►
From YouTube: IETF 111: Plenary
Description
The plenary session at IETF 111 will be held at 2100 UTC on 27 July 2021. The IETF 111 Plenary provides the usual updates on various topics and the official transition of Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) members as described in RFC 8713.
A
Hi
all
is
the
audio
okay
happy
to
see
an
old
in
the.
A
Great,
thank
you
welcome
to
the
itf-111
plenary.
My
name
is
lars
eckhart.
I
chair
the
ietf.
This
is
my.
B
A
A
You
guys
can
help
being
fast
by
not
asking
too
many
questions
and
if
you're
asking
questions,
ask
them
concisely
and
we'll
try
to
answer
them
concisely,
but
first
we
have
some
administrative
to
go
to.
Can
I
get
the
next
slide?
Please
alexa.
A
Right,
so
if
you
are
going
to
speak
during
this
meeting,
it
would
be
your
your
audio
and
video
will
be
off
when
you
join
the
meet
echo.
You
should
know
this
by
now.
If
you're
participating
during
the
week,
you
get
into
the
queue
by
clicking
the
little
hand
icon.
A
When
we're
acknowledging
you
to
speak,
you
are
welcome
to
on
mutual
micro.
You
should
unmute
your
microphone,
so
we
can
hear
you,
but
I
also
encourage
you
to
share
your
video.
It
makes
it
much
easier,
especially
for
non-native
speakers
to
understand,
what's
being
said,
if
they
get
a
visual
of
the
face
and
if
you
have
a
headset
use
one,
I
don't
happen
to
have
one
here,
but
it's
pretty
quiet
given
that
it's
2am.
So
hopefully
this
is
okay
and
there's
some
more
guidelines
from
meat
echo
that
you
may
refer
to.
A
I
should
mention
also
that
we
have
a
chat,
as
you
may
know,
it's
it's
logged
over
into
the
jabra
system
and
it
gets
archived
together
with
the
minutes
of
the
meeting.
So
keep
that
in
mind
as
you're
typing
away
in
the
chat
it's
actually
going
into
the
public
record
and
after
the
last
meeting
we
got
some
feedback
that
some
comments
were
could
be
misunderstood
as
not
being
very
professional.
So
keep
that
in
mind
as
you're
typing
away.
A
I
know
everybody
is
sort
of
a
little
bit
bored
in
this
remote
setting
and
the
chat
sort
of
is
the
thing
that
that
makes
you
feel
connected
to
the
community
so
so
feel
free
to
use
it,
as
you
will
then,
but
keep
in
mind
that
we're
archiving
it
right.
We
have
the
usual
agenda
here.
The
welcome
part
is
what
I'm
trying
to
do
right
now.
A
We
have
a
host
presentation,
or
at
least
an
address
from
the
host
of
the
meeting,
which
is
juniper
networks
who
have
been
again
supporting
us
substantially.
For
this
meeting.
We
have
the
usual
round
of
brief
updates
from
various
bodies,
the
isg.
I
think
that
should
say
not
the
itf,
the
iab,
the
irtf,
the
rfc
editor,
the
nom-com
this
time
and
the
itf
llc
board
longer
reports.
Written
reports
are
available
and
they're
linked
from
the
slide
deck
and
have
been
emailed
out
to
the
various
announcement
lists.
A
We
have
a
special
session
where
jay
daley
is
going
to
talk
about
some
results
from
this
all
of
itf
survey
that
we
emailed
out
to
basically
everybody
who
subscribed
to
one
of
our
mailing
lists
and
the
results
are
pretty
interesting.
So
there's
a
long
report
that
I
think
has
been
announced
already,
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
highlights
and
we'll
be.
A
A
Right
so
I
again
like
to
thank
juniper
networks
who
are
the
host
of
this
meeting.
We
really
do
appreciate
your
support,
especially
in
these
times
of
remote
meetings,
where
it's
arguably
a
little
bit
more
challenging
for
the
host
to
get
the
full
value
out
of
supporting
an
organization
like
this
and
we're
especially
thankful
for
tonight
of
stepping
up
and
hosting
the
meeting.
A
As
you
all
know
where
the
itf
could
not
exist
without
support
like
this
and
we're
looking
forward
to
working
with
you
guys
going
forward,
and
I
think
we
have
raj
yawatkar,
who
would
like
to
say
a
few
words.
Is
that
correct?
If
so,
please
send
video
on
audio.
A
A
No,
we
can't
hear
him
now,
so
my
suggestion
would
be
we're.
Gonna
come
back
to
raj
during
the
llc
part,
where
we're
gonna
again.
Thank
you,
nipper
from
the
idf
llc
and
we're
going
to
also
thank
the
other
various
sponsors
that
we
have
and
probably
raj
has
resolved
his
audio
video
issues.
By
then,
can
I
get
the
next
slide.
A
Please,
thank
you
so,
thanks
to
juniper
again
and
we're
going
to
do
that,
one
more
time
later
on,
but
also
there's
as
always
many
other
people
who
help
make
the
meetings
happen,
even
when
they're
all
virtual,
first
and
foremost
secretariat,
we
could
not
operate
without
them.
They
really
support
the
organization
meet.
Echo
has
provided
a
very
flawless
itf,
at
least
for
me.
I've
not
heard
about
any
major
issues.
The
new
slideshare
functionality
gets
really
good
feedback
from
everybody.
A
The
noc
has
been
stellar,
as
always,
I've
not
been
aware
of
any
network
related
issues
and
the
tools
team,
as
always,
has
sort
of
helped
us
improve
our
tools
that
support
both
the
meeting
and
also
the
ongoing
work
of
the
ietf.
We
had
a
hackathon,
it's
successful,
as
always.
It's
unfortunately
also
a
little
bit
challenging
to
do
these
hackathons
in
a
virtual
format
and
we're
really
hoping
that
we
can.
A
A
A
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
usual
participant
statistics.
For
this
meeting.
We
have
a
short
update
on
the
impact
of
kobit
19
on
the
organization
in
terms
of
participation.
Alvaro
will
talk
about
this
he's
been
in
a
small
isg
team
that
crunched
the
numbers
with
help
from
the
secretariat.
A
A
A
Right
so
we've
had
1369
registrations
was
a
pretty
strong
number
for
an
all
virtual
meeting.
299
people
used
the
fee
waivers
we've
offered
an
unlimited
amount,
and
we
didn't
ask
you
know
why
you
needed
one.
So
it's
good
to
see
that
they're
being
used.
We
had
265
hackathon
participations.
That
is
also
a
great
number,
with
18
projects
being
worked
on.
We
will
update
these
statistics
as
they
as
the
week
progresses
and
ends,
and
you
get
final
information.
I
guess
an
update
to
this
deck
at
some
point.
A
The
participation
split
is
slightly
less
european,
I
would
say
than
it
normally
is
based
on
eyeballing
this,
which
isn't
surprising
given
the
time
zones,
but
the
way
we're
running
these
virtual
meetings
is
that
we're
rotating
them
around
the
globe
and
this
time
europe
has
the
unfortunate
nighttime
slot.
It
is
what
it
is
next
slide.
Please.
C
Thank
you.
Thanks
lars
we've
been
showing
the
last
few
plenary
some
numbers
around.
What
we
think
is
the
impact
of
covert
19..
Basically,
we're
looking
at
mailing
list
messages
we're
looking
at
the
total
number
of
drafts
that
have
been
submitted
and
specifically
about
at
the
zero
zero
drafts
as
well.
So
this
table
is
basically
a
summary
of
the
last
four
years
and
partially
of
this
year.
C
You
can
see
the
numbers
from
january
july
we're
a
little
bit
past
the
the
half
point
for
the
year.
If
you
look
at
the
projection,
which
is
basically
just
an
extension
of
what
has
been
happening
until
now,
we're
running
a
little
bit
low,
so
we're
running
lower
on
everything,
on
mail
messages,
on
ids,
published
and,
of
course,
on
zero
zeros
as
well.
Some
of
these
numbers
are
a
little
bit
more
significant
percentage-wise
than
others,
and
so
what
I
want
to
do
is
show
a
couple
of
graphs
that
again,
we've
shown
before
next
slide.
C
C
If
you
look
at
really
close,
one
of
the
lines
at
the
top
here
is
what
2020
looked
like,
and
the
one
on
the
bottom
that
partially
ends
in
june
is
the
one
for
this
year.
The
general
trend
is
about
the
same.
It
goes
up
and
down.
It
is
lower,
as
I
said
before,
what
we've
seen
this
year
with
respect
to
what
we
saw
the
last
few
years.
It
is
not
the
lowest
at
this
point,
but
but
it
is
relatively
low
next
slide.
C
This
is
the
total
number
of
internet
drafts
that
have
been
published
again.
Many
of
the
past
few
years
show
a
very
similar
pattern
where
it
goes
up
around
the
atm
meetings.
You
know
three
peaks
and
around
march
around
july
and
then
november
this
year,
which
is
the
green
line
down
here
at
the
bottom,
is
what
we've
been
seeing.
C
Clearly,
this
line
is
lower.
It
is
a
little
bit
different
at
the
very
beginning
where
it
starts
a
little
bit
high
and
then
it
dips
down
in
total.
