►
From YouTube: IETF109-SHMOO-20201120-0500
Description
SHMOO meeting session at IETF109
2020/11/20 0500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/proceedings/
A
A
Hi
everyone
welcome
to
the
shmoon
meeting
at
ietf
109.
I
know
it's
probably
going
to
be
really
early
or
really
late
wherever
you
are
so
thank
you
very
much
for
making
the
time
and
getting
here,
it's
really
important
and
that
we
get
like
this
work.
Moving
faster
and
so
like
pandemic
is
here
with
us
for
a
while,
and
we
hope
to
have
some
kind
of
practices
like
agreed
upon
in
the
community
as
soon
as
possible.
So
thank
you.
A
So
putting
in
the
note
well,
like
I'm
sure,
you've
seen
it
a
lot
of
times.
We
make
sure
that,
like
you
know,
we
show
the
slide
just
to
make
sure
that
anything
you
contribute
here
is
covered
by
the
the
rules
of
rc5378
and
8179.
A
So
the
details
are
in
the
rfcs
in
the
links
and
as
far
as
the
agenda
goes
today.
First
of
all,
we
would
like
to
like
ask
for
a
minute
taker
and
javascript,
so
I
spoke
to
braun
earlier
so
braun.
Thank
you
very
much
for
volunteering
to
take
the
minutes,
and
since
we
have
etherpad,
if
like
anybody
else,
can
help
him
out
like
please
again
greatly
appreciated
braun
like
you
did
awesome
job
last
time
and
thanks
again
for
doing
it,
and
would
someone
like
to
be
the
jabber
scribe.
A
Just
watch
for
questions
like
I
think
it's
like
less
important
now
with
like
miracle
being
on
there,
but
in
case
like
somebody
want,
doesn't
want
to
speak
up
like
it'll,
be
good.
If
somebody
can
relate
questions
from
jabber.
A
Do
that
thanks
charles
thank
you
and
then
charles
is
presenting
probably
amelia,
and
I
will
watch
the
jab
room.
Thank
you,
charles.
A
And
I
will
just
go
over
quickly
over
the
the
status
of
the
deliverables.
Like
you
know,
we
have
a
set
of
deliverables
in
the
charter
and
just
go
over
like
where
drafts
exists,
and
so
on,
like
we
are
a
pretty
new
working
group,
so
like
three
like
almost
four
months
old
now,
so
we
are
like
pretty
early
in
the
life
cycle,
but
we'll
just
go
over.
A
What
are
the
drafts
that
I
present
and
then
we'll
look
at
the
the
agenda
of
the
presentations
and
talk
about
next
steps
so
like
the
first
deliverable
is
really
to
have
the
guidelines
and
principles
for
canceling
in-person
meetings
and
replacing
them
with
like
fully
virtual
meetings
and
martin
has
a
draft
that
targets
this
deliverable.
A
I
think
it's
like
something
that
like
addresses
like
a
lot
of
the
questions
people
have
and
the
considerations
that
need
to
be
made.
Martin
will
present
this
today
and
we
can
talk
about
like
you
know
whether
this
covers
like
everything
we
need
to
do
or
is
there
something
missing
in
there
and
the
second
deliverable
is,
like
you
know,
meeting
planning
and
replay
first
replacement
meetings
and
there's
like
a
bunch
of
drafts
in
this
space.
A
Like
you
know,
mallory
has
been
one
of
those
drafts
like
michael
has
written
another
one
and
charles
has
done
something
specifically
for
the
hackathon
piece
of
it,
and
so
I
think,
between
these
things
and
and
potentially
some
missing
stuff.
I
think
we
can
need
this
deliverable
at
some
point,
but
there's
like
quite
a
bit
of
work
to
do
like,
as
you
notice,
like
a
lot
of
them
are
like
zero,
zero
or
like
zero.
A
One
drafts,
like
you
know
very
recently
published
so
there's
like
a
bunch
of
time
like
we
need
to
iterate
on
these
before
we
get
anything
close
to
moving
forward
and
on
the
technology
front,
like
actually
amelia,
and
I
were
expecting
a
lot
more
action
in
this
site
than
what
we've
seen.
So
the
only
draft
that
kind
of
exists
in
this
space
is
really
again.
Martin
stratt
the
show
of
fans
draft
so,
like
you
know,
this
is
kind
of
like
a
replacement
for
the
virtual
hem
draft.
He
talked
about
last
time.
A
It's
like
a
slightly
different
take
on
the
things,
but
there's
there's
like
whole
bunch
of
stuff
missing
here,
at
least
like
that's
kind
of
how
we
feel
about
it
and
so
specifically
about
the
meeting
technologies
and
so
on
to
write
down
the
requirements
like,
I
think,
there's
like
probably
some
more
work
to
do
in
this
area
to
like
try
to
meet
the
deliverables
here,
and
the
final
thing
is
like
you
know:
the
guidelines
for
meeting
fees
and
like
media
john
rich,
like
they
have
the
draft
which
talks
about
like
you,
know
the
meeting
fees
for
such
meetings
and
I
think
like
it
has
been
like
revved
already,
like
you
know,
with
like
a
lot
of
comments
addressed
and
if
it
will
be
possible,
like
you
know,
we'll,
try
to
do
a
show
fans
today
and
go
for
adoption
of
this
draft
on
the
mailing
list
like
if
there
are
no
concerns.
A
So
any
concerns
with
the
agenda.
Like
you
know
the
order
of
stuff
or
things
like
that,.
A
So,
martin,
I
know
you
have
a
conflicting
meeting.
Is
this?
Like
you
know,
presentations
towards
the
end
is
that,
okay
with
you.
C
A
A
From
so
larry
we
have
quite
a
bit
of
time
at
the
end
I
can
actually
put
in
a
specific
agent
item
for
it
or
we
can
just
like
run
over
into
it.
So
we
have
about
45
minutes
like
yeah
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
so
we
don't
have
a
full
agenda
today.
So
I
think,
certainly,
like
you
know,
we
can
open
up
the
floor.
D
Okay,
I'll
try
to
fix
that.
A
Okay,
so
for
the
next
steps,
we'll
try
to
do
a
couple
of
adoption,
calls
and
and
like
go
iterating
on
like
missing
pieces,
find
them
and
try
to
solicit
drafts.
So
thank
you.
Everyone
for,
like
writing
up
the
draft
so
sometimes
like
we
are
a
bit
naggy.
So
thanks
a
lot
and
for
putting
the
effort
and
putting
the
drafts
together.
I
know
this
is
not
like
easy
set
of
topics.
I
know
there's
like
a
lot
of
people
who
have
very
different
opinions.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
doing
that.
A
So
we
will
continue
to
do
that,
so
just
switching
back
to
the
presentations
I'll,
stop,
sharing
this
and
and
I'll
switch
to
the
next.
E
All
right,
okay,
great
thanks
so
hi
everyone,
john
reed
from
akamai
here,
to
talk
about
this
draft
that
miriam
rich
and
I
wrote
so
I
assume
most-
everyone
has
read
the
draft.
But
basically,
why
are
we
doing
this?
You
know
remote
attendance
essentially
has
always
been
free
prior
to
ietf
108.
E
and
while
asynchronous
participation
in
working
groups
over
email
has
not
fundamentally
changed.
It's
really
clear
that
attending
the
working
group
sessions
places
gives
you
know,
people
an
advantage
to
hear
discussion
happening
in
the
room,
and
we
can
talk
a
bit
more
about
what
attendance
means
on
the
next
slide.
E
There
was
some
lively
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
about
that,
but
there's
clearly
benefit
gained
from
being
in
the
room,
and
while
there
was
a
fee
waiver
for
ietf
108,
there
were
some
challenges
publicizing
it,
but
in
short,
basically
somebody
who
attended,
say
ietf
106
for
free
remotely
might
have
been
deterred
by
the
fee
for
ietf
108
and
later
iits
next
slide.
E
E
Thank
you,
so
here's
what
we're
proposing
that
there
must
always
be
an
option
for
free
remote
participation
in
any
ietf
meeting.
Whether
or
not
that
meeting
has
a
physical
presence,
and
this
really
aims
to
support
the
openness
principle
in
rfc
3935,
which
specifically
states
any
interested
person
can
participate
in
the
work,
know
what
is
being
decided
and
make
his
or
her
voice
heard
on
the
issue
and
we've
gone
a
bit
further
to
say.
E
It
must
be
clearly
and
prominently
listed
on
the
website
and
registration
page
and
if
there
are
additional
steps,
such
as
a
fee
waiver,
the
requirements
and
process
should
be
clearly
documented
next
slide.
Please
so
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone
who
participated
in
the
discussion
on
the
mailing
list.
We
spawned
some
really
interesting
topics.
E
E
E
There
was
also
some
assertion
that
a
unidirectional
audio
stream
plus
the
jabber
room
prefixing,
your
comment
with
mike-
was
sufficient
for
participation,
as
was
watching
the
youtube
videos
afterwards,
but
really,
regardless
of
how
we
got
here.
We've
had
really
truly
interactive
participation
with
meat
echo
for
some
time
now
and
it's
a
far
more
interactive
experience
than
any
of
the
pr
previous
methods
and
that's
what
we'd
like
to
focus
on.
E
There
was
also
an
interesting
discussion
around
well,
if
there's
a
free
option,
won't
everyone
just
use
that
which
also
spawn
some
really
interesting
side,
chats
about
whether
people
view
themselves
as
attending
on
behalf
of
their
employers
as
individuals,
etc.
So
that
was
great
discussion
and
I
think
it
raised
some
interesting
points,
but
that's
mainly
a
topic
for
another
time.
E
There
was
also
general
agreement
that
transparency
and
data
was
important
who's
using
the
free
option.
Can
we
make
them
say
why?
Well,
that's
a
little
bit
burdensome,
but
what
we
ended
up
at
was
collecting
some
data
so
that
we
can
perform
analysis
in
the
future
next
slide.
E
E
So
we
incorporated
a
lot
of
that
feedback
released
the
01
version.
We
added
some
additional
considerations
on
the
use
or
misuse
of
the
free
option.
We
didn't
really
specify
any
firm
guidelines
and
that's
intentional
as
to
whether
any
given
use
of
it
is
acceptable,
but
we,
you
know,
pointed
out
that
that
concern
exists
and
is
valid
and
a
recommendation
to
publish
a
breakdown
of
registration
types
so
that
we
can
do
some
analysis
and
see
how
the
free
option
is
being
used.
E
E
So
what
are
the
next
steps,
as
suresh
mentioned?
We're
we'd
like
to
seek
working
group
adoption
on
this,
and
that's
that's
where
we'd
like
to
go.
So
thank
you
so
night,
it's
just
q,
a
thanks
again
to
maria
for
coming
up
with
this
idea,
rich
for
contributing
and
both
of
them
for
letting
me
be
the
one
to
talk
about.
It
sounds
good.
Thank.
A
You
thanks:
if
does
anybody
who
have
any
questions
or
comments
ma,
martin
I'll?
Let
you
go
first,
yeah.
C
Thanks
for
this
draft,
I
I
like
the
the
basic
rest
of
it
and
I
think
it's
a
great
basis
for
to
continue
to
work
on
it
and
I
say,
support
adoption.
I
I
would
ask
that
you
explicitly
state
in
the
draft
that
you
are
not
making
any
judgments
of
what
is
acceptable
use
of
of
the
fee
waiver,
because
that's
kind
of
a
question
I
immediately
had-
and
I
was
going
to
ask-
but
you
told
me,
but
putting
actually
in
the
document
would
be
would
be
great.
C
Does
this
mean
to
take
an
opinion
on
whether
or
not
it
would
be
acceptable
for
itf
to
cap?
The
number
of
fee
waivers.
E
That's
an
interesting
question.
I
don't
think
we've
taken
any
position
on
that.
We
have
noted,
obviously
that
there
is
an
inherent
cost
in
holding
some
meetings
and
but
we
haven't
specifically
talked
about
a
cap
on
the
number
of
registrations,
because
I
think
that
would
be
challenging,
but
we
can
certainly
consider
it
and.
C
Talk
about
it
well
like,
and
the
isg
and
the
llc
struggled
with
that,
a
little
bit
between
107
and
108,
and
it
almost
felt
we
ended
up
not
having
a
cap
here
but
the.
