►
From YouTube: IETF95-TUTORIAL-JourneyFromIDtoRFC-20160403-1500
Description
TUTORIAL meeting session at IETF95
Jour/ne/yF 2016
A
Speaking
to
us
today
about
how
you
go
from
having
an
internet
draft
to
actually
becoming
an
RFC,
but
actually
he's
going
to
talk
about
something
far
more
fundamental
than
that,
but
I'll
leave
that
up
to
him
to
tell
you
fred
has
been
a
chair
of
the
IETF
at
a
very,
very
seminal
time.
I
mean
the
course
I
suppose
they're
all
seminal
times
he's
been
with
the
IETF
many
many
many
years
and
as
I
think
as
I
said
in
an
introduction
to
someone
the
other
day.
A
Fred
has
forgotten
more
than
a
lot
of
people
will
ever
know
he's
currently
co-chair
of
v6
Ops
has
at
least
ten
drafts
out
that
I
know
of
could
have
changed
to
12
or
15.
By
now
he
has
a
wealth
of
expertise
in
many
many
areas.
So
let's
were
fortunate
enough
to
have
him
so
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over.
Damn
now.
B
B
B
What
we
do
is
we
solve
problems
now.
The
solution
to
the
problem
quite
often
is
documented
in
turn,
RFC,
it's
implemented
in
code.
It
winds
up
in
somebody's
equipment
somewhere
in
some
network,
but
fundamentally
is
not
about
producing
an
RFC,
as
a
matter
of
fact
well
hook
allocated
that
on
the
next
slide.
What.
B
I
started
it,
I
started
in
1994.
I
was
working
for
a
small
engineering
firm
in
santa
barbara
call
acc,
and
we
had
just
we
were
in
the
process
of
implementing
an
ISDN,
the
interface.
How
many
of
you
know
what
is
giannios?
Okay,
one
two,
three?
Fourth,
okay,
it's
an
older
technology.
It's
certainly
there
in
3gpp,
but
it's
older
technology,
but
ok.
B
C
B
Scan
implementations
and
meds,
and
this
that
and
the
other
would
people
be
willing
to
post
their
men,
give
me
a
pointer
to
the
web
page
or
the
document
whatever
it
is.
That
describes
that
men
and
let
us
all,
look
at
it.
Then
we
can
have
a
discussion
about
what
a
common
myth
would
look
like.
I
got
eight
responses
of
people
that
said
yeah.
B
To
do
that
and
then
I
got
a
response
from
a
fellow
by
the
name
of
winter
rope
from
Germany
who
said:
okay,
I
have
looked
at
all
of
those
and
I
have
figured
out
that
everybody's
doing
roughly
the
same
thing
to
call
him
different
things,
but
they're
doing
roughly
the
same
thing
and
I've
coalesced
all
that
into
a
document.
He
had
done
that
like
in
24
hours,
and
would
you
mind
friend
if
I
posted,
that
is
an
internet
draft
is
like
work.
B
I
don't
have
to
do
this
sounds
great,
and
so
he
posted
it
and
it
became
actually
two
RFC's
describing
the
basic
is
p.m.
nib
and
then
a
diagnostic
myth.
How
do
I
find
probably
in
an
ISDN
network?
How
did
that
happen?
Frankly,
it
was
a
collaboration.
I
had
eight
different
people
with
eight
different
solutions
who
posted
them.
B
I
had
a
guy
who
probably
had
one
of
them
as
his
own
solution
in
Germany
who's
willing
to
do
the
work,
and
then
we
had
a
discussion
and
the
discussion
took
about
a
year
and
then
it
went
to
the
RFC
editor's
office
and
went
through
their
processes,
but
resulted
in
in
an
outcome
which
is
is
in
use
wherever
there's
an
ISDN
network
today.
Can
we
fairly
Collegium?
Another
example
is
in
the
secure
shell,
how
many
of
you
use
SSH
all
of
us
use
SSH
all
time?
B
Yes,
okay,
so
the
guy
that
developed
an
athlete
develop
something
for
his
own
use
and
just
wrote
the
code
and
then
decided
he
had
people
asking
him
for
it.
So
we
put
it
in
open
source
like
people
compile
it
and
then
finally,
he
described
it
in
an
internet
draft
which
he
then
abandoned,
didn't
do
anything
with
the
draft
until
he
had
started.
A
company
and
a
whole
lot
of
stuff
had
happened,
and
so
we
built
what
was
called
secure
shell,
too,
and
that
wound
up
in
series
of
RFC's.
B
So,
finally,
when
found
up
with
an
open
version
of
ssh,
another
process
that
we
went
through
was
in
congestion,
control
and
tcp.
Now,
in
the
mid-1980s
1985
to
1987
56
kilobits
a
mess,
f'nor
was
a
very
popular
network
and
it
underwent
congested
collapse.
It
bad
things
happen
so,
just
before
that
happened
in
nineteen
eighty-four,
John
natal,
who
at
the
time
was
a
an
engineer
at
foco
Ford
was
looking
for
solutions
to
our
congestion
management.
B
Congestion
avoidance
came
up
with,
what's
popularly
known
as
the
Naval
option
in
TCP
and
then
made
a
more
general
comment
realized
that
there
was
a
fundamental
flaw
in
the
design
of
IP,
which
was
that
time
to
live.
