►
From YouTube: IETF112-SACM-20211109-1430
Description
SACM meeting session at IETF112
2021/11/09 1430
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/proceedings/
B
So
we
are
one
minute
passed,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
get
started.
This
is
the
sack
I'm
working
group
and
chris-
and
I
are
your
co-chairs
for
this
working
group.
B
B
A
B
B
Excellent,
so
this
is
our
agenda
for
today
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
architecture
document
that
has
been
moving
around
and
also
the
coast
wood
document
and
then
talk
about
way
ahead.
I'm
sort
of
I
was
sort
of.
B
Has
it
I
was
sort
of
dragging
my
feet
because
adam
montville
was
supposed
to
talk
about
the
architecture
and
then
he's
had
a
last-minute
conflict
and
then
kathleen
moriarty
said
she
would
step
in,
and
so
we
don't
have
either
of
them
here
at
the
moment.
So.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
actually
put
coast
wood
first
originally
and
then
I
moved
sack
and
architecture
up
because
kathleen
said
she
needed
to
leave
early.
So
I
was,
but
since
I
don't
see
her,
we
will
swap
it
back
and
how
coast
wood
will
be
next.
So
I
know
there's
no
slides
or
anything
for
coast
wood.
I
don't
know
if
hank
or
david,
if
one
of
you
wants
to
talk
about
the
current
status
of
coasted
and
the
upload
updates
for
that.
D
Hi
everybody
so
yeah.
First
of
all,
thank
you,
roman
for
being
patience
with
us.
I
think
your
concerns
and
issues
and
contribution
have
been
addressed.
Now
we
are
in
the
phase
of
finalizing
some
of
the
less
leftovers
of
the
area
and
directory
reviews.
That's
on
us.
D
I
I
thought
we
were
thorough
but
to
be
honest,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
keep
track
of
this
when
when
there
is
no
issue
tracker,
but
you
have
a
text
review,
and
so
so
we
at
everything
there
was
an
issue
and
there
wasn't
the
the
romans
and
thing
we
we
addressed,
but
it
appears
and
roman
again
you
are
the
gatekeeper
here.
Thank
you
a
lot
for
taking
on
that
responsibility.
D
I
think
we
have
like
4.5
issues
left
there
and
dave
might
have
more
input
on
that.
E
I
don't
think
there's
any
normative
changes
based
on
the
remaining
area
reviews.
D
Yeah,
that's
correct,
but
there's
some
some
some
niches
things.
So
I
don't
know
how
how
we
have
to
deal
with
that.
Maybe
maybe
you
two
have
an
concept
for
god.
D
F
D
Polishing
items,
but
I
I
don't
think
they
are
the
blocker
at
all.
We
can.
We
can
resolve
these
in
an
isg
review.
B
So
I
think
roman
has
posted
in
the
chat
that,
as
far
as
he's
concerned,
there's
a
number
of
some
some
feedback
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
C
No,
there
are
some
things
yeah.
Some
things
got
pointed
out
about.
I
think
specifically
how
the
iana
registries
got
shaped,
and
we
need
to
bang
that
out
to
resolve
that
before
we
go
to
itf
last
call,
because
how
we
handle
the
behavior
of
the
registries
is
something
the
community
is
going
to
want
input
on.
D
Okay,
so
we
are
in
and
of
course,
in
dialogue
with
ayanna,
apparently
so,
and
they
they
have
not
raised
that
exact
issue.
So
that
is
a
question
of
a
favorite
art,
so
yeah.
How
would
you
propose
to
resolve
that
like
presenting
the
question
to
the
to
the
list
and
that
other
people
decide
on
this?
I
guess
that's
that
the
working
group
should
should
be
the
the
arbiter
here.
C
C
D
Okay,
so
so
so
we
will
take
your
recent
input
on
the
ayana
topics
and
and
put
them
to
yeah.
Basically,
we
resolve
them
like
in
a
two
weeks
period
on
the
working
group
list
and
and
then
then
go
from
there.
B
So,
did
you
make
it
make
note
of
the
email
that
roman
has
linked
in
the
chat
so
that
you
guys
can
follow
up
on
that
email,
yeah.
