►
From YouTube: IETF95-RTGAREA-20160406-1620
Description
RTGAREA meeting session at IETF95
2016/04/06 1620
A
A
A
A
Nothing,
oh-
and
this
is
the
agenda
for
today
we
have
the
normal
suree
agenda,
bashing,
etc.
We're
gonna
have
John
Hudson.
Do
a
key
technology.
Presentation
is
going
to
talk
about
trill.
We
started
this
last
time
when
Michael
and
it
has
talked
about
ripple
about
roll,
the
work
and
roll,
and
the
idea
here
is
to
share
a
little
bit
more
between
all
of
us
what
we're
actually
doing
in
the
routing
area.
We
only
have
an
hour
for
this
meeting,
so
most
of
it
is
going
to
take
over
by
John.
A
A
0.6
minutes
per
person
now,
so
what
that
means
is
is
most
of
you
put
the
stuff
in
the
wiki.
Please
don't
read
everything.
That's
in
the
wiki
we
can
all
read
or
I
think
we
can
all
read
summarize
what's
really
important
about
your
working
group
this
week
or
you
know
what
changed
what
is
really
really
exciting
if
you're
going
to
tell
us
what's
on
the
wiki,
then
maybe
just
pass
and
we'll
be
happy
about
that.
A
What
we
really
wants,
of
course
to
for
the
state
in
there
to
be
accurate
and
then,
if
everything
goes
right,
we're
gonna
have
another
five
minutes
for
any
other
discussion
that
anyone
wants
to
have
so
I,
don't
want
to
change
the
agenda
for
any
reason:
nope,
okay,
good,
so
the
area
status
it
hasn't
changed
much.
We
didn't
close
anything,
we
didn't
reach
art
or
anything,
and
we
don't
have
it
in
you
working
groups.
We
did
have
a
buff
this
time
they
were
going
to
hear
from
a
little
bit
later.
A
B
C
B
Okay
and
then
the
director
already,
I
sent
out
some
mail
that
we're
going
to
go
to
now
the
round
robin
way
of
assigning
reviews,
because
we
want
to
do
much
more
get.
The
Directorate
involved
in
reviews,
which
is
similar
to
the
other
areas
are
doing
it.
So
so
the
Directorate
make
sure
you
didn't
put
my
mail
and
you
spam
folder.
A
D
Alright,
everybody
thanks
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
it.
The
actually
spawned
this
morning
actually
offered
a
t-shirt
with
that
on
it,
for
someone
to
scribe
and
still
didn't
get
any
offers,
but
so
this
is
not
going
to
be
a
protocol
talk,
so
don't
worry,
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we
achieved
so
far.
What
went
right,
what
went
wrong
and
hopefully
some
lessons
that
we
learn
from
this.
D
Which
there
are
two
versions
talk
to
you,
a
second
to
look
at
it.
Any
of
you
can
actually
read
that
font,
where
essentially,
it's
two
different
perspective
of
why
end-users
attendant
to
be
a
fan
of
this
technology,
and
one
is
that
if
you
are
from
a
layer,
2
perspective
of
spanning
tree
and
your
perception
of
writing
protocols,
we
broke
through
the
4096
VLAN
limit
and
you
can
build
big
giant
flat
layer.
2
networks
not
worry
about
writing
anymore,
and
if
you
are
a
layer,
2
person
that
was
a
very
exciting
opportunity.
D
If,
on
the
other
hand,
your
layer,
3
guy,
hey
we
replace
pending
free
with
ice,
is
go
home
and
be
happy,
and
this
actually
got
a
lot
of
people
very
excited.
So
from
those
two
perspectives
special
if
you're
managing
a
data
center
and
you're,
not
just
doing
networking,
you're,
also
managing
storage
and
firewalls
and
policy
and
backups
and
everything
else.
This
made
your
life
easier,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
it
had
the
adoption
rate
that
it
did
now.
What
is
true
functioning,
but
we
didn't
really
go
out
to
achieve
a
whole
lot.
D
We
wanted
to
encapsulate
native
frames.
We
wanted
to
route
those
encapsulated
frames
using
nice
is
we
want
the
deep
capsulate
before
it
leaves
so,
essentially
it's
transparent,
and
we
want
to
do
this
with
least
number
of
paths
offer
equal
cost
multipathing
and
offers
many
paths
to
destinations
possible.
So
this
was
a
pretty
simple
initial
set
of
I.
D
D
D
Imagine
if
you
were,
you
know,
driving
to
work
in
the
morning
you
were
stuck
on
a
freeway,
it
was
totally
jammed
packed
and
you
know
you
go
online.
You
find
out
there's
another
freeway
like
just
right.
Next
door
is
empty,
there's
like
deer
on
it
and
the
bunny
rabbits,
and
so
you
call
like
what's
that
and
they
go.
Oh,
that's
just
the
spare
road
in
case
you
know
we
need
it
right
and
you
hear
you're
sitting
in
traffic
three
miles
an
hour,
and
essentially
this
is
the
frustration
of
active
passive
links.