It's
actually
time.
It
was
measured
in
seconds
and
given
the
line
speeds
of
the
time,
he
said,
wait
a
second.
What
if
somebody
actually
says?
Well,
don't
let
my
packet
wait
more
than
15
seconds,
but
the
number
of
15
in
time
live
and
then
the
pack
of
SAT
a
queue
depth
came
into
being.
That
was
16
seconds
d.
B
But
what
we
do
is
we
document
the
idea
in
an
internet
draft
talk
about
it
forever
and
and
then
ultimately
send
it
to
to
the
RFC
editor,
so
so
that
process
with
TCP.
Frankly,
there
have
been
a
list
of
other
things
that
had
that
have
gone
on
that
had
been
related
to
that.
So
the
whole
quality
of
service
discussion
really
came
out
of
those
same
observations,
and
so
on
point
to
remember,
though,
is
that
that
entire
discussion
started
with
an
RFC
that
was
not
standard.
C
B
Here
you
know
like
I,
say
if
you
were
listening
sky
I've
heard
some
of
this
before
so
the
structure
of
the
IETF
we
have
areas
in
the
areas
have
working
groups
in
the
working
groups
are
managed
by
the
area,
directors
people
in
be
in
the
isg.
We
also
have
research,
group,
I,
RTF
and
various
research
groups
underneath
the
eye
RTF
a
number
of
different
organizations
that
are
there
basically
for
the
discussion
of
ideas
and
the
development
of
hopefully
working
code.
B
When
I
talk
about
working
group
processes,
most
important
thing
in
a
working
group
is
what
was
it.
We
came
here
to
do
the
Charter.
So
if
I
go
read
the
Charter
for
16
ops
for
the
working
groups
that
I
chair,
it
tells
me
that,
first
and
foremost,
it's
a
forum
for
operators
to
talk
about
the
things
that
they
experience
and
to
make
reports
and
say
no
I'm,
seeing
good
things
here
and
bad
things,
they're
related
to
ipv6.
Okay,
they
come
talking
about
ipv4,
it's
technically
out
of
charter.
B
I'll
in
fact
be
doing
that
on
Thursday,
I
believe
in
the
routing
working
group,
because
in
the
last
meeting
in
Yokohama,
a
comment
was
made
from
the
floor
that
molle
homing
under
a
certain
scenario,
couldn't
work
unless
routing
in
a
in
an
enterprise
network
would
get
packets
to
the
right
upstream
ISP,
and
so
the
IETF
needed
to
do
some
work
related
rally
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
packets
get
to
the
right
is
P.
So
that
got
observation
is
a
direct.
B
My
charter
tells
me
I'm
supposed
to
do
that,
and
so
I
wound
up
writing
an
email.
As
chair
of
the
working
group
to
Samaria
Directors
in
various
working
group
chairs,
saying
this
is
a
problem
that
the
operators
in
my
working
groups
say
we
need
to
address
okay.
How
does
work
get
started
in
the
ITF?
That's
one
way.
My
working
group
specifically
starts
work
in
in
the
ITF,
so
the
Charter
tells
us
what
things
a
working
group
is
allowed
to
work
on.
B
And
whole
bunch
of
just
people
talking
to
each
other
I,
had
a
discussion
this
morning
with
a
bunch
of
regulators
that
are
attending
this
meeting.
In
order
to
learn
about
the
processes
by
which
the
Internet
has
developed
and
one
of
the
questions
they
asked
me
was:
how
do
you
get
your
projects
in?
Who
tells
you
what
to
do,
and
how
do
you
decide
when
you
know
you've.
B
C
B
B
Now,
with
any
topic,
whether
it's
a
working
group
or
whether
it's
a
particular
project
that
we're
going
to
write,
get
an
address
for
the
first
thing
that
you
want
to
know,
a
lot
of
problem
is
what
the
problem
is.
You'd,
be
amazed.
How
many
people
come
to
me
come
to
the
IETF
and
say
I
have
a
solution.
I
want
to
work
on
my
solution.
Please
can
I
work
on
my
solution.
B
I
had
a
guy
from
the
Department
of
Defense
once
come
into
another
working
group
that
I
chaired
at
the
time
and
basically
stomp
his
feet
and
say
I
need
for
you
to
implement
this
particular
algorithm
and
and
I
asked
him
so
so
what
problem
are
you
solving?
You
know
give
me
let's,
let's
discuss
requirements.
He
said
the
requirement
is
that
you
implement
my
algorithm
and
the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff
say
that
you
have
to
he's
like
no
I,
don't
care,
and
that
really
surprised
him
for
me
to
say.
Y'all,
12,
*.
B
C
B
We
saw
them
and
that
that
has
various
things.
One
of
the
one
of
the
aspects
of
that
is
to
focus
discussion,
make
sure
that
we're
not
just
running
around
all
over
the
map
and
then
to
be
able
to
say
that
particular
part
of
the
solution
solves
a
problem
that
isn't
just
to
be
able
to
say.
No.
This
is
this
particular
part
is
actually
not
relevant
and
then
we'll
talk
about
several
proposals.