D
E
Think
I
think
the
decision
was
really
about
what
we
name
the
registry
or
what
path
we
we
choose
for
the
registry,
which
is
more
style
than.
B
B
C
D
Yeah,
that's
double
checking
so
and-
and
I
think
and
and
dave
okay,
but
before
I
attained
any
discussion
here
dave
do
you
have
an
voice
in
preference
here
right
now,
because
I
have
one,
but
I
want
to
take
the
discussion.
E
I
think
the
right
now
I
was
just
going
to
look
at
the
draft.
I
think
right
now.
It's
with
and
the
intent
behind
that
is
the
the
registries
that
deal
with
controlled.
E
You
know
vocabularies
for
for
coswood
also
are
to
be
used
for
the
iso
swiftag
standard
as
well,
and-
and
so
we
named
it
suid
just
to
be
sort
of
in
the
middle
between
between
the
two
and
I
said
that
the
registries
could
be
used
by
both
and
that's
also
why
we
reserved
space
in
the
right
in
the
registrations
to
allow
for
both
specification
required
and
and
standards
track
submissions,
so
that
you
know
the
that
iso
could
submit.
E
D
D
So
so
I
think
the
problem
here
is
that
that
there
was
the
notion
was,
but
but
we
are
not
sweet,
so
so
so
if
if
we
want
to
have
the
same,
let's
call
it
major
space
at
the
swin
and
and
then
we're
always
tied
to
that,
and
I
think
some
of
the
standard
sex
now
says
we
might
not
be
tied
with
that.
D
We
might
be
better
so
to
speak
and
now
there's
a
discrepancy
between
tying
ourselves
to
the
the
semantic
realm
of
just
pure
swin,
and
the
improvements
that
coast
with
could
provide
and
does
provide
to
some
extent
that's
not
interoperable
today,
but
but
maybe
in
the
future,
and
so
so
so
why
tie
it
to
the
switch
space
and
not
do
with
the
go
switch
space?
I
think
that
was
roman's
question
but
roman.
Please
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong.
C
E
There's
two
there's
two
different
kinds
of
of
registrations
in
in
the
what's
proposed.
Is
this
wood
registry
there's
the
registrations
that
deal
with
controlled
vocabulary,
values
which,
from
the
beginning,
we've
always
wanted
to
stay
in
sync
with
you
know,
with
swift
tags
on
and
those
are
the
ones
that
I
was
referring
to
then
there's
a
tag
registry
for
for
coswid,
which
would
allow
us
to
add
new
tags
to
the
standard
over
time
tags
which
may
either
synchronize
or
or
diverge.
You
know
from
the
swiftag
standard
that
registry
allows
us
to.
E
You
know
to
to
act
in
a
way
that
is,
is
is
meaningful
for
coast
with
and
has
no
impact
on
the
switz
standard.
So
I
think
if
we
approach
it
in
that
way,
we
get
the
best
of
both
worlds.
E
We
can
synchronize
with
squid,
where
it's
meaningful
to
do
so
and
have
room
to
you
know
to
continue
to
enhance
coast
with
you
know
where
there's
also
a
need
to
do
so.
D
D
We
can't
we
can't
assume
that
so
so
that
that's
roman's
argument
so
so
so
there's
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
conundrum.
Here
of
of
that,
we
are
pretty
sure
an
effectively.
I
think
we're
actually
correct
that
iso
will
follow
our
tracks,
but
also
we
can't
put
that
into
an
iatf
text,
because
we
we
don't
have
the
authority
to
do
that.
So
right.
E
And
then
so
is
our
hands
tied?
You
know
from
a
coast
with
perspective,
you
know
based
on
what
iso
does
so.
I.
D
Don't
see
the
harm,
no
there's
no
harm,
there's
just
a
that's
called
a
procedural
conflict.
D
I
would
see
that
I
think
in
reality,
if
you
look
at
this
realistic,
there's
no
problem,
but
if
you
look
at
this
procedure
wise,
I
understand.
Romans
has
a
tendency
to
say
this
is
tied
to
iso
and-
and
I
think
I
read
appropriate
wording
on
the
list.
That
seems
awkward
lucy.
Thank
you
for
that
yeah.
I
can
see
also
that
so
I
I
wonder
what
is
the
harm
of
of
creating
a
different
course
with
lane
here?