D
If
I
have
40
gig
10
gig,
whatever
links
I,
didn't
want
to
use
them
all
and
so
being
able
to
go
from
something
like
this
to
something
like
this
usually
didn't,
take
a
whole
lot
of
explaining,
and
so
this
was
something
that
you
know
brought
a
lot
of
customers.
A
lot
of
interest
in
a
lot
of
you
know
curiosity
about
how
this
technology
actually
worked.
D
Now.
What
this
also
resulted
in
was
a
ease
of
use
model
that
became
very,
very
popular.
So
these
are
a
couple
quotes
that
I
gathered
from
my
customers,
and
you
know,
I
mean
and
I
mean
the
list
went
on
and
on
and
on
I
mean
we,
you
know-
and
this
wasn't
just
my
company.
We
all
had
this
experience
where
essentially
by
creating
this
very,
very
simple
kind
of
easy
bake,
oven
approach
to
to
networking,
you
know
sure
it
only
you
know
maybe
match
that.
You
know
that
standard
definite.
D
You
know
deviation
of
customers
or
you're
trying
to
do
something.
You
know
too
far
out
of
the
normal.
He
certainly
didn't
have
quite
as
much
access
to
tuning
and
tweaking.
But
if
you
fell
into
that
center
stage,
it
was
an
easy
bake,
oven.
You
know
from
the
point
of
view
of
how
to
set
this
stuff
up
and
actually
that
final
quote:
I've
truncated.
It
was
actually
I'm
finishing
one
day,
installs
by
lunch
and
the
rest
of
the
day.
D
I
play
call
of
duty,
but
I
cut
that
part
out
for
for
the
benefit
of
that
that
end
user.
So
now
what
worked?
Well,
we
did
a
couple
interesting
things.
So,
first
of
all,
we
got
rid
of
the
4k
VLAN
limit.
Now
one
may
ask:
why
would
you
want
more
than
4,000
vlans
you'd
be
surprised,
you
know,
and
the
thing
is
is
that
the
truth
of
matter
is:
is
that
no
one's
trying
to
do
16
million
vlans
and
you
know,
but
you're,
certainly
getting
above
4,000?
D
You
know
became
a
very
interesting
factor
for
a
lot
of
people,
especially
to
start
looking
at
these
mega
data
centers,
and
these
you
know
cloud
environments
where
they
really
do
want
to
continue
the
scale
and
that
same
framework
of
number
schemes
and
not
have
to
you
know,
start
breaking
things
up
is
because
of
some.
You
know
4k
limit
that
they
weren't
even
aware
of
why
it
existed.
D
What
else
we
did
well
and
we're
a
couple
things.
One
is
active,
active
edge
devices
to
build
a
nice
network
and
then
discover
that
all
of
your
hosts
only
have
one
act
of
uplink
to
that
environment
is
frustrating
as
all
being
and
if
you're
actually
doing
any
kind
of
you
know
really
high
throughput
and
I
have
customers
that
do
you
know,
40
gig,
out
of
each
desktop
right
and
so
being
able
to.
You
know,
actually
have
the
kind
of
throughput
capabilities
that
they
need.
D
D
Isn't
you
know
exactly
what
was
done
through
by
some
vendors,
but
the
idea
of
having
a
directory
structure
that
could
be
used
for
all
sorts
of
things,
whether
it
be
something
simple
like
Mac
learning,
whether
it's
policy,
whether
it's
you
know,
setting
different
security
ideas
and
so
forth?
It
just
became
kind
of
a
central
repository
of
knowledge
that
could
be
shared
among
those
notes.
Needless
to
say,
it
does
also
cause
scaling
issues.
D
D
But
a
significant
amount
of
the
community
have
no
idea
how
to
actually
manage
it
to
knit
tweak
it
or
care
and
feed
for
it,
and
so
offering
them
such
a
powerful
tool
in
a
kind
of
plug
and
play
zero
config
way
was
a
quite
an
achievement
and
one
that
a
lot
of
customers
became
very,
very,
very
hooked
on
and
and
then
as
I've
been
kind
of
railing
on
to
the
last
two
slides.
Removing
spanning
tree
and
killing
passive
links
is
a
very,
very
good
thing.
D
So
what
didn't
go
well?
Well,
if
any
of
you
actually
brave
me
in
the
earlier
troll
meeting-
and
you
know
it
not
too
didn't
get
ugly
in
other
working
groups
as
I've
learned,
but
I
I
have
several
friends
now
who
I
didn't
like
in
the
beginning,
because
I
only
saw
how
they
behave
in
the
TRO
meeting,
and
it
took
me
a
long
time
to
realize
they
were
actually
lovely
people,
but
it
was
so
emotionally
charged
for
so
many
folks
that
it
made
it
very
very
hard
to
get
any
work
done.
D
But
the
fact
that
you
know
you
had
hug
fest
going
on
we're,
not
everyone
showed
up
and
excuses
were
made
and
so
forth,
but
by
my
own
sponsored
well,
I
don't
mean
to
poke
blame
at
others.
Only.
You
know
this.
This
was
this
was
an
unfortunate
kind
of
roll
out
of
the
way
things
went.
