►
From YouTube: IETF106-WGLUNCH-20191120-1215
Description
WGLUNCH meeting session at IETF106
2019/11/20 1215
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/proceedings/
B
Alright,
it
is
twelve
sixteen,
so
it
is
time
to
start
the
working
group
tears
you
want
to
go
back
to
the
top
just
to
do
the
oh
yeah,
okay,
that
one
you
don't
need
the
next
one.
No
well.
This
is
still
IETF,
so
we
do
need
to
pay
attention
to
that.
The
next
one
is
the
agenda.
For
today
we
might
be
doing
a
tiny
bit
of
shuffling.
Oh
no,
we're
not
going
to
shuffle
the
agenda.
So
this
is
the
agenda
that
we
have
for
today.
The
most
important
part
is
the
session
on
the
consensus.
B
So
that
is
where
we
will
go.
We
do
have
a
jabber
room.
Sometimes
it's
a
little
bit
confusing
whether
we
do
or
not,
but
we
do
actually
have
a
jabber
room,
it's
WT
chairs,
and
with
that
we
will
move.
Is
there
any
agenda?
Bashing,
nope,
okay,
excellent!
So
the
first
thing
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
have
Jay
introduce
himself
come
on
up.
C
Hello,
everybody,
so
my
name
is
Jay
Daly
I'm,
the
new
ITF
executive
director
I've,
been
in
the
job
about
four
weeks
now.
So
apologies
if
I
don't
know
all
of
your
names
yet
I'll,
be
making
that
same
apology
in
about
two
years
time,
I'm
sure.
But
if
there's
any
of
you
that
I
can
continue
to
say
hello
to
please
just
wave
and
I'll
come
and
meet
the.
C
As
you
know,
the
I
work
for
the
ITF
LLC,
which
is
a
reasonably
new
construct,
and
my
role
is
new
as
well,
so
I'm
still
working
out
exactly
what
I
meant
to
do.
If
any
of
you
can
help
me
on
that,
then
I
very
much
appreciate
it.
Plenty
of
people
are
willing
to
tell
me
what
I
can't
do,
but
in
things
that
I
can
do
I'd
love
to
hear
about
so
I'm
here.
C
I
think
as
certainly
to
manage
certain
aspects
such
as
Khan
tracts
and
fundraising
and
other
things
and
I've
just
sent
out
an
announcement
now
about
another
contract
we've
signed,
but
there
are
plenty
and
other
broader
things,
I
think
we'll
be
looking
at
as
well.
So
if
you
want
to
find
me,
then
you
have
my
email
addresses,
please
let
me
know:
I
live
in,
possibly
the
furthest
country
in
the
world
from
any
of
the
rest
of
you
in
New
Zealand.
C
B
You
Jay,
all
right
so
next
up
on
the
agenda
is,
is
Pete.
I
have
also
been
informed
that
the
jabber
room,
that's
pointed
to
from
data
tracker,
is
actually
the
edge
you
jabber
room,
but
there
is
a
WG
chairs
one.
So
I
would
use
that
one.
If
you
don't
mind,
being
a
team
instead
of
a
working
group,
always
means
that
the
data
trackers
a
little
bit
odd.
D
Hi,
oh,
so
this
is
a
work
in
progress.
I
hope
we
can
do
this
more
than
once
and
add
to
it
and
that
the
conversation
helps
with
this
so
up
front.
These
are
my
opinions,
not
IETF
dictum,
as
if
we
ever
have
anything
like
that,
but
RFC
72
82
is
a
consensus
document,
albeit
informational,
and
not
BCP,
and
a
lot
of
the
stuff
that
I'm
going
to
be
talking
about,
has
been
quite
effective,
chairing
and
useful,
so
I
hope
it's
useful
to
you
as
well.
Wow
doing
this
with
bifocals
is
really
interesting.
D
Also
note
that
this
is
part
of
sort
of
a
bigger
picture
project
on
helping
chairs
do
their
jobs,
so
most
of
us
are
engineers
not
by
trade.
Managing
volunteers
isn't
even
like
managing
folks
in
corporate
settings,
so
it's
even
more
complicated
than
that
and
I
know
that
Alissa
has
been
looking
for
different
ways
to
get
chairs
training
on
dealing
with
working
groups,
and-
and
so
we
should
be
seeing
more
of
that
going
forward.
This
is
just
a
piece,
so
let's
talk
about
consensus
just
at
the
top
level
by
the
way.
D
Just
so
we
get
nice
arm
exercise
in
who
has
read
and
feels
like
they
get
a.
