►
From YouTube: IETF107-GENDISPATCH-20200325-2127
Description
GENDISPATCH meeting session at IETF 107
2020/03/25 2127
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/proceedings
A
Okay,
it's
time
to
start
I
think
welcome
to
join
dispatch
just
a
little
introduction,
as
this
session
is
totally
virtual.
This
session
is
being
recorded
and
make
sure
please
that
your
video
is
off.
Even
if
your
camera
is
covered,
mute
your
microphone
unless
you're
speaking
and
use
the
WebEx
chat
only
to
join
the
mic
you
so
for
any
other
conversation
you
might
want
to
have.
There
is
the
jabber.
A
It
helps
if
you
state
your
name
before
speaking,
even
if
you
will
be
introduced
by
the
queue
manager
with
me
in
this
case
and
if
you
can't
speak,
feel
free
to
use
the
jabber
and
preface
your
comment
with
mic
and
it
will
be
reported
via
audio.
We
are
also
monitoring
the
jabber
chat.
So
if
you
use
+1
in
the
jabber
chat,
please
make
sure
to
write
what
you
are
+1
for,
so
that
we
can
keep
track
of.
A
What's
your
opinion
and
let's
also
try
to
keep
most
important
comments
and
conversation
and
discussion
at
the
mic
so
that
the
presenter
also
doesn't
miss
what's
being
said
in
the
jabber?
So
let's
try
to
have
one
conversation,
but
it's
fine.
If
you
also
ask
questions
or
clarification
that
you
don't
think
are
important
enough
to
report
to
the
audio
in
the
jabber
chat,
to
make
management
easier,
I
wanted
to
ask
you
to
try
to
keep
the
question
to
the
end
of
the
session
or
the
presentation,
but
you
can
always
bring
up
clarification.
A
B
Alright
a
reminder,
even
though
we
are
halfway
through
the
week,
that
one
should
note
well,
this
is
an
ITF
session,
virtual
or
otherwise.
So
all
of
the
IETF
participation
rules
apply.
If
you
are
not
aware
of
these,
please
make
yourself
aware,
before
you
start
participating
in
the
working
group
by
saying
anything
or
typing
anything
into
the
jabber
rumor.
Otherwise,
in
particular
know
that
there
are
things
about
code
of
conduct
and
anti-harassment
and
in
particular
patents
and
copyrights
and
things
all
sorts
of
intellectual
property
rules.
B
B
So
here
is
our
agenda.
We
are
open
for
bashing,
basically
other
than
what
Francesca
and
I've
been
mumbling
about.
Miriah
is
going
to
present
on
the
update
tag.
Brian
and/or
Steven
may
be
presenting
on
the
eligibility
issues
and
then
we're
going
to
have
open
mic.
Anybody
have
any
additions
or
changes
to
the
agenda
that
they
would
like
to
bring
up.
B
B
A
The
meaning
of
this
tech
is
not
well-defined,
there's
no
RC
explaining
what
the
meaning
is
or
no
official
definition
of
it,
and
so
the
public
length
of
this
was
that
it's
used
for
very
different
purposes
currently,
and
that's
really
confusing,
because
people
don't
know
if
they
should
use
it
or
not,
and
there's
a
lot
of
inconsistency
in
the
in
the
RFC
Sears.
So
now
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
A
Other
groups,
for
example,
also
use
the
update
text
for
things
which
are
more
optional,
extensions,
which
use
existing
extension
point
in
a
protocol
or
for
version
updates.
Sometimes
per
version
for
new
versions.
Updates
is
used,
sometimes
not
so
it's
very
inconsistent
and
and
the
main
problem
here
and
the
main
discussion
we
always
hit.
This
is
that
what
does
it
mean
for
implementation
is
something
that
updates
another
document,
another
RFC
mandatory
to
implement
or
like
how
should
implement
us
see
this
and
behave
next
slide.
A
So
what
we
propose
in
this
draft,
if
not
to
define
the
updates
tech,
because
it's
already
used
for
all
these
different
use
cases
so
like
one
single
destination,
wouldn't
help
what
we
decided.
What
we
proposed
is
to
identify
three
new
texts,
so
one
would
be
a
man
which
is
actually
this
mandatory
to
implement
change
to
Nancy.
So
that's
something
that's
more
than
a
narrator,
but
it's
still
something
like
a
back
six
or
change
of
behavior,
where
the
experience
has
shown.
A
This
needs
to
be
changed,
and
here
like
we
have
actually
in
the
draft,
currently
some
normative
language
saying
this
must
be
implemented.