As
I
said
before,
it's
a
little
bit
lower
a
few
percentage
points
with
respect
to
what
we've
seen
in
the
last
three
or
four
years
and
then
next
slide.
C
Finally,
this
is
the
zero
zero
drafts
we
already
saw
last
year
that
this
the
yellow
line
at
the
bottom
is
last
year
last
year
was
already
running
lower
than
the
years
before
17
through
19.,
and
the
green
line,
which
is
this
year,
is
running
a
little
bit
lower
as
well
next
slide.
C
So
when
we
look
at
these
numbers,
we
can
make
some
observations.
We,
we
honestly
don't
know
exactly
why
this
is
happening,
but
we
can
make
some
observations
in
general,
everything,
as
I
said
in
2020,
seemed
broadly
in
line
with
other
years
around
the
email
and
total
draft
zero
zero
were
lower.
C
The
general
assumption
here
is
that,
given
that
we're
not
seeing
each
other
face
to
face,
or
even
seeing
our
colleagues
at
work
or
customers
providers,
anything
like
that
that
some
of
the
new
ideas
are,
of
course,
lagging
or
lower,
this
seems
to
be
sort
of
in
line
with
what
you
could
expect
if
anything
from
a
completely
online
communication
and
no
face-to-face
meetings
this
year
in
2021
we're
seeing
everything
track
a
little
bit
lower
emails,
they're,
still
sort
of
in
line
but
lower
than
before,
and
the
drafts,
and
particularly
the
zero
zero
drafts
are
lower
as
well.
C
That's
some
of
the
new
ideas
reflected
in
the
zero
zero
drafts
are
lagging
for
now,
so
we
will,
of
course,
keep
an
eye
on
this
and
we'll
keep
reporting.
C
We
welcome
your
comments
and
ideas
on
on
what
this
may
be,
the
the
result
of
later
on,
or
three
no
in
the
next
few
days
back
to
yours.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
right,
so,
if
you
have
questions
about
this,
we
can
talk
about
this
more
during
the
isg
open
mic
session.
Next
slide,
please
right
planning
for
future
meetings.
We,
as
always
we
have
some
meetings
in
the
pipeline.
There's
a
process
that
began
last
week
with
a
community
consultation
on
whether
we
should
move
itf
112,
which
is
the
next
itf
in
november,
which
should
have
been
or
should
be
in
madrid
to
an
all
online
meeting.
A
A
There's
a
assortment
of
information
on
this
page,
so,
first
of
all
tools,
feedback.
If
you
have
any
issues
during
the
iitf,
please
email
support
itf.org.
This
is
the
ticket
queue.
It
gets
triaged
to
the
correct
person
or
organization.
So
any
any
issues
you
have
with
anything
related
to
the
meeting
or
the
ietf
supported
support.
Idf.Org
is
your
your
one-stop
help
desk,
specifically
for
tools?
If
you
have
feature
requests,
there's
a
tools
discussed
at
idf.org
list,
you
can
not
only
make
requester.
A
You
can
also
join
the
discussion
on
what
should
be
done
about
them.
There
will
be
a
survey
after
itf
111
closes.
Please
fill
out
that
survey
if
at
all
possible,
it
helps
ask
the
specialty
llc,
get
valuable
information
that
help
us
plan
future
meetings,
and
then
we
have
the
schmoon
working
group
which
stands
for
stay
home
meet
only
online,
which
unfortunately
met
just
before
disciplinary.
A
That's
a
group,
that's
chartered
in
a
general
area
to
develop
guidelines
for
fully
remote
meetings
like
this
one
specifically
on
what
the
meeting
fee
structure
should
be,
how
we
have
a
synchronous
meetings.
What
the
meeting
cadence
and
length
should
be,
how
we're
having
a
hackathon
associated
with
those
meetings?
A
What
are
the
considerations
are
canceling
the
meeting,
and
it
has
that
bullet
has
a
green
check
mark,
because
that
draft
is
basically
done.
That's
isg
approved
it
needs
a
revision
and
then
it'll
be
an
rfc
and
some
requirements
for
a
show
of
hands
tool
for
meet
echo.
The
list
is
the
same.
I
mentioned
before
it's
the
many
couches
that
itf.worthless.
B
A
Has
a
different
name
right
next
slide.
Please
there's
a
few
more
topics
in
the
online
report
from
the
isg
and
the
chair.
The
highlights
are:
we
had
zero
appeals
since
itf
110,
we
put
out
five
isg
statements,
which
is
a
surprisingly
large
number,
several
of
those
were
sort
of
in
the
pipeline
for
a
long
time.
A
E
Yes,
so
this
is
very
brief
report
and,
as
always,
the
extended
report
has
been
uploaded
to
the
proceedings.
So
if
you
can
click
on
this
link
and
see
all
the
nitty
gritty,
interesting
admin
details
there
and
then
we
also
have
an
ib
open
session
in
order
to
announce
it
here.
We
have
it
on
thursday,
so
after
the
plenary
and
the
iab
open
session
is
focusing
more
on
the
technical
work
the
av
is
doing.
E
While
today
you
might
ask
questions
about
some
admin
or
strategy
things
and,
of
course,
feel
free.
Whenever
you
have
a
question
or
comment,
and
you
don't
want
to
use
any
of
the
open
mic
sessions
to
send
email
to
the
iab
or
to
the
ib
chair
directly.
So
to
me.
So
this
is
the
slide
that
we
always
have.
Let's
move
to
the
next
one.
E
Yeah
I
want
to
take
the
opportunity
and
make
one
quick
announcement.
The
iab
is
planning
for
workshop
on
measuring
network
quality
for
end
users
in
september,
and
the
workshop
will
focus
on
questions
about
how
to
measure
and
how
to
present
this
data
in
a
meaningful
world
to
to
end
users
and
how
to
improve
our
tools
and
all
these
kind
of
things.
There's
more
extended
description
and
call
for
contributions
on
the
ieb
webpage,
and
it
was
also
sent
to
warriors
mating
lists
and
the
deadline
for
contributions
is
really
soon
it's
next
monday.
E
E
Yeah
also,
I
would
like
to
quickly
take
the
opportunity
to
announce
one
of
the
open
call
for
volunteers
that
we
have
right
now,
so
the
one
that
is
still
open
is
the
one
for
the
icann
nomination
committee.
So
you
can
volunteer
yourself
or
you
can
also
nominate
somebody
else,
we're
still
looking
for
people.
We
had
not
easy
times
in
in
having
a
good
set
of
candidates
with
a
good
diversity
for
a
lot
of
these
positions.
E
This
is
not
unexpected,
as
these
positions
usually
need
a
certain
kind
of
expertise
where
you
have
to
be
like
an
itf
member,
understand
the
itf,
but
also
have
to
have
some
knowledge
about
the
other
community,
and
they
come
with
certain
time
commitment
and
all
these
kinds
of
things.
So
usually,
this
set
of
volunteers
is
not
like
huge,
and
but
it
is
varying
that,
like
their
diversity
is
so
low
and
the
only
way
to
increase
it
is
really
to
nominate
yourself
or
talk
to
other
people
to
nominate
them.
E
It
takes
time,
but
it
also
sometimes
a
very
interesting
experience.
So
please
nominate
yourself
and
nominate
other
people
or
reach
out
to
us,
and
then
we
had
made
a
couple
of
appointments
since
the
last
itf
meeting.
So
thank
you
and
to
everybody
who
was
newly
appointed
in
one
of
these
positions.
That's
raspberry
tim
bryan
and
john.
Thank
you
for
serving
for
putting
your
name
in
it
for
taking
up
the
time
to
serve
in
these
positions.
E
E
If
we
can
go
to
the
next
slide
yeah,
so
you
might
be
aware
that
we
have
the
rbc
future,
obviously
editor
future
development
program.
So
that's
an
iab
program.
However,
it's
more
run
like
an
open,
iab
itf
group,
but
it's
just
hosted
by
the
iab,
but
it's
not
like
really
that
we
have
any
authority
about
that.
E
The
purpose
of
this
program
is
to
redesign
the
rfc
editor
function
and
the
reason
why
I
want
to
bring
it
up
here
today
is
because
recently
there
was
really
good
progress
in
the
program
and
they
finally
adopted
a
document
which
has
like
rough
contents
on
a
base
structure.
So
this
is
really
the
right
time
to
contribute
to
look
at
the
document
and
see
if
you
have
any
input
for
the
for
the
for
the
group.
As
I
said
it's
an
open
group,
you
can
just
join
the
main
list.
E
E
You
know
what
this
new
model
is
about,
so
there
will
be
a
little
bit
a
new
structure
here,
so
instead
of
having
only
basically
one
rc
editor
and
the
rsc
production
center,
the
group
converged
on
having
the
so-called
rfc
areas
a
serious
working
group,
which
very
much
operates
like
a
working
group
and
decides
about
policy
and
strategic
questions,
and
then
there
will
be
a
new
body
which
is
called
the
rfc
series
approval
board,
which
approves
any
of
the
document.
