one
important
point
is
that
the
position
of
that
document
is
that
the
current
procedure
isn't
working,
and
so
let's
try
something
that
might
work
and
to
say
that
the
draft
Munusamy
might
be
just
moving
around
deckchairs.
So
we
had
this
virtual
meeting
and
next
slide.
So
let
me
give
you
the
high-level
takeaways
that
I
had
as
chairing
this
meeting.
A
N
I
I
guess
the
way
I
would
phrase
it
is
that
they're
in
a
number
of
situations
in
which
people
were
like
very
dissatisfied
with
certain
area
directors,
and
they
opted
to
just
wait
for
the
Waveland
come
said,
we're
role
and
that
that
may
be
the
right
outcome.
But
then
having
a
recall
processes
in
particular,
helped
--fill.
N
A
Are
you
optimizing
for
yes
and
and
I
I
think,
and
this
discussion
was
had
was
the
open
question
of
whether
that
was
representative
of
there
was
not
enough
desire
for
a
recall
and
therefore
the
process
worked
or
yes,
there
really
was
what
we
think
was
enough
desire
for
recall,
but
the
process
wasn't
manageable
and
we
have
to
figure
that
out.
But
at
least
the
idea
of
the
second
draft
was
on
the
premise
that
we're
not
getting
there,
because
the
process
is
too
heavy
and
here's
an
alternative
that
was.
I
O
A
And
again
my
interpretation
listening.
There
were
certainly
people
who
did
not
think
it
was
worth
dressing.
My
gut
and-
and
you
know
it
can
be
disagreed
with-
was
that
the
the
general
tenor
was
that
yes,
this
was
something
that
was
interesting
to
address
and
that
some
people
thought
it
was
not,
but
the
general
movement
was
at
least
from
my
take
that
direction.
I
was
the
one
taking
notes.
I
was
the
one
listening
for
that.
You
can
always
choose
to
say.
I
was
wrong
about
that
Lesley
then
Patrick.
D
Patrick
Patrick
McManus,
I'm,
I
guess,
given
the
invitation
to
say
you're
wrong
about
this
I'll
support
the
year
wrong
here
and
I
think
it
was
a
hard
call
to
to
summarize,
and
that
may
actually
be
my
top
level
bit
was
that
I
didn't
think
there
was
a
lot
of
consensus.
I
thought
there
were.
You
know
around
a
dozen
different
people
and
probably
like
eight
different
schools
of
thought
going
on
and,
and
that
was
difficult
and
there
certainly
wasn't
a
lot
of
agreement
across
wise.
D
D
You
know
really
sensitive
and
well
done,
and
one
of
the
conclusions
I
kind
of
made
was
that
as
a
reason
you
see
recall,
it's
not
happening
is
because
they
have
a
high
cost
with
them
along
a
number
of
different
dimensions,
and
so
the
fact
that
it's
not
being
used
might
not
mean
it's
a
problem.
It
might
actually
mean
it's
a
choice,
fair
enough
at
Wesley,
yeah.
P
I
think
Leslie
I,
don't
think
he
had.
Enterprises
I
think
that
that
I'm
sort
of
following
on
a
bit
from
that
part
of
the
challenges
or
maybe
a
better
activity,
would
be
to
try
to
categorize.
In
cases
where
people
have
sort
of
there
has
been
some
recall
energy
trying
to
categorize
what
was
the
issue
and
how
is
it
resolved?
P
A
And
and
I
want
to
say
from
my
perspective,
sort
of
listening
to
the
conversation
and
I
don't
want
to
just
to
go
back
to
Patrick
for
a
second
I.
Don't
want
to
diminish
that
point
that
I
thought
was
really
important,
that
just
going
through
a
recall,
has
certain
impacts
and
certain
really
negative
impacts,
depending
on
the
purpose
of
the
recall
and
and
how
it's
used.
A
G
For
start,
it
would
probably
blow
up
the
organization
just
trying
and
if
you
were
going
to
do
it
I
think
that
you
would
at
least
want
to
have
people
attend
ITF
meetings
in
person,
first
to
sort
the
thing
out
directly
and
if
you
weren't
making
that
sort
of
input
I
just
don't
see
what
the
you
know.
I
I
think
the
text
I.
Think
of
all
the
things
about
the
virtual
participation.
