►
From YouTube: IETF111-SHMOO-20210728-2130
Description
SHMOO meeting session at IETF111
2021/07/28 2130
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/proceedings/
A
A
A
A
And
this
is
the
regular
notewell
you
probably
far
enough
in
the
week
to
recognize
what's
in
there,
but
by
participating
in
this
meeting,
you
agree
to
follow
the
the
bcps
that
are
pertinent
to
this,
like
as
what
defends
the
contribution
and
so
on.
Please
look
at
the
links
in
the
slide
to
read
like
more
details
about
that.
Thank.
A
A
A
Much
so
just
looking
at
the
the
deliverables
and
status
so
for
the
the
remote
meetings,
the
the
guidelines
for
the
principles
for
canceling
a
physical
meeting
and
replacing
it
with
the
fully
online
meeting.
So
the
draft
like
ietf
remote
meetings,
has
completed
the
iesg
eval
and
it
has
been
approved
but
pending
a
revised
id.
So
martin
is
there
anything
you
want
to
talk
about
it
like
in
on
the
pending
edits.
B
A
You
thanks
martin
and
for
the
the
meeting
fees
draft.
The
remote
fee
draft
has
also
been
ready,
like
you
know,
we
kind
of
didn't
get
the
emails
from
the
authors
due
to
like
some
gmail
issues,
but
the
draft
is
ready
for
working
with
last
call,
so
we
kind
of
realized
like
the
author's
mails
are
getting
through
to
some
of
us
and
that
that's
something
you
would
initiate
right
after
this
meeting
to
send
to
working
with
glasgow
and
then
send
it
along
the
process.
A
Right
after
that,
and
the
hackathon
draft
was
adopted
as
a
working
group
item
and
I
would
say
it's
like
in
fairly
good
shape,
but
like
so
whenever
the
the
author
like
lets
us
it's.
No,
it's
ready
for
working
group
last
call
we'll
just
ship
it
off
as
well.
I
think
it's
like
fairly
in
good
shape,
unless
there's
some
updates
from
this
meeting's
hackathon.
A
That
should
be
ready
to
go
as
well
and
there's
another
draft,
which
kind
of
is
like
fairly
new.
This
is
like
the
media
and
martin's
online
meeting
draft.
That's
something
that's
going
to
be
presented
today
about,
like
you
know
how
how
the
scheduling
and
stuff
works
for
the
meetings-
and
we
can
discuss
like
you-
know
the
draft
and
see
if
it
fits
the
purpose
for
like
a
deliverable
for
this,
and
there
were
other
drafts
that
were
being
used
before.
A
Like
you
know,
there's,
like
you
know,
michael's
draft,
you
know
the
mini
fine
dinners
draft
and
mallory's
draft
they've
expired.
So
I
think,
michael,
if
you
have
plans
to
update
it
and
bring
it
back
like
you
know,
please
do
so.
Like
you
know,
you
really
look
forward
to
that
as
well
and
again
on
the
technology
side
as
well,
and
there
was
really
only
one
draft,
the
the
hum
draft
for
sure
fans
draft
like
that
martin
did,
and
that
has
also
expired.
A
And
so
we
have
like
two
presentations
today.
One
of
them
is
really
about
the
online
meeting
staff
that
we
talked
about
earlier.
I
think
it's
gonna
be
martin
who's
gonna
be
presenting
it
and
it's
by
martin
and
meria
that
they're
going
to
go
first
and
then
jay
would
like
to
present
the
results
of
the
on-site
participation
at
ietf
112
survey,
and
there
was
a
url
that
was
sent
out.
I
also
put
it
in
the
agenda,
so
if
you
want
to
click
through
and
look
at
it,
it's
pretty
much
like
an
interactive
dashboard
of
the
results.
A
So
you
can
follow
along
either
like
what
jay
is
showing
or
you
can
just
look
at
it
at
your
own
leisure,
to
figure
their
own
conclusions
from
there.
So
that's
something
we
want
to
discuss
and
see
if
there's
something
that
comes
out
of
it
and
probably
at
the
end
like
hand
off
to
lars,
to
see
if
he
has
any
other
announcements
to
make
here.
So
any
questions
about
the
agenda
agenda,
bashing.
B
You
mentioned
the
show
of
hands
draft.
The
sentiment
I
received
was
to
not
bother
to
ever.
Take
that
publication.
That's
why
it
hasn't
been
updated.
If,
if,
if
people
want
to
adopt
that,
I
can
resurrect
it,
I
just
didn't
sense
a
lot
of
enthusiasm
to
carry
that
all
the
way.
Through
I
mean
it
is
chartered,
doesn't
mean
we
have
to
do
it
right.
A
A
That's
a
discussion
we
need
to
have
with
our
ad
and
and
after
that,
like
either
reach
out
or
close
right,
like,
I
think,
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
in
discussions
of
this
hybrid
meeting
stuff
right
like
we're
not
chartered
to
do
it,
and
so
we'll
wait
for
lars's
guidance
to
go
forward
so
like.
I
think
the
idea
at
this
point
is
to
use
the
mailing
list
for
discussions
with
like
no
indications
regarding
whether
it's
suitable
for
work
here
or
not
lars.
C
I
know
I
can
say
something
so
yeah
do
you
so
the
I
mentioned
this
earlier
in
gen
dispatch.
So
I
think
we're
gonna
use
the
many
cultures
list
as
the
list
to
have
the
discussion
for
things.