Some
of
it
was
due
to
the
fact
that
people
were
losing
product
before
standard
for
done.
D
Some
of
it
had
to
do
with
the
fact
that
there
were
people
in
some
companies
like
my
own,
who
didn't
really
understand
how
standards
work
and
so
made
certain
guesses
on
how
things
would
go
and
were
quite
wrong
in
doing
so.
But
you
know
you
live
and
learn.
Oam
is
actually
what
I
think
should
really
be
the
lesson
learned
from
this.
We
waited
a
long
time
to
do.
Oem,
intro
and
I.
D
Don't
know
all
the
reasons
why
and
the
problem
with
this
was
it
left
the
vendors
to
essentially
come
up
with
OEM
methods
on
their
own,
which
did
not
go
out,
and
this
resulted
in
either
a
complete
and
consistency
of
the
OEM
method
or
just
very
poor
poor
poor
tuning
and
troubleshooting
capabilities
I
just
had
a
very,
very
large
US
government
customer.
You
know
who
has
bought
a
lot
of
this
stuff
like
saying
because
two
months
ago,
I
don't
understand
how
I
troubleshoot
this.
You
know
and
that's
sad
right.
D
It's
it's
sad
that
you,
you
know
you
have
a
protocol
being
released
to
the
public
where
you
don't
have
all
the
same:
screwdrivers
and
nails,
&,
hammers
and
so
forth.
That
you're
used
to
now
there
were
some
kind
of
highlights
in
this
I.
D
Had
several
customers
tell
me
that
the
reason
why
they
don't
like
trill
is
because
of
OEM
that,
honestly,
they
don't
use
OEM.
Most
customers,
don't
even
know
the
term
OEM,
but
what
they
do
know
is
that
they
don't
know
how
to
troubleshoot
it.
They
don't
know
how
to
figure
out
what
goes
wrong.
When
it
breaks
I
mean
true,
you
could
say:
well,
maybe
it
doesn't
break
as
often
but
whatever
it's
a
network,
it
breaks
all
the
time.
So
you
have
to
be
able
to
troubleshoot
things.
D
D
There
was
a
really
cool
presentations
done
this
morning
by
Bob
Brisco
on
ecn
capabilities
with
trill
that
we're
very
excited
about,
and
then
we
are
in
the
process
of
a
reach,
our
during
discussion
that
will
hopefully
start
working
on
on
figuring
out
toward
this
year,
and
that
is
essentially
the
dog
and
pony
show
and
I
was
going
to
ask
four
questions.
But
here
you
are
Michael.
F
Abramson,
so
you
said
there
were
most
limited
success
and
that
plug
has
had
problems,
so
everything
is
fine
and
dandy.
Now
or
oh,
no,
no!
No!
No!
No!
No!
No!
Okay!
So
where
can
I
a?
Where
can
a
second
a
couple
minutes
trying
to
find
some
new
blood
test
results
and
the
platforms
and
the
software
versions
is
all
that
would
actually
talk
to
each
other,
but
I
was
not
successful.
So
do
you
have
any
what
I
should
be
looking
for?
So.
D
D
Doing
our
best
put
together
on
the
wiki
a
but
will
not
be,
you
know
as
full
as
it
should
be
list
of
what
we
can
actually
show.
There
were
a
couple
different
professed
done
at
david,
you
some
by
you
right,
yeah
and,
and
so,
and
the
thing
was
was
it
you
know
a
lot
of
the
smaller
vendors
would
show
up
right
and
folks
like
huawei
and
others
have
implemented
a
very
faithful
implementation
of
it,
but
unfortunately,
for
numerous
reasons,
another
brocade
or
cisco
were
able
to
actually
participate
because
of
the
way
it
was
implemented.
Okay,.
H
F
I
I
Eric,
craters
and
may
or
may
not
know
this,
but
I
have
did
pleasure
being
suckered
yet
hoodwinked
into
presenting
the
trail
architecture
to
the
I
Triple
E,
a
tour
2001
group.
My
thanks
and
my
condolences.
Yes,
condolences
right.
One
thing
to
point
out
is
a
lot
of
the
things
that
you're
talking
about
are
things
that
are
sort
of
specific
to
the
routing
routing
world,
for
example,
it
most
who
implement
vlans
on
routers,
implement
no
later
than
1998
version
of
80
to
die
1q,
and
that's
part
of
reason
why
some
of
these
things
come
up.
I
For
example,
of
stp
is
bad
in
the
rally
world
because
they
use
sqp,
not
RSVP
and
not
msdp
VLAN
lead.
The
use
of
in
1998
version.
They
appeared
on
cue,
doesn't
include
msdp,
which
is
the
way
that
you
avoid
having
onions
links,
because,
with
this
tube
moulton
spanning
trees,
make
sure
there's
spank
reached
Britain's
foot
traffic
up
Elmo
cling,
even
if
you
don't
like
STP,
there
was
prob
work
in
progress
at
the
time
for
shortest
path,
bridging
and
shortest
path.
I
I
But
have
you
presenting
this
I
get
hit
with
all
that
stuff
and
the
other
thing
is
that
initially
will
you
start
out
trilled
a
lot
of
things
were
supposed
to
be
zero.
