►
From YouTube: IETF110-SHMOO-20210309-1430
Description
SHMOO meeting session at IETF110
2021/03/09 1430
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/proceedings/
B
B
B
B
B
Okay,
I
still
don't
see
amelia,
so
I
think
we
should
get
started
off.
Can
you
hear
me,
can
somebody
type
in
the
chat
if
they
can
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
hear
you
perfect.
Thank
you,
charles.
Can
I
ask
you
or
jonathan
to
like
put
in
something
in
the
minute
so
I'll
cover
you
when
you're.
B
Presenting
just
like
high
level,
like
would
be
enough,
like
just
take
care
of
the
decisions,
if
there's
any.
C
B
Thank
you.
So,
just
like
you
know,
starting
off
with
the
note,
well,
I'm
sure
like
you've
seen
it
all
and
just
to
like.
You
know,
make
sure
that,
like
you
know,
if
you
have
any
questions
like
you
know,
please
read
the
relevant
rfcs.
B
They
have
more
details
than
what's
in
here
and
like
it
requires
like
more
time
than
I
can
show
the
slide
for
and
just
going
through,
yeah
and
thanks
charles,
like
for
taking
the
minutes
I'll,
be
watching
the
jabra
as
well
and
we'll
just
go
through
the
deliverables
very
quickly
and
go
on
to
the
presentations
for
the
working
group
drafts
and
the
the
hackathon
draft,
which
is
not
at
the
working
group
item.
B
So
we
have
like
four
classes
of
deliverables
and
the
idea
is
like
you
know,
kind
of
we
are
trying
to
start
adopting
drafts
as
soon
as
possible
when
there
was
a
candidate
for
it
and
the
first
two
guidelines.
So
first
of
them,
for
you
know
the
cancellation
considerations,
we
do
have
a
working
group
item.
This
is
like
martin's
draft.
It
was
our
press
working
group
item
between
the
last
two
meetings
from
the
last
meeting.
B
To
now
and
there's
like
some
comments
that
came
in
like
not
like
extremely
actionable,
so
there
is
concerns,
but
some
of
them
were
not
very.
I
would
say
it's
not
clear
like
what
changes
need
to
be
made
to
the
draft
so
but
jay's
comments
also
came
in
a
couple
of
days
ago.
B
So
martin
has
kind
of
put
together
some
kind
of
responses
for
that,
and
we
can
have
a
discussion
today
as
to
how
to
proceed,
incorporating
those
comments
and
there's
also
a
draft
for
the
meeting
fees
for
fully
online
meetings.
B
So
this
is
the
the
remote
feed
draft,
so,
like
john,
is
going
to
present
today,
along
with
media
and
rich
along
with
him,
and
this
this
one
has,
like
you,
know,
kind
of
a
lot
of
the
comments
already
integrated
into
the
draft,
and
so
I
think,
like
this
should
be
ready
for
working
group
last
call
pretty
quickly
and
as
the
meeting
planning
itself,
this
has
been
kind
of
like
lagging
a
little
bit
behind.
So
last
time
we
had
like
two
drafts.
B
One
of
them
is
like
mallory's
draft
another
one
is
michael's
draft.
They
both
were
presented
last
time
and
they
haven't
received
any
updates
in
there,
but,
like
charles,
has
updated
this
draft
for
the
hackathon
for
a
fully
virtual
itf
and
charles
present
today
and
the
technology
front,
really
there's
not
much
in
there.
I
was
expecting
like
you
know.
Quite
a
few
drafts
will
show
up
here,
but
this
has
been
surprisingly
very
little
activity
there
so
other
than
the
show
of
hands
draft.
B
We
haven't
seen
much
progress
in
this,
so
the
idea
is
like
to
continue
working
on
the
two
drafts
where
we
have
the
candidates
and
try
to
adopt
the
hackathon
draft
soon
and
continue
to
re-evaluate
like
you
know,
what
are
the
things
that
we
need
as
a
community
going
forward.
So
any
questions
on.
B
B
B
Okay,
so
going
on
like
so,
we
have
three
presentations
today.
Oh
somebody
in
the
mic
yeah,
please
go
ahead.
E
Yeah
hi
sriracha,
I
don't
I'm
yeah.
I
was
in
the
key,
I'm
not
sure
what
happened
there,
but
yeah
just
a
question
about
the
show
of
hands
tool.
So
at
one
point
we
discussed
the
idea
of
adopting
that
came
up
and
I
don't
remember
the
exact
context.
We
decided
not
to
adopt
it,
but
I
wasn't
aware
there
was
a
deliverable
in
this
area.
So
is
my
recollection
of
this
incorrect.
B
Yeah
there
is
like
a
technology
deliverable
in
the
system
right,
so
there
could
be
multiple
drafts
that
combine
together
to
satisfy
the
deliverable,
but
but
we
are
still
like
kind
of
like
deciding.
What
are
the
set
of
tools
right
and
and
the
feedback
for
this
was
let's
say,
like
a
lot
of
people
are
positive,
but
there's
also
like
a
lot
of
people
who
are
negative
and
some
people
like
ambivalent
on
this.
So
the
idea
is
to
figure
out,
like
you
know,
kind
of
what
are
the
set
of
tools
that
we
need.
B
So
once
we
get
the
first
two
drafts
on
the
way
we
can
continue
to
discuss
this
and
and
do
the
technology
pieces
right
like
and
that's
kind
of
the
high
level
thinking
I
have,
and
we
can
certainly
discuss
that
further
right,
like
you
know,
but
yeah
like
I,
I
do
think
it's
useful,
like
you
know,
I'm
not
sure,
like
you
know
how
the
results
have
to
be
presented
right.
B
Like
you
know,
the
the
piano
kind
of
stuff
is
like
kind
of
like
you
know,
weird
for
a
little
few
people
right,
but
that's
something
we
can
figure
out
like
you
know
how
we
use
some
tool
like
this
to
kind
of
judge
the
you
know
the
voice
out
the
audience
kind
of
thing,
so
yeah,
that's
kind
of.