A
A
So,
even
and
given
the
mechanism
that
was
described
in
the
document,
which
is
you
had
to
be
registered
remotely
for
three
out
of
the
last
five
meetings,
it
would
take
you
at
least
a
year
to
be
able
to
get
enough
sockpuppets
to
start
just
the
petition,
which
could
then
be
dismissed
by
a
recall
committee.
So
but
yes,
it
was
definitely
a
concern
that
was
raised.
Elisa
then
Ted
and
then
John
will
be
after
that
ELISA.
L
Cooper,
so
on
the
call
I'm,
just
speaking
as
an
individual,
with
a
particular
perspective
on
the
call,
it
was
musing
a
little
bit
about
the
extent
to
which
there's
some
like
shame
involved
in
this
process
and
how
some
people,
who
are
you
know
in
a
position
where
they
are
not
performing.
The
role
that
they
signed
up
for
can
be
in
jeopardy
of
feeling.
L
You
know
a
more
kind
of
compassionate
place
that
that
is
more
welcoming
to
people.
So
it's
just
like
a
little
bit
of
a
tension
that
I
see
in
that
like.
If
people
are,
you
know
want
to
do
something
like.
Can
we
put
it
into
a
more
positive
direction,
as
opposed
to
this
which,
by
which,
by
its
nature,
is
kind
of
a
pretty
negative
and
divisive
direction,
and.
A
A
B
J
Ted
Hardy
speaking
I
I
wanted
to
return
to
the
question
of
how
you
would
dispatch
this.
Thank
you
and
I
think
it's
very
clear
from
the
conversation
up
to
now
that
ad
sponsorship
pretty
much
offers
a
pool,
but
the
level
of
consensus
that
seems
to
be
emerging
does
not
seem
to
support
an
immediate
rush
to
a
particular
solution
here
and
I,
believe
that
leaves
us
with
a
ball
for
dispatching
to
an
existing
working
group
and
I.
J
Don't
think
there
is
such
an
existing
and
as
I
was
thinking
about
the
potential
of
what
such
a
birds
of
a
feather
session
would
look
like.
Phil
got
up
and
and
talked
about
remote
participation
and
I
tend
to
agree
with
one
of
his
comments,
which
is,
if
we're
going
to
have
a
buff
about
equity
for
remote
participation,
starting
with
the
positive
aspects
like
serving
a
noncom,
might
be
a
more
productive
place
to
start
than
this.
J
But
what
I
was
going
to
suggest
is
if
we
do
want
to
move
forward
with
this
and
did
hold
such
above.
One
of
the
primary
purposes
of
that
Boff
would
probably
be
to
figure
out
how
to
scope
the
equity
question
in
a
way
that
supports
the
remote
participants,
rather
than
focusing
very
narrowly
on
this,
so
I
would
prefer
to
see
up
off,
but
AB
off,
more
broadly
scoped
in
the
ways
that
Phil
and
Alyssa's
comments
hinted
might
be
better
for
the
organization
in
the
long
term.
Yeah.
A
M
K
K
One
thing
we
should
probably
decide.
However,
we
said
they
handle
this
and
maybe
another
verse,
a
virtual
Bluff
is
the
right
way
to
do.
It
is
whether
the
question
about
complete
performance
with
recall
procedure
are
part
of
that
scope
or
not,
but
are
part
of
some
others
called.
Thank
you
thanks.
Jenna
hi.
B
Good,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
employ
one
of
John's
points
to
point
out
that,
as
he
mentions,
large
numbers
of
bad
actors
are
relatively
easy
to
come
by
these
days,
but
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
the
cost
of
participating
in
this
event
remotely
is
zero
dollars,
and
so
there
is
effectively
no
impediment
to
breguet
ting
this
process
at
the
moment.
If
we
choose
to
do
that
differently,
then
there
are
ways
to
avoid
that,
but
at
the
moment
I
believe
we
should
consider
that
as
a
viable
part
of
the
model.
B
Barry
this
is
Barry
liebe
I
started
off
well,
I
I
do
agree
with
Ted
that
addressing
the
broader
issue
of
non-common
eligibility
and
other
things
to
enfranchise
remote
participants
is
is
more
important
than
addressing
this
small
piece.
But
I
have
been
convinced
that
it
is
worth
addressing
this
small
piece
as
a
way
to
get
there
I
think
the
irony
of
having
a
boffin
Vancouver,
that
is
for
remote
participants,
kind
of
goes
without
saying
and
I
think
we're
at
a
point
where
we
could
charter
a
working
group
directly
without
worst
another
virtual
meeting
to
discuss
it.