B
B
A
separate
proposal
is
what
some
company
was
doing
in
order
to
figure
things
out,
so
I'm
going
to
have
usually
more
than
one
some
kinds,
a
whole
lot
of
different
proposals,
and
one
of
the
jobs
of
the
working
group
is
to
sort
through
them
and
say
this
is
actually
not
a
good
solution.
These
three
actually
are.
What
do
they
have
in
common?
Is
their
common
architecture
we
can
pull
out
of
that?
Is
there?
You
know
how
do
these
things
fit
together?
Do.
B
Together,
maybe
they
don't,
but
so
in
an
internet
draft.
What
we're
doing
is
making
a
suggestion
and
discussing
the
ramifications
of
that
suggestion.
The
working
group
is
going
to
now
work
through
that
and
maybe
it'll
adopt
it
very
likely.
It
will
change
it
in
some
way
before
adopting
that
that's
quite
calm
and
please
don't
be
upset
when
it
happens.
It's
the
way
people
work,
okay,
because
our
objective
is
not
to
write
an
RFC,
it's
to
discuss
and
solve
a
problem,
and
so
it's
all.
B
Customers
giving
operators
giving
people
that
are
running
whatever
application
videos,
whatever
networking
aspect,
it
is
giving
them
good
solutions
to
their
problems,
so
we're
obviously
going
to
merge
and
select
proposals
and
develop
a
consensus
around
whatever
solution.
We
eventually
come
up
with
Scott,
if
you
were
in
the
previous
session,
had
a
slide
talk
a
little
bit
about
intellectual
property.
B
One
of
the
things
that
tends
to
happen
during
this
discussion
of
formulating
a
consensus
is
that
somebody
will
come
out
and
say
because
if
we
ask
them,
I,
oh
by
the
way,
here's
this
thing
that
I
really
think
you
ought
to
do
by
the
way.
If
you
do
that
kami,
this
is
my
way
of
making
money
and
working
groups
here
quite
often
say:
why
don't
we
do
something
else?
Our
intellectual
property
is
not
forbidden,
but
it
can
make
discussions
harder,
because
the
working
group
quite
often
will
step
back
and
say.
Is
there
a
way?
B
At
the
end
of
the
day,
what
we're
trying
to
get
to
it's
rough
consensus
and
running
hug
rough
consensus-
and
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
that
means-
that
doesn't
mean
that
everybody
in
the
room
degrees
I'd
like
to
have
everybody
in
the
room,
agree.
Sometimes
there's
somebody
who
just
I'm
sorry
he's
not
going
to
agree
the
interesting
thing
with
that
is
that,
quite
often
we
find
that
the
minority
is
right.
He
has
he
or
she
has
some
thing
that
that
that
he's
looked
at
and
realized.
B
B
Politics
is
here
we
really
try
to
make
it
not
be
a
factor.
We
really
try
to
make
a
not
be
a
factor
now,
and
this
comes
back
to
your
question
this
morning.
I
get
asked
from
time
to
time.
Okay,
I've
got
this
wonderful
idea.
I
have
a
solution
that
I
would
like
to
see
adopted.
I
have
something
that
I
want
to
do.
How
do
I
create
a
working
group?
B
How
do
I
create
a
boss
to
go
work
on
that
where
that
starts
out
in
the
IHF
first,
we
need
a
set
of
people
that
are
interested
in
working
on
if
we
don't
have
a
set
of
people
that
are
interested
in
working
on
it,
we're
not
going
to
work
out.
Thank
you,
and
so,
by
the
way,
these
slides
are,
can
be
posted
somewhere
right,
yeah,
so
so
they're
available
too.
So
what
will
usually
happen
is
that
we'll
have
basically
an
informal
meeting
that
happens.
It
often
happens
in
a
bar,
often
with
alcohol.
B
B
Assuming
that
analysis
is
right,
we'll
say:
okay,
so
what
you
really
want
to
do
now
is
have
what
we
call
a
working
group
forming
off
it
birds
of
a
feather
session
at
an
ietf
painting
and
let's
actually
agree
on
the
Charter
formally
in
and
then
chartered
the
working
group
to
go.
Do
that
figure
out
what
timeline
and
and
all
that
kind
of
thing,
and
that
discussion
you'll
find
documented
on
the
ball
tracker,
which
is
one
of
the
tools
at
IHS
org
and
will
form
a
working
group
for
that?
B
Of
course,
if
they
disagree
with
you,
they
think
that
problems
already
solved.
They
think
you
haven't,
got
an
adequate
community
together.
It
might
have
other
guidance
for
you
and
that's
why
we
have
area
director
says
to
figure
that
stuff
out,
but
but
that's
basically
the
process.
Okay,
first,
the
first
thing
is
not
to
have
a
barber.
B
Now,
in
the
internet
draft
some
of
you
might
be
more
familiar
with
itu
or
Upsy
processes.
Many
stos
talk
about
contributions
coming
in
and
quite
often
when
I
look
at
itu
contributions
or
other
night
rly
other
contributions
that
are
submitted
to
an
SEO
up
standards,
development
organizations,
heart.
What
what
the
contribution
says
is.
I
have
an
interesting
problem.