E
That
is
that
are
done
in
this
working
group,
and
then
that
means
that
we
still
will
have
some
our
irish
areas
series
editor,
maybe
with
a
different
name
or
role
description,
but
this
position
will
be
more
advisory.
That
person
will
be
part
part
of
the
approval
board
and
will
be
advisory
to
the
approval
board
to
the
rpc
and
the
community
and
the
rpc.
The
actual
operation
of
the
whole
editor
function
will
mainly
be
unchanged
so
and
that's
like
a
very
level
overview
about
the
changes.
E
A
Much
thanks
miriam
and
if
there's
any
questions
about
the
iab
part,
obviously
there's
going
to
be
the
iab
open
mic
later
on.
Next
up,
we
have
colin,
with
the
report
from
the
irtf
go
icon.
F
F
Yeah,
so
I'm
colin
perkins.
This
is
the
irtf
report
next
slide,
please
so
yeah
so
for
for
those
who
who
are
unfamiliar
with
it.
The
irtf
is
a
research
organization
which
runs
in
parallel
to
the
the
ietf
and
collocates
its
meetings
that
the
goal
of
work
is
primarily
to
to
bring
the
research
community
together
with
the
standards
community
and
to
do
longer
term
research
to
complement
the
the
shorter
term
standards
work,
that's
happening
in
the
ietf.
F
If
you're
not
familiar
with
the
with
the
irtf
and
how
it
differs
from
the
ietf,
then
rfc
7418.
I
would
encourage
you
to
read,
which
is
a
really
nice
primer
for
itf
participants,
and
they
the
slide
lists
the
the
research
groups,
which
are
which
are
meeting
and
still
to
meet
next
slide.
Please.
F
So,
in
addition
to
the
research
groups,
we
also
run
a
couple
of
activities,
one
of
which
is
the
applied
networking
research
process.
This
is
something
we
organize
in
conjunction
with
the
internet
society.
F
We
get
sponsorship
from
comcast
and
from
mbc
universal,
and
then
I
had
something
like
thank
thank
sponsors
for
that,
and
the
goal
of
the
applied
networking
research
prize
is
to
award
the
to
to
recognize
and
award
the
the
best
recent
results
in
applied
networking
research
to
to
bring
in
people
with
interesting
new
ideas
that
are
of
potential
relevance
to
the
the
itf
and
the
standards
community
and
to
bring
in
upcoming
people
that
are
likely
to
have
an
impact
on
internet
standards
and
technologies
in
the
future.
F
We
typically
make
two
awards
for
the
the
applied
networking
research
prize
at
each
meeting.
The
awards
for
this
itf
meeting
were
made
on
monday,
which
went
to
rudiger
berkner
for
his
work
on
network
specification
and
verification
with
a
system
called
conflict
to
spec,
and
they
went
to
sajad
fuladi
for
his
work
on
the
salsify
low
latency
video
streaming
system,
video
conferencing
system.
F
If
you
missed
those
talks
which
were
in
the
irtf
open
meeting
earlier
in
this
week,
the
texture
on
the
website,
the
the
url
listed
along
with
the
papers
as
well
next
slide.
Please.
F
And
the
other
activity
we
we
do,
we
organized
the
applied
networking
research
workshop
in
conjunction
with
acm
sitcom.
F
F
If
you
missed
it
again,
the
the
papers
and
the
recordings
of
all
the
talks
are
available
on
the
website.
I'd
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
there's
some
really
nice
talks,
some
really
nice
papers
over
the
last
few
days,
and
I'd
like
to
thank
andra
and
nick
and
the
program
committee
for
organizing
that
workshop
and
again
thank
you
to
the
sponsors,
comcast
akamai
and
acm
sitcom
next
slide.
Please,
okay,
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
colin,
and
I
see
raj
is
there,
but
we're
going
to
get
to
you
after
we're
done
with
a
few
brief
updates,
but
it's
good
to
see
that
your
video
and
you
are
not
working
john
go
ahead.
Please.
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
It's
been
a
while,
since
I've
given
a
report
and
I'm
not
the
rfc
editor,
I
am
the
temporary
rfc
series
manager
until
there
is
an
rfc
editor,
but
I'm
the
closest
thing
you
get
so
here
is
my
report.
Next
slide,
please
next
one.
G
G
Yeah,
so
for
more
than
a
year
we've
been
publishing
all
the
rfcs
using
xml
version
version
three.
I
think
it's
working
reasonably
well
for
a
while.
I'm
sure
many
authors
noticed
that
the
process
slowed
down
some
partly
due
to
the
learning
process,
because
the
editing
process
changed
quite
a
lot
and
also
giant
cluster
238,
basically
dumped
the
better
part
of
a
year's
worth
of
drafts
into
the
publication
process
all
at
once,
and
it
took
several
months
to
chew
through
that.
G
G
G
We
adopted
this
a
document
from
nist
national
institute
of
standards
and
technology,
which
gives
advice,
not
instructions
about
inclusive
language,
the
the
the
the
editors
go
through
when
they-
and
this
has
a
list
of
possibly
problematic
words
when
they
see
a
word
that
might
be
an
issue
they
flag
it,
but
it
remains
up
to
the
authors
and
the
stream
managers
and
in
practice
sometimes
the
authors
say:
oh
yeah,
there's
a
better
way
to
say
that,
and
sometimes
they
say
no,
it's
okay.
G
So
I
think
again,
you
know
this
people,
people
are
paying
attention
to
this,
and
you
know
the
things
I've
seen
go
by
have
been
pretty
reasonable.
You
know,
so
I
am
pleased
to
say
that
that
the
inclusive
language,
I
think,
is
you
know
we
are
making.
You
know
it's
making
our
documents
better
without
getting
in
the
way
of
the
publication
process.
G
Before
we
had
version
three
xml,
we
had
version
two
xml.
We
threw
that
we
still
do
have
version
two
xml,
even
though
all
of
the
rfcs
are
published
during
using
version
three
most
of
them
are
still
submitted
using
version.
Two
next
slide.
Please
shows
a
slide
yeah,
so
the
I
guess
the
blue
part
shows
which
drafts
are
submitted
in
v2
xml.
The
orange
is
in
v3
xml
and
a
little
bit
of
green
stuff
on
the
top
is
stuff
submitted,
the
other
way
for
a
pub
for
the
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
G
G
The
bibliography
entries
haven't
been
working
reliably
with
v3,
but
we
now
have
a
contract
out
to
completely
redo
bim
xml,
so
it'll
work
reliably
with
v3
and
that
problem
will
go
away
and
it's
definitely,
as
I
said
on
the
previous
slide,
we
still
have
a
lot
of
tool
work
to
do
I
mean
we
don't
have
a
usable,
xml,
diff
and
there's
you
know,
there's
other
tools
that
could
be
a
lot
better
to
to
make
it
easy
to
both
to
submit
in
v3
and
to
edit.
B
G
V3
so
next
slide,
please
yeah!
I
don't
expect
you
to
read
all
this,
but
the
slides
are
available,
so
we've
done
a
whole
bunch
of
work
with
with
v3
the
vocabulary.
The
the
defined
v3
vocabulary
was,
you
know
the
best
we
could
do
at
the
time
after
a
year
and
a
half
we're
probably
going
to
make
you
know
we've
been
looking
at.
How
does
it
actually
work?
What
changes
do
we
need
to
make?
So
we've
made
we're
probably
going
to
make
a
few
a
few
changes
to
it.
G
Most
of
the
changes
are
backwards,
compatible,
there's
still
an
open
question.
If
we
make
changes
that
are
not
backwards
compatible,
are
we
going
to
go
back
and
revise
the
xml,
not
the
text
with
the
xml
to
to
agree
with,
with
with
the
updated
grammar.
Are
we
just
going
to
have
a
version
break
but
we'll
be
working
on
that
later
this
year
and
I
think
next
yeah
next
slide?
G
In
the
meantime,
I
encourage
everybody
to
take
a
look
at
xml
v3.
It
actually
works
pretty
well,
and
here
are
a
bunch
of
references
you
can
use
to
understand
what
the
vocabulary
is
and
some
of
the
tools
we
have
and
there's
some
mailing
lists
to
discuss
it
and
one
final
slide.
So
what
what
I'm
going
to
be
doing
in
coming
months?
One
is
to
make
sure
everybody
understands
the
v3
grammar
changes
that
we
are
proposing,
so
they
don't
come
as
a
surprise
and
in
case
we
do
something
that
people
hate.
G
We
have
another
chance
to
think
about
it.
Rfc
7991
and
the
rest
of
that
series
defines
the
grammar.
We
need
to
update
that.
As
I
said,
there's
the
question
of
doing.
Are
we
going
to
retroactively
fix
the
xml?
G
If,
but
when
we
change
it,
and
the
final
thing
I'm
doing
is
I'm
working
with
jay
to
see
if
we
can
work
on
getting
getting
better
tools
both
for
for
writing
and
editing,
editing
internet
drafts,
because
the
tools
we
have
are
okay,
but
they
could
be
a
lot
better
and
particularly
when
you
compare
them
to
stuff
that
professional
xml
houses
use.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
make
life
easier
for
people.