E
My
image,
the
piano,
is
gone
because
we're
down
with
show
of
hands
but
but
regardless
yeah,
I'm
not
gonna,
be
rushed,
but
just
wanted
to
clarify
thanks
perfect.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
B
So,
john,
if
you
can
come
up
like
I'll
just
put
up
your
slides.
F
Yep,
can
you
all
hear
me
yeah,
thank
you,
so
john
reed
akamai
here
again
to
talk
about
this
draft
with
miria
and
rich
rich's
co-chairing
acme,
so
he's
not
here
right
now.
Basically,
where
we
are,
is
you
know,
we
think
we're
quite
close,
if
not
ready
for
working
group
last
call,
I
think
some
other
people
mention
that
on
the
list
and
there's
sort
of
two
pull
requests
that
concern
the
same
issue
that
you
know
I
feel
like
once.
F
We
resolve
those
we're,
probably
in
a
good
position,
and
that
issue
is
around
other
events
beyond
you
know,
meetings
and
working
group
sessions
and
there
were
sort
of
two
proposals.
One
was
simply
to
add
a
parenthetical.
That
meetings
include
other
related
events.
F
The
other
was
to
be
a
bit
more
detailed
about
explicitly
calling
out
the
other
events
and
some
examples
of
them,
such
as
you
know,
the
hackathon,
for
which
obviously,
a
fee
is
not
charged
right
now,
but
if
one
were
to
be
charged
in
the
future
to
indicate
that
this
draft
should
apply
to
that
as
well.
F
So
we
really
just
wanted
to
get
the
working
group's
opinion
as
to
whether
we
are
close
to
last
call
and
if
folks
have
any
opinions
on
either
of
the
two
methods
to
add
some
clarity
around
related
events,
so
really
short,
three
slides.
I
definitely
won't
need
the
whole
15
minutes
unless
there's
a
very
complicated
questions.
D
Yeah
I
I
just
want
to
say
that,
like
you,
can
also
just
go
and
get
up
and
have
a
look,
what
the
proposals
are.
But
it's
really
this,
like
general
question.
If
you
want
to
restrict
the
draft
on
meeting
fees
to
the
to
the
main
meeting
venue
only
or
if
you.
D
B
G
Yes,
I
mean
I'd,
be
careful
with
the
wording
about
free,
because
I
mean
right
now
we're
very
fortunate
that
we
have
very
good
support
from
isak
and
so
forth.
But
if
money
should
ever
get
tight,
then
we
you
know
maintaining
free
might
not
be
possible.
So
certainly
I
think
it's
it's
a
reasonable
goal,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
want
to
make
it
completely
authoritative,.
D
If
you
know,
if
there's
actually
a
problem
in
the
future,
they
need
to
come
back
to
the
community.
We
have
to
talk
about
it,
but
like
this
would
actually
change
the
base
principle
of
the
draft
entirely.
D
B
Yeah
thanks
bob.
I
I
think
that's
a
really
good
point
right
and
when
the
group
was
chartered,
that
was
like
ruled
out
of
scope
right
the
financial
model
itself
and
that's
probably
something
we
can
explore
afterwards
right
once
we
get
this
out
and
maybe
at
some
future
point,
if,
like
we
do,
think
it's
not
going
to
work
like
we
had
to
figure
out
like
what
is
the
venue.
But
right
now
we
are
not
chatted
to
look
at
the
financial
model
itself.
Bob.
G
B
Can
you
probably
suggest
some
text
bob,
like
you
know
where
you
want
some
changes
in
this?
If
that
would
be
good,
and
then
we
can
have
the
discussion
right
like
there's
like
this
is
generally
just
laying
down
a
principle
right
like
that.
We
want
to
follow,
and
if
you
think
this,
like
too
prescriptive,
we
can
have
the
discussion
on
where,
like
the
the
things
can
be
changed
there
right
all
right.
F
F
H
Yeah
hi,
so
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
the
the
two
proposals
for
the
or
the
proposals
for
the
related
events,
and
so
you
know.
Obviously
this
is
one
of
the
things
I
brought
up.
I
think
it's
important
to
cover
the
related
events.
H
H
It
seemed
like
it
could
work,
it's
a
it's
kind
of
a
tough
balance
between
putting
a
lot
where
you
think
it's
really
really
very
descriptive
and
there's
no
ambiguity
in
it
and
then
leaving
a
little
bit
of
ambiguity
so
that
the
draft
is
more
kind
of
future
proof
and
putting
the
related
events
to
me
was
an
okay
way
to
do
it.
H
I
think,
alternatively,
we
could
spell
out
some
of
the
events
that
we
know
about,
but
but
then,
as
soon
as
there's
something
new
that
we
all
agree
would
be
a
related
event,
but
it's
not
explicitly
mentioned.
Then
I
could
see
where
we
might
have
some
problems
so,
but
also
it
sounded
as
if
I
hadn't
seen
any
more
ongoing
discussion
after
what
was
in
the
mailing
list
is.
Is
the
discussion
continuing
in
github
or
because
I
could
take
a
look
there?
I
hadn't
seen
that
if
there
was
something
happening.
D
I
don't
think
there's
much
discussion
the
reason,
so
I
I'd
be
okay
with
the
small
change.
I'm
just
like
mentioning
it,
because,
like
putting
related
events
in
the
scope
was
something
we
really
didn't
consider
at
the
beginning.
So
it
does
change
the
scope
of
the
draft
quite
a
bit,
even
if
it's
just
like
two
words.
D
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
like
the
the
working
group
is
okay
with
this
actually
quite
big
change,
and
then
you
know
I
got.
I
got
start
thinking
about
this.
When
I
thought
about
social
events
right,
we
don't
have
remote
options
for
social
events,
but
like
do
we
need
to
offer
in
future
remote
option
for
social
revenge
and
has
this
to
be
have
a
free
option
as
well
right
and
my
answer
to
that
would
be
rather
than
no.
While,
if
you
talk
about
the
hackathon,
I
really
really
think
this.
D
This
should
be
free
and
we
should
make
it
possible
for
as
many
people
as
possible
to
participate
also
to
increase.
