►
From YouTube: IETF109-GENDISPATCH-20201119-0500
Description
GENDISPATCH meeting session at IETF109
2020/11/19 0500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/proceedings/
B
C
A
Okay
and
just
for
your
information,
if
you're
joining
us
now
mitigate
chat,
is
not
working
with
jobbers,
so
you
can
join
java
directly,
oh
and
they're,
saying
that
it
should
be
fixed
now
and
echo.
No
we're
not
able
to
remotely
turn
your
mic
on.
We
can
only
turn
it
off.
A
Okay,
let's
start
start
started.
Welcome
everybody
to
the
10
dispatch
working
group
meeting.
My
name
is
francesca
palumbini
pete
resnick
is
my
co-chair
and
we're
having
a
two-hour
session
today.
Next
slide.
This
is
a
itf
meeting,
so
the
note
well
applies
by
now.
I
hope
that
you
have
all
seen
and
read
it,
but
if
you
haven't
please
take
a
moment
to
read
it
and
understand
next
slide.
A
This
session
is
being
recorded
just
as
a
reminder,
and
these
are
yeah.
The
video
isn't
loading
right
for
me
either.
It's
I
only
see
like
a
box
of
the
whole.
B
A
A
A
So
these
are
some
online
meeting
tips
make
sure
your
video
is
off
unless
you're
presenting
or
want
to
speak,
mute,
your
microphone
unless
you're
speaking
and
use
of
a
headset,
strongly
recommended
the
blue
sheet
are
automatically
generated
this
time.
A
A
A
Otherwise,
yes,
slides,
chairs,
email,
address
list
and
charter.
Everything
is
there
and
next
slide.
This
is
our
agenda.
Today
we
are
in
the
intro
part.
Then
we're
gonna
talk
about
process
for
working
group,
adoption
drafts
by
ben
and
co-authors,
and
we
only
have
one
document
today,
so
we
have
a
bit
of
a
end
of
business.
Open
mic
session
and
then
we're
gonna
close
the
meeting
next
slide.
A
Just
mind
you
of
the
dispatch
process,
the
ground
rule
is
that
gen
dispatch
recommends
next
steps
for
new
work
and
does
not
adopt
drafts
possible
outcomes
of
this
meeting
is
to
direct
a
document
to
an
existing
working
group,
propose
a
new
focus,
working
group,
purpose
id
or
recommend
a
sponsorship,
assuming
that
he
is
willing
additional
professional
community
development
is
required
or
itf
should
not
work
on
this
topic,
and
I
realized
that
I
did
not
do
the
bashing
of
the
agenda.
So
maybe
let's
go
back
and
do
it
right
now.
A
So
I
don't
hear
anything
so
I
take
it
as
no
bashing
off
the
edge
of
great.
So
thank
you.
Pete
slide
participation
guidelines.
A
This
is
just
to
remind
you
to
state
your
name
before
speaking
without
at
the
mic.
You
can
remember,
keep
the
dispatch
question
in
mind
when
you
make
comments
and,
if
possible,
keep
your
comment
to
2-3
minutes,
although
today
we
have
time
so
I'm
not
going
to
be
strict
about
that
and
to
speak.
A
Please
first
join
the
queue
and
then,
when
you're,
given
the
floor,
send
audio
and
possibly
if
you
want
for
the
controls
of
mythical,
are
the
show
of
hand
which
I
don't
know
if
we
will
be
using
and
the
chat
which
you
can
find
there
and
that's
it.
F
E
F
Have
I
have
the
master
copy
written
right
here?
Okay,
so
I'm
assuming
adrian's
in
the
room
as
well,
but
I'm
assuming
he's
okay
with
me
talking
to
the
slides
since
he's
also
a
co-author,
if
you're
looking
at
slide
one,
it
lists
a
number
of
authors
and
the
name
of
the
draft
and
the
topic
which
is
adoption
of
internet
drafts,
and
the
point
is
that
we
are
updating
the
existing
guidelines,
we're
not
starting
this
work
from
zero.
F
And
that's
why
there's
five
or
six
names
on
the
on
the
document
that
participants
in
the
itf
sometimes
seem
to
be
confused
about
working
group.
Adoption
of
a
draft
and.
F
Now
we
intentionally
don't
want
to
give
anecdotes
that
might
lead
back
to
pointing
the
fingers
at
particular
people
or
particular
working
groups,
because
we
don't
think
that
people
are
at
fault
here.
It's
just
that
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
enough
clarity
about
the
adoption
process
and
we
believe
that
this
can
be
improved,
so
the
existing
rfc
on
adoption
and
handling
of
drafts
by
atf
working
groups-
rfc
7221,
does
offer
guidelines
in
this
area.
But
you
know
the
experience
seems
to
be
from
these
misunderstandings
and
conflicts
that
the
the
guidelines
aren't
quite
clear
enough.
F
So
that's
why
we're
doing
this
a
little
side
note?
Maybe
adrian
would
like
to
speak
to
this
slide,
since
it
was
his
suggestion.
F
No
sign
from
adrian
so
I'll
go
on.
Oh
and
the
slides
are
up
on
me
taco
now
as
well.
That's
good!
If
you
could
try
to
go
to
the
next
slide.
If
that.
F
Somebody
anyway,
the
point
about
rsc7221,
is
that
it
sort
of
went
past
a
bit
quietly.
The
authors
just
wrote
it:
they
solicited
reviews
from
a
few
key
people
by
their
friends.
They
solicited
reviews
from
the
working
group
chairs
list.
F
The
document
was
ad
sponsored
and
went
through
an
ietf
last
call,
but
in
the
whole
process
there
were
relatively
few
community
comments
and
the
comments
that
they
were
obviously
positive,
because
the
document
was
approved
by
the
isg
and
posted,
but
it's
in
fairly
low
profile,
all
the
same,
and
so
maybe
the
time
is
now
for
people
to
have
another.
Look
at
this
question
and
give
community
comments
on
what
we're
proposing,
by
the
way
it
changes,
which
are
clarifications
so
the
deliverable
which
is
part
of
the
gender
dispatch
question.
I
think
that's
not
slide.
Four.
F
Let
me
just
look
back
at
me:
go
and
see
what's
happening.
F
That's
that's
okay,
so
the
deliverable
would
be
an
update
to
certain
rfc
7221,
a
replacement
that
is
and
obsoletes,
not
in
updates
in
rfc
terminology.
That
adds
some
clarifications
about
the
implications
of
a
working
group.
F
Adopting
a
draft
add
some
additional
guidelines
for
the
adoption
process,
and
this
is
a
new
topic
that
isn't
really
in
there
at
the
moment
adds
some
guidelines
for
the
opposite,
which
you
might
call
unadoption
when,
when
a
working
group
decides
to
let
the
draft
go
at
the
moment,
our
intention
is
that
there
should
be
no
other
changes
to
the
rfc
and
there
is
absolutely
no
change
to
it
rules.
This
is
informational.
F
There
was
an
earlier
draft
which
was
purporting
to
be
a
draft
of
a
bcp,
but
we
decided
that
was
probably
not
the
best
way
to
go
and
staying
with
guidelines
is
the
right
way
to
go
right.
H
Like
to
speak
yeah
thanks
sorry,
brian
earlier
I
was
I'm
wrangling,
two
working
groups
at
the
moment
and
somehow
I
can
only
speak
one
at
once:
yeah
just
a
little
history
on
7221.
H
It
has
its
roots
in
a
working
group
chair,
training
session.
I
led
way
back
like
over
25
ietf
meetings
ago
and
and
then
dave
wanted
to
pull
that
in
to
an
rfc,
which
was
great.
Our
our
main
objective
in
7221
was
not
to
write
formal
process,
so
not
writing
rules,
hence
informational
and
guidance.
F
Exactly
and
and
the
intention
of
this
particular
draft
is
not
to
change
that
at
all,
but
just
to
make
the
guidelines
a
little
bit
more
robust,
I
think
so
now
I
have
a
question
for
the
chairs,
because
the
next
four
slides
go
into
details
and
that's
normally
forbidden
in
gen
dispatch.
So
do
you
want
me
to
go
into
details
or
skip
forward.
B
And
let
me
before
you
do:
can
I
ask
one
question
from
the
floor
as
it
were?
Do
you
do
you
all,
as
authors
see
any
harm
if
we
dispatch
it
bcp
bcp-ish,
as
opposed
to
informationalish.
F
I
would
say
from
personally
from
the
discussion
we
had
on
on
the
first
version,
which
was
bcpsh
that
people
don't
think
it
actually
needs
to
be
legislation,
legislation
that
it's
it's
better.