Convicted
I,
don't
think
is,
is
is
truly
0
config,
because,
if
you're
doing
multiple
vlans
across
that
there's
sort
of
a
configuration
issue
associated
how
you
how
you
do
trunking
and
how
you
do
the
the
distribution
of
limited
scope
routing.
I
So,
for
example,
there
were
some
bugs
or
some
features
that
were
not
supportable
with
drill
that
included,
for
example,
having
multiple
links
coming
into
a
campus.
You
have
an
issue
with
the
the
notion
of
a
link
is
only
usable
by
this
set
of
users
that
attend
sure
you're,
basically,
advertising
all
the
links
in
the
in
the
basic
routing
protocol.
You
can't
do
that.
So
there
was
some
issues
but
again
I
agreed.
It
has
a
lot
of
value
in
the
value
and
in
the
rounding
rule
for
feeding
lanterns
the
real
thing
in
the
bridging
world.
I
J
If
I
can
interject
a
second
Eric
you're
right,
there's
just
not
enough
knowledge
and
cross
sharing
going
on,
and
it
would
be
really
great
to
have
more
of
that
information.
I
know
that
I
Triple
E
has
been
working
hard
to
come
to
the
IETF
and
do
some
of
the
edge'
training
and,
if
there's
something
that
might
be
useful
in
this
space,
maybe
doing
a
webinar
type
of
thing
that
we
could
talk
about.
We
can
share
some
knowledge
and
experience.
That
would
be
really
helpful
if.
D
You
are
a
you
know,
you
like
to
use
vendor
X
and
maybe
even
a
little
bit
of
under.
Why
and
they
happen
to
choose
SPV.
Then
that's
what
you
learned
about
and
that's
what
you
saw
and
you
didn't
hear
much
about
troll
and
if
the
opposite
was
case,
then
you
heard
all
about
trill
and
you
heard
nothing
but
is
PB,
and
so
unfortunately
we
can
do
a
lot
of
really
good
work
here
and
I.
I
Oh
to
get
back
alyas
coming
about
two
or
three
years
ago,
I
think
it
was
a
norm.
Finn
Don,
fedak
path,
a
l'heure
of
yanos
Farkas
and
myself,
with
some
help
from
other
people
put
together
a
tutorial
that
we
gave
on
a
Sunday.
It
was
sort
of
under
attended,
it
is
still
available
and
it
did
bring
people
up
to
speed
on
what
has
been
done
in
NATO
to
die.
One
since
1998
can.
A
K
D
Well,
hey,
you've
all
been
very
polite
and
no
one's
throwing
anything
so
I
appreciate
that
and
well
I
tell
you
I
me
I,
had
friends
were
like
you're
doing
what
at
what
meeting
like?
Really
you
know,
and
so
no,
but
this
is
good,
it
was
really
good
feedback
and
you
know
really
I
mean
the
thing
is:
is
it
you
know
what
happens
to
this
protocol?
You
know
it
doesn't
really
matter
at
this
point.
What
what
valuable
is?
A
Thank
you
John,
so
much
so
we're
going
to
continue
in
the
future
I
TFS,
with
talk
similar
to
this
one
so
that
we
all
get
a
better
vision
of
what
it
is
we
do
in
the
area.
If
you
have
the
ideas
of
about
what
you
do
or
other
topics
that,
maybe
you
want
to
hear
hear
please
let
us
know
before
we
go
on
I
want
to
go
back
to
introducing
our
new
chairs.
I
still
don't
see
Martin,
but
Peter
van
der
stock
is
sitting
over
there
in
the
middle
of
the
room.
J
So
while
Alvaro
gets
up
the
wiki
so
that
any
pulled
up,
so
you
can
all
look
at
it
on
your
screen
so
that
you
feel
like
you're
doing
something
productive,
we're
going
to
go
through
it.
But
before
we
do
that,
we've
switched
to
the
wiki
and
unfortunately,
I
was
informed.
I'm,
not
sure.
It's
really
fair
that-
and
there
was
this
little
game
of
who's
chairs
were
going
to
update
the
wiki
first
and
get
them
all
in
so
being
informed
and
knowing
that
bar
Debra
likes
wine
I
have
to
hand
it
over.
J
A
A
L
We
had
a
very
fruitful
discussion
on
Monday
about
the
Babel
protocol
and
about
the
work
that
needs
to
be
done.
There
were
lots
of
people
in
the
room.
There
were
a
goodly
number
of
people
who
expressed
willingness
to
actually
write
and
to
review,
and
it
is
now
back
to
the
a
DS
to
decide
if
it
is
indeed
worth
having
a
working
group
that
there
was
certainly
a
lot
of
interest
in
the
room.
N
Did
not
meet,
we
had
a
new
RC
y.
A
bunch
of
our
work
for
PFD
is
finally
coming.
Some
closure,
the
spfd
stuff,
is
largely
percolating
its
way
through
the
isg.
We
have
some
grammatical
feedback
that
we
could
suggested
to
take
care
of
before
we
move
it
along.
We
have
a
myth
that
is
stalled
out,
which
my
suspicion
is
going
to
just
die.