We
know
that,
of
course,
old
implementations
who
are
not
aware
of
the
new
document
were
not
like
magically
change,
but
if
it's
somebody
who
is
newly
implementing
a
protocol
should
also
implement
or
must
also
implement
the
updating
our
si.
A
The
second
tech
is
the
extent
tech,
so
that's
an
optional
extension,
something
like
using
an
existing.
It's
extension
point
with
a
new
option,
and
here
it's
really.
The
purpose
really
is
to
really
have
a
link
from
the
base
back
to
these
kind
of
extension,
so
people
who
are
implementing
the
base
back.
A
They
are
aware
that
there
are
these
kind
of
extensions
that
might
become
handy
for
the
use
case
and
that
they
might
want
to
implement
as
well,
but
they're
kind
of
no,
no
necessarily
to
implement
it,
and
then
the
third
tech
we
proposed
it
uses
a
little
bit
the
one
for
all
these
other
cases
or
something
which
is
also
which
is
klutzy
also,
which
is
really
like.
If
you
read
this
RFC,
this
actually
might
be
interesting
for
you
as
well,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
cases
where
this
is
really
useful,
especially
for
information
RFC's.
A
D
Monix
I'm
not
sure
it's
a
clarification
for
what,
but
I
thought
the
of
the
situation
that
I
run
into
sometimes
is
a
situation
where
you
have
a
base.
Spec
that
says
my
Flex
and
then
somebody
writes
an
extension
whether
you
know
it's
made
to
active
negotiated.
So
the
argument
was
it's
not
just
an
extension
because
it's
actually
violating
a
must
not
in
the
base
in
the
original
spec,
but
obviously
it's
only
if
you'd
ago
she
ate
it
so
would
that
be
extended
or
mended
or
else
so.
A
I
think
that
really
depends
on
you
know
if
you
think
this
is
like
a
minute
or
implementing
or
not,
is
it
if
you
implement
the
basic?
Is
it
mandatory
to
also
implement
this
extension
because
otherwise
it
doesn't
have
this
behavior?
You
would
like
to
see
on
the
network
today,
or
is
it
really
just
like
something
that
is
optional
for
a
certain
use
cases.
D
D
D
A
So
I
think
also,
this
is
the
yeah
I'm,
not
sure.
If
there's
a
direct
correlation
between
use
of
normative
language
and
use
of
these
pecs
I
see
a
lot
of
people
in
the
queue
now.
Okay,
the
sewer
shows
my
karate
AB,
but
maybe
I
should
just
go
to
the
end
of
the
presentation
because
of
too
much
like
investigation.
E
F
Yeah,
actually,
yes,
I
think
this
is
like
more
a
signal
Jonathan
for
like
implementers
if
they
look
at
the
original
RFC
at
some
later
point
in
time.
If
we
know
of
like
breaking
up
days
that
we
want
them
to
implement,
that's
what
the
signal,
so
this
leg
must
be
zero
and
middle
box
like
trying
to
end
for
something
is
like
not
a
problem
this
just
wanna
solve
at
all,
but
the
idea
is
like
imagine:
they
found
some
kind
of
bug
in
the
original
RFC
and
we
fixed
it.
F
A
Okay,
Pat
media.
You
can
continue
with
the
presentation
and
we
take
the
questions
at
the
end
them.
Thank
you,
that's
perfect,
and
so
what?
What
does?
What?
What
are
the
other
things
that
the
arch
is
a
draft
tip?
So
it
says
like
if
you
use
this
these
texts,
you
should
only
or
you
must
only
use
them
with
the
define
meaning
in
the
draft,
but
of
course
it's
not
mandatory
to
use
the
text
the
taps.
So
if
the
text,
if
you
write
an
extension,
you
can
use
those
texts,
but
there's
like
no
obligation
to
do
so.
A
So
then,
as
the
same
s
with
update
today,
you
know
it
doesn't
make
any
existing
RFC
invalid.
As
I
explained
already.
You
know
it's
a
mandatory
to
implement
thing,
but
of
course,
if
you
have
an
existing
implementation,
that's
still
compliant
to
the
RFC
that
you
implement,
because
you
don't
change
the
RFC.
So
this
this
is
the
same
with
updates
and
it's
also
caused
a
lot
of
confusion.
It
doesn't
change
anything
here,
but
you
think
it
is
more
well
defined
text
and,
of
course,
our
elective
question
came
up
on
some
list.
A
This
text
can
only
be
referenced
to
add
our
FCS
and
not
to
external
resources.