People
want
to
talk
about
related
to
hybrid
meetings
and
if
we
recharge
mu
and
if
we
recharge
it
in
a
way
that
would
let
you
work
on
this.
It
becomes
part
of
the
charter.
C
D
Yeah,
just
a
one
person
of
thought,
so
it
is
not
the
case
as
it
was
when
we
switched
to
online
meetings
that
we
had
to
make
quick
decisions
and
we
didn't
know
what
to
come
right.
So
that
was
a
different
situation.
However,
I
think
we
were
not
able
you
were
not
would
have
not
been
able
to
like
write
these
drafts
without
the
experience
that
we
had
over
the
last
year
and
a
little
bit
more
so
for
me
sure
we
can
take
many.
D
F
Yeah
just
one
point
with
respect
to
the
whole
logistics
stuff
right,
I
think,
for
the
existing
charter
as
well
as,
for
you
know,
possible
discussions
beyond
that
right.
I
think
one
of
the
issues
is
a
little
bit
that
a
lot
of
the
relevant
data
about
which
to
make
decisions,
kind
of
scattered
around
other
parts
in
the
ietf,
like
leadership,
decisions
and
meeting
committee
decisions.
F
G
F
A
Sounds
good
thanks,
carlos
and,
and
I
think,
like
some
of
the
questions,
at
least
like
you
know
that
are
on
my
mind,
is
like
covered
by
the
survey
that
jay
is
going
to
present
and
and
like.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
start
collecting
this
somewhere,
and
maybe
we
can
set
up
a
wiki
where
we
can
start
putting
in
the
things
and
links
and
so
on,
like
kind
of
like
a
design
team
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
Yeah.
C
Can
I
quickly
sort
of
ask
charles
what
kind
of
information
you
think
you'd
want
to?
Maybe
that
would
be
the
first
thing
to
put
on
the
wiki
right,
because
the
obvious
information
exists,
especially
on
the
side
of
secretariat
right,
but
it's
kind
of
hard
to
like
make
it
available
that
we
don't
know
what
might
be
useful
to
the
community.
F
Well,
I
think
it
starts
with
you
know,
decisions
that
may
have
already
been
made
or
are
in
process
of
being
discussed
outside
of
schmoo
by
I
by
the
appropriate
leadership
teams
right.
So
just
knowing,
where
else
to
maybe
start
looking
into
to
you
know,
have
knowledge
to
bring
back.
You
know
ideas
into
what
do
you
make.
F
Yeah,
I
think
so,
for
example,
the
these
questionnaires
right,
so
I
think
they're
they're
really
very
good
good
input
right.
You
know
they're
presented
here
now,
so
that
that
that
is
great
right.
If
in
one
or
two
months
you
go
back
later,
I
mean
you
find
them
just
on
the
mailing
list
right,
so
you
can
go
through
a
long,
long
mailing
list
with
many
discussions
right.
A
F
B
B
And
for
most
of
the
stuff
I
mean
people,
I
don't
think
anyone
who's
attended.
Any
of
these
meetings
would
be
surprised.
It
pretty
much
writes
down
what
we've
hit
upon
as
like
the
least
bad
option
in
terms
of
the
length
of
the
sessions
and
how
much
of
a
break
and
tracks
and
whether
we
have
a
107
style.
B
You
know
just
just
boss
and
and
and
new
working
groups
versus
trying
to
have
all
the
regular
sessions
that
we
would
have
in
an
in-person
meeting.
The
one
thing
that
that
required
a
little
bit
of
of
deviation
from
that
is
selecting
the
actual
times
that
the
the
meeting
should
run.
As
you
know,
as
everyone
knows,
I
think
we're
currently
using
roughly
noon
to
1800
in
the
local
time
zone.
B
It's
by
no
means
clear
that
the
next
online
meeting
or
a
future
online
meeting
will
have
a
sort
of
designated
venue
that
is
cancelled,
so
that
doesn't
necessarily
work
and
certainly
on
the
list.
There's
been
a
lot
of
angst
about
the
1200
selection.
The
noon
start
time
in
particular,
I
I'm
not
particularly
exercised
about
it,
but
nevertheless
that's
something
we
need
to
put
some
thought
into
next
slide.
B
B
Now
you
know
this
methodology
is
somewhat
arbitrary
and
I
think
we
could
certainly
bike
shed
over
how
this
was
scored
out.
But
so
I
I
try
to
figure
out
the
score
for
each
of
three
regions:
europe.
I
just
used
cet,
because
it's
pretty
much
plus
or
minus
one
from
that
north
america,
I
did
a
mean
of
eastern
pacific
and
for
asia.
I
did
just
a
simple
mean
of
the
pain
scores
for
those
four
time
zones
which
I
think
I
mean
asia
is
pretty
big.
B
Okay,
so
by
applying
this
methodology,
and
just
assuming
that
we
just
did
eight
hour
shifts
for
each
for
each
rotation
and
and
seeking
that
we're
trying
to
sort
of
minimize
the
max
pain
by
this
metric.
If
you
look
at
the
the
four
left
columns,
the
picking
0
to
10
and
1800
hours
are
kind
of
have
the
lowest
max
paying
of
all
the
all
the
groups.