If
we
leave
the
legislation
on
touch,
but
so
I
think
it
might
be
harmful
because
it
would
be
trying
to
over
regulate,
but
that's
produced
three
hymns.
B
Yeah
so
adrian
go
ahead.
H
Yes,
I
I
go
slightly
further
than
brian
in
my
assessment
of
us
not
needing
rules
for
this
and
wanting
to
remain
slightly
more
flexible,
to
allow
working
group
chairs
to
do
the
right
thing,
rather
than
be
nailed
down
to
a
set
of
rules.
But
having
said
that,
the
guidance
is
probably
useful,
especially
for
working
group
chairs,
who
are
pondering
the
right
way
to
approach
adoption
and
things
like
that.
B
Then
let
me
tighten
up
my
question
a
little,
because
I
I
I
understand,
where
you're
going
with
that
making
it
bcp-ish
recommending
that
to
whoever
we
are
dispatching
this,
that
we
think
this
would
be
a
good
bcp.
B
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
more
than
guidelines
in
the
text,
but
there
is
a
difference
between
informational
and
bcp
of
the
amount
of
consensus
that
the
iesg
would
look
for
to
approve
it,
and
do
we
want
to
have
the
iasg
push
for
a
bcp
level
of
consensus,
or
you
know
the
the
the
rule
on
informational
in
the
iesg
is
one
ad
thinks
it's
okay?
Well
then,
it's
okay.
H
So
there's
there
are
two
levels
of
consensus:
you
you
need
to
look
at
there.
Aren't
there
there's
the
level
of
consensus
across
the
ietf.
My
understanding
is
that
informational
goes
for
exactly
the
same
consensus
measure
as
bcp
these
days.
B
I
Firm,
you
do
you
want
to
have
this
comment.
You
asked
the
authors,
so
if
you'd
like
me
to
sit
back
and
not
talk
about
this
now,
I'm
happy
to
remember
so
I
guess
you
know
to
show
my
hand
initially.
I
don't
think
this
documentary
published.
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
have.
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
have
non
things
that
look
like
there
are
guidance
about
how
we
should
behave
that
are
that
that
are
informational.
They
don't
have
norman
of
force.
I
I
think
that
was
a
mistake
with
7282.
To
be
frank,
I
get
I
consistently
get
this
identity
as
if
it
had
some
normal
force,
and
I
have
to
keep
saying
no.
This
is
just
someone's
opinion,
so
I
think
the
same
thing
applies
here,
so
I
think
this
document
should
I
think
it
was.
I
I
didn't
notice.
The
stack
was
really
published.
I
would
have
objected
then
too.
I
So
I
also
think
that
there's
some
actual
things
in
this
document-
I
don't
agree
with
which
would
make
me
even
less
likely
to
see
it-
wanted
to
be
published
either
at
bcp
or
informational.
So
I
I'm
not
sure
like
an
extensive
attempt
to
litigate
this,
so
it
becomes
like
something
everybody
can
agree
on.
I
In
terms
of
you
know,
in
terms
of
the
content,
was
that
fantastic
idea
I
mean
our
process
generally
expects
a
chairs
to
exercise
it's
a
very
significant
amount
of
discretion
about
how
they
run
the
process,
and
you
know
attempting
to
nail
it
down
with
like
more
rules,
as
this
does,
especially
with
respect
to
the
adoption
calls.
I
think
it's
simply
unwise.
B
So,
and,
and
just
to
echo
what
francesca
said
at
the
beginning,
does
that
impact
how
how
you
would
dispatch
this?
You
would
not
dispatch
this.
You
would
like
to
go
to
a
bit
bucket
or
something.
I
Correct
so
but
but
I
will,
I
will
oppose
it
more
aggressively
if
it's
being
dispatched
to
bcp,
you
got
it.
B
J
I
need
to
kind
of
echo
what
eco
just
said.
J
J
J
I
am
worried
that
the
natural
constituency
are
the
people
with
experience
as
working
group
shares
and
or
ads,
but
only
a
fraction
of
those
will
be
presented
here,
and
I
wonder
whether
we
have
the
right
process
to
get
sufficient
input
there
to
decide
what
eco
suggested
to
ease
or
not
publish
it
or
to
publish
it
as
a
full
standard
of
full
bcp.
J
F
Can
I
just
respond
directly
to
that
other
order?
I
firstly,
I
think,
to
some
extent,
that's
exactly
what
happened
with
7221.
I
must
admit
I
don't
remember
any
discussion
of
it
at
the
time.
It
was
a
little
bit
of
a
surprise
to
me,
but
secondly,
there
is
another
constituency
which
you
didn't
mention.
F
J
B
A
Point
taken,
thank
you
christian,
and
I
believe
that
that
that
was
also
one
of
the
authors
point
in
the
last
slide
when
they
they
proposed,
they
recommended-
or
they
hoped
outcome
of
this
meeting
with
the
discussion
where
discussion
should
happen,
braun
go
ahead.
G
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
click
my
microphone
on.
I
was
going
to
say
as
a
working
group
chair,
there
are
two
things
I
look
for
in
a
document
like
this,
one
of
which
is
guidance
and
how
to
behave,
and
the
other
thing
is
cover
in
the
case
of
an
appeal
where
I
can
point
to
a
process
and
say
I
followed
this
process.
The
process
is
reasonable
in
my
behavior
within
that
process
was
reasonable.
G
K
So
as
one
of
the
authors,
one
of
the
things
that
inspired
me
to
to
get
involved
in
this
was
because
I
saw
what
I
thought
was
silly
wastes
of
time
in
working
groups
where
there
clearly
was
a
document
that
should
be
adopted,
or,
in
some
cases,
a
working
group
doc
and
an
individual
draft
going
on
for
two
or
three
years
from
a
design
team
that
the
working
group
chairs
created
and
I'm
like.
Well,
why
isn't
it
a
working
group
document
already?
K
What
was
the
point?
I
mean
the
whole.
The
whole
distinction
is:
can
we
spend
working
group
time
on
the
document
at
the
beginning
or
the
end
of
the
of
the
session?
And
so
I
I
I
really
did
I
you
know
was
sort
of
this
dogmatic.
K
We
have
to
adopt
it
and
blah
blah
blah
blah
and
it's
not
ready
for
adoption
kind
of
thing,
and
we
had
some
conversations
last
time
about
documents
that
come
that
are
essentially
too
mature
to
the
working
group
and-
and
so
what
I
saw
was
that
there
was
this
this
adherence
to
this.
What
effect
people
thought
was
this
rule
and
it's
not
a
rule,
and
so
what
I
really
want
to
say
is
is
to
somehow
make
it
clear
to
everyone.
This
is
not
a
rule.
K
K
Maybe
we
don't
need
any
more
stuff
and
I
don't
want
to
write
more
rules
and
I
also
very
sensitive
brawn
who
actually-
and
this
makes
a
very
good
point-
that
he'd
like
to
be
they'll
say
I
followed
the
process.
This
is
the
process,
so
a
question
that
I
would
have
for
the
subsequent
speakers
and
the
other
ones
who
have
already
spoken
particularly
eckerd,
was:
do
you
think
that
we
should
have
any
change
any
of
the
rules
about
how
we
adopt
documents?
K
A
Okay,
mark
or
brian,
do
you
want
to
answer
sorry?
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that
or.
L
Okay,
so
I
I
think
some
good
points
have
been
made
all
around
kind
of
phrasing,
this
in
terms
of
how
it
should
be
dispatched
to
try
and
help
the
chairs
along.
I
I
see
three
options
and
one
is,
I
think,
to
try
and
make
it
a
bcp,
and
if
we
want
to
do
that,
I
think
it
there
are
some
some
real
hurdles
to
be
overcome.
It
needs
scrutiny,
it
needs
broad
review.
L
L
L
What
is
currently
guidance
over
to
a
normative
you
know,
bcp
is,
is
a
pretty
big
move
and
I
think
it
deserves
a
lot
of
scrutiny.
If
we're
going
to
do
that.
So
it's
I'm
not
necessarily
against
that,
but
I
do
wonder
if
we
have
the
energy
and
and
the
focus
and
the
the
attention
of
the
people
who
are
necessary
to
make
that
actually
happen.
This
is
like
revising
2026
and
it
should
be
treated
like
that.
L
The
second
option,
I
think,
would
be
to
republish
his
informational
with
a
few
improvements
which
I
paid
through
the
slides,
real
quick.
It
seems
like
these
are
relatively
minor
clarification,
so
improve
the
document
a
bit,
but
you
put
a
you
slap,
a
big
disclaimer
at
the
front
of
it.
That
says
this
is
not
you
know
a
rule.
These
are
just
guidelines.
This
is
advice.