You
know
diversity
and
outreach
and
whatever,
but
like
at
that
point.
It
wasn't
a
super
easy
decision
for
me
anymore
anymore
and
like
I'm
okay,
to
to
take
the
two
words
in
to
to
leave
it
awake
and
to
have
a
discussion
at
another
point
of
time
when
it
comes
up.
But
it
would
also
be
okay
to
just
like
focus
on
meeting
fees
and
go
ahead
with
it.
H
Yeah,
I
mean,
actually,
you
reminded
me
of
one
of
the
things
was
pointing
to
the
other
rfc
I
forget
which
one
it
is,
that
defined
some
concept
of
intf
work
or
something
like
that,
and-
and
I
think
that
helped
because
at
least
for
me
that
differentiated
between
those
things
that
really
have
to
do
with
the
work
of
the
the
ihf
meeting,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
auxiliary
events
that
are
more
for
for
fun,
like
the
social.
H
D
H
D
I
Hey
so
I
I
I'm
sympathize
with
bob's
point
a
little
bit
in
the
sense
that
this
draft
at
the
moment
leaves
it
sort
of
completely
open
and
says
it
doesn't
talk
about
financials.
I
I
wonder
if
sort
of
a
middle
ground
proposal
would
be
to
add
something
to
the
draft
that
says
that
you
know
the
there
might
be
a
limit
to
the
number
of
free
passes
that
are
given
out
if,
if
financials
become
a
constraint
or
something
like
that,
so
you
at
least
sort
of
allow
that
as
a
possibility,
given
that
this
would
be
a
bcp,
because
at
the
moment
you
can
read
this
and
basically
say:
unlimited
free
passes
forever
right,
which
is
I'm
not
sure.
If
that's
the
extreme
we
want
to,
you
know
establish.
I
D
So
a
couple
of
points,
so,
first
of
all,
we
did.
We
didn't
put
a
limit
on
there,
because
that
was
when
this
meeting
remote
feeding,
if
he
came
up
on
the
ietf
list,
was
like
one
of
the
big
concerns
that
it
was
limited
to
100
people
only
and
nobody
understood
where
this
come
from
and
that
shouldn't
be
the
limit
it
shouldn't
it
should
not.
It
should
not
depend
on
how
much
money
we
have
to
do
it.
D
It
should
really
depend
on
if
somebody
needs
to
to
have
the
freeway,
but
in
order
to
participate
or
not
right,
people
who
have
been
participating
remotely
without
a
fee
should
be
able
to
do
that.
They
should
be
able
to
just
continue
their
work
and
binding
the
viability
of
the
atf
to
meeting
fees.
You
know
it's
a
completely
different
discussion,
because
when
you
say
we
cannot
provide
free
waivers
anymore
because
we
don't
have
enough
money.
J
F
C
D
To
the
llc
what
they
do
with
it
is
a
different
question,
and
that's
my
third
one,
so
we
do
discuss
a
little
bit
about
misuse
in
the
draft,
because
there
should
always
be
enough
money
for
people
who
actually
need
the
fee.
The
waiver
to
have
that
shouldn't
be
a
concern
because
it
shouldn't
be
like
a
huge
amount
of
money.
The
larger
amount
of
participants
should
actually
pay,
because
that's
how
the
atf
works.
There
are
companies
who
have
money
who
want
to
participate,
who
get
something
out
of
it
right.
D
D
F
Yeah-
and
you
know
like
we
said
we
do-
have
those
two
sections
in
there,
so
you
know
I
I've
heard
some
folks
say
that
we
should
talk
about
it.
You
know
we
do
talk
about
it.
So
having
some
more
concrete
suggestions
of
of
you
know,
ways
to
address
this
that
is
not
already
addressed
by
the
text
would
be
helpful
if
folks
have
feedback
on
that.
B
I
I
think
I'll
I'll
send
some
text.
John
and
maria
right,
like
I
do
have
some
thoughts
on
this,
so
I
will
send
some
sample
text.
I
I
I
understand
where
bob
and
lars
are
coming
from
I'll
see.
If
I
can
come
up
with
some
text,
which
kind
of
doesn't
say:
hey
llc
figured
it
out
to
going
saying:
hey
like
we
don't
we
do
fixed
numbers.
So
I
I
don't
like
the
fixed
number
thing
either.
So
I
think
I'll
think
of
some
text.
D
B
Okay,
thank
you,
martin.
You
are
up
next.
E
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
conceptually
the
idea
that
there's
like
a
fixed
number
of
free
waivers
that
we
can
afford
it's
just
it's
just
not
correct,
like
the
marginal
cost
of
of
a
remote
attendees
is
essentially
zero,
so,
like
free
waivers,
are
only
a
problem
to
the
extent
that
they
co,
that
we
they
cannibalize
people
who
would
otherwise
pay.
And
you
know
I
mean
I
I'm.
E
You
feel
about
some
of
the
language
about
like
criteria,
for
that
I
mean
we've
gotten
away
with
now,
with
just
like
sort
of
just
saying,
an
honor
system
that
may
become
untenable
at
some
point,
but
we're
certainly
not
there
today
and
I
wouldn't
mind
language
that
made
it
clear
that
we
could
tighten
those
restrictions
if,
if
they're
proved
to
be
a
problem
but
but
having
a
free
option.
I
know
I
don't
think,
there's
any
limit
on
how
many
on
how
many
waivers
you
can
grant.
D
B
Thank
you.
I
don't
see
anybody
else
in
the
queue
unless,
like
charles,
lars
or
martin,
you
want
to
make
another
comment.
B
Okay,
thank
you
so
media,
like
and
john
I'll,
send
you
the
like
text
I
promise
like
within
a
week
or
so
and
and
let's
try
to
get
the
draft
to
work
to
last
call
and
see
how
things
go
from
there.
B
Thanks
martin
you're
up
next
I'll
start
sharing.
E
Yes,
all
right,
so
we
had
another
successful
adoption
call
a
while
back
and
thanks
for
everyone's
comments.