Understand
that
like
having
a
reference
to
an
external
resource
can
be
useful
as
well
sometimes
but
I
think
we
need
a
different
mechanism
or
a
different
text
for
it.
Maybe
those
texts
here
are
only
for
reference
in
our
RFC
and
then
there
are
no
restriction
on
the
stages
of
maturity
level
between
the
RFC.
So,
for
example,
you
can
have
an
information
I
receive
it
amends
or
expense
to
propose
standard
RFC.
A
A
A
And
so
we,
as
I
said
this
came
out
of
the
IHC
and
some
discussion
we
had
on
the
ITF
at
mailing
this
based
on
this
IHT
statement
of
the
proposed
ihd
statement,
and
we
got
some
feedback
that
people
think
this
is.
This
is
useful
already,
but
it's
only
a
small
number
of
people,
so
we
definitely
want
more
feedback
before
we
move
ahead
here.
So
first
question
is
really:
do
people
think
this
is
useful
or
it
needs
to
people
think
this
is
more
useful
than
the
current
updates.
A
Technica
then
currently
with
a
note
in
the
draft-
and
this
should
meet
further
discussion,
but
currently
the
draft
also
states
that,
with
it
and
publication
of
the
draft,
if
our
see
the
update
text
will
be
obsoleted,
it
should
not
or
must
not
be
used
anymore.
Our
idea
behind
this
was
to
avoid
this
confusion
that
we
have
currently
and
really
has
a
clear
switch
over
and
that
people
have
also
raised
opinions
that
they
think
it
would
be
too
early
to
duplicate
updates
and
we
still
need
it.
A
I
would
really
like
to
see
it
a
sharp
cut,
because
otherwise,
it
kind
of
flirt
flirt.
The
usability
or
the
function
of
having
clear
definitions-
if
you
still
have
this
very
undefined
tag
there,
another
open
question
was:
do
other
stream
want
to
adapt
these
tags
as
well
or
are
they
useful
for
other
screams?
Currently,
the
rst
is
only
proposing
this
text
for
the
ietf
stream,
because
you
know
this.
A
We
are
an
ITF
group,
we're
discussing
it
here
and
that
also
will
regard
feedback
so
far,
but
we
also
talk
to
the
other
stream
editors
or
three
managers
and
they
were
quite
positive
about
it.
So
we
could
probably
extend
it
to
all
streams
if
people
think
that's
a
good
idea.
There's
one
point
about
updating.
Eventually,
the
artists
iodide
and
the
version
3
will
capillary,
that's
just
an
open
point.
A
We
need
to
decide
what
to
do
on
it,
and
then
there
was
a
little
question
about
how
well
do
these
techs
apply
to
process
documents
and
we
should
figure
out
if
they
apply
well
or
if
there's
something
else
that
needs
to
be
covered
and
give
some
examples
how
that
can
be
done
in
the
draft,
which
is
also
an
open
issue
or
hoping
to
do
right
now
and
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation,
Thank
You
Mia.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
people
in
the
queue
so
I'll
ask
you
to
be
brief.
First
one
is
jck.
G
A
A
We
have
a
lot
of
hair
smoothing
about
if
update
should
be
used
or
not,
and
because
every
group
and
every
person
actually
has
their
own
definition
about
what
update
update
should
be
or
if
it
should
not
be,
and
sometimes
they're
very
patient
about
it,
and
they
really
say
no.
You
can
only
use
it
in
this
case
and
I
don't
want
to
use
it.
Other
ways
and
I
had
very
I,
had
very
long
sessions
with
people
going
back
and
forth
and
so
on
and
say
it's
not
defined
you
can.
A
G
Well,
I'm
concerned
about
the
possibility
to
get
worse
as
we
try
to
net
is
somebody
tries
to
navigate
to
a
large
collection
of
documents
and
as
I
and
as
I
told
Sean
in
in
jabber
chat?
The
first
person
I
heard
complaining
about
the
lack
of
definition
of
the
update
tag
up.
The
updates
tag
was
John
pastel.
This
has
been
a
very
long-standing
yeah.
H
F
Just
like
one
clarification
dispenser-
and
this
is
like
things
are
sorry-
the
suresh
krisshnan
one
of
the
things
that
we
look
like
these
are
kind
of
tags.
Another
time
is
like
metadata,
but
there's
like
a
significant
different
that
I
think
Brian
carpenter
brought
up
and
like
one
of
the
discussions
we
had
or
email,
the
update
is
actually
part
of
the
RFC.
It's
actually.
F
A
That's
said
true,
and
it
also
doesn't
make
sense
because,
usually
in
the
in
the
art
is
a
draft
or
then
RFC
that
updates
another
RFC.