B
B
B
I
haven't
actually
written
a
program
just
because
of
all
possible
permutations
of
start
time
yet,
but
I
did
kind
of
manually
deviate
a
little
bit
because
the
888
rule
in
terms
of
separating
slots
is
not
set
in
stone,
and
I
so
I
did
try
some
deviations
to
try
to
fix
particular
problems
and
eliminate
move
away
from
some
local
maxima
and
it
honestly
wasn't
successful
by
these
metrics.
I
didn't
get
any
better
than
sticking
with
2
10
18.
B
Next
slide
now,
so
what
what
I
just
described
to
you
is
probably
the
most
obvious
way
to
try
to
do
the
scoring
and
we
we
can.
We
can
argue
about
the
details
and
what
time
zones
to
include
and
whatnot,
but
you
know,
sort
of
this
pain
score
thing,
a
sort
of
an
obvious
thing,
but
but
I
I
should
say
that
this
is
not
actually
what
mira
was
trying
to
do
with
her
original
time
zone
selection.
B
I
showed
you
the
different
hours
of
the
of
the
second
worst
meeting
for
any
given
time
zone,
so
you
know
you're
looking
at
in
that
meeting
like
about
one
and
a
half
hours
of
lousy
times
in
that
second
worst
meeting
and,
of
course
the
the
best
meaning
is,
is
generally
free
of
these
sorts
of
problems.
Although
asia's
big-
as
I
said
for
those
you
didn't
know-
and
so
it's
it's
very
hard
to
make
it
make
the
asian
time
zone
work
really
well
for
everybody.
B
B
B
I
don't
know
how
productive
it
is
to
go
really
deep
into
the
methodology
in
terms
of
picking
time
zones
or
anything,
but
if
anyone
has
a
has
any
thoughts
about
what
the
correct
metric
is
or
if
there's
serious
methodological
problems,
what
we
think
I've
done
here.
This
would
be
a
wonderful
time
to
share
those
thoughts.
B
D
Yeah
I
just
I
would
like
to
add
one
more
point.
I
think,
like
one
of
the
big
questions
would
really
be
looking
at
these
two
metrics
is:
what
do
people
want
to
optimize
for
in
this
high
level
right?
Do
you
rather
want
to
optimize
to
have
like
one
really
good
meeting
for
your
time
zone,
or
only
one
really
bad
meeting
for
your
time
zone?
If,
if
that's
something
you
get
guidance
on,
I
think
we're
already
a
big
step
forward.
F
You
know:
people
in
a
time
zone,
that's
very
sparsely
populated
with
ietf
participants
to
get
the
the
worst
end
of
a
stick,
whereas
it
would
be
better
for
the
majority
and
I
think
we're
seeing
this
right
now,
where
you
know,
I
think
right
now.
I
think
the
new
zealand
people
are
fairly
happy
and
the
europeans
which
you
know
outnumber
them
by
a
factor
of
20
or
so,
are
fairly
unhappy.
And
so
I
think
that's
one
of
the
big
questions
right.
What
is
what
is
the
fairness
metric?
We
really
want.
B
Yeah
I
mean
it
is
always
it
is
always.
I
mean
certainly
like
the
with
the
one
extreme
you're
trying
to
up
have
every
meeting
optimize
for
most
people.
You
just
end
up
with
everything
optimized
for
the
atlantic
and
people
on
the
other
side
of
the
world
perpetually
disadvantaged.
And,
conversely,
if
you
just
kind
of
make
it
completely
neutral
to
where
the
people
really
are,
you
get
some
also
pretty
perverse
results.
H
H
H
So
I
think
rotating
the
pain
is
absolutely
the
right
approach
here
regarding
the
methodology
here,
I
would
just
you
asked
if,
if
you
know
we
can
accept
this
as
kind
of
the
basis
for
moving
forward
or
something
along
those
lines.
I
just
I
feel
like
there
are
so
many
assumptions
baked
into
this,
and
I
really
need
to
unpick
those
and
and
and
figure
that
out
before
I
can
have
a
rational
answer
to
that.
B
So
yeah
I
mean
I
don't
thank
you
for
those
comments
mark
like
I
in
terms
of
the
length
of
the
meeting
that
is,
I
I
would
put
that.
Definitely
in
the
category
of
kind
of
the
first
slide,
where
you
know
I
don't
have
the
chapter
verse
on
this,
but
I
believe
the
survey
results
were
pretty
positive
about
that
particular
aspect
as
opposed
to
some
of
the
alternatives
but
yeah
so,
but
regarding
the
these
times,
yes,
I
I
do
thanks
for
the
comments
charles
mark.
Did
you
have
more.
D
D
Yeah,
so
as
you
just
like
as
you've
seen
on
the
first
slide,
the
draft
talks
about
all
these
aspects,
but
it's
making
mainly
making
recommendations
based
on
on
what
we
have
experience
on
and
what
what
the
service
seems
to
indicate.
However,
the
draft
also
says
you
know
we
should
keep
experimenting
with
all
of
this
and,
in
the
best
case,
one
of
the
things
at
a
time,
so
we
actually
know
if
it's
better
or
worse.
B
I
should
also
add
that
there
is
a
there's,
a
github
for
this
document
on
yura's
personal
github
and
there's
an
issue
specifically
about
this
time
zone
thing
that
I
need
to
update
with
this
other
scoring
system,
but
so
that's
so
yeah.
I'm
throwing
a
lot
at
you
to
evaluate
in
real
time,
but
there's
an
actual
place
for
reason.