So
that
is
it
for
my
chat
and
I
don't
know
whether
I
take
questions
now
later
or
never.
A
We
have
time
for
a
few
questions
if
you
are
ready
for
it
and
we
have
people
in
the
queue.
I
would
ask
you
to
please
keep
it
short
and
on
the
topic
of
the
rxt
go
ahead.
Join.
A
I
Button,
no
I'm
on
on
the
inclusive
language,
so
yeah.
I
was
appointed
by
itf
to
nist
and
then
this
pointed
back
in
their
references
to
the
ietf
github,
you
know
repository
and
that
actually
had
you
know
more
words,
and
I
think
you
know
you're
nothing.
I
Yeah.
Okay,
sorry!
No,
so
I
I
I.
I
think
that
that
actually
it's
good
to
have
you
know
references
outside
when
they
have
done
more
work,
but
you
know,
I
think
what
the
folks
who
had
done
that
github
stuff
started
to
do
also
looks
quite
useful,
so
keep
it
on.
G
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean,
if
you
look
at,
if
you
have
to.
If
you
look
at
this
document,
I
mean
the
the
github
thing
you're
referring
to,
which
is
one
of
they
had
a
list
of
here's.
Here's
a
here's,
a
bunch
of
other
things
we
looked
at,
but
but
this
nist
has
their
own
list
of
of
words,
which
I
think
is
actually
longer
than
the
one
we
had
anyway.
It's
you
know
it's.
G
You
know
everything
is
a
work
in
progress.
You
know
if
people,
if
people
decide
there
is
language
that
is
either
problematic,
that
we're
not
addressing
or
that
we're
over
addressing
like
stuff
that
isn't
problematic.
You
know
come
and
talk
to
me
about
it,
but
as
it
stands
now
I
think
we're
the
balance.
I
A
All
right
next
thing:
q
q
is
barry,
I'm
gonna
cut
the
queue
after
and
john
will.
B
A
J
Queue,
oh
no,
you
know
curious,
I
just
I
hand
down
because
I
because
you
called
on
me
no.
I
also
had
a
comment
about
the
inclusive
language.
Thanks
for
what
you
said,
john,
I
wanted
to
say
I
fully
support
the
inclusive
language
stuff
and
had
very
good
exchanges
with
the
rfc
with
the
rpc
staff
about
it,
and
it's
all
gone
really
well,
and
it
is
indeed
suggestions
and
think
about
it
and
we'll
do
the
right
thing
and
the
right
thing
is
being
done.
Thanks.
G
A
Up
late
as
part
of
the
ib,
so
if
there's
more
questions
coming
up
for
the
arts
theater,
we
can
then
thanks.
Next
up,
we
have
gabrielle
with
an
update
from
the
nom-com
go
ahead.
H
Hi,
hopefully
you
can
hear
me
well,
I
can't
seem
to
hear
anything
once
the
mic
is
on,
but
next
slide.
H
Please
next
slide,
please,
okay,
so
this
is
your
nom-com
full
roster.
We
have
10
voting
members
on
the
left,
they're
selected
through
the
well-known
random
process,
and
we
have
seven
non-voting
members
in
the
liaisons
myself
and
barbara
who
was
chaired
last
year
every
one
of
the
members
here.
Every
one
of
these
17
persons
is
working
hard
for
you
staying
up
late,
getting
up
very
early,
as
the
case
may
be.
H
We
have
all
sorts
of
imaginable
time
zones
we're
working
hard
for
you,
so
I'm
gonna
have
some
asks
at
the
end
for
each
and
every
one
of
you
next
slide
please.
H
This
is
what
we
are
here
to
do:
we're
here
to
fill
14
positions,
six
isg,
six
iab,
one
h4,
trust
and
llc
next
slide.
Please.
H
How
did
we
get
here
so
this
year
and
and
for
the
first
time
actually,
this
year
we
have
a
special
process
called
up
in
rc
8989
and,
what's
particular
about
it,
is
that
we've
added
two
more
ways
of
qualifying
people
who
could
be
volunteers.
H
The
first
path
here
attendance
is
what
we've
always
used
sure.
Usually
it's
been
face-to-face
attendance
three
out
of
the
last
five
meetings,
but
remote
attendance
has
been
there
since
last
year,
so
we
still
have
it.
This
year
we
added
two
more
paths:
one
is
working
group
leadership,
you've
been
working
with
chair
or
secretary
rather
recently,
and
the
third
path
to
qualify
as
authorship,
meaning,
you've
written
to
at
least
two
its3
rfcs,
rather
recently
or
nine
internet
graph.
That's
in
the
editor
queue
next
slide.
Please.
H
The
total
number
of
qualified
volunteers
this
year
was
116
of
those
63
were
qualified
via
more
than
one
path,
meaning
folks
were
either
through
attendance
or
authorship.
At
the
same
time,
we're
qualified
that
sort
of
thing
there's
different
efficacies
of
the
different
paths
path.
One
attendance
is
sufficient.
H
Basically,
that
qualified
113
out
of
116
volunteers
path,
number
two:
the
working
leadership
was
superfluous,
meaning
it
yes,
it
appeared
once
but
path.
Three
was
there
as
well
by
itself,
it
was
not
something
that
would
have
qualified
someone,
otherwise
not
qualified
and
path.
Three
was
there
marginal
it
only
quite
qualified
three
volunteers
so
based
on
this
experiment
this
year,
it
looks
like
there's
really
no
justification
for
change
and
remember
change
is
not
for
free.
It
has
to
go
into
the
data
tracker.
Our
very
good
tool,
support
people
and
data
track.
H
H
So
one
thing
I
wanted
to
emphasize
is
that
rfc
1899
calls
for
the
isg
to
lead
further
discussion
on
it
and
you
will
see
the
you
know:
isg
email
at
the
bottom,
where
you
can
start
sending
feedback,
especially
if
you
have
suggestions
of
what
next
steps
should
be.
But
one
question
I
wanted
to
to
double
check
here
or
maybe
trigger
further
discussion
with,
is
why
only
116
volunteers,
out
of
a
total
of
1
315
qualified
persons?
H
Well,
was
it
because
of
pandemic
fatigue,
or
we
did
have
a
volunteer
button
that
made
things
easier
for
people
to
volunteer.
Instead
of
sending
me
an
email,
it
came
a
little
bit
late,
so
that
might
have
been
it
something
something
worse.
I
don't
know-
or
maybe
it's
nothing
to
worry
about,
because
if
we
go
back
and
pass
knob
counts
about
a
decade,
we
have
even
lower
numbers.
So
I
don't
know
what
happened
at
that
time.
Maybe
somebody
here
remembers.
H
H
So
there's
basically
two
milestones.
I
want
to
call
special
attention
to.
One
is
the
call
for
nominations,
that's
going
to
happen
towards
the
end
of
august,
at
which
time
please
nominate
people.
You've
worked
with
you
here
they
are
so
the
the
first
one
is
nomination.
So
yeah,
please,
when
you
see
that
announcement
nominate
people
nominate
yourself
and
then
mid-october,
or
so
we
will
have
another
announcement
asking
for
feedback
on
the
on
the
nominees.
These
are
people
who
you
undoubtedly
will
have
worked
with
know
have
good
or
bad
experience.
H
Please,
please,
let
us
know,
good
feedback
is
great.
Bad
feedback,
of
course,
is
also
very
useful.
Help
us
reflect
the
community-
it's
not
just
about
nominees,
but
about
the
process
whatever
and
just
to
emphasize
a
very,
very
important
point.
All
this
feedback
is
confidential
to
the
nom.
Come
to
the
17
people.
You
saw
in
the
roster
next
slide.
Please.
H
A
Thanks
gabriel-
and
I
think
we
have
time
for
a
few
questions
from
non-common-
I
first
want
to
thank
the
volunteers,
though
it's
a
really
important
job
for
the
organization
and
it's
a
lot
of
work
and
and
it's
you
know,
volunteering
for
this
is
is
important,
but
it's
it's.
It's
often
a
thankless
job,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
thanking
you
guys
for
taking
this
on.
For
for
the
health
of
the
organization.
A
I
also
want
to
briefly
mention
that
rfc
8989
calls
on
the
isg
to
prepare
a
report
to
the
community
on
the
results
of
the
experiment
in
consultation
with
gabriel
barbara,
and
we're
going
to
do
this.
If
I
remember
correctly
the
deadline
we
were
thinking
about
sometime
early
september,
so
you
will,
you
will
see
something
written
up
and
announced
and
based
on
what
gabriel
showed
you
in
terms
of
data,
you
can,
as
you
said,
email
the
isg
with
your
thoughts
on
whether
we
should.
A
I
think
the
options
that
rc
8989
calls
for
either
we
stop
the
experiment.
We
can
extend
the
experiment
for
another
year
or
we
can
do
something
else
and
if
you
have
thoughts
on
what
we
should
be
doing
here,
please
let
us
know
all
right.
I
have
two
people
in
the
queue
spencer
and
mike
and
jones.
I'm
gonna
already
cut
the
queue
after
mike,
but
spencer
go
ahead.
D
I
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
gabe
for
serving
the
communion
in
the
way
you're
serving
and
laura's
as
well.