This
is
my
very
short
summary
of
the
email
feedback.
I
would
say
that,
at
the
time
these
messages
were
sent.
I
would
agree
with
all
of
these
sentiments,
but,
as
suresh
hinted,
I
don't
think
there's
any
any
actionable
stuff
here.
E
I
invite
people
to
continue
to
read
the
document
and
and
comment
next
slide,
but
I
did
ask
jay
to
next
slide,
please
I
did
ask
jay,
as
you
know,
the
llc's
as
soon
as
the
implementer
of
this
draft,
and
actually
I
think
this
applies
to
some
lego
drafts
too,
like
some
feedback
for
the
llc
would
be
good
because
they
will
be
implementing
this.
I.
K
E
Of
time
to
digest
this,
but
I
would
summarize
the
this
is
the
main
points
he
introduced.
This
concept
emergency
versus
non-emergency,
in
which,
like
there's
time
for
consultation
versus
the
llc,
just
has
to
kind
of
execute,
and
I
think
it's
a
useful
concept
and
I'm
planning
to
put
in
the
next
version
of
the
draft
another
thing
he
called
out
that
I
think
needs
more
discussion
regards
the
roles
of
the
llc
and
the
iesg
in
the
current
version
of
the
draft.
E
The
llc
is
purely
addressing
the
ability
of
the
venue
to
support
the
meeting
and
and
that
it
is
safe
to
to
have
people
attend,
and
the
isg
is
fully
responsible
for
saying,
with
this
number
of
people
and
this,
this
constellation
of
bands
and
so
on.
We're
able
to
carry
on
the
work
of
of
meeting
effectively
in
person-
and
this
is,
I
think,
kind
of
how
it
worked
in
107,
which
is
where
we
really
deal
with
this.
E
We,
the
isg,
went
out
to
the
working
groups
and
kind
of
pulled
them
and
said,
like
you
know,
do
you
have
enough
people
and
obviously
this
the
situation
changed
very
quickly
and
we
had
to
cancel
regardless
of
the
answer,
but
for
a
while
we're
looking
at,
do
we
have
enough
people?
E
We
asked
the
working
chairs
if
it
was
viable
for
them
to
continue
with
the
current
situation
regarding
corporate
travel
bans
and
so
on,
and
that
and
like
the
advantage
of
that,
that
approach
is
that
you
know
it
gets
the
llc
out
of
the
business
of
saying.
Well,
you
know
this
nation
has
a
travel
ban
to
the
host
nation,
but
like
it's
not
that
important
to
the
standards
process
we
continue
and
like
this
company
is,
is
you
know
this
company
is
important?
E
Has
a
travel
ban
or
a
boycott
or
whatever
and
just
kind
of
gets
out
of
those
sorts
of
fine-grained
decisions?
Jay
pointed
out
that
rfc,
oh
gosh,
I
lost
the
number.
Now
I
think
it's
like
87
13
or
something
has
a
has
a
meeting
criterion
in
its
normal
venue
vetting
process
that
the
vast
majority
of
attendees
can
attend.
So
I
think
the
number
we've
been
using
for
vast
majority
is
80,
and
so
I
would.
E
Not
so,
let's
see,
okay,
I'm
gonna,
assume
that
you
can
hear
me
again,
the
so
like.
I
think
it
is
probably
fine
to
have
something
like
an
80
threshold
for
the
llc
to
evaluate
based
on
historic
attendance
and
and
still
give
the
isu
the
role
to
do
more
fine
grain
control.
E
Like
I
mean,
for
instance,
in
san
francisco,
I
think
it's
entirely
possible
coming
up
here
at
111
that
us
domestic
travel
will
be
completely
fine,
but
international
travel
will
be
pretty
broken,
and
that
implies
that
we
would
have
something
like
50
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
population
that
could
attend
and
that
would
meet
the
the
llc's
criteria,
but
the
isg
would
still
be
well
known,
so
I'd
say
no,
that's
not
satisfactory
and
and
stop
it.
E
There
jay
also
had
some
other
rewardings
that
that
I
would
that
I'm
just
gonna
implement,
I
think
they're
uncontroversial
I
can
take.
I
can
take
charles
out
of
the
queue
now
to
talk
about
this
before
I
go
to
the
next
slide.
E
Along
okay,
then
jordy-
I
guess,
spurred
by
by
jay's
review,
had
some
additional
comments.
So
another
issue
that
you
know
I
kind
of
anticipated
would
be
a
little
controversial
was
that
the
safety
was
obsessed.
It
was
assessed
via
travel,
advisories
and
for
various
reasons,
the
us
department
of
state.
It
is
a
fairly
long-standing
well-respected
source
of
travel.
Advisories.
E
It's
in
english,
which
is
useful,
since
the
llc
staff
is
guaranteed
to
speak
english.
However,
they,
the
us
dos,
does
not
provide
advisors,
travel
to
the
united
states,
and
so
I
needed
another
another
source.
I
I
thought
the
eu
might
be
a
good
source,
but
they
don't
do
that
at
the
eu
level,
and
so
the
uk
foreign
office
happens
to
be
english
speaking
and
not
in
the
u.s.
So
I
picked
that
one,
I'm
completely
happy
to
suggest
an
albert
source.
E
There
jordy
isn't
really
happy
with
that
and
would
like
some
other
formulation.
I
think
the
one
he
proposed
is
not
really
viable,
but
I'm
I'm
open
to
some
other
one
there
and
then
his
other
comment
was
on
reimbursement.
E
So
the
current
reimbursement
text
is
that
the
itf
there's
some
there's
some
caveats
in
there
and
some
some
exceptions,
but
basically
that
if
the
idf
cancels
the
meaning,
it
should
refund
your
meeting
fees,
but
not
your
travel
costs
and
there's
an
escape
clause
like
let's
not
become
insolvent.
Because
of
this.
Let's
not
go
bankrupt,
an
effort
to
refund
people
he
wanted.
He
wanted
the
itf
to
refund
travel
fees.