Discussion
on
this.
I
H
Yeah,
I
really
caution
about
taking
the
surveys
at
face
value,
because
they're
naturally
going
to
be
biased
towards
people
who
are
very
active
in
the
ietf,
and
especially
if
this
is
a
long-term
kind
of
thing,
which
that's
kind
of
what
we're.
In
now.
You
need,
instead
of
people
who
are
more
casually
involved
in
the
itf
and
their
needs.
D
B
B
E
E
If
you
have
a
known
set
of
participants
like
I
was
running
the
rss
gwg,
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
to
figure
out
a
time
zone,
even
though
we
had
people
from
australia
and
people
from
finland
that
would
actually
work
for
them,
and
we
basically
ran
an
algorithm
very
close
to
this.
The
nice
thing,
though,
is,
as
you
have
a
known
set
of
people.
You
can
take
into
account
what
pain
actually
means
for
those
people,
so
there
were
some
of
those
people
for
whom
staying
up
was
actually
not
a
big
deal.
E
There
were
some
of
those
people
for
whom
getting
up
early
was
actually
not
a
big
deal
because
of
other
work
that
they
did
or
how
their
their
systems
work.
As
we
move
into
this
being
a
kind
of
a
a
much
more
common
thing.
I
think
we
really
have
to
take
a
hard
look
at
what
the
pain
looks
like
when
it's
not
just
sleep.
E
I
mean
there
are
people
for
whom
getting
up
in
the
morning
and
taking
care
of
their
kids
before
they
go
to
school
means
that
no
matter
what
time
you
put
the
itf
their
day
starts
at
that
time
of
day.
If
they're
staying
home,
that's
going
to
be
part
of
their
reality
that
wouldn't
be
part
of
their
reality.
If
they
were
traveling,
somebody,
maybe
bringing
the
kids
with
them.
Maybe
not,
and
I
think
we
we
really
have
to
take
a
much
bigger
look
at
this.
E
B
B
B
You
know
zero,
two
to
or
rather
twenty
two
hundred
to
zero,
eight
hundred
as
kind
of
the
pain
region,
because
I
think
there
are
some
people
that
have
to
go
to
work
and
do
their
day
jobs
than
do
this
in
the
evening
or,
conversely,
you
know
wanna,
do
it
during
their
day
work
schedule
and
have
the
evenings
free
and
like
it's
we're
really
not
trying
to
judge
that
just
when
people
get
really
really
degraded
from
you
know
being
up
at
three
in
the
morning.
That
is
almost
almost
the
universal
sentiment.
B
J
So
you
know
I
I
guess
you
know,
I
would
probably
suggest
a
somewhat
different
way
to
think
about
this,
which
is
you
know
that
for
the
like,
you
know
next,
so
so
we
so
we
have
total,
I
guess,
march
or
20th.
Well,
we
have
until
july
of
12
of
20.
before
we
like
really
run
out
of
meeting
locations
that
we,
like,
allegedly
you
know,
made
plans
for
right.
J
So
I
I
would
actually
suggest
that
we
do
none
of
our
stuff
and
just
be
like
follow
more
or
less
the
plan
we're
following
now
for
those
locations,
even
though
it
is
a
terrible
plan.
I
I
actually
can
see,
and
you
know,
because
those
locations
are
some
attempt
to
optimize
for
time
zones
and
locations
for
people
are
convenient
and
so
like
they
they
already
take
into
account,
largely
whatever
equities.
B
Big
sector,
so
actually
you
raised
a
number
of
interesting
points
that
I
think
I
should
address
number
one
I
mean
I
would
say
that
we
did.
We
didn't
just
immediately
jump
to
the
to
the
one
week
format
for
these
online
meetings.
We
did
try
something
quite
different
in
107,
with
like
very
few
meetings
an
ietf
week
and
the
long
tail
interims.
B
I
I
don't
have
the
time
to
get
into
my
personal
issues
with
that
with
that
format,
and
I
don't
want
to
suggest
that
we've
exhausted
all
other
possibilities
because
we
haven't,
but
but
the
draft
does
actually
one
of
the
sections
is
very
specific
and
saying
you
know,
please
do
conduct
experiments,
but
this
is
something
that
we
found
was
like,
not
that
bad
what
we
did.
Furthermore,
this
I
mean
really
all
the
work
issue
is
not
about
coca-19.
B
It
is
about
kind
of
future
cases
where
we
might
do
an
all
online
meeting
or
be
forced
to
cancel
something,
and
so
I
mean
I'll
leave
it.
It
is
by
no
means
clear
that
any
of
the
stuff
in
this
draft
will
have
any
impact
at
all
on
on
what
happens
for
the
the
tail
end
of
this
kobe
19
disruption,
and
then.
J
J
We
say
this
means
two
years
out,
and
so
the
idea
like
we're
scheduling
three
months
out
and
we're
going
to
say
well,
all
of
you,
people
had
to
suffer
with
crappy
time
zones
like
for
the
past
four
meetings
and
now
finally
we're
meeting
your
time
zone,
we
had
to
cancel
it,
and
so
now
we're
going
to
run
some
sort
of
like
fairness,
algorithm
and
you
just
get
screwed
again.
That's
like
unreasonable,
right
and
so
like.