I
Yeah
well
I
mean,
obviously
anybody
can
Bruce
a
charter
and
flooded,
but
the
reason
this
is
getting
pushed
out
is
not
actually
consistent
to
do
it,
and
so
hence,
like
the
discussion
continues
because
there's
discussion,
but
because
it
like
it's
not
like
universal
support
for
it.
So
you
know
why
not
to
feel
free
to
float
the
Charter
and
then
we
can
I
guess
we
can
the
last
call
on
the
ITF
list,
but,
like
you
know,
that's
not
gonna
change
the
fundamental
level
of
support
Stephen.
Q
So,
at
the
risk
of
another
current
I
star
member
saying
don't
just
focus
on
Rico
I
think
to
me
it
makes
much
more
sense
if
there's
gonna
be
a
working
group
or
a
virtual
buffle
whatever
for
that
to
have
broader
scope
on
the
equity
issue.
I
I
agree
with
Alyssa
about
that.
You
know
expanding
energy
on
making
it
better
for
people
who
mostly
participate
remotely
see
much
more
worthwhile
to
me
sure
as
part
of
that
address
recalls,
but
I'm
not
convinced
Asbury.
Is
that
the
recall?
The
starting
point
is
the
best
place.
A
One
of
the
things
that
came
up
during
the
virtual
meeting
that
I
want
to
reiterate
I
asked
the
question
whether
folks
thought
this
would
doing.
This
would
cause
active
damage
rather
than
they
didn't
want
to
do
it.
There
was
some
indication
that
people
thought
it
would,
and
you
know,
I
wanted
I
would
want
to
hear
that
fleshed
out.
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
important
is
people
saying
we
don't
want
to
do.
This
is
not
sufficient
to
say
there
is
not
consensus
to
do
it.
A
I
A
J
J
Let's
be
frank,
other
people
might
be
able
to
do
a
better
job
of
making
that
balance
of
equity
than
this
particular
community,
but
I
got
up
to
say
something
else,
and
that
is
quite
simply,
I
think
the
harm
here
is
that
if
you
start
the
discussion
of
equity
here,
it
starts
with
a
negative
bias,
because
it's
around
the
question
of
who
gets
the
right
to
accuse,
not
decide
the
results
of
the
accusation.
But
who
gets
the
right
to
accuse,
rather
than
around
the
question
of?
J
J
R
Cullen
Jenks
the
that
I
would
just
like
to
highlight
that
the
one
of
the
concerns
that
comes
up
on
this
it
has
been.
You
know,
effectiveness,
Hawk,
Parker,
those
types
of
things,
and
we
have
seen
that
really
happen.
There
was
cases
in
WebRTC
where
there
was
very
clear
evidence
that
remote
participants
in
a
disingenuous
and
fake
people
and
fake
things
manipulate
the
consensus
process.
So
I
I
think
that
that's
one
of
the
things
that
people
want
want
to
see
something
like
now.
R
That's
sad
I,
don't
care
about
the
recall
process,
something
works,
but
I
would
love
to
see
us
having
a
better
definition
of
membership
in
this
organization
than
our
current
Nam
Kham,
edible
definition,
it's
awful
right,
so
I
would
be
happy
to
see
us
work
on
that
for
a
more
general
set
of
purposes
than
just
this
stuff.
But
the
difficulty
is:
is
we're
not
hearing
concrete
proposals
for
what
it
would
be
that
are
gathering
a
lot
of
consensus
right?
That's
the
problem!
It's
not
that
it's
not
that
people
don't
wish.
We
had
one.
R
It's
that
the
proposals
look
like.
They
have
very
a
lot
of
problems
and
this
term
equity
is.
This
is
just
a
slight
little
slide.
Yet
I
can't
put
my
finger
on
why
the
term
equity
to
refer
to
the
disenfranchised
ation
of
the
remote
people
really
grates
me
in
the
same
way
that
third-world
countries
great
to
me,
but
it
does
great
me,
I,
wish
we
had
a
better
term
interesting.
A
Actually,
let
me
ask
a
question
before
you
disappear,
so
the
first
part
of
what
you
said
do
I
understand
you
to
say:
you
think
that
some
sort
of
buff
some
sort
of
consensus
building
in
order
to
figure
out
what
needs
to
be
done
to
get
better
participation.