I'd
like
to
work
at
it
know
what
we're
actually
looking
for
is
something
more
fleshed
out
that
somebody
can
read
and
then
respond.
C
B
B
Drafts
that
have
ever
been
filed
since
1992,
which
is
a
lot
of
crowds
I,
have
those
on
my
laptop.
I
sat
down
and
looked
at
them.
How
many
of
those
actually
became
RFC's?
How
many
of
them
went
through
all
different
steps
of
the
process,
and
what
I
found
was
that
half
of
the
internet
drafts
were
posted
were
literally
documents
that
people
just
decided
to
post
didn't
do
anything
further
with
it
all
so
now
think
about.
Once
again,
I
mentioned
the
ISDN
myth.
I
had
eight
inputs.
Okay,
those
18
puts
didn't,
become
eight
outputs.
B
They
became
two
outputs.
Okay,
so
half
of
all
internet
drafts
are
just
documents
and
that's
all
they
ever
do
they
go
up.
We
talk
about
them.
Maybe
we
don't
talk
about
them.
They
go
away.
Seventy-Five
percent
of
internet-drafts
do
not
become
RFC's.
Why
think
about
the
process?
Okay,
so
I
get
two
or
three,
maybe
eight
things
that
come
in
and
one
of
the
first
things
that
happens
after
there's
discussion
week,
OOS
around
some
kind
of
a
proposal
and
that
proposal
becomes
a
working
group.
Docket,
ok
be
at
that
point:
I
change
its
name.
B
So
the
things
that
were
before
that
will
never
be
RFC
is
the
thing
that
became
a
working
group.
Doc
has
a
different
name
and
it
might
become
an
RFC
working
group
might
not
actually
ultimately
publish
that
might
might
say.
Well
we
worked
on
that
awhile
and
then
we
decided
we're
done
we're
going
to
abandon
them.
That
then
happens
so
75%
of
internet-drafts
do
not
become
RFC's.
B
That's,
okay
and-
and
the
reason
is
the
things
that
we
send
to
the
RFC
editor
are
for
archival
purposes.
We
want
to
hang
on
to
them.
We
want
to
keep
them
around
and
now.
Why
would
they?
Why
would
we
want
to
keep
them
around?
Do
you
know
what
the
RFC
repository
is
RFC
repository
is
not
a
collection
of
standards;
it
is
not
a
collection
of
white
papers.
It's
not
a
statement
about
how
things
ought
to
work.
We
have
many
things
in
the
RFC
series
that
we
explicitly
say.
B
Please
don't
do
that
or
we
obviously
leader
dit.
We
were
doing
something
else.
What
the
RFC
series
is
is
community
memory.
It
allows
us
to
remember
the
good
to
bad
and
the
ugly
and
hopefully,
in
the
future,
only
come
up
with
the
gutter.
Okay,
its
community
moment
what
it
really
is.
Ok,
now
what
kinds
of
drafts
that
we
do?
B
We
have
I've
already
use
these
terms,
but
let
me
formalize
that
we
have
individual
submissions
which
are
simply
a
draft
that
somebody
chose
to
write
all
it
is
if
I
look
at
one
kumari,
because
I
didn't
want
it,
he
wanted
to
write
a
draft
and
describe
that
in
his
network
he
drops
all
packets
that
have
been
fragmented,
so
Frank
he.
He
wrote
a
draft
which
is
to
name
his
draft
kumari,
something
about
fragmenting
packets,
but
was
never
submitted
to
a
working
group.
B
It
eventually
got
discussed
in
my
working
group,
but
it's
just
an
individual
submission
came
to
the
IETF
and
he
didn't
target
a
working
group.
Why
do
people
do
that?
Well,
maybe
they
don't
know
what
working
group
it
should
go
to
in
the
first
place.
Maybe
they
just
want
to
talk
about
a
problem,
maybe
they're
thinking
about
building
a
boss
and
building
a
community
around
it.
The
second
set
of
things
is
individual
submissions
to
or
working
group,
so
the
first
one
is
draft
ma.
C
C
B
It's
just
an
individual
submission
if
he'd
said
draft
come
already
be
six
hops,
as
working
group
chair
and
v6
ops.
I
would
now
pick
that
up
and
say
I
have
somebody.
Let's
talk
about
something
and
I'd
actually
sent
an
email
to
the
working
group,
inviting
discussion
of
that
dat
da
key
and,
if
I
find
their
subsequent
discussion.
I
might
put
it
on
it
and
agenda.
It
is
cus
in
an
ietf
meeting
and
and
eventually
I
might
have
a
working
group
document
come
out
of
that.
B
That's
a
case
where
the
working
group
has
said
this
is
a
problem.
We're
interested
in
the
solution
is
perhaps
not
perfect,
but
it's
in
the
general
direction
of
where
I
want
to
go,
and
so
now
let's
go
through
several
steps
of
refining
that
and
coming
up
with
something
that
we
actually
want
to
save
and
as
an
archival
thing
yeah
as
an
RC
and
maybe
we'd
like
to
see
implemented
in
an
Internet
near
us,
okay,
so
an
internet
draft
its
contribution.
It's
intended
to
be
a
substantive
contribution.