You
know
general
picture
from
70
to
80.
Oh
good,
that's
nice
to
see!
Okay,
so
remember,
consensus
is
a
means
to
an
end.
We
don't
do
consensus,
just
cause
it's
fun
to
hum
what
we're
doing
here
is
technical
work,
and
it
is
in
fact
the
case
that
some
choices
are
worse
than
others.
D
D
We
also
want
to
minimize
some
of
the
bad
things
that
can
happen
in
standards
organizations
by
way
of
politicking,
so
packing
votes
with
people
who
don't
know
what's
going
on
making
bad
compromises,
all
of
those
things
and
70
to
80,
to
talks
a
bit
about
all
those
bad
outcomes
and
why
doing
consensus
helps
avoid
those
things.
Rough
consensus,
doing
rough
consensus
instead
of
full
consensus?
Is
so
that
we
can
deal
with
the
fact
of
actual
engineering
compromises,
full
consensus
can
go
on
forever.
You
should
ask
John
Levine
for
interesting
stories.
D
I
believe
his
partner
is
a
member
of
the
the
friends
Society
and
how
they
can
go
on
for
years
and
years
with
single
decisions,
it's
loads
of
fun
for
engineering.
We
need
things
to
complete
in
finite
time.
That
would
be
good.
Engineering
is
never
going
to
be
a
perfect
choice.
We
do
need
to
make
compromises.
We
do
need
to
balance
risks
and
rewards
with
certain
engineering
choices,
and
so
sometimes
a
desire
of
one
person
is
going
to
be
superseded
by.
We
got
to
get
this
done
and
we
got
to
make
a
choice.
D
Finally,
we
eventually
do
need
to
say
yeah
we
get
it,
but
we're
gonna.
Take
that
risk
and
go
in
a
different
direction
and
rough
consensus
allows
us
to
do
that
so
that
all
out
of
the
way,
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
pushing
is
that
doing
rough
consensus
means
that
chairs
need
to
take
responsibility,
chairs,
ADEs
whoever's
in
leadership.
You
have
a
real,
serious
responsibility
that
you've
got
to
take
up
in
that
position.
D
You
need
to
be
able
to
notice
when
people
are
just
coming
in
the
room
to
pack
the
vote
and
aren't
bringing
anything
additional
to
the
table
that
whole
section
at
the
end
of
70
to
80,
to
about
five
people.
Four
and
a
hundred
people
against
could
be
consensus
or
could
be
rough
consensus
exceedingly
controversial,
and
it's
absolutely
the
most
absurd
example
of
what
could
happen.
D
So
you've
got
to
be
able
to
identify
that
and
got
to
be
able
to
push
back
on
that.
And
if
it
really
was
five
four
and
a
hundred
against
I
doubt
any
of
us
us
in
this
room
could
actually
pull
off
the
the
task
of
saying.
Look,
the
five
people
get
it,
but
you
should
be
aware
that
that's
a
tool,
that's
available,
you've
got
to
be
able
to
for
purposes
of
discussion.
Put
your
own
an
aside.
You've
gotta
be
to
the
room
to
your
working
group,
a
neutral
arbiter.
D
That
doesn't
mean
that
anybody
expects
you
to
be
tabula.
Rasa
I
was
just
talking
to
someone
earlier
today
that
we
do
this
thing
of
with
my
hat
on
with
my
hat
off,
and
with
my
hat
off
doesn't
mean
I'm
not
taking
that
into
account
it
can't
you
are
that
person
what
it
means
is
I'm
admitting
that
I've
got
this
bias,
but
I'm
going
to
try
my
best
not
to
engage
in
it.
D
Okay,
you're,
not
saying
that
you
have
removed
your
brain
you're,
just
saying
that
I'm
gonna
try
and
do
my
best
to
be
neutral,
and
that
includes-
and
this
is
incredibly
hard,
some
of
the
time
your
ability
to
say
I-
am
in
the
rough.
Yes,
I
disagree
with
you.
Yes,
I
think
this
is
the
stupidest
choice
you
could
possibly
make,
but
the
room
is
going
against
me
I'm
on
the
rough
end
of
this
consensus,
and
you
need
is
a
chair
to
be
able
to
do
that.
D
You
know
mary
has
this
claim
that
this
protocol
is
gonna
fall
apart
and
disaster
is
going
to
occur
if
we
go
ahead
in
this
method,
and
you
know
what
that
sounds
right,
I
can't
figure
out
how
you
people,
who
are
saying
no,
no,
it's
gonna,
be
fine,
are
correct
because
I'm
using
my
technical
judgment
to
say
that
is
a
real
problem,
so
you've
got
to
have
the
ability-
and
this
is
why
we
put
engineers
in
these
roles.