You
also
are
supposed
to
mention
in
the
abstract
and
introduction
and
why
you
update
this
document
in,
like
this
information
is
inherent
in
the
RSC
right.
It's
not
something
you
can
rip
off
the
RSC
anyway,
yeah.
H
H
You
know
just
the
amount
of
time
that
we
saved
for
the
isg
would
be
worth
doing
this,
but
I
really
wonder
if
it's
time
for
us
to
stop
putting
stuff
in
immutable
RFC's,
that's
not
go,
that's
not
going
to
be
complete
and
you
know
things
think
you
know
things
like
updates.
You
know
it
seems
like
updates
and
things
like
that.
H
F
H
And
so
in
and
like
every
time
we
try
to
touch
updates,
it's
like
well,
you
know,
but
it
doesn't
work
for
rc9
or
something
that's
you
know
all
the
way.
Oh
that's
all
the
way
back,
and
so
no,
we
never
did
anything.
So
this
is.
This
is
an
improvement.
It's
changing
is
changing
the
exchanging
the
vocabulary
that
we're
arguing
about
instead
of
argue
about
the
same
vocabulary,
which
is
improvement
and
I.
What
layer's
say,
I
wonder
if
you
know
focusing
this
stuff
is
all
going
to
be
metadata.
H
A
E
So
I
will
try
to
be
brief
because
we
are
short
on
time.
I
had
three
three
points
and
you
can
listen
to
them
and
maybe
then
either
keep
them
for
a
future
update
or
or
answer
now
it's
up
to
you.
So
one
thing
from
your
presentation
and
also
from
the
draft
which
I
thought
could
benefit
a
bit
more,
is
to
explain
the
relationship
between
amended
by
and
obsoleted
by
I'm
sure
there
is
a
difference,
but
perhaps
like
explicitly
stating
what's
the
difference
between
obsoleted
by
an
embedded
by
would
help
me.
E
My
sec
second
comment
was
about
see.
Also
I
am
a
bit
worried
that
it
may
lead
to
like
all
kinds
of
misuse.
So,
of
course,
I
have
academic
background
and
I
want
everyone
to
cite
my
papers
and
look
at
my
protocols,
so
I'm
thinking
like
if
I
go
and
like
ask
the
ISD
that
sometimes
we
have
competing
protocols
and
if
I
want
that
hey
my
competitors.
E
Protocol
should
also
have
see
also,
and
then
people
should
be
redirected
to
me
or
autumn
to
my
protocol
and
to
give
a
concrete
example,
I
think
Suresh
has
been
a
d
on
one
of
my
drafts
on
this
address:
protected
neighbor
discovery,
which
is
basically
IOT
version
of
neighbor
discovery
and
should
I
go
and
say
see
also
on
basically
neighbor
discovery
for
ipv6
on
every
draft.
I
am
Not
sure,
and
my
third
comment
was
which
I
am
still
not
certain
if
the
I,
as
he
has
thought
about,
is
cyclical
kind
of
updates.
E
So
this
again
using
the
example
of
address
protected
neighbor
discovery
is
updating
RFC,
eight
five,
zero,
five,
which
updates
RFC
six,
seven,
seven
five.
So
in
this
case
like
should
it
update
both
or
should
it
update
only
the
latest
one
and
how
this
would
then
move
when
you
have
like
even
more
tags
like
amended
by
do
you
carry
over
these
things
is,
is
something
and
that
I
could
benefit
from
some
clarification.
So
those
were
my
comments,
feel
free
to
answer
them
now
or
like
take
them
later
on
media.
E
F
Answer
so
for
the
obsoleted
by
this,
like
a
big
difference
right
like
obsolete
I
mean
the
whole
document
is
like
no
longer
in
use,
don't
use
it
like
it's
dead
right
and
they
amended
by
means.
Like
you
know,
the
old
one
is
still
good,
but
there's
some
changes
that
are
required
at
the
same
relationship
between
obsoleted
by
and
updated
by
today,
right,
although
there
is
still
valid
or
not
like,
although.
A
F
Yes,
right
day
for
the
second
one
for
the
see,
also
obviously
there's
like
quite
a
bit
of
like
you
know,
these
things
are
going
to
go
on
and
I.
Think
it's
like
one
of
we
proved
us
up
because,
like
people
did
want,
like
a
life,
a
way
of
referencing
things
and
there's
going
to
be
gatekeeping
on
this
right,
this
is
not
really
something
that
people
can
probably
nearly
like
you.