You
can
opt
into
this.
L
Much
like
we
have
the
advice
on
how
you
can
opt
into
the
how
you
use
git
for
working
groups,
it's
not
required
of
all
working
groups
and,
and
then
the
third
option
is
to
do
nothing
which
actors
seem
to
advocate.
I
don't
have
a
firm
preference
amongst
the
three,
but
if
we're
going
to
actually
make
this
a
bcp
or
something
like
that,
I
I
would
like
to
see
a
lot
more
detail
about
how
we're
going
to
come
to
that
agreement
and
how
it's
going
to
get
chopped
around
the
itf.
A
Thank
you.
I
I'm
just
going
to
cut
the
queue
at
ecker,
just
because
I
want
brian
to
finish
his
slides
and
then
consume
discussion
after
that.
If
that's
okay,
so
david
go
ahead.
F
M
So
I'm
having
a
hard
time
understanding
what
the
purpose
of
this
document
as
an
rfc
is
so,
I
think,
there's
definitely
value
in
writing
down
how
we
operate,
and
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
needs
to
land
in
rfc.
So
you
know
if
we
go
back
30
years,
everything
that
we
did
at
the
atf
landed
in
rc,
because
that's
kind
of
the
only
way
we
could
communicate-
and
I
say
we-
I
wasn't
there
back
then,
but
that's
my
understanding.
M
If
you
look
at
rc
1121,
it's
a
collection
of
poems
which
are
really
cute,
but
it
doesn't
make
sense
as
an
rfc
there's
no
reason
whatsoever.
Another
example
is
the
tao
of
the
ietf,
which
is
very
important
in
my
mind
and
was
a
collection
of
rfcs
until
we
one
day
woke
up
and
realized.
M
Oh,
we
have
a
website.
We
can
put
it
on
the
web
and
anyway,
all
I'm
trying
to
say
is:
I
think
the
the
content
of
this
document
is
valuable
and
thanks
brian
for
doing
this
work,
but
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
an
rfc
unless
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
course
chairs
and
force
them
to
do
something.
So
if,
for
example,
the
goal
here
is
that
we
find
that
there
are
chairs
that
are
misbehaving,
and
we
want
to
make
the
rules
crystal
clear,
then
we
make
a
standards
track,
rfc
or
bcp.
M
That's
and-
and
that
has
you
know,
force
of
law
to
some
extent
where,
if
the
chair
doesn't
follow
these
rules,
the
ad
has
very
very
clear
path
for
firing
them
or
telling
them
to
behave.
But
in
this
case,
if
all
we're
trying
to
do
is
like
give
advice-
which
I
think
is
helpful,
why
not
just
put
it
on
itf.org?
M
I
think
this
would
be
actually
more
helpful
because
the
problem
with
rfcs
is-
and
that's
not
specific
to
this
draft
people,
don't
understand
that
we
have
multiple
tracks
and
that's
a
problem
outside
of
the
itf.
It's
involved
inside
the
itf
people.
Don't
go
and
check
that
this
is
informational,
vcp
and
many
times.
I've
had
people
cite
informational
rc's
as
like
the
rule
of
law
to
me,
because
they
don't
understand
that,
and
I'm
worried
that
you
know
to
echo
what
some
of
the
previous
folks
in
the
queue
were
saying.
M
An
informational
doc
carries
these
kind
of
problems,
because
then
people
treat
it
as
law,
so
in
terms
of
dispatching
here.
What
I
would
personally
really
prefer
is
to
see
this
text
turned
into
a
web
page
that
we
can
then
reference
for
to
give
chairs
a
hand,
but
that
makes
it
less
look
like
a
rule
of
law.
M
A
You
thanks
david
and
also
checking
jabber,
and
I
see
michael
saying,
dispatch
to
edu
team
website
team.
I
can
live
with
that
and
maybe
greg
will
want
to
s
say
something
about
later,
but
elliot
go
ahead.
N
First
of
all,
thanks
to
the
authors
for
doing
the
update,
and
I
want
to
stress
the
word
update,
because
it
seems
some
of
the
people
who
have
spoken
have
forgotten
that
there
already
is
a
document
in
existence.
I'm
glad
that
ecker
acknowledged
that
as
he
began
his
comments,
but
we
have
a
document
already,
that's
issue
number
one,
and
so
the
question
is
we
would
like
the
guidance
and
the
document
to
be
as
good
as
it
can
be.
N
Issue.
Number
two
is
that
I
believe
a
number
of
the
people
who
actually
read
the
document
or
who
actually
commented
on
the
document,
didn't
read
the
document
because
right
in
front
of
it
right
in
the
front
of
the
document.
It
says
this
is
non-normative
advice
right
there.
It
says
it
in
big
letters
and-
and
so
I
would-
I
would
suggest
two
things.
First
of
all
that
people
read
the
document.
N
Second,
we
have
a
natural
constituency
where
this
document
can
get
very,
very
good,
and
that
is
the
working
group
chairs
list
right
that
that
is
an
excellent
place
to
bring
this
document
for
review,
get
lots
and
lots
of
comments,
and
even
have
somebody
monitor
that
those
comments
and
maybe
then
determine
whether
there
are
outstanding
issues
based
on
those
comments.
N
So
I
would
like
to
see
the
the
document
updated
with
the
best
advice.
I'm
not
sure
I
agree
with
absolutely
every
word
in
the
document,
but
that's
okay,
because
it's
non-normative
why
it
says
so
thanks
everyone.
A
Thanks
and
I
believe
that
some
people
in
the
queue
were
answering
pete
who
asked
about,
should
this
be
vp
and
become
more
more
than
informational,
but,
yes,
bob
go
ahead.
C
D
Good
yeah,
so
I
I
think
this
should
be
dispatched.
I
I'm
a
little
continue
to
be
confused
about
this
working
group
about
what
it
means
to
dispatch,
something
it.
I
think
many
of
these
questions
that
are
being
discussed
would
get
resolved
where,
after
its
dispatch
not
before,
because
as
people
have
said,
it
we're
not
exactly
all
the
right
audience,
but
I
think
this
is
useful
in
the
working
group
I
chair
and
I've
noticed
this
in
other
working
groups.
D
There
seems
to
be
confusion
about
the
difference
between
adopting
something
and
to
work
on
versus
advancing
it
and
a
lot
of
times.
The
criteria
for
adoption
starts
to
look
exactly
like
the
criteria
for
advancement,
and
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
a
set
of
guidelines
that
make
that
clearer,
because
it's
it's
it's
an
operational
problem
in
how
working
groups
work.
So
I
I
would
like
to
see
this
adopt
adopted
or
dispatched,
so
it
could
actually
be
worked
on
and
then
published
in
some.
I
I
guess
several
points
so
elliot.
I
was
aware
of
the
text
that
said
it
was
non-normative.
My
experience
is
people
do
not
read
that
kind
of
text
and
I
don't
know
7280
who
also
has
similar
text
and
yet
I
repeatedly
hear
it
said
it
to
me
as
if
it
were
somehow
itf
world.
I
So
I
I
think
you
know
perhaps
perhaps
a
little
less
assumption
that
people
aren't
reading
it
just
because
they
disagree
with
you
with
the
content
of
that
text
or
the
the
impact
of
that
text.
Second,
I
I
think
you
know
I
I
there
was
sort
of
a
more
abstract
question
asked
of
do.
We
think
there's
ambiguity
about
working
group
procedure
and
I
think
there
actually
is.
I
You
know
you
know
I
occasionally
read
2014
for
things
and
I
find
the
things
that
I
thought
were
like
the
thought
original
practice
or
do
not
appear
to
be
a
virgin
our
practice.
I
I
suspect
the
fix
for
that
power
is
to
revise
2018,
not
not
to
not
to
provide
not
to
have
a
commentary
which
serve.
Then
it
confuses
the
issue
even
further,
so
you
know
I
guess
I
I
would.
I
I
would
be
on
board
perhaps
for
a
light,
lighter
vision,
2018,
but
I
think
that
I
think
that's
a
a
commentary
document
doesn't
help,
but
I
think
that
having
that
be
a
pcp
seems
even
worse,
because
now
we
have
two
documents
which
I
like
how
you
reconciled,
if
we
think
we're
trying
to
do
is
cheat
is
is
like
have
something
to
have
normal
force
at
work.
In
your
practice
we
have
such
documents
called
2014.
We
need
2014.
F
We'll
resume
it
quite
quickly.
I
think,
because
I
don't
want
to
go
into
the
details
after
that
conversation,
I
think
it
would
be
a
little
bit
irrelevant
good.
Could
you
go
to
slide
five
pete
if
you
can
still
find
the
right
button
right?