We
have
to
crypto
pieces
that
are
stalled
out
and
one
piece
that
might
actually
move
it
forward
for
that
one
we
actually
need
to
spend
some
time
talking.
N
The
guys
in
the
security
area.
The
yang
module
is
had
made
good
progress
but
stalled
out
at
the
moment.
New
work
we've
had
some
stuff
submitted
by
Jeff,
tonzura
and
Greg
mercy
and
being
able
to
do
PFD,
unlike
between
mulch,
a
C's.
That's
been
put
out
for
the
written
group
to
take
a
look
at
lots
of
VFD
stuff
happens
outside
of
eft,
and
part
of
our
job
is
to
keep
eye
on
that
scroll
down
a
little
bit
further.
N
So
BFD
for
vr
RP
is
something
that
is
continuing
to
be
looked
at
in
side
of
RT
g
WG.
It's
in
a
unified
document
at
this
point,
which
really
is
more
like
two
documents
have
been
squished
to
the
one
they
need
to
do.
A
little
cleanup
work
to
actually
describe
why
the
two
mechanisms
make
sense
and
what
context
they
do
make
sense,
because
they
do
cover
slightly
different
scenarios.
Scroll
down.
Please
and
the
other
interesting
item
and
mpls
met
earlier
this
week.
There's
a
BFD
directed
component
which
allows
for
a
return
path.
N
O
Ok
on
the
beer
front,
so
I
won't
be
too
technical,
so
we
have
tons
of
presentation
on
ideas
flying
as
long
it
doesn't
make
as
a
work
group
item.
I
won't
even
go
there
what's
going
towards
work
group
adoption
is
the
OEM,
so
we
have
some
OEM
framework
where
X
looks
pretty
good.
We
have
slew
of
young
models,
but
the
main
yang
model
is
actually
has
gone
through
the
doctors
as
some
serious
offers
on
it.
So
it
looks
like
we'll
be
adopted.
O
We
have
a
bunch
of
core
drafts
which
are
moving
seriously
to
earth.
Last
call.
We
had
a
pretty
good
discussion
of
whether
to
move
beer
to
proposed
standard.
What
is
still
missing
is
security.
We
had
some
discussion
with
Pat
and
stealing
Pharrell,
but
no
one
moved
the
documents
forward,
so
that's
kind
of
the
blocking
issue
on
the
less
serious
front,
since
we
are
on
track
ahead
of
schedule
and
under
budget.
Okay,
thanks.
P
See
camper
we've
been
super
cooler
in
the
last
month,
so
we
have
five
new
rfcs.
I
hope
the
quality
is
good
enough,
blah
blah
blah
blah,
and
we
we
had
a
lot
of
ping-pong
discussion
with
the
BBF,
the
itu,
and
recently
we
got
some
informal
communication
from
UNF.
It's
we
have
a
lot
of
new
draft
said
that
are
competing
with
the
some
work
that
is
already
been
do
been
done
by
a
by
john
f.
Q
Blue
burger
forget
net.
We
met
earlier
this
week.
We
have
right
now,
one
actually
one
working
group
graph,
that's
old.
That
was
been
updated
with
an
additional
use
case.
It's
interesting
because
it's
the
first
machine-to-machine
use
case,
all
the
others,
a
sort
of
application
application.
The
we
also
adopted
the
PS
problem
statement.
That
document
doesn't
really
we're
not
gonna
spend
a
whole
lot
of
time
on
it.
Q
So,
but
we
also
figured
the
work
had
been
done,
so
we
shouldn't
lose
it
the
we
had
a
report
from
a
design
team
or
the,
and
it's
a
first
graft
on
data
plane
alternatives.
This
is
supposed
to
be
a
survey
document.
This
isn't
a
document
of
we're
going
to
do
all
those
things.
Don't
read
it
that
way.
The
next
step
there
is
is
for
the
the
folks
working
on
that
is
to
finish
their
analysis
with
some
sort
of
summarization
of.
Q
What's
there
and
from
there
we
hope
to
identify
the
the
best
data
plane
and
the
best
being
the
one
that
hacked
requires.
The
least
work
to
use
and
things
are
moving
along,
where
we
also
expect
to
have
an
architecture
document,
not
too
long.
There's
a
draft
out
there
if
you're
interested,
read
it
and
tell
us
what's
wrong.
R
I
to
RS
this
time,
I
decided
to
put
in
writing
up
I
guess
between
the
two
tiers.
The
coin
got
tough
and
I
got
to
write
up
so
I
wanted.
People
have
asked
me
enough
about
what
is
I
2
s's
protocol
I
decided
to
put
it
up
on
the
wiki.
You
can
read
it
as
well
as
I
can,
but
the
whole
point
is.
We
are
first
of
a
reuse
protocol
we're
trying
to
reuse
other
protocols.
Our
process
is
a
bit
different
than
we
are
learn
learning.
R
If
there
are
other
people,
who've
done
reuse
protocols
do
come
talk
to
me.
Oh
I,
don't
know
if
you
do
the
process
better
than
I.