Enfranchisement
pick
your
other
term
other
than
equity
is
what
we
need
to
do
next.
I
think
it.
R
We
don't
generally
have
bossun
technical
objects
things
unless
somebody
has
some
proposals
that
look
like
they
probably
work
right
like
if
somebody
says
I'd
like
AB
off
on
perpetual
motion
machines,
we'll
probably
be
like
well,
you
know
when
you
bring
us
a
viable
proposal,
we'll
discuss
it,
but
not
before
so
yeah
I'd
be
glad
to
see
something
like
that
happen
and
I
would
encourage
it
to
be
for
the
broader
thing
than
just
the
narrow
recall,
because
I
view,
the
recall
is
not
terribly
important,
but
I
have
no
objection
of
being.
These
recalled
right
thanks.
B
Mike
Hagen
here,
okay,
so
for
what
it's
worth,
I
think
that
what
we're
actually
talking
about
here
is
the
accessibility
of
the
organization
right.
The
ability
to
reduce
barriers
to
participation
and
the
ability
of
new
people
to
become
involved
in
the
ITF
I
think
that
that
is
a
noble
goal,
particularly
for
remote
people.
Remote
participants
of
all
stripes,
but
I
do
think
that
that
is
a
different
conversation
or
it's
a
broader
conversation.
But
more
importantly,
I
think
that,
starting
that
conversation,
experimentally
is
important.
B
Finding
new
ways
to
make
new
parts
of
the
organization
more
accessible
is
a
valuable
goal.
I
think
that's
starting
that
process
with
what
amounts
to
a
discipline
starting
it
in
what
amounts
to
a
disciplinary
part
of
the
organization
or
a
disciplinary
process
is
a
much
riskier
way
to
with
much
more
potential
negative
side-effects
which
whose
consequences
will
include
if
it
goes
badly
on
unwillingness
to
explore
that
further
as
an
org,
then
you
would,
if
you
had
exploring
virtually
on
any
other
part
of
the
ITF
process.
B
D
So
I
want
to
address
the
concept
of
active
harm
because
you
asked
about
it,
and
so
I
think
gather
anything
about
this
in
two
different
ways.
With
with
this
proposal,
one
is
the
cultural
side
effects
that
we've
been
talking
about,
and
I
won't
continue
to
to
identify
those,
but
I
think
that's
a
big
issue.
I
think
is
also
a
tactical
side.
When
I
talk
with
people
about
you
know
malfeasance
that
they
they
believe
would
you
know,
make
someone
eligible
for
the
recall
process.
If
you.
D
I
think
is
perhaps
a
tactical
mistake
for
us
to
do
at
this
point
from
a
very
just
dispatch,
equine
kind
of
question.
With
respect
to
you
know
these
these
to
recall
proposals.
You
know
I
I
think
these
should
probably
stop
here,
but
we
might,
you
know,
still
one
honor
take
the
larger
question
of
remote
eligibility.
A
And
I
think
that
last
bit
is
exactly
what
I
was
thinking
that
the
recommendation
of
this
room
is
sounding
like
it's
leaning
toward
if
you're
gonna
take
on
something
like
this
take
on
the
question
of
remote
participation,
maybe
membership,
although
that
word,
has
all
sorts
of
implications,
but
but
enfranchisement.
What
have
you
and
Bob
that
and
maybe
to
be
less
ironic,
virtually
Buffett,
but
that's
so
far.
What
I'm
hearing
is
the
recommendation
of
the
room.
Does
anybody
want
to
disagree
with
that.
K
I
just
want
to
do
Express
this
agreement.
I
I,
think
this
gets
back
to
some
things
before
setting
the
call
about
how
to
parse
this
out
and-
and
there
is
whether
you
call
it
an
equity
issue
or
something
else,
I'd
rather
call
it
something
else.
There
is
a
a
real
issue
with
remote
participants
being
protect
them
cell
against
harmful
behavior
that
is
differentially
applied
to
remote
participants
and
that's
a
significant
issue.
A
A
S
This,
this
is
I,
think
an
important
question
for
this
process
to
address,
which
is
look
at
that.
So
this
is
the
proposal
it's
about
one
page.
It
essentially
proposes
updating
BCP
9,
which
is
you
know
the
the
all-encompassing
process
that
governs
pretty
much.