You
still
have
to
go
through
the
chair,
so
the
working
group
and
the
iesg
and
they'll
say
like
oh.
Why
are
you
doing
this?
F
F
A
Yeah,
that's
true,
and
there
I
mean
there
is
a
risk
that
you
see
more
of
more
use
of
see
also
than
we
see
of
today
update
today,
but
then
might
also
be
good
right,
because
sometimes
update
is
not
use
today
word,
it
would
be
useful
and
at
least
for
ITF
stream
documents
we
have
in
the
IH
d
a
lot
of
comments
on
our
review,
saying
children.
This
update
something
was
issues
when
we
not
update.
So
there
is
like
somebody
who
does
another
check
on
fish
I.
A
I
I
Lovely
thank
you.
So,
first
of
all,
it's
really
hard
to
comment
about
this.
Without
data
I
know
we
have
a
lot
of
anecdotal
experience,
but
my
understanding
was
that,
from
from
jabber
conversation
that
sure
I
should
have
a
survey
and
I
know
it's
a
subjective
judgment,
but
some
data
about
how
we
use
updates
would
really
inform
this
decision.
So
I'm
a
little
disappointed
not
to
see
that
the
presentation,
but
but
just
going
off
of
this,
you
know
amends
an
amended
by
seems
like
kind
of
what
most
people
think
of
updates.
I
So
if
we
need
a
new
term
that
would
be
appropriate,
it's
not
clear.
We
need
a
new
term
that
we
need
the
Weka,
so
we
need
to
see
the
data
extended
extended
by
I
thought.
This
is
why
we
had
registries
if
everything
that
registers
somehow
needs
to
say
what
it
extends
up
in
the
header
we're
going
to
have
pretty
busy
headers
and
likewise
see
also
I
thought.
I
A
I
Far
as
I'm
aware,
you
know
all
the
different
countries
in
the
world
with
statutory
law
systems,
there's
common
law
or
all
have
particular
law
set
out
a
way
where
it's
updated
in
place.
And
so
you
look
and
you
can
see
the
latest
version
of
the
legislation
integrated
with
all
of
the
amendments.
For
some
reason,
we
don't
do
that
I,
don't
know
why.
But
this
kind
of
feels
like
a
band-aid
more
than
anything
and
I'd
rather
get
at
the
real
disease
rather
than
just
sticking
a
bandaid
on
it
and.
A
So
two
points
I
think
on
your
first
part.
You
illustrated
very
well
the
problem,
because
you
said
you
are
really
sure
that
the
way
we
use
updates
today
is
a
mint
and
that's
not
what
everybody
is
sharing,
because
there's
no
definition
for
it
and
that's
the
whole
problem
that
some
people
think
update
is
used
for
extent.
Some
people
think
it
can
only
be
used
for
normally.
A
When
we
did,
we
did
look
at
it
and
it's
really
hard
to
I
mean
like
it's
used
a
lot.
It's
really
hard
to
cluster
this
because
there's
so
many
different
use
cases
and
the
bigger
problem
is,
as
I
said,
the
hours
I
spent
with
also
trying
to
explain
that.
Actually
there
is
no
real
definition
you
can
use
or,
like
the
whole
IHG
does,
because
it
comes
over
and
over
again
frequently
in
our
on
your
second
point,
I
think
that
said,
that
would
be
really
nice
but
I
think
that's
a
separate
thing.
F
Yeah
mark
one
thing
is
like
yeah:
I
did
spend
some
time
on
it,
I'll
see
if
I
can
put
some
kind
of
like
statistics
together.
It's
not
like
it's
a
bit
fuzzy
like
you
know,
I
kind
of
do
this,
like
las
casas
thing.
I,
do
go,
look
at
like
lot
of
RFC's,
but
I'll
see
if
I
can
come
up
with
some
kind
of
summary,
but
it's
not
not
even
like
close
to
majority
of
the
things
being
inmense
right
like
you.
F
Use
it
for
like
all
kind
of
things,
and
that's
like
one
thing
and
for
the
sea
also
being
references.
The
the
issue
is
like
you,
you
cannot
add
references
into
an
RFC,
that's
been
published
so
I'm
fully
with
you,
like
I,
would
really
like
to
go
very
update
things
in
place
like
I'm
like
no
count,
my
water
in
for
it
like
that.
F
A
So
I
think
we
need
to
cut
the
queue
here
because
we
are
already
going
on
the
other
presentation
time.
So
there
was
a
question
that
was
what's
the
main
lace
to
openly
discuss
this
work.