D
E
Right
yeah,
I
mean
well,
let's,
let's
think
about
what
the
alternative
would
be
right.
The
alternative
would
be,
I
say,
would
have
to
work
with
ayanna
in
order
to
you
know,
develop
a
squid
lane
and
then
there
would
be
all
of
the
overhead
of
having
to
synchronize
the
coast
with
and
swit
lanes.
If
we
wanted
that
synchronization,
we
kind
of
get
that
for
free,
really
at
no
cost
to
coast.
With
with
the
the
current
approach,
so
I
mean
this.
This
decision
point
that
we're
at
is
either
you
know.
E
Do
we
do
we
effectively
commit
ourselves
to
divergence
from
coast
with,
or
you
know,
a
whole
ton
of
you
know
overhead
and
pain,
or
you
know
do
we?
Do
we
move
forward
with
a
path
that
will
allow
them
to
be
synchronized
yeah
or
it's
meaningful
to
do
so?
I
I
think
the
right
decision
is
to
move
forward
in
the
way
that
we've
proposed
and
again
it
has
no
no
downside
to
coastwood.
E
Since
you
know,
since
you
know,
coastwid
is
establishing
this
registry,
and
and
and
coastwood
can
continue
to
evolve
independently
if
it
wants
to.
D
Yeah,
I
think
it
might
look
suspicious
at
first,
but
I
think
the
benefits
really
really
outweigh
the
formal.
Let's
call
it
conundrum
that
we
might
face
here,
but
that's
me
so
so
so
I
think
roman
said.
I
think
this
is
a
wg
decision.
Then,
should
we
just
put
this
to
a
list
and
call
it
like?
I
don't
know
a
a
a
humming
thing
on
the
list.
D
C
C
But
again,
that's
my
personal
opinion.
I
can
you
know
we
have
laid
out
an
argument
that
we
could
rationalize
in
one
way
or
we
can
rationalize
in
another
and
there
are
consequences
for
going
one
way
or
another,
it's
up
to
the
working
group
to
decide
which
way
they
want
to.
They
want
to
lean,
and
I
think
either
way
we
should
document.
You
know
the
the
the
consequence
of
that
or
you
know
the
coordination
that
that
that
gives
us.
As
I
said
personally,
it
makes
more
sense
as
coast
with
me.
D
B
D
B
Is
opposed
to
it
and
then,
if
nobody
is
opposed,
then
roll
it
into
the
document.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
have
a
bashing
of
this
on
the
mailing
list.
E
B
So
there
might
not
be
any
changes
to
the
document,
but
whatever
changes
you
can
take
to
the
document
to
address
all
of
all
of
roman's
comments
and
resolve
this
open
issue
and
then
update
the
document
so
that
we
can
move
on.
E
D
Otherwise,
then,
what's
our
deadlines
here,
maybe
procedurally
I
want
to
ask:
do
we
have
hard
limits.
B
E
No,
probably
not
this
week.
B
Okay,
so
with
that,
if
there's
nothing
else
on
coast
with
end
of
next
week's
our
deadline
for
the
next
update.
F
F
F
And
defining
the
method
to
describe
capabilities,
please
provide
comments
and
there's
also
an
open
issue
to
add
a
section
or
a
subsection
on
attestation.
I
think
this
would
be
an
important
addition.
This
is
something
I
personally
would
you
know.
I
could
put
my
hand
up
to
help
on
that,
and
maybe
some
others
interested
would
like
to
help
to
round
that
out.
So
we
could
think
about.
F
I
think
hank
is
in
the
queue.
Do
you
have
a
question
hank
or
to
volunteer
to
help
as
well.
D
Just
highlighting
a
a
universal
comment
on
the
use
of
the
term
attestation.
D
F
Is
it
so,
I
think
what
means
here
a
title,
rats,
working
group
and
so
yeah.
G
F
A
F
Recognize
that
there's
going
to
be
a
relationship
there,
so
if
you'd
like
to
help
on
text
and
or
to
work
on
reviews,
I
can
do
the
first
draft.
I'd
be
happy
to
do
that
for
a
section
on
that
to
tie
it
together
and
then,
if
you
could
help
work
on
it,
then
we'll
make
sure
that
there
are
no
issues
together.