Everything
that
we
do
here
with
a
very
small
change
essentially
just
removes
the
paragraph,
because
this
notion
that
drafts
expire
I
think
expired
a
long
time
ago
itself.
S
But
I
think
that
there's
a
bigger
question
here,
which
is
that
how
how
do
we
run
small
things
like
this
I,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
We
talked
about
having
buffs,
but
how
would
you
make
a
change
like
this?
This
is
almost
a
nonsensical
change
and
I
would
like
to
discuss
it
in
the
time
that
we
have
available,
but
I'm
more
interested
in
discussing
this
question
right
here
who
publishes
this
document?
What
is
the
constituency
for
a
document
like
this?
How
do
we
decide
what
consensus
is
for
something
like
this.
S
P
P
Well,
I
do
actually,
but
but
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
point
that
they
had
to
answer
this
question
I
think
the
first
order
of
business
is
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
broader
support
for
the
notion
of
scope
of
change.
I
mean
in
general,
I
greet
I,
think
the
expiration
date
probably
makes
little
sense,
but
I
do
think
that
it
makes
sense
in
the
context
of
understanding
whether
something
is
current
or
not
right,
but
that's
a
whether
it's
so
it
it
is
a
small
change.
It
leads
to
a
larger
discussion
of
water.
S
P
So,
but
to
back
out
of
having
the
constructive
discussion
right
and
focus
on
your
question
here,
I
think
the
part
of
the
answer
to
the
question
not
eyetality.
The
answer
to
the
question
is
you
have
to
have
a
public
discussion,
whether
it's
on
a
mailing
list,
even
de
kated,
whether
it's
other
gen
dispatch,
can
launch
these
things
or
whatever
right,
but
whatever,
whatever
the
process
is,
there
has
to
be
general
agreement
about
the
size
of
change
is
being
undertaken
before
you
have
an
answer
to
the
whole
question.
I.
I
Physically
I
have
an
answer
to
your
question:
I
think,
which
is,
we
should
form
a
working
group
which
would
how
people
can
present
small
things
like
this
and
then
the
working
group,
it's
just
that
the
ad
sponsor
them
and-
and
so
fortunately,
I
have
a
time
machine
I
went
back
and
did
that
in
response
to
reading
this
deck,
and
so
how
does
working
group
you
were
here
and
on?
So?
If
people
in
this
room
are
generally
positive
about
it,
then
the
ad
should
sponsor
it.
I
am
positive
about
it
and
I
think
baby
should
sponsor.
J
So
I
would
suggest
first
that
you
make
a
meta
discussion
of
whether
this
has
to
apply
to
all
streams
or
not
if
it
doesn't
have
to
apply
to
all
streams
and
I,
don't
see
a
reason
why
it
would
then
you
can
make
the
decision
for
what
the
expiration
time
should
be
on
a
particular
stream
by
a
statement
from
the
people
who
control
that
stream.
So
the
ITF
can
say
what
the
IETF
is.
Gonna
do
and
that's
fine
and
the.
J
Is
specifically
an
ITF
proposal?
Okay,
and
so
if,
if
the
proposal
is
only
for
internet
drafts
which
are
part
of
the
ITF
stream,
now
you
have
to
be
able
to
identify
which
internet
drafts
are
for
which
stream?
This
is
not
necessarily
clear
from
all
such
drafts
to
begin
with,
but
we
we
can
work
that
but
I
think
at
this
point
it
becomes
a
question
for
the
stream
managers
of
that
stream
and
their
community
to
decide.
J
So
it
doesn't
need
to
be
something
that
the
IAB
or
that
the
other
streams
have
to
deal
with,
because
their
own
documents
and
the
series
that
emerges
from
internet
drafts
are
unaffected.
So
to
get
to
your
point
at
that
at
that
point,
I
think
that
means
that
the
dispatch
of
this
handily
is
limited
to
all
of
the
things
which
it
can
dispatch
to
directly
because
they're
all
within
the
IETF
it
can
be
ad
sponsorship
or
a
working
group
within
the
ITF.
You
don't
Han
have
to
hand
it
to
a
different
body.