E
That
seemed
like
seems
problematic
to
me,
because
itf
doesn't
have
that
money
in
the
first
place,
like
the
airlines
and
hotels
do,
but
I
mean
I
guess
I
can
see
the
reasoning
behind
his
argument.
So
I
I'm
happy
to
take
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation,
I'm
happy
to
take
thoughts
and
comments
about
any
of
these
items.
E
B
Thank
you
thanks.
Martin
media
go
ahead.
I
Yeah,
I
agree
with
miriam
right:
there's
travel
insurances
that
can
be
obtained
if
one
wants
to
use
them
or
if
your
employer
pays
for,
and
they
have
that
and
the
idea
can
simply
not
do.
I
K
Yup
my
point
about
refunding
is
that
if
there
is
a
decision,
a
grown
decision
of
cancelling
a
meeting
that
should
have
some
liability
on
the
idf
I
mean
if
there
is
a
global
emergency
or
a
local
emergency
or
whatever.
K
I
think
that's
fine,
but
what
happens
if
the
atf,
the
llc,
take
a
wrong
decision
that
that
was
my
point.
Maybe
I
didn't
make
it
clear,
so
I
am
not
talking
in
general,
but
we
need
to
to
put
a
limit
borderline
about
what
can
be
a
good
decision
to
cancel
a
meeting
and
what
not,
especially
because
if
we
cancel
a
meeting
because,
for
example,
half
of
the
participants
decide
not
to
attend
and
nothing
is
happening,
I
mean
nothing
that
that
avoids
the
meeting
coming
on.
K
Of
course,
the
itf
is
saving
some
money,
so
some
of
this
money
being
saved
can
be
used
to
to
to
to
pay
back
the
participants
that
they
don't
they
are
not
able
to
get
the
refunding
from
the
from
the
airline.
Okay.
That
was
my
point
about
the
funding.
K
The
the
other
point
about
the
u.s
advisory
and
the
uk
advisory
is
first.
They
are
wrong.
I
recall
that
was
about
four
years
ago.
The
uk
advisory
was
still
saying
that
spain
is
a
terrorist
country
and
we
cannot
have
meetings
there
and
is
suggested
not
to
travel
there.
It's
ridiculous,
that's
the
first
thing,
so
that
shows
that
they
are
clearly
political
bias.
K
The
second
thing
is
that
it's
unethical
and
it's
discriminatory
for
any
itf
document.
To
cite
any
specific
country,
I
suggested
awarding
that
I
think
in
my
work
why
we
don't
need
to
to
to
to
mention
specific
countries.
If,
if
the
insurance
companies
are
already
mentioning
the
advisories
from
us,
then
you
don't
need
to
put
that
in
a
rarefield,
because
it's
already
in
the
contracts
from
the
insurance
right
so
making
the
the
document
transparent,
clear
and
very
neutral.
K
E
I
I
think,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of.
Let
me
take
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
a
few
of
those
items
so.
E
E
Like
and,
and
so
actually,
cancellation
can
often
cause
a
loss
of
money
because
if,
if
we,
if,
because
the
of
course,
the
venue
fees
are
being
covered
by
the
dues
which
we
are
refunding,
and
so
if
we
can't
recover
the
due,
if
we
can't
recover
the
the
venue
costs
and
and
refund
the
fees,
then
we'll
actually
take
a
big
loss
on
that
cancellation.
So
I
don't
think
it's
a
generally.
I
hope
applicable
statement
that
that
the
itf
is
saving
money
there.
E
In
terms
of
the
language
that
you
proposed,
I
mean,
I
think,
what
you
actually
wrote
was
something
of
the
nature
of
like
if
any
local,
regional
or
national
authority
says
that
it's
unsafe
to
travel
there,
that,
like
that,
would
be
grounds
to
cancel
and
that
that
seemed
really
expensive.
Maybe
it's
not
what
you
meant
so
I'm
I
invite
some
additional
language
there.
The
other
thing
about
the
contracts
is
so
to
to
for
a
little
background
for
people.
E
So
one
thing
I
pointed
out
that
in
2020
our
insurance
contracts
would
reimburse
us
for
cancellation
if
there
was
a
u.s
travel
advisory
to
a
certain
place.
So
that
obviously
has
a
big
bearing
on
the
fiscal
result
of
cancellation
and
that's
one
reason
we
put
it
and
the
fact
that
it's
in
the
contract
is
gives
us
the
fact
that
it's
in
the
contract
gives
us
good
reason
to
believe
that
the
financial
cover
will
be
better
if
we
cancel
with
that
advisory.
E
Have
it
be
fairly
prescriptive,
rather
than
making
the
llc
to
sort
of
pick
like
some
authorities
based
on
things
and
like
if
you
have
specific
issues
with
the
ukfo,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
suggest
a
different
second
alternative,
preferably
english
speaking
because
there's
often
nuanced
in
these
things
and
again
the
llc
staff
speaks
english
at
least
so
you
know
I'd
be
happy
to
go
australia,
new
zealand
or
even
maybe,
india
or
or
some
other
anglophone
country,
or
some.
E
B
Yeah
thanks,
martin
and
and
jody
thanks
for
the
comment
right
like
so
well.
A
couple
of
things
I
wanted
to
mention,
like
one
of
the
things
is
like
it's
not
clear
that
the
the
contracts
like
are
not
confidential
right.
So
some
of
the
times
like-
and
I
think,
like
probably
jason,
is
on
the
meeting
right
like
if
he
wants
to
like
chime
in
right,
but
a
lot
of
the
times
like
the
contracts
might
be
confidential,
so
it's
kind
of
hard
for
us
to
verify
as
a
community
what's
in
there
right.
B
So
I
think
putting
in
some
kind
of
sources
in
there
is
interesting
and-
and
the
second
thing
is
kind
of
we
need
to
look
at
where
the
participants
come
from.
Right,
like
you
know
so,
maybe
like
there
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
waiting
for
that
as
well.
Right
like
an-
and
I
think
like
martin,
I
don't
know
it
was
you
who
said
right
like
hey
there's.
If
there
was
a
u-wide
like
advisory
somewhere,
we
could
take
that
right
and-
and
I
think
that
could
be
a
fair
play.
