Internet Engineering Task Force 95, 5 Apr 2016

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF95-HOMENET-20160405-1400

Description

HOMENET meeting session at IETF95
2016/04/05 1400

A

A

Wish I, please have all the different segments bring evil, but they weren't controversial.

B

C

Gonna give people few minutes to.

D

Source not filtering before we get going properly. We don't have tickly packed agenda, so that's a little run, settle for a burden that will mixed up.

E

D

You should well, you have to draw this on patrol. That's somebody.

C

D

Sodium week, let's just don't speak, we should see them. People hit see. One is love right, usually.

F

Passes Kevin sayin. He had these things.

D

One thing folks, and it appear to be next.

D

Okay, we're just gonna go 20 minutes. People still feel trig in.

D

Custom install.

G

Administer the advantage of this true.

D

H

A

G

That's my stuff.

D

Okay, let's make a start! Thank you all for coming the like to welcome the survivors of the home at protocol, routing walls to Buenos Aires right, so we're down quite a few of our reggin appetitive participants. This time, I think this must be the quietest home it session ever so, let's hope that they'll be more of us in Buenos Aires. So let's get a few administrative bits out of the way.

D

Thank you Tim and Tim for volunteering to take the notes and do the job a rillo respectively, Timmy Shinsky is doing the notes and he is using etherpad and he would welcome other people contributing live edits while he's doing that as well, especially if you happen to get your name wrong, so feel free to go in and fix the names if you've spoken and you didn't get your right, the blue sheets are already out. So if they can happen, please start circulating that'd be great and sorry I'm.

D

Sorry, if I guess myself in, we should talk about the note. Well, if you're not familiar with a note. Well, please read it if you are unable to comply with it. Please leave.

D

So, as a small agenda, bash mark I will do an update on what's happening with the various working group documents very shortly. We have Julius to talk about the label profile for home notes, Ted lemons, going to then speak to his helmet name and architecture. Draft which came out early last week actually slightly off to deadlines, but hopefully had sufficient time to read it.

D

We had hoped that tegretol suspend sometimes all that security, but unfortunately time got the better of us and all other time got the better of ted and he wasn't able to actually parenting time. For that, does anybody have any objections or should okay to proceed without gender as it stands?

D

Hearing no objections: okay, sorry I will try to fit more directly into the mic for you. If there are no objections that agenda we shall carry on with the next stage, which is an update on documents. I shall let mark take over from here.

E

Congratulations: we have to RFC 2 b's RFC, 77, 87 and 7788.

E

These are the two documents: d NCP in hnc, p, being advanced together as a package, um we've been cc'd on the various emails with the RFC editor and the authors, etc. We're seeing a progression happening. I imagine this will come to the club come to close very very soon.

E

um You all see also see an update to the routing consensus call document um that was back when we were working with our area director, terry on exactly what we were going to state from the working group and from the 80s in terms of what to do about a mandatory to experiment with routing protocol. We emailed the list with some carefully worded text along those lines we discussed it at the last meeting.

E

Terry had indicated that he would like to see that published as an RFC in some form when we were talking about it at the time. But then later he said no. Actually it's fine. The email stands as a good enough record.

E

You have the internet draft out there, let's, let's just leave it at that and we were fine, but we wanted to update the document, the internet draft to say that, okay, to say that, oh by the way, this is just sitting here expired because nobody cares it's because we explicitly decided to just not advance it anymore, because the the email to the list and the discussion at the meeting last time was sufficient in his mom. So that's. Why that's there?

E

And if that's fine with everybody here then and on the list, then that'll be the last version that you see the dash 0 1.

E

We have some new drafts, one of which Ted will be talking about later today and Julius will be talking about. Basically, the two new drafts are what you're going to hear about on the agenda today, Jeff's hold putting other documents, ah we've got some stuff, that's stuck because it references other working groups, in particular, hybrid proxy stuff, and things related to the naming architecture that clearly ray wants to say something about yeah.

D

The the two drafts from dinamico & Co on the front head naming delegation and naming architecture- one of those has in fact just recently expired, but position we're taking on. That is that we don't see any point in advancing those Wiles. The overall picture of the whole net naming so a discovery. Architecture is being rationalizing that there's no point writing something up in those documents and then we actually decide as a working group that it doesn't fit and is not consistent with the overall architecture.

D

So that's the opposition on those.

D

E

Questions comments on the working group update. Did we miss anything.

D

Ok, ok, so without further ado and slightly ahead of schedule, let's have do list please up to talk about the babel profile for home. That.

D

And well, I think, speaks no drill, but please do stay within the pink square so that the road participants can see you best.

I

So hello, I'm julia scrubber checks next slide. Please next slide, please yeah. So there are two issues that I'm trying to solve with the draft. When is the table is a flexible protocol and that different implementations interoperate, but to the extent possible. We then do the I'm going to explain that in a second and the other thing is that there are some interactions between H n, CP and label, and those interactions have to be gotten just right.

I

So I'm going to tell you about cook is already written down in a draft which is the Babel profile from home net and I said what I think should be added to this draft, which is the descriptions of the interaction between H, n CP and able X like these.

I

Ok, so Babel is a flexible protocol and implementations can implement very different things, so they will interoperate, but one needs to understand exactly what that needs. So, to give you an example, it is quite legal for a table implementation to only implement ipv6 and not ipv4. So if you have one implementation, a that supports ipv6 and ipv4 and the second implementation that only does ipv6, they will interoperate in the sense that they will exchange ipv6 routes, but obviously they will not exchange I key forwards. Let's slide and the bagel RFC.

I

The current experimental Eric C does not fix the values of metrics, so it could very well come up with an implementation X that gives a metric of 96 to aillard links, which is the case of all implementations, I, think that exists now and the second implementation that assigns a metric of one. So those two implementation will interoperate, but of course you will get suboptimal routing, as the links handled by implementation y will be preferred to those handle the implementation X, that's like.

I

So what I have written down is a short document that describes the subset of the protocol that a helmet implement. Eructation must implement as well as suggested values that the helmet implement must assigned to the parameters. It has seven requirements, so I used the numbered requirements style with rationale after each five, which I expect to be non controversial and people are already laughing in the audience when I say non controversial.

I

That I think has been somewhat contentious and one that I don't understand. Sir I've written it, but I need clarification because I I'll come back to that next slide. Please so I'm not going to go through the five less interesting requirements. Please don't take my works or that check them in the draft, but the one that proved to be controversial is requirement. Three, which says that ipv4 support is a sugar, and one person expressed the notion that it should be a must.