Of
course,
one.
You
mentioned
the
thing
about
the
cost
of
tooling
changes,
and
things
like
that
with
with
the
changes
to
the
nom-com
process,
and
you
wouldn't
know
that
much
better
than
I
would
the
thing
I
wanted
to
be
sure,
and
mention
was
historically
we've.
D
I
mean
there's,
there's
a
really
narrow
window
between
when
you,
when
you
are
organizing
a
nom-com
and
when
you
you
know
when
you
could
actually
start
using
changed
rules
when
we,
when
we
did
open
the
open
list
change
to
the
tomcat
process
a
bunch
of
years
ago.
We
didn't
quite
make
it
the
year
that
it
was
approved,
and
so
we
ended
up
waiting
like
10
10
months
to
be
able
to
to
be
able
to
use
that
change
as
well,
and
so
that
was
what
was
that's.
L
Hi,
I
crunched
the
numbers-
and
we
talked
about
some
of
this
on
on
the
mailing
list.
The
biggest
decrease
in
the
set
of
volunteers
for
this
nom
com
came
from
the
individuals
and
small
and
two-party
companies.
If
you
will
that
participate
in
the
ietf
by
far
about
30
of
the
a
good
portion
decreases
there
so
next
time
around,
if
you
can
spare
the
time
people.
This
is
a
good
place,
good
thing
to
volunteer
and
it
affects
a
lot
a
lot
of
things
going
forward.
So.
A
Thank
you
thanks.
Gabriel.
Next
up
is
jay
and
jason
with
the
llc
part
of
the
agenda.
Go
ahead,
jake.
B
Thanks
next
slide,
please
and
next
slide
again,
so
I
want
to
start
off
by
thanking
the
ietf
111
host
juniper
networks
for
hosting
this
meeting.
As
lars
said,
it's
good
that
companies
understand
the
value
proposition
of
being
hosts
of
fully
online
meetings
and
going
to
take
this
opportunity
now
just
to
give
raj
ivanka
the
chance
to
come
back
and
do
his
presentation
from
earlier
over
to
you,
raj.
M
I'm
very
happy
to
join
you.
Can
you
hear
me?
I
joined
you
as
a
on
behalf
of
juniper
hosting
the
ipf
and,
as
you
all
know,
juniper
has
been
very
active
in
it
for
a
long
time.
My
own
association
with
ietf
started
as
a
graduate
student
long
long
time
back
when
I
was
a
student
of
that
coma.
I
heard
you
and-
and
I
was
a
very
small
community-
maybe
about
40
people
is
to
show
up.
M
I
started
two
working
groups,
one
called
rap,
which
led
to
a
protocol
called
cops
and
forces,
there's
a
precursor
to
open
flow
before
doing
a
forwarding
and
control
element
separation.
So
I'm
very
happy
to
join
you.
I
think
we
at
juniper
strongly
believe
that
the
ietf
culture
and
the
methods
of
making
decisions
using
census
other
democratic
principles
that
we
strongly
support.
M
M
M
A
Well,
thank
you
raj,
it's
it's!
It's
always
good
to.
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
raj
there,
so
that
was
raj
avatka,
the
cto
of
juniper
networks,
one
of
our
global
hosts
and
the
host
of
this
meeting
and
juniper
have
also
just
extended
their
global
host
agreement
further
and
blogged
about
that
and
their
support
of
the
itf,
which
is
excellent.
Thank
you
next
slide,
please.
B
So
thank
you
to
our
equipment
and
services.
Sponsors,
cisco,
junior
from
webex,
the
value
of
equipment
that
cisco
and
juniper
provide
for
us
for
of
managing
these
meetings
is
really
quite
extraordinary
and
the
services
as
well.
So,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
next
slide.
Please.
B
B
And
thank
you
to
our
bronze
diversity,
inclusivity,
sponsors,
comcast
and
donuts,
and
I
can
so
our
running
code
sponsor
I
can
as
well
and
to
verisign
who've,
come
in
as
a
local
sponsor,
even
though
we're
online
and
that's
very
good
of
them,
because
we're
moving
these
things
forward.
That
way
right.
So
thank
you
again
to
all
of
our
sponsors.
This
has
been
a
very
well
supported.
Meeting
previous
meetings
have
had
some
good
support,
but
we're
really
getting
momentum
behind
with
our
sponsors
supporting
these
online
meetings.
B
Thank
you
next
slide,
please
so
to
thank
the
many
generous
volunteers,
the
code
sprint
volunteers,
long
list
of
those
we
hold
those
a
bit
further
out
from
the
meetings
than
when
we
have
in-person
meetings,
but
we're
still
holding
the
code
sprints
and
for
the
knock
volunteers
and,
of
course,
of
the
organizations
that
support
the
long
volunteers
and
make
it
possible
for
them
to
dedicate
so
much
time
to
working
on
itf.
Thank
you
next
slide.
B
Please
and
then
we
have
quite
a
team
in
the
background
secretariat
team
who
many
are
aware
of
and
who
are
available
inside
gathered
or
town
for
anything
that
you
need
to
talk
about
the
knock
team
who
have
been
working
hard
and,
of
course,
the
meet
echo
team,
who
you
will
see
in
many
of
the
sessions
working
on
things.
B
The
tools
team
continues
to
go
strong.
So
thank
you
to
people
who
work
on
that
and
to
our
contractors
and
staff
there
and
the
llc
has
grown
slightly,
and
so
thank
you
to
llc
staff
next
slide,
please.
B
So
next
week
we
are
making
the
decision
about
ietf,
112,
madrid
and
then
announcing
that
on
the
monday
afterwards.
Obviously
this
is
a
difficult
time
for
us
all.
So
we're
not
sure
where
that
whether
we
were
going
ahead
with
that,
the
one
commitment
we
will
make
is
that,
if
we're
not
able
to
go
ahead
with
it,
then
we
will
rebook
madrid
for
a
proper
in-person
meeting
at
some
point
in
the
future,
just
so
that
madrid
doesn't
miss
out.
In
that
way,
there
are
still
sponsorship
opportunities
available.
So
please
contact
sponsorship.iitf.org
for
anything
there.
B
So
thank
you
to
all
of
our
global
hosts.
As
a
reminder,
global
hosts
are
sign
up
with
us
generally
for
six
or
nine
years.
They
make
a
significant
annual
contribution
and
they
then
host
one
or
more
meetings
during
their
time
as
a
host,
and
so
together
they
provide
us
significant
income
that
we
need
in
order
to
run
meetings.
So
thank
you
to
cisco,
comcast,
ericsson,
the
huawei
juniper
networks,
nbc
universal
and
nokia.
B
So
this
is
our
upcoming
list
of
meetings.
We
of
course,
have
madrid
and
then
next
year,
bangkok
and
philadelphia,
and
we're
all
I'm
sure,
desperately
hoping
that
we
will
definitely
be
able
to
hold
those
in
person
and
no
doubt
about
those
115
in
europe.
We
were
spent
a
long
time
working
with
a
particular
venue
only
for
that
for
the
first
time
ever
to
break
down,
and
so
we're
now
putting
in
place
a
backup
venue
but
which
we
hope
to
announce
quite
soon.
116
in
asia,
that's
delayed
by
covid.
B
We
have
somewhere
largely
set
up,
but
in
order
for
us
to
be
able
to
finish
off
the
negotiations
and
things,
we
need
their
tourism
industry
to
restart
which
it
hasn't
yet
properly
restarted,
or
the
conference
industry
at
least
and
119
in
asia.
We
have
a
potential
for
that
as
well.
So
these
things
are
moving
forward
quite
well.
Next
slide,
please.
B
So
here's
the
breakdown
of
the
number
of
people
that
have
come
along
and
how
that
meets
up
against
our
budget,
so
we've
done
reasonably
well
all
together
against
budget.
B
B
Please,
and
so
here
are
the
four
staff
members.
So
you
have
me
on
the
left.
I'm
looking
slightly
younger
than
I
do
now.
Greg
wood
who's
been
around
for
a
long
time
direct
communications
operations,
and
then
we
too
have
our
two
new
starters:
lee
berkeley
shaw
who's.
B
Our
director
of
development
development
in
this
context
means
fundraising
of
things
and
lee
berkeley
has
a
long
history
of
this
having
previously
been
with
center
for
democracy
and
technology,
and
we
have
kasara
rathayaki,
who
is
our
senior
software
development
engineer,
who's
an
open
source
developer
skilled
in
full
stack
development
through
python
javascript
and
like
and
who
is
now
beginning
to
take
over
some
of
the
previous
tools
work.
So
that's
it
for
our
team
next
slide.
Please.
N
All
right
great,
thank
you,
jay
appreciate
it.
Welcome
next
slide,
please.
This
is
the
llc
board
report,
so
no
changes
here
from
the
last
meeting
still
the
same
folks
here
from
the
march
meeting,
so
you
can
see
all
of
our
pictures
here
next
slide.
Please.
N
And
these
are
our
upcoming
board
meetings.
One
note
here
that
on
august
11th
we
have
our
second
of
two.
I
assatu
retrospective
webinars.