B
So
I
am,
I
am
personally
sympathetic
to
the
idea
that
we
should
probably
play
out
the
kobe
19
thing
under
the
current,
the
current
scheme,
but
others
might
feel
differently
and
I
I
think
that's
maybe
orthogonal,
to
the
ultimate
paid
of
this
draft
and
the
last
thing
I'd
say
is
I
mean
you
know.
Like
you
mentioned,
you
were
double
booked,
I'm
double
booked
in
certain
slots,
but
I
would
say
that
you
and
I
are
edge
cases
and
the
vast
majority
of
of
the
of
the.
J
J
But
okay,
but
like
we,
when
we,
when
we
pick
working
group
slots,
we
routinely
do
routinely
ask
where
the
people
are
critical.
Being
that
working
group
and
like
yeah
and
and
so
like
that,
we
already
attempt
to
optimize
for
those
edge
cases
and
and
and
this
has
had
a
majorly
negative
impact
on
ability
to
death.
B
L
M
L
L
The
second
thing
is,
you
showed
two
different
ways
of
scoring
and
the
second
one
that
you
have
up
now
of
minimizing
the
pain
for
like
your
second
best.
Second
worst,
I
think
that's
a
good
way
to
go
that
hey,
okay,
so
you're
going
to
have
one
meeting,
that's
just
horrible!
Let's
try
to
make
the
other
two
not
too
bad,
and
I
think
what
you
have.
What
you're
showing
right
now
does
a
pretty
good
job
of
that.
So
I'm
I'm
pretty
happy
with
that.
L
The
other
thing
was
in
terms
of
so
many
people
have
complained
about
that.
We
start
at
what
is
noon
in
the
local
time
zone
and
I
think
that's
a
pretty
easy
one
to
address.
You
know
that
you
just
kind
of
once
a
meeting
goes
online.
You
you
divorce
it.
This
is
kind
of
the
opposite.
I
think
of
what
ecker
was
suggesting,
but
I
actually
don't
think
the
end
result
is
that
different?
L
You
you
go
with
with
the
times
that
you
have
here,
you
don't
the
agenda
and
that
we
don't
say:
oh
it's
in
san
francisco,
so
therefore
we
start
at
noon.
San
francisco,
you
start
at
whatever
your
slot
is,
and
you
know
it
gets
people
away
from
that.
Oh
starting
at
noon
is
weird,
which
I
think
a
lot
of
people
just
had
objections
with.
So
you
know
I
think
that
would
go
a
long
way
towards
helping
things
too.
B
B
L
Just
a
couple
follow-up
things
that
so
one
on
that
I
mean
we
do
have
you
know
east
coast
west
coast
in
the
u.s,
so
the
time
moves
around
some
anyways
and
the
other
thing
is
in
terms
of
just
a
quick
quest,
a
quick
thought
on
totally
rethinking
things,
certainly
for
the
hackathon.
I
think
it
worked
out
well
to
where,
instead
of
trying
to
have
it
be
the
week
weekend
before
that,
that
was
just
totally
unworkable.
L
I
don't
think
we
have
a
great
solution
now
running
the
whole
week
before
and
there's
obviously
some
downsides
to
that,
but
but
certainly
if
something
needs
to
be
online
only
for
an
extended
period
of
time.
I
think
a
pretty
big
rethink
of
how
we
structure
things
might
might
work
better,
including
smaller
blocks
of
time.
Over
many
days,
instead
of
you
know
more
intense,
like
we
typically
do
when
we
meet
face
to
face.
L
K
So,
first
of
all,
can
you
hear
me
is
that
working
okay?
So
I
I
want
to
just
sort
of
addre.
So,
first
of
all,
I
like
the
the.
I
think
the
most
important
thing
is
to
discuss
what
we're
trying
to
optimize
here.
So
I
think
that
I
I
like
the
point
of
like:
let's
make
it
so
people
only
have
one
meeting
a
year,
that's
really
bad
for
them,
and
I
think
that
we
can
try
and
do
that
from
every
time
zone.
K
I
played
with
these
same
pain
systems
before
a
little
bit,
and
I
do
think
that
probably
the
blurring
the
the
you
know,
north
america,
asia
into
one
time,
point
probably
impacts
your
results
here
and
is
going
to
get
slightly
things
wrong,
but
I'm
suggesting
we're
all
something
else
beyond
that
which
is
we
do
that?
That's
the
first,
that's
the
highest
priority
is
only
one
meeting
a
year.
That's
really
bad
for
anyone
in
any
time
zone,
basically
in
or
any
times
are
when
we
have
like
a
non-trivial
number
of
people.
K
K
Us
that
are
not
like
so
blurry,
they
can't
even
think
straight.
It's
3
a.m
for
them
as
much
as
we
can
so
with
inside
the
time
range
that
we
have,
that
that
is
workable
to
have
somebody
not
have
a
totally
awful
meeting.
I
think
that
we
should
actually
optimize
to
minimize
the
the
average
pain
across
the
participants
that
come
and
and
and
have
the
participants
that
come
identify
the
time
zone.
K
That's
painful
for
them,
because,
as
many
people
have
raised
is
some
people
it's
early,
some
people's
like,
and
we
can
just
say
you
know
pick
a
five
hour
block
of
the
day
that
you
is
painful
for
you,
and
so
primarily
no
one
has
more
than
one
bad
meeting
a
year,
but
secondarily
we're
trying
to
optimize
it
now.
This
is
going
to
obviously
shift
things
towards
that
slightly
optimized
for
north
america,
europe
sort
of
shift.