Do
we
in
2015,
wrapped
up
the
working
groups,
problem
architecture,
potential
to
use
security
security,
environment
protocol
strawmen?
At
least
we
got
most
of
it
in
our
pace
protocols
and
now
we're
just
sort
of
running
through
the
crank
to
make
sure
we've
got
all
the
requirements
nailed
down.
So
that
was
this
last
period
we
did
get
through
our
architecture
and
problem
statement.
R
R
is
g,
a
team
got
us
through
the
approval
and
we're
hoping
that
we
can
turn
the
crank
and
send
out
the
requirements
in
the
protocol
straw.
Man
had
handed
over
to
net
comp
and
that
mod
to
make
sure
that
everything's
looks
good
and
come
out
with
the
final
protocol,
then
we'll
send
in
our
models.
We
hope
this
is
one
of
those
g.
We
get
the
first
version
done
and
go
into
hiatus.
This
time
we
had
a
fairly
active
participation
in
the
hackathon.
R
R
We
hope
to
have
a
sort
of
complete
set
at
the
next
act
upon
so
hopefully
what
that
will
do
is
to
give
operators
a
chance
to
play
with
it
and
then,
when
they
think
of
good
ideas,
they
can
start
out
with
a
open
source
code
and
a
toy
quagga
implementation
and
suit,
or
a
toy
filter
thing
like
a
your
linux
nap.
So
that's
Arcturus
I'm
just
going
to
go
on
to
eye
dr.
Unless
you
want
to
come
up
John,
oh
okay,
again
I
tried
a
new,
hopefully
less
boring.
R
Slideset
IDR
is
always
fun
because
it's
the
longest
may
be
running
protocol,
but
it
seems
to
be
everything
for
everyone
right
now:
good,
better
and
different.
We
are
going
forward
with
that.
In
other
words,
I
don't
want
to
talk
about
if
you
can,
what
what's
right
to
put
in
btp
or
what's
not
the
place
where
we
claim
that
chase
crew
is
going
to
be
put
in
BGP
is
long
past.
R
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
that?
See
me
after
and
bring
beer
or
find
why?
But
right
now
we're
looking
at
protecting
bgp
against
bogus
things,
route,
leaks
or
migration
of
detection.
We
had
an
awesome
first,
a
contributor
who
stood
up
at
his
first
ITF
brought
in
his
first
draft
and
will
probably
send
it
into
working
group
adoption
awesome.
We
also
have
a
lot
of
updates
to
three
which
have
become
familiar
link,
state
and
bgp
segment,
routing
and
bgp
new
communities
and
add
pass.
So
we
have
a
whole
lot
of
extensions.
R
We're
still
working
on
tunnel
dujour,
so
there'll
be
a
lot
of
work
on
that
bgp
caring
of
tunnel
endpoints
and
information.
Just
as
long
as
yes,
I
do
know
for
the
l2vpn
folks,
you
did
it
first
and
then
a
policy
and
bgp.
We
are
redoing
the
flow
spec
RC
5575
option.
One
is
the
denial
of
service
attack
option
where
we'll
extend
it
and
then,
based
on
what
I've
heard
from
SD
nnn,
fe
providers
will
probably
go
ahead
with
doing
a
new
NRI.
R
The
two
things
will
be
side-by-side
the
eye,
dr
mantra,
don't
break
it,
keep
it
working
and
it
will
have
a
new
NRI
and
probably
a
bgp
wide
community
will
finalize
that
and
again
we're
also
putting
te
topology
and
we've
had
some
really
really
new.
You
have
to
go
to
a
point
down
on
it.
We've
had
some
really
interesting
new
stuff
coming
out
of
the
Facebook
folks
for
new
aids
for
the
data
center.
That's
it.
J
S
Go
ahead.
Hi.
Can
you
hear
me
yep
awesome?
So
we
are
not
meeting
this
time.
Both
of
the
chairs
are
missing,
but
we
are
moving
work
right
along.
As
you
can
see,
we've
got
three
new
rfcs.
We
have
three
drafts
submitted
to
the
isg
and
those
are
all
going
through
seems
like,
and
we
have
three
drafts
in
working-class
call.
We
have
one,
that's
the
IO
size.
Encapsulation
cap
is
still
being
argued.
So
if
you
have
opinions
on
that,
one
you
should
come
in,
it
seems
to
be
going
back
and
forth
now.
S
A
lot,
something
it's
pretty
noteworthy.
I
guess
is
that
we
have
declined
as
working
group
to
adopt
the
flow
spec
work.
The
decision
was
that
it
could
be
done
better
with
or
more
appropriately
and
things
like,
netconf
yang,
as
it
really
kind
of,
was
just
configuring,
your
router's
with
flows
back
information.
S
The
only
thing
probably
worth
mentioning
is
that
we're
gonna
try
to
push
the
sort
of
buried
in
the
new
IDs
there.
A
Ginsburg
I,
sighs
am
I
biss.
This
is
a
change
to
a
published
standard
in
an
incompatible
way.
So
it's
definitely
worth
looking
at.
It's
not
a
huge
incompatibility,
even
and
even
one
implementation
of
the
spec
I
one
large
vendor.