I

My take on that is that I'm finalists should I'm fine with must, because people will implement ipv4 for as long as the market needs it, but I'm fine was changing that to master people. Think that's a good idea. Next slide, please so I've cooked in a requirement site which I don't understand. It says that a helmet implementation of Babel must implement.

E

In we have plenty of time, so maybe we should take these one at a time. Can.

J

You say yeah we're whizzing through here, so there's a comment on Java from Marcus, he says, must is not really in hnc p, knowing the charter or the architecture draft. So he thinks should he's fine and for.

I

Ipv4 right yeah.

J

Okay, I think, with my java hat off, I would agree: okay,.

I

Should we make a cobbler so requirements five, so.

E

What feedback did you just get where? Where are we I I'm hearing from lee and I'm hearing from marcus? That should is fine for that, but your slide said you would move it to. Must wait, hang on, should oh, that's because it says, should and must on the same sentence. Should this be a must, I think consistent with this charter in the working group it should not be a most, it should be issued. Does everybody agree.

K

Lee Howard, it may be a may yeah okay, it must be assured. Yes, actually it may be. What it may be a may know. I would actually be fine with me. I'll live with, should okay.

E

K

Must be issued, I must at least.

E

K

Assured can't be, must okay not require I people to be just to step back from the technical jargon we can't require ipv4 per our Charter and /. What's you know was really going to have with implementations, I think so. Yes, I'm happy with this. As written as.

E

Written okay, so it's a should great moving right along.

I

Okay, so uh huh as always, there is this year, security, so cuz I couldnt in requirement five- is that a helmet implementation of Babel must implement h. Mag based authentication is defined in RFC. Seven to nine. Eight must implement the two men retreat into implement algorithm's and must enable and require authentication when instructed to do so by H NCP. So I have no idea whether this does reflect the opinion of the working group and I have no idea how that is supposed to work since I.

I

Don't know how H NCP is supposed to sharkeez with Babel, so I think this is a huge opportunity. A chance ET can serve as a you know, managed security in the hell hell net, but I don't know how to do that. I.

L

Might speak to that a little bit after my presentation on names tis Ted lemon, um but I think that the musts are necessary because otherwise you'll have implementations that don't have that feature. So, whether or not we're able to turn it on we need or whether or not we turn it on all the time. We need to be able to turn it on and that's what that must says.

J

And so Marcus stenberg again on jabber requirement. 5H NCP generates keying material which can be used to derive her other protocol. Key material, pre-show key implies instructors straightforward, but I'm not sure about must.

I

M

Michael Abramson, so I think this makes the perfect perfect sense, because I expect a chance if you turn Babel on and off on certain interfaces like the when you defy when HSP decides that this is an external facing interface. I would expect it to tell Babel do not talk on this interface, so I think we already have that agency. P must be able to provision or instructive able to do stuff, and this seems like a perfectly fine thing, for a chance' p to instruct able to do. I.

J

Think I might be Marcus quite a bit yeah Marcus says, must implement perhaps, although I think all must see really employed just that a it must be implemented and be enabled if and only if h NCP tells it to so he thinks the text is fine. What he says on chapman.

E

Any objections with the text, as is, and, of course instruct would be some sort of internal IP, do internal process, communication or, however, it works on your product between the HNC, peat layer and the routing protocol layer. Are we fine with that? It.

M

Did Michael Lorenzen again I would be fine with provisioned or some other wording as well, but that's basically the same thing as saying you instructed it so I, don't okay,.

K

Lee, how we're just making a note that I that do think we need to figure out how that's done right. I'm, not I, don't think we're there yet, but I think that's the right thing to assign ourselves to figure out. Yes,.

M

Michael Abramson, wouldn't that be implementation-specific. Oh, this is the interaction between agency p. How would exactly this is done? Okay,.

E

It might be, I think, but.

M

I don't that seems like an implementation detail, but.

K

Well, I would think the way would need something. Some part I, don't think it's specified an agency p now, but somebody who knows more than I do can correct me that we would need a common way for H NCP to signal that it should be that it should be done, and then the Babel implementation can decide how it's going to implement, how to interpret that instruction.

K

I

I answer this perhaps before so, the two implementations of agency p do things differently, so marcus's and stevens implementation, when there is a change, restarts Babel, which called me to do quite a lot of work on rebooting in a graceful manner.

I

Shmc p right now doesn't speak to Babel at all, except through the colonel, and we have recently implemented a communication on the Babel side, not on the h and CP side, yet over a UNIX, the main socket so I wouldn't like to mandate how this is done, because we have different implementations and we want to keep the liberty of implementing them in different manners. Yeah I think this.

M

Is a system integration issue that we should not standardized? Okay,.

K

I think I was talking about. It needs to be standardized in agency p. How do how does agency p communicate to whatever Babel implementation I think.

M

What it communicates it should be standardized, but not how it's done or yes,.

J

Sir marcus seems to agree with that what he say on jabber but I'll relay it, so he doesn't object the text, as is he's fine, with that hnc p, just defines the shaky generation and that would either be stuck to a configuration file or towed by IPC. For example, bird demon implementation might support that one day, but he says that's just an implementation detail and then response.

J

The other comment he says agency p specifies it already just no implementation details on how the process process is darkness, as you were just saying, then I need a tow package skip those comments now by the way. So he agrees with Michael. Okay,.

D

We will take that to the list. Well, as and when that's well I'll. Look then just continue on talk about next steps.

E

Well, Lee just agreed in jabber with Marcus, so maybe we concluded did its IPC and outside of scope. Okay,.

D

I

So, okay, so the well I was writing that I started. You know grabbing for the HNC p specification, and I realized that there is something that is nowhere, written down, which seemed to us reasonably obvious, which is that a chance EP uses babel to announce roots, and you need to get the precise rules right. So if you have received a dhcpv6 prefix delegation, you announce a source specific default route.

I

On the other hand, if you receive a dhcp v for lease, then you announce a nonspecific default route, and so there is an asymmetry here between ipv6 and ipv4, and there are very good technical reasons for this asymmetry. However, if you get it wrong, you are going to get suboptimal routing and you might even have root in black holes. So I think this needs to be written down.

I

There is a third requirement that the third requirement is not as sensitive as pretty obvious, so I think this needs to be written down somewhere and I think that this document would be a fine place to put it.

M

So Michael Lorenzen again I think this is fine that this is written down. But in the last thing here I thought they were picked up, prefixes from the colonel. So each and CP configured interface address and then people picked it up from the earth from the from.

I

The interface, so that's an implementation detail how hnc key causes stable to announce the prefix is the internal business and again H net D and SH NCP. Do it differently? Okay? So in the third bullet point here,.

M

Is it eat analysis, so agency p announces a route, the orgo they're doing miss understand. Okay,.

