►
From YouTube: IETF112-RFCEFDP-20211110-1430
Description
RFCEFDP meeting session at IETF112
2021/11/10 1430
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/proceedings/
A
B
Take
minutes,
let's
see
here
wes.
Can
I
hit
you
up
for
that.
A
B
B
Oh,
hey,
rich,
rich
volunteered,
so
I
think
everybody's
off
the
hook
other,
I
think
rich
agreed.
So
we'll
we'll
thank
rich
and
we
will
begin
the
meeting
because
it
is
now
at
that
time.
So,
first
of
all,
thanks
everybody
for
showing
up
to
the
rfc
editor
future
development
program.
Brian-
and
I
are
your
hosts,
mr
peter
saint
andre-
is
our
editor.
B
Our
program
leads
are
jared
and
wes,
as
you
can
see,
as
you
can
see.
If
you
go
to
the
the
webpage
for
the
program,
we
are
in
the
final
stretch,
which
is
why
you
see
this
wonderfully
animated
gif.
Here
I
don't
know
if
we'll
finish
everything
today,
brian
and
I
have
been
talking,
we
think
if
we
can
great,
if
we
can
finish
stuff
on
list
great,
otherwise
it
is
distinctly
possible
that
we
might
need
one
more
interim,
but
we're
really
hoping
not
we'll
see
by
the
end
of
the
meeting.
B
So,
for
that
to
happen,
we're
asking
everybody
to
you
know,
keep
their
comments
brief,
but
obviously,
if
you
feel
you
need
to
make
a
comment,
please
do,
as
we've
been
doing
this
the
last
few
times
brian
will
be
managing
the
queue
in
terms
of
who's
talking
and
we'll
be
going
to
them
to
to
github
for
specific
issues
when
we
need
to
and
that's
where
we
keep
our
issues
list
so
without
further
ado,
the
notewell
we
we
have
used
to
apply
here.
B
I
think
everybody
has
been
seeing
the
the
extended
notewells
in
various
meetings.
I
wanna
stress
that
our
anti-harassment
procedures
are
part
of
this
list
and
we
when,
when
we
say,
really
note
well,
we
are
asking
everybody
to
to
put
their
best
foot
forward.
This
is
a
contentious
discussion.
People
can
get
heated.
Just
to
remember
that
everybody
here
is
is
working
the
best
interest
of
the
internet.
B
I
see
wes
you,
you
have
a
question.
Please.
A
Please
or
comment:
I
don't
see
rich
logged
into
the
editor,
so
it
would
be
good
to
verify
that
he
is
actually
here
otherwise.
G
Taking
notes
in
the
link
that
posted
in
chat
assume,
I
got
the
right
one.
A
A
B
Okay,
just
use
the
let
let's
use
the
one
that
rich
is
using
just
because
he
started
that
and
that
just
makes
sure
that
people
follow
through.
And
if
you
guys.
B
Out
of
band
to
proceed
sam.
I
B
Okay,
all
right,
so
here
we
are
at
no
well,
and
I
think
we
can
all
say
that
we
have
noted
well
our
agenda.
We
have
noted
well,
we
propose
to
do
very
quick
bits
of
bashing.
I
want
to
just
go
over
the
timeline
very
quickly.
It's
changed
ever
so
slightly.
B
I
don't
propose
to
take
any
comments
on
it,
because
the
rest
of
the
timeline
is
likely
to
be
based
on
how
we
do
in
this
meeting
and
then
it's
up
to
the
iab
from
there
we
are
offering
the
the
q
a
from
the
community,
because
we
put
out
a
note
saying
that
we
would
take
q
a
in
this
meeting
from
the
community
for
people
who
have
not
been
participating.
B
We're
not
going
to
take
a
lot
of
that,
because
we
want
to
try
and
get
through
the
issues,
but
we
invite
anybody
to
ask
questions
on
list
at
any
time
or
you
can
ask
the
chairs
if
you
want
background,
feel
free
to
contact
us
in
any
way.
Then
we'll
get
right
into
issues
we're
going
to
do
that
for
about
40
minutes
and
then
we're
going
to
be
done.
B
Okay,
so
this
is
an
update
of
the
slide
from
last
time.
The
times
have
shifted
a
little
bit.
Excuse
me,
I'm
just
getting
over
cold.
The
the
good
news
is
that
the
draft
carpenter
rcib
charter
was
dispatched.
B
At
least
I
believe
it
was
dispatched,
and
so
was
the
2026
update
that
brian
did
that
was
also
dispatched.
Lars
has
agreed
that
he
would
take
that.
Otherwise,
obviously,
all
that
has
to
be
confirmed
on
the
mailing
lists,
but
it
all
sort
of
looks
good.
B
We
are
hoping
assuming,
so
we
will
absolutely
need
a
new
version
of
the
the
draft
peter
and
brian,
and
I
will
be
going
through
the
results
of
this
meeting,
as
well
as
the
editorials
early
next
week,
and
hopefully
we'll
get
a
draft
out
shortly.
Thereafter,
then
we're
hoping-
and
this
is
sort
of
a
finger
in
the
wind-
just
our
guess
as
to
when
the
iab
can
can
begin
this.
They
have
a
process,
that's
governed
by
rfc
4845.
B
That
starts
the
broader
community
review
and
then
at
the
same
time,
we
hope
that
the
other
documents
can
be
developed,
the
hopefully
based
on
any
comments
received
from
community
review.
B
If
you
have
to
make
some
changes,
make
some
changes,
but
otherwise
allow
for
the
iab
to
do
its
approval
by
the
end
of
january,
and
then
we
still
begin
formation
of
the
r7
rswg
at
shortly
thereafter,
and
the
iesg
will
have
to
the
approval
of
the
two
documents
that
got
dispatched
as
well,
as
I
think
rich
also
has
a
document
that
is
covered
for
for
2028
bis,
which
is
also
being
worked
on.