So
this
is
just
a
note
for
people
to
see
that
we
have
put
up
a
draft
which
is
the
zero
zero
draft,
which
is
basically
the
rfc
text
as
before,
and
then
we
put
up
a
draft
zero
one.
G
F
N
N
F
You
could
even
try
these
pull
request.
Things
though
I
don't
know.
If
any
of
us
have
the
competence
to
handle
them
and
we'll
find
out,
then
there
are
four
slides
summarizing
the
changes
and
I
really
don't
think
it
would
be
productive
to
to
discuss
those
given
the
discussion
we
just
had
so
I'd
ask
you
to
just
zoom
through
right.
There
we
go
last
slide,
that's
the
discussion
we
were
just
having,
shall
we
continue.
F
G
F
A
Okay,
ecker,
I
don't
know
if
you're
back
in
the
queue
or
or
left
from
before.
J
I'm
I've
been
listening
and
I
just
I'm
not
convinced
that
we
should
have
this
kind
of
partial
updates
like
that.
I
am
definitely
not
convinced
by
elliot's
argument
that
this
is
informational,
so
you
can
say
what
you
want.
That's
not
true,
and
the
eco
is
right
on
that,
and
I
mean
if
what
we
want
is
tighten
the
process.
Then
we
should
tighten
the
process,
but
we
should
do
that
as
a
process
revision.
F
D
F
F
The
chairs
have
decided
to
do
it
this
way,
but
it
could
have
been
done
another
way
so
that
there
really
is
misunderstanding,
I'm
actually
quite
attracted
by
the
idea
of
putting
all
this
sort
of
material
on
on
a
website
rather
than
on
the
website,
rather
than
informal
documents,
just
like
we
did
with
the
dao,
but
I
don't
think
anywhere.
Misunderstandings
will
continue.
That's
that's
my
prediction.
L
Mark
click
both
buttons
right,
yep,
okay,
so
brian.
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question.
Based
on
what
you
just
said,
some
working
groups
might
use
a
more
formal
or
elaborate
adoption
process
for
good
reasons.
They
might
want
to
make
sure
that
they
get
buy-in
from
implementers.
They
want
might
have
too
many
drafts
coming
at
them
at
one
time
and
they
need
to
to
narrow
down
the
field.
F
The
second
one,
okay-
and
you
know
you
you-
you
do
understand,
don't
you
that
most
people
who
participate
in
the
itf
aren't
on
the
idf
mailing
list
right.
They
aren't
on
even
on
the
announce
list.
They
just
show
up
for
a
working
group
and
they
see
what
happens
and
they
make
deductions
from
that
about
what
the
process
is.
So
you
know
we,
we
have
a
problem
and
where
do
those
people
look,
they
probably
look
on
the
website?
Actually,
they
don't
look
in
rfcs.
L
L
Can
understand
the
process
using
the
working
group
really
intuitively
and
we
refined
that
a
lot
over
time
and
if
the
itf
were
to
have
materials
that
were
equally
accessible?
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
thing,
but
that
draws
back
us
back
to
the
discussion
of
is
the
appropriate
output
for
this
nor
fc
or
something
else,
and
what
would
that
be?
I.
L
C
A
B
I
will
put
this
in
the
form
of
a
question:
do
do
not
do
undue
influence
with
my
hat,
which
I
swear.
I've
taken
off
if
the
problem
you're
identifying
is
that
people,
even
with
what
we've
currently
got
in
2418
and
7221,
believe
that
there
is
some
sort
of
rule
that
they
have
to
follow
and
that
the
chairs
aren't
doing
it
right
or
chairs
think
they
have
to
follow
some
set
of
rules.
B
F
Yeah,
I
would
say
that's
a
direct
implication
of
rfc
2418
actually
already,
but
sometimes
you
have
to
say
things
I
I
wouldn't
disagree
with
that,
but
if,
if
anybody's
got
the
energy
to
go
and
revise
24-18,
you
know
that
would
probably
be
a
wonderful
thing
to
do,
but
it
won't
be
me.
I
don't
have
that
much
energy
right
and
when
they're
finished
they
can
do
2026
as
well.
F
So
yeah,
I
think
it
cuts
both
ways
and
there
are
cases
where
individual
authors
have
been
angry
with
working
group
chairs
because
they
haven't
been
prepared
to
start
an
adoption
process
for
a
draft
and
that's
the
other
side
of
the
rule.
So
you
know
we
don't
like
it
when
people
just
have
misunderstandings
that
lead
them
to
be
angry.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
O
Hi
good
morning,
then,
for
clarity,
I'm
not
never
have
been,
and
then
highly
unlikely
ever
to
be
a
working
group
chair.
So
I'm
simply
observing
from
the
document
and
the
conversation
I
mean
to
the
point
of
putting
some
text
on
our
website
whether
it's
a
good
idea
is
for
others
to
decide.
O
But
I
would
I
would
recommend
that
the
text
needs
some
scrutiny
first
and
therefore
it
doesn't
seem
to
me
to
to
so
address
the
question,
which
is
what
to
do
with
the
text
before
the
point
where
it
goes
to
a
website,
and
I
think
from
from
from
the
chat,
it
would
seem
to
be
a
good
idea
to
at
least
give
clarity
to
working
group
chairs
as
to
what
the
rules
are
already
to
not
and
if
it's
up
to
their
discretion,
maybe
some
indication
of
what
the
boundaries
of
that
discretion
might
be.
O
So
I
think,
for
the
purposes
of
transparency
publishing
a
document
seems
like
a
good
thing.
If
that's
then,
added
to
a
website,
art
was
fantastic,
but
it
would
seem
useful
to
actually
go
through
the
normal
ihf
process
first
and
then
decide
whether
for
purposes
of
publicity,
pushing
the
material
somewhere
else
as
well
would
also
be
beneficial.
O
A
P
The
suggestions
for
distributing
information
some
being
already
out
there
in
rfcs
and
some
going
elsewhere
and
having
overlap
overlapping
topics
and
potentially
and
potentially.
P
Some
of
the
information
in
not
so
official
places
trying
to
fix
rfcs
is
likely
to
create
confusion
in
people
about
precedence
of
the
various
sources
of
information.
P
Aside
from
the
question
whether
people
who
know
that
the
rfc
repository
is
the
official
information
of
the
rf
of
the
iatf
might
even
find
the
other
places
and
making
and
making
guesses
about
a
large,
diverse
crowd
and
their
behavior,
where
the
crowd
may
actually
not
be
that
much
involved
in
the
overall
processes.
A
Thank
you,
robert.
Q
So
so,
thank
you
for
bringing
this
documents
update,
just
some
comments,
as
as
somebody
who's
actually
relatively
new
to
the
itf
process.
Q
Despite
now
being
an
ad,
and
I
have
to
say
that
the
the
way
that
it
commences
process
is
actually
quite
opaque
to
people
that
are
new
to
itf,
it's
quite
hard
to
find
out
what
sort
of
things
you're
meant
to
do
and
where
that's
documented,
there's
a
long
list
of
rfc
numbers
and
updates
those
rfcs
and
for
the
people
who
know
the
process.
Q
Well,
I
think
that
makes
it
very
easy,
but
I
think
for
the
newer
generation
of
people
coming
into
the
itf,
it's
very
hard
to
know
what
the
rules
are
and
what
the
guidance
is.
How
these
things
work,
and
the
only
way
you
can
actually
find
out
about
this
stuff-
is
to
sort
of
follow
what
the
working
groups
are
doing
and
pick
it
up
as
you
go
along,
and
so
I
do
get.
Q
So
I,
I
definitely
think
there's
something
to
be
done
here
about
trying
to
explain
the
process
in
a
way
that's
easier
to
newcomers,
and
I
quite
like
the
idea
of
that
going
onto
a
web
page
and,
of
course,
having
that
information
on
the
webpage
makes
it
potentially
easier
to
update,
and
it
potentially
also
makes
it
easier
to
reference
other
rfcs
and
point
out
where
these
bits
of
information
are
and
should
be.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
thing.
Q
And
hence
that
is
a
concern
and
I
have
a
concern
where
people
may
use
this
guidance
with
more
force
than
it's
meant
to
have
both
through
from
working
chairs,
trying
to
stop
new
work
coming
in
because
they
don't
agree
with
it
and
vice
versa,
where
participants
are
using
it
to
keep
bashing
the
working
chairs
to
adopt
something
where
there
actually
isn't
consensus
around
that.
So
I
do.
Q
I
do
see
that
there's
problems
there,
but
I
think
anything
that
we
can
do
to
make
it
easier
for
newcomers
to
the
itf
to
understand
the
process
and
navigate
it.