B
So
if
you
can
help
us
jody
right
like
I
know
you
do
a
lot
of
these
things
in
the
looking
at
like
a
lot
of
the
advisories
and
everything
from
the
use.
B
So
if
you
can
point
us
to
some
source
there
to
add
in
us
like
a
third
source,
I
think
that
will
be
good
so
like,
and
I
fully
agree
it
shouldn't
be
discriminatory,
but
like
the
the
only
way
to
handle
it
is,
like
probably
add,
more
sources
that
you
feel
will
balance
out
the
thing
rather
than
and
taking
out
one
more
thing
and
just
letting
the
us
stand
there
right.
I
think
that
probably
the
is
the
best
way
forward.
Thanks
so
suggest
text
jodi.
Thank
you.
E
There's
no
one
else
in
the
queue
I
believe
so
so,
just
to
conclude
so
I
will
make
I
will
make
the
the
non-country
what
I
view
on
controversial
changes
that
jay
suggested.
I
will
play
with
the
formulation
of
some
of
these
things.
I
haven't
heard
anything
about
the
isg
llc
split
issue
that
jay
raised
that
I
mentioned.
E
I
I
mean
I'm
inclined
to
probably
go
with
the
compromise
that
I
suggested,
which
is
that
there's
this
very
high
80
threshold
and
that
the
the
isg
has
some
discretion
below
that
number
to
to
further
to
cancel
the
meeting
anyway.
Unless
somebody
speaks
up
about
it,
so
I
would
expect
to
see
those
changes
in
the
draft.
I
I'm
I'm
searching
for
a
new,
so
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
pushback
on
this
refund
travel,
cost
idea,
both
the
mike
and
in
the
jabber.
E
I'm
I'm
open
to
a
formulation
on
on
this
for
on
this
travel
advisory
thing,
but
I
don't
think
I've
seen
it
yet
in
the
thread.
So
I
don't
know
what
changes
I'm
gonna
make
at
this
time.
Unless
I
see
something
that
worked,
I
think
works.
B
I
don't
see
anybody
else
in
the
queue
I'll
give
you
a
couple
of
minutes
if
somebody
wants
to
get
in
the
queue.
While
I
line
up
charles's.
H
Yeah,
so
this
draft
I
presented
at
ihf
109
as
well
running
an
ietf
hackathon,
it's
not
specifically
just
for
running
the
hackathon
from
the
perspective
of
online
only
meetings,
it's
really
about
running
the
hackathon
overall,
but
has
some
discussion
in
there
about
aspects
of
it
which
are
pertinent
to
to
online
meetings
to
remote
participation
into
online.
Only
meetings
as
well.
H
So
the
changes.
This
version-
that's
posted,
now,
zero
to
the
current
version,
basically,
all
the
feedback
from
iatf
109
and
the
things
we
learned
from
that
hackathon.
H
We
made
some
enhancements
in
preparation
for
that,
the
one
for
iegf
110,
which
we
just
had
last
week,
and
so
there's
some
information
about
those
that
I
added
then
the
other
thing
was
in
going
through
this
process,
realizing
that,
although
online
only
is
a
big
focus
of
you
know
this
working
group
and-
and
that
was
the
way
I
stated
it
in
the
draft-
that
really
a
lot
of
what
we
were
adding
in
there
for
online
only
is
just
important
for
remote
participation
in
general.
H
So
changing
the
way
it's
described
it
to
indicate
that
and
then
this
the
current
draft
was
also
shared
with
the
it
was
discussed
during
the
hackathon
itself
last
week
and
and
shared
on
that
list.
So
expecting
some
good
comments
to
come
back
from
those
who
who
were
participating
in
these
online
hackathons
next
slide.
H
Please
the
one
big
change
I
wanted
to
point
out,
and
this
really
came
about
as
a
result
of
comments
from
from
several
people.
I
think
at
the
last
ietf
meeting
of
109.,
and
that
was
broadening
the
the
scope
and
the
example
I
I
have
here
is
taken
from
the
abstract,
and
I
think
this
more
accurately
reflects
the
current
spirit
of
the
hackathon
that
we
want.
H
Initially
it
was
focused
as
being
just
for,
or
at
least
worded
as
being
only
for
developers.
Of
course,
we
know
we've
moved
from
that.
We
want
to
be
able
to
attract
developers,
this
kind
of
a
missing
entity
or
an
underrepresented
entity
in
the
ietf,
but
it's
really
for
the
whole
ietf
community
and
what
we
see
is
it's
very
valuable
to
people
who
aren't
developers
subject
matter,
experts
of
all
sorts
and
and
so
captured
that
the
other
thing
was.
H
It
was
initially
stated
as
showing
examples
focusing
on
showing
examples
of
practical
implementations
of
ietf
standards,
and
we
know
that
people
use
it
for
much
more
than
that.
It
really
has
to
do
with
a
running
code
related
to
any
existing
or
evolving
or
proposed
ietf
standards.
So
I
made
those
two
changes
in
the
abstract,
but
you'll
see
that
reflected
throughout.
H
This
was
thanks
to
to
benson.
We
added
an
html
template
for
project
presentations.
A
key
part
of
the
hackathon
is
the
the
presentations
that
we
do
at
the
end
where
people
show
hey.
This
is
what
we
actually
accomplished
and
really
focusing
on
the
information.
H
That's
going
to
come
back
to
the
ietf
working
group
to
to
move
the
you
know
the
ietf
standards
that
are
involved
forward,
so
we
had
a
powerpoint
template
which
people
were
welcome
to
use,
and
many
did
and
spencer
pointed
out
it'd
be
really
nice
to
have
an
html
template.
It
actually
plays
nicer
with
with
github
and
some
of
the
change
tracking
tools
and
it's
just
much
lighter
weight
and
you
know
very
lightweight
format
for
people
to
use.
H
So
we
added
that
there
are
some
technical
problems
with
it
currently
and
benson
pointed
that
out
to
me.