B
B
It's
I'd
like
not
to
discuss
that
now,
but
rather
you
know,
if
you
have
issues
with
this,
please
just
take
it
to
the
list.
Again.
Mostly
most
of
this
is
prognostication,
not
not
something
that
is
in
any
way
normative.
Okay.
B
B
Questions
in
particular,
please
if
you
would
join
the
queue
and
see
if
and
we'll
see
if
we
can
get
some
questions
answered
and
if
people
do
not
join
the
queue
in
about
in
about
30
seconds,
then
we'll
just
press
on
to
issues
and
if
we
have
time
at
the
end,
we
take
more
questions.
Then.
B
All
right,
barring
obviously
the
community
is
going
to
get
a
formal
opportunity
to
raise
questions
when
we
go
through
the
the
community
reviews,
the
iab
process,
so
there's
still
time
for
for
things
to
come
up,
and
there
has
been
time
our
our
program
last
call
just
completed.
B
I
want
to
thank
everybody
who
contributed
and
a
lot
of
people
did
contribute,
one
might
say.
Well,
sadly,
we
have
a
lot
of
issues
to
get
through,
but
the
good
news
is,
we've
been
able
to
bucket
those,
and
maybe
we
can
move
forward
with
a
certain
amount
of
alacrity.
B
Now,
when
I
say
alacrity,
though
anybody
is
invited
to
join
the
queue
and
say,
hey
wait
a
minute
I
want
to.
I
have
a
comment
about
this
issue.
B
B
Okay,
so
now
I
have
to
get
this
on,
so
this
I'm
going
to
try
and
make
it
bigger.
On
my
side,
so
people
can
see
a
little
better
on
their
side.
Whoa.
B
Let
me
just
see
if
I
do
this,
does
it
even
help
more?
Let's
hear
these
are
a
bit
of
an
eye
chart.
I
apologize
for
that.
I'm
just
gonna
see
if
I
can
zoom
this
a
bit
more.
Is
that
better.
B
F
B
B
The
second
is
where
I
think
we
have
agreement
and
there's
a
good
number
of
issues
here
I
mean
look
at
this.
Nice
stack
issues
where
I
think
I
think
we
do
have
agreement.
Of
course,
the
the
obviously
though
they
assume
my
assumption
here,
is
that
that
that
we'll
accept
these.
But
of
course,
if
you
disagree,
we'll
we'll
spend
a
little
more
time,
then
we
have
things
where
we
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
support.
B
I
want
to
spend
a
little
more
time
on
this
to
give
those
people
who
raised
these
issues
the
opportunity
to
speak,
if
they'd
like
to
do
so,
but
I'd
like
them
again
to
be
brief,
and
then
there
were
some
areas
where
we
clearly
have
to
have
a
bit
more
discussion.
B
Excuse
me,
the
the
first
issues
are
93
and
94,
which
were
proposed
by
martin.
Thank
you
for
staying
up
late,
martin
to
to
engage
in
the
discussion.
One
is
about
what
appeals
against
rs
rsap
decisions.
In
one
case
the
we've
said
really
it's
process
only,
but
maybe
we
need
to
vary
that
slightly
we'll
get
into
more
detail
there
and
another
it's
about
how
how
resolutions
are
happening.
What
happened
when
they're
a
timely
manner?
It's
a
slight!
B
That's
a
bit
of
a
tweak
of
the
text
and
we'll
go
through
that.
We've
seen
a
lot
of
discussions
about
statements
and
about
also
you
know
who
controls
the
website
and
things
like
that.
That's
really
issue
117.
B
B
You
can
follow
along
in
github
in
terms
of
the
issue
number
to
see
the
exact
edits
and,
let's
start
I'm
sorry,
no,
okay,
okay,
so
in
issue
number
106
myria
has
proposed
a
concise,
a
more
concise
statement
for
the
the
beginning
of
the
abstract
that
this
I
think
it's
something
like
this
specifies
the
version
three
of
the
rc
editor
model
and
these
editorial
in
these
editorial
issues.
B
I
propose
that,
on
the
whole,
you
trust
that
peter
will
take
your
concerns
into
account
and
so
long
as
we're
not
modifying
normative
intent
of
the
process
that
we've
gone
through
over
the
last
18
months.
B
Trust
that
he
will
do
the
right
thing
in
terms
of
of
being
concise
and
things
like
that
and
using
the
language
where
appropriate,
and
if
you
see
something
you
don't
like
when
the
update
comes
out.
Of
course
you
could
say
something
so
then
the
other
issue
that
I
think
miriam
raised
was
what
are
the
actual
updates
to
certain
other
rfcs
and
muriel
is
very
specific,
be
a
little
more
clear
on
what
has
changed,
and
usually
we
do
mention
some,
particularly
when
there
are
updates.
B
We
do
mention
the
it's
become
a
bit
of
a
tradition
to
at
least
mention
that
either
in
the
abstract,
but
more
likely
in
the
beginning
in
the
introduction
somewhere
to
say,
here's
what
has
changed
in
at
the
highest
level,
not
not
in
great
detail
but
at
the
highest
level.
Usually
the
words
are
put
in
the
introduction.
B
There
is
a
bit
of
discussion
now
around
consistency
around
how
selection
committees
were
formed.
The
initial
proposals
was
just
to
make
this
language
the
same,
but
just
as
we
were
getting
ready
for
this
meeting,
I
saw
a
note
from
jay
saying
wait
a
minute.
I
think
these
two
should
be
separate.
B
So
I'd
like
to
let's
pile
this
one
back
into
the
discuss,
column
and
we'll
let
let's
come
back
to
issue
number
111
a
little
bit
later.
The
rpc
sow.
This
was
just
a
slight
editing
and
of
of
how
that
how
that
issue
should
be
dealt
with
then
issue
121.
B
This
was
this
is
just
a
header
change
at
this
point.
Initially
this
wasn't
an
editorial
issue.