You've
got
to
have
the
ability
to
evaluate
the
technical
claims
and
make
that
judgment.
D
One
sub
point
of
that
is
there
is
I
know
this
is
painful,
nothing
wrong
with
getting
appealed.
Part
of
the
reason
we
have
this
structure
of
you
know,
we've
got
chairs
and
they
report
to
a
DS
and
they
rip
it
and
the
a
DS
listen
to
the
whole
IAS
G,
and
then
the
IAB
is
because
you're
supposed
to
use
your
technical
judgement
make
the
call.
But
we
have
these
backup
plans
if
you
screw
it
up,
be
confident
in
making
those
technical
calls
and
then
let
the
back-up
plan
kick
in.
D
If
it
doesn't,
that
back-up
plan
starts
with
someone
comes
up
to
you
and
says:
I
think
you
screwed
up.
Let's
talk
this
through
cept,
you
know
offline
and
if
they
can't
convince,
you
tell
them
it's
cool.
If
you
go
to
the
ad
convince
the
ad
that
I've
screwed
up
and
let
them
come
back
and
explain
to
me
that
I've
screwed
up,
that
should
be
an
okay
thing
to
have
happen.
D
The
other
piece
of
chairing
and-
and
this
is
where
I
kind
of
at
IRA
not
ironically,
want
to
interact
and
and
start.
The
discussion
is
that
I
think
an
important
part
of
chairing
is
following
the
discussion
on
the
list
in
the
room
and
doing
both
on
the
list
and
in
the
room
active
listening.
What
do
I
mean
by
that
I?
Don't
mean
it
in
the
you
know,
kind
of
psychology.
You
know
social
worker
way
of
active
listening.
D
The
whole
purpose
of
having
these
discussions
is
to
move
the
dist
gushin
to
a
conclusion.
Right.
We
want
to
come
up
with.
This
is
what's
going
in
the
document.
This
is
what
we're
gonna
do
as
the
discussion
moves
along.
You
are
us
chair.
Are
the
person
who's,
calling
the
consensus
you're,
the
one
who
is
saying:
here's
what
we've
decided.
You
need
to
say
out
loud,
whether
on
the
list
or
in
the
room.
D
What
you're
thinking
saying
things
like
it
sounds
to
me
like
the
only
objection
is
such
and
so,
and
that
sounds
answered
so
we're
moving
along
is
really
important,
because
if
you
make
that
statement
and
you've
gotten
it
wrong,
someone
will
then
have
the
opportunity
to
come
up
and
say:
well,
oh,
no!
No!
No!
No,
that's
not.
The
only
objection
I
believe
X
is
in
the
rough
will
make.
D
What
you
want
to
drive
people
toward
is
okay,
I
heard
Joe
say
this
thing:
does
anybody
have
anything
that
disagrees
with
Joe,
or
are
you
just
standing
at
the
mic
to
repeat
the
same
thing?
Get
the
people
who
are
saying
something
different
up
there?
Let
there
be
an
interaction,
not
just
I'm
going
to
say
this
important
thing.
That's
been
said
20
times
already,
if
you're
not
sure
what
someone
is
saying,
if
you're
not
sure
what
the
import
is,
ask
the
question
ask
wait
a
minute
okay,
so
you
went
through
all.
D
But
what
do
you
think
of
that?
Do
you
want
this
thing
in
the
protocol
or
don't
you
ask
the
question,
make
sure
that
you're
getting
people
to
state
what
their
position
is
and
you'll
get
to
the
outcome
quicker?
That
way,
if
you
haven't
heard
a
response
to
a
point
yet
put
that
to
the
room,
I
haven't
heard
anybody
reply
to
this.
D
Make
people
engage
in
the
discussion
not
just
stand
in
the
queue
to
say
their
thing
and
you're
at
a
loss
for
where
you're
at
your
purpose
as
chair
is
not
just
to
listen
to
everybody
speak
it's
to
understand
what
decision
the
room
is
making
and
say
that
out
loud,
so
that
there
is
a
decision
on
the
floor.
Yeah.
D
Finally,
don't
ask
questions
that
you
already
know
the
answer
to
what
that
tends
to
do
is
move
discussion
away
from
conclusion,
because
people
will
get
up
and
and
try
and
reinforce
or
try
to
speak
against.