B
Not
just
I,
want
to
talk
about
something,
but
here's
really.
What
I
want
to
talk
about
here
are
the
issues:
here's,
what
I'm
trying
to
describe
it's
going
to
go
through
a
process
in
a
working
group,
and
the
internet
draft
itself
will
actually
expire
in
six
months
if
it's
not
updated.
So
if
you
don't
keep
it
going,
working
group
chairs,
like
me,
will
say
it
you're
done
go
away
and
have
you
do
something
else
now
I've
called
an
RFC,
an
archival
document,
and
I'm
repeating
hear
something
I
actually
said
a
little
bit
earlier.
B
It
is
not
necessarily
a
standard,
often
it's
just
a
white
paper
and
what
it
primarily
is.
This
community
memory
it
I
thought
this
is
a
cute
quote:
experiences
that
marvelous
thing
that
allows
you
to
recognize
a
mistake
when
you
make
it
again
and
yes,
we
do
that
we're
human
beings,
and
we
do
that.
We
have
actually
a
number
of
different
categories
of
RFC's,
some
of
them.
We
simply
say:
let's
not
do
that
anymore.
B
They
do
the
RIP
protocol,
as
defined
at
the
time,
could
no
longer
work.
We
basically
made
it
be
a
protocol
you
can't
deploy
and
what
we
said
was
at
the
I'm
fine.
Let's
just
make
that
thing
go
away.
We
think
we
have
better
ideas
anyway,
ospf
sis,
let's
tell
people
to
go
two
votes
and
and
we're
just
going
to
make
rip
go
away,
so
we
declared
rip
to
be
historic.
B
Then,
subsequently,
we
came
up
with
another
rip
version
2
and
actually
made
a
Skandar
doubt
of
that,
because
we
found
that
our
customers
really
wanted
to
use.
Rep,
that's
okay!
You
know
bad
idea,
but
okay,
we'll
make
that
happen
for
it,
and
so
we
wrote
a
protocol
description
for
a
cider
routing
information
protocol.
So
certainly
we
have
historic
documents,
documents
that
we
say
don't
do
that!
Ok,
we
have
experimental
documents
of
you
could
describe
the
entire
internet.
It's
an
experiment
that
escaped
the
lab.
We
have
some
documents
that
are
quite
literally.
B
This
is
an
experiment.
You
don't
want
to
do
this
without
touching
base
with
whoever
the
author
of
this
document
is
because
he
might
be
doing
something
different.
You
might
have
learned
something
Wow
well.
This
has
been
going
on
and
so
you'll
find
actually
quite
a
number
of
documents
that
are
that
are
literally
describing
experiments
and-
and
this
is
explicitly
dangerous
territory-
we're
saying
you
know,
here's
an
idea.
We
want
to
learn
from
it,
but
we
aren't
yet.
At
the
point
of
saying
you
really
think
everybody
ought
to
do
this.
B
Let
me
give
you
an
example:
there
of
ISI
in
about
nineteen
ninety-two
1992
came
up
with
a
transport
protocol,
something
like
TCP,
but
instead
of
enumerated
cats
going
back
and
forth
auroch
tape,
packets,
going
back
and
forth
and
had
a
acknowledgments
for
individual
packets
would
send
blocks
of
packets
and
then
would
get
in
a
single
acknowledgement.
Saying,
okay
I
got
some
packets
number
this
to
that
I
got
these
and
I
didn't
get
those
please
retrains,
but
those
and
maybe
send
me
the
next
block.
We
called
it
where
they
call
it
net
blip.
B
Okay,
so
you'll
find
some
rfcs
there
that
say:
here's
net
blip,
here's
how
it
works.
Brittany,
I
think
the
author
is
actually
Bob
breeding
but
written
by
somebody
at
ISI
and
at
the
end
of
it
he
came
back
and
said:
don't
do
that
bad
idea?
This
doesn't
work
and
he
didn't
write
in
RFC
saying
please
don't
do
that.
But
if
you
go
ask
him
about
it.
Okay,
you
were
doing
an
experiment.
I
think
it's
really
interesting
experiment.
B
Could
we
experiment
with
you
he'll
say
none
of
them
go
away
a
bad
idea
wave
up
okay,
so
we
have
historic
documents.
We
have
experimental
diets.
We
have
a
lot
of
white
papers,
so
I
mentioned
John
Nagle's,
RFC
970
on
packets,
with
packet
switches,
with
infinite
storage,
talking
about
congestion
avoidance
and
developing.
First,
this
whole
concept
of
fair,
queuing
or
class-based
queuing,
and
you
know
those
aren't
standards,
they're,
not
telling
anybody
what
to
do
or
how
to
do
it.
They're
informational
and
we
call
them,
though.
B
B
To
be
perfectly
honest,
the
internet
ones
on
proposed
standards,
there's
most
of
the
documents
that
you
read
better
standards
you'll
find
our
proposed
standards
and
we
have
a
process
that
we
go
through
the
kind
of
clean
that
up
and
say
this
is
actually
works.
Please
do
this
we're
going
through
that
in
the
six
band
working
group
right
now
with
ipv6
RFC
2460
is
at
proposed
standard
and
we're
going
through
and
saying.