A
Just
to
put
myself
in
momentarily
your
dutiful
working
group
chairs
here
actually
did
a
quick
review
because
we
saw
this
on
the
agenda
and
there's
more
in
20,
26
and
24
18
than
you
probably
think
needs
to
be
fixed
to
accomplish
this
task
and
at
first
glance,
there's
a
several
sections
where
it
appears
so
just
to
put
that
out
there
that
it's
at
least
interesting,
maybe
not
as
hard
as
it
might
be.
But
yeah.
E
T
Plaintiff
you
know,
with
a
straight
face,
made
the
argument
that
internet
expired
internet
drafts
cannot
be
used
as
priority
arguments
and
I'm,
not
joking
I'm,
really,
not
joking
yeah
keep
keep
that
in
mind.
This
is,
and
from
from
that
viewpoint,
which
is
a
business
viewpoint
agreed,
but
from
that
viewpoint
it's
a
very
good
idea.
Thank
you.
O
U
O
Seriously,
I
support
this
change
for
two
reasons:
the
the
first
one
is
yes
for
the
reasons
you
cited
trash
rooms
expire
and
there
we
keep
finding
more
reasons
why
this
is
good
and
the
other
one
is
for
the
meta
discussion
of.
If
we
have
some
process
questions
in
the
ITF
that
we
don't
really
know
how
to
fix,
I
think
this
one
is
small
and
simple
enough
that
it's
a
good
way
to
prototype.
How
do
we
go
about
fixing
such
things
and
that's
a
good
thing
to
do,
regardless
of
what
the
topic
is
so.
L
Elisa
Cooper,
this
is
not
gonna
help
you
with
that
sorry,
so
I
just
wanted
to
raise
a
few
related
ideas
that
have
come
up
in
conversations
about
this
in
the
last
several
years.
So
you
know
people
mentioned
concern
about
the
liveness
of
the
draft
and
this
being
an
indication
of
it
being
alive
or
or
dead
or
current
or
whatever.
It
turns
out
that
there's
ways
to
indicate
that
that
aren't
related
to
a
date
like
saying
current
or
active
or
dead,
which
you
can
actually
mark
in
the
data
tracker,
but
not
in
the
draft
themselves.
L
So
it
need
not
be
uniform
for
all
drafts
in
their
repository
about
this
question
here.
I
do
think
that
any
of
the
normal
options
would
work
I,
don't
think
we
need
some
special
process
other
than
either
80
sponsorship
or
spinning
up
a
working
group
I'm
not
going
to
advise
you
about
which
one
of
those
might
be
appropriate
or
not,
but
I
think
you
know,
especially
if
it
involves
updates,
26
and
24
18.
You
know
normal
process.
Q
Steven
pearl
so
I
don't
really
care
about
this
change,
but
I'm
not
against
us
unless
you
end
up
with
internet
drafts
following
different
rules
for
the
different
streams.
So
if
you
go
to
make
this
change,
just
talk
to
the
ISEE
and
the
RTF
tear
and
make
sure
everybody
is
okay
with
doing
it
all
over
I,
don't
care
what
the
process
is,
but
anything
yeah
I
don't
see
any
negative
to
this
unless
it
means
that
we
have
like
another
screwy
rule.
Q
S
G
M
K
Yeah
I
just
want
to
put
a
stake
in
the
ground
for
the
dissenting
parties.
As
as
someone
who
didn't
feel
like
it
was
a
good
idea
for
the
IETF
to
make
expired
drafts
even
publicly
available,
or
you
see
well
and-
and
this
conversation
confirms
it.
One
of
the
things
which
makes
a
clear
distinction
between
the
RFC
series,
archival
record
and
the
internet
drafts
is.
K
Is
this
notes
an
expiration
and
it
may
not
be
terribly
effective
in
the
boundaries,
thinner
and
thinner,
but
removing
expiration
turns
thee
in
an
address
to
archival
documents
and
people
who
are
concerned
that
that
RFC's
from
different
streams
are
being
confused
with
the
authority
and
wisdom
of
the
IETF
had
better
think
about
this
one
and
the
ability
of
each
role
to
post
a
draft
before
you
make
those
drafts
archival
again
just
getting
to
send
the
human
and
into
the
record.
Thank
you.
R
You
know
:
JS,
I
I,
don't
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
a
sent
a
huge
amount
of
time
on
those
I.
Don't
I
mean
the
drafts,
no
matter
what
people
wish
or
say
and
I
heard
John's
point:
they
don't
expire
when
you,
google,
the
name
they're
there.
They
are
used
as
archival
documents
in
law
cases.