If
you
know
that
there
are
only
two
people
in
the
room
who
are
going
on
about
this
one
particular
point,
and
everybody
else
really
is
convinced
that
nope
they
they
they
don't
have
a
point.
D
What
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
hum
is
avoid
having
it
come
to
a
vote
right,
we're
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
the
room
without
it
being
a
vote
and
the
majority
wins
and
the
reason
we
want.
That
is
because,
if
one
person's
got
the
showstopper
or
the
obvious
solution,
we
want
them
to
be
heard
independent
of
whether
they're
in
the
majority,
some
hums
that
we
do
are
just
anonymous
votes
right,
we're
just
doing
a.
How
loud
is
the
hum.
Okay,
the
quieter
one
loses
the
louder.
D
One
wins
there's
no
point
in
that
again
going
back
to
if
you
already
know
the
answer,
why
are
you
asking
the
question
if
you
need
a
multi
option,
hum
okay,
so
choice?
One
is
this
choice?
Two?
Is
this
choice
three
and
by
the
way,
if
you
want
this
one,
but
not
this
one,
only
hum
you're
doing
it
wrong
right.
D
So
what
happens?
If
you
get
a
few
quiet
homes
for
choice,
number
two
and
choice:
number
63.
What
does
that
mean?
What
is
the
meaning
of
quiet
homes?
Quiet
hums
could
mean
that
the
two
people
are
going
I've
been
trying
to
tell
you
that
this
is
just
screw
ball,
and
you
know
the
the
whole
thing
is
gonna
collapse,
but
you're
not
hearing
it
are
just
humming
quietly
cuz
they're
done.
You
want
to
make
sure
the
points
come
out.
E
I'm
gonna
push
back
a
little
bit
on
that.
We
we
have
a
problem
in
the
ITF
that
we
have
people
with
technical
knowledge
and
with
opinions
we
want
to
hear
who
are
afraid
to
talk.
They
don't
come
up
to
the
mic.
What
a
hum
does
sometimes
is
get
those
people
to
at
least
acknowledge
that
they
don't
agree
with
what
has
been
said.
If
you
don't
hold
it,
you
don't
know,
that's
going.
D
D
Anybody
in
here
I
suspect.
There
are
people
in
here
who
think
this
is
bull.
Can
you
get
up
and
tell
me
that
or
do
the
hum
that
way,
I
think
is,
is
fine
and
and
I
don't
want
to
object
to
that
right.
I,
I
think
having
that
home
to
get
those
people
to
at
least
make
some
noise
and
then
start
asking
more
pointed
questions.
Why
is
that?
Why
are
people
still
having
issues
to
encourage
them
might
be
good.
F
Push
back
I
do
on
the
don't
ask
questions,
you
know
the
answer
to
is,
if
you
know
the
answer
to
it,
but
you
don't
know
it's
not
clear
to
everybody
in
the
room
knows.
Obviously
it's
the
situation
is
everybody
in
the
room,
thinks
X
but
not,
but
that
everybody,
the
room,
knows
that
everybody
else
thinks
X
yes,
and
so
they
all
are
coming
up
in
vehemently
saying
X,
X
X
is
the
microphone
for
an
hour
and
a
half.
You
need
to
let
everybody
know.
D
That
everybody
agrees
with
a
good
clarification,
and
actually
you
know
I
generally
do
that
by
way
of
saying
what
I'm
hearing
is
X
I
I,
don't
hear
anybody
in
the
room
saying
not
X.
Does
anybody
think
not
X
I?
Think
that's
a
that's
a
great
way
to
do
it.
What
I
was
more
pointing
to
was
the
idea
of
asking?
Does
anybody
think
X,
because
then
people
think
it's
their
responsibility
to
get
up
and
restate
what
you
already
know
is
going
on
in
the
room,
so
yeah
good
clarification.
D
Anything
else
on
that
cool
last
bit
and
I,
don't
know
quite
what
to
do
about
this.
So
I
really
hate
this
idea
of
calling
for
consensus.
Okay,
well,
we've
had
this
discussion
now,
let's
have
a
call
for
consensus
or
on
the
list
it's
time
for
a
call
for
consensus.
The
whole
discussion
is
meant
to
achieve
consensus,
you're
supposed
to
be
listening
as
you
go
along
and
building
consensus,
and
it
makes
it
sound
to
me
when
people
do
this.
Like.
D
Okay,
we've
had
the
discussion
now,
it's
time
to
vote
and
and
that's
not
what
we're
trying
to
do-
I
mean
it's
good
to
confirm
that
everybody's
on
board,
with
something
and
and
I'm
okay
with
that,
but
it
this
is
more
about
trying
to
get
people's
heads
in
the
right
space.