We
actually
want
to
call
that
standard,
because
we
haven't
changed
it
in
approximately
forever
and
it
works.
B
We
also
have
processed
options,
hi
Scott
Scott's,
going
to
correct
me
on
this.
By
the
way
we
have
process
documents
where
we
go
through
and
say
we
think
people
should
do
this
and
sometimes
we're
wrong
and
we're
willing
to
say:
let's
not
do
that,
but
usually
we've
thought
this
through
pretty
well.
We
have
pretty
good
notion
of
why
we're
recommending
it
what
one
might
want.
B
So,
for
example,
we
have
a
document
which
is
RFC
28
27.
A
second
name
for
the
same
document
is
bc.
P38
bcp
38
says:
if
you're
a
service
provider
you're
offering
service
to
a
customer
customer
has
some
set
of
ipv4
or
ipv6
prefixes
that
you
know
that
he's
using.
If
you
send
you
packets,
that
don't
have
those
source
addresses,
he's,
probably
attacking
somebody.
Please
make
them
go
away,
just
drop
those
packets,
okay,
I,
and
so
that
we
call
a
dust
print
practice,
sometimes
their
best
proposed
practices,
but
okay.
So
so
now.
B
This
is
not
something
that
we're
going
to
go
through
this
proposed
standard
and
then
later
it
becomes
internet
standard.
It's
just
what
we
think
people
ought
to
do
and
the
fact
that
we
think
people
ought
to
do
it.
We
call
that
a
best
current
practice.
So
what's
an
RF
sink,
is
community
memory.
It's
remembering
our
mistakes.
It's
remembering
the
things
we
did
right
and
providing
them
guidance
to
service
providers
to
people
the
right
code
to
whoever
it
is
that
dedicates.
B
Not
I
told
you
I
was
going
to
talk
about
theory.
Okay,
now,
both
Einstein
and
Yogi
Berra
are
quoted
attributed
to
the
quote.
That
in
theory,
theory
and
practice
are
the
same
thing
in
practice.
They
sometimes
differ
and
okay,
so
practice
in
the
ITF
sometimes
differs
from
theory.
If
I
think
about
the
IETF
process,
it
depends
very
heavily
on
goodwill
on
people
acting
in
a
principled
and
objective
manner
and
and
doing
good
planning
and
being
consistent
and
what
they
do.
B
If
you
look
at
the
job
of
a
working
group
chair,
you
want
that
guy
to
be
prettier
than
that
girl.
At
that
person
to
be
predictable,
you
give
them
a
good
proposal,
they're
going
to
do
something
good
with
it,
whatever
that
is,
but
you're
depending
on
people,
people
have
all
sorts
of
faults
and
those
particular
areas
tend
to
be
the
things
that
characterize
us.
Okay,
that
happens
in
the
IHF
is
well
you're.
B
Dealing
with
people
and
people
are
not
perfect
would
did
it
were
otherwise,
but,
like
other
issues
that
we
deal
with
in
the
IETF,
we
generally
resolve
that
in
discussion,
and
we
will
do
it
by
bringing
up
the
problem
by
talking
about
the
problem,
and
if
the
problem
is
literally
a
person,
we
have
a
recall
process.
We
might
literally
recall
an
area
director
or
somebody
like
that,
or
it
might
be,
that
a
person
who
is
responsible
may
be
an
area
director
takes
care
of
several
working
groups,
yep
working
groups,
it
isn't
functioning
correctly.
B
The
area
director
might
come
set.
I
need
to
change.
This
working
group
chair
working
group
chair
similarly
works
with
internet
draft
authors
and
makes
judgment
calls
about.
What's
going
on
within
internet-drafts.
Generally
speaking,
we
will
have
a
discussion
and
figure
out
what
it
is
we
want
to
do
with
that.
I
actually
have
a
situation
like
that
in
v6.
Ops
right
now
we're
one
day
out
of
discussion
about
it
tomorrow,
and
the
deal
is
that
we
have
a
particular
internet
draft
and
the
authors
really
think
their
draft
is
important.
B
They
want
it
to
become
an
RFC
and
they
want
it
to
result
in
changes
through
a
protocol
ipv6
and
okay.
They
have
a
consensus
around
that
viewpoint.
I
have
another
set
of
people
in
the
same
working
group.
That
think
that
the
problem
is
essentially
operational
that
well,
if
you
wouldn't
configure
your
equipment
that
way,
if
you
figure
it
the
way
we
told
you
to
you
wouldn't
have
that
problem.
Don't
do
that.
B
I
have
another
set
of
people
that
are
looking
at
it
yet
a
third
one,
and
so,
when
I'm
talking
with
the
authors
of
the
document,
their
kind
of
saying
you
know,
Fred
I,
don't
think
you're
operating
according
to
the
working
group
charter.
I
think
you're
not
accomplishing
what
you
should
do
with
my
draft
when
I
put
it
in
the
context
of
these
different
focuses
of
opinion,
then
it
looks
very
different.
B
Ok,
so,
tomorrow,
morning
or
tomorrow
afternoon,
we're
actually
going
to
have
a
discussion
where
I've
got
three
different
viewpoints
in
the
room
and
you
guys
fight.