F
Thank
you
appreciate
your
help.
Next
slide,
please.
Unless
there's
any
other
questions.
Okay,
so
I
believe
he's
been
doing
some
work
with
the
open
cyber
security
alliance.
F
You
know
for
cis
center
for
internet
security
and
also
the
united
states
government's
doing
work
there,
and
so
I
think
this
is
getting
at
yeah,
so
working
code
for
instantiating,
the
sacrum
architecture,
so
this
is
useful
work
for
that
community
and
and
it's
ongoing
until
it's
done
so,
I
believe
adam
is
seeking
help
in
a
few
areas
to
help
get
this
draft
wrapped
up
and
then,
if
anyone
else
is
also
interested
in
the
open
cyber
security
alliance
work,
so
I'm
willing
to
help
on
the
attestation
piece
of
the
draft
is
anyone
else
willing
to
help
as
an
editor
on
the
draft,
perhaps,
and
and
to
help,
you
know,
contribute
text
or
reviews.
F
Reviews
would
be
quite
helpful
to
help
get
this
wrapped
up
on
issues
michael,
you
join
the
queue.
H
Hey
you
guys
hear
me:
yes,
yes,
awesome
thanks
kathleen
and
everyone
else
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
note.
You
noted
usg
there.
I've
been
working
alongside
with
adam
in
the
pace
effort
and
we
have
been,
as
kathleen
noted
trying
to
do.
I
guess
in
some
essence
experimentation
coding
on
how
to
instantiate
sacrum
under
the
open
cyber
security
alliance
and
trying
to
help
support,
at
the
same
time,
to
finding
out
the
rest
of
the
sacrum
architecture.
H
So
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
work
is
moving
along,
really
well
and
hoping
to
support
in
editing
or
writing
to
the
draft
where
I
can.
F
Oh
excellent,
thank
you
great
and
I
think
the
working
group
would
appreciate
or
does
appreciate
that
assistance
just
to
get
this
moving
more
in
wrapping
it
up.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
Hank.
D
Yeah,
so
my
first
question
is
at
which
stage
do
you
think
this
work
is
right
now,
so
I
I
actually
following
pace
pace
was
mentioned
a
year
ago.
I
think
the
first
time
it
was
highlighted,
and
I
was
carefully
following
that
work
and-
and
I
have
a
hard
time
understanding
where
we
are
right
now.
D
F
Processing
this
slide
they're
working
on
code
that
instantiates
the
sakam
architecture
and
so
terminology
things
of
that
nature
are
addressed
within
this
working
group.
So
I
really
hope,
because
this
working
group
has
been
going
on
forever,
that
we're
pretty
far
down
the
path.
D
F
D
D
F
D
F
Okay,
so
what's
your
assessment
from
reading
the
draft
and
have
you
provided
comments
and
have
the
command
comments
been
addressed.
D
No,
no,
I
did
not
provide
any
comments.
My
assessment
is
that
it
is
an
arbitrary
set
of
let's
call
it
solution,
building
blocks
that
are
in
software,
but
in
the
end
I
do
not
know
what
what
the
current
problem
that
is
addressed.
D
That's
my
my
my
first
of
all
question
here.
Right
now,.
D
So
I
understand
the
problem
of
second,
of
course,
but
I
didn't
don't
see
that
problem
of
second
address
in
the
oca
code
that
is
on
on
github
at
the
moment,
so
so
there's
a
disconnect
a
mental
disconnect
for
me.
Okay,.
F
So
that
would
be
for
oca,
and
maybe
michael
could
answer
some
questions.
Let's
keep
the
draft
separate
so
that
beckham
can
eventually,
okay,
okay,.
H
Yeah-
and
I
I'm
just
jumping
in
here
real
quick,
the
pace,
effort
as
it
is
under
oca
is
actually
fairly
new.
It
hasn't
been
going
on
for
a
year.
It's
only
been
a
few
months.
It's
been
in
relation
to
what's
been
going
on
in
sacrament
for
a
little
bit
and
there's
been
discussions
around
how
to
start
codifying
this.
But
you
know
from
that
aspect:
it
hasn't
that
yeah.
I
don't
know
where
the
year
came
about
from,
but
yeah,
because.