I
tend
to
like
to
at
the
end.
D
G
Me
here
so
so,
what
I'm
trying
is
what
I've
asked
for
a
consensus?
It
could
contentious
issues
or
sometimes
just
you
know,
we
we
want
to
advance
the
document.
Okay,
but
this
is
not
a
working
group.
Last
call
this
is
a.
We
think
we
got
the
art
this
part
right.
Okay,
so
I
want
to
have
a
consensus,
call
on
the
list
to
do
this.
So
what
you're
saying
is
that
I
think
is
you're
asking
for
the
chair
to
say
on
the
list.
Do
you
have
objections
to
the
architecture
as
bla
bla,
bla
and
specific.
D
D
G
H
I
think
so
too
I
think
so
too
lower.
Lo
Anderson
I
think
we
have
the
consensus
call
somewhere
in
some
document.
I
tend
to
remember
that
it's
probably
historical,
now
or
obsoleted,
or
something
but
I,
think
you're
using
it
the
wrong
way.
A
consensus
call
is
when
I
share
tell
the
working
group
what
the
outcome
or
discussion
is
and
then.
D
Period
right
and
it's
good
and
and
if
it's
that
formulation
then
I
think
thumbs
up,
there's
too
many
times
where
I
don't
hear
that
formulation,
where
I
hear
the
consensus
call
as
okay,
here's
the
issue
now,
there's
a
consensus,
call
what
do
people
think
and
and
that
one
always
strikes
me
as
strange
so
yeah
I
agree
with
you
lower
then.
So
this
may.
I
Be
a
bit
of
nitpicking,
but
when
we
do
the
situation
where
we
have
a
sense
of
the
room
and
we
want
to
confirm
that
consensus
on
the
list
and
I
agree,
it
makes
sense,
I'm
noticing
a
pattern,
almost
all
of
the
things
you're
looking
for
looking
for
dissent,
not
for
agreement,
but
then
I
like
that
idea
of
going
to
the
list
and
say
here's
what
we're
doing.
Does
anyone
object?
However,
sometimes
it's
really
hard
to
tell
the
difference
between
I'm,
not
paying
attention
and
I
agree
right.
I
D
Tension,
yeah,
and-
and
this
is
a
good
point
to
add
I-
think
to
the
presentation-
is
the
the
problem
of
silence,
be
as
agreement
or
as
nobody's
read
the
thing,
and
you
can't
tell
the
difference.
I
think
is
probably
a
failure
of
the
earlier
discussion
that
we've
got
to
figure
out
a
way
to
start
engaging
people
and-
and
you
know
so
that
they're
actually
saying
things
upfront
and
that
we
have
enough
support
as
the
discussions
going
along
and
I.
Don't
have
a
good
answer
for
that
and.
D
And
and
that's
you
know
exactly
go
into
this
second
bullet
of
you
know
as
chair,
it's
more
important
for
you
to
be
expressing
to
call
the
consensus.
To
say
here
is
what
I'm
hearing
here
is
what
I
see
the
consensus
as
and
allow
people
to
say:
nope
you
blew
it
and
we
do
have
a
tendency
both
as
chairs
talking
to
a
DS
as
working
group
members
talking
to
chairs
not
to
want
to
say
you
blew
it,
but
that
should
be
okay.
D
K
Gondwana
often
it's
not
a
choice
between
this
is
awful
and
will
destroy
the
world.
It's
a
choice
between
x
and
y,
which
are
both
90
percent
good
and
there's
there's
slight
differences,
and
it
will
be
a
matter
of
wearing
the
working
group
down
to
two,
which
is
better
they'll,
often
still
be
a
lot
of
people
in
the
room
who
like
well
I,
think
Y
would
be
a
little
bit
better,
but
I
can
live
with
X.
K
D
Know
is
Suresh
in
the
room
for
those
who
don't
know
the
story
and
I,
don't
remember
the
working
group.
If
someone
does
you
can
soft
wires
and
I
thought
this
was
just
brilliant,
so
it
seemed
like
they
had
this
big
contentious
thing
of
multiple
choices
and
eventually
what
Suresh
did,
which
I
thought
was
just
brilliant.
He
said:
okay,
we're
gonna,
do
a
coin
flip.
Now
everybody
did
a
little
bike
shedding
on
the
form
of
the
coin
flip
and
what
all
the
rules
were.