It
was,
it
was
miria
saying
we
haven't
really
addressed
incoming,
but
we
actually
did
in
one
of
the
interim
decide
to
not
address
outgoing
I'm
sorry,
we
haven't
addressed
outgoing
outreach
and
we
decided
one
of
the
interims
that
we
weren't
going
to
do
that.
B
But
the
title
of
the
section
needs
to
change
issue
number
122
was
is
a
slight
wording,
change
to
which
I
I
viewed
as
editorial,
which
just
is
to
refer
to
the
rpc
as
being
as
contractually
overseen,
then
issue
number
124
is
minor
tweet
to
cover
legacy.
Editor
rfc,
editor
document.
B
That's
to
say
that
you
can
still
use
the
the
the
the
the
rc
editor
documents
that
we
had
before
still
apply
unless
we
have
specifically
said
that
they
don't
right
and
that
they
can
then
be
updated
later,
if
needs
be,
and
mike
provided
some
some
good
wording
along
these
lines
and
that's
just
for
continuity's
sake,
120
126,
the
this
is
another
one
which
was
point
in
time,
rpc
responsibilities
and
literally
it
says
something
like.
As
of
you
know
now,
or
something
like
that
and
there's
wording
again.
B
There
then
issue
number
130
was
from
ecker,
and
this
was
we
really
do
want
to
be
normative
about
this.
B
I
think
he's
he's
probably
correct
and
then
so
we're
leaving
it
to
peter
to
say,
chooses
or
shall
choose,
and
then
in
the
discussion
it
came
out-
and
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
discussion-
do
we
need
references
to
to
the
appropriate,
normative
language,
rfcs,
2119
8171,
and
I
think,
since
we
are
using
xiao
all
over
the
place,
it
seems
to
me
like
it
doesn't
hurt
to
to
to
do
so.
B
But
again,
I
would
just
leave
that
to
peter
to
decide
unless
somebody
has
a
really
strong
opinion
about
it
then
also
eckerd
pointed
out
really
we
should
be
more
normally
referencing
20
of
2418
rather
than
7282
in
terms
of
process
management.
Ecker's
particular
concern
is
that
7282
is
an
informational
document
versus
2018,
which
is
really
the
normative
way
in
which
we
manage
working
groups
and
then
finally,
eckerd
helped
us
be
concise.
B
A
member
of
community
is
a
person,
so
we
could
just
use
that
phrase,
and
so
these
I'm
going
to
suggest
to
peter
you
know.
Please
take
these
into
account
and
use
best
judgment,
but
before
we
move
off
of
any
of
these
issues,
I'd
like
to
open
the
floor.
If
anybody
has
concerns
about
these
resolutions,.
B
Okay,
if
you
find
that
you
do
later,
obviously
we
we
always
confirm
things
in
email.
Please,
please
feel
free
to
say,
wait
a
minute
I'd
like
to
like
us
to
review
this
a
little
bit
more.
All
right.
Then
we
have
issues
that
we
we
we
we
should
accept,
one
of
them.
It
was
really
an
editorial.
I
put
it
in
the
wrong
column.
B
This
is
just
add
a
reference
to
draft
carpenter,
that's
actually
in
the
working
copy
already
and
then
so
here
I
am
expecting
at
least
some
people
to
say,
okay,
to
ask
questions.
If
you
have
questions
so,
please
do
feel
free
and
I
do
want
to
share
at
least
a
little
bit
of
github
language
here
and
there
when
it,
when
it's
appropriate
jay,
made
a
proposal
to
allow
for
a
temporary
rce
to
be
appointed,
and
I
gave
some
examples
about.
You
know
why
that
might
be
appropriate
at
different
times.
B
My
proposal,
I
didn't
hear
any
objections
and
I
think,
martin,
I
think
you
asked
a
question
or
two
about
it.
I
didn't
see
any
any
further
concerns.
If
people
have
concerns
about
that
that
language,
you
know,
please
feel
free
to
say
so,.
B
Let's
see
here,
rpc
responsibilities
missing
a
couple
of
responsibilities
and
jay
elaborated
those
and
those
are
specif
and
they're,
not
in
particular.
I
didn't
see
any
concerns
raised
on
the
list
about
that
seem
to
have
some
support.
B
B
We
should
remove
the
word
ultimate
when
it
comes
to
ultimate
authority
of
the
llc
issue.
Number
109
was:
if
we're
going
to
hard
code
rfc
interest.
Maybe
we
need
a
slight
wording
tweak
which
brian
carpenter
then
proposed,
which
was
rfc
interest
or
the
equivalent.
B
If
people
would
like
to
make
other
changes,
please
feel
free.
This
is
a
certain
a
simpler
process
for
certain
changes.
Let's
go
to
so
114
117
and
128
are
all
sort
of
wrapped
up
in
one
and
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
text
for
that
in
a
minute
and
I'll
go
to
the
text
for
heritage.
This
is
an
issue
raised
by
stephen
farrell.
B
So
let's
go
to
114
just
a
moment.
I'm
going
to
share
with
different
I'm
going
to
share
another
second
here:
let's
find
the
sharing
button
again.
B
B
We're
talking
about
three
things
thing
number
one
is
whether
the
rsce
had
to
wait
to
ask
to
be
asked
a
question,
and
so
this
would
be
the
equivalent
of
saying.
Well,
you
know
that
there's
a
train
coming
down
the
tunnel,
but
the
rsce
couldn't
warn
us,
and
I
don't
think
that
was
our
intent
and
the
proposal
the
pro
proposed
edits
for
that
text
are
to
basically
say
well.
B
B
And
then
so
this
other
issue,
this
issue
in
117
has
to
do
with
who
controls
the
website?
The
there
is
actually
no
text
here
yet
for
that
and
we'll
talk
about
that
in
issue
117.
B
the
text
here,
the
only
except
issue
here
was
for
the
rsce
text,
which
it
turns
out.
It
was
wasn't
128.
B
and
we'll
come
back
to
this.
When
we
get
to
117.,
then
just
a
moment.