K
I
mean,
I
understand
completely
the
the
problem
that
this
this
this
leads
to,
but
I
think
that
that's
probably
a
reasonable
trade-off
to
say,
you're
going
to
have
one
meeting,
but
we're
not
just
going
to
torture.
Everyone
on
a
issue
of
pure
fairness,
because
we
are
trying
to
actually
effectively
achieve
some
work
and
we're
going
to
weight
that
by
people
doing
work.
K
You
know,
I
think
that
that
would
be
an
interesting
trade-off
and
might
result
in
things
where
we
don't
just
have
a
time
that
is
clearly
worse
for
95
of
our
participants
than
we
could
have
shifted
it
and
still
not
change
the
big
effect
of
bad
for
everyone.
So
I
I
anyway,
let
me
just
leave
it
at
that
of
that
you
know.
I
think
we
should
pursue
some
metric,
that
sort
of
balances,
those
getting
work
done
and
being
inclusive.
N
This
is
definitely
the
least
worse.
So
as
long
as
you
accept
that
you
can't
optimize
for
me
personally,
all
of
the
time,
because
otherwise
there'd
be
an
awful
lot
of
other
people
that
be
pretty
unhappy,
then
yeah,
I
think,
an
algorithm
which
basically
means
you
have
one
bad
meeting
which
for
me
happens
to
be
this.
One
and
two
which
is
sort
of
okay
is,
is
reasonable
and
you
know
there
will
always
be
outliers
and
you
know
life's
tough
get
over
it.
It
would
be
my
view
on
that.
So
yeah.
N
O
It's
great
to
optimize
for
an
ideal
perfect
set
of
people
who
might
come
here,
but
the
people
who
are
here
are
the
ones
that
are
getting
the
work
done.
We
do
have
to
make.
I
I
I'm
here
in
australia
where
I'm
going
to
suffer
the
worst
for
saying
this,
but
I
think
it
is
important
to
we're
here
to
get
work
done.
We're
not
here
to
create
equal,
equal
magic
for
the
entire
world,
who
might
theoretically
show
up
so
it's
important
to
to
set
things
that
actually
do.
Let
people
get
the
work
done.
O
O
I
think
smearing
them
across
a
much
wider
time
is
going
to
be
less
effective
than
having
a
week
in
which
you
get
the
work
done.
I've
seen
a
lot
of
people
in
the
working
groups.
I
mean
are
doing
a
lot
of
work
this
week,
because
they're
100
focused
on
the
ietf,
if
they're
trying
to
fit
just
the
meetings
themselves
around
the
rest
of
their
life
and
they'll
get
to
the
meeting
and
that's
part
of
what
we're
getting
out
of
these
things
anyway.
O
We're
getting
these
sessions
and
the
sessions
work
fine,
but
we're
not
getting
the
interaction
that
happens
outside
the
sessions
as
much
and
spreading
it
over
time.
It
makes
it
even
less
likely
that
you'll
get
any
interaction
outside
the
sessions.
People
will
show
up
just
for
the
sessions
and
that's
it.
So
I
I
would
push
against
the
idea
of
spreading
it
out
over
too
much
time.
G
Next
thing
is,
we,
echo
was
talking
about
conflicts
and
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
whether
that
was
conflicts
with
outside
work
or
conflicts
with
yeah
sorry
cat
down
with
conflicts
within
with
within
the
itf
meeting
week
within
the
ietf
meeting.
We
do
need
to
get
better
at
managing
conflicts.
We
do
the
survey
after
each
meeting
and
people
regularly
tell
us.
There
are
issues
with
conflicts
and
we're
not
seeing
much
improvement
on
our
handling
of
conflict.
G
G
So
I
don't
think
anything
about
that
and
then
finally,
just
to
note
that
someone
talked
about
golden
slots
and
that
as
in
that,
within
those
you
know
those
the
top
rotation
times,
there
are
shorter
periods
within
the
six
hours
that
are
easier
for
everybody,
perhaps
or
could
be
easier
for
everybody.
I'm
not
entirely
sure
and
could
could
we
optimize
so
that
we
have
the
higher
volume
things
within
those
somebody
said,
such
as
boss
and
the
plenary,
and
that
seems
to
be
quite
a
sensible
idea.
B
B
A
J
J
That's
constrained
by
like
the
schedule
and,
like
you
know,
a
bit
of
having
having
having
six
three
slots
instead
of
four
makes
it
even
harder,
but
like
it's
worth
so,
the
second
point
is:
I
think
that,
like
a
lot
of
these
bad
things
like
the
scheduling
problems
and
like
that
and
the
time
zone,
problems
are
like
acceptable
in
in
terms
of
like
being
willing
to
when
you're
getting
face-to-face
interaction,
because
it's
very
high
value
very
high
value.
But
when
it's
like
a
screen
like
this,
I
think
it's
like
much
much
lower
value.
J
Sure,
thank
you.
So
yes,
so
I
guess
what
I
was
saying
was
that
a
lot
of
these
things
that
we're
complaining
about,
namely
the
scheduling,
hangouts,
the
time
zones
and
whatever
are
good
trade-offs
on
when
we
are
getting
the
value
of
meeting
face,
but
we're
not
meeting
face
to
face,
then
we
have
to
reconsider
whether
those
things
are
better
than
other
things
and
finally,
to
this
question
of
you
know
have
actually
in
my
mind,
yeah.