D
D
Sometimes
it
takes
the
chair,
cutting
the
baby
in
half
for
the
working
group
to
actually
decide.
Oh
yeah,
that
that
choice
is
fine
and-
and
so
it's
a
perfectly
acceptable
mode.
So
long
as
us,
chair
and
sort
of
the
working
group
in
the
back
of
their
mind,
understand
that
what's
being
done,
is
just
introducing
a
forcing
function
to
get
the
working
group
to
get
off
its
butt
yeah.
L
There's
rarely
an
offer
to
fix
stuff,
there's
an
offer
to
to
find
your
holes
and
there's
often
a
couple
of
loud
voices.
Sometimes
they
repeat
themselves
at
the
microphone
and
it
becomes
very,
very
difficult
in
those
situations
to
determine
consensus,
especially
in
things
like
boss,
words,
you're,
sort
of
like
presenting
a
new
idea
and
you're
inviting
people
to
come.
You
know
tear
it
to
shreds
I've
watched
that
happen
at
least
twice
this
week.
L
D
Okay,
so
this
is
a
showstopper
and
we
simply
can't
do
this,
or
is
this
something
that
needs
to
be
fixed
and
therefore
you're
going
to
give
me
something
to
fix
it
to
push
those
people
there
are,
especially
if
you
suspect
that
the
answer
is.
This
is
something
that
can
be
fixed
or
it's
an
objection,
but
it's
not
a
showstopper
doing
that
push
helps
I
can
a
very
present
example
in
my
head,
where
I
tried
to
do
something
along
those
lines
and
what
I
got
back
was
no.
It's
broken.
D
It's
fully
showstopper
dead,
you're,
wrong
Pete,
and
at
that
point
you
have
to
go
back
to
the
working
group
and
say:
okay,
that
you
know
this
is
presented
as
a
showstopper.
Can
someone
obviously
folks
in
here,
don't
think
it
is?
Can
you
come
up
and
explain
why
it's
not
what
you're
looking
for
I
think
is
in
the
end
it
assuming
you
actually
have
enough
information.
You
want
ammunition
to
be
able
to
say
that
the
persons
in
the
rough-
if
that's
what
it
is
and
so
and
and
sometimes
I
agree
it's
hard.
L
When
I
watch
them
yeah
yeah
the
other,
the
other,
besides
just
being
a
loud
voice,
sometimes
the
market
dominant
force,
you
know,
can
can
sort
of
dictate
the
entire
phrase
for
this
one.
They
say:
I'm
not
going
to
implement
and
it
doesn't
matter
if
two
smaller,
you
know
vendors,
say
well,
I
will,
and
so
we
run
into
that
issue
too.
Yeah.
D
D
We,
this
organization,
makes
bad
choices
because
of
those
things
sometimes
and
I'm
not
sure,
there's
any
way
perfectly
out
of
it.
But
if
you
see
it
coming,
I
have
absolutely
no
qualms
about
helping
yourself
as
chair
by
especially
on
the
mailing
list
in
the
room
is
a
trickier
business,
but
on
the
mailing
list
off
list
saying
come
on.
You
know.
This
is
bull,
help
me
out
here
and
say
it
publicly,
so
that
we
can
at
least
have
a
rational
discussion.
D
M
D
2026
describes
something
relatively
formal
I.
There
was
one
case
where
I
made
a
decision
as
chair
and
I
knew,
there
is
going
to
be
one
person
in
particular
I'm
not
going
to
name
names
who
thought
that
I
had.
It
was
just
a
bogus
decision
and
you
know
I
made
the
consensus
call
and
there
it
was
and
I
said,
look
write.
It
up.
D
I
mean
literally
write
up
point
by
point
where
I
screwed
up
and
let's
get
back
to
the
ad
and
and
let
the
call
be
made
and
the
act
of
doing
that
actually
helped
to
a
certain
extent
that
person
feel
better,
but
also
to
make
sure
that
we
got
the
right
answer.
So
you
can
I
mean
the
first
few
steps
in
2026
about
appeals
are
pretty
informal,
go
to
the
ad
and
talk
to
them,
but
make
it
as
formal
or
informal
as
as
helps
your
particular
situation.
I.
M
G
My
suggestion
Pete
before
he
run
away
with
them
about
what
else
we
could
do
is
I
would
think
I
think
it
would
be
useful
if
we
actually
either
put
on
a
play
or
something
in
Sunday
morning
or
something
and
maybe
involve
chairs,
but
in
the
audience-participation
kind
of
things
where
we,
where
we
actually
went
through
the
processes
that
you
talked
about.