I
think
that's
a
good
thing,
so
I
I
haven't
really
expressed
how
this
work
should
be
done
or
where
it
should
be
done.
I
think
continuing
on
a
list
is
is
a
good
idea.
Discussing
the
working
chairs
list
also
seems
a
good
way
of
getting
extra
feedback.
So
I
like
that
idea.
I
don't
know
about
the
other
choices.
P
I
certainly
I
certainly
can
see
a
point
in
putting
on
the
web.
We
actually
have
a
chapter
on
the
ietf.org
talking
about
how
we
work,
putting
their
educational
tutorial
guidance,
information
that
that
points
to
in
an
explaining
way
where
to
from
which
of
the
of
of
the
rfcs
to
pull,
which
information
and
how
they
relate,
but
again
kind
of
avoid
avoid
avoid
creating
confusion
about
precedence
of
various
information
sources
and
by
the
way,
the
how
we
work
chapter
of
the
web.
P
The
last
time
I
was
looking
there
did
not
look
that
convincing
and
well
well
done
to
me,
but
it's
actually
at
some
time
ago
that
I
last
looked.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Oliver
go
ahead.
R
Can
you
hear
me,
can
you
hear
me
yep?
Okay,
wonderful.
I
have
to
second
rudiger's
comments.
I
believe,
moving
or
having
these
information
in
two
different
places
is
a
recipe
for
disaster.
R
The
I
know
that
the
documents
in
iatf,
at
least
for
me,
sometimes
are
a
little
bit
confusing
to
read,
especially
with
all
the
updates
and
replacements
and
so
forth,
but
I
think
that
is
something
and
if,
if
we
start
moving
data
into
a
website
on
one
part
and
having
them
in
the
documents
on
the
other
side
really
gets
the
danger
that
if
I
focus
on
the
data
tracker
for
example,
then
I
might
miss
something.
What
is
on
the
website
and
vice
versa.
R
R
If
in
the
argument,
maybe
maybe
what
I
tried
to
say
before
the
argument
that
the
rfcs
are
so
difficult
and
therefore
we
should
have
it
maybe
better
on
the
website
at
least
that's
how
I
understood
it
doesn't
really
count
for
me,
because
if,
if
this
is
the
big
problem,
then
then
standards
draft
in
general
have
a
big
problem
from
my
own
experience
now
being
participating
in
the
iatf.
R
I
think
since
itf
86
or
something
like
this,
there
is
a
steep
learning
curve
and
when
I
have
new
colleagues
who
want
to
learn
about
the
iatf,
there
is
a
steep
learning
curve
and
it
is
not
easy
to
explain
everything.
But
I
think
the
iatf
is
not
the
only
the
only
organization
that
has
a
steep
learning
curve
and
it's
fine.
After
a
while
you
get
in,
I
mean
it's
with
everything
in
life
trying
to
have
stuff
on
the
website
rather
than
the
documents.
R
A
Yeah,
it
makes
sense.
What's
the
question
for
you,
oliver,
I'm
trying
to
follow
the
chat
as
well,
and
someone
has
suggested
it
before.
But
what
would
you
like
concerning
this?
Having
information
places?
Would
you
be
okay,
then,
with
having
an
rc,
informational,
bcp
or
whatever?
It
is,
and
then
have
that
document
linked
from
the
website
or
training
yeah.
R
Yes,
of
course,
of
course,
that's
what
I
mean
if
we
have,
I
think,
maybe
what
is
missing
is
if,
if
I
go
to
the
iitf
website,
it
is
sometimes
very
hard
to
find
things.
So
I
think
that
is
more
more
the
the
issue
that
one
should
have
maybe
a
better
index
where
I
can
find
the
information
and
they
reference
back
into
the
rfcs
pcps
informational
drafts.
What
whatever
form
the
particular
document
will
have.
A
I
believe
people
are
working
on
this
already
again
greg
or
alisa
they
yeah
they've
been
they've
started
an
effort
about
that.
Thank
you.
Yes,.
R
I
mean-
maybe,
if
I
can
add
one
more
thing.
I
know
that
the
the
newcomers
rfc
the
newcomers.
Events
are
always
very
good,
or
at
least
back
then,
when
I
participated
in
some
of
them
that
explain
how
the
iatf
works.
R
It
might
not
be
bad
to
have
like
refresher
courses
or
refresher
meetings,
because
things
change,
and
I
don't
always
go
back
and
read
how
everything
has
to
be
done
and
after
a
while,
you
get
set
into
your
mechanisms
so
having
something
that
that
draws
in
even
even
people
who
are
already
more
mature
in
the
iatf
and
know
how
things
work
to
have
more
a
broader,
broader
area
of
this,
this
refresher
stuff.
What
changed?
How
how
things
go
that
that
might
be
maybe
helpful
as
well
and.
A
Yeah
yeah-
and
I
believe
this
is
kind
of
outside
the
the
scope
of
of
this
this
presentation,
but
I
I
really
agree
with
your
point
so
happy
that
you
brought
it
up
and-
and
I
know
there
are
people
in
this
call
who
are
receptive
to
that
comment
so
great
to
hear.
Okay,
thank
you
elliot,
go
ahead,
and
then
I
think
okay,
then
oliver.
A
I
can
make
a
a
summary
of
what
we
heard
so
far.
Look
what
happens.
N
Okay
hi,
so
I
had
one
point
I'll
make
two
based
on
pete's
last
question:
the
the
number
of
people
have
said
that,
just
because
the
document
says
that
it's
non-normative
people
will
read
past
it
and
use
the
document
to
bash
a
process,
and
so
my
first
my
my
one
question
is:
has
that
previously
happened
with
7221,
because
if
it
hasn't,
maybe
it's
the
way
in
which
documents
like
7282
were
written
versus
how
7221
was
written
and
if
it's
clear
enough
that
this
is
guidance
and
not
normative?
Maybe
that's.
N
The
scope
that
we're
now
discussing
and
the
question
that
pete
just
asked
is
incredibly
broad
and
what
I
would
be
concerned
is
that
we
kick
off.
So
you
know
something
along
the
lines
of
a
very
large
process
stalling
what
was
supposed
to
be
a
relatively
small
update
and
yet
not
have
the
stomach
to
actually
complete
the
very
large
process.
N
That's
happened
before
and
even
when
we
had
the
stomach,
sometimes
things
just
went
alright.
So
I'm
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
that.
Thank.
A
So
pete
you
can
join
me,
I
see
brian
has
stop
the
video
as
well.
I
I
am
kind
of
disagreeing
with
what
like
I
I
didn't
hear
as
much
people
against
this
document.
I
heard
people
agreeing
with
making
it
bcp,
but
I
didn't
hear
strong
disagreement
about
making
it
like.
A
And
then,
when
the
discussion
continued,
I
heard
that
yes,
there
is
a
need
to
to
to
share
this
information
better,
be
it
on
the
website
being
beyond
the
working
group
chairs
training,
but
that
okay,
yes,
I
can
repeat
decker.
So
I
was
saying
that
I
didn't
hear
that
two
strong
too
many
voice
against.
B
B
That
I
mean
ecker
said
you
know,
updating
2418
to
be
clearer
about
what
what
roles
the
what
latitude
the
chairs
have
might
even
be
a
more
appropriate
thing
to
do
christian.
Do
you
do
you
want
to
add
to
that
christian?
J
I
think
I
disagree
with
elliot's
point
that
providing
guidance
and
making
marking
it
informational
is
okay,
okay,
either.
I
I
think
the
documents
can
be
easily
descriptive,
as
in
we
are
seeing
working
group
share
facing
this
program
and
they
can.
There
are
some
have
been
doing
this
and
some
have
been
doing
that
et
cetera
and
that
person
is
okay.
J
But
that's
one
thing:
if
you
describe
that
the
way
it
is
in
the
drop
as
in
hey,
you
should
be
doing
each
of
these
or
that
or
that
that's
not
just
guidance.
It's
kind
of
normative,
that's
clear
and-
and
I
I
think,
I'm
with
each
other-
I
mean
it's
either
you
make
it
clearly
descriptive
and
it
doesn't
try
to
make
rules.
It
just
clarifies
what
you
see
and
there
or
you
make
it
a
bcp
it's,
but
the
in-between
is
bad.
A
A
A
A
A
I
do
believe
that
I
do
believe
that
there
was
agreement
about
training.
There
should
be
more
training
or
more
better
way
to
share
information.
A
But
I
I
don't
know
how
it's,
if
it's
going
to
help
us
dispatch.
This
particular
document.