But
I
guess
the
the
question
is
maybe
an
empirical
one
that
if
we
have
a
cap
is
that
is
that
inducing
people
to
shell
out
to
attend,
or
is
it
inducing
people
to
not
attend?
And
that
was
kind
of
an
open
question
that
we
ended
up
not
really
having
to
resolve,
because
our
budget
is
okay
at
these
virtual
meetings.
C
But
it's
an
interesting
question.
I
don't
know
if
this
draft
has
to
say
something
necessarily,
but
it
was
curious
thanks.
Thanks.
E
F
G
I
I
like
this
document
in
general.
One
thing
that
I
didn't
see
explicitly
in
there
that
I
think
might
be
useful
is
right.
Now
you
kind
of
have
the
tension
between
paying
and
not
paying.
As
being
you
know,
people
who
need
the
serve
need
the
ability
to
not
pay
should
have
it,
but
we
also
need
to
control
misuse
of
that.
G
It
might
be
helpful
to
reframe
that
instead,
as
people
who
can
ought
to
pay
because
paying
is
good
as
opposed
to
people
who
who
don't
pay,
because
you
know
for
for
no
good
reason
or
bad,
in
other
words,
just
kind
of
kind
of
like
frame
it
in
terms
of
the
positive
benefit
of
of
of
paying
the
membership
fee,
rather
than
the
negative
of
trying
to
control
people
not
paying
the
membership
fee.
Because
right
now
I
see
it
framed
a
lot
of
times
as
like.
D
Yeah
so
it's
kind
of
similar
similar
points
to
ted,
but
a
bit
different,
and
I
wanted
to
ask
everyone
in
the
room
as
well
as
the
draft
authors,
if
we
would
be
able
to
foresee
staged
registration
fees.
So,
for
instance,
you
could
imagine
that
an
individual
who
participates
in
a
personal
capacity
pays
has
an
option
to
pay
a
lower
or
a
higher
fee,
depending
on
what
they
determine
is
their
capability.
D
Whereas
somebody
who
goes
on
behalf
of
a
corporate
entity
might
not
have
this
option,
and
this
is
a
system
which
is
commonly
implemented
in
european
hacker
camps
or
like
yeah.
So
it
could
be
a
way
to
give
people
an
option
to
pay
more
or
less
depending
on
what
they
perceive
to
be
their
specific.
For
that
meeting.
D
H
Okay,
yeah.
I
want
to
kind
of
respond
to
this
and
mark
martin's
comment
as
well.
So
I
think
that's
actually
a
separate
topic
and
like
this,
this
draft
doesn't
talk
about
the
payment
structure
at
all,
because
that's
really
a
topic
for
the
llc,
because
they
have
to
figure
out
how
to
finance
this.
H
It's
really
about
this
case
of
free
participation,
because
even
like
a
small
payment
is
a
barrier
to
people
who
kind
of
just
want
to
have
a
look
or
whatever,
and
that's
something
we
have
been
benefiting
a
lot
from
to
attract
new
people
and
so
on.
So
this
is
like
really
covering
this
one
specific
case
I
mean.
H
Maybe
we
can
make
a
note
that
the
lse
should
think
about
more
options
or
whatever,
but
I
think
it's
really
a
separate
question
and
to
reply
to
martin
about
putting
a
cap,
I
it
didn't
even
occur
to
me
that
you
that
you
would
consider
that,
because
this
principle
is
really
praised.
So
broadly
that
you
know
there
shouldn't
be
any
restrictions
and
again,
I
think,
not
a
cap
itself.
H
I
think
you
can
state
this
explicitly,
because
I
think
this
is
really
against
the
principle
we
are
stating
having
a
cap,
but,
like
you
know,
if
the
if
the
lsc
observes
that,
like
the
number
of
free
registrations,
increases
too
much,
so
it's
not
viable
anymore.
A
Okay,
do
you
want
to
stick
on
in
case,
like
any
questions?
Are
there
for
you
sure,
okay,
steve,
it's
yours.
I
Yeah,
I
was
just
about
to
get
out
of
the
queue,
because
maria
said
what
I
was
going
to
say
most
more
or
less.
I
think
what
you
said
and
if
I
like
the
idea
of
lower
fee
rates
for
different
interested
parties
according
to
certain
categories,
but
that
would
be
an
llc
thing.
So
it
was
already
said
thanks,
perfect
thanks.
J
Rich,
I
think
you
muted,
we
tried
to
keep
in
the
front
of
mind
when
preparing
you
know
the
ver.
The
draft
revision
was
to
make
sure
that
there
was
no
categorization
or
way
for
people
to
look
down
on
those
who
got
free
regis.
You
know
who
took
advantage
of
the
fee
waiver
such
that
make
sure
it's
not
identified
in
any
public
registration
material,
there's
no
special
thoughts.
J
Things
like
that,
you
know
for
whenever
we
need
face
to
face
and
if
there's
going
to
be
levels
of
levels
of
financial
levels,
of
participating
that
the
I
would
think
the
llc
again,
as
others
have
said,
is
probably
the
right
place
to
do
that.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
that
is
also
carried
forward.
You
know
if
you
work
for
one
of
the
fang
companies
and
your
companies
agreed
to
pay
double
whatever
the
regular
rate.
Is
that
doesn't
mean
you
get
twice
as
much
mike
time
or
anything
like
that
right.
J
You
get
twice
as
much
time
because
of
who
you
are,
but
it's
something
I
think
we
need
to
keep
in
mind,
and
I
would
also
like
to
keep
it
separate
from
this.
This
document,
which
is
really
all
about
preserving
the
importance
of
preserving
the
open
participation
aspect
of
our
meetings.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
rich
phil
you're
up
next.
K
Hi
yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
point
out
that
we
have
a
few
problems
here
because
we're
all
participating
as
individuals
if
we
remember
nobody's,
participating
on
behalf
of
the
company
officially,
and
so
we
have
to
you
know
we
we've
got
to
keep
open
that
fiction
along
with
everything
else,
and
that
kind
of
might
makes
this
a
bit
more
complicated.
But
the
other
thing
that
I
suddenly
realized
was
that
we're
doing
this
the
wrong
way
round.
K
I
mean
one
way
that
strikes
me
that
wouldn't
could
make
the
iatf
an
enormous
amount
of
money
would
be
to
have
a
tutorials
day
appended
to
the
front
of
it
and
charge
companies
to
train
up
their
people
on
the
state
of
the
art
in
ietf
protocols,
and
you
know
that
stuff
used
to
go
when
I
did
did
those
courses
I
used
to
charge.
K
Eight
hundred
dollars
per
person
a
day
for
an
in-person
course,
and
I
believe
that
the
current
rate
is
200
person,
200
per
person
for
remote,
and
they
don't
need
to
be
experts
to
attend.
And
so
I
I
think
that
we
should
bracket
the
question
of
how
to
pay
for
it
until
we've
decided
what
we're
actually
going
to
do
with
these.
H
I
think
that
the
question
is
a
much
broader
discussion
which
you
might
want
to
start
in
a
different
mailing
list
or
whatever
or
a
different
password.
I
also
think
that,
like
the
product
we
are
having
is
the
rcs
we
are
producing
and
not
the
meetings
so
anyway,.
A
Fair
and
the
mailing
list-
discussion,
media,
of
course,
but
yeah,
okay,
thanks
douglas
you're
up
next.
M
Okay,
yeah
no
button.
I
this
reminds
me
of
california
propositions
right.
So,
basically
where
everybody
was
going
forward
and
saying
here's
the
stuff
we
like
and
we
don't
care
how
somebody
else
figures
out
how
to
pay
for
it
right.
So
I
would
also
chime
in
on
the
side
of
people
saying
that
this
document
should
show
that
the
community,
who
basically
wants
to
maintain
a
particular
principle
of
you,
know,
open
or
free
access
to
to
the
creation
of
the
product.
M
Right
is
also
you
know,
thinking
of
and
taking
responsibility
on,
for
you
know,
figuring
out
how
to
make
it
happen,
pay
wise
and
that
is
not
shoved
off
to
another
community.
So
you
know
in
the
most
simple
case
that
would
mean
there
is
a
section
discussing
this
in
in
another.
You
know
case:
it
means
that
this
working
group
itself
should
have
an
associated
document
that
takes
on
these
things
like
the
thought
that
phil
was
giving
or
others
in
terms
of
how
to
do
it.
M
Right
I
mean
when
I
was
listening
to
jay
on
on
the
plenary.
I
mean
now
it's
time
for
two
beers
through
all
the
sponsorships,
so
heck
I
mean
think
about
further
gamification
of
people.
You
know
make
it
more
fun
for
them
to
pay
the
money
right
I
mean
even
for
the
individuals
right
as
phil
was
saying.
Right
were
all
in
the
individuals
and
any
individual
participation
fee
could
be
seen
as
a
sponsorship
right.
So,
in
any
case,
that's
what
I
wanted
to
say.
Thank
you.
M
H
There
was
specifically
actually
when
we
discussed
the
free
waiver
as
it
was
implemented
like
last
time,
and
this
time
there
was
especially
a
request
from
the
llc
to
provide
guidance
on
this
level
to
provide
guidance
about
what
the
community
wants.
So
they
can
figure
out
how
to
realize
that.
H
A
Yeah
sorry
yeah
go
ahead.
John
yep.
E
As
I
say
yeah,
I
I
agree
with
that,
I
mean
I
think
could
be
you
know
to
to
continue
that
analogy.
You
know.
By
adopting
this
document
we
are
saying
this.
You
know
we
would
be
saying
this
is
important
and,
like
you
said,
you
know,
provide
that
guidance.
M
Yeah,
it's
just
it.
As
I
said
right,
it's
going
to
to
to
look
of
somewhat
dishonest
and
you
know
shoving
off
the
problem
to
somebody
else
by
just
talking
about
the
wonderful
principle
that
should
be
uphold
right.
So,
let's
make
sure
that
we
do.
The
best
to
you
know,
figure
out
how
whoever
to
adopt
this
is,
is
going
to
show
or
not
to
take
responsibility
for
how
to
finance
it.
H
So
I
have
a
lot
of
opinions
here.
I
think,
like
like
being
dependent
on
the
meeting
fee,
has
been
a
problem
for
a
while
this
independent
of
like
this
change,
and
what
we
see
right
now
is
that
actually
offing
offering
a
free
meet
waiver
didn't
impact
our
financing,
because
people
have
been
honest
and
registered
and
paid.
So
currently,
that's
not
a
problem
that
we
have
with
this
proposal.
It's
a
general
problem
that
has
been
there
for
a
long
time.
A
So,
specifically
speaking
tallest
right,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
is
like
explicitly
written
out
of
the
charter
is
like
any
discussion
of
the
ietf
funding
model
is
out
of
scope
for
us
like
so
I
I
do
see
a
point
and
I
I
do
think
it's
something
like
we
need
to
consider
as
a
community.
But
it's
not
like
a
work
item
for
us
here
and
I
I
know
it's
a
difficult
thing
and
probably
watch
out
for
the
any
signs
of
abuse
or,
like
you
know,
the
tide
like
kind
of
going.
A
The
other
way
is
something
we
absolutely
need
to
watch
out
for
so
thanks
for
chiming
in
okay.
A
So
just
like
I
I
saw
like
you
know
a
lot
of
like
plus
ones
and,
like
you
know,
support
adoption
on
the
jabber
room.
I
just
want
to
ask
for
anybody
if
you
don't
think
this
is
a
good
starting
point
for
a
draft
in
this
like
for
the
registration
fee.
Deliverable
if
you
can
get
in
get
in,
you
know
either
put
something
in
the
jabber
room
or
or
like
come
up
and
speak
I'd
love
to
hear
that.
A
Thank
you
so
we'll
we'll
send
out
a
adoption
call
on
the
mailing
list.
Thank
you
very
much
thanks
john
maria
rich.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
N
Yep
great,
so
I
can
go
ahead
and
get
started.
Hi
everyone,
I've
written
a
draft
that
actually
it's
really
nice,
that
schmooze
been
chartered.
So
thanks
very
much
to
the
chairs
before
shmu
was
officially
a
working
group.