Okay,
because
one
of
the
problems
with
particularly
big
scheduling,
conflicts
and
is-
is
that
some
chairs
just
never
actually
get
to
see
the
interesting
stuff
like
what
happened
in
spring.
G
D
G
G
O
N
Excellent,
so
a
couple
days
ago,
I
put
out
a
note
to
the
working
of
chairs
list
asking
for
feedback
on
how
people
use
the
ietf
website,
specifically
dub
dub
dub
DTS
org,
and
this
is
sort
of
a
couple
years
after
we
rolled
out
the
new
version
of
the
website,
which
is
not
so
new
anymore
and
in
particular,
interested
in
how
different
people
use
it.
So
workgroup
chairs
are
super
important
and
I've
already
gotten
some
really
good
feedback.
So
thank
you
very
much.
N
One
of
the
pieces
of
feedback
we
got
was
this
drop-down
menu
in
the
upper
right
corner.
We
can
do
anything
else
we
wanted
to
the
website,
but
don't
change
that
which
is
great
because,
as
we
were
developing
the
site,
one
of
the
things
we
heard
was
we
need.
We
need
quick
access
to
these
kinds
of
things,
so
it
turns
out.
People
are
using
them
and
finding
them
valuable.
So
we're
not
we're
not
going
to
change
that
for
sure,
and
one
of
those
links
on
that
drop
down
menu
leads
to
this
page.
N
One
of
the
pieces
of
feedback
we
got
about
this
page
was
its
needs,
refreshing
generally,
and
so
that's
definitely
a
task.
We're
going
to
do
I
see
people
at
the
queue
already,
which
is
great
and
can
I
just
do
them.
One
last
slide,
I
have
and
then
okay
Fred,
wants
to
say
something
right
away.
So
we're.
N
N
Yeah
so
so
we
heard
the
people
are
using
this
page,
but
it
needs
to
be
updated.
So
that's
definitely
a
task
that
we're
taking
on
wrong
way.
There
we
go,
but
then
we
also
have
heard
some
or
I
also
received
them
feedback
that
sometimes
the
boundary
between
data,
tracker
and
eye
is
not
always
well-defined,
which
actually
I
take
to
be
good
news.
That
people
can
move
across
these
two
different
sites
and
use
both
of
them.
N
But
it's
it's
not
exactly
clear
how
to
provide
feedback
in
a
really
easy
way,
so
that
the
right
people
hear
it
and
things
get
fixed.
So
we'll
work
on
that
as
well.
I
already
talked
about
how
some
of
the
specific
pages
need
to
be
updated
to
working
on
that
and
another
great
piece
of
input
we
got
or
implicit
I've
seen
so
far.
Is
that
a
really
useful
thing
to
do
would
be
to
consider
consider
some
typical
workflows
that
working
group
chairs
face
and
to
understand
how
well
those
work.
N
O
Dave
altameyer,
so
so
one
thing
one
of
the
things
I've
always
found
helpful
in
like
working
out
a
website
or
multiple
websites.
Is
you
know
what
what
is
the
the
audience
of
of
the
site
right
and
it
seems
like
we
have
a
very
interesting
challenge
with
regards
to
the
IETF
website
and
the
data
tracker
right,
because
the
ITF
what's
website
is
intended
for
people
who
might
be
novices
for
the
IETF
to
find
out
about
what
you
know
the
IETF
is
all
about
and
what
work
we're
doing.
O
You
know
how
we
meet,
how
you
know,
interact
and
that
sort
of
thing,
and
then
there's
the
data
tracker,
which
is
much
more
about
the
business
of
the
IETF
right
and
so
folks
that
might
be
somewhat
knowledgeable
about
how
to
interact
with
the
IETF
would
probably
go
to
the
data
tracker.
It's
a
you
know
to
do
their
work.
O
N
N
O
N
O
To
start
for
that
is
to
try
to
figure
out,
you
know
for
different
for
different
parts
of
the
site.
What
are
the
audience
that
we're
trying
to
reach?
And
then
you
know
working
backwards.
You
know
from
from
there
it's
possible
that,
like
different
parts
of
the
data
tracker
will
have
you
know
different
audiences.
B
K
B
As
far
as
transitioning
people
I
think,
there's
there's
a
package
be
on
the
website
of
how
do
people
interact
with
the
IETF
and
what
information
do
they
get
where
and
how
effective
it
is,
and
we
are
going
to
try
and
collect
better
data
on
that
and
get
get
more
feedback.