I
think
it's
an
important
question
and
yes,
so
currently
we
send
some
requests
for
feedback
on
the
RC
interest.
Automated.
B
C
B
A
Yes,
all
right,
M
yeah,
so
I
mean
I,
think
I
think
we're
at
the
stage
where
we
really
need
more
input.
We
got
a
few
people
saying
that
they
think
this
is
useful.
We
didn't
get
like
too
many
or
like.
We
didn't
get
only
very
few
concerns,
but
nobody's
saying
this
is
like
really
bad,
please
don't
do
it,
and
but
we
didn't
need
more
input
and
I.
A
B
B
G
I
think
that
continued
conversation
on
RFC
interest
is
a
good
start.
I
would
hate
to
see
the
isg
try
to
act
on
this
without
having
it
go
through
something
that
looks
like
a
working
group
I.
Think.
If
we're
going
to
make
this
change,
we
need
to
have
the
fight
in
the
community,
not
in
the
ISD,
and
build
some
guidance
that
will
keep
these
arguments
out
of
the
isg
in
future.
L
Scroll
yeah
on
regardless
of
the
the
hosted
points,
yeah
I,
think
that,
like
you
know,
the
point
of
this
process
here
is
to
get
feedback
from
the
community,
and
so
the
this
can
happen.
I
guess
you
have
a
discussion,
RFC
interest
but
like
before
this
gets
the
eighty
spawn.
So
this
should
go
back
through
some
process
like
they'd
end
dispatch,
our
working
group,
which
and
just
be
like
go
from
RFC
Andres
right
like
a
sponsor.
M
A
J
Elissa
Cooper
I
think,
if
that's
the
direction
people
go
in,
then
I
would
really
like
to
see
the
discussion
focus
on
the
substance
of
the
proposal
and
not
like
sort
of
switch
to
charter
texts.
I
just
wanted
to
note
that,
like
I
think
we
should
continue
to
discuss
the
problem
and
then
see
what
comes
of
it
and
not
have
people
think
about
like
what
is
the
shape
of
this
working
group.
A
J
A
F
Make
sense
make
sense
like
and
actually
subscription.
So
like
there's
like
a
bigger
problem
to
write
like
now.
We
started
off
this
being
an
IETF
stream,
only
application
stuff,
and
you
have
to
expand
this
to
other
streams
like
we
probably
need
to
find
a
bigger
come
in.
If
you
get
input
from
so
I
do
agree
with
acre
and
that
we
do
need
to
collect
input
from
a
larger
community
like
the
actual
form
or
McKevitt,
but
we
probably
have
a
bigger
community
and
just
the
I
guess.
F
C
F
A
C
Okay,
so
this
is
not
really
a
bit
of
a
strawman.
It
only
came
into
existence
a
week
or
two
ago
and
the
light
of
current
events
and
therefore
I,
don't
think
we
can
have
a
detailed
oppose
on
a
straw.
Man
in
this
particular
meeting
that
just
to
warn
you
that
it's
changing
more
or
less
as
I
speak
and
next
item.
C
So
it
seems
to
quite
a
few
people
that
the
current
criterion
for
long
corn
eligibility
is
no
longer
fair
because
it's
based
basically
on
then
spend
a
week
at
the
ITF
or
three
times
a
year
and
the
cancellation
on
a
sudden
how,
fortunately,
as
emergency
and
I
personally
family
need
to
be
ready
in
case.
My
tf1
irate
is
also
affected,
which
means
that
we're
talking
about
the
criteria
for
at
the
2020
to
2020
warm
warm
their
pool.
It's
clearly
too
later
too
much
for
this
year.
C
Some
website
please
so
what
fits
this
is
well,
as
the
moment,
an
update
to
our
c87
1/3,
which
is
a
BCP,
a
suggestion
that
came
up
earlier
today.
Instrument.
It
could
be
done
as
a
process
experiment,
because
there
is
a
DCP
that
allows
the
ITF
to
conduct
process
experiments
which
would
not
be
an
experimental
RC.
C
Was
involved
by
the
Secretariat
or
anyone
else
suggested
additional
criteria
to
get
added
to
meeting
attendance
recent
services,
it
wouldn't
good
care,
wouldn't
reach
secretary
active,
got
reviewing
in
one
of
the
official
review
teams.
Recent
service
in
very
in
high
style
roles
that
would
actually
not
allow
calendars
to
be
eligible
for
the
noncoms
are
not
that
people
have
been
in
the
I
star.
Abi
is
G,
etc.