So
I'm
going
to
try
to
fix
that
and
and
probably
get
benson's
help
to
do
that
as
well
and.
H
We
talked
about
sponsor
benefits
and
this
is
not
really
needed,
necessarily
for
actually
running
the
hackathon,
but
we're
talking
about
you
know
having
free
options
for
things
and
the
hackathon
currently
is
free
for
everyone,
and
so
obviously
there's
costs,
and
so
the
feeling
was
it
was
important
to
say
what
sponsors
actually
get
out
of
it,
and
so
there
was
some
information
added
in
the
draft
and
now
the
the
sponsorship
that
the
ietf
has
has
been
kind
of
revamped,
a
bit
where
there's
a
running
code
sponsor.
H
Next
slide,
yeah.
H
You
know
going
through
this
documentation
process.
I
realized
hey.
There
are
several
places
where
the
chairs
are
emailed
directly
as
the
contacts
using
their
personal
or
you
know,
work
email
address
and
it's
obviously
better
to
have
an
alias
for
that.
So
we
just
did
the
same
thing.
We
do
for
working
groups,
basically
asked
the
secretariat
to
create
an
alias
and
now
we're
using
that
everywhere,
and
so
that's
been
updated
in
the
draft
as
well.
H
Next
slide
and
as
I
mentioned
the
online
only
there
were
several
places
where
we
removed
this
and
changed
it
to
focus
more
on.
You
know.
These
are
aspects
that
help
support
remote
participation
in
general,
and
the
examples
here
highlighted
are
webex
accounts
for
hackathon
project
leads
that
they
can
use.
You
know
for
their
team.
H
It's
really
helpful
for
meeting
with
remote
participants,
even
if
you're
at
an
in-person
meeting
the
use
of
gather
the
expectation
is
that
will
actually
stick
around
after
we
start
meeting
in
person
again
and
then
yeah,
so
switching
the
expenses
that
were
identified
as
being
for
online
only
meetings
to
really
being
aspects
that
are
needed
for
remote
participation.
H
Okay,
so
next
steps
fix
the
the
html
template
stuff.
I
mentioned
we're
using
github
for
tracking
issues
so
address
those
and
then
incorporate
feedback
from
based
on
what
we
learned
from
this
ietf
hackathon
and-
and
hopefully,
some
good
discussion.
That's
going
to
happen
here
and
on
the
mailing
list.
H
Next
slide,
so
specific
questions
for
the
working
group.
So
we
just
had
a
discussion
here
about
fees,
and
you
know
what
the
hackathon
draft
says
is
that
the
hackathon
is
is
free
but
we're
not
assuming,
although
I'd
love
for
it
to
always
stay
free
for
everyone.
In
the
event
it
didn't,
the
thought
was
hey.
H
We
need
to
cover
or
thought
it
was
important
to
cover
remote
participation,
the
hackathon,
so
so
in
case
you
weren't
following
that
discussion
before
wondering
where
that
came
from
that
was
kind
of
what
I
had
in
mind
when
I
brought
it
up
and
I
think
we
have
a
workable
solution.
I
just
forwarded
an
email
to
list
to
kind
of
kick
that
discussion
back
back
up
and
hopefully
wrap
it
up.
H
But
then,
as
we
figure
that
out
then
do
we
need
to
talk
about
meeting
fees
anymore
in
the
draft.
I
would
just
like
other
people's
opinion
on
this.
I
think
it's
okay,
as
is,
but
it'd,
certainly
be
helpful
as
we're
thinking
about
fees
in
general.
H
So
the
next
thing
there
was
actually
a
bit
of
a
discussion
in
the
chat.
This
is
out
perhaps
out
of
scope
for
this
meeting,
but
the
the
feedback
from
the
online
hackathon
has
been
good
and
that
people
are
like
hey.
You
know
it's
great
that
we're
having
it.
This
is
useful,
we're
getting
some
some
good
things
done,
but
I
think
I
have
the
feedback.
H
Each
time
has
been
it's
certainly
not
better
than
or
certainly
not
doesn't,
replace
the
in-person
experience
and
a
lot
of
the
social
interaction,
the
productivity,
the
participation
it
all
suffers,
and
we've
certainly
seen
that,
in
terms
of
the
number
of
people
presenting
participating
the
number
of
projects,
we
have
how
many
people
actually
work
on
each
project.
A
lot
of
the
projects
just
have
one
or
two
people.
Now,
instead
of
those
nice
group
projects
that
had
you
know
a
dozen
or
more
so
it's
clear
from
the
hackathon
participants
that
you
know
we're
really.
H
In-Person
events
and
then
you
know
we
have
metrics
and
also
we
do
hackathon
surveys.
So
that
was
another
thing
I'm
wondering
if
it
should
be
captured.
So
I
would
love
some
discussion
on
these
things.
You
know
as
soon
as
I
finish
going
through
them
all
or
on
the
list
and
then
the
last
question
would
be
at
itf
109.
H
We
confirmed
that
that
this
group
was
a
good
place
to
work
on
this
draft
and
I
feel
like
it's
in
pretty
good
shape
now
to
where
I'm
hoping
it
can
be
adopted
by
the
working
group
as
a
working
group
draft,
maybe
more
of
a
question
for
the
chairs
than
just
for
the
working
group
but
anyways.
Those
are
the
questions
and
love
to
get
some
discussion
going
on
them
or
anything
else.
H
D
Yeah,
actually,
thanks
for
writing
this.
I
think
it's
useful
to
document
all
these
things,
because
you
said
like
the
feedback
you
get
is
kind
of
kind
of
positive,
but
you're
missing
the
in-person
meetings,
so
my
experience
was
a
little
bit
that
it's
somehow
a
completely
different
thing
right
and
at
the
in-person
meetings
you
just
walk
around.
You
talk
to
random.
K
D
D
I
would
I
would
even
like
to
kind
of
keep
those,
unfortunately,
usually
this
week
before
the
ietf
meeting,
it's
where
you
sit
a
lot
of
time
in
the
airplane,
so
you
can't
really
participate
at
the
hackathon,
but
maybe
that's
something
to
to
consider
that,
like
when
we
move
back
to
in
person
that
you
maybe
want
to
add
something
to
that
where
you
have
like
a
pre-meeting
the
monday
before
or
whatever
to
like,
also
keep
some
of
the
benefits
we
see
right
now,.