There
was
many
couches
and
I
think
I
had
mentioned
my
interest
in
talking
about
asynchronous
meetings
as
far
back
as
then.
N
So
it's
been
nice
to
be
able
to
document
this,
and
my
co-author
is
not
here,
but
carol
works
for
the
association
for
progressive
communication
and
I'm
at
the
center
for
democracy
and
technology
and
suresh.
You
can
just
advance
yeah
perfect.
You
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
please,
okay,
so
the
purpose
is,
I
think,
because
of
the
pandemic,
we
might
be
thinking
about
different
ways
to
meet
online.
N
As
the
bangkok
109
meeting
is
a
good
example,
sometimes
meeting
all
in
the
same
time,
zone
is
really
difficult
and
since
we're
not
all
in
the
same
place,
it's
complicated.
This
is
just
an
alternative,
perhaps
for
some
working
groups
or
research
groups
that
don't
feel
like
they
have
enough
reason
to
share
the
pain
and
get
all
on
line.
At
the
same
time,
and
just
I
think
it
can
actually
depending
on
what
working
groups
or
research
groups
are
trying
to
achieve,
a
text-based
meeting
might
actually
be
very
productive.
So
it's
just
another
alternative.
N
N
Please
I'm
not
going
to
go
ahead
and
read
the
abstract.
I
mostly
just
said
all
of
that,
but
I
will
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
the
idea
of
using
a
mailing
list.
So
the
point
being
that
if
you
have
an
asynchronous
meeting
that
is
text-based,
it
would
make
sense
to
continue
using
existing
tools
and
obvious
the
obvious.
N
One,
then
is
mailing
list
software,
because
all
of
our
working
groups
and
research
groups
already
have
those
anyway,
and
so
this
is
just
a
way
of
offering
guidance
for
how
to
use
mailing
list
software
to
actually
have
a
meeting.
An
asynchronous
meaning
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
it's
open-ended.
N
The
idea
is,
it's
actually
really
well
structured
and
tightly
facilitated
in
you
know
time-bound
it's
just
instead
of
one
hour
where
we're
all
synchronously
meeting
it's
over
a
few
days
or
as
was
suggested
on
the
list
recently
in
response
to
the
draft,
maybe
a
week,
is
a
good
guideline
for
a
working
group
or
research
group
meeting.
So
I
also
wanted
to
just
mention
talk
about
my
experience
with
this.
N
So
when
I
worked
with
carol
was
my
colleague
once
upon
a
time
I
worked
at
the
association
for
progressive
communications
for
six
years
and
they
have
a
membership
that
spans.
You
know
every
continent
essentially
and,
like
you
know,
it
was
founded
in
the
late
80s
early
90s,
so
by
mostly
global
south
organizations,
so
their
membership
has
always
needed,
like
a
really
low
bandwidth,
easy
way
to
meet
occasionally,
and
so
that
is
what
they
did.
Every
year
the
membership
met
online
through
mailing
lists,
except
for
trying
triennially.
N
They
would
then
try
to
get
together
face
to
face
that
didn't
happen.
Actually
in
2020
they
were
meant
to
have
a
triennial
member
meeting
as
well.
So
this
is
where
I
learned
these
tactics
and
the
place
where
I
participated
in
my
first
online
asynchronous
meeting,
and
it's
really
it's
really
tightly
done
by
now,
since
they've
been
doing
it
for
a
couple
decades.
Next
slide.
N
So
the
draft
really
just
documents
the
basics
for
how
to
do
this.
So
I
go
into
why
a
little
bit
more,
which
I
think
I'm
done
doing
now
and
then
try
to
offer
some
advice
for
how
to
do
it,
both
like
for
all
stages
of
it
before
in
the
really
critical
planning
stages.
Because
again
it's
all
about
like
well
done
facilitation.
N
Also,
then,
during
what
a
facilitator
or
co-chair,
would
need
to
do
during
an
asynchronous
meeting
and
then
also
in
important
stages.
Afterwards,
when
you're
trying
to
actually
distill
the
like
tons
of
text
that
have
just
been
generated
into
meaningful
outcomes,
then
there's
a
section
on
considerations
that
I
think
are
things
that
have
been
introduced
newly
given
this
format.
And
then
I
try
to
use
some
examples
and
annexes,
so
people
actually
understand
what
it
is.
I'm
talking
about.
Okay
next
slide,
please!
N
I
am
not
going
to
go
ahead
and
read
all
of
the
things
that
I
write
in
the
how
section
you
can
definitely
read
the
draft
on
this,
but
there
are
some
highlights
that
are
kind
of
just
like
lessons
learned,
and
you
know
the
best
way
that
we
found
to
do
this.
Well.
Of
course,
we're
open
to
other.
N
You
know
other
things
like
if
we
can
find
you
know
more
examples
we'll
add
to
this
list,
but
some
things
that
you
know
come
up
again
and
again
like
for
one
carol,
is
the
membership
coordinator
for
the
apc,
and
he
can
tell
you
that
it
doesn't
matter
how
many
times
you
send
an
email
or
how
well
formatted
that
email
is
when
you're
dealing
with
hundreds
of
people
there's
going
to
be
tons
of
questions
on
and
off
list
about
the
logistics.
N
So
there's
a
need
for
like
a
space
where
you
can
put
information
about
the
logistics
of
a
meeting
data
tracker
is
already
really
good
for
that.
It
might
need
to
be
slightly
tweaked
for
to
accommodate
meetings
like
this,
but
I
think
actually,
as
is
it,
works
really
well.
You've
got
the
materials.
You've
got
the
agenda,
you
can
put
the
details
there,
but
that
doesn't
that's
not
going
to
stop
people
from
asking,
even
if
you've.
N
A
N
The
queue
oh
I'm
going
to
hold
until
the
end.
If
that's
okay,
thanks!
Thank
you
thanks
yeah
another
one
is
that
you
know
having
an
agenda
defined
in
advance
is
really
key
and
not
just
having
you
know
here
the
items
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
here.
The
drafts
need
to
be
worked
on,
but
actually
figuring
out
in
advance.
What
the
outcomes
are
so
that
facilitators
and
co-authors
can
steer.
N
Conversation
towards
those
outcomes
is
really
important
to
not
keeping
it
so
open-ended
that
it's
just
like
a
bunch
of
posting
right
there.
There
are
ways
in
which
one
can
use
mailing
list
software
wisely.
That
you
know
can
help
focus
discussion.
So
it's
not
just
all
right.
Everybody
we're
gonna,
be
present
on
an
email
list
all
at
the
same
time.
N
For
a
week
it's
you
know,
you
can
thread
different
discussions
and
facilitate
them
individually
and
that
sort
of
thing
there's
in
the
apc
meetings
because
of
the
nature
of
the
organization,
but
I
think
I
also
see
this
in
the
ietf
as
well.
There's
a
need
for
people
to
be
human,
and
it's
always
nice
to
bake
something
in
to
make
the
meeting
feel
like
it's
a
moment
in
time
for
people
working
together
that
know
one
another,
so
I
always
suggest
some
kind
of
social
thing.
N
Also,
just
you
know,
maybe
a
thread
within
a
meeting
to
actually
have
some
off
topic
discussion
to
emulate
the
ways
in
which
an
in-person
meeting
would
happen.
You
know
in
the
hallways
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
then
yeah
like
it
cannot
be
overstated.
N
How
important
follow-up
notes
are,
even
though
everything
is
textual
and
you
can
go
back
and
read
everything.
That's
happened.
You
have
to
sort
of
be
able
to
draw
conclusions
from
it
and
create
a
shared
narrative
about
what
happened,
and
that
is
just
a
different
problem
like
instead
of
you,
know,
recording
notes,
as
is
happening.
You
actually
just
have
to
go
back
and
read
everything
and
distill
it
down
to
its
key
components
and
then
present
that
as
a
report.
N
So
those
are
just
like
I
said
some
highlights:
that's
not
a
full
view
of
what
is
in
the
draft,
so
go
ahead.
Just
for
the
purposes
of
this
presentation
I
didn't
want
to
bore
you,
then
the
consideration
section,
which
will
probably
change
based
on
a
little
bit
of
list
traffic.
N
Already,
these,
I
think,
are
things
that
are
newly
introduced
for
better
or
worse,
given
the
change
in
format,
so
it
might
be
that
people
who
are
subscribed
to
a
working
group
or
a
research
group
list
does
not
accurately
reflect
the
active
membership
or
people
that
would
come
to
a
face-to-face
in-person
meeting,
and
so
therefore
you
can't
just
assume
that,
because
somebody
is
subscribed
to
a
list
that
they
are
an
active
participant.
N
I
think
that
just
goes
without
saying,
but
there
was
some
discussion
about
this
and
how
to
like,
in
particular,
how
to
deal
with
a
meeting
fee
like
if
it
were
to
be
part
of
an
ietf
official
meeting.
Instead
of
an
interim
like
how
do
you
actually
worry
about
somebody's
participation
and
whether
or
not
they've
paid
to
talk
on
the
list
right?
Another
one
is
actually
a
positive
thing.
I
think
that
it's
worth
noting
that,
for
the
purposes
of
accessibility
and
in
particular
you
know,
multiple
language,
translation,
text-based
meetings
can
be
very
helpful.
N
Sometimes
in
their
own
language,
there
was
there
were
threads
or
or
group
discussions
that
were
in
specific
languages
only
and
then,
furthermore,
for
people
who,
even
if
the
meeting
is
all
in
english,
it
just
means
that
for
folks
who
need
a
little
bit
of
extra
help
doing
their
own
translation,
they
have
that
because
they
have
the
time
to
actually
do.
N
Translation
of
text
text
is
notably
easier
to
read
in
a
second
or
third
language
than
like
live
speaking
and
hearing
then
also
there's
just
the
comportment
around
how
to
like
you
know,
have
a
nice
friendly
discussion
on
on
a
mailing
list.
We
got
into
this
in
the
shmu
list
a
little
bit
that
it's
hard,
sometimes
when
folks
don't
know
how
to
use
mailing
lists
or
that
you
know
have
maybe
different
uses
of
mailing
clients
or
not
at
all,
and
how
that
can
be
a
challenge.
N
It
might
be
useful
to
document
that
at
some
point,
but
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
good
use
of
this
draft
actually
and
then
lastly,
the
compliance
section
which
might
just
go
wholesale.
I
was
just
worried
about
things
like
you
know.
The
notewell
applies
apparently
to
mailing
lists,
but
you
know
in
in
a
meeting
we
we
see
the
note
well
before
we
start.
How
would
that
work
if
we
were
all
just
on
a
mailing
list?
Right?
Okay,
that's
it!
I
think
next
slide.
Maybe
I
have
more
yeah
I
do
so.
N
I
yeah,
I
think,
the
two
main
points
from
the
list
discussion
so
far,
although
I'm
happy
to
be
corrected
with
folks
in
the
queue
just
that
maybe
some
of
those
considerations
could
be
taken
out,
they're,
not
really
that
interesting
and
then
also
that
we
need
probably
additional
examples.
So
this
is
one
very
specific.
N
You
know
best
practice
coming
from
one
very
specific
instance,
this
organization,
but
I
imagine
there
are
others
who
have
participated
in
such
you
know,
meetings
or
like
I
saw
somebody
stephen.
I
think
mentioned
that
this
has
been
done
before
over
jabber
it'd
be
great
to
have
to
document
some
of
those
experiences
like
the
apc
documents
itself
sort
of
right,
but
there
was
nothing
that
we
could
take
and
just
turn
into
a
draft.
N
We
actually
just
had
to
write
it
from
scratch
because
of
the
context,
so
I
would
encourage
and
welcome
people
who
want
to
add
to
that
with
other
examples,
next
slide
and
yeah.
So
the
planned
updates
for
this
is
like
I
need
to
do
a
better
copy,
editing
job
on
this
draft,
there's
some
things
that
can
be
probably
removed
and
we'd
like
more
examples
in
the
annex.
N
I
think
that's
it.
You
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
which
is
where
I
can
take
issues,
pull
requests.
Oh
sorry,
yeah
yeah
sure
that's
good!
I
did
want
to
just
mention
sorry
in
the
call
for
help
that
if
anybody
actually
wants
to
try
this
out,
you
know
that'd
be
kind
of
cool
to
refine
this,
like
what
works
and
what
doesn't
for
the
ietf,
so
it
might
need
to
actually
be
tried
before
it
becomes
actual
guidance.