The
last
few
years
and
recent
of
the
ship
of
IDF
stream
documents
as
to
say
RFC's,
they've
gone
through,
may
SG
approval
process.
C
Should
we
separate
the
man
from
volunteer
criteria
from
a
recall,
petitioner
criteria,
because
that's
a
case
where
remote
participants
are
currently
definitely
feeling
disadvantaged
and
question
maybe
needs
to
be
addressed
now
we
do
not
consider
them
as
Draft
at
all.
Our
criteria
for
volunteers,
I
require
a
subjective
judgment
and
I
think
that
is,
to
my
mind,
unavoidable,
or
maybe
people
disagree.
C
So
the
we
should
continue
the
discussion
on
the
eligibility
discuss
list
and
our
feeling
is
that
there
is
some
urgency
to
get
this
done
because
of
you
know
ready
for
the
following
years,
lancome
cycle.
So
our
suggestion
is
to
look
ready
sponsorship
for
this
and
with
the
ride,
which
is
not
on
the
document,
but
we
should
put
a
time
limit
on
it
in
some
way
other,
because
this
is
a
fairly
important
topic
and
definitely
a
permanent
change
would
clearly
need
a
propriety
of
consensus
model,
not
just
a
four
week
last
call
so
I
think
I.
A
H
So
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
First
of
all,
so
this
is
like
an
urgent
plan.
It
needs
to
happen
before
ITF
108,
which
is
in
July.
So
that's
like
really
really
short
notice.
So
my
question
is:
does
this
actually
make
a
difference
like
like?
Is
there
somebody
who
would
be
eligible
for
NomCom
in
2020
because
of
this
document
who
isn't
currently
eligible
for
NomCom
like
like?
What's
the
actual?
C
Oh
Spurlock
is
that
you
know
if
we
lose
two
meetings,
then
we
pushed
the
time
window
for
the
tea
out
of
the
last
five.
You
know
back
by
eight
months,
if
we,
if
we
hope
it
doesn't
happen,
if
we
lost
three
meetings,
we
to
push
it
back
by
full-year,
so
it
makes
the
the
eligibility
criterion
progressively
staler
and
I.
Personally,
don't
like
that.
Yes,.
A
K
Hey
this
is
Bram
gondwana
I
just
wanted
to
mention
the
100-point
check
which
Australia
uses
for
ID,
which
has
primary
documents
and
less
important
things
and
I
think
that's
a
good
model
for
this.
That
turning
up
to
meetings
is
still
the
primary
thing
and
it's
worth
more
points
towards
being
eligible.
I've
posted
a
link
in
Java
here.
C
C
M
H
H
Question
the
other
question
I
had
is
if
reviewing
documents
makes
one
eligible.
So
presumably
that
means
reviewing
documents
that
are
not
currently
are
RCS.
Does
that
mean
that
working
on
a
working
group
document
also
makes
one
eligible
I
didn't
see
that
in
the
version
of
the
document
that
I
looked
at
but
I
may
have
missed
it?
That's.
C
A
C
H
Yeah,
we
I
think
we
started
down
this
road,
but
just
to
make
sure
we
get
all
the
way
there.
If
we
don't
meet
at
person,
407
108
109
we're
either
running
with
we're
neither
running
with
very
stale
criteria
or
we're
running
with
this
criteria
because
we
stopped
using
the
student.
You
know
because
nobody
is
eligible
under
the
current
criteria
is
that
is
that
roughly
true,
they.
H
Well,
because
I
directly
to
my
lieutenant
governor,
but
that's
another
story,
so
I'm
plus
one
for
a
process
experiment,
you
know
RC
39:33,
process,
experiment
on
this,
which
I
said
since
that
does
not
require
updating
the
B,
that
the
process
are
thieves
until
the
is
G
thinks
these
big
experiment
has
succeeded.
That
would
be.
That
might
be
a
good
way
to
get
started,
but,
like
I,
say
I,
this
is
a
move.
This
is
a
really
serious
moving
target.
H
C
L
So
I
agree
with
me
to
do
it
at
college.
I
agree.
We
need
to
do
something
here:
I
get
that
I,
don't
think
it's
quite
as
urgent
as
some
people
think
but
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
this,
because
I
think
that
many
of
these
suggestions
here
will
greatly
warp
what
we're
doing
other
things
there'll
be
all
kinds
of
pressure
to
put
people's
names
on
drafts,
so
they
become
eligible
they'll,
be
the
pressure
to
add
people
as
secretaries
that
do
nothing.
L
C
C
N
To
follow
up
on
Cullen's
point,
the
people
that
you're
talking
about
are
the
most
productive
and
the
most
committed
by
their
employers
and
there's
already
been
difficulty
recruiting
among
that
pool.