S
Well,
so
maybe
that's
just
one
thing
to
take
off
the
table,
then
I
was
just
trying
to
narrow
narrow
the
decision
set,
so
it
would
be
useful
to
know
if,
if
anyone
is
against
updating
the
the
website,
slash
wiki
documentation
or
doing
or
incorporating
that
updated
information
into
future
training,
because
if
people
are
against
that,
then
we
won't
do
it
if
a
lot
of
people
are
against
it.
S
B
Right,
because
there
is
something,
if
we
get
that
information
out
on
a
website
by
way
of
clarification
of
7221,
then
I
think
we
have
a
launching
point
for
okay.
What
what
should
we
do
by
way
of
process
for
this?
Do
we
need
a
document
that
points
to
this?
Do
we
need
a
bcp
that
says
something
that
updates
2418
that
clarifies
what
that
web
page
is
about?
B
And
I
I
understand
andrew
made
the
comment
that
we've
got
7221
now
in
the
document
series,
so
there
does
seem
to
be
some
reason
to
do
something
to
change
the
state,
given
that
72
21
is
around,
and
people
agree
that
it
needs
changing,
but
maybe
doing
the
web
page
first
and
then
figuring
out.
What
to
do
with
the
document
series
is
the
right
order
of
steps.
S
And
that's
I
mean
also
why
I
posted
the
link
to
the
chair
of
resources,
because
you
can
see
on
that
page.
It
combines
it's
a
collection
of
many
different
things
right.
It's
like
there's
some
rfc's
linked
there.
There's
isg
statements,
there's
other
web
pages,
there's
the
link
to
the
wiki.
So
that's
just
that's
just
the
state
of
our
process.
It's
like
different
things,
are
captured
in
different
formats.
S
B
So
I
guess
then,
let's
put
it
in
the
other
form.
Are
there
folks
in
the
room
who
object
to
the
idea
of
getting
this
information
together
on
the
website
or
in
a
wiki
or
whatever
we
decide
that
appropriate
place
is
first
and
then
going
on
to
the
question
of
how
to
either
obsolete,
7221
or
update
2418?
Or
what
have
you?
Is
everybody?
Okay
with
that
as
a
plan
going
forward
andrew
first.
O
All
right
yeah.
Just
to
that
point,
just
echo,
echoing
what
I
put
on
the
chat
it
seems
to
me.
We
would
be
odd
to
update
the
website
before
updating
the
document.
O
O
It
would
seem
just
odd
to
do
yeah
that
feels
the
wrong
way
around
to
put
it
on
a
website
and
not
sort
out
the
document,
because
if
there's
a
contradiction
between
the
website
and
rfc
7221,
I
would
hope.
That's
equally
unhelpful,
so
sort
out
the
documentation
first,
that
then
other
stuff
like
website,
training,
etc,
etc.
T
Yes,
exactly
the
same
point:
if
you
want
to
publish
something,
we
should
publish
it
rather
than
having
a
website
with
a
pseudo-published
instruction
or
information
which
we
can't
really
agree
to
put
in
a
document.
It's
the
wrong
way
around
agree
on
the
document
then
update
the
website.
A
So
we
don't
have
agreement
on
anything,
except
that
we
need
more
clarity,
but
where
to
where
to
go
to
to
to
clarify
or
where
to
even
start
from.
B
Yeah
and
I'm
watching
mark's
comments
go
by.
I
think
one
of
the
concerns
being
expressed
is,
if
we
put
it
on
the
website.
You
know
we
update
the
advice,
we're
giving,
but
only
put
it
on
the
website,
then
7221,
which
is
the
current
advice.
Does
that
preempt
the
website
in
some
particular
way?
B
I
I
presume
the
answer
there
is.
We
can
make
the
website
explicit
that
you
know
this
update
7221,
and
this
is
you
know,
clarifying
things.
So,
but
that's
not
mark's
point
so,
maybe
mark
you
want
to
get
to
the
mic
and
say
what
your
point
is:
go
ahead.
L
My
point
is:
is
that
the
question
of
which
has
precedence
the
website
or
the
rfc,
assumes
that
the
rfc
has
any
status
at
all
right
now,
it's
informational
and
I've
heard
a
lot
of
dispute
about
how
much
weight
it
carries.
So
I
I
think,
presuming
that
it
has
some
greater
weight
than
the
website
isn't
something
that
we
have
everyone
bought
into
yet
yeah.
B
And-
and
I
will
say
the
the
reason
I
am
being
hesitant
here
is
you
know
ecker's
comment
notwithstanding
even
going
by
what
is
said
in
7282,
I
don't
have
a
clear
idea
that
we've
really
overcome
objections
in
either
direction.
So
I
I
I'm,
I'm
still
not
clear
on
what
everybody
is.
U
Yeah
not
sure
how
much
I
can
help,
but
I
think
we
should
actually
try
to
figure
out
what
the
problem
is
and
fix
that,
and
if
the
problem
is
that
people
don't
have
this
information,
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
provide
this
information
to
them.
So
I
think
this
is
more
about
training
and
more
about
figuring
out
where
you
know
what's
a
place
where
people
can
actually
find
it
and
that's
the
important
bit.
U
I
don't
think
that
our
rules
are
not
clear
in
the
sense
that
we
actually
try
to
keep
our
rules
in
some
sense
also
lose
and
give
gift
shares
some
kind
of.
S
A
The
the
two
weight
of
this
that
people
are
are
suggesting
on
one
side
is
an
update
to
an
rfc,
should
also
be
an
rv
and
then
distribute
that
from
a
website
or
working
group,
chairs,
wiki
or
other
other
places,
and
then
the
other
opinion
is
no.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
an
rfc,
because
rfc
has
a
way
to
it
if
it's
informational
or
bcp,
and
you
can
do
that
the
same
way
by
just
putting
that
information
on
a
website.
A
So
this
is
the
two
two
opinions
I'm
hearing-
and
I
hope
I
summarize
them
okay,
but
about
yeah-
not
a
lot
of
conflict
about
that.
Yes,
there
should
be
glitchy
and
yes,
it
should
be
descriptive
rather
than
rules
and
said
that
we
should
have
those.
B
Yeah
alyssa
just
said
what
I
was
about
to
head
toward,
which
is
some.
What
can
you
live
with
questions
so
to
to
the
folks
who
don't
want
to
see
yet
another
informational
document
which
7221
already
is
are,
are
you
in
a
state
of?
B
We
can't
live
with
7221
being
updated
informational
and
then
we
go
and
figure
out
the
state
of
web
pages
and
trainings
and
blah
blah
blah
blah
so
ecker?
What
can't
you
live
with.
I
Well,
I
I
just
think
this
is
the
wrong
question.
Like
you
know
these,
like
we
do
these,
can
you
live
with
things
when
we
have
ties
in
a
working
group
and
we
need
to
like
decide
whether,
like
the
bit,
should
be
one
or
two
but
like
here?
What
we
have
is
we
have
a
post
piece
of
work
which
obviously
doesn't
have
like,
I
think,
any
kind
of
contest
to
move
forward,
and
it's
not
our
job
to
like
sort
out
someone
to
move
forward.
It
could
just
die
and
so
like
the
idea
that.
B
B
I
think
you're,
actually
in
the
rough
on
that
one,
I
I
mean
there,
there
is
a
significant
number
of
people
who
think
that
this
document
updates
7221
in
useful
ways
and
they're
just
quibbling
about
well.
Should
we
put
it
on
a
website?
Should
we
clarify
it
in
line?
Should
we
make
a
bcp,
given
the
state
of
7221
being
not
acceptable
to
a
bunch
of
people?
What
is
the
right
thing
to
do?.
I
Well,
I
I
I
I
am
fine
with
the
website
thing,
but
I
just
I
just
like
I.
I
think
that
the
I
I
just.
I
just
think
that
there
was
the
way
of
phrasing
it
like
this
has
to
come
to
some
consensus
of
way
forward
is
just
not
like
the
way
you
think
about
this
problem.
So
that's
what
I
was
suggesting
too,
but
there's
substantive
things.
I'm
fine
with
the
website.
Q
So
I
think
that
the
first
step
should
be
trying
to
fix
seven
two,
two
one,
that's
the
right
number
and-
and
I
think
that
should
just
be
done
as
an
informational
update
and
that
shouldn't
be
that
hard
to
do
necessarily
it's
a
small
number
of
updates
and
then
from
that
then
take
that
and
work
on
the
websites.
Q
I
sort
of
also
view
some
of
this
as
a
bit
like
the
discussions
about
living,
rfcs
and
really
the
itf
process,
rather
than
being
documented
through
a
set
of
rscs
at
one
point
in
time
I
see
the
website
as
acting
more
like
a
living
document
that
that
serves
this.