If
at
any
point
it
does
that
for
the
for
small.
So
that's
it
thanks.
A
A
A
Thanks
matthew,
you're.
O
I'm
a
muted.
I
hope
you
hear
me
now
yeah
first
well,
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
one
of
the
things
that
struck
me
really
eerily
similar
to
my
current
life
experience.
When
you
talk
about
people
ask
for
over
and
over
for
details
about
the
living
meeting
logistics,
I
have
five
kids
right
now
in
four
different
schools:
a
solid
agenda
with
defined
incomes.
O
As
you
stated,
I
would
like
to
see
a
standardized
education
plan
of
different
schools,
and
I'm
wondering
is
there
similarities
that
what
we're
doing
here
to
try
to
fix
this
problem
in
ietf
that
we
could
be
industry
leaders
or
you
know
best
practice,
leaders
for
what
all
these
unfortunate
schools
are
going
through,
where
they
don't
know
if
they're
meeting
in
person
or
you
know,
meeting
virtually
one
week
to
the
other,
you
know
we
don't
know
either
and
yet
we're
the
internet
engineering
task
force
experts
I'll
end.
My
comment:
there.
N
I
think
you
bring
up
a
good
point,
matthew
about
how
we
can
be
leaders
in
this.
I
do
think
it
would
be
a
really
nice
thing
for
the
ietf
to
document
this
sort
of
meeting
style,
or
it's
just
its
use
of
mailing
list.
That
was
something
that
came
up
on
the
list
as
well.
Like
can.
Can
we
document
essentially
like
ietf,
netiquette
or
best
practices
around
this,
because,
like
that's
a
huge
contribution
for
people
outside
even
of
the
ietf
thanks.
L
C
I
I
was
a
little
confused
as
to
what
exactly
you're
proposing
for
itf
is
the
model
that,
in
in
like
a
particular
working
group,
mailing
list,
you
would,
you
would
just
say,
okay
having
a
meeting
now
and
there's
six
topics
and
here's
a
thread
for
each
of
them.
Go.
N
Yeah,
that
is,
that
that
could
work
yeah.
I
would
say
it
needs
a
lot
more
planning
than
that.
So
you
know
you
need
to
pick
a
good
time
like
just
like
you
would
do
any
meeting
planning
right.
It
needs
to
be
well
thought
out.
You
need
to
probably
speak
with
the
authors
in
advance
about
where
their
drafts
are,
what
they
want
out
of
a
meeting.
C
So
I
I
think
one
thing
that
I
really
value
in
a
synchronous
meeting
is
the
fact
that
they're
single
threaded,
because
that
just
because
what
it
provides
you
that
you
don't
have
on
the
current
mailing
list
is
there's
just
all
these
things
going
on
and
no
human
being
can
keep
track
of
context
for
24
different
threads
at
once,
and
it's
just
an
opportunity
to
say:
hey
everyone
like
shut
up
and
pay
attention
to
this
thing
just
for
five
minutes,
so
it
can
get
in
front
of
your
eyes
and
like.
C
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
structure
something
asynchronously
that
way
like
there's
sort
of
a
topic.
Maybe
there's
a
separate
mailing
list
set
up
just
for
the
meeting
and-
and
you
know
and
there's
like
a
topic
for
the
day
or
for
a
few
days
or
whatever
it
takes
to
take
that
to
exhaustion
and
move
to
the
next
thing,
and
maybe
that
would
capture
a
little
more
of
the
value.
C
N
That's
great,
I
like
that.
Those
two
suggested
editions
like
having
a
separate
mailing
list
because
yeah
I
mean,
maybe
you
don't
want
everybody
who
subscribed
to
your
research
or
working
group
list
to
have
to
participate
in
the
meeting
or
to
see
all
that
list
traffic
and
then
the
second
thing
you
mentioned,
which
is
that
maybe
you
start
you
do
the
sort
of
topics
one
after
the
other.
That
is
something
that
you
can
do
is
like
stagger
the
agenda
items.
So
you
open
them,
maybe
on
different
days.
N
But
then
you
sort
of
leave
them
open
for
the
duration
of
the
meeting.
That
can
be
a
way
of
like
getting
people
to
focus
on
one
like
the
most
important
stuff
in
the
beginning
and
then
I'll
just
also
add
that
there's
a
section
there
on
like
mixed
methodology,
so
it
doesn't
preclude
you
from
actually
having
a
synchronous
moment
or
maybe
two
or
three
synchronous
moments
where,
like
maybe
you're,
capturing
people
from
different
time
zones.
N
N
A
Thanks
larry
did
you
have
a
quick
point
to
make
on
there
there's
a
bunch
of
people
ahead
of
you
in
the
line
so.
F
N
Like
a
sprint,
I
think
that's
a
good
suggestion
to
make
me
maybe
make
a
head
like
a
hat
tip
in
the
draft
to
infrastructure.
The
working
group
or
research
group
maybe
already
has
to
facilitate
its
work,
such
as
github.
I
mentioned
the
data
tracker,
of
course,
but
there
may
be
other
things.
People
are
using
to
organize
their
work
and
to
leverage
the
features
there,
because,
like
everything,
has
every
feature
now
right,
more
or
less
one.
N
Mm-Hmm
yeah.
No.
Thank
you
thanks
for
those
suggestions,
I
hope
some
of
I'm
not
taking
notes.
I
hope
some
of
these
suggestions
make
it
in
I'm
also
seeing
good
stuff
happening
in
the
chat.
I'm
sorry,
I
can't
keep
up,
but
I
just
really
appreciate
the
engagement
on
this
draft.
A
You
so
I'm
cutting
the
line
off
at
this
point
like
we
are
running
a
little
bit
late.
We
do
have
extra
time,
but
like
just
out
of
caution,
I'll
cut
the
line
off
at
phil,
I'm
brown
you're
next.
P
I
I
find
that
with
mailing
list
threads,
they
go
off
topic
very,
very
fast
and
I
was
going
to
suggest
the
same
thing
that
something
like
github
issues
is
better
for
this.
But
I
also
think
that
this
is
basically
what
we
already
do
with
discussions
on
the
mailing
list
asynchronously
over
time.
P
The
hard
bit
is
capturing
and
maintaining
people's
attentions
and
a
large
part
of
the
face-to-face
meeting
is
the
forcing
function
for
capturing
attention.
The
idea
of
spreading
over
a
lot
of
time
and
having
one
week
for
each
focused
issue.
It
is
hard
for
people
to
bring
their
attention
to
bear
to
that
and
they
will
only
bring
their
attention
to
the
things
that
they
have
a
particular
interest
in,
and
you
won't
get
that
excess
attention
that's
available
at
meetings.
N
I
see
yeah
yeah
and
I
just
on
the
mailing
list.
Moderation
point,
like
you
said
we
already
do
this
to
some
degree.
I
do
think
it
presents
more
of
a
challenge
because
of
the
volume
of
messages
that
might
occur
in
a
short
amount
of
time.
It
was
also
mentioned
in
the
chat
about
this,
but
it
might
be
interesting
like
when
I
was
sort
of
looking
at
what
are
the
existing
rfcs
related
to
mailing
lists
in
ietf.
There
aren't
as
many
as
I
thought
there
would
be.
Maybe,
like
you
know,
list
moderation.
N
G
So
a
couple
things
one
I
liked
the
document
in
general,
but
I
thought
it
was
a
little
thin
on
detail
on
some
of
the
things
that
you
just
talked
about
here
and
that
I
know
we've
talked
about
in
the
past
in
the
in
the
many
couches
mailing
list,
it'll
be
nice
to
capture
some
of
the
discussion.
We've
had
actually
in
the
document
like,
for
example,
the
idea
of
having
you
know,
three
focus
groups
in
different
time
zones.
G
Meet
a
person
and
try
to
try
to
get
you
know,
clarity
on
something
at
times
that
work
for
people.
I
think
it'd
be
nice
to
document
that
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
some
of
the
things
I'm
hearing
here
that
this
might
turn
into
kind
of
a
sociology
study
which
is
interesting,
but
not
really
going
to
help
us
or
I
mean
maybe
it'll
help
us,
but
but
we
really
need
a
document
that
actually
has
some.
G
You
know
make
some
suggestions
for
what
to
do
so
that
we
can
actually
try
it
yeah
and
finally,
the
one
thing
that
that
you
know
I
think
braun
was
mentioning
get
issues
and
I
have
actually
found
that
to
be
not
so
helpful,
because
the
thing
that
actually
is
the
big
cognitive
load
for
people
participating
in
working
groups
is
not
being
able
to
figure
out
which
thread
to
go.
G
Look
at
it's
figuring
out
what
the
current
state
of
thought
on
the
thread
is
right,
and
so,
if
we
don't
actually
make
some
active
effort
to
capture
the
current
state
of
thought
on
a
particular
thread,
then
the
cognitive
load
for
anybody
who's
participating
is
kind
of
huge.
That's
admittedly,
hard
work,
but
it's
something
that
working
group
chairs
really
need
to
do
if
they
want
to
know
what
consensus
is,
so
it
would
be
good
if
that
could
be
done
if
we
could
come
up
with
a
methodology
for
doing
that.
G
N
That's
right,
I
think,
that's
a
really
you're
pointing
out
something
that's
really
critical,
which
is
why
I
mean
maybe
it's
just.
I
have
a
bias.
I
will
just
say
that
I
should
have
said
that
in
the
beginning
that
I'm
a
very
textual
person,
I
need
to
read
something
or
look
at
it
to
understand
it.
I
mean
I
we
can
have
a
conversation
about
it,
but
like
the
next
thing,
I'm
going
to
do
is
like
go
find
the
like
text
version
of
that
writer
like
I
need
to
read
it
or
write
it
down.
N
So
I
mean
one
of
the
nice
things
about,
so
I'm
coming
from
that
place
right,
not
everybody
feels
that
way
or
has
the
same
learning
style,
but
I
mean
you
know
if
you
have
a
thread,
if
you
open
a
thread
right
like
here's
the
conversation,
this
is
the
agenda
type
topic.
You
need
to
go
watch
this
video,
which
is
a
presentation
and
then
read
this
draft,
and
then
here's
like
a
summary
of
this
and
that
and
then,
by
the
end
of
this
thread,
we
want
to
get
to
this
place
and
that's
like
the
opening
thread.
N
I
think
that's
it's
nice
for
people
to
reference
right.
If
I'm
dipping
in
and
I'm
like,
oh
wow,
there's
been
25
messages
since
I
woke
up
or
since
I,
since
I
went
to
bed
last
night,
I
need
to
jump
in
here.
You
always
sort
of
go
back
to
the
first
one,
which
sort
of
sets
the
sets
the
topic
and
lays
all
this
out,
but
you're.
N
But
taking
your
point
that
there
needs
to
be
more
detail,
I
sort
of
one
just
kind
of
needed
to
get
my
thoughts
out
and
two
didn't
want
to
speculate
too
hard
on
what
people
would
find
interesting
because
again,
it's
like
based
on
an
experience
in
a
different
context
and
three
I
just
would
like
other
people
to
also
weigh
in
not
in
the
sense
of
like.
Oh,
this
could
be
an
interesting
experiment
like
you
said,
but
oh
I
I've
tried
this
and
it
works
for
me
and
here's
like
a
suggestion.
N
A
N
B
Yeah,
so
I
have
a
couple
things:
one:
bringing
for
jck.
Sorry,
I'm
not
sure
who
jck
is
but
john
clinton,
john
clinton,
okay.
B
N
I
think
we
have
also
this
problem
just
in
regular
lists
and
list
moderation,
is
really
hard
but
yeah.
I
think
it
does
present
a
special
challenge
for
list
moderation
that
could
be
one
of
the
one
of
the
mixed
methodologies
is
to
then
perhaps
call
like
a
synchronous
meeting,
either
by
voice
or
by
video
invoice
to
actually
hash
something
out
that
that
seems
to
be
particularly
contentious
right,
where
people
just
need
to
be
able
to
have
a
conversation.
So,
but
I
think
that
that
is
something
to
consider.
So
thank
you
for
raising
that.