I

So I have used it so here I've been lose. This is stuff that does not written down yet yeah before it can belong in. A draft I need to check very carefully both implementations to check whether they comply and if they don't why. So, here the point of view I'm taking is that hn CP is using be able to announce the roots. So if you want to see it as Babel as H NCP causes Babel to announce the roots, that's fine too. Yes,.

M

So this is for me the second. The first word on the second line of the first bullet point is confusing I, don't know what it announces. What it in this case is because HSP doesn't announce roads for the no.

J

Marcus Stanwyck of our children, hnc be node, is essentially the whole Rueter. He thanks, for example, HNH net D has nothing to do with dhcpv6 or dhcp sourced roots and instead Babel propagates them directly from Colonel fed brackets. Linux has no real rib, except in particular, routine demons.

N

Devil hunter, so I agree, but I think this is slightly over specified, especially the first to Clause, because there may be some other way that the node gets internet connectivity and it's not the HTTP. So it just needs to be a little bit less specific, I think I. So the.

I

Thing that the thing that is important here is that in the v6 case, like that in the v6 case, it is a source Pacific default route. Well, in the v4 case, it's a non specific route. That is the part that has to be gotten right right, but it's it might not.

N

Be dhcpv6, for example, sorry.

D

David I clarify so you said it may be an alright, for example. I said yes,.

N

I

Or manual configuration I fully agree. What's the real problem with you, might you might be tempted to announce a so specific dhcpd for IPC no root, in which case, if you have sorry.

E

I mean you're just repeating yourself, so why aren't they separate to the point that we don't care, or are you saying that there's a dual stack application somewhere that might put some traffic over before some traffic / v 60.

I

E

Its disparate routes, they would care no.

I

What I'm saying is that, if some nodes distribute is so specific and others a nonspecific default route, you will have root and failures speak about dhcp about ipv4 only so in ipv4. If you have some nodes that announced a specific route, others a non specific route, you're going to have issues, so everyone has to agree that ipv4 is nonspecific or yes.

E

I

The opposite: guy.

E

I already had that in my mind, but.

I

E

That's that's I,.

M

Gotta it Michael Lorenzen iya, so I have to do agree with the daily here that it should be day to pv6 or other mechanism, but I think you already you're now.

I

I cannot hear you so.

M

When it receives a dhcpv6 prefix, it should be somehow gets of prefix the vendor configured fight by some mechanism. So, but I think you already agreed with david on that portrait.

E

And to be clear, this seems like a general dual-stack, source-specific routing issue, um we may come up with a solution such as assume nonspecific default route with an ihome net, but it's a general issue, I wonder if we, it needs to be stated in some source desk routing document in its general form.

E

Ok will make a note of that in the minutes whoever's taking them. Please.

E

Thank you. Tim. Please.

I

Ok, so what I'm suggesting here is that we write it's in a single two-part document that describes the Babel profile for whole net or have based on the current draft and a second part, that is the interactions between H, NCP and Abel, something that is not written. Yet the only written down thing is slide. 8 of this presentation and I would like to suggest that this this should be a working group document. Thank you for attention.

D

Okay, Thank You Julius and we have some more common trick. So let's go ahead with watch yeah.

M

Mike Eruzione, and so you said only that it should specify the the metric in along the lines of what was written there dude. Don't we want to specify that a bit more or do you want to specify that in Babel being the potential new working group so.

I

One of the requirements that I have that I haven't put in this presentation: one of the five requirements speaks about metrics, hmm ok and what it says is there is a must and eschewed. The must says that the metrics must be no less than 96 for why or no less than 256 for wireless links, the shooter says you should be using an algorithm on wireless on wireless links that determines link quality mm-hmm. Okay. So if you want to tighten this formulation, that's a reasonable thing to do. Yeah.

M

That's what I wanted to bring it bring it up here is when we're doing in a veil profile. It sounds like that would be beneficial if table implementations behaved. You know similar in this aspect when it comes to setting the metric and not just it should be in the same in order of magnitude, but it should be, or you know it should be closer, it should be more specified somehow of it, and this could be a later work. I, don't know, but I think that should be more specific.

I

First, we are speaking about how networks here, which I accept to have expect to have reasonable reasonable amount of diversity, you're not expecting to have ten different paths between two routers. So if the values of the metrics are not exactly so, if one router has one and 196 you run into trouble, but it only uses 96 and another 104 you're still going to get pretty optimal route. At the same time, I don't want to prevent people from experimenting with vetterling quality estimators. So I wouldn't like this.

I

As we discussed it yesterday, there is a lot of work to be done on link quality estimators and they would definitely not want us right now to say you must use this link. Quality, estimator, don't experiment with anything. You then a fully.

M

Agree with that is there just I know. We should put in some note on this that this is being done somewhere else or future work persons like that that okay, so memory.

N

Darlin harder, so I would just like to voice agreement, as in. I personally think that it's very important to have for home knit for the application space of Home net document describing what the metrics are and what algorithm you're using I think this is absolutely in scope for home net and not for the Babel of working group, because this is application specific to the home.

N

That domain and those metrics that we are writing down here- are four home net and some admin using Babel in the wireless network or network of whatever they may have completely different things that they need so I think we should do this here.

D

Okay, okay, um so from the chair, what will probably do is issue a working group called for adoption to the mailing list just to get the formalities out of the way, I can't see had personally reason why this won't be adopted. I will respect to the interactions between nature and CP and Babel tziporah question for Judas is just going to sat down. Do you feel jealous that you could do with additional contributors to such a document?

D

Sorry, do you feel that you could benefit from having additional contributors to the.

C

Document to address that.

D

Okay and presumably the ocean and CP experts would probably be a useful pool for that. So yes, so, um unfortunately, mostly and CP folks aren't here what for a factor of any of them, are here but yeah. We would encourage them to work with Julius and best guess, do as Julius proposed and get this all addressed in that document.

D

E

Said if we have any aspiring agent CP experts don't be shy. We could use use more than just a few that aren't here today.

D

Okay, if there's nothing further on the Babel side, cool Ted up talk about the naming architecture, draft.

L

Link hi: this is Ted lemon um I'll.

D

Here huh Maine is raised like that I.

L

Can't hear it I.

L

Can stand closer to it, how's that okay uh next slide assume everybody knows what what I'm gonna be talking about? How many people have read the president this the document by the way? Thank you for doing that? Okay.

L

So obviously one of the goals of this is to clarify for people who read the document, which is not actually all that many folks sitting here, stuff that they might have questions about, and then I does also like to just give everybody else in the room sort of a taste of what the document talks about so that they'll get excited and go, read it and then the tomato throwing section I'd like people to talk about things that they think the document tries to do that.