N
So
as
you
know,
that
consultation
is
open,
I'll
mention
it
again
in
just
a
moment
but
worth
bearing
in
mind
that
that
is
slightly
different
from
a
normal
board
meeting
in
terms
of
agenda
and
so
on.
So
the
other
ones
are
typical
board
meetings.
N
N
So
here
is
the
current
work
that
we're
focused
on
really
since
the
last
meeting
we've
completed,
our
2020
financial
review
and
audit
had
another
second
year
now
clean
audit
report,
which
was
great
news
thanks
sean
for
coordinating
all
of
that
with
the
auditors.
N
We
also
recently
began
the
iasa
2
3-year
retrospect,
so
for
folks
that
don't
that
is
in
essence,
when
we
had
put
in
place,
we
asked
to
do
a
retrospect
two
years,
so
I'm
hearing
them
breaking
up
a
little
bit.
Sorry
we're
gonna
six
weaknesses,
type
of
assessment
as
well,
and
we
formalized
an
email
policy
for
staff
accounts
next
slide.
N
And
these
are
the
financials
as
they
stand
today.
The
only
note
here
really
is
the
difference
between
the
revenue
and
the
budget
versus
actual
and
explained
at
the
end
of
last
fiscal
year
when
the
contribution
was
recognized
which
actually
came.
You
know
late
in
the
fiscal
year
instead
of
in
this
year,
as
expected,
next
slide.
N
A
A
B
All
right,
thank
you,
so
I'm
just
going
to
present
the
results
of
the
recent
ietf
community
survey
that
we've
conducted
the
we
have
a
draft
report
out
and
the
consultation
on
that
is
still
open
for
a
while
longer
and
we'll
then
issue
a
final
report.
The
presentation
I'm
going
to
give
now
includes
changes
that
have
already
been
recommended
to
us
next
slide.
Please
next
slide
please.
B
So
they
had
a
threefold
purpose.
First
was
to
give
us
some
demographics
around
the
itf,
then
some
planning
data
that
can
be
used
by
various
parts
of
itf
leadership
and
then
a
the
first
part
of
a
time
series
so
that
we
can
then
begin
to
assess
the
natural
changes
affecting
the
itf
and
the
effectiveness
of
major
programs,
organizational
changes
and
leadership
actions
next
slide.
Please.
B
B
We
wanted
it
to
be
simple
for
people
to
respond
to
with
the
the
careful
language,
no
opinion
options,
and
only
one
mandatory
question
wanted
it
to
be
actionable
and
direct,
which
meant
no
free
text
answers.
We
couldn't
read
through
2
000
of
those
and
make
those
actionable
and
no
questions
about
fuzzy
perceptions
that
we
can
really
deal
with,
and
we
also
wanted
it
to
be
repeatable
and
relevant.
B
So
we
had
2032
valley
responses,
giving
a
margin
of
error
of
plus
or
minus
two
percent,
but
the
big
disclaimer,
of
course,
is
that
the
responders
to
this
survey
were
self-selected,
not
randomly
chosen,
and
the
details
of
the
population
are
not
well
known
enough
for
us
to
determine
if
this
sample
is
truly
representative.
B
So
key
findings
for
the
organization.
First,
great
news
here:
the
itf
mostly
delivers
its
mission
and
principles,
quality
and
relevance
of
our
rfcs
are
good.
Focus
of
the
work
is
acceptable.
Consensus
is
strong
and
the
ability
to
share
views
is
acceptable.
So
some
core
things
about
how
the
ietf
works
are
validated
by
this.
B
The
ietf
processes
are
mostly
acceptable,
with
the
standout
exception,
being
the
slowness
of
the
entire
itf
process,
and
then
we
have
an
issue
with
mass
communication,
which
is
partly
a
bootstrapping
problem
that
not
enough
people
know
about
ietf
announce,
but
we
also
have
other
more
complex
issues
about
what
content
people
want
to
see
and
how
they
like
to
receive
their
content
next
slide.
Please.
B
So
here
is
a
little
chart
using
coding
me,
which
is
explained
in
the
reports.
Higher
means
that
people
prefer
it
more.
It
shows
different
ways
about
the
people,
wish
to
be
informed
of
their
activities
and
shows
you
by
age,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
blog
posts
and
you
look
at
social
media
posts-
I
mean
it.
B
It
makes
me
smile
just
how
you
see
that
distribution
of
age
across
those
the
older
you
are
the
least
you
prefer
blog
posts
and
social
media
posts,
but
in
the
top
rights
the
strong
cluster
of
people
who
prefer.
B
B
Please
so
key
finders
about
people,
the
itf
has
a
sense
of
community,
but
only
just
and
people
don't
feel
that
they
can
recommend
the
itf
which
I'll
show
you
on
a
slide
in
a
moment,
and
the
itf
has
a
big
problem
with
gender
females
make
up
ten
percent
of
the
itf
report
community,
which
is
much
less
than
both,
of
course,
general
population
and
employees
within
it-related
fields,
and
are
disproportionately
deterred
by
the
culture
of
the
itf,
less
likely
to
feel
treated
the
same
as
the
rest
of
the
community
as
males
less
likely
to
feel
their
contributions
are
valued
and
less
likely
that
the
behaviour
of
other
participants
is
acceptable.
B
B
B
So
this
is
using
a
net
promoter
score,
which
is
a
a
methodology.
You
may
not
be
familiar
with
where
we
ask
people
to
score
from
0
to
10.
B
Would
you
how
likely
I
to
recommend
iota
participation
to
a
friend
or
colleague
those
who
score
9
or
10
are
promoters,
and
then
the
scale
is
down
below
and
you
generally
subtract
promoter
detractors
from
promoters,
and
in
this
case
we
have
a
negative
score,
which
is
terrible
in
net
promoter,
score
terminology
or
methodology
for
working
that
out.
So
while
people
have
a
lot
of
positive
things
to
say
about
being
here,
they
don't
really
want
to
inflict
it
on
others,
which
is
very
interesting
next
slide.
Please.
B
And
here
are
some
examples
of
the
gender
spit.
I
talked
about
the
ability
to
share
my
views
and
treated
the
same
as
the
rest
of
the
itf
community.
Next
slide,
please
so
key
findings
on
participation.
B
B
It's
partially
supported,
but
only
partially
supported
and
more
work
is
needed
to
understand
that
support
for
new
modes
of
participation,
such
as
issue,
trackers
or
instant
messaging,
is
limited
and
very
age
dependent
and
two
key
pillars
of
using
email
for
everything
and
using
english
as
a
standard
language
have
very
strong
support.
Surprisingly
strong
support
next
slide.
Please.
B
So
why
do
did
you
participate
in
the
itf?
This
question
was
asked
differently
of
different
people.
B
My
personal
interest
is
at
the
top
and
then
to
make
the
internet
work
better
and
then
professional
development,
and
you
can
see
two
of
the
interesting
bits
about
my
job,
allowing
me
to
my
job,
requiring
me
to
my
job,
allowing
me
to
coming
out
significantly
higher
there
so
which
is
interesting,
because
we
have
a
number
of
people
who
believe
that
there
are
people
who
maneuver
into
jobs
that
enable
them
to
work
within
the
itf
next
slide.
Please.
B
And
key
findings.
Finally,
about
the
wider
environment,
we
find
that
the
itf
is
a
very
important
part
of
a
well-connected
ecosystem
and
that
people
think
it
compares
very
positively
compared
to
other
standard
setting
organizations.
So
again,
this
is
using
net
promoter
score
methodology
here
and
the
promoters.
The
minus
detractors
gives
us
a
very
high
score
there
for
how
important
is
itf
development
of
the
internet
next
slide.
Please.
B
So,
finally,
just
about
the
next
steps
of
this
survey,
the
survey
was
conducted
on
behalf
of
the
isg
and
some
itf
llc
concerns
addressed
in
there
as
well,
and
it
will
be
used
by
the
isg
and
llc
over
the
next
year
in
order
to
plan
and
carry
out
work,
and
I'm
hoping
that
we'll
see
the
survey
readily
referenced
in
decision
making
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
data-driven
approach.
What
I'm
particularly
hoping
is
that
some
things
will
be
no
longer
sources
of
angst,
because
we
know
that
we
will
have.
B
B
Their
welcome
email
and
this
survey
will
be
repeated
annually
with
some
adjustments
so
that
we
build
up
the
time
series
of
data,
but
we're
almost
certainly
going
to
do
a
big
cleaning
up,
exercise
and
mailing
list
before
then
leading
to
a
smaller
total
population,
and
that
will
affect
things
in
future
next
slide.
Please
that's
it!
So,
thank
you
all
that
took
part
and
if
you
wish
to
discuss
this
further
or
provide
feedback
on
it,
then
on
the
admin
discuss
mailing
list.
Please
thank
you
over
to
you
lars.
A
Thanks
jake,
I
think
this
brings
us
to
the
open
mic
part.
The
next
slide
right.
This
is
the
isg.
Mics
are
open.
Please
get
in
line
and
ask
your
questions,
and
if
you
can
turn
your
video
on
too.