H
Yeah,
that's
a
good
point.
That's
something!
We've
talked
about
doing.
We've
had
like
pre-hackathon
calls,
but
they've
been
a
little
more
focused
on
the
I
don't
know
the
running
of
the
hackathon.
I
guess
the
the
flow
of
how
the
event
goes
as
opposed
to
getting
work
started
on
your
projects,
but
certainly
we've
always
encouraged
people
to
work
on
projects
leading
into
the
hackathon
and
many
groups
do.
H
H
Actually,
that's
that's
when
a
lot
of
us
do
the
best
coding,
though,
because
you're
completely
offline,
usually
so
it's
like,
I.
L
Ahead
a
lot
for
your
thanks.
I'm
sorry
thanks
a
lot
for
your
work
on
this
charles
and
we've
been
participating
in
the
hackathon
quite
a
bit
and
doing
it
online
changed
the
dynamics.
L
When
we
were
having
it
in
person,
we
would
get
walk-ins
from
people
who
had
excellence,
coding
skills,
but
now
we
do
it
online.
We
have
a
lot
of
new,
first-time
participants
to
the
project
and
people
that
now
are
also
interested
in
participating
into
the
in
the
ietf
which
the
barrier
is
lower
because
there's
also
the
fee
waiver,
so
we're
getting
in
quite
a
lot
of
fresh
blood
and
for
them
the
hackathon
is
also
a
relatively
low
barrier
of
entry.
L
So
I
think
that
is
that's
also
a
real
nice
function
of
the
hackathon,
which
might
be
a
bit
more
foregrounded
in
the
in
the
draft
as
well.
Because,
aside
from
running
code,
I
think
it's
also
a
place
where
a
lot
of
new
people
feel
a
lower
barrier
of
entry
in
the
ietf
to
integrate
it
a
bit
more.
Perhaps
the
ietf
plenary
could
be
used
to
present
some
of
the
outcomes
of
the
hackathon.
Of
course,
not
all,
and
not
necessarily
a
winner,
but
maybe
some
some
highlights,
maybe
some
things
you
found
or
others
found.
L
I
know
you've
given
presentations,
but
maybe
some
getting
some
people
and
some
highlights
might
be
cool.
Furthermore,
the
track
wiki
feels
a
bit
fragile
if
it
didn't,
the
champions
might
update
it
a
bit
more
with
like
daily
updates,
where
they've
got
with
a
bit
of
a
schedule,
links
and
maybe
even
tickets,
but
I'll
I'll
I'll
leave
that
to
others.
So
those
were
my
two
cents
thank,
but
thanks
a
lot
for
organizing
and
yeah.
B
Thanks
and
I
think
like
one
thing
is
like
you
know,
there
is
usually
a
summary
of
the
hackathon
in
the
plenary.
Is
there
something
specific
you're
looking
for
nils
in
there
or
like
you
know,
you
think
it
should
be
expanded
from
what
it
is
today
or
just
trying
to
ask
like,
because
there
is
something
there.
L
I
thought
it
would
be
nice
if
maybe
some
of
the
projects
would
have
some
space
so
that
also
people
are
more
relatively
new,
have
a
bit
more
time
in
the
sun
and
to
integrate
them
a
bit
further
in
the
community
and
get
them
a
bit
more.
Visibility
of
the
super
cool
and
interesting
work,
and
generally
people
also
love
to
see
new
work
right.
So
that's
fun.
H
Thank
you
yeah.
So
just
a
couple
things
we
we
do
so
you
know
we.
We
rely
first
on
the
the
closing
of
the
hackathon,
so
you
know
that's
when
the
presentations
actually
happen
and
that
does
get
recorded.
So
in
this
case
this
was
that
was
friday
last
week.
But
then
you
know,
I've
noticed
in
several
working
group
meetings
that
I've
gone
to
or
been
in
that
have
the
hackathons
with
the
projects
that
the
teams
worked
on
related
to
the
working
group
have
been
presented
in
the
netconf.
H
H
So
we've
opted
more
for
presenting
them
in
the
in
the
working
group
sessions
and
in
more
detail
just
because
in
the
plenary
we
did
that
a
couple
times,
and
that
was
really
important
when
we
were
just
starting
to
get
the
word
out
about
the
hackathon,
but
it
it
did
take
up
a
good
chunk
of
time
and
unless
you
go
in
a
certain
depth,
it's
hard
to
relate
to
a
broad
audience
with
like
how
important
the
work
was.
H
The
working
group
gets
it,
but
unless
you
spend
some
time
it's
hard
unless
you're
a
really
good
presenter
to
to
figure
out,
what's
going
to
resonate
with
people
so,
but
we
could
look
at
that
again.
The
other
thing
is
the
hack
demo
happy
hour.
You
know
we
only
do
that
at
in-person
events,
but
that's
the
monday
after
the
hackathon.
H
It's
kind
of
a
social
thing
where
anyone
who
wants
to
present
their
project
can
be
there
sort
of
at
a
demo
table
and
have
those
more
in-depth,
interactive
discussions
with
people
who
who
wander
by.
So
we
don't
have
anything
like
that
for
online
only
meetings,
but
maybe
we
could
look
to
do
something
to
replace
that.
B
Okay,
thanks
charles
and
we
are
like
out
of
time,
and
so
charles,
like
you,
said,
right
like
it's
something
that's
like
called
by
a
charter,
so
I
will
do
like
adoption
call
on
the
list
like
next
week
after
the
itf
week.
Let's
get
something
kicked
off
and
unless
you
tell
me
like
this,
some
pending
changes
will
do
it
on
the
current
portion
of
the
trash.
B
So
thank
you
all
for
coming
and
please
send
any
comments
that
you
want
to
list
and
that
you
committed
to
so
we
can
get
the
draft
moving
forward.
Thank
you.