D
H
Didn't
mention
it
sorry,
I
adam,
and
I
did
this
back
in
the
days
no
yeah
yeah,
so
I
mean
that
that
being
said,
yeah
we
are
working
towards
that
to
try
and
help.
You
know
define
what
is
within
the
sacrum
architecture,
but
also
fuel
into
whatever
to
what
we
are
achieving
within
the
pace.
Work
of
doing
posture,
attribution
collection,
evaluation,
so
it
we're
moving
down
that
that
path,
and
so
hopefully
we
will
have
more
results
sooner
rather
than
later.
D
Yeah,
so
so
it's
hard
for
me
to
to
to
connect
the
dots.
So
that's
what
I'm
saying
here
so
so
when
you're,
when
you're
highlighting
this
is
this
is
addressing
a
second
to
some
extent.
D
I
I
can't
really
bridge
that
gap
today,
but
but
I'm
I'm
sure
there
might
be
something
there
in
the
future
and
I'm
happy
to
provide
comments
as
soon
as
that
happens.
H
F
F
Anyone
all
right,
so
I
guess
to
the
list-
I
I
do
hope
that
we
get
some
volunteers,
appreciate
your
help
in
advance
so
that
we
could
wrap
this
up
and
wrap
up
the
working
group.
I
think
it's
this
one
of
the
last.
F
B
Yeah,
I
think
they
are
so
so.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
way
forward
for
the
working
group.
Let
me
switch
back
to
my
other
slides.
Well,
actually,
it's
just
a
slide.
That's
blank
and
says
way
forward.
B
So
at
this
stage
in
the
at
the
last
meeting
of
the
ietf
roman
gave
us
a
a
set
of
objectives
and
that
we
needed
to
make
progress
or
recharter
to
make
progress
and
recharter,
or
we
needed
to
close,
and
at
this
stage
we
are
opening
the
floor
to
discussions
for
way
forward.
B
I
feel
like
we
are
not
making
the
progress
that
we
need
to
make,
and
perhaps
it
is
time
to
close
this
working
group.
Chris
did
you
want
to
say
something.
C
All
right,
I
took
a
look
at
the
pace.
Working
group.
I've
watched
some
of
kind
of
adam's
updates.
You
know
one
of
the
comments
from
bill
at
the
last
when
he
presented
architecture.
That
111
was,
you
know
looking
for
their
to
continue
their
monthly
update
pace
for
the
for
the
architecture.
C
That
the
last
updates
I
see
at
the
pace,
github
site
are
are
from
dave,
lemire
who's,
a
really
nice
guy.
I
like
dave,
but
he's
never
come
to
itf.
C
C
C
C
We
we
have
a
coast
with
document
that
is
our
second
firm
last
got
a
work
item
and
we're
barely
able
to
get
updates
to
meet.
You
know
specific.
You
know
ietf
kind
of
meetings,
so
you
know
our
cadence
is
we're
best
keys,
getting
an
update.
You
know
one
spin
per
every
time
we
meet.
We
just
talked
about
the
architecture
document
and
we're
unable
to
solicit
kind
of
additional
kind
of
reviewers,
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
we
didn't
even
get
an
update
for
this
particular
meeting.
C
So
all
the
data
to
me
seems
to
be
pointing
that
we've
really
run
out
of
steam
here.
So
if
we
wanted
to
proceed
forward,
we
would
need
a
very
strong
demonstration
of
renewed
interest
and
commitment
from
frankly
new
parties
that
would
re-energize
us
to
do
something.
F
B
Okay,
echo's
gone,
so
I
think
we
need
to
decide
at
the
working
group
level
what
we
want
to
do
and
then
the
and
then
we
need
to
depending
on
that
decision,
we
need
to
talk
about
with
each
of
the
two
remaining
documents.
What
we
want
to
do
with
those
I
starting
at
the
working
group
level.
The
recommendation
is
to
close
the
working
group
and
I
haven't
heard
any
arguments
for
keeping
the
working
group
open.
D
Yeah,
so
the
audi
real
requirements
have
on
the
working
group
is,
let
us
finish
crossfit
and
then
that's
okay.