All
the
time
I've
heard
the
same
argument
made
by
things
and
seeing
every
judge
always
instantly
reject
that
these
are
documents
that
do
exist
and
they
are
effectively
archival
in
the
sense
that
you
you
get
them
afterwards
and
that's
good.
R
We
use
them.
We
refer
to
them.
We
could
talk
about
when
thing
happened,
the
timelines
for
when
things
happened,
but
like
the
fact
that
we
would
spin
up
a
working
group
to
spend
time
on
discussing
this
I
I
just
doesn't
seem
like
the
most
important
thing.
I
think
this
is
your
most
epic
troll
ever
yeah.
N
That
that's
a
big
statement
mark
Nottingham
I,
like
this
I
think
we
should
do
this
I
think
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
because
the
lines
what
we
say
with
reality,
which
is
something
I,
always
think
we
should
do.
However,
I
hear
it
being
asserted
that
this
is
small
and
simple
and
something
that
back
of
my
head
says
that
you
may
have
opened
a
portal
to
Hell.
S
N
And
specifically,
people
are
talking
about
different
streams
and
you
know
let's
face
it.
A
large
number
of
internet
drafts
are
on
no
stream
or
they
change
streams
or
they.
You
know
they
change
states
multiple
times,
and
so
you
know
we
talk
about
consulting
the
community
of
people
who
use
this.
That's
an
incredibly
amorphous
thing
and,
oh,
my
god,
we're
talking
about
representational
communities
again,
and
we
know
where
that
goes
so.
Just
tread
carefully.
I.
A
S
A
A
S
The
reason
I
came
here
and
targeted
this
at
the
ITF
is
this.
This
is
an
IETF
consensus
document
or
actually
two
of
them
that
are
affected
by
the
change.
So
this
is
I,
think
the
primary
seat
of
the
change
and
I
don't
think
it
can
go
on
the
IB
stream
and
become
part
of
BC,
p9
and
37,
but
we
should
my
view
is:
I
would
need
to
go
and
talk
to
the
stream
managers
for
the
other
streams
and
simply
say
does
this?
Would
you
have
any
objection
to
this?
S
H
No
I
mean
I
just
want
actually
to
bring
back
I'm
not
come
in
and
again
I
think
you
will
need
all
kinds
of
I
offer
in
the
community
on
this,
because
there
is
no
other
process
we
have
but
to
have
Knox
point.
The
internet
drafts
are
not
a
stream
they're,
not
a
stream.
The
products
that
get
published
by
the
stream
managers
are
the
stream
in
internet
drafts,
or
this
weird
amorphous
thing
that
is
handled
by
the
Secretariat
right
and
I
I
agree
you're,
putting
exactly
the
right
question
here.
H
A
I
Happened
to
be
reading
the
boilerplate,
my
internet
drafts,
what
people
might
familiarize
themselves
with
so
the
first
that
well,
the
second
sentence.
The
first
sentence
of
the
second
paragraph
is
internet
drafts
or
working
documents,
internet
engineering
task
force-
then
it
does
say,
are
the
word:
groups,
may
I
distribute
working,
diverse
internet
graphs,
but
then
you
own
this.
The
copyright
notice
says
IETF
trust
so,
like
one
light,
will
make
me
for
wafer,
given
the
impression
that
all
internet
drafts
as
a
practical
matter
that
are
published
for
our
system,
our
IETF
documents
of
one
kind
or.
W
E
S
So,
curiously,
I
have
looked
into
this
question.
Yes,
the
boilerplate
and
the
question
of
expiry
are
separate
notions.
I
want
to
attack
the
the
actual
expiry
notion
and
address
the
boilerplate
is
a
consequence
of
that
and
the
IV
owns
the
boilerplate,
despite
the
fact
that
the
I
trust
is
the
copyright
on
the
documents,
but
I
think
we'll
be
fine
on
that.
On
that
question,.
L
So
my
understanding
is
that
Martin
is
going
to
go
talk
to
the
stream
managers
about
their
level
of
comfort
with
this
proposal,
I
think
if
any
of
them
comes
back
and
is
like
a
total
blocker,
then
then
it's
probably
not
going
anywhere,
and
otherwise
it
sounds
like
maybe
a
little
more
discussion
refinement.
But
if
there
were
a
path
for
this,
it
would
be
a
tease
answer.
Ship.