L

Maybe you're not a good idea and also to point out anything that they might think is missing from the document next slide.

L

So I forgot to document the multiple name space case. That's the case where you might want to have more than one sub domain and you're in your home net. The whole net document currently just talks about a single forward domain, but that was just a an oversight and I'll add that in and a new version, I forgot to add the remote device registration cases.

L

The case where you have a device that you're using in the home that you'd like to be reachable in the home that even when you're not actually there, for example, you might have a phone that has something on it, that you want some device in your home to be able to get to reach out to. And it would be nice if there a way to register that. So that will be added in a future version of the document.

L

The one of the things about in the home that architecture is a requirement for being able to rename devices give a device. That's got a name in the home net namespace a different name and implicitly, that's without actually telling the device that it's got a different name and making the device register that different name, that's problematic, I, don't think it's possible with mdns there's a an idea for how to make dns updates work in the document and I think it could be done with that.

L

So it's possible that we could specify that and that's probably how I would address that and then otherwise. I went through the home that architecture requirements again this morning just to check and I'm pretty sure that I hit everything so I think it's complete. If you don't think it's complete, please tell me, I think tim is going to tell me that it's not complete.

J

Tin shine is this: okay, I was set up, told I was overdriving the mic before. Can you hear me like this? I can hear you so I've got a hearing problem cycle yeah. So what about that? There was the Christians talking came up in DNS SD. So maybe we want to think in this about obfuscating names from the privacy point of view as well. Yeah so hit that in somehow right. That is a that as an interesting.

L

L

Yeah, the problem with do I mean I. Think it's worth it's probably. What I should do is just say that this is something that needs to be done in its future work, because I honestly, don't know how to do it and I think that if we tried to hold off on completing this document until I know how to do it, but by all means, if you have a suggestion, send text so.

J

I think thanks, yeah I think that will get teased a in discussion of Christians drought.

L

J

We should probably send on to the home analyst.

L

J

L

In my Christian, when he stood up in front of the group, said I, don't know how to.

J

L

J

He's waving they're waving the fact church and the other thing of course, is the discussion of a hybrid proxy approach against the DNS update approach, where I think in DNS SD. We agreed to take that to a separate, maybe short document, to discuss. It's not going to be a short document, but ya know.

L

A separate don't.

J

L

Just simply can't do it the exact same way that mdns SD hybrid, does it and have it work in the home net, which is fine, but what what I think we can do it I talked about it in a later slide by the way. So we could get to that, then what we can do is come up with a way to do it. That's it's compatible with what mdn SSD hybrid does and that's what I'd like to do.

L

But it's not going to be the same exact thing. Dave did you want to say something.

J

um It's just that Andrew Sullivan on Java has said. Perhaps we should for number of people haven't read. The document should be a good idea to get the overview out of the way before we start talking about things that are missing right.

L

Yeah actually I didn't intend. The point of this slide was to tell you what you didn't have to tell me about not to get you to tell me what was missing so I should have articulated that better. That's a very good point, andrew.

O

Sync with that side yet, but I'm sorry, I think andrew is saying: put that slide at the end of the presentation, but sure this is dave. Taylor can actually ask a question on the slide. Then you.

P

O

I understand everything in the slide which had lost me on the third bullet, so I didn't follow what the third bullet was. What the relationship was to the naming architecture.

L

Ok, so the idea is that imagine that Europe I've.

O

Read parts of the draft or.

L

Not all of them and I couldn't find any place in.

O

L

Think of a home net as as, like analogous to what your you are, I might have done at our respective corporations in 1990 when we were operating as own for a zone file right, it's got a bunch of names in it. Those names correspond to hosts, and it's just very natural to go in and want to.

L

You know change a name like you know put in so so the name like you know, if you, if you would, if you've, got a workstation that belongs to person a and you want to give it to person B, you might change its name. So.

O

L

O

Name of the workstation, not by changing a name in a database. That's why that's why I'm confused I.

L

Agree that that is the correct way to solve the problem. The question is whether it's possible because remember we're getting the names of so so in the example that I talked about to.

O

Call time and say you don't to spend time in here because all I'm argues I, don't understand why that's actually part of the discussion here. So if you're saying, let's not discuss it now, that's actually fine answer so.

L

Yeah I mean personally I think that I I think that this isn't actually yeah it'd be nice to be able to do this. But this is not a core piece of functionality. So yeah, let's go. Let's go on to the next slide. Sorry, okay, good enough! So aspects of the architecture, so, first of all, just on a very high level. There are the the document is currently written, describes: two databases of names. One of those names is the set of names that you might think of as the forward zone.

L

So you know host names, but also services, so service discovery might be done in that zone and then there's a reverse zone- and this is you know, sort of in a turn on our pipe e6 DARPA used and there's been some discussion about whether the reverse zone is actually useful and my main reason for wanting it is just because it's a convenient place to put things about an IP address that might be local, like a key that you could use or something like that.

L

So I think it is worth worth having and that's why it's in there. But that's a point that can be discussed.

L

Currently it does not support the model for naming a human-readable sub domain, as is described in the dns SD hybrid document, and a Stewart and I had a conversation about whether or not there's a better way to do that and Stewart. So if you go think about it, and so we that could turn out in a variety of ways but anyway.

L

So the idea is to basically two databases to two places where data about names are stored in the home net and if you were to do a multi, multi, sub-domain, homenet architecture, both of these well actually, no I, guess just the forward would be duplicated or where there would be two of them. There's a question of public versus local public is stuff that would be visible from the internet.

L

If you have a global domain name, if the home net has a global domain name, you would be able to go type nslookup or dig, and then some name and in principle it would look it up. Of course, we don't want to publish necessarily every name that appears in the whole net out on the global internet so that the public don't domain of the public namespace is kind of a Babel rised version of the private domains domain space with not as much stuff in it.

L

Private domain space is expected to contain every name, that's published in the home net. So that way you can discover all the services in the home that you can talk. You know between subnets. You can talk to devices in the home that so forth, there's a question that I had as to whether we also need a guest namespace. The reason you might want to do that is you have a friend come over your friend. You want to play some. You know p2p game with your friend.

L

You want to be able to rendezvous, but you don't really want to give your friend the keys to the kingdom. You don't want them on your main Network. You want them on your guest network. So maybe we need to solve that problem.

L

The current draft doesn't and then a the document is written with the assumption that we want to be able to support the use case where the home that actually has a publicly reachable domain name in the DNS, but also it has to work if there it doesn't, and so it talks about a home homenet, a special-use TLD could be dot home I I chose got home that because I was pretty sure that dot home had conflicts and wasn't a good idea and tim, which Hinske is nodding. Yes, so I'll.