D
So
if
that's
fine
with
with
everybody
here
in
the
working
group,
I
I
think
I
can't
speak
against
what
but
roman
just
said
that,
there's
I
don't
know
we're
losing
steam
and
that's
fine.
There's
content
here
that
might
be
salvaged
to
to
some
other
place
and
pace
might
be
a
place.
D
I
can't
I
can't
tell
talk
about
that,
but
but
I
think
there
has
been
a
significant
evolution
and
significant
effort
put
into
understanding
how
this
distribution
of
posture
information
works,
and
I
know
that
other
sdos
are
taking
up
on
that,
and
maybe
there
is
there's
some
way
to
to
not
let
this
go
to
ways
to
speak.
I
mean
I
mean,
there's
a
lot
of
lesson
learned
here
and
I
think
that
is
not
to
be
underestimated
seriously.
D
On
the
other
hand,
in
this
working
group
it
might
not
come
to
any
fruition
now.
So
so
so
I
don't
know
where
this
the
fragments
of
of
its
remnants
will
end
up,
but
but
I
would
really
like
to
highlight
that
we
should
take
care
not
to
just
put
them
into
the
draw
and
be
done
with
it.
B
So
for
for
the
high
level
working
group
decision
of
closing
the
working
group
or
not,
I
think
probably
what
we
want
to
do
is
send
a
quick
note
to
the
mailing
list
and
give
a
week
or
two
to
see
if
anybody
has
any
strong
reasons.
Why
and
strong
commitments
for
why
the
working
group
should
open,
I
should
should
remain
open
and
in
the
event
of
that,
we
should
proceed
with
closing
the
working
group,
not
talking
about
the
two
specific
documents
yet
go
ahead.
Kathleen.
F
Just
because
adam's-
not
here,
I
would
like
him
to
have
a
chance
to
speak
up
and
and
and
michael
as
well,
because
their
work
is
being
implemented
right.
So
we
do
actually
have
an
implementation
behind
the
saccum
architecture,
even
if
that
means
they're,
given
some
kind
of
quick
timeline
because
of
the
lack
of
energy
just
to
get
it
wrapped
up
and
so
that
they're
forced
to
put
a
fire
under
the
draft
and
get
it
finalized
yeah.
I
think.
B
F
B
F
B
C
Yeah
I
mean
I
am
really
sympathetic
to
that
predicament,
but
I
would
like
to
just
kind
of
reiterate
for
everyone.
This
is
not
a
new
conversation.
We
have
set
the
january
timer
a
couple
of
ietf
meetings
ago,
and
everyone
is
aware
that
this
is
kind
of
what
we're
heading
and
no
one's
voiced
anything
kind
of
new.
Again,
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
drafts
we
have
in
flight,
but
we
need
demonstrated
energy
to
to
convince
us.
C
We
can
close
it
and,
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
we've
seen
no
bolus
of
kind
of
new
energy
on
kind
of
either
document
to
get
us
to
closure.
Given
the
cadence
of
publication,
I
personally
think
we
can
get
co-suite
across
the
finish
line.
I
mean,
frankly,
those
directorate
reviews
came
in
in
early
august
and
the
fact
that
we're
just
talking
about
them
three
months
later,
you
know,
is
exactly
the
problem
kind
of
we
have,
but
we
are
very
far
along
we're
through
80
review
and
we're
through
kind
of
early
director
review.
C
So
I
think
we
can
turn
around
by
january.
I
honestly
have
less
confidence
in
the
architecture
document.
We
didn't
even
get
an
update
for
this
meeting
and
if
there
is
this
huge
amount
of
kind
of
interest
here,
we're
seeing
none
of
that
demonstrated
here,
reinforced
here
by
the
fact
that
we
couldn't
get
any
reviewers
just
even
in
this
meeting.
G
Hey
yeah,
I
want
to-
I
think
I
think
roman
made
my
point
for
me,
but
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
that
adam
and
mike
brought
some
of
the
architecture
work
to
oca
was
to
try
to
get
more
engagement,
try
to
get
more
energy
behind
an
implementation
that
we
couldn't
seem
to
muster
the
energy
in
ietf,
and
I
wonder
if
I
I
feel
that
the
document
and
the
implementation
might
even
be
stronger
if
they
went
hand
in
hand
together.