That
specifies
this
is
currently
what
we
regard
the
prop
the
process
as
being
and
referencing
back
to
the
rfcs
and
all
the
bits
of
the
rfcs
that
people
need
to
read.
Q
I
I
was
looking
at
that
website
and
that
guidance
one
for
participants,
and
it
does
reference
a
lot
of
rfcs
and,
as
in
someone
who's
coming
into
the
itf
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
they
need
to
know
and
what
they
can
ignore
has
an
awful
lot
of
of
stuff
to
try
and
look
through
it's.
It's
still
really
hard.
B
B
A
Try
these
questions
if
no
one
else
wants
to
come
mike.
A
R
So
I
think
it
is
a
dangerous
step
to
put
stuff
on
a
website
just
put
them
out
there
and
that
then
later
on
will
be
followed
up
by
an
rfc.
It
looks
a
little
bit
like
I
want
to
create
a
new
plan,
not
everybody's
on
board.
Yet
so
I
just
throw
it
out
on
the
website
and
say:
hey,
that's
what
we
will
do
and
I
have
it
out
long
enough.
So
eventually
everybody
said
yeah,
but
that's
what
is
written
on
the
website.
So
we
have
to
put
this
also
in
the
rc.
R
I
think
that's
a
dangerous
precedent.
What
we
start
here.
The
rfc
has
a
clear
process:
people
can
discuss,
people
can
bring
their
their
concerns
and
then
eventually
it
gets
ratified
and
it
becomes
an
rc
of
informational
bcp.
I
don't
care
at
this
point,
but
there's
a
process
once
we
have
that
if
the
rfc
is
too
complicated
and
you
want
to
put
a
more
simplistic
explanation
of
the
rc-
be
my
guest
put
this
on
the
website,
but
I
think
it's
a
very,
very
dangerous
precedent
to
first
start
publishing
something
before
before.
S
Ahead,
I
think
I
think
the
point
that
was
made
earlier
is
that
the
the
force
of
things
on
the
website
is
is
much
less,
and
so,
if
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
just
you
know,
provide
some
guidance
to
people
that
isn't
to
be
used
as
a
as
a
stick
to
beat
them
with.
That's,
where
people
see
the
value
in
in
publishing
information
on
the
website
so
like
whether
or
not
it
ends
up
updating
some
rfc,
it
doesn't
have
to.
S
You
know,
prolong
these
discussions
in
the
working
group
when
it
gets
to
be
the
time
where
people
say.
No,
no,
no,
the
rfc
says
this.
We're
not
allowed
to
adopt
this
document
and
then
other
people.
You
know
dispute
that
and
you
have
the
whole
discussion.
It's
just
like
this
is
some
guidance
that
can
help
help.
People
understand
things
like
you
know,
braun
was
saying
earlier
about.
You
know
the
length
of
the
adoption
column
and
this
kind
of
thing.
S
So
I
think
that's
that's
where
people
are
seeing
the
value
of
of
being
able
to
publish
things
outside
of
the
the
consensus
process,
and
I
would
also
just
say
that
the
like
we
have
you
know
in
in
the
period
since,
since
the
dao
was
last
published
as
an
rfc,
you
had
hundreds
of
new
people
come
into
the
itf
and
it
would
be,
I
think,
a
real
shame
that
we
can't
you
know
over
an
eight
year
period.
S
We
can't
update
the
guidance
that
we
give
to
new
people
because
we
can't
get
it
into
an
rfc
like
that's.
That
seems
like
a
really
poor
experience
for
new
people
coming
in,
and
I
think
the
same
is
true
for
working
group
chairs
that
you
know
things
change.
They
evolve
over
time.
We
make
little
tweaks
here
and
there
and
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
give
new
people
a
current
understanding
of
the
norms
of
the
ietf
without
having
to
go
through
what
two
or
four
or
eight
year
cycle
to
update
an
rfc.
A
R
The
right
pass
would
be
to
link
the
data
tracker
of
the
document
on
the
website
and
with
this
the
website
basically
has
the
latest
information.
Everybody
sees
what
the
discussions
are,
what
the
proposed
changes
are
if
they
agree,
if
they
have
comments
to
that,
they
can
chime
in
and
the
danger
that
the
website
would
be
out
of
sync
with
the
data
tracker
is
eliminated,.
B
Concerned
that
instructions
for
the
tools
team
to
make
new
tools
might
be
out
of
scope
for
what
we
can
dispatch
to.
Although
who
knows.
B
B
B
A
K
Wow,
I
can't
believe
we've
had
this
conversation,
just
I
don't.
I
don't
have
any
note
takers
or
whatever,
but
I
think
that's
part
of
my
overwhelming.
I
don't
even
know
how
to
absorb
all
of
the
the
comments.
It
seems
to
me
that
something
like
anything
that
involves.
K
Needs
to
go
on
the
website,
absolutely
there's
no
question.
We
have
to
put
something
on
a
website
and
improve
the
training.
I
think
the
question
is
comes
back
to
if
it
seems
like
7221
has
been
ignored
and
hasn't
caused
any
great
disasters
and
we
could,
for
instance,
the
isg
or
could
just
mark
it
as
historic.
I
think
it's
informational,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
that
and
just
leave
it
on
the
website,
and
we
could.
You
know,
update
the
website
that
I
to
me
that
would
not
be
a
terrible
outcome.
K
A
B
Yeah,
I
I
mean
I'm
I'm
a
little
reluctant
at
this
point
to
declare
ecker
and
chris
jones
comments
as
completely
in
the
rough.
I
I
and
we've
got
to
take
this
to
the
list.
Anyway,
we
we
don't.
You
know,
end
the
dispatch
discussion
here,
but
I
think
we're
gonna.
This
is
going
to
be
an
unpleasant
summary
for
the
chairs
to
do
to
get
people
to
focus
in
on
what
the
choices
are.
A
V
Ahead,
I
was
going
to
do
one
small
thing
and
make
pete's
job
easier,
not
declaring
them
in
the
rough,
because
I
kind
of
I
pretty
much
agree
with
the
the
what
mark
and
christian
and
ecker
have
been
saying
and
also
one
thing
to
add
to
that
is.
It
was
mentioned
about
communities
for
whom
these
kind
of
updates
are
intended,
and
if
we
are
trying
to
grow
the
ietf
participation
in
membership.
V
The
first
place
people
aren't
going
to
look
is
for
a
document
list
they're
going
to
look
on
the
website
and
look
at
this
convenience
section.
That
says
how
we
work
and
if
that
points
to
a
bunch
of
documents
that
you
know
originally
were
formatted
in
72
lines
per
page
line
printer
and
now
at
least
look
better
on
the
web.
That'll
help
a
little
bit,
but
it's
not
where
the
growth
of
the
itf
is
going
to
be
people
who
want
to
grow
the
itf.
It's
not.
Where
they're
going
to
look
so
yeah.
B
Problem
I
say
it,
but
I
I
think
this
is
now
in
our
hands
francesca.
To
summarize
what
we've
heard
here,
try
and
make
some
coherent
questions
to
the
list
and
and
figure
out
how
we
get
this
dispatch.
B
W
Sorry
I
mean
I
I
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
feel
I
mean
like
there's
so
many
things
wrong
with
us
right
like
we
operate
on
our
receives,
and
yet
we
can't
write
on
our
receipt.
That
says
how
we're
supposed
to
operate.
I
mean
that
that's
just
to
me,
like
just
blows
my
mind
right,
we've
spent,
I
think,
definitely
the
better
part
of
an
hour
in
this
discussion
saying
why
we
should
introduce
a
new
way
of
publishing
information.
W
W
We
want
them
to
learn
how
to
write
overseas,
but
we
can't
get
them
to
read
rfcs
because
they're
hard
I
I
just
like,
and
and
whatever
we
do,
we're
gonna
have
a
document,
that's
sitting
there
in
limbo,
which
used
to
be
authoritative,
guidance,
which
we
can't
do
anything
with.
I
I
really
am
wondering,
like
you
know,
you
know,
given
that
we've
had
a
lot
of
time
to
think
about
this.
W
Is
it
really
the
case
that
there
are
still
people
that
are,
you
know
strongly
objecting
and
that
there
are
and
that
they're
you
know
that
their
objection
actually
still
technically
valid?
I
mean
like
I,
I
really
you
know
don't
want
to
reopen
the
discussion,
but
like
we
can't
update
our
c's
really
like
we
don't
think
itf
participants
can
read
rc's.
Really
I
mean
it.
You
know
if
we
had
just
updated
their
our
this
rfc,
I'm
not
saying
we'd
be
done
by
now,
but,
like
you
know,
why
have
discussion?
W
Sorry,
he
said
adding
the
discussion
so
I'll
shut
up
now.