You
know
you
guys
Duke,
it
out,
tell
me
what's
going
on
and
what
the
right
outcome
should
be.
We
do
have
a
real
problem.
We
know
that
there's
a
problem
question
is
what's
the
right
solution.
So
when
we're
when
we're
dealing
with
issues
along
these
lines,
generally
speaking,
we
will
find
the
outcome
it
gets
fixed
by
talking
about
it
and
just
surfacing
all
the
issues.
Okay,.
B
Now,
if
you
ever
have
that
number
of
RFC's,
with
your
name
on
them,
you're
crazy,
let
me
tell
you
as
someone
who
does
that's
a
lot
of
work:
okay,
typically,
an
ietf
ER
will
have
one
or
two
or
three
that
they're
working
on
or
a
set
of
them
together.
These
are,
actually
you
can
see.
If
you
look
at
the
names
I've
got,
one
in
is:
is
I've
got
one
in
a
broth.
I've
got
one
in
b6
ops,
I've
got
one
in
the
ops
area.
B
Working
group
I've
got
to
6mm
to
an
ATM
one
and
ospf
1
and
2,
I'm
a
busy
boy,
okay
and
seriously.
This
is
not
an
objective.
If
what
you're
doing
leads
you
in
that
direction,
go
for
it.
You
have
my
sympathy,
but
this
is
not
an
objective.
This
is
this
is
what
can
help
in
v6
ox
right
now,
I
have
two
documents
that
are
in
the
process
of
being
worked
on
by
the
RFC
editor,
and
will
I,
if
my
co-author
ever
responds
to
the
RFC
editor,
one
of
them
will
become
RFC
right.
B
Then
two
of
them
are
involved
in
IETF
iesg
discussion.
Four
of
them
are
actually
working.
You,
breast
and
I
have
another
seven
individual
submissions
that
have
come
into
the
working
group
because
somebody
wanted
to
talk
about
whatever.
That
topic
was
what
we've
actually
done
with
those
four
of
these
individual
submissions.
We've
shifted
this
sunset
for
in
different
working
group,
and
the
thing
was
that
we
actually
invited
those
documents,
and
then
there
was
a
discussion
between
two
working
groups
and
sunset.
Four
chairs
came
back
to
be
six
ops
and
said.
B
We
think
that
work
should
go
on
and
are
working,
okay
shifted
to
work
off
to
them.
We
have
one
submission
that
has
no
discussion.
Nobody
said
that
they're
interested
in
it
nobody's
interested
in
I'm
not
going
to
put
it
on
an
agenda.
We
have
two
others
that
are
on
the
agenda
tomorrow
morning
or
tomorrow
afternoon.
B
Okay,
so
looking
at
v6
ops
from
through
the
eyes
of
a
working
group
chair,
we
always
have
kind
of
a
variety
of
things
moving
through
the
working
group,
and
you
know
a
number
of
different
discussions,
so
expect
that
that's
likely
to
happen
in
whatever
working
group
you're
working
in
and
and
understand
that
the
chair,
unless
it
is
really
a
bad
chair,
the
chair
is
trying
to
make
the
right
thing
happen
for
your
draft.
The
right
thing
might
be
to
kill
it.
B
The
right
thing
might
be
to
say
this
draft
isn't
going
anywhere
or
they
might
be
to
say,
I
need
to
merge
this
with
this
other
draft
and
by
the
way,
I
have
comment
on
mailing
list
that
says,
and
you've
got
to
do
some
other
things
as
well
and
I'd
like
to
pull
that
together
into
a
common
draft
that
actually
addresses
more
of
the
problem
or
there
might
be
other
outcomes.
But
this
is
what
you're
working
group
chair
is
generally
dealing
with
and
is
trying
to
make
something
happen.
B
B
Why
am
I
involved
in
the
IETF?
Why
have
I
been
here
for
27
years?
Yes,
I've
been
here
27
years
I'm
here
to
make
a
difference
and
I'll
bet.
Each
of
you
is
here
the
same
way.
I
I
want
to
make
the
internet
be
a
better
place,
want
to
improve
things
for
my
customers.
If
I
can
improve
things
for
my
customers,
I
expect
they
might
buy
my
equipment.
B
Okay,
yes,
there's
a
commercial
fought
in
the
back
of
my
head,
but
I'm
not
here
to
sell
my
equipment
and
here
to
make
things
better
for
my
customers
and
expect
that,
as
a
result,
they
might
buy
my
book
and
who
is
the
ietf
first
and
foremost
or
community,
for
a
set
of
people
and
you'll
find
that
many
of
us
know
each
other's
spouses
are
our
friends
on
Facebook,
hot,
back
and
forth
in
and
that
crosses
company
boundaries.
I
have
number
of
friends
of
work
of
huawei.
B
I
have
a
number
of
friends
of
work
at
juniper.
Our
companies
are
deadly
enemies
or
not.
Okay,
our
engineers,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
you
want
to
have
an
interoperable
network
and
have
customers,
be
able
to
go,
build
solutions
how
to
your
products
they
have
to
be
in
our
opera
bank
engineers
have
to
talk
to
each
other.
That's
just
a
very
important
part.