N
B
Okay,
I
also
had
my
own
comment
to
me.
I
just
think
the
overall
concept
of
asynchronous
meetings-
and
I
think
I
agree
with
I
just
don't
think
email-
is
a
good
tool
beyond
kind
of
what
we
use
it
for
already.
I
think
wiki
or
something
like
that,
would
be
better
something
where
you're
actually
capturing
the
information
and
have
it
in
a
format
that
you
can
kind
of
grow
and
add
and
subtract
from
over
time
and
email
doesn't
work
too
well.
For
for
that,
so
I
I
mean.
B
I
think
might
be
a
better
alternative.
N
In-
and
I
think
I
mentioned
this
in
the
draft
like
as
far
as
organizing
space,
you
know
place
where
you
keep
your
resources
and
all
that
in
the
apc
meeting
situation
we
always
had
a
wiki
and
the
wiki
was
really
just
a
repository
for,
like
the
main,
you
know
official,
like
supporting
documents,
the
reports
a
place
where
people
could
also
share
their
own
documents
and
it
was
like
you
could
create
a
pointer
to
that.
It
seems
like
a
bit
of
a
slow
mechanism
on
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum.
N
You
have
something
like
slack
or
jabber,
which
to
me
is
just
so
fast
moving
like
it's
asynchronous,
but
it's
also
not
threaded.
I
mean
in
slack
you
have
different
channels,
so
that
is
threaded,
but
I
think
the
bar
for
sending
a
message
or
sending
you
know
your
view
is
so
low
that
you
have
it's
just
a
lot
of
chatter
and
it's
not
like
an
email
where
you
have
to
compose.
You
know
a
response,
or
you
can
do
threaded
inline
responses
that
sort
of
thing
so
yeah,
I
think
you're.
We
should
be
thinking.
N
I'm
really
open,
of
course,
including
other
other
mediums,
but
I
always
feel
like
there's
going
to
be
a
trade-off.
It's
almost
like
a
slider.
It's
like
you
know
how
facile
do
you
want
this
to
be
at
a
cost
of
like
comprehensibility
or
the
ability
to
follow
discussion
that
sort
of
thing,
okay,.
K
Trying
to
work
through
github,
you
know
talking
about
pull
requests
or
whatever
that
really
doesn't
work
for
me,
because
it's
like
trying
to
edit
rfcs
in
nrof,
I
mean
I'm
entering
a
an
alien
language
that
I
just
don't
understand
and
it's
a
whole
set
of
terminology.
K
So
I
think
that
I
I
think
that
we
should
look
beyond
just
github
back
in
the
very
early
days
of
the
web.
My
colleagues
at
mit,
roger
herwicks
and
john
mallory
put
together
an
asynchronous
discussion
forum
for
vice
president
al
gore,
the
open
meeting,
which
was
successfully
deployed
for
two
weeks
now
it
did
have
moderations
and
it
had
about
50
people
operating
it.
But
I
think
at
this
point
it
might
be
possible
to
get
people
to
use
that
technology,
particularly
an
itf,
but
you
know
we.
K
We
should
really
be
looking
beyond
trying
to
repurpose
a
code
manager
as
a
discussion
tool.
The
other
thing
that
I'd
like
to
say
is
that
I've
had
experience
of
working
in
more
than
just
the
itf
I've
worked
in
oasis.
I
worked
in
wtc
and
so
on.
The
the
the
use
of
the
meeting,
the
a
the
synchronous
meetings
I
found
to
be
most
useful
to
me,
has
been
when
the
synchronous
time
has
been
going
through
the
issues
list.
K
So
you
go
into
the
meeting,
knowing
that
these
are
the
issues
that
we're
going
to
discuss,
we're
not
going
to
have
exposition
we're
not
going
to
do
anything
else,
we're
just
going
to
go
through
those
pieces,
and
that,
for
me,
is
a
very
productive
way.
We
we
applied
that
on
saml
and
that
allowed
us
to
get
to
a
working
spec
within
12
months.
K
A
And
mallory,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
draft.
I
know
like
you
got
it
into
just
at
the
last
moment,
so
thank
you
very
much
for
working
hard
on
this
and
and
that's
a
really
good
discussion,
hope
you
can
capture
some
of
it.
There's
like
bunch
of
stuff
in
the
minutes
like
when
it
gets
published
so
like.
Please
continue
the
discussions
on
the
list.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
great
so
so
yeah
now
to
talk
about
the
the
hackathon
and
ringing
a
hackathon.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
so
the
for
those
of
you
who
aren't
that
familiar
with
with
the
hackathon
the
whole
idea
is,
you
know
we
collaborate,
really
focus
on
running
code
and
developing
utilities,
ideas,
sample
code,
things
that
are
going
to
show
practical
implementations
of
ihf
standards
and
help
move
the
work
of
the
ietf
forward.
B
Yeah,
it
provides
a
set
of
practices
for
running
ietf
hackathons,
and
so
it's
not
just
about
the
virtual
or
online
only
hackathon
experience
that
we
have,
which
I
know
is
the
main
focus
of
schmooze.
So
if
you
look
at
this,
just
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
in
there.
That's
about
regular
hackathons
and
but
shmu
kind
of
gave
me
the
you
know
that
little
nudge
I
needed
to
put
this
down
and
then,
of
course,
there's
stuff
in
there
about
the
online-only
aspects
of
it.
So
now
we
go
to
the
next
line.
B
So
the
typical
agenda
of
the
ietf
hackathon
is:
it
happens
the
weekend
at
the
start
of
an
ietf
meeting,
and
we
just
tried
that
for
the
first
one
it
seemed
like
a
good
time
to
do
it
and
it
worked
out
really
well
and
so
it
kind
of
stuck
and
it's
a
pretty
intense
weekend.
As
you
can
see
from
the
schedule.
B
You
know
we
try
to
make
the
most
use
of
the
time
without
really
killing
anyone,
because
there's
a
whole
itf
meeting
coming
up.
But
really
you
know
we
try
to
optimize
the
use
of
time
and
let
people
you
know
make
the
best
use
of
that
time.
B
Let
them
collaborate
and
it's
optimized
for
in-person
participation,
but
we
have
had
remote
participation
from
the
start
and
the
reason
we
end
when
we
do
is
really
to
pass
the
baton
to
other
things
like
the
newcomer
event,
which
is
very
important,
and
we
try
to
cater
to
bringing
new
people
into
the
ietf
with
the
hackathon.
So
that's
important
to
us
and
so
anyways.
That's
the
overall
timing
of
it.
Now
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
you
know
I
mentioned
it
being
mostly
tailored
for
in
person.
B
If
you
look
at
the
last
three
in-person
meetings
that
we
had,
I
basically
did
some
back
of
the
napkin
stats
from
that
and
we're
able
to
get
an
accurate
count
of
how
many
people
actually
attend
in
person,
because
we
we
check
them
in
at
the
door
now
for
remote.
Q
B
That
about
the
same
number
of
people
sign
up
for
the
hackathon
to
attend
remotely
and
then
don't
show
as
don't
register
and
then
end
up
participating
anyway.
B
So
I
think
it's
about
a
wash,
but
what
you
can
see
here
is
that
the
majority
of
the
people
are
in
person
about
90
and
about
10
are
remote,
and
the
other
thing
that
I
think
is
important
I
wanted
to
emphasize
here-
is
that
we
do
have
a
lot
of
new
people
with
roughly
30
an
ietf
hackathon
is
their
first
experience
with
the
ietf
and
for
40
plus
percent
of
the
people.
B
It's
like
it's
their
first
time
at
an
ietf
hackathon,
so
catering
to
newcomers
is
actually
an
important
thing,
and
I
think,
if
you
see
the
growth
of
the
hackathon
this,
which
is
on
the
right
there,
you
get
a
feel
for
you
know
it
is
bringing
in
new
people
and
so
having
that
experience
is
attractive
to
people,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
realize
that
it's
not
just
kind
of
the
regular
ietf
clientele
where
actually
are
appealing
to
a
new
crowd.
B
So
itf
107
was
shaping
up
to
be
kind
of
just
a
another.
You
know
successful
hackathon,
I
would
say
we
had
the
typical
number
of
early
registrations
and
of
projects
lined
up
and
and
then
coveted
and
the
idf
meeting
shifted
very
quickly
to
online
only
and
with
the
hackathon.
We
weren't
sure
what
to
do
so.
B
We
actually
had
this
survey
with
the
thought
was
hey
what
if
we
just
keep
it
exactly
as
planned,
and
but
we'll
just
everyone
be
remote,
and
what
we
found
out
was
that
very
few
people
actually
wanted
to
do
that,
and
even
of
those
who
were
willing
to
go
forward
with
it,
they
were
spread
out
across
many
different
projects.
For
example,
we
had
like
40
different
projects,
and
we
had.
B
Maybe
you
know
what
to
say,
22
people
who
wanted
to
still
participate,
so
you
only
had
one
or
two
really
on
any
given
project
and
the
people
leading
the
projects
were
oftentimes,
not
the
people
who
wanted
to
still
go
forward
with
it.
So
it
just
didn't
seem
like
it
was
going
to
work
and
we
cancelled
it
completely.
B
So
for
atf
108,
we
had
more
advanced
notice
that
it
was
going
to
be
an
online
meeting,
and
so
we
planned
from
the
start
for
it
or
not
quite
from
the
start,
but
still
we
had
a
bit
more
time
to
plan,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
looked
at
the
things
that
really
made
the
ietf
107
hackathon,
not
work,
and
the
timing
which
that
we
normally
do,
which
was
fantastic
for
in-person
meetings,
was
actually
kind
of
a
killer
for
these
online
only
ones.
B
B
So
when
you
look
at
the
draft,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
really,
the
bulk
of
it
is
covering
the
hackathon
in
general,
but
there
are
these
sections
marked
out
as
online
only
where
there's
information
added
as
a
result
of
being
able
or
having
to
have
it
online
only
and
so
funding
there
were
some
funding
changes,
as
you
can
imagine,
some
of
your
typical
funding
costs
like
for
the
venue
for
food
those
go
away,
but
there
could
be
some
additional
costs
too,
which
I
haven't
tabulated
or
whatever.
B
But
you
know
we
we
do
need
the
network
for
longer.
We
need
it
for
a
whole
week
before,
instead
of
just
a
couple
days
before
I
gather.
If
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
have
continue
to
use
that
you
know
there
can
be
costs
there.
The
timing
I
already
talked
about
the
wiki.
B
That
is
how
we
keep
information
leading
into
the
hackathon
and
during
the
hackathon,
that's
kind
of
how
we
share
information
about
all
the
projects,
and
so
a
couple
things
went
away
from
that
because
we
don't
do
the
hack
demo
happy
hour
of
the
code
lounge.
B
Those
are
things
that
happen
during
the
week
of
in-person
ietf
meeting
they're,
not
applicable,
but
we
added
a
couple
new
things:
the
team
schedule
that
I
mentioned,
where
teams
could
schedule
how
and
when
they
wanted
to
meet,
and
also
we
added
a
page
about
results,
presentations
who
wanted
to
do
it
and
just
so
that
we
could
actually,
instead
of
having
people,
raise
their
hand
or
something
like
that.
This
was
the
mechanism
that
we
used
and
actually
both
those
worked
pretty
well
webex
accounts.
B
We
made
those
available
to
teams
if
they
wanted
to
be
able
to
use
webex
to
facilitate
meeting,
but
they're
welcome
to
use
something
else,
and
we
did
make
gather
available,
and
I
mentioned
cody
md.
If
you
look
at
on
the
right
hand,
side
it's
a
little
small,
but
those
are
tables
that
are
in
the
gather
space
where
hackathon
teams
can
meet
and
if
they
sit
around
the
chairs
there
they
can
enter
an
audio
conference
and
a
video
conference.
B
And
then
there
is
on
the
right
one.
There's
a
small
whiteboard,
the
one
the
table
on
the
left,
there's
a
little
cody
md
shared
notepad
and
those
actually
ended
up
being
very
useful
for
people
because
they
could
use
those
in
addition
to
just
their
video
conference
capabilities
and
then
what
you
see
at
the
top
right
is
the
the
list
of
projects
in
the
schedule
next
slide.
Please.