L

Take that as having been a good idea and also, I actually think it sounds better so anyway. uh So that's the basic high level view of what what names look like in the in the home net um and then next slide so database. So I talked about two different views of the database and actually there's notionally. Probably I was really thinking that the private, the local version of the database, would be the ideal view of the database with all of the data in it, but actually I, don't think.

L

That's correct and you'll see why, in a minute, so I think there's sort of an ideal version that has everything in it. That's what gets updated it's, what we collect from mdns or from DNS updates from services and that's maintained as a database, which is which is shared either using an authoritative primary name, server or using some kind of other mechanism, but I assume in the document that it's just enough off, NS an authoritative name server and then uh the the public and private, the public and local I said private on the slide.

L

But I that's! Actually it's not really private, because somebody could get onto the network that isn't you and they can see it. So that's not private, but the public and local views of the database are probably also they could be DNS zones that are derived from Miss DNS own programmatically and then the public and private names. Private zones have the same external name. So if they have a global name, that name is the same and what which zone you see depends on whether you're at home or whether you're away from home.

L

If you're away from home, you only see public names if you're at home, you see all of the names and there's also about home, that namespace and and those that's. The names will always appear in the domain.

L

Names namespace and the reverse zones will have the same kind of treatment and they appear on the on the home net, whether whether there's a delegation for them or not I'll get into that in a minute but they've here in the home that, even if, even if the ISP didn't delegate you that prefix, the the reverse tree for that prefix next slide.

L

L

When I was writing, this I dread, the mtns hybrid draft and it didn't seem to quite knew what I wanted and instead of trying to conform this to it, I conformed I decided that I'd rather change it, which may or may not have been the right decision and that's something the working group should should think about.

L

But in my opinion it's it's not quite right, and there are a couple of reasons that are described in the document. I'm not going to go into it here unless people want to. But my feeling is we needed to find something new. It would work a bit like mdns. I would, but not exactly, and ultimately, what we really want is for servers on the home net to use dns updates with a with a secure key mechanism that uses you know, sort of first first come first serve.

L

If you claim the name and put your key on it and someone else can't come later and say: no wait, that's my name because they don't have the key. So so that's the the long-term goal is that, but obviously that is a long-term goal.

L

No devices currently do that I, don't think any device manufacturer has, even you know, thought of doing that and whether they would do that if we wrote a spec that told them how I don't know it's quite possible, they would not, but maybe they would so I I'd like to do I'd like to do that, just because I think it would be good to have that option. Tim Tim.

J

Chang so yeah as Stewart says in the hyper foxy draw. The Hobby proxy solution is a pragmatic thing for now right, yeah. In the absence of DNS, update being widely available, yeah.

L

Well, you know yeah.

J

The other thing I've got ringing in my ears, sort of even I can't hear is two or 3i ETFs ago, and someone gave the chairs of the NSS they're good slapping for assuming a sort of english-language domain name for for this you might want to in the document use el q DN, whatever the language we used in the architecture document is rather than assuming it's home or home net or whatever. Perhaps.

L

Are you talking about the the the static with the sort of special use domain like that home net? All right now we have to register a special-use domain for every language that could get pretty ugly, but yeah okay, point taken next slide. I. Think.

L

Can you remind me of that, and maybe we can talk about a little bit, because I honestly have no idea how to address that and I think maybe you do at least more so than I I. Don't think we need to.

J

Do it at the mic, I think everybody will be horribly bored by it. So I don't have an answer, but I think in a way it was a valid point, but I yeah.

L

I points a valid.

J

Point to I just.

L

Don't know how to do it: okay, so global domain names. I mentioned that that, ideally or perhaps not ideally, but at least optionally home, that should have a name that the names that are that are known on the home that should be knowable from the internet and in order for that to happen, the home that has to have a global name, a name that appears in the domain name system. And in order for that to happen, there has to be some process for making it happen.

L

You know, probably most of the people in the room are familiar with the process of going to your local domain, name, registrar and registering a name and then going to your local.

L

Well I'll talk about that in a minute, but I don't think that's going to really work for a home that, because you know, let's face it, we're all much better at dealing with registrar's than the average person and and- and I don't want everybody who has a home that and wants to have a public name to have to learn how to talk to a registrar. So I think that this requires a new service which I have called you know.

L

Global name registration provider and the idea here is essentially that the home that needs to be able to have some kind of probably restful api or something I got a little bit slap for saying, restful api, because that assumes a solution which I haven't, which isn't necessarily the right thing. But some kind of API that allows the user to pick a name.

L

Probably not a like. I, have a domain few com that I've had since like 1997 or something like that or no well.

O

Yeah, probably.

L

1987 anyway, so I don't expect them to get that I expect them to get something more. Like you know, appleberry you calm just so that you've got a unique name, and that could be very cheaply done and it can all be done with with you know: HTTP requests for the most part.

L

In one of the things that I'd like this service to provide is also a pki search for the name, because if you don't have DKI, then you're going to get all kinds of warnings from your browser.

L

If you try to try to do secure connections to the to the web api for the for the for the home, that and assuming that there is a way baby I for the home, that and I think it's extremely bad designed to set things up so that people see those security warnings, I'd actually rather not encrypt, and have them see that warning, because that warning trains them to click through the warning and it's probably a battle that can't be won. But I, don't think that we should be on the wrong side of it.

L

The gunner can be provided by the ISP doesn't have to be, and it shouldn't be required that it be provided by the ISP.

L

The ISP does have to the reverse on delegation because they on the address space, the mechanism has to be specified, I'm, not sure exactly where that's going to happen or if it's going to happen, I think it should happen and, and we need to find a place where it happened and then I think also the delegation, the reverse, requires us back and Danny amigo has worked a bit on this and I've worked with Daniel a bit.

L

I haven't actually looked too closely at Daniel's drafts for a while, and so I need to rethink in this was something that the chairs were talking about earlier. I need to rethink whether or exactly how those fit into what's written in this document and whether I need to change this document or suggest changes, the Daniel next slide.

L

So the home that Navy architecture assumes that naming is secure on the home net and that's a not that hard of a problem. If you have a global name, it's a pretty hard problem, though, if you don't have a global name, because currently a validating resolver has no way to establish trust for a local zone. That is has the same name as that equivalent zone and everybody else's house.

L

If everybody has got home net, how do you establish trust, so I express an idea for using a sort of a trust on first use model in the document where the home that publishes a unique use, a unique, universally unique identifier, which is a randomly generated?