Okay,
so
yeah
we're
a
community,
and
sometimes
we
can
be
a
little
hard
to
get
along
with
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
that's
just
true,
but
think
about.
B
How
do
you
make
a
difference
in
your
community
at
home?
You
know
in
your
neighborhood.
You
can
make
it
a
better
neighborhood.
You
can
make
it
a
worse
neighborhood
by
how
much
trash
you
leave
in
Pierre
yard,
by
how
how
late
you
stay
up
with
loud
music
on
you
know,
how
do
you
deal
with
your
neighbors
are
frankly
the
things
that
you
do
at
home
to
make
a
difference
in
your
community
are
the
same
things
that
you
wanted
to
hear.
You
want
to
be
constructive.
B
If
you
want
to
make
useful
comments,
you
want
to
make
proposals
that
make
sense
and
it
essentially
work
toward
that
goal.
Making
the
internet
be
a
better
place.
People
talk
about
the
old
boys,
how
much
I
am
probably
the
definitive
old
boy.
If
it's
not
me,
then
Scott
was
in
this
room
an
hour
ago
as
a
definitive
old
boy.
B
What
you
find,
I
think,
is
that
there
is
not
really
an
old
boys
network
in
the
negative
sense
of
that
term,
but
there
are
is
people
who
developed
relationships
and
people
that
we
haven't
developed
relationships
yet
with
okay,
which
might
be
you,
and
how
do
you
go
to
develop
a
relationship
with
somebody?
Well,
you
might
start
out
by
talking
with
it.
You
know
you
might
start
out
by
making
constructive
comments
on
their
documents
or
asking
them
for
thoughts
about
yours.
B
Essentially,
the
people
to
get
listen
to
in
the
IETF
are
people
with
clue.
People
that
are
work
productively
in
the
community
environment
come
up
with
solutions
that
actually
solve
people's
problems,
and
the
community
can
be
very
generous
toward
people
that
it
have
that
kind
of
history
and
can
be
very
tough
on
people
that
don't
okay
and
that's
just
a
fact
and
that's
dealing
with
human
beings
as
much
as
anything
else.
So.
B
Looking
at
the
question
I
file,
my
internet
draft
where's,
my
RFC
number
I,
just
in
the
last
hour,
I
updated
this
light
an
hour
before
this
meeting
went
through
the
internet
draft
directory
encountered
how
many
active
internet-drafts
we
have.
We
have
2140
active
internet-drafts.
You
know
what
I
have
not
read,
believe
it
or
not,
I
have
not
read
them
all.
If
you
want
to
get
a
working
group,
a
working
group
chair
attention
on
your
draft,
an
important
thing:
you
first
is
they
actually
named
it
properly.
B
Ok,
I'm
going
to
look
for
things
to
have
the
word
v6,
ops
right
there
are
why
I'm
v6
ops,
chair,
that's
my
job
and
if
you
name
it
improperly,
if
you
make
it
draft
kumari
I'm
worried
about
fragmentation,
I
might
not
even
realize
it's
there.
Ok
very
honestly,
and
maybe
this
is
a
bad
thing,
but
it's
a
true
thing:
I
may
not
even
look
at
it
because
it
doesn't
say
and
Fred.
This
belongs
into
your
working
group.
Ok,
so
mean
you're,
working
group
draft
or
maybe
draft
for
whatever
it
is.
B
B
And
open
up
and
then
whatever
you
do
with
it,
even
if
it's
just
an
individual
submission
send
an
email
to
the
mailing
list.
For
that
group,
saying
I
have
this
new
draft
and
I'd
be
interested
in
people's
comments
on
guess
what
you
will
probably
get
commons
now
that's
kind
of
how
things
start,
how
things
go
so
without
and
probably
got
30
seconds
left,
but.
A
A
A
D
E
Is
nabil
Bernama
from
Morocco?
Oh,
my
sock
fellow
here
for
ya
GF
y
third,
the
fellowship
in
my
previous
one
I
have
been
monitored
by
Facebook
one
of
the
fathers
of
Internet.
So
my
question
is:
how
can
you
be
the
working
group
chair
and
making
drafts
within
this
world
working
group
is
its,
so
is
it
a
normal.
B
Process
Indian,
how
do
you
write
a
draft
in
your
own
word
negro
and
that's
something
that
you
have
to
be
careful
with
as
a
working
group
chair,
it's
a
question
of
kind
of
what
hat
you're
wearing
so
now
from
nineteen
ninety
six
to
two
thousand
and
one
I
was
the
IETF
chair
and
I
was
also
writing
drafts
in
a
couple
of
three
different
working
groups.
So
now
I
was
actually
in
a
position
of
reviewing
drafts
and
being
able
to
say
working
group
chair.
You
did
the
wrong
thing
and
that
actually
is
very
dicey.
Yeah.
B
B
A
Where
is
it
830
yeah
eighth
floor
and
then,
if
you
have
it,
if
you
have
an
individual
mentor
assigned
and
you
have
not
met
him
yet
him
or
her,
then
please
come
to
the
mentoring
table
or
if
you
would
like
a
mentor
or
if
you
just
want
to
come
and
say
hello,
then
you
know
come
over
and
you
can
meet
your
mentor
there.
Thank
you
all.
So
much
for
your
time.