B
So
another
well,
I
think,
really
cool
innovation
that
came
out.
B
The
fact
that
we
had
to
go
online
only
was
this
remote
access
to
the
network
so
having
access
to
the
ietf
network
at
a
typical
hackathon
is
very
important
because
it's
it's
unfettered
access
to
the
internet,
and
we
also
so
that
was
always
provided
for
the
hackathon
and
then
the
knock
has
done
a
fantastic
job
both
of
getting
that
available
early,
but
also
accepting
requests
for
those
people
who
want
wired
access
or
who
want
special
networking
capabilities
like
an
ipv6
only
network
or
something
where
they
can
control
prefix
delegation,
or
you
know,
a
whole
slew
of
things
that
is
actually
really
handy
for
hackathon
projects
due
to
the
nature
of
the
work
we
do
in
the
itf.
B
So
when
we
went
to
online
only
the
knock
kind
of
stepped
up
and
just
put
this
together,
where
someone
could
connect
into
essentially
a
virtual
ietf
network
using
a
raspberry
pi
with
the
recipe
that
the
noc
provides
and
then
request
a
lot
of
these
same
capabilities.
B
So
now
that
allows
teams
to
kind
of
meet
on,
like
on
a
network,
a
shared
network
to
to
work
on
their
projects
together,
and
it's
something
that
we'll
continue
to
develop
and
make
better
next
slide.
Please.
B
So,
looking
at
how
ietf
109
worked
out
online
about
the
same
number
of
registrations
is
for
108,
both
of
which
are
lower
than
what
we
would
have
for
a
typical
in
person,
but
not
terrible.
B
What
we
do
have
accurate
numbers
for
is
how
many
people
attended
the
kickoff
and
the
closing,
and
you
can
see
those
are
relatively
small
numbers,
37
and
42
for
the
kickoff
and
closing
respectively,
for
this
meeting
and
both
of
which
were
smaller
than
for
ietf
108-
and
you
know,
the
the
guest
space
from
talking
to
people
is
the
time
zone
was
just
inconvenient
for
people
more
inconvenient
than
it
was
for
108
in
in
general,
we
actually
had
more
projects
overall,
so
that
was
a
good
thing
and
we
had
more
people
present
the
results
of
their
projects.
B
So
you
know
in
some
sense
it
grew
just
the
number
of
people
attending
the
the
kickoff
and
the
closing
shrunk
next
slide.
Please
and
the
main
takeaways
were
that
yeah,
the
timing
of
the
kickoff
and
the
closing
that
was
really
challenging.
B
B
So,
just
today
or
yesterday,
depending
on
your
time
zone,
a
version,
an
updated
version
of
the
draft
came
out,
and
this
experience
from
itf
109
was
captured.
Also
thanks
to
michael
who
provided
some
great
comments
and
suggestions.
So
to
kind
of
add
those
intangible
benefits
of
of
the
hackathon
that
you
get
from
collaborating
in
person
and
kind
of
in
close
contact
with
people
over
a
weekend
that
that's
really
hard
to
have
that
same
benefit
when
we
don't
meet
online
and
benson.
B
Provided
some
great
comments
too
about
how
the
the
format
that
we
use
for
presentations
and
the
fact
that
we're
using
github
that's
not
really
ideal
and
like
change
tracking,
you
don't
get
that
with
a
pdf.
So
if
we
switch
to
something
like
markdown,
we
could
get
that.
B
So
that's
something
we're
going
to
look
at
as
an
improvement
and
then
also
gather
I
mentioned
worked
well
for
people,
but
it
does
also
require
higher
kind
of
bandwidth
and
cpu
on
the
machine
that
you're,
using
especially
due
to
its
peer
to
peer
nature,
which
is
pretty
cool,
how
it
works,
but
it
it
does
require
a
bit
more
horsepower
and
bandwidth
next
slide.
B
So,
in
terms
of
next
steps,
the
plan
is
to
continue
to
learn.
We're
gonna
have
idf,
110
is
online,
hackathon
will
be
online.
We
already
have
some
ideas,
including
adding
these
updated
results,
presentation
templates
that
benson
had
mentioned
now
the
online
hackathon.
It's
definitely
from
everyone.
I've
talked
to
in
the
survey
that
we
had
it's
better
than
not
having
a
hackathon
but
the
participation,
the
collaboration,
the
social
interaction.
B
You
know
all
these
things
kind
of
suffer.
We
definitely
don't
get
as
much
done,
there's
not
as
many
people
participating,
not
as
many
projects,
and
they
don't
devote
as
much
time
to
it
and
it's
not
as
effective.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
that
should
be
captured
more
in
the
draft.
I
kind
of
wanted
to
get
people's
opinion
on
that
metrics
results
and
survey
results.
B
B
B
It
doesn't
talk
about
sponsorship
that
much
other
than
that
there
is
a
sponsor
and
what
they
need
to
do
to
make
the
event
successful.
But
is
that
something
that
should
be
captured
in
this
draft
and
then
these
last
two?
Is
it
internet
draft?
It
seemed
like
a
natural
way
to
bring
it
to
this
group
and
have
people
review
it
right.
B
That's
the
way
we
do
things,
but
is
that
really
the
best
way
to
capture
this
because
it
it
will
evolve
over
time
and
then
the
schmute
working
group,
our
folks
here
up
for
helping
with
this,
because,
as
I
did
mention
it's,
it
covers
the
hackathon
in
general,
not
just
online
hackathons,
but
this
still
seemed
like
a
good
place
to
do
it.
So
that
was
my
thought,
but
I
wanted
to
see
what
the
working
group
thought
about
it
as
well.
A
But
yeah
like
let's
figure
out
the
the
actual
mechanics
if
it's
like
the
draft
rfc,
is
the
right
way
to
publish
this
or,
like
maybe
like
a
wiki,
that's
maintained
because
it's
like
pretty
dynamic
so
but
that's
something
we
can
discuss.
B
Okay,
but
for
now
you
think
it's
good
to
just
kind
of
rev
this
until
it
gets
a
little
more
complete
and
then
figure
that
out.
Yes,
please
thank
you,
okay
and
keeping
it
within
schmoo.
That's
okay,
too
yup,
okay,
great.
R
Right
so
I
posted
this
this
document
a
few
weeks
ago
in
I
guess
in
response
to
there
I
named
it
after
fine
diners,
I'm
told
the
quote
about
how
there's
many
lunches
and
fine
diners
dinners
too,
is
really
from
an
ietf
comment.
I
typically
comment
that
someone
made,
but
anyway
I
just
thought
it
was
a
good
kind
of
name
for
now.
Next
slide,
please.
R
So
I've
done
a
lot
of
remote
attendance,
I'm
not
going
to
read
you
this
slide,
but
I
actually
got
the
m
bone
audio
to
work
once
and
and
then
we
had
mp3
streams
and
I
did
a
lot
of
that
from
2004
2005
till
well
till
this
pandemic.
R
Last
few
years
I've
been
to
pretty
much
all
the
meetings,
but
I
can
tell
you
it
would
have
been
nice
in
the
90s
when
my
player
were
not
particularly
supportive.
If
I
could
have
done
that,
I
would
have
done
it
and
people
said
I'm
a
very
busy
person.
Well,
the
problem
is
that
we've
actually
created
a
very
busy
schedule,
and
so
I
want
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
of
that
too
next
slide.
Please.
R
Oh
yeah,
it's
an
opinion,
so
this
is
what
my
calendar
looks
like.
I
took
a
screenshot
of
it
yesterday
and
you
can
see
that
one
gap
in
the
plenary
for
some
reason
doesn't
show
up
in
my
calendar,
but
I
went
to
it
there's
a
number
of
gaps
like
this
one
where
I
do
have
a
document
in
add,
and
I
have
a
couple
documents
in
ops
area
working
group
which
are
happening
right
now,
and
I
find
this
is
not.
R
R
So
this
is
carson's
calendar.
He
posts
a
list,
his
eclectic
list
of
iot
related
things,
and
maybe,
if
you
do
ospf
v3
only
that
you
go
to
two
meetings
and
that's
it,
but
I
gotta
note
that
there's
an
awful
lot
of
people
at
this
meeting,
who
maybe
you
know,
have
conflicts
and
other
things.
So,
even
if
you
did
only
ospf,
I
sure
hope
you'd
be
interested
in
maybe
xmu
and
some
other
things.
R
So
I
would
claim
that
there's
quite
a
number
of
people
who
have
quite
a
number
of
conflicts
and
kind
of
issues
with
what's
going
on
and
of
course
you
might
be
an
area
director
and
we
have
a
number
of
them
came
to
this
meeting
and
I
don't
know
how
they
manage,
because
they
probably
had
other
meetings
that
they
should
have
gone
to
next
slide.
Please
so
I
wrote
this
document
and
the
the
structure
of
it.
I've
got
a
couple
comments
and
there's
an
o1
based
on
joel's
feedback,
and
I
said
well.
R
R
Some
joel
suggested,
and
some
other
people
suggested
that
repeating
all
the
initial
text
is
maybe
decisive,
not
decisive
is
causes
people
to
disagree
that
I
described
it
wrong
and
I
should
just
not
bother
and
that's
fine,
I'm
open
to
that
suggestion.
I
just
don't
know
how
to
say
do
this
differently
until
we
say
what
we
did
and
I
could
add
ietf109
to
this,
if
you
like
next
slide,
please.
R
So,
as
I
said,
so,
we
have
a
a
lot
of
small,
focused
working
groups.
I've
heard
this
week
actually
a
number
of
things
how
this
is
really
really
important
and
that
we
need
to
do
it
even
more
and
we
need
to
be
even
more
tightly
focused.
But
that
really
means
that
there's
more
meetings,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
have
more
meetings
and
more
groups,
then
we
need
to
do
the
bulk
of
the
work
in
virtual
interims.
We
we
can't.
R
We
can't
come
to
a
a
a
a
group
meeting
where
we
basically
just
rehash
the
stuff
on
the
mailing
list,
and
this
stuff
we've
had
various
conversations
about
slideware
versus
issues
versus
other
things,
and
I
wish
I'd
had
the
time
to
actually
put
up
the
issues
on
this
document,
and
I
received
a
couple
emails
yesterday
about
those
issues,
and
I
would
have
liked
to
do
that.
R
So
my
suggestion
is:
we
keep
the
bulk
of
the
work
in
virtual
interims
and
that
we
keep
the
the
the
six
approximately
six
hour
is
what
people
seem
to
be
willing
to
tolerate
of
a
virtual
meeting
for
things
that
need
the
wider
audiences.
So
buffs
buffs
are
critically
important.
If
you
you
know,
I
would.
I
would
if
I
could
leave
my
own
working
group
as
a
co-chair,
to
go
to
a
bar
for
only
one
reason
and
I
would
go
to
the
sit
through
the
both
and
go
well.
That
was
boring.
R
I
don't
care
and
that's
the
most
important
decision
I
can
make
is
that
this
is
a
piece
of
work
that
I
don't
care,
whether
it
happens
or
not.
I
don't
have
an
issue
and
therefore
I
don't
need
to
know
anymore.
That's
like
the
most
important
thing.
If
I
have
an
issue
of
course,
I
you
know
it's
going
to
happen,
but
that's
where
I
think
a
lot
of
people
need
to
go
and
we
have
the
same
kind
of
thing
with
new
work.
R
We
have
all
our
dispatch
groups
now
plenary
and
I
think
shmu
is
a
pretty
important
meta,
meta
work
group
and
we've
had
other
things
like
rfc
editor
things
like
that
that
have
happened,
that
many
people
can't
attend
because
they
are
doing
something
else,
and
I
think
that
we
also
the
other
part.
That's
important
is
for
certain
work
groups
if
they're
new.
We
did
this
in
107
we
anyone
was
a
new
working
group.
R
They
got
a
slot
during
that
week
if
they're,
particularly
going
through
a
difficult
or
interesting
rechartering
or
maybe
they're
just
celebrating
they
they,
you
know,
there's
there's
some
things
they
want
to
present
and
and
there's
some
reasonable
things.
You
know
we
deployed
this
this
this
this
and
this
and
isn't
it
wonderful
next
slide.
R
Do
I
have
another
slide?