G
Maybe-
and
I
know
to
karen's
point-
we
shouldn't
be
making
decisions
about
this,
but
I
want
to
toss
this
out
to
the
group
to
consider
if
that
work
could
just
move
to
pace
so
that
it
doesn't
die,
it
doesn't
go
away.
It
just
goes
to
a
place
where
maybe
there's
a
little
bit
more
energy
behind
it.
B
B
It's
a
little
bit
unfortunate
that
we
do
seem
to
be
picking
up
steam
at
this
stage,
but
if
all
of
the
work
and
all
of
the
energy
currently
is
over
there
than
it
seems
to
me,
then
that's
maybe
where
the
work
at
least
at
this
stage
should
be
that's
just
in
my
opinion.
B
C
B
C
So
everything
you
sounded,
it
was
great.
I
maybe
I'm
not
remembering
one
piece
kind
of
correctly.
Was
there
a
discussion
about
down
scoping?
What's
currently
in
the
architecture
document
and
changing
how
much
detail
it
provides
and
rethinking,
I
believe,
the
track
of
how
that
was
published
as
potentially
a
third
a
third
route.
B
C
I
didn't
mean
to
imply
that
it
was
during
the
meeting.
I
thought
there
was
an
earlier.
Perhaps
this
was
a
private
discussion
about
you
know
I
won't
say
more,
we'll
kind
of
have
it
on
the
list,
but
I
think
it
was
around
right
now.
The
current
document
is
a
ps
and
we
could
potentially
make
it
informational
to
make
sure
that
the
working
group
has
an
artifact
it
kind
of
finishes
with,
and
then
that
would
dovetail
onto
what
we've
been
discussing
here.
B
Yeah,
that's
a
I
hadn't,
really
that's
an
interesting
idea.
I
hadn't
thought
about
that.
I
I
don't
remember
if
it
was
this
context
or
another
where
there
was
a
discussion
about
a.d
sponsoring
a
document,
but
I
might
be
remembering
that
in
a
different
working
group,
unfortunately,
I'm
not
remembering.
C
B
C
B
Yeah,
there's
too
many
conversations
going
on
at
once,
so
but
yeah.
I
think
that
that
would
actually
be
a
a
conversation
have
when
you
when
you
first
said
down
scoping
the
document
I
I
was
trying
to
put
time
bounds
around
I
mean
there
have
been
many
many
conversations
about
the
scope
of
architecture
and
it's
you
know
it's
bigger
and
it's
smaller
and
it's
bigger
and
it's
just
yeah.
C
Yeah
I
apologize
we'll
let
adam
we'll
let
adam
speak,
but
the
way
I
believe
the
some
of
the
conversation
went-
and
this
was
my
my
word-
was
downscope.
So
there
are
outstanding
kind
of
issues
that
I
believe
some
of
the
implementations
have
identified
and
some
of
them
are
open
issues
and
then
you
know,
there's
always
a
desire
like,
let's
close
them
and
by
down
scope.
C
B
Okay,
yeah!
No,
I
I
would
I
mean
if,
especially
if
adam
is
amenable
I
would
be,
it
would
be
nice
to
be
able
to
wrap
this
up
some
way,
because
there
has
been
an
enormous
amount
of
conversation
and
work-
that's
gone
into
this
over
the
years.
B
B
Thank
you,
roman.
Any
other
questions
or
comments.
C
I
have
nothing
more,
I
think
we
have
a
very
cogent
plan.
Like
you
said,
we'll
put
something
on
the
mailing
list
confirm
that
we
are
going
to
wrap
things
up
in
january.
As
we
said
with
the
milestone
we
heard
from
the
code
squid
folks
from
the
team
saying
they're
going
to
get
something
out
to
us
next
week
and
I
I
would
hope
that
we
could
maybe
even
put
something
on
the
late
december
telechat.
C
B
All
right
so
with
that
I'd
like
to,
if
there's
nobody
else
left
in
the
queue,
I
think
that
draws
our
sacco
meeting
at
ietf
112
to
a
close
and
I'd
like
two
okay,
so
the
14th
december
telechat,
all
right
and
with
that
everybody
have
a
good
rest
of
the
ietf
week
and
see
you
around
the
virtual
hallways.