K
Hi
lars,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
correctly
addressed
to
the
isg,
but
I
will
ask
you,
you
know
you'll
know
that
redirect
me.
K
If
not,
I
noticed
that
there
have
been
quite
a
few
issues
raised
on
some
of
the
different
mailing
lists
over
the
last
few
weeks
on
the
use
of
github
versus
mailing
lists
and
where
the
different
working
groups
are
getting
the
balance
right,
and
I
it
seems
to
me
from
the
comments
that,
for
whatever
reason,
some
of
the
current
working
practices
are
not
satisfactory
without
making
judgments
as
to
in
what
direction,
and
I
wondered
if
you
thought
this
is
something
that
the
isg
needs
to
re-evaluate,
to
give
more
consistent
guidance
across
the
working
groups.
A
A
We
had
a
get
up
working
group
that
closed,
that
defined
some
guidelines
for
how
working
groups
can
use
github
in
the
itf
and
it
sort
of
leaves
us
in
a
position
where
each
individual
working
group
basically
decides
for
themselves
if
they're
using
github
and
how
they're
using
guitar-
and
I
guess
what
the
what
I
can't
recall
whether
we
had
a
discussion
about-
is
whether
a
working
group
that
doesn't
make
a
active
decision,
what
what
goes
for
them
right
so
gen
dispatch,
for
example,
in
this
case,
as
far
as
I
know,
doesn't
have
a
stated
policy
for
how
good
that
is
to
be
used.
A
And
so,
in
this
particular
case
I
have
an
individual
draft
that
I
use
github
for
and
I
posted
a
link
with
a
pull
request
that
contained
a
proposed
change
to
the
document.
Discussion
happened
on
github
and
there
was
some
confusion
on
whether
this
was
wanted
or
not,
and
why
it
wouldn't
be
an
email.
I'll
point
out
that
for
working
groups
that
basically
configure
githubs
as
an
organization,
it's
possible
to
set
up
a
mailing
list
such
that
all
the
discussion
on
github
gets
reflected.
There.
A
B
A
Far
the
most
busy
itf
list
and
it's
it's
sort
of
automatically
generated
email
mostly,
but
at
least
it
allows
people
that
don't
want
to
interact
with
github
to
at
least
follow
the
discussion,
but
it
requires
a
working
group
to
actively
have
a
github
organization
and
configured
a
certain
way.
So
it's
not
something
you
can
do
for
an
individual
draft,
which
is
a
little
bit
of
a
problem.
A
So
I'm
wondering
if
other
people
have
an
opinion
on
this.
One
thing
that
I've
seen
proposed
is
whether
the
github
working
group
should
be
reopened
with
an
extended
charter
or
revised
charter.
That's
certainly
something
we
could
do,
but
I
I'm
not
sure
how
much
consensus
there
would
be
for
doing
something
more
than
we
did
in
the
existing
github
working
group
a
while
ago,
because
the
the
community
is
quite
split
on
on
the
question
of
whether
github
should
be
used
and
how
much
I
see.
Brandon
nicu
brandon.
Are
you
on
the
same
topic?
O
A
So
it's
been
discussed
and
I
think,
for
example,
we
even
have
a
gitlab
license
for
the
ietf
that
we
could
take
into
action.
A
One
of
the
arguments
that
has
been
brought
up
is
that
being
on
github
as
the
sort
of
large
place
where
a
lot
of
open
source
gets
developed,
makes
it
easy
for
people
who
are
already
on
github
to
participate
on
itf
documents
and
we've
sort
of
totally
seen
this
for
the
quick
working
group
where
individuals
that
hadn't
participated
in
the
itf
found
the
repository
somehow
and
opened
issues
and
made
comments
and-
and
then
we
never
saw
them
again
so
just
sort
of
drive
by
participation
is
something
that
github
enables
and
if
we
would
host
our
own
setup
that
wouldn't
be
possible.
A
We
can
certainly,
you
know,
have
a
discussion
about
how
frequent
that
happens
and
how
important
it
is
for
your
organization.
But
it's
been
brought
up
and
discussed.
I
don't
think
there
was
consensus
on
it,
but
gitlab
would
be
something
that's
available
and
other
git
hosting
solutions
exist
too.
O
A
P
Jeff
go
ahead.
Okay,
I'm
bringing
up,
I
suppose,
a
question
that
arose
in
the
cider
ops
working
group
earlier
today
or
yesterday,
depending
on
where
you
live
in
this
world,
and
it's
actually
about
what
running
code
actually
means.
The
cyberops
working
group
is
certainly
grappling
with
that.
P
P
This
is
a
tough
question
and
I
think
punting
this
to
individual
working
groups
to
actually
resolve
severally,
diversely
and
independently,
is
entirely
wrong
for
the
ietf.
These
mixed
signals
are
not
only
confusing.
I
tend
to
suggest
that
they
create
such
a
mixed
quality
of
outcome.
It
actually
devalues
the
rfcs
lowest
common
denominator.
Rules
tend
to
apply,
what's
the
ietf
iesg
think
about
this,
and
are
they
willing
to
actually
reopen
what
running
code
actually
means
for
the
ietf
and
its
working
groups?
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
jeff:
does
anybody
on
the
idf
participated
in
this
group
want
to
speak
to
this?
I
see
alvaro
wants
to
start
to
share.
No,
yes,
go
ahead.
C
If
I'm
myself
everywhere,
I
can
actually
say
something
yeah.
This
has
come
up
before
and
I
think
that
yes,
ideally,
we
would
have
running
code
for
many
things
before
we
publish
there
are
some
working
groups
jeff
that
I
know
you're
familiar
with
idr,
for
example,
that
requires
two
independent
implementations.
We've
had
a
ton
of
discussions
with
the
chairs
and
others
about
what
does
an
implementation
mean
in
general?
You
know
we
want
a
an
actual
vendor
who
provides
backbone
software,
for
example,
when
we're
talking
about
bgp
right.
C
The
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
break
bgp,
however,
and
and
as
it
goes
to
your
point,
about
leaving
independent
working
groups
to
make
the
decisions,
in
my
mind,
at
least
I
I
do
think
that
is
the
right
way
to
do
it.
The
reason
is
that
different
working
groups
are
different
markets,
different
segments
and
not
all
of
them-
are
going
to
go.
Do
implementations
before
things
are
standardized
many
working
groups
that
work,
maybe
with
governments,
for
example,
these.
C
Manufacturers
are
going
to
wait
until
there's
an
rfc
until
the
spec
has
been
completely
approved
because
before
they
do
implementations,
so
I
think
that
that
the
part
of
the
issue
here
is
that
one
size
doesn't
fit
all
now
that
we
have,
I
don't
know
for
120
working
groups.
It
is
very,
very
hard
to
come
up
with
with
one
solution.
That's
going
to
fit
everyone.
A
Thankfully,
next
obvious
dominique
dominica,
sorry.
Q
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
the
presentation
on
the
survey
and
I
noticed
in
the
chat.
There
were
a
couple
questions
that
I
was
gonna
ask
out
loud.
One
is,
could.
P
I
actually
think
you
need
to
refine
what
we
mean
by
running
code
and
work
out
the
difference
between
a
spec
that
is
implementable
and
a
spec.
That
is
a
good
idea
for
customers
to
use
and
work
out.
How
running
code
relates
to
that,
because
at
the
moment,
as
I
said,
I
think
that
degree
of
variation
is
actually
harmful
to
this
process
and
the
quality
of
its
output
and
simply
saying
it's
somebody
else's
problem.
Working
groups
should
make
their
own
way
through.
P
R
R
I
would
kind
of
emphasize
you
know
with
the
enthusiasm
that
you
have
is
that,
for
example,
formal
verification
in
the
security
area
has
been
transformative
to
make
sure
that
that
the
spec
or
even
the
code
that
we're
producing
that's
that's
those
reference
implications,
has
really
changed
the
game
for
us
and
largely
table
stakes
for
the
introduction
of
new
protocols
for
us
and
to
the
question
of
scale.
R
R
S
Jeff,
I'm
very
sympathetic,
the
argument
you're
raising,
I
think
it's
important,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
the
argument
you're
making
in
the
distinctions
you're
asking
for
are
exactly
why
we
started
down
the
path
of
a
of
a
three-step
standards
process
about
a
century
ago.
And
I
know
that
for
better
or
worse,
we've
never
been
make
that
work.
A
Thanks
john
powerless.
I
So
having
been
on,
you
know
both
the
development
deployment
and
the
standardization
side,
I
think
I'd
like
to
chime
into
what
alvaro
said
with
respect
to
that.
I
You
can't
simply
say
one
size
fits
all
right
so,
depending
on
where
you're
actually
working
in
the
standardization,
the
you
know
overhead
to
just
do
an
experiment
in
implementing
something
that
ultimately
turns
out
not
to
be
useful,
has
been
shown
to
be
very,
very
expensive
in
cases,
and
so
you
actually,
you
know,
may
want
to
have
standardization
pre-go
the
implementation
to
really
work
out
quirks
before
your
investments
right.
So
obviously,
that's
not
everywhere.
True
right,
the
more
every
something
is,
you
know
very
easy
to
implement
software.