I
think
that's
the
last
one
yeah,
so
the
proposed
structure
I
would
suggest,
is
we
have
between
two
and
six
tracks
during
the
week.
Historically,
we've
had
eight
tracks
during
the
week.
Plus
people
have
added
side
meetings
to
it
and
I
would
say
that
it's
not
a
hard,
fast
rule
that
there
has
to
be
six
or
two,
but
that
in
fact,
that
there
may
be
some
there's
some
space
to
to
do
some
experiments
to
have
more
tracks
fewer
tracks.
R
For
instance,
six
man,
in
my
experience,
for
instance,
attracts
a
lot
of
people
from
a
lot
of
other
working
groups.
That
probably
should
be
there
and
paying
attention
to
it,
and
maybe
having
only
one
competing
item
would
be
a
good
thing
for
that,
but
let's
call
it
an
average
of
four
okay.
So
previously
we
had
eight
hours
of
working
group
in
person,
four
and
a
half
days,
eight
tracks
288
hours
right,
and
so
I
would
say,
let's
only
do
a
hundred
hours
okay
of
virtual
sessions
during
the
week.
R
That
makes
four
tracks
times
four
days.
I
guess
I
forgot
to
finish
typing
the
rest
of
the
formula.
Look
in
the
document
it's
there
and-
and
I
I
think
a
hundred
hours
is
reasonable.
So
basically,
I'm
not
saying
we've
basically
expanded
our
schedule
and
our
accommodation
of
thing
as
the
demand
for
more
sessions
has
increased
and
instead
I
think
we
should
put
a
limit
say:
100
hours
is
enough.
During
the
week.
Remember
we
normally
work
a
40-hour
week
right
now.
R
R
Oh
yeah,
oh
yeah,
so
a
side
meeting.
So
I
put
this
in
and
actually
I
had
tried
to
get
jay
to
put
a
a
survey
question
as
to
how
you,
whether
you,
particularly
north
america,
whether
you
got
up
really
early
like
at
10,
30
or
11
p.m,
the
night
before
to
attend
the
meeting
or
whether
you
stayed
up
really
late.
So
if
you're
on
the
west
coast
of
of
north
america,
for
instance,
I
believe
the
meeting
winds
up
being
9
p.m,
to
3
a.m.
R
So
you
stay
up
late
and
that's
great,
but
that
means
that
you're
awake
before
the
meeting
as
opposed
to
a
week
after
the
meeting,
whereas
the
europeans
they
got
up
early
for
this
meeting,
most
cases,
in
which
case
a
side
meeting,
would
happen
most
easily
after
the
meeting.
So
if
we're
not
going
to
accommodate
side
meetings
during
the
six
hours
of
our
session,
then
if
we
want
to
have
those
meetings
where
we
resolve
something
with
you
know
two
80s
and
working
group
chairs
or
something
like
that
or
whatever
that
mean
is
required.
R
D
You
we
can't
hear
you.
A
I
got
it
yeah,
okay,
thanks!
So
now
the
the
mute
like
kept
cycling
so
yeah.
So
we'll
take
a
few
questions.
Alyssa!
Please
go
ahead.
Q
Yeah,
this
is
not
really
a
question.
It's
a
comment.
Well,
maybe
it's
a
question.
Can
you
hear
me
yep,
okay,
so
one
one
issue
of
concern
to
me
at
least
throughout
this
year,
has
been
about
the
the
scheduling
of
the
interims
in
the
time
zone.
Q
So
the
you
know,
as
we
know,
if
we,
if
we
in
general,
left
time
zone
selection
up
to
the
the
majority
rule,
then
we
would
always
land
in
a
similar
window
that
is
biased
towards
north
america
and
europe,
and
so
for
any
proposal
that
relies.
You
know
more
and
more
heavily
on
interims,
which
definitely
has
its
upsides.
Q
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
understand
the
perspectives
of
the
community
about
whether
we
need
to
do
something
about
time
zone
fairness
for
interims
as
well,
in
order
to
make
sure
that
they
remain
accessible
to
people
around
the
whole
globe,
so
just
kind
of
food
for
thought.
I
don't
I'm
not
expecting
an
answer,
but
it
would
be
good
if,
if
that
could
be
addressed
somewhere
in
this
discussion,.
R
Completely
right-
and
I
would
say
that's
an
error
of
omission
on
my
part.
I
I
completely
also
agree
with
you
that
we
we
need.
We
we
mostly
can't
let
people
just
schedule
virtual
interims
whenever
they
want.
We
need
to
do
some
sharing
of
of
pain.
On
the
other
hand,
we
need
to
acknowledge
that
virtual
interims
are
happening.
R
You
know,
so
many
of
us
did
make
special
arrangements
during
this
week
to
be
able
to
stay
up
all
night
and
sleep
during
the
day,
or
something
like
this
and
and
that's
painful
for
for
some
people
to
be
able
to
do,
and
if
you
you
know,
if
you're
two
people
can't
get
there,
then
what
are
you
gonna
do?
So
I
don't
have
an
answer
to
that,
but
I
believe
it
is
a
tussle
and
I
believe
that
we
we
should
be.
H
C
H
Yeah
hi,
I
probably
also
have
more
equipment
than
a
question
so
like
I
was
actually
hoping
that
the
working
group
chairs
would
like
make
the
assessment
their
self,
because
it's
them
to
request
a
meeting
slot
during
the
meeting
or
it's
them
to
organize
an
indoor
meeting
and
they
know
best
how
their
working
group
works
and
how
their
what
the
needs
are-
and
I
do
think
that
we
have
seen
an
increase
of
interval
meetings,
which
I
think
is
a
good
thing,
because
for
a
long
time,
we've
been
trying
to
get
off
this
like
three
times
a
year
deadline
and
be
more
continuous
and
work.
H
H
So,
instead
of
trying
to
drive
this
from
the
top,
I
think
we
really
need
the
input
from
the
working
group
shares,
but
we
also
probably
need
to
provide
more
recommendations.
More
guidance
to
working
group
shares
about
how
to
do
this
and
how
to
do
this
differently.
It
was
done
including
time
zones
right,
including
having
a
way
to
more
coordinate
this
a
little
bit
so
and
that's
where
I
think
the
work
sits.
R
Well,
so
if
we,
if
the,
if
the
meeting
scheduling
was-
and
I
was
involved
in
it
in
2012-
to
update
the
software,
if
the
meeting
scheduling
was
not
so
critical
that
we
had
to
actually
you
know,
you
had
to
beg
for
your
slot
weeks
and
weeks
ahead
of
time,
then
I
think
that
that
would
allow
a
different
process.
The
process
I
would
like
to
see
is,
I
would
like
to
see
the
the
chair
submits
the
meeting
request
to
their
ad
and
the
ad
comes
back
and
says
great.
Show
me
the
agenda
right.
R
What's
the
actual
point
here
right?
What
are
you
doing
and
I'd
like
to
see
no
come
back,
especially
if
they
say
well,
but
you've
had
no
virtual
interims.
Why
aren't
you
doing
this
using
the
internet
right,
and
I
think
that
pushback
hasn't
happened
in
physical
meetings
for
whatever
reason
either,
and
we
had
this
conversation
in.
R
You
know
over
10
years
at
least
so
we
we've
just
basically
we've
just
basically
added
a
bandwidth
to
the
meetings
or
tried
to
and
and
at
this
point
we're
we're
suffering
from
congestion
and
we
need
to
drop
some
packets
right.
That's
the
answer.
H
R
I
I
agree
with
you,
so
I'm
gonna
still
say
that
it's
it's
in
that
it's
in
that
relationship
between
the
ed
and
the
working
group
chairs
that
that
has
to
happen
and
you're
saying
it's
more
has
to
be
led
by
the
working
group
chairs
and
I'm
saying
that
the
the
ad
may
have
to
actually
provide
some
sticks
as
well.
Some
carrots,
that's
all
I'm
trying
to
say.
C
D
O
C
Okay,
great
hello,
everybody
I'm
the
author
of
two
drafts
that
have
been
submitted
to
schmoo.
This
is
the
first
one
I
apologize
have
been
bad
and
I
have
not
updated
this
since
the
zero
zero
in
spite
of
a
bit
of
email
feedback
when
I
first
posted
it
and
the
problems
that
run
up
the
title,
which
keeps
saying
things
about
canceling
meetings
and
remote
meetings,
and
all
that
and
and
it's
not
what
it's
actually
about
is
what
are
the
criteria
to
cancel
an
in-person
meeting
that
is
scheduled
and
this
grow.
C
This
grew
out
of
the
work
that
the
llc
and
the
isg,
the
llc.
The
isg
worked
out
sort
of
an
ad
hoc
process
to
to
decide
on
whether
or
not
to
cancel
107,
which,
of
course,
we
did
cancel,
and
then
that
was
improved
a
little
bit
for
108
and
now
we
have
a
pretty
stable
model,
but
it's
still
focused
on
the
pademic,
of
course,
because
that's
the
purpose
of
it-
and
this
draft
is
meant
to
sort
of
generalize
this
to
other
sorts
of
events
that
could
cause
us
to
cancel
next
slide.
C
Right
so
so
you
know
we
had
no
choice
but
to
just
kind
of
make
it
up.
As
we
went
along,
we
used
the
rfcs
that
existed
for
for
venue,
selection
to
and
sort
of,
repurpose
them
for
for
the
cancellation
decision
to
see
if
the
site
was
still
suitable
meeting
those
criteria.
But
again
we
need
to
have
something
more
general
and
see
what
and
just
kind
of
say
what
are
the
alternatives.
C
If
we
can't
have
in-person
meeting
and
what
is
most
desirable,
what
would
the
community
must
like
to
see
in
lieu
of
a
embarrassing
meeting
next
slide.
C
C
They're
obviously
aware
whether
they're
actually
aware
whether
or
not
their
own
staff
and
contractors
can
enter
to
can
reach
the
location
they're
supposed
to
reach,
which
is
an
important
logistical
consideration
and
they
can
look
up
things
like
safety
guidelines
regarding
travel
advisories.
You
know
the
u.s
state
department,
whatever's,
marriage
or
not
have
sort
of
been
the
go-to
thing
for
us.
I
think
a
lot
of
insurance.
I
believe,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
insurance
policy
refers
to
state
department,
state
department,
guidance.
C
You
know
I
I
I
would
rather
not
get
into
a
bike
shed
about
the
u.s
state
department,
but
we
do
certainly
need
another
source
for
travel
advisories
to
the
united
states,
and
so
I
wanted
to
pick
another
english-speaking
country
for
the
simple
practical
reason
that
the
entire
ietf
staff
llc
staff
speaks
english,
which
makes
this
kind
of
a
practical
thing
to
follow.
But
I
I
certainly
am
open
to
suggestions
beside
the
uk
foreign
office.
C
If
people
don't
like
that
particular
choice,
I
was
I
was,
I
was
disappointed
to
find
out
that
the
eu
does
not
issue
eu
level
travel
advisories
to,
as
at
least
as
far
as
I
could
find.
The
isg's
role
is
to
decide
whether
or
not
technical
progress
is
possible,
given
the
attendees.
C
So
there's
a
lot
of
soft
restrictions
like
corporate
travel
restrictions
or
people
to
set
making
their
own
judgments
not
to
sign
up,
and
so
whether
so
whether
people
are,
and
that
ideal
is
not
like
a
strict
percentage
where
oh
well,
55
of
the
people
are
not
attending.
Therefore
we
can't
have
it.
What
we
did
for
107
was
actually
talk
to
working
group
chairs,
who
had
a
sense
of
who
was
going
to
be
there
or
not
and
sort
of
ask
them
individually.
C
You
know
just
get
the
sense
of
the
working
chairs.
Can
you
actually
have
a
productive
meeting
and,
of
course,
as
time
continues
as
time
went
on
like
more?
There
are
more
cancellations
and
travel
bans
and
we
couldn't
have
107.,
but
that
would
be.
That
would
be
the
kind
of
thing
the
llc
is
ill-equipped
to
judge,
and
I
thought
that
was
a
proper
iesg
role
and
I
just
want
to
point
out.
This
is
not
something
that
happens
necessarily
three
months
before
the
meeting.
C
You
like
a
horrible
example
could
be
that
you
know
in
july.