B
So
stephen
and
others
raised
concerns
about
the
heritage
and
whether
that
should
be
taken
into
account
in
terms
of
how
the
rswg
and
rsap
do
their
deliberations
and
in
the
discussion,
I
think
what
we
found
was
that
the
word
heritage
became
a
a
very
difficult
term
to
use,
and
so,
as
I
propose
some
text
which
is
around
this,
which
says
that,
rather
than
using
the
term
heritage,
but
simply
to
add
an
addition
to
what
was
there,
which
this
part
was
here
already.
B
This
is
the
edition
which
was
proposed.
Really
it's
readable.
B
C
L
Yeah
I,
as
I
said
I,
owe
I
owe
text
for
this
on
on
prince
of
on
the
principal
stuff.
This
is
sort
of
a
reasonable
amount
of
motherhood,
but
I
don't
think
it
captures
what
stephen
had
in
mind,
nor
for
my
for
that
matter.
L
K
K
I'd
really
be
happy
to
see
some
text
here,
but
the
way
mike
first
phrase.
That
is
not
something
that
I'm
excited
about
seeing.
I
think
that
a
number
of
those
points
are
contested
and
that,
like
the
text
here,
I
believe
has
has
in
fact
almost
too
much
but
like
has
the
right
sort
of
like
everybody
can
form
their
own
opinion
about
like
what
is
good
and
what
is
bad
but
like
like.
I
don't
want
to
spend
the
next
three
months
fighting
about,
like
all
the
words
mike
just
said,.
I
There
are
principles
that
have
assured
the
success
of
the
series,
but
unless
we
can
point
to
an
existing
document,
something
that
was
written
by
john
poster
some
time
ago
or
something
like
that,
then
I
don't
think
that
we
should
take
on
the
task
of
actually
in
making
an
inventory
and
a
list
of
those
principles
and
defining
what
they
are
in
this
document.
H
L
Yeah,
the
problem
with
that
is
john,
didn't
feel
the
need
to
break
the
stuff
down
because
it
was
sort
of
a
common
common
mindset
of
everybody
at
the
time.
This
is
the
way
things
were
gonna
go
now,
I'm
sure
we
could
probably
grab
john
clemson's
to
steve
crocker,
bob
hinden,
scott
bradner
and
say
okay,
what
what
was
in
john's
mind
and
get
a
pretty
good
idea
of
that.
But
then
you
would
be
basically
saying.
Well,
you
know,
that's
your
opinion.
L
I
think
there's
things
here
that
we
need
to
basically
capture
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
that
well,
for
example,
our
does
the
does
the
rswg
get
to
change
the
language
of
the
series
from
english
to
something
else.
B
So
mike,
let
me
ask
a
question
to
you:
is
this
a
guardrail
that
you
feel
strongly
needs
to
be
in
this
document,
or
is
this
something
that
the
rswg
itself
could
take
up
and
if
it
went
into
this
document,
one
reasonable
question
to
ask
is
why
couldn't
the
rs
could
the
rswd
change
it.
L
To
say
you
know
we
want
to
change
this.
We,
the
guardrails,
are
put
in
place
in
meta
language
and
yeah.
We
don't
want,
and
everybody
here
wants
to
change
something,
and
I
have
the
suspicion
we're
going
to
be
arguing
about
this.
For
a
while.
Okay,
the
I
look
at
I
look
at
it.
This
way
we
have
spent
a
long
time
trying
to
get
to
the
point
of
constraining
the
rswg
to
a
particular
set
of
things
and
it
keeps
getting
expanded
again.
L
I
really
prefer
that
we
lock
them
in
their
box
of
writing
documents
and
say
something
about
what
those
documents
are,
as
opposed
to
just
sort
of
saying.
No,
you
can
we're
we're
going
to
lock
you
in
the
box
and
then
you
can
write
a
document
that
unlocks
a
box
and
let
yourself
out
again
after
we've
spent
a
year
and
a
half
or
two
years
at
this,
not
a
lot
of
fun.
B
Peter,
I
think,
before
we
go
further,
I
just
want
to
ask
the
questions.
Does
if
are
there
those
who
agree
with
mike
on
this
point
if
we
could
hear
from
those
people,
otherwise
I'd
like
to
hear
from
others
who
agree
from
mike
on
the
list,
because
we
need
to
have
some
more
support
for
that
view,
I
think
at
this
point,
but
if
you're,
if
you're
in
the
queue
to
support
mike,
please
remain
in
the
queue,
if
not
I'd
like
to
hear
from
from
from
others
who
would
support.
My
comment.
E
Peter
yeah,
I
did
include
texts
from
87,
28
and
87
29,
which
you
know
are
approved
rfcs
and
all
that
that
addresses
some
of
the
principles
and
those
principles
are
expressed
in
those
rfcs
about
the
rfc,
editor
function
and
so
on.
So
personally,
with
my
editor
hat
on,
I
think
that's
enough
for
now
and
things
that
are
coming
from
elsewhere
or
you
know
a
process
by
whereby
we
interview
folks
who
were
there
with
john
postel
and
things
like
that.
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
idea
at
this
point.
E
M
Didn't
hear
the
request,
because
I
came
in
when
my
system
was
just
temporarily
dropping
audio
sorry,
I
philosophically
agree
with
mike.
I
don't
know
that
I
will
agree
with
all
of
the
things
he
writes
down,
but
I
think
that
it
is
important
that
we
actually
go
through
the
argument
as
to
what
principles
we
think
are
important
to
have
as
base
things
that
the
rswg
just
doesn't
get
to
just
change
by
itself,
and
maybe
it
probably
it's
a
smaller
set
than
I
would
like.
M
But
if
it
is
an
empty
set,
then
most
of
the
work
we've
done
has
probably
been
a
waste
of
time.
So
I
I
philosophically
agree
with
mike
and
I
think
we
need
to
put
some
effort
into
it.