If
you
refine
the
pool
down
to
just
those
people,
you
will
have
a
harder
time
finding
an
eligibility
list
that
actually
tensed
and.
C
N
O
So
I
was
going
to
say
a
lot
of
what
Cullen's
said,
but
I
think
one
thing
to
remember
here
is
what
what
we're
going
to
get
is
what
what?
What
we
measure
is,
what
we'll
get
and
Cowen's
right
to
point
out.
Some
of
the
negative
effects
of
that
I
wanted
to
emphasize
the
point
that
Cullen
made
kind
of
offhand,
which
is
the
urgency
around
this
I,
think
we're
in
exceptional
circumstances.
P
But
I'm
still
not
sure
that
I
understand
the
answers
to
the
two
questions
that
are
in
my
mind
right.
So
the
first
one
is:
if
we
don't
do,
anything
would
basically
for
something
like
non-comp
be
the
last
three
actually
happening.
Physical
idf's,
be
used
in
terms
of
107
would
be
ignored.
Is
that
you
know
how
the
process
would
continue
right
now
and
the
second
one
is.
If
the
first
question
is
yes,
then
you
know:
do
we
have
evidence
that
there
are
new
people
that
would
have
become
you
know
eligible
through
107?
Thank
you.
C
Second
question:
cz
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
any
idea.
Maybe
next
week
we
could
find
out
the
first
question:
I
think
we,
you
know,
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
that
it
seems
to
me
that
the
only
way
to
interpret
could
be.
Cp
is
two
years
through
out
of
the
last
five
meetings
that
actually
happened
with
people
in
the
room.
So
I
think
what
would
happen
is
really.
You
know
the
the.
C
A
P
Q
Yeah
I
think
we
got
some
pretty
concrete
feedback
to
make
another
Revit.
The
draft
I
think
I
do
think
we
should
fix
this
I
think
we
should
fix
it,
as
probably
we
should
actually
do
it.
I
mean
the
danger
of
people
say
this
is
not
urgent
of
the
next
year.
Is
that
nothing
will
ever
happen?
I
think
that's
a
significant
danger,
probably
a
bigger
danger
than
that.
We
do
something
imperfect
in
fact,
and
you
should
not
forget
in
anything
we
do
that.
J
J
Is
you
know
authorship
of
an
RFC
that
if
you
don't
know
that
that
is
a
criteria,
one
of
the
criteria
until
two
months
before
the
call
is
set
to
go
out
for
volunteers
that
you,
you
didn't,
have
an
opportunity
to
author,
an
RFC
in
that
time
concerned
about
that
in
terms
of
the
urgency
or
it's
just
like
what
Steven
just
stated,
which
is
just
that.
If
we
don't
actually
act,
then
you
know
things
tend
to
take
a
long
time
in
the
IDF.
That's.
A
B
Is
faster
and
I'm
not
sure
I
can
help
that
much
okay.
I
am
there's
been
a
lot
in
the
chat
that
I've
read
about
that.
It's
not
as
urgent
as
perhaps
because
were
shortly,
and
then
nothing
happens
for
another
year
that
we
have
to
worry
about
this,
so
that
we
can
back
fix
this.
That
set.
We
probably
need
something
to
deal
with
the
interim
case
and
at
least
collect
the
data.
A
B
H
And
I
was
just
going
to
say:
yes,
yes,
we
are
Jabbar
is
just
a
float
with
things
that
are
not
in
scope
for
this
draft,
so
I
think
they're
keeping
this
draft
on
eligibility.
It's
a
brilliant
plan
coming
up
with
places
to
discuss
all
the
other
stuff
would
be
equally
brilliant,
but
but
that,
like
I,
say
that
that's
that's.
Why
I'm
think
that's
why
I'm
thinking
putting
distance
on
the
eligibility
discuss
list
or
keeping
it
there
is
a
good
plan.
Thank
you.
H
A
A
P
P
M
B
L
O
J
M
A
B
There's
that
treatment
about
maybe
sponsoring
it
and
I
think
probably
we
can
have
further
discussion
if
you
want
to
have
it
on
Jen
dispatch,
but
I
think
it's
fine
to
do
it
on
eligible
to
discuss
about
how
to
go
forward
with
this
draft
that
this
dress
draft
needs
to
go
forward
right,
quick.
You
know
there
is
always
the
option
to
spin
up
one
of
these
very
fast
working
groups.
If
we
need
to
deal
with
a
short-term
problem.