L

Number, that's big enough that it's very unlikely that there would be a collision and then the dot home that name the definite domain for your got home net will have a uuid that is different than the uuid for a different home net and that zone will be signed with a key. That is that that proves that that uuid is claimed by that zone it doesn't you could have a clash, two different home. That's could have the same uid just by random.

L

Incredibly bad luck, but if that happened, you would get a validation failure, and so the right thing would essentially occur because chances are you, you've got the UID for your home net before you got the uid for their own net, and so so, essentially that zone is assigned to the key and that the uid is enclosed in the zone, so that so that whenever you go to different home nets, you can tell which home that you're on and whether you actually trust it or not.

L

And then, then you can do secured name resolution in those home nets that you've decided to trust using the trust on first use. Model Dave seems excited about saying something about.

O

This ad de feeler I'm, actually confused so I, was going to ask if you could elaborate what let's say that there's two home ads: they have different uu IDs. Yes,.

N

O

Of those home nuts have a machine in it with a names, a banana okay, okay, both both your house and my house have a machine in it, hosting it with the name banana I have my laptop I'm currently sitting at your house and I'm trying to resolve banana dot homenet. What are you saying you want to happen here and what is how to security work? That.

L

Is an excellent question to which I did not express an answer in the document and should have I? Don't.

O

See any answer, and so I.

L

Think the the answer is difficult.

L

So and it sort of depends on whether you're, whether you're well.

O

One answer would be to say: if you have ambiguous names like banana dome net. Sorry, you don't get security, don't do that, use the global name actually.

L

That doesn't work the reason.

O

They don't is anything.

L

F

L

No I mean the model. The problem is that when you're in someone else's home that ok, you know that you're in a different home that, but you don't have a copy of this of your home, that's zone. So how do you know that that name exists in your home? That's zone? You don't I thought.

O

That you had an architecture for doing a remote resolution. You.

L

Do is it? Does that mean that every time you look up the name well, so so, actually, in the case that you're doing the resolution, you have a global name, so you don't have an ambiguity and be good.

O

At saying, yeah, I think that could possibly work and have and be secured. But of course it has some usability. Well, how do I get the global name that song as you talk for, but I don't see that there's any solution for the ambiguous name, Omega.

L

O

Don't know how it's possible to secure that in have a good user experience. Sorry yeah.

L

And I mean I, think I think the way you secure the only way that I can think of to secure. That is basically to have an application that needs to have a trust relationship with that particular device to cash that devices key, and then it can look at the at the name, entry and see if it's got the same key and if it doesn't, then it doesn't use it, but that's kind of kludgy so and it requires applications to do a lot of work that I'd rather applications didn't have to know how to do so.

L

I yeah there isn't a great solution to this problem and it's something that we might want to think about, but but I'm not confident that we'll come up with an answer so next slide.

L

So there's two models of man for the home that- and we I needed to talk about this because I don't go into this in the slides but there's a whole issue with with data recovery in the case of loss.

L

So you know honet routers people don't think of them as having precious data on them, and so it would not be at all shocking for somebody to take their soul, homenet router that has all of their keys on it and chuck it and replace it for a different home netrunner without ever realizing that they're screwing themselves, and so there needs to be some kind of provision for how to deal with that, and that requires some kind of management, API and there's two different models for managing it.

L

One is that the end user manages that the other is that the end user contracts, the management out to someone like their ISP or some others on third party service provider, and so there's there's text in the document that deals with both of those use cases.

L

User management through the browser, as I mentioned earlier, requires some kind of pki. If you don't have a pki, you don't have a secure connection connection to the browser. You can't really tell you're talking to the right thing.

L

You might say things to someone else's home that that you don't want to say so we have to have that another way to do this, which also helps with the key problem, is: if you had an application on your iPhone or your Android phone or your sailfish phone or whatever you could, you could have your phone cash, the keys and then that way, if you, if you blow away your home, that you can recover it with the data that you saved on your phone.

L

But if we want to do that, we have to have a standard API or we're going to have a million different apps out. There always do something different and use. You know cobbled together ad hoc stuff that doesn't really work and we get lock in and on interop and that sucks and then for the central management case.

L

You know I, think I, explain the use case there, I think netconf, yang or a restful api is probably the way to go. Probably not comfy hang because there seems to be a certain amount of energy behind that model in the in the industry. Right now, um and obviously, if we do that, we need a way to provision it, and you know corollary to all this- is that really talking about something that belongs in the home net management architecture document which does not exist?

L

um So that's something that that that probably merits further exploration next slide. I.

D

Should tell her question from the chair on that one I'm, a particularly with respect to our Charter and scope of home net, which is unmanaged networks when you're talking about the central management on this slide? Are you eviscerated something simply where the centralized system is providing almost rendezvous service, or you actually talk about something where third party is performing? The management I was from techNavio's.

L

O

D

Where an S box is rendezvoused with external systems and could be managed through those, but.

L

D

Actually manage the box per se, so.

L

The reason why that's there is I realize that that is in fact a little out of scope for home that, but the reason why that's there is because I don't want to get into the situation that we have with practically every other IOT device and on the planet, which is that there isn't a management way there isn't a way to have it be managed that is not controlled by the person that sold it to you.

L

So if we don't, if we don't do this, we're going to wind up with all these routers looking like nest boxes and nest boxes are great they're very pretty they pervert provide good functionality, but I, don't like lock-in and I, don't think lock in is what the IETF should be encouraging and in order for us to discourage it, should we choose to do so. I think we do need to address this use case, so, okay, yeah so anyway, next slide.

L

L

One additional thing that I will just interject here before we actually take comments is that in the process of writing, as it became clear to me that we need to have, we really need to have a home net security architecture, and we don't, and a lot of the things that are right in here are written kind of assuming that there is a home net security architecture that just magically will here as a result of the vacuum that this document creates so I'm, actually in the process of formulating in my head.

L

What I that architecture should say and I'd love it if there would be people that would be interested in collaborating with me on that. But I don't have a whole lot more to say about it than that. At the moment, yeah.

D

And for the shares, we would strongly encourage that it is one of our charter areas. It has to happen so send me mail if.

L

You want, or you know, if you want to come up with a competing document cuz, you think I'm, an idiot which I'm sure people do that's. Okay, too I don't have any attachment to that. There's just something that I think needs to be done and if I have nobody else is going to do it I'm going to do it so Lee Lee, Howard.

K

Sorry I was a little too loud, Lee Howard. um This is one of those points, of course, where I always say hey, we need a document and anybody out then I always like to point out to anybody in user land. When somebody says we need a document, if you've always wanted to author an internet draft that can become an RFC. This is your chance. There's a dot, there's a space here, waiting to put your name on it, which is not what I came up to say.