I
do
not
want
it
to
become
an
unending
effort,
and
I
doubt
I
will
agree
with
everything
mike
right,
but
that's
this.
This
group
needs
to
come
to
agreement
on
some
of
that.
K
I
guess
I'm
I'm
a
little
ignoring
this
question
about
like
the
guard
about
like
what
text
you've
written
down.
I
guess
I
don't
really
understand
the
premise
here,
which
is
you
know.
One
premise
you
could
say
is
like
we're
going
to
decide
now
for
all
time
that
I
don't
know
the
rsc
said
it
being
english
and
and
nothing
nothing
ever
could
ever
change
that.
K
Maybe
one
thing
we
could
say,
but
the
other
thing
you
could
say
is
you
know
we're
going
to
decide
that
you
know
the
rc
is
being
english
and,
and
what
might
seem
to
be
saying
is
the
rs
rsvg
can't
change
that,
but
some
other
process
which
you
can,
and
I
guess
I'd
like
to
understand
what
the
nature
of
that
process
is
because
it
seems
the
nature
of
that
process
is
going
to
be
signed
off
from
the
isg
and
the
iab
and
some
sort
of
survey
of
the
community,
which,
like
is
precise,
more
or
less.
K
Essentially
the
process
through
which,
like
things
that
go
through
rswg,
actually
get
approved,
which
is
to
say,
they
have
to
be
signed
off
by
like
that
by
like
by
like
the
by
the
rswg,
which
has
to
go
through
community
and
actually
signed
up
by
the
rsap,
which
is
constituent
by
constituted
by
people
who
work
for
the
isg
and
the
iab,
and
so
like.
It
seems
to
be
that,
like
that,
isn't
like.
K
I
don't
understand
why
we
have
them
as
a
new
processor,
because
you
have
essentially
the
same
moral
like
moral
foundation
as
the
process
of
learning
rhwg.
So,
like
I
guess,
let's
ask
this
question
of
you
know
the
you
know
like
what
the
girl
was
upstate.
I
like
to
understand
in
what
way
the
sorry
my
cat,
also
opinions
in
what
way
you
know
what
other
process
we
would
invent
for
making
for
going
outside
those
guard
rails
and
what
would
give
that
greater
democratic
legitimacy
than
the
process
that
we've
coached
here.
C
We're
going
to
have
to
take
this
up
on
the
list.
Clearly,
okay,.
B
Yeah,
sorry
about
that,
like
everything
just
blipped
for
for
20
seconds,
there
yeah,
we
closed
the
queue.
So
I
think
what
I
would
propose
is
if
we
get
a
proposal-
and
I
mean
very
quickly
that
can
be
discussed
in
brief,
and
we
can
see
that
there
is
going
to
be
some
consensus
on
it.
B
Then
I
think
if
we
can
get
more
elaborative
words
that
we
that
that
that
we
don't
see
a
huge
amount
of
disagreement
over
and
we
get
those
quickly,
I
think
we
could
include
them.
Otherwise,
I
think
there's
going
to
be
a
have
to
be
a
lot
of
support
for
really
making
a
change
at
this
point.
So
we'll
take
this
to
the
list,
but
the
clock
is
ticking.
B
The
issue
has
to
be
addressed
quickly
and
and
in
a
way
that
can
can
garner
support
and
that's
my
proposal.
B
Okay,
so
no
consensus
yet
right,
but
the
clock
is
ticking.
B
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
move
on.
Let
me
share
my
screen
again
because
that
blipped
out
too.
B
That
was
really
weird
that
it
did
that,
and
here
we
go
all
right.
So
then
that
was
heritage
then
mike
had
a
had
proposal
125
and
was
going
to
go
to
that
which
requested
a
bit
more
specificity
on
the
individuals
that
that
would
be
addressed
in
section
4.1.
B
I
think
I
saw
that
jay
supported
this
change
and
unless
their
objections,
I
would
say
to
allow
this
to
to
proceed.
B
B
Then
we
have
permit
rfs
are
this?
Is
issue
128,
permit
the
rc
not
not
to
wait
to
be
consulted
and
I'll
just
flash
that
here?
This.
F
B
B
And
then
ecker
raised
the
point:
wait
a
minute:
what
happens?
How
can
how
can
the
rsap
decline
a
proposal,
as
is
discussed
in
in
the
introduction
which
raised
the
point,
which
was
we
didn't
actually
say
what
happens
if,
if
the
rsap,
if
there,
if
there
isn't
a
success,
if
the
vote
fails,
and
so
we
should
have
been
a
little
bit
more
specific
about
that,
and
so
I
proposed
text
onto
the
list,
which
was
this.
B
Which
is
if
a
vote
is
taken
and
not,
and
the
proposal
not
approved
is
returned
to
the
rswg.
The
rswg
can
consider
making
further
changes,
and
the
key
thing
here
is
can
consider
it
might
be
that
the
you
know
that
that
maybe
the
changes
are
so
radical
and
there's
such
a
disagreement
between
you
know
the
the
r-sab
and
the
in
the
rswg
that
it
won't
come
of
anything,
but
maybe
it
will,
as
eric
pointed
out
on
the
list
eric.
You
want
to
comment
further.
K
I
was
gonna
say
this
text
is
fine
with
me.
I
I
guess
I
I
was
just
when
I
was
what
I
was
reacting
to
was
just
a
suggestion.
That
was
something
other
than
send
the
document
back
to
the
list,
because
I
don't
understand
what
that
would
be
right
like
we
have
no
way
of
saying
there's
just
no
structure
for
saying
like
we
will
never
consider
any
document.
Anything
like
this
ever
like
so
go
away.
There's
no
structure
for
that,
so
like
it
would.
K
B
Then
those
are
the
issues
that
we
would
like
to
accept.
The
one
issue
that
in
this
discussion
that
I
think
I
heard
we
really
need
to
a
little
bit
more
discussion
on
is
119.,
we'll
take
that
to
the
list
and
see
how
far
we
get
the
next
list
of
points.