I
think
I
was.
J
E
H
A
D
G
A
I
I
I
think
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
call
for
adoption
and
see
how
things
turn
out
right.
Like
you
know,
if
people
say
hey,
this
is
like
a
terrible
idea
like:
let's
not
do
this,
then
we
drop
it
right
like
there's
like
no
other
way
for
us
to
judge,
there's
interest
in
doing
it
like
solution
on
this.
So.
B
So
what
I
heard
was
what
I
heard
was:
you
know,
at
least
to
people
who
said
something
some
support
for
the
second
system,
so
I
think
we'd,
probably
just
tweak
those
times
a
little
bit
and
put
that
in
there
and
then
we
start
a
thread
on
one
week
versus
two
weeks
and
see
where
that
takes
us
yeah
exactly
yeah.
I
I.
H
A
D
Yeah,
but
I
mean
sure
we
could
ask
this
is
a
concrete
question
to
ask
one
week
versus
two
weeks,
but
this
was
not
really
what
I
heard
like
people
said
like
they
want
to
spread
it
out
even
more.
They
think
it's
just
silly
to
keep
everything
within
one
week
right,
that's
a
very
different
approach
and
and
like
if
people
want
to
organize
a
meeting
entirely
different
than
reorganizing
your
honor
meetings
right
now,
then
this
document
might
not
be
very
valuable
as
it
is
because
that's
documenting
what
we
have
done
so
far.
A
Right,
like
I,
I
I
think
like
media,
like
there's
two
things
we
can
do
right,
like
one
of
them
is
kind
of
put
out
like
a
survey
monkey,
it's
not
like
binding
right,
but
at
least
like
you
know,
but
it's
like
you
know.
I
don't
want
to
go
into
this
voting
kind
of
thing
right,
but
at
least
to
see
like
you
know
where
people
lie
on
and
and
go
with
the
adoption,
but
I
think
mark's,
point
of
like
minimizing
the
complainers
is
not
the
and
accursed
point
as
well
right.
A
It's
not
about
how
few
people
complain
right,
but
I
I
I
really
think,
like
you
know,
going
for
adoption
and
kind
of
doing
like
a
parallel
kind
of
survey.
Just
with
very,
very
simple
questions
might
be.
Okay
like
we
are
not
like
good
survey
designers,
but
I
think
this
one
is
like
pretty
clear.
At
least
we
can
hear
back,
let's
say
in
gs
next
survey,
like
you
know,
if
people
would
like
to
see
this
over
multiple
weeks
as
an
option.
P
G
G
G
So
what
I
really
want
to
do
is
just
explain
the
survey
that
we
have
and
then
ask
you
for
anyone
to
give
their
views
on
what
the
survey
is,
so
that
we
can
go
forward
with
that
and
it
be
useful
if
those
of
you
have
got
your
hands
up
still
could
clear
those
unless
you
actually
want
to
have
your
hands
up
again
in
future.
Thank
you.
G
I
G
No
I'm
sitting
here,
I
I
think
I
can
use
that.
I
have
multiple
monitors
and
switching
between
those
does
not
work
right.
Okay,
so
I
won't
bother
putting
the
dashboard
up
again,
as
we
only
have
a
couple
of
minutes
left,
but
if
I
would
like
some
help,
please
in
trying
to
interpret
this
survey,
the
big
questions
are:
is
it
representative
and
if
it
is
representative
of
how
many
people
is
it
representative,
you
know:
can
we
scale
up
the
results
in
any
way
to
anything
meaningful
from
this
survey
and
the
it
you
know?
G
Does
it
help
us
understand
how
many
people
may
turn
up?
Then
we
have
a
question
near
the
end,
which
is
about
the
number
of
people
that
people
believe
is
the
minimum
number
that
you
need
at
in
person
to
make
a
viable
in-person
meeting
where
the
median
result
is
around
about
500
there.
It
looks
like
and
very
interesting
people's
views
around
that
does
that
matter.
G
Q
Q
H
Just
a
comment:
jay,
I
had
a
little
trouble
parsing
what
the
survey
meant
by
acceptable
and
I
almost
sent
you
a
mail
about
it,
but
I
don't
think
I
did
in
the
end.
It's
not
clear
to
me.
If,
if
this
means
you
know,
does
it
make
it
more
possible
for
me
to
go
to
the
meeting
or
that?
If,
if
I
say
it's
not
acceptable,
then
I
wouldn't
go
that
I
just
didn't
know
how
those
those
questions
were
were
couched
and
that
makes
sense
to
interpret
the
survey.
G
G
G
Oh
sorry,
I
thought
I
only
had
to
think
about
the
intent
about
acceptable
or
not
acceptable,
and
yes,
that
was
the
intent.
Is
that
you
say
whether
you
would
that
acceptable
for
you
to
attend,
and
therefore
you
know
that
as
in
if
it's
unacceptable,
then
that
means
you
wouldn't
be
attending,
because
you
don't
find
those
restrictions
on.
N
None
of
them
were
relevant.
If,
if
I
wouldn't
have
confidence
that
the
other
people
in
the
room
had
all
been
vaccinated,
so
I
would
absolutely
go
to
the
meeting
if
everyone
else
that
was
there
was
vaccinated
would
be
highly
unlikely
to
go
if
they
weren't
and
that's
irrespective
of
masks
social
distancing,
et
cetera,
okay,.