A
Thanks
carlos
and
I
see
an
empty
queue
for
the
isg,
any
further
questions
for
them.
Us,
okay,
thank
you
all
next
up
is,
I
think,
the
iab
open
mic.
So
can
we
get
the
next
slide?
Please
and
the
next
slide-
and
this
is
your
iab
and
the
miria-
is
there
and
questions.
E
E
K
In
then,
but
I
think
she's,
maybe
on
the
next
one,
I
I
have
two
questions.
K
If
I
may
first
is,
I
think
the
excellent
rfc
8890
informational
document
on
the
internet,
his
friend
users,
talked
about
the
importance
of
multi-stakeholder
consultation,
and
I
wondered,
if
there'd
been
any
subsequent
thoughts
on
actually
developing
a
process
to
do
this,
because
I
think
there
are
certainly
a
number
of
working
groups
where
there's
a
need
for
multi-stakeholder
consultation,
and
I
think
it
potentially
becomes
quite
a
barrier
to
doing
it
if
each
develops
its
own
process.
K
So
some
guidance
on
how
I
think
would
be
welcome
and
then,
secondly,
to
think
about
my
other
question,
I
think
last
time
I
raised
a
question
around
so
concerns
around
centralization
and
and
how
some
of
the
proposed
standards
working
through
the
system
seem
to
be
in
danger
of
making
that
worse,
not
better,
and
whether
there
are
any
plans
to
assess
the
centralization
impacts
of
new
standards
before
they're
introduced
alongside
security
impacts.
K
I
don't
think
I've
seen
progress
on
that
and
would
welcome
views
on
what's
going
to
be
done
to
actually
sort
of
take
centralization
risk
seriously.
Thank
you.
E
Okay,
let
me
start
on
your
first
part,
so
I
don't
think
we
you
know
we
have
like
a
specific
process
for
consulting
multi-stakeholder
organizations
or
parties,
but
we
do
discuss
a
lot
on
the
one
hand,
how
to
better
manage
our
resource,
how
to
better
outreach,
how
to
better
utilize
them
how
to
have
a
better
overview
what's
happening
at
all,
and
we
also
have
some
discussion
about
how
to
improve
our
outreach,
and
there
are
multiple
dimensions
of
this.
This
is
like
advertising.
E
What
the
ietf
is
doing
in
other
organizations
getting
feedback
getting
people
involved
and
getting
new
people
involved
also
attracted
to
the
idea,
but
these
are
all
different
aspects
which
different
answers
and
we're
just
you
know,
starting
the
discussion.
E
So
I
don't
have
like
an
answer
to
you,
but
it's
still
on
our
radar,
but
it's
also
not
like
an
easy
solution
like
how
to
improve
the
situation
here,
it's
more
in
the
assessment
phase.
I
don't
know
if
somebody
else
from
the
iab
wants
to
add
something.
E
T
Yeah
I'd
be
happy.
Can
I
turn
into
the
second
half
of
the
question
here:
yeah.
E
T
Yeah
yeah,
just
for
the
point
about
you
know:
what
can
we
do
for
concerns
about
sensualization
et
cetera?
It
is
definitely
something
that
we've
discussed
as
diabetes
and
you
know
retreats
etc.
Well,
this
is
one
of
the
practical
items
that
we've
been
going
through.
T
An
exercise
of
that
we're
still
working
on
is
a
list
of
things
centralization,
just
being
one
small
part
of
that
that
the
ib
should
be
reviewing
during
buff
chartering,
working
group,
chartering
anytime,
we
have
new
work
coming
in
just
as
a
way
to
kind
of
look
at
kind
of
the
bigger
picture
of
how
do
these
pieces
fit
together
and
are
there
things
that
may
not
come
up
in
other
types
of
review
that
we
think
should
be
on
the
list
that
the
iv
comes
back
to?
U
Yeah
so
tommy
said
basically
what
I
wanted
to
say,
but
maybe
add
a
few
things.
One
is
that
I
think
many
of
us
actually
do
care
quite
a
bit
in
the
ietf
and
iap
as
well
about
centralization
consolation
issues,
but
it's
sort
of
difficult
item
to
deal
with.
You
have
to
discuss
the
specific
of
of
these
cases.
U
So
yesterday,
for
instance,
we
had
a
big
discussion
on
impacts
of
discovery
or
not
in
in
one
of
the
buffs
that
we
had
this
week,
and
you
know
whether
there's
an
issue
depends
on
exactly
what
the
use
cases
are
and
how
we
end
up
using
a
particular
technical
design.
So
so
I
think
it's
at
the
top
of
our
minds,
or
at
least
it's
one
of
the
things
that
we
care
about,
but
we
have
to
discuss
the
specific
cases
in
in
detail
and
there's
like
no
direct
golden
rule.
U
V
Yeah,
so
one
thing
to
note
about
you
know
the
internet
being
for
the
end
users
right.
One
of
the
things
that
we
are
doing
right
now
is
actually
going
to
be
holding
a
workshop
on
measuring
network
quality
for
end
users,
and
that
is
right.
In
line
with
with
our
goal
to
you
know,
figure
out,
how
do
we
get
a
better
sample
rate
for
what
how
things
are
impacting
end
users
right?
V
The
call
for
papers,
for
that
is
open
right
now,
it's
linked
up
for
the
ieb
website
and
I'd
strongly
encourage
people
to
submit
papers
for
it.
The
due
date
is
actually
august
2nd,
which
is
coming
up
quickly,
but
they
don't
need
to
be
long
papers.
Just
what
are
your
thoughts
around
that
and
you
can
go,
read
the
call
for
papers
I'll
drop
it
in
chat
too
thanks.
E
So,
as
andrew
just
mentioned,
chad
that
he
would
like
to
have
more
guidance,
maybe
send
us
a
separate
email
to
the
iab
and
we
can
figure
out
what
you're
actually
looking
for
and
if
that
is
covered,
somehow
by
our
lisa
management
or,
if
you're,
actually
looking
for
something
else.
That
would
be
helpful
thanks
and
then
seren
were
you
trying
to
join
the
queue
or
we
can
see
a
video.
A
A
Board
I
want
to
ask
dominique
to
come
back
to
the
front
of
the
queue
fish
is
already
perfect.
Thank
you.
Thank.
W
Q
Bad
timing
with
the
jet
lag
and
everything
yeah
so
basically
going
back
to
the
survey
as
I
was
mentioning
just
a
double
a
question
on
what
is
being
done
to
potentially
address
the
gender
issues
and
also
the
issue
that
was
brought
up
in
parallel
about
feeling.
Welcome
or
you
know,
inclusivity
thanks.
B
Well,
so
I
go
with
that.
First
then,
at
this
stage
dominique,
if
we're
just
getting
the
results
together,
the
response
obviously
needs
to
have
part
iesg
response
and
part
llc
response.
I
can't
speak
the
isg
lars
will
do
that
within
the
llc.
B
When
the
consultation
is
finished
and
we've
got
the
final
report
out
there
we'll
be
having
some
form
of
conversation
about
that
jason.
Did
you
want
to
add
anything?
B
No,
so
I
mean
it
is
something
that
we
recognize
and
do
take
seriously.
It's
something
we've
been
talking
about
for
quite
some
time,
which
is
why
the
questions
appeared
in
the
way
they
did
in
the
survey,
because
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
the
data
to
validate
what,
for
many
of
us
was
an
instinctive
understanding
and
so
taking
that
forward.
Now
I
think
we've
got
a
a
very
clear
mandate.
B
A
Yeah
I
can
always
say
that
the
results
are
that
came
in
a
few
weeks
ago
and
and
the
isg
was
obvious
in
the
ramp
up
to
the
itf
meeting.
So
we've
sort
of
looked
at
it
and
we've
discussed
it
certainly,
but
we
haven't
had
since
simply
have
the
time
to
sit
down
on
a
chat
to
like
dig
down
and
decide
what
we're
going
to
do
with
these
results.
A
But
I
agree
with
jay
and
others
that
the
results
are
sort
of
eye-opening
and
I
think
they
certainly
motivate
an
action
by
the
organization
and
by
the
community
to
improve
the
scores
that
we
have
in
some
of
those
categories
I
was.
I
was
quite
surprised
that
the
outcome
was
that.
A
B
U
A
In
that
case,
can
we
go
next
slide
just
to
make
sure
that
I
don't
forget
anything.
N
One
quick
comment:
there
was
some
discussion
in
the
chat
that
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
folks
took
note
of.
It
was
about
the
mechanisms
by
which
people
can
provide
feedback
to
the
board
on
the
iasa
2
retrospective
and,
as
noted
in
the
blog,
we're
happy
to
take
it
via
email
on
admin
discuss
via
github
the
upcoming
second
webinar
or
office
hours
or
gather
town
this
week.
N
A
I'm
hoping
it's
the
last
one,
I
think
it's
the
last
one,
so
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
the
plenary.
Thank
you
all
very
much,
especially
my
fellow
europeans,
for
whom
it
is
approaching
sunrise
out
there
and
enjoy
the
rest
of
your
itf
week,
and
I
certainly
hope
we
get
to
see
each
other
in
person
again
very
soon.