B
I
want
to
just
go
through
a
little
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
too.
Why
is
this
not
moving
forward
there?
We
go
all.
N
B
So
these
are
the
issues
that
I
did
not
hear
support
for
now.
The
first
issue
was,
I
think,
from
lars
and
was
what
happens
if
you
have
multiple
people
who
have.
B
In
succession
should
the
three
month
timer
be
reset,
and
I
actually
think
we
heard
suggestions
of
going
the
other
direction.
No,
in
fact,
we
should
hard
code,
the
three-month
timer
to
the
approval
of
of
the
document
by
the
rswg,
and
so
unless
people
want
to
raise
support.
For
that,
please
feel
free
to
comment
and
mike
I
saw
you
in
the
queue.
Let
me
just
ask
lars.
Maybe
if
you
could
speak
first,
if
you
don't
mind
mike
lars
was
the
one
who
opened
this
I'll
just
ask
lars.
G
All
right
yeah,
so
I
don't
care
very
deeply
about
this,
but
I
raised
it
because
maybe
I'm
a
transport
guy
and
I
care
about
timers,
but
if
we
don't
restart
the
timer,
when
the
second
or
subsequent
position
opens
up,
those
bodies
will
have
a
potentially
very
short
timeline
to
fulfill
their
duties.
G
And
so
I
think
the
fair
thing
would
be
to
restart
the
timer.
I
see
that
you
know
you
could
sort
of
construct
a
case
where
somebody
abuses
that
to
sort
of
leave
the
body
under
staff,
but
I
I
don't
think
that's
a
realistic
sort
of
fear
and
we
can
sort
of
deal
with
it
with
an
appeals
thing.
G
So
that's
my
reason
for
modeling,
preferring
that
we
restart
the
timer
thanks.
Okay,.
L
No
worries
this
interacts
with
the
discussion
we
were
having
about
who's
doing
last
call.
So
if
the
three,
if
the
three-month
timer
kicks
off
on
the
rswg,
approves
it
that
includes
the
time
for
the
last
call
on
the
rsab
side.
L
You
know
every
time
somebody
leaves
the
thing
will
restart
may
not
happen,
but
that's
the
worst
case,
so
the
I
would
be.
I
would
basically
tie
it
to
the
you
know,
end
of
the
community
last
call
and
three
months
from
there
period.
B
N
Yeah,
so
so
I
I
I
I
I
I
do
agree
with
lazy's
reasoning
and
I
think
it
in
general
I'm
concerned
that
this
process
seems
to
be
trying.
Well,
the
the
document
seems
to
be
trying
to
impose
constraints
to
make
sure
that
everything
happens
on
a
very
strict
timeline,
and
yet
my
understanding
of
what
this
group
is
doing
is
that
there's
nothing
here
where
there
are
actually
likely
to
be
any
time
constraints.
N
So
I
don't
quite
understand
why
we
are
so
concerned
about
time
limiting
difficult
cases
where
there's
clearly
something
gone
wrong
and
we
need.
We
need
time
to
sort
out
the
process,
and
I
think
all
that's
going
to
end
up
happening
is
we'll
do
what
we
do
with
all
the
timers
in
the
working
group
process
in
the
itf,
which
is
in
practice
ignore
them.
N
B
Okay,
echo.
K
Yeah,
I
I
largely
agree
with
colin
and
lars
though
the
timer
should
be
200,
milliseconds
the.
I
guess
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
also
like
it's
not
clear
to
me
like
how
the
timers
like
meaningfully
work,
so
I
mean
say
we
said
this
has
to
be
done
within
you
know.
This
has
to
be
done
within
within
three
within
you
know
three
months,
and
you
know
then,
through
some
sequence
and
we're
like
might
suggest.
Basically,
we
never.
K
We
effectively
never
have
quorum
right
because
we
never
have
like
a
full
board.
It's
like
the
effect
is
things
just
it
can't
be
approved.
I
mean
it
be
weird
if
the
effect
were
that
things
were
like,
the
things
were
automatically
approved
and
so
effective
things
just
can't
be
approved,
which
is
the
same.
There's
like
nothing
happening
at
all
so
like
I
I
just
like.
K
I
just
don't
think
like
this
is
like
a
case
which
is
not
I
like
it
to
happen,
which
is
pretty
easy
to
get
out
of
and
like
and
like
it
does
happen,
probably
saying
it's
going
severely
wrong
and
it's
not
adversarial
and
like
and
just
needs
to
be
fixed.
So
I
I
don't
think
trying
to
have
a
rule
to
manage
that
situation
is
as
helpful.
B
Okay,
let
me
turn
this
back
around
then.
Does
anybody
mind
this
us
permitting?
I
I
know
mike
spoke
in
terms
of
having
this
timer
be
automatic.
Are
there
others
at
this
point
who
feel
like
they?
They
would
be
upset
if
we
did
restart
the
timer
based
on
an
additional
resignation.
J
B
Obviously
go
to
the
list.
Okay,
then
editorial
expertise
concerns.
This
is
something
that
john
clenson
expressed
and
others
have
expressed
it
at
different
times,
but
I
didn't
really
see
anything
actionable
or
proposed
changes
to
move
on
so
other
than
maybe
the
the
whole
model
is
something
that
they
have
concerns
about,
but
there's
nothing
really
here
to
really
take
as
an
action.
B
So
unless
somebody
has
suggestions
here,
I
don't
see
how
to
address
the
issue
and
I'll
I'll
just
say:
does
anybody
want
to
speak
to
this
in
favor
at
this
moment
in
terms
of
having
well.
I
B
Me
bring
that
one
up.
Okay-
and
this
is
also
another
john
clenson
issue.
I
think
he
had
a
bit
of
a
concern
about
a
lack
of
accountability.
B
I
think,
though,
again,
unless
there
is
a
specific
textual
proposal,
I'm
going
to
propose
to
close
this
issue,
I
mean
I
didn't
see.