Does
it
the
new
way,
which
is
basically
allowing
multiple
instances
of
ice,
is
to
have
multi
topology
in
them.
The
original
spec
did
not
allow
that
and
that's
a
use
case.
A
L
Sorry
I
thought
my
co-chair
was
here.
The
good
news
is
that
all
of
the
blocks
on
the
proposed
charter
have
been
cleared
and
I
believe
the
charter,
the
proposed
new
charter
for
this
message
and
sent
for
external
review,
which
is
great
where
meet
it,
will
be
meeting
later
in
the
week
to
go
over
things
that
we
need
to
move
forward
to
PS.
Our
big
focus
will
be
moving
the
existing
protocols
from
experimental
to
PS
with
changes.
L
B
K
So
MPL
has
met
this
morning.
We
had
a
somewhat
less
than
normal
level
of
dispute
in
the
group,
but
there
was
a
lively
discussion
around
RFC
3107
biss,
which
has
three
errata
against
it,
and
there
are
a
number
of
other
under
specification
things,
and
but
the
the
big
discussion
is
that
there
are
things
that
at
least
the
authors
at
the
draft
believe
are
incorrect,
implementations
out
there
and
is
it
possible
to
accommodate
them?
K
Where
should
we
throw
it
up
and
just
do
the
whole
thing
right
and
that's
kind
of
gone
back
and
forth
and
I
think
there's
probably
a
reasonable
compromise
like
it
worked
out
using
capabilities,
we
had
another
nice
discussion
from
Deborah,
which
you
heard
about
from
Jeff
concerning
a
draft
that
has
too
much
silence
and
a
little
bit
of
controversy.
So
we
need
more
people
to
love,
speak
up
and
make
their
opinions
known
on
that
and
the
last
two
there
to
draft
salon,
rsvp-te
scalability,
midpoint,
scalability
and
I'm
kind
of
really
proud
that
there.
J
V
You
AC
lindam
cisco
systems,
I'll,
let
you
just
read
these
them
notable
is
the
extension
is
the
prefect
link
attributes?
I
say
I
must
have
not
did
something
funky
in
a
xml
markup
that
one
makes
ospf
be
to
fully
extendable
with
t
lbs.
V
So
when
we
have
a
lot
of
implementations,
what
really
drove
that
was
the
segment
routing
and
that's
the
other
thing
that
we're
hoping
to
work
working
to
a
class
call
before
the
next
IETF
there's
a
few
things
I
wanted
to
discuss
in
that
there's
a
few
things
in
there
that
are
not
implemented
by
a
I,
don't
think
they
move
by
everybody.
We
have
a
lot
of
implementations
of
the
majority
of
it
and
they've
done
some
interoperability
testing.
So
that's
that
that
will
be
hugely
it.
V
The
other
thing
is
for
ospfv3
for
the
fully
TLB
based
l
essays
and
also
we're
hoping
to
get
some
implementation,
traction
and
I've
heard
rumors
of
it.
So
I'm
pretty
excited
I'm,
gonna.
Try
and
I'll
bring
a
bottle
of
wine
for
the
first
implementation
or
whatever.
What's
in
what's
in
burley
and
I,
guess
I
guess
is
beer
in
Berlin
and
bronze.
V
The
other
thing
that
we're
done
we
have,
we
have
sent
to
alia
the
experimental
t,
TT
z,
draft,
the
pizza
engineers
at
while
we
did
a
prototype
and
did
a
demo
and
it
was
it
works.
There
wasn't
really
complete
agreement
as
to
how
much
advantage
it
would
be,
and
so
it's
an
experimental,
so
I've
encouraged
people
to
look
at
that,
but
we're
going
forward
with
publication
and
those
are
the
three
main
things
there's
no,
the
gang
model
we're
waiting
on
the
OP
state,
like
every
other,
all
the
other
gang
models,
thanks.
U
John
a
pce,
so
we
are
making
a
progress
with
staple
pce
if
I
dress,
almost
ready
to
go
to
the
iesg,
and
some
related
rust
depend
on
that.
We
got
piece
up
over
TLS
through
working
group
last
call,
so
we
can
secure
peace
up
now,
which
is
good.
We
met.
We
just
met
this
afternoon
in
the
pc
working
group.
We
also
had
a
joint
meeting
with
tease
and
mpls
discuss
yang
yesterday,
that
was
I
was
very
useful.
I
were
productive
and
I
encourage
more
John
meetings
for
young
discussion
and
yeah.
U
X
Yeah
hi,
so
in
him
they
finally
got
the
spar
small
speck
published
as
internet
standard.
That's
something
that
only
took
like
four
years
I'm
glad
to
be
done
with
that.
The
main
thing
I
want
to
mention
is
maybe
yang.
So
we
have
a
pretty
complete
yang
molo
for
4-pin
now
and
not
working
on
multi-agent
PNM
LD.
X
We
could
need
some
more
review,
though,
of
people
outside
the
working
group
based
on
young
X
experts
and
looks
like
y'all's
waiting
for
young
models
for
routing
and
BFD
and
lace,
yellow
policy
to
candle
Oh
converter
or
stay
stabilized
or
maybe
be
published.