K

um There are two things: 1i didn't stand up fast enough when you're talking about the population of the population of the global zones- and you said, and the isp should delegate the reverse to the to the home gateway. Cam, um ok! Well, the document says should because the documents issued the document says, should to the ISP. Yes, actually, it's not a capital.

L

Should oh yeah yeah right, yeah I, don't know there are no RFC 2119 key words in the document, so when I said should that was my personal opinion, it's not something that I think the ITF should dictate talk to operators and that's exactly.

K

What I wanted to hear? Yes very much I am perfectly content to use. The word should in on non RFC 2119 contexts, I'm happy with that. The other one is I haven't quite spent enough time. Looking at the gunner, that seems sit seems big. Yes, he's like you're doing a lot there, yes, which I think we're really going to want to socialize I'm, not even sure, that's actually a charter. It may be uh yeah.

L

No I think I said that when I presented it's a pretty big thing, I don't even know where to do it.

K

Yet yes, gonna be okay; yeah thanks yeah.

Q

Andrew uh hi I'm Andrew Sullivan. um So, first of all, thank you for writing this, because it's valuable I think that there is a fairly serious gap in the document unless I overlooked it, and that is, if you use the sort of globally ambiguous name, um lots of stuff doesn't work yes and and- and it would be good to sort of state that innocent single sentence up front because it actually removes a lot of confusion and, after the third reading, I realized. Oh, I see this just doesn't work in that case right so.

L

There's a bunch of stuff that will help yes, well. I wrote this before I spent about three days thinking about that problem, and so so there yeah okay, that's.

Q

A very good point, but- um and then I guess just on the other on another issue on because I don't want it. I don't want to fully explore this rat hole, but we started to talk about it earlier and that is this internationalization yeah there's a thing that came up in the image. A broom and I think this is an important difference right. The the names in mdns, the the final label is, is hidden in the UI and the point here with with this globally ambiguous name is that it's not going to be hidden.

Q

I think yeah, unless we think that unless we think that that's something we want to impose on user interfaces, which I think would be an interesting adventure for the ITF to start yeah. So so that's a really important difference and it means that there are internationalization considerations. The IETF actually has a requirement for internationalization considerations, which is honored as far as I can tell entirely by ignoring it. But but it's going to be problematic here- and this is a fundamentally unsolvable problem, so so.

L

Q

Glad that we've embraced that you know and held on tight yeah.

L

Well, I mean actually so so a little anecdote from from ancient days at deck. We had this problem that we couldn't sell our devices in certain, I guess in the EU or whatever predated the EU, because I'm not sure that you it. Actually. I don't know anyway, so we changed all of the names, although all of the words that were used in the bootrom, which is place where this was an issue, all those words were changed so that they didn't have any any vowels in them, so they weren't, really English words and I.

L

Think that might be a little bit too too little for this problem, but it may be that what we want I see the problem with that home. That is, that it is mnemonic for people who speak english and it would be nice if there was something like that for other people as opposed to just using a name that is, you know, like you know,.

Q

Yeah well, so, just so that you understand the number of thorns that you have just grasp yesterday at the H&R see right on the human rights research group, somebody gave a presentation about a programming language that they tried to write in arabic, using arabic script, including like never using um left to write scripts, and it turns out not to work very well. So I think this is going to be a real problem. Thank.

L

H

Stuart Stuart treasure a quick comment on this subject: the international text. We need to make a distinction between what goes over the wire and what users see and in an ideal world. Those don't need to be the same thing.

H

If we, if we define that home net is a special label that signifies these non-global unique names, then the UI layer of the software can show a little picture of your house or something in italics or, however, we want to represent that are in a different language, but on the wire it has to be the same string because I don't want to visit Canada and find my iphone doesn't work because it's not speaking French on the wire so right wire. It has to be the same language worldwide.

H

You know, and it is a little bit unfortunate, that we tend to use English mnemonics in those wire formats, because it's convenient for debugging, but that damage is mitigated if the user never sees it. When I tap the air print button on my iPhone and it says, turn printer I'm not seeing any dot, local or IPP or and many.

L

H

Things that are in heretical yeah.

L

And actually one of the things that's missing from the home net architecture document on that naming architecture document is currently written. Is that in in the hybrid DNS document you talk about being able to have hierarchical names, so building one printer one- and you know you might want to have something like that for your home net, where you give your home that a name and then when you're somewhere else. Do you see a different hierarchical name?

L

So when you see predator one its its Twitter one at this other house, and you don't think it's the same printer, the one issue with the using using something other than what's on the wire is that it has to be something that definitely would not clash with names that could be allocated nice. So your icon of a house is a good idea, but that then doesn't work for blind users and doesn't work.

L

For, although you know the icon of a house could have a internationalized mnemonic, but but we have to be careful that we don't wind up with the blind user thinking that it's a domain in that case, so it's it yeah walk.

J

So relying Marcus Stenberg from a few moments ago, so he says it actually depends the NSS d legacy, browsers, typically hidden one flat list of services. I think this is repeating wattage to it so yeah and normal browse one with domains includes domain names, also in service names in the user interface.

J

Ironically enough legacy grow, seems the more supportive type I think that common with 10 shown my my own comment is: it was energy future and it raised this first about six or seven meetings ago, very vocally that we should be considering this somehow and I. Do remember from a recent discussion on some list that in the gtld allocations, I think home corp and another domain were part to be punted back to the ITF or not to be discussed here. I'm sure, with those there were those three new gTLDs that were not allocated on the basis.

J

The ITF light looks decent. Yes,.

L

Well, they aren't allocated they're, just they're just marked, do not allocate.

D

Okay, we still have plenty of time. Discussion unusually, haven't, got the root walls out of the way. That's.

J

Step forward again, ten chance so I think I popped, you an email about it, but it is probably a very busy time. Did you read Marcus's hybrid proxy zeroconf draft- it's not cited in this, but it's essentially part for publication as a way of auto configuring, IP proxy in a home net and yeah. So.

L

You already say that I hope not so.

J

Poppy worth before see you, everyone there's.

L

Losing there's a little bit of you know: man I've been meaning to do this for a while and there's the deadline. I'd better get going on in this document, so so yeah there needs to be a probably a dash. There's a dash 0 1, coming with everybody's comments and the things that I've learned since then, but they're.

C

Probably needs.

L

To be a dash 0 to where I go back and read the documents, I should have read before I.

J

L

J

L

Not too LOL cuban.

J

So it's like nine ten pages, turning systems, yeah I'll.

L

Take no time at all I.

C

Avril Doria speaking I just wanted to note that chm, corp, home and mail are not marked, do not allocate yet there's still an item of contention. Oh.