Really
one
issue
number
116
was
different.
This,
I
think,
was
one
that
mark
nottingham
raised
and
it
had
to
do
with.
Do
we
need
to
list
the
rfcs
that
get
assigned
into
the
rfc
edit,
the
new
editorial
stream,
and
we
had
discussed
this
previously.
B
In
fact,
I
had
raised
this
issue
previously,
and
the
group
decided
no
we're
not
going
to
try
and
do
that
at
this
time.
Are
there
those
who
think
that
we
should.
Let
me
ask
that
question
at
this
point.
If
there
are
those
who
think
that
they
that
we
should
this
did
come
up
again
recently,
and
I
think
it
relates
to
the
svg
rfc
discussion
that
we
just
had
on
the
list
today.
B
A
Discussion
going
on
in
the
chat
that
you
might
want
to
read,
which
is:
should
we
move
to
issues
that
in
face-to-face
time
rather
than
I'd,
propose
all
of
these
closed
shears
go
to
the
list
of
just
saying
we're
going
to
close
all
these
unless
somebody
objects
and
instead
move
to
stuff.
That
requires
something.
B
B
Sorry
yeah,
maybe
so
all
right,
so
let
me
get
to
these.
So
these
are
the
four
issues
and
I
know
we
we
have
very
little
time
and
I
apologize
for
that.
These
are
the
four
issues
that
I
think
we
need
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
on
we're
going
to
start
with
issues,
93
94.,
I'm
going
to
bring
up
93
and
martin.
May
I
invite
you
to
really
talk
a
little
bit
about
this.
If
that's
okay,.
O
When
I
went
through
the
detection
that
talked
about
appeals,
it
had
very
clear
text
on
the
appeal
basis
for
rswg
decisions.
That's
pretty
crisp
and
clear,
but
there
was
no
the
parallel
structure
that
also
talked
about
what
appeal,
how
the
appeals
work
for
the
rsab,
but
it
didn't
have
the
same
clear
definition
for
what
an
appeal
could
be,
and
I
was
looking
to
provide
some
guidance
on
what
happened
there
and
I
think,
consistent
with
the
the
policies
that
we
have
for
the
working
group
side
of
things.
O
We
have.
We
already
have
agreement.
That
appeals
only
really
happen
on
the
basis
of
not
following
the
process,
and
I
tried
to
cover
that,
but
then
realized
that
the
rsab
is
given
sort
of
this
other
task,
which
is
to
interpret
policy
and
to
make
decisions.
That
need
to
be,
I
guess,
timely
and
expedient,
and
so
I
tried
to
capture
that
as
well
and
so
that
this
is
just
three
sentences,
one
they
feel
on
the
basis
of
one
policy.
Another
one
to
say.
O
B
Okay,
can
people
do
people
have
opinions
about
this
text?
First
of
all,
are
there
those
who
would
support
martin
and
his
concerns.
L
Wrong
point:
in
the
queue
the
there
doesn't
need
to
be
texts
about
about
the
appeal.
The
question
is
I
limiting
it
in
the
way
that
that
there,
that
is
here
is
kind
of
weird,
among
other
things,
because,
like
I
said
in
my
other
text,
the
rsab
is
generally
going
to
be
the
interpreter
of
the
policy
so
explaining
how
they
violated
the
policy
they
interpreted
is
going
to
be
kind
of
an
interesting,
interesting
discussion.
B
L
E
If
I
may,
I
think,
where
what
I
saw
from
from
martin's
proposal
was
that
there's
two
things
that
we're
asking
the
rsab
to
do
one
is
to
approve
documents
that
come
out
of
the
working
group.
The
other
is
in
cases
where
it's
unclear
that,
whether
there's
an
existing
policy
or
whether
there's
a
gap
in
policies
and
the
authors
and
our
rpc
and
other
interested
parties
are
trying
to
work
things
out.
E
I
think
martin's
right.
We
need
to
make
someone
responsible
for
coming
to
a
resolution
of
that,
and
so
his
proposal
was
the
rsabs
ought
to
be
the
ones
who
are
on
the
hook
to
make
sure
that
those
things
get
resolved
and
if
the
thing
gets
resolved
in
a
way
that
it
ought
to
be
appealable.
What
the
r
said,
what
our
sub
action
was
taken,
because
they
might
have
ignored
the
fact
or
missed
the
fact
that
there
actually
was
a
policy
that
covered
this
instance.
E
O
There's
one
other
thing
that
I
might
add
here,
which
is
that
when
there
is
no
policy
and
the
rsap
makes
a
decision-
that's
not
appealable
at
that
point,
so
we're
giving
them
that
much
rope
and
they're
they're
allowed
to
to
make
those
decisions
on
on
their
own
authority.
B
Okay
mike
and
I'm
sorry
peter
you
still
in
the
queue
or
I'm
coming
out,
it's
mike
and
then
we'll
close
the
queue
and
we'll
take
this
back
to
the
list.
Okay,.
L
That
says
we
have
to
publish
this,
and
that
would
be
the
appealable
thing,
but
the
document
itself,
if
it's
trying
to
esta,
if
it's
trying
to
bootstrap
its
policy,
the
rsav
can
say
no,
I
think
that's
the
right
answer.
L
H
H
B
This
really
didn't
get
enough
discussion
on
list
and
and
I'd
like
to
see
some
more
issue.
94
is
also
martin's
this
one's
a
much,
hopefully
much
simpler
issue.
What
it
basically
said
was
when
there
is
a
disagreement,
a
policy
disagreement
before
it
get
rather
than
just
say
that
the
parties
can
can
resolve
the
disagreement
that
the
responsibility
lies
with
rsap,
and
this
is
when
you
have
an
inter
stream
dispute,
so
the
change
is
being
that's
being
proposed.
Here
is
this:
are
there
any
concerns
with
this
change?