N
G
G
A
I
H
I
G
G
But
the
problem
is
that
the
lower
that
we
scale
the
more
they
want
their
space
back
so
that
they
can
resell
it
and
use
it
for
other
clients,
but
we
then
run
into
the
problem
that
we
have
a
scaling
problem
caused
by
our
the
parallel
streams.
You
know:
if
there
are
10
rooms,
then
we
can't
necessarily
give
up
any
of
the
rooms,
even
if
we've
only
got
two
or
three
people
per
room,
because
they
don't
subdivide
the
rooms
can't
be
subdivided
in
the
future.
Q
So
so
I
hope
you
can
hear
me
now.
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
on
your
earlier
comment
around
what
the
government
restrictions
are.
So,
quite
frankly,
you
can
always
be
more
strict
than
what
the
government
rules
are
and
as
the
post,
it
is
up
to
you
to
basically
be
more
restrictive
in
what
you
allow
in
so
long
story
short.
Q
You
can
actually
require
people
to
show
up
not
only
with
what
the
government
sanctions
is
like
pcr
tests
or
normal
tests
and
vaccinated,
but
you
can
basically
ask
them
to
be
vaccinated
and
pcr
tested
or
perhaps
provide
some
some
some
testing
equipment
on
site.
I
don't
think
that
this
is
a
legal
problem
at
all
the
more
the
from
the
transmission
point
of
view
from
the
virus.
E
G
Thanks
richard,
you
know,
I
I
I
mean
we,
I
don't
think
we
have
a
legal
problem
about
imposing
it.
It's
more
the
cultural
issue
of
and
the
setting
the
president
here
should
the
iatf
be
doing.
You
know
making
a
setting
a
health
requirement
for
people
or
a
vaccination
client
for
people
who
turn
up
separately
from
what
we're
legally
obliged
to
do
to
me.
L
Yeah
yeah,
just
one
thought
on
what
it's
okay
to
require.
I
mean,
I
think,
the
one
of
the
tricky
things
here
is
that
requirements.
What
governments
say
what
you
know:
it's
changing
right.
So,
even
if
you
say
well
we're
not
going
to
require
vaccination,
it
could
be
that
by
the
time
the
meeting
comes
around
that
that's
required
say
in
restaurants
or
whatever
in
in
in
madrid.
L
So
I
I
mean,
I
think
these
some
of
these
things
are
a
little
bit
out
of
your
hands
and
you
can
always
be
more
strict
and
I
think
in
some
ways
I
I
feel
like
being
more
strict
would
be
a
good
thing
than
what
the
regulations
are,
because
that
way
you
at
least
let
people
know
in
advance,
hey
we're
going
to
be
imposing
these
things
and
that
way,
think
things
don't
change
and
get
worse.
And
now
you
know
their
decision
of
whether
they
wanted
to
go
or
not
go
changes.
L
L
A
much
better
action,
a
much
more
accurate
sense
of
the
number
of
people-
and
I
think
the
number
of
people
that
you
need
to
have
a
useful
meeting
might
be
a
little
bit
lower
than
what
you
were
thinking
because
of
the
first
of
all
the
willingness
of
people
to
attend
the
willingness
of
people
to
go
through
pain.
I
think
that
increases
as
how
invested
they
are
in
the
meeting
increases.
L
So
if
there's
a
meeting
where
I
really
want
to
get
work
done-
and
I
have
I'm
presenting
things-
I'm
very
involved
I'm
willing
to
get
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night
right.
But
if
it
was
a
conference
that
I'm
just
attending
because
it's
free
and
I
might
learn
something
cool-
I'm
not
going
to
get
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night
for
it.
So
I
think
the
same
thing
with
who's
going
to
go
through
the
pain
to
travel
who's
going
to
go
through.
You.
G
L
L
F
Maybe
going
back
to
what
the
the
participation
before
charles
sorry
said,
so
one
of
the
things
that
might
I
mean
we
do
have
in
in
many
of
the
ietf
in
the
past,
we
had
the
expectation
that
you
were
registered
and
you
know
that
your
badge
was
there,
so
you
could
enter
the
room.
We've
been
gotten
very
relaxed
on
that
which
is
nice,
but
you
know
if
it's
maybe
just
about
you
know
you
register.
F
If
you
you're
vaccinated,
you
get
your
vaccination
dot
and
basically
it's
just
self-declaration
right.
That
would
be,
for
example,
if
there
really
is
a
mixture
of
you
know,
vaccinated
and
unvaccinated
just
self-declaration
you
get
the
appropriate
dot,
so
people
can
make
up
their
mind
themselves
right
I
mean
it
could
just
as
an
example
right,
it
can
come
at
any
any
level
of
what
is
the
requirement
right
or
what
are
the
options
that
that
ietf
is
offering
right
there
is
there?
Is
this
seat
spacing
right?
Will
there
be?
A
Good
thanks,
charles
and
please
feel
free
to
respond
on
the
list
to
jay's
thread
as
well
like
he
posted
this
results
there.
So
if
you
can
respond
on
it
and
if
needed,
we
can
certainly
request
an
interim.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Sorry.
All
for
making
you
stay
longer
so
especially
the
people
in
europe
like
will
have
like
terrible
time
for
this
meeting
and
I
hope
to
see
you
in
the
plenary.
Thank
you
thanks
all
and
thanks
braun
for
the
minutes.
Thank.