I
mean
we
already
try
to
you
know
we
have
a
newcomers
feedback
session
and
one
of
the
questions
we
ask
them
is
you
know,
did
you
come
to
the
website?
You
know
what
what
did
you
find
useful?
P
Hi
room
engineer
you
search
a
ad
on
a
thread.
I
would
just
like
to
remind
everyone.
We
went
through
a
spirited
discussion
on
how
to
do
a
lot
of
this
thinking,
we're
doing
from
a
empirically
driven
approach
and
the
key
element
of
that
is
doing
web
analytics
on
the
site.
So
we
have
a
better
sense
of
who's
using
it
in
what
ways
they're
using
it.
P
B
So
anyway,
there
is.
There
is
a
whole
set
of
activities
around
education
targeted
at
newcomers
targeted
at
working
group
chairs
and
then
general
technical
information,
there's
also
an
overarching
set
of
newcomer
activities
that
looks
at
the
education
again.
It
looks
at
mentoring
and
outreach.
It
looks
at
other
ways
the
that
the
you
know
the
website
materials.
B
So
there
is
going
to
be
a
a
in
the
side.
Meeting
on
Friday
Society,
fried
meeting
on
Saturday
side
meeting
on
Friday
morning,
there's
going
to
be
a
session
on
sort
of
brainstorming
about
some
of
the
activities
that
we're
doing
there,
how
to
get
them
more,
better,
organized
how
to
get
more
resources
and
how
to
prioritize
them.
Anybody
that's
interested
in
that,
could
come
along
and
the
other
thing
that
I
need
to
post.
B
The
edgy
mailing
list
has
historically
been
a
closed
mailing
list
and
we
have
opened
it
up,
but
I
haven't
seen
a
rush
of
new
people
subscribing
so
I'm
going
to
post
again
that
this
is
actually
a
public
mailing
list
and
anybody
that's
interested
in
a
Jew.
A
qts
is
free
to
join
that,
so
that
was
all
I
really
wanted
to
say
about
edgy
activities.
B
I
expect
that
maybe
in
the
March
timeframe,
if
we
might
come
back
with
a
little
bit
more
information
about
all
of
the
various
things
that
we're
doing
and
where
we
could
specifically
use
help,
but
there
are
a
number
of
opportunities
for
you
all
who
would
like
to
do.
Additional
would
like
to
help
in
some
of
the
various
areas
here.
B
One
of
the
ones
in
particular
I
would
point
out
is
if
there
are
technical
topics
that
you're
interested
in.
We
we've
sort
of
left
it
at
this
point
for
folks
to
volunteer
to
do
technical
topics.
I
know
that
Stewart
Cheshire
did
an
excellent
one
on
service
discovery
on
Sunday
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
would
be
useful,
but
it
requires
a
folks
in
the
community
to
volunteer
to
do
that,
and
so
now
it
is
107
and
give
an
email
that
I
sent
recently
to
the
mailing
list.
I
can't
dare
run
over.
B
Q
So
this
is
something
I
brought
up
with
Alisa,
so
it's
not
something
I
think
is
unique
to
our
working
group.
I
think
I
would
think
other
working
groups
would
be
impacted,
so
the
situation
is,
we
have
people
from
a
certain
company
and
you
can
guess
pretty
much
and
they
have
certain
restrictions
of
interacting
with
other
people
in
other
companies,
and
we
Mia's
Vyas,
workgroup
chairs
are
trying
to
help
them,
but
I
think
one
of
the
requirements
for
them
is
they
have
to
do
this
on
a
public
mailing
list.
Q
The
only
public
mailing
list
that
I
can
suggest
as
well
use
the
working
group
mailing
list
for
all
your
so
called
almost
private
discussions
just
to
figure
out
how
to
move
forward
on
the
document.
So
what
I
mean
I
guess
I'm
opening
up
to
this
group
is
to
ask
as
if
anyone
has
encountered
that
situation
and
if
they
have
any
suggestions
on
how
to
deal
with.
R
Elissa
Cooper
so
I
think
there's
a
bunch
of
working
groups
and
author
groups
that
have
essentially
formed
design
teams
and
created
a
design
team
man
lists
for
themselves.
Melling
lists
are
cheap
to
create.
So
if
anybody
needs
a
mailing
list
for
this
purpose,
you
can
contact
your
responsible
ad
and
it
should
be
pretty
straightforward.
I
know,
there's
other
people
who
are
just
collaborating
on
github
or
they're,
using
a
Google
group
or
something
else
that
which
is
which
they
can
make
public.