B
O
B
Sorry
yeah,
please
close
your
mic
if,
if
you're
done
speaking
okay,
so
I
I
think
we
have
117,
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
on
the
list
around
whether
the
rswg
can
make
statements
or
not.
This
will
be
the
last
issue
we
covered
today,
because
we're
going
to
run
out
of
time
and
I'd
just
like
people
to
to
to
provide
some
comments
to
say
how
they'd
like
to
see
this
issue
resolved
I'll.
Make
two
two
comments.
B
The
first
is,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
overhead
of
statements,
or
what
have
you,
is
really
in
the
finding
of
consensus
and
not
so
much
in
the
bits,
but
that's
elliot's
personal
opinion
and
the
the
actually
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that,
and
just
ask
people
to
comment
about
where
they
see
where
they
see
the
right
resolution
here
in
terms
of
proposals,
joel.
M
It's
very
clear:
the
rswg
can
send
email
to
anybody
it
wants.
The
rswg
chairs
can
send
email
to
anybody.
They
want,
but
statements
that
are
binding
in
the
sense
of
iesg
statements
are
not
within
the
process
we've
laid
out,
and
I
would
be
very
strongly
opposed
to
trying
to
extend
the
process
to
do
so,
and
none
of
the
arguments
I
have
seen
for
doing
so
make
it
are
I'm
sorry
I
I
can't
get
my
head
around
them.
B
Okay
and
by
the
way,
I'm
going
to
split
this
dish
into
two
because
there's
statements
and
then
there's
like
a
responsibility,
a
discussion
that
also
happened
but
on
the
statements
aspect,
miriam.
F
Yeah,
I
I
I
agree
to
the
point
that
I
think
the
the
heavy
part
of
the
process
is
getting
consensus
right
and
if
you
have
consensus,
I
don't
see
why
you
would
just
issue
a
statement
or
an
rfc.
So
I
think
that
the
working
group
should
really
be
bounded
to
writing.
Rfcs,
that's
their
purpose,
putting
policies
into
rfcs
getting
consent.
F
So
if
at
all,
any
kind
of
statements
are
needed,
then
maybe
it's
for
the
rsab,
because
the
rsab,
as
we
just
said
might
you
know,
resolve
conflicts
on
a
on
a
more
timely
basis
and
for
these
kind
of
conflicts
or
any
kind
of
issues,
then
maybe
want
to
write
them
down
somewhere.
P
Yes,
it's
working,
I
think
it's
working.
The
little
graph
is
moving
yeah.
I
I
think,
if,
if
the
statement
can
become
and
not
necessarily
as
was
discussed,
unless
there
are
situations
where
it
might
not
be
good
for
it
to
come
operative
as
soon
as
there
is,
you
know,
consensus,
and
it
goes
through
the
rsav
process.
P
That
goes
a
long
way
towards
addressing
this,
but
you
know
keeping
in
mind
that
that
the
there
is,
it
is
still
cost
in
terms
of
overhead
for
the
authors
going
through
auth
48,
it
goes
to
the
rpc,
as
we
all
hopefully
know.
The
rpc
cost
is
something
on
the
order
of
a
hundred
and
twenty
five
dollars
a
page.
P
It
seems
a
little
silly
to
publish
some
of
the
things
that
might
come
out
as
rfcs,
but
I'm
not
gonna
lie
down
in
the
mud.
About
that.
I
do
question,
however,
why
the
iab
and
the
iisg
put
out
non-rfc
statements.
Quite
often,
if
this
is
the
the
attitude
of
the
community.
B
P
A
discussion
and
some
people
thought
very
strongly
that
the
the
rules
cannot
be
modified
by
this
body,
and
and
so
I
would
be
concerned
about
assertions
that
that
could
be
a
path
out
of
this.
F
Because
mark
brought
up
by
his
gen
ib
statement,
so
these
documents
are
explicitly
not
community
consensus
statements
right.
These
are
statements
from
the
iab,
which
is
a
well-defined
set
of
people,
and
these
are
statements
from
the
iep,
which
is
another
small
set
of
people.
So
this
is
not
community
consensus.
B
I
think
the
statement
aspect
is
something
that
we'll
leave
aside
for
now,
but
the
other
aspect
I
want
to
just
ask
people
to
take
as
a
homework
assignment
is
to
make
sure
that
people
are
comfortable
with
the
idea
that
the
rswg
can
establish
processes
to
address
aspects
like
open
source
or
or
content
management,
working,
of
course,
together
with
the
llc.
In
doing
so,
we
I
we
started
a
little
bit
of
that
discussion.
B
I
had
an
exchange
with
mark
on
that
I'd,
like
other
people,
to
comment
on
lists
and
if
we
can
close
on
that,
then
I
think
we're
very
close
to
being
done.
We
actually
made
a
lot
of
progress
today,
believe
it
or
not.
We
covered
most
of
the
issues
that
that
were
open.
You
guys
were
really
prolific
in
terms
of
agree
and
very
conscientious
in
terms
of
reading
the
document
for
clarity
for
gaps.
B
It
was
all
really
good,
so
we'll
we
have
a
little
bit
more
work
to
do,
but
we're
really
close
so
with
that.
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
just
ask
for
any
other
business.
I
think
we
are
out
of
time.
B
Okay,
so
miria,
please.
B
C
Okay,
okay,
we're
done
so
brian
further
comments,
any
other.
Any
additional
comments,
no
we'll
have
to
consider
whether
we
need
an
another
interim.
It
depends
on
whether
we
can
close
these
on
the
list,
pretty
quick.
If
we
can
great,
if
not
that's
what
we'll
do.
B
Okay
and
then
peter
thanks
again
for
your
editorial
efforts
on
this
and
please
look
for
we
will
do
an
update
very
soon
to
the
document.
Even
if
we
don't
address
every
last
issue,
we
will
we
will.
We
will
still
have
an
update
out,
and
I
want
to
thank
again
everybody
and
look
for
the
look
for
the
updates
soon
and
I'll
see
you
on
the
list.