We
could
actually
be
in
san
francisco
and
there
could
be
a
serious
earthquake
on
the
wednesday
of
the
meeting
and
we
have
to
make
an
assessment
whether
to
cancel
it
or
to
continue,
and
these
sorts
of
criteria
would
be
useful
even
at
that
late
date.
C
Okay,
this
is
this
got
a
lot
of
comments
and
I
I
wanted
to
articulate
that
is
not
a
look
as
it
says
there.
This
is
not
an
assessment
of
the
feasibility
of
these
options.
In
fact,
I've
been
told
that
something
that
probably
extremely
unlikely
be
infeasible,
but
I
did
want
to
state
some
values
here
and
obviously,
if
there's
nothing
that
could
be
done,
then
nothing
can
be
done.
C
Postponement
you
know,
I
think
is-
is
self-explanatory,
then
virtualization,
which
is
what
we
in
fact
doing,
because
you
know
neither
relocation
or
postponed
would
be
helpful
in
the
pandemic
and
then,
of
course,
cancellation
is
is
the
worst
option
if
it
happens
extremely
with
extremely
late
notice,
maybe
all
we
can
do
and
of
course
that
has-
and
we
know
that
there's
impacts
on
non-com,
that's
a
whole
other
draft
next
slide.
C
And
then
the
last
bit
was
refunds,
just
some
principles
on
when
itf
should
offer
refunds
for
a
cancelled
meeting
and-
and
you
can
read
what
it
says
and
the
fifth
one
I
think
is
important
like
don't
don't
don't
blow
up
the
itf
in
in
in
service
of
these
principles?
P
C
Yes,
okay,
great
so
before
I
move
on
to
my
other
draft,
this
is
a
good
time
for
comments
and
questions.
A
Okay,
all
right
so
so
so,
martin,
like
you
know,
what
do
you
want
to
do
with
this?
Like
you
know,
you
want
to
like
kind
of
like
try,
an
adoption,
call
at
some
point
or
like.
Are
you
ready
with
this
or
you're,
expecting
more
feedback.
C
Well,
I
did
get
some
feedback
which
again
I
irresponsibly
did
not
put
into
to
the
drafts
and
update
it.
Just
it
fell
off
my
to-do
list.
I
will
update
this
into
a
new
draft
based
on
some
of
the
comments,
not
all
of
them.
I'm
going
to
take
so
we
can
see
what
people
say
about
that.
Maybe
that
will
generate
another
round
of
comments
on
the
list
and
and
yeah.
I
would
just
hope
that,
shortly
after
that,
we
could
do
call
for
adoption.
H
Yes,
sorry,
I'm
too
slow
following
multiple
sessions,
so
I
think
the
one
point
which
needs
slightly
more
discussion
is
maybe
this
point
about
like
trying
to
reallocate.
I
think
this
is
usually
just
not
practical,
and
I
really
see
that,
like
it's
still
still
worth
considering,
but
maybe
some
more
input
from
the
lsc
would
be
good
as
well.
C
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
certainly
I
mean
I'm
certainly
willing
to
scramble
the
priorities,
I'm
not
married
to
that
that
exact
rank
ordering,
although
I
think
cancellation
should
be
last
and
and
relocation
in
the
same
city,
should
be
first
or
at
least
to
something
reachable
over
the
same
airport.
H
Yeah,
I
mean
I
mean,
usually
you
have
your
whole
book
you
have
to
rebook
and
so
on.
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
ever
has
been
a
chance
to
relocate.
H
City
and
so
on
so
and
and
to
be
honest,
given
that,
like
we
have
now
much
more
experience
with
online
meetings,
maybe
this
is
a
more
valuable
option
than
it
was
like
a
year
ago.
So
yeah,
I'm
just
not
sure.
I
think,
there's
like
more
discussion
to
be
needed
here,
and
some
input
from
the
other
c
would
be
good.
C
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
thanks.
Okay,
so
now
the
infamous
show
of
hands
tool.
So
yes,
so
last
time
we
had
at
107.,
I'm
sorry
108.
We
had
the
virtual
hum
tool.
C
That
was
an
f,
so
humming,
of
course,
is
the
most
famous
sort
of
bespoke
itf
tradition
in
person
meetings
and
rather
than
try
to
make
judgments
about
the
hum
tool,
we
tried
to
replicate
as
closely
as
we
could,
and
so
there
was
a
lot
of
it
had
a
lot
of
features
that
were
sort
of
odd
and
and
certainly
not
available
off
the
shelf
next
slide.
C
So
I
I
I
spent
a
fair
amount
of
of
108
getting
feedback,
just
informal
combination,
sorry
conversations
and-
and
I
know
there
were
some
formal,
so
formal
methods,
collecting
notes.
There's
some
people
just
don't
like
humming,
which
I
think
is
a
little
bit
out
of
scope,
but
the
the
attempt
to
obfuscate
the
result
to
avoid
voting
just
led
to
a
lot
of
confusion
about
what
the
results
mean,
and
you
could
tell
by
like
a
lot
of
comments
about
it.
C
People
didn't
understand
the
results
unless
they
read
the
document
but
like
reading
the
spec
is
is
a
sign
that
if
you
have
to
read
the
spec
to
understand
the
results,
then
we've
sort
of
failed
and
like
humming,
has
some
informal
cues
in
it
that
we
didn't
really
successfully
replicate.
So
people
made
that
assumption
how
it
works,
and
so
there's
just
a
lot
of
trouble.
C
Interpreting
results.
Okay,
so
I'm
sorry,
so
I
want
to
I'll
help
the
jabber
scribe
out
here
and
say
that
jay
says
that
relocation
is
pretty
much
impossible
unless
the
venue
owner
has
a
spare
venue.
I
I
that
is
true.
I
mean
I
you've
told
me
that
before
jay
I
just
referred
to
my
original
point-
that
it's
not
an
assessment
of
feasibility.
C
C
So,
first
of
all,
we
recognized
early
on
that
we
should
have
built
a
show
of
hand
stool.
Just
because
who
has
read
the
draft
is
a
super
important
question
to
ask
in
person
meetings
and
we
didn't
have
that
in
the
home
tool.
C
So
we
were
going
to
do
that
anyway,
after
our
realization,
but
we
decided
also
that
and
by
we,
I'm
just
saying
the
isg
when,
because
we
have
to
do
this
ad
hoc,
because
shmu
is
just
you
know,
building
consensus
now
we
just
we
decided
just
to
like
trust
the
chairs,
not
to
reuse
this.
As
a
vote
to
say:
oh
well,
like
50
people
said
yes
and
40
people
said
no,
so
we
have
consensus
and
I
think
they've.
I
think
that
trust
has
been
has
been,
has
paid
off
today.
C
You
know,
I
don't
think
we're
seeing
abuse
abusive
of
the
used
hand,
stool,
it's
very
simple-
to
understand,
like
counts
of
people
and
unlike
real
show
of
hands,
we
have
made
it
anonymous
if
there
is
a
thing
like
who's
volunteering
to
read
the
draft,
you
can
use
the
chat
since
everybody's
on
jabber
now
well,
almost
everybody's
on
jabber,
so
we
thought
there
was
a
good
function
for
those
sorts
of
things
and
the
anonymity
might
have
some
good
dynamics,
so
he
did
deviate
a
little
bit
from
perfectly
replicating
in-person
show
of
hands.
C
So
we
also
consciously
decided
not
to
get
super
fancy
with
features.
I
know
we've
already
had
some
interesting
sort
of
enhancement
requests
and
we
have-
and
you
know
we
tried
to
take
a
little
more
agile
approach.
We
put
out
a
sort
of
minimum
viable
product
and
sort
of
see
what
things
people
really
want
to
do,
and
so
I
anticipate
some
improvements
in
110
and
this
draft
is
a
great
venue
to
kind
of
capture
those
requests
next
slide.
C
Okay,
great
so
comments
questions.
I
think
this
is
as
seresh
said
at
the
top.
I
think
this
is
like
the
other
draft
sort
of
on
charter,
and
so
assuming
that
we
think
the
show
of
hands
is
closer
to
something
like
something
like
this
should
be
further
developed
in
mediecal
land
than
I
think
it
was
candidate
for
adoption.
Of
course,
another
discussion
about
meat
echo,
but
that's
not
one,
I'm
tackling
here.
I
Hi
steven,
I
I
think
I
disliked
the
humming
tool
at
108
and
disliked
the
tool
this
time
even
more.
So
I'm
happy.
C
A
C
S
Hi
bob
hinden,
so
the
reason
I
didn't
like
the
hum
tool
as
a
working
group
chair
is
that
I
couldn't
tell
what
percentage
of
the
working
group
was
actually
humming.
S
You
didn't
mention
that,
and
that's
of
course
the
thing
I
like
about
the
new
show
of
hands
tool
is,
I
can
see
you
know
whether
it's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
room
or
no
one
in
the
room,
who's
raising
you
know
raising
their
hands.
I
think
that's
I
saw
I
liked
it
a
lot
better.
It
clearly
needs
some
work.
It's
easy
to
not
given
the
way
it's
implemented
in
the
tool.
S
C
C
C
F
T
David
cannot
thanks
for
bringing
this
up.
Martin,
I
so
first
off,
I
agree
with
stephen.
Please
just
don't
try
to
get
confessed
on
this
just
decide
what
you
think
is
best
and
bring
it
on.
Otherwise
we
can
argue
about
it
for
about
a
year
and
then,
by
the
time,
we'll
have
gotten
a
tool
that
we
agree
on
the
pandemic
will
be
over
and
then
one
thing
I
would
just
like
to
say,
like
the
definitely
a
lot
of
improvements.
T
Don't
raise
your
hand,
means
that,
and
so
now
so
ideally,
if
we
could
make
the
tool
so
that
the
chairs,
in
the
same
way,
that
the
shares
can
type
in
the
question
which
was
incredibly
helpful,
having
the
chairs
do
multiple
choice
where
they
can
fill
in
multiple
things
would
be
really
great,
because
it's
very
common
that
in
the
working
group
you
have
three
options,
and
one
thing
I'll
add
is
don't
make
it
a
radio
button,
make
it
a
check
box,
because
at
ietf
it
is
pretty
common
for
people
to
hum
like
let's
say
there
are
three
options:
the
home
for
two,
and
so
I
think
that
would
be
an
also
a
feature
to
keep
so
anyway
kind
of
my
laundry
list
of
features
I
can
bring
that
to
the
list,
but
otherwise
yeah
do
this
pick
something
make
it
so
keep
iterating
thanks.
C
All
right
thanks
david
two
responses
that,
first
of
all
yes,
multiple
choice,
is
something
we've
heard
a
couple
quite
a
few
times.
With
this
whole
mvp
concept,
we
literally
chose
not
to
make
the
ui
more
complicated,
but
that
is
something
that
I
think
is.
I
think
we
will
strongly
consider
for
for
110.
C
regarding
not
seeking
consensus,
so
we
will
continue
to
we're
not
going
to
wait
for
an
rfc
we're
going
to
continue
to
develop
this
tool,
and-
and
you
know
it
will
hopefully
improve-
and
you
know
by
the
end
of
this-
maybe
we'll
have
something
and
then
we'll
have
that
tool
forever.
So,
like
I
mean
we
could
just
have
it
forever
without
ever
having
a
consensus
on
what
it
should
do
like.
C
That
is
like
an
outcome,
I
guess,
but
I
I
don't
know
if,
if
the
worker
does
not
want
to
have
an
rfc
that
describes
us
at
the
end,
then
we
don't
have
to
have
one.
We
don't
have
to
adopt
this
draft,
but
I
I'm
open
as
to
whether
or
not
that's
well
I
mean
that's
what
this
discussion
is
for
to
see.
If
we
need
to
do
that.
A
Perfect,
thank
you
thanks
a
lot
martin
and
thank
you,
everybody
for
staying
on
and
sorry
we
ran
a
bit
over,
like
you
know,
scheduled
time,
but
we're
still
within
the
slot.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
the
fantastic
discussions.
A
There's
like
at
least
one
eruption
call
and
potentially
two
like
going
out
to
the
list
soon
and
for
the
rest
of
the
items
we
keep
on
nitrating.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
have
a
nice
rest
of
the
day
for
the
meeting
or
night.
So.