L

Dear okay, thank you.

D

I'm sure I'm Tim will Suzanne will correct me if I'm wrong brandon stunts situation is that I kind of said that they will. They will not delegate those, but as yet, there are still at least ten outstanding applications for home they've. Yet to withdraw. Their interest are.

L

You aware, if anybody has asked for dom net now.

D

There's no application for not home night in the first round of utility applications and.

M

Michael Abramson earned I just type this into jebra. My throne say to hear why don't we ask for something you know they're, like X M dash dash has been reserved by for the IDN. So why don't we ask him to create some kind of hierarchy for this kind of special username that never goes into actual DNS. Well.

L

So that's a topic that we probably really don't want to get into here. Okay, you know if you're interested in that topic we're going to be discussing in a dns off on friday, yeah.

D

30, without my check out on actually there may be some mileage in that other exhale hyphen hyphen is allocated czar prefix, specifically for ID ends. The xx dash dash is a nate is this is actually a name spacing there and you can't have a normal name with the dash dash in it like that. So not standing, that's not check the user friendly that might mitigate some of those problems. Yeah without my hair, chattel yeah.

L

We would need to make sure that the name is not going to be used in some UI in something that was written by somebody who never read in RFC, which is a very common thing, given that it's constrained to the home that maybe that's safe. But the problem is when you get into the case where people do sanity, checking on names and they're, like oh dash, that you know X M dash dash, that's not a valid domain name will just reject that.

L

Will give you an error, and then you grossed, you can't you can't use your thing. So we don't want to do that. Andrew.

Q

Andrew Sullivan's, so so this is the the very adventure that I suggested earlier. We might not want to get into right, because the the reason xn minus minus ended up being used for I DNA is because it's internet domain, internationalized domain names or applications, and so every application needs to become I DNA aware, and if what you're saying is in order to use this mechanism, you also have to have home Neto air applications. I think we're going to be in a world of hurt, yeah.

C

Q

I think that doesn't meet the requirements that we set for ourselves now I. It would solve this problem in that you could just scope things in a new. You know a through z, a through z, minus minus patterned name, and then you peel all scoped, but it has this nasty property that now we're starting to specify stuff at the wire format in order to in order to enable certain you I behaviors, all right. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but I I would certainly want.

Q

At least you know us to look at the Charter and our other documents in order to make that determination, yeah.

L

Q

L

I would say that, for my personal perspective, I have zero Oh enthusiasm from going down that rat hole.

D

Yeah sorry Andrew before you walk too far away and again no chair hat on here, I mean I. Thinking was that using the a-to-z A to Z dash dash mechanism that doesn't it I mean compared to, for example, that homeless or at home. We would still have that problem of having a home little where application. Potentially. If we have that sort of special reservation but I think possibly their scope with the ACC HTC dash dash of at least being able to have a name which has no possibility of a collision in the normal namespaces.

D

People are currently registering things in um okay.

Q

So I, like I, don't I, don't want to fully build out the rat alcohol and like build a basement rec room, but the ibn a reserved everything of the pattern: a to Zed, a to z, minus minus, a chi almost autumn, so they're reserved, and the idea was. If we needed to do like nasty hack like this again, then we could do it again, so so home. That is in the position, in fact, to specify that the problem is that there are rules out there that currently prevent it.

Q

But most of them, of course, are on the registration side. I, don't know very many applications that do validation of label strings at look up time. So so you might, you might be able to get away with that. Of course, there is the additional problem that if we thought that home net was, um you know not user-friendly for the portion of the population that doesn't use Latin characters. um You know mq minus minus. Something is.

C

Even worse and.

D

Q

I'm not sure that that's gonna, you know.

D

Q

Description, we could have NH n minus minus I suppose for home net, but I'm not sure that that helps us I'm, particularly since since Arabic speakers, for instance, don't have the notion of initialization, which is not a thing in Arabic languages.

K

Lee Howard well, at least. If you make it impossible to remember and use, then nobody will try right. That's internationalized actually, and we try to do it from the jabber room which fantastic conversation, the jabber room. If you're not there, you know good stuff going on there too. Are you missing out I'm, not excluded? If I know sorry their logs? You can read it later um that I feel like we need some name nerds to get in the room.

K

I know we tried to do a design team and you know maybe somebody needs to buy a round of beers and and see if we can hash out all the possibilities I'm not qualified to to weigh in it. Just don't feel like we need to move this one board somehow and I feel like this is one where we could easily get stuck for three years, trying to figure out what the name is.

K

L

That's not do that. Yeah.

D

Okay, okay, the comments on this one okay, so my initial feel is that it's too early to be talking about adoption of this draft that is gonna need at least a couple of iterations and and significant contributions, if not additional authors. Well, yes,.

A

D

Before can get to that point, yeah I know we had some volunteers that time didn't permit them to contribute at this point. Well, the text I'm didn't give them time to confirm.

L

My my lame- oh, my yeah, so so there was a design team I, the design team, hadn't done anything for a couple of ATF's, I think or at least one I know.

D

What wasn't that little? No, we have not formally credited design team for this. There was a request, the last meeting for essentially volunteers, to write a draft that would become this, but it wasn't form reasons the design team, okay, anyway,.

C

D

Few come a few volunteers for that, ultimately, you volunteer to take the lead and then things went a little quiet and then you had a big Russian. Nobody else, it's time to actually laying by that point, yeah.

L

So anyway, yeah so I mean the fact is. There were a number of other people who were interested in writing parts of this document, including andrew, and I would still like it if those people would help yeah.

D

So say I would be good to get at least another clot yeah. I know we already have some proposed changes to do it for a dash, 0 1, quite shortly on the individual draft, but I think it's clearly clearly some fairly substantive additional contributions before we can look at something that we could take for the work and route document. I wish we can gather one group consensus, yeah, yeah and.

L

There's also, I mean just just I: don't know how deep to go into this, but there's a pretty obvious list of follow-on documents for this that you know, I think if people see something in there and they're, like ooh I'd like to write that document, they might want to mention it yeah.

D

And I think leaf is earlier comment. Yes, if I mean we ever says, we should write you talking about this come down and do it because it's the only bathroom, if you're new to the ITF, it's the fantastic way of getting into it, yep!

D

Okay, if there are no further comments and then unusually, we've finished somewhat early, so I stretch your legs and for the next break and for the next our obsession. I will. Thank you all if we could place how the other blue sheets return back to the front desk and we'll see you folks in Berlin, I get.

E

Well, hello, Terry.

D

If you haven't assigned the blue sheets, please Duke important sign them.

C

D

Expectation 10.

B

B