So
they
can
be
sure
that
whatever
we
do
in
the
pin
mogul
kind
of
fits
in
with
that,
so
we're
circling
a
holding
pattern
a
little
bit.
Y
W
Artie
gwg
is
meeting
Thursday
and
Friday,
and
the
highlights
are
that
we
have
we're
discussing
ipv6
multi-homing,
with
providers
signed
addressing
so
far.
Work
has
been
on.
This
has
been
motivated
by
home
net,
but
we
got
a
request
from
v6
ops
to
look
at
applying
this
to
more
general
enterprise
networks
and
so
we're
having
a
fairly
lively
discussion
going
regarding
using
source
prefixes
in
and
together
with
destination
routing.
W
The
other
main
topics
are.
We
have
several
yang
models
and
mainly
we're
looking
for
some
advice
from
the
gang
design
team
about,
as
AC
mentioned,
the
impact
of
op
state
and/or
scheme
amount
on
those
yang
models
and
how
we
should
proceed
with
them
or
or
wait.
In
addition
for
sort
of
more
traditional
RT
g
WG
work,
we
have
two
drafts
on
micro,
loop
avoidance
techniques
which
are
being
implemented
and
we're
incorporating
feedback
on
those
implementations.
Thanks.
A
J
Sfc
met
Martin
is
busy
handling.
His
last
working
group
is
transport
ad,
so
tragically
couldn't
be
here.
They
had
a
good
discussion
about
security
environment,
but
not
a
lot
of
conclusions
happy
to
see
that
getting
traction
or
sorry
happy
to
see
that
being
discussed
would
like
to
see
it
getting
more
traction
and
improved.
Z
We
had
one
RFC
published:
we've
had
several
documents
goes
the
documents
go
through
a
working
group
last
call
when
adoption
call
couple
of
drafts
that
are
long
past
working
group
last
call
but
had
issues
related
to
other
dress.
So
what
thought
that
I
was
going
to
get
publication
requests
out
for
a
couple
of
them,
but
things
turned
up
today
that
may
delay
a
couple
of
those
part
of
the
Monday
meeting
had
to
do
with
a
new
transport
protocol,
some
experience
from
ripe
information
about
how
they
do
their
implementation
of
validation.
Z
Z
One
from
d6
that
talked
about
how
they
use
route
servers
and
a
community
to
signal
the
origin
validations
eight.
This
is
something
that
am-6
has
also
done
talked
about.
Someone
from
Costa
Rica
spoke
about
their
deployment,
someone
that
suggested
a
new
working
group
draft
that
collected
all
the
requirements
into
one
draft
instead
of
having
in
one
place
instead
of
having
it
spread
all
over
and
someone
talking
about
the
deployment
experiences
in
China.
Z
That
1a
also
requested
working
group
adoption,
but
some
of
the
issues
that
they
identified
and
their
suggested
solutions.
Their
issues
have
already
been
addressed
or
brought
to
the
attention
of
the
working
group,
and
there
are
drafts
in
progress
to
address
those
issues.
So
I'm
not
exactly
certain.
What's
going
to
happen
with
that
draft,
we'll
see
how
the
adoption
call
goes
for
those
three.
Today,
most
interestingly,
we
were
asked
by
our
routing
ad
to
discuss
two
matters
which
led
to
a
pretty
lively
and
involved
discussion
at
the
last
45
minutes.
Z
AA
AA
There
was
a
long
and
I
thought
productive
discussion
in
the
meeting,
because
harry
said
productive
once
so,
we're
expecting
a
no
one
to
come
out
next
week
and
we'll
start
an
adoption
call
for
it.
We
also
it
turns
out
that
you
can
use
spring
for
a
lot
of
things
and
people
like
to
bring
us
drafts
about
it
and
we
did
hear
a
number
of
them
and
they
were
interesting,
but
we
are
trying
to
manage
the
group
to
actually
you
know:
do
our
charter
things
first.
AA
So
what
you
see
in
the
short
term
work
plan
is
trying
to
drive
through
the
rest
of
the
use
case,
documents
that
we
have
in
the
group
and
hopefully
the
chairs,
keep
saying
this
but
be
done
with
them.
You
know
sometime
this
year.
It
would
be
really
great
to
be
done
with
them
with
the
next
movie
and
that
will
free
us
to
then
start
moving
through
the
architecture
document
and
so
on.
That's
about
it!
Oh.
E
Nvm
forties,
he
met
for
a
regular
session
on
Monday.
We
also
had
a
joint
young
session
with
pce,
mpls
and
sea
camp.
It
was
bit
of
a
challenge-
seating,
all
the
coaches.
In
one
tight
corner,
we
pulled
it
off
in
terms
of
highlights.
We
did
have
a
virtual
interim
early
this
year.
The
focus
was
on
progressing
RCP
ingress
and
egress
production
drafts.
The
conclusions
from
the
meeting
or
listed
up
here
for
your
reading
the
data
models
that
we
adopted
as
working
group
work
items
are
progressing
well,
there's
still
a
fair
bit
of
work.