A
No,
I
I
think
that
was
a
good
point
and
yes,
I
agree
with
dave
lawrence
in
the
chat.
This
is
shockingly
hard.
I
didn't
expect
that
to
be
this,
bronn
go
ahead.
G
I'm
quite
impressed
with
with
how
good
we
are
at
process
wonkery
and
how
bad
we
are
at
moving
on
and
doing
stuff.
How
keen
everyone
is
to
maintain
chairs
total
freedom
to
do
whatever
they
want,
which
I
think
is
the
main
objection
to
to
making
a
bcp
that
has
normative
text.
That
says
these
are
the
rules
that
chairs
follow,
and
these
are
the
constraints
on
chairs
and,
I
think,
there's
some
real
value
in
actually
doing
having
advice.
G
That
is
stronger
than
guidelines.
You
know
parlay
and
you
you
can
choose
to
follow
it
or
choose
not
to
follow
it.
I
I
do
think
we're
wasting
our
time
here
if
we
are
trying
to
do
something.
That
is
a
middle
ground
that
has
no
strong
meaning,
and
we
should
just
put
some
guidelines
if
guidelines
all
we
need,
then,
guidelines
on
our
website
that
we
update
based
on
ongoing
stuff
and
that
don't
need
to
be
an
rfc
is
fine.
G
If
we,
if
we're
going
to
do
an
rfc,
I'm
just
reading
the
text-
that's
not
what's
proposed
by
this
draft,
yes,
which
I
think
is
why
this
draft's
having
so
much
difficulty,
because
it's
proposing
something
that
doesn't
doesn't
gain
anything
and
so
we're
going
into
process
wonkery
anyway.
I
think
there's
some
value
in
doing
some
calls
in
this
meeting,
for
is
there
stuff
that
people
can't
live
with
out
of
the
options
to
see
if
there
are
people
who
can't
live
with
them,
because
at
the
moment
we
have
a
bunch
of
options.
G
Everyone
like
well,
that's
not
my
preferred
option
and
sorry
I'm
doing
exactly
the
condescending
stuff.
I
was
complaining
about
other
people
doing
in
this
call,
I'm
going
to
stop
now.
A
V
Sorry,
in
my
view
I
say
some
weird
noise
lorenzo's
point
is
wrong
because
there's
a
world
of
difference
between
writing
a
technique.
V
A
I
think
you're,
the
we
can't
hear
you
some
weird
noises
as
as
rich
said
than
rich,
so
maybe.
A
It
sounds
like
yes,
maybe
try
to
reconnect
pete
next
audio.
V
Try
to
speak
at
eckersby
to
get
my
point
out,
there's
a
world
of
difference
between
writing
a
technical
document
that
says
how
the
bits
go
on
the
wire
and
what
the
semantics
of
those
bits
are
and
writing
a
technical
document
that
tries
to
describe
human
behavior
and
therefore
I
don't
think
it's
at
all
surprising
that
this
is
what
was
it
spectacularly
hard?
Was
the
phrase
used
in
the
chat
room?
V
A
It
was
shockingly
hard,
and
I
I
I'm
seeing
things
in
the
chat
people
are-
are
being
surprised
that
this
is
taking
so
long
and
it's
being
this-
and
I
am
also
I
didn't-
expect
this
to
be
controversial,
but
I
do
think
that
the
conversation
that
is
happening
is
very
useful
and
that
this
controversy
would
happen
with
or
without
this
discussion.
So
I
hope
that
this
is
actually
useful
and
that
people
don't
feel
like.
This
is
a
waste
of
time.
A
Finding
a
direction
for
this,
based
on
the
controversy
and
this
being
split,
I
I
don't
hear
a
clear
sign
longer
than
the
other
sleep
on
it.
Thank
you.
B
Excellent
excellent
yeah
yeah.
I
I'm
I'm
inclined
to
just
pull
this
to
the
list
for
the
moment
and
see
if
we
can
get
any
further.
I'm
I'm
also
thinking
that.
Maybe
bringing
the
working
group
shares
list
into
this
and
saying
you
know:
how
can
we
formulate
this
that
will
best
help
you
and
see
if
we
can
get
some
of
those
folks
to
say
no,
just
updating
7221
would
be
best,
no
putting
it
on
a
website
would
be
best
and
that
might
inform
our
dispatch
question.
A
Right
so
just
to
highlight
that
we
are
okay
with
content
or
we're
more
than
okay.
We
are
promoting
content
discussion
with
the
goal
of
forming
a
dispatch
opinion
for
this
working
group.
Yeah.
B
Well,
and-
and
I
I
think,
we've
stayed
in
the
lines
in
this
discussion
of
not
trying
to
dive
into
the
actual
content
of
the
document.
We're
talking
about
for
something
like
this.
What
is
the
right
path
forward
and
I
don't
think
it's
an
unreasonable
discussion.
I,
I
think
it's.
Yes,
it's
a
little
bogged
down,
but
I
I
think
this
would
have
come
up
with
any
other
process
discussion
which
has
this
kind
of.
Is
it
normative?
Is
it
just
informative,
and
how
do
we
express
that
kind
of
question?
B
So
I
I
think
it's
worth
and
braun
gives
a
plus
one
to
that
going
to
working
group
chairs
and
say:
look
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
move
this
forward,
and
if
you
find
7221
useful
or
not
useful,
it
would
be
good
to
figure
out
what
you
think.
The
next
step
should
be
and
and
have
those
people
contribute
to
the
list,
but
I
don't
think
we're
making
any
more
progress
in
here.
At
this
point,.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
50
minutes
left.
A
We
can
continue
to
any
other
business
if
there
is
any,
I
I
don't
feel
like.
We
are
progressing
a
lot
at
this
point.
W
Like
it,
thank
you,
okay,
so
just
just
to
add
to
the
reality.
This
is
reality
of
this
session.
My
we
actually,
we
actually
had
a
draft
that
we
wanted
to
take
the
inft
area
and
it
got
cut
out
due
to
lack
of
agenda
time.
So.
W
B
W
G
W
It's
kind
of
a
vague
document
so,
like
you
know,
I
mean
yeah,
so
it
would
be
useful
to
get
this.
This
group's
opinion
on
whether
it
is
should
go
and
where
it
should
go.
But,
like
you
know
it's
not
on
the
agenda
so,
like
you
know
well.
W
B
W
B
The
list
and
yeah
or
or
even
if
you
would
paste
the
url
into
the
jabber
room,
I'll
put
it
in
the
minute
so
that
people
go
to
look
at
it.
I
won't
do
that.
Yes,.
B
I
may
have
accidentally
muted
you,
while
clicking
around
miriam
sorry
about
that.
U
So
as
we
did
discuss
that
a
couple
of
meetings
ago,
we
updated
the
our
draft
that
proposes
a
new
tag
to
replace
the
updates
tag
and
we
still
discuss
this
on
the
rsc
interest
list.
Just
as
some
information
for
this
group.
A
A
I
don't
see
anybody
jumping
to
the
mic.
Anybody
else.
B
For
worse,
I
think
that's
true,
okay,
but
but
francesca,
and
I
will
try
and
formulate
the
question
to
the
list
in
a
little
more
sharp
way,
so
that
we
at
least
can
try
and
get
an
answer.
That
looks
reasonable
because.
A
We
need
to
get
to
some
agreement,
yes,
yeah
and-
and
we
forward
that
also
to
the
to
the
working
group
chairs
mainly
list.
J
A
I
I
am
even
thinking
we
should
forward
that
to
the
atf,
because,
as
many
said,
this
is.
A
Yeah,
it's
it's
broader,
so
anybody
who
wants
to
state
an
opinion
is,
you
know,
should
we
should
reach
everybody,
but.
B
Yep,
which
draft
just
checking
the
chat
room,
alyssa
lorenzo's
draft,
is
the
one
you
were
thinking
that
needed
to
might
need
to
go
to
architecture,
discuss
yeah.
S
B
Will
take
you
to
every
working
group
in
the
place
lorenzo?
We
can
do
it
all
right,
yeah
well,
ecker
suggest
routing
instead
of
security,
of
course,
but
all
right
very
good,
well
appreciate
everybody
coming
and
playing
along
and
we'll
get
some
minutes
together.
I've
got
to
re-listen
to
some
things
and
fill
in
the
blanks
and
feel
free.
B
You
know,
cody
md
is
out
there
if
you
would
be
so
kind
as
to
take
a
look
at
the
things
that
rich
and
I
attributed
to
you
and
correct
them.
If
you
feel
need
be,
that
would
be
much
appreciated,
but
otherwise
we
will
try
and
get
them
updated
and
get
the
discussion
going
on
the
list.