►
From YouTube: IETF95-XRBLOCK-20160406-1620
Description
XRBLOCK meeting session at IETF95
2016/04/06 1620
C
D
D
D
So
note:
well,
you
everybody
signed
for
it
registration,
this
list
of
pointers,
mainly
if
you
have
any
on
clarity,
please
approach
us
or
Sierra
directors
is
any
kind
of
declaration
of
disclosures
questions
and
rarities
blue
sheets
are
circulating
one
blue
sheet,
probably
enough
for
the
room
we
have
one
note
taker
and
which
is
rolling
and
will
back
up
if
anybody's
on
jabber,
yes,
Jonathan
excellent.
We
have
a
Java
excellent
right,
so
this
is
your
agenda
will
do
a
short
status,
update,
I,
believes
it
for
items
numbers
three
and
four
well
already.
D
D
F
So
Rachel's
going
to
go
over
the
video
LC
draft
right,
that's
the
one
yeah
okay
about
regarding
the
ipi
issues
and
the
two
drafts
that
Varun
is
progressing.
We're
going
to
be
going
over
that
briefly
today,
but
there.
If
you
don't,
have
any
issues
today,
then
we'll
just
move
them
over
to
HT
processing.
So
oh
well,
I'll
write
up
the
proto
right
up
for
the
RTC
web,
RTC,
p,
extra,
metrics
and
then
running
yeah
dan
is
gonna.
Do
the
other
one
so.
F
F
D
D
Okay,
so
I
see
nobody
in
the
room,
will
ask
the
question
on
the
list
as
well
and
will
also
ask
on
the
list
another
time
if
there
are
any
kind
of
IPR
considerations
that
we
should
know
about.
We
learn
to
be
pre-emptive
on
this
and
will
try
to
be,
and
then,
if
the
consensus
is
confirmed
on,
the
list
will
submit
to
the
ASG.
F
So,
regarding
a
waxy
we're
about
to
see
pxr
metric
track,
we
sent
a
liaison
statement
to
w3c
just
informed
of
HTC
that
this
is
happening.
This
is
going
on
and
that
we
were
going
through
last
call.
It
was
merely
to
just
informed,
WC
and
I
think
we
didn't
receive
any
feedback
on
the
list
and
as
far
as
I
know,
there
were
no
issues
raised
under
that
with
EC
side,
either
you
or
not
so.
G
H
A
H
H
Speaking
with
my
quite
personal
contributor
hat
on,
it's
a
bit
confusing
to
me
whether
you
intended
to
set
up
a
mechanism
to
an
eye
on
a
mechanism
for
that
you
expected
to
influent
roll,
the
WTC
document
or
whether
you
it
was
parallel
to
the
WTC
document.
The
letter
could
be
a
little
confusing
okay.
D
Where
would
want
to
address
this
I
I
can
answer,
but
so
might
take,
and
now
I'm
speaking
also
is
a
contributor
because
I'm
a
quarter
of
the
document.
So
basically
the
document
quite
explicitly
refers
to
the
w3c
stats
registry
cause
at
that
point
in
time.
No,
no,
it's
a
work
item.
I
know
and
you
change
the,
but
it
actually
says
it.
So
we
are
looking
at
the
stats,
as
the
WCC
consider
is
important.
D
H
D
B
I
can
I
can
try
to
answer
some
of
that.
I
think
the
original
idea
was
that
the
web
RTC
stats
document
has
as
literals
or
has
metrics
defined
in
it
or
defines
metrics
that
would
be
used
by
the
stats
document.
I
think
the
idea
within
this
working
group
was
or
we
have
the
matrix,
but
we
don't
have
the
metric
names.
So
maybe
we
should
just
register
the
metric
names
and
I
think
that's
how
the
the
premise
of
the
anna
registry,
europe.
H
Damn
it
I'm
kind
of
unsure
if
it
has
an
8-bit
in
any
benefits,
either
we
get
the
same
names
in
the
stats
document
eventually,
and
it
has
no
added
benefit
or
we
get
conflicting
names
in
which
way.
Where
is
we
have
a
problem
so
I'm
not
sure
what,
in
which
case
it
having
the
registry
would
be
a
benefit
over
not
Holly
in
the
registry.
H
I
B
Yeah,
so
I
think
when
we
had
this
discussion
about
two
or
three
I
etfs
ago
and
I,
think
we
added
the
the
registry
much
later
to
the
document.
I
think
the
premise
was
to
create
a
registry
in
and
in
case
the
w3c
ever
needs
to
know
which
metrics
are
defined,
where
they
would
know
where
to
look
it
up.
I
think
that
was
the
general
premise
now
I
think
the
discussion
that
Harold's
bringing
up
is
that,
if
that's
a
good
premise
or
not
so.
F
H
I
think
so
that
would
clearly
make
the
WGC
document
normative
and
not
create
a
parallel
existence.
So
this
document
would
be
then
be
recommendations
from
the
idx
ITF
to
the
step
to
the
author
to
the
WC
and
since
their
authors
are
kind
of
overlapping
I
think
the
recommendations
would
be
likely
to
be
accepted
and.
D
Genre
mechanic,
again
speaking
as
a
contributor
one
of
the
reasons,
I
believe
it
by
the
time
we're
talking.
It
was
not
clear
whether
it
was
the
status
of
for
the
type
of
project
the
breeze
is
taking,
because
at
some
point
it
was
just
a
wiki
page
of
some
kind,
so
I
believe
as
a
decision
to
make
it
a
document
was
taking
kind
of
in
between
the
Z
ITF
decision
and
now
I.
I
I
So
I,
don't
know
what
I'm
not
saying
that
I
have
any
opinion
I'm
just
trying
to
help
people
reason
about
it
a
little
bit
it's,
but
it
does
seem
to
me
like
there's
a
little
bit
more
certainty
in
terms
of
knowing
what
you
would
need
to
do
to
get
a
new
metric
in
there.
If
you
have
an
eye
on
a
registry,
because
the
policy
for
how
you
get
one
is
very
well
defined
and
stable.
H
D
Creates
trouble,
actually
we
can.
There
is
a
way
to
avoid
this.
So
so,
basically,
we
can
write
in
the
instructions,
so
I
believe
this
will
be
a
expert
review
or
the
policy
will
be
expert
review
and
the
specific
instructions
to
the
expert
actually
will
be
to
keep
the
document
in
sync
with
the
metrics
that
are
being
defined
by
a
fabulous
racine.
H
I
That's
that's
quite
an
expanded
role
for
an
expert
than
what
we
normally
have,
because
it's
normally
experts
receive
requests
based
on
documents
that
are
being
processed
or
people
who
want
to
get
things
registered,
and
it
sounds
like
what
you're
talking
about
is
the
expert
just
proactively
pays
attention
all
the
time
to
what's
going
on
the
w3c
spec
and
pulls
things
into
the
registry
which
I
don't
know?
If
that's
that's,
definitely
not
what
experts
normally
do
right.
Experts
are
normally
reactive,
they're,
not
proactive,
and
also,
if
that's
what's
gonna,
be
the
woman.
I
D
Don't
know,
I
am
an
expert
to
a
couple
of
things
like,
for
example,
the
interface
table,
entries,
I,
F
entries
and
what
we
usually
do
is
actually,
of
course,
we're
not
dealing
only
with
one
organization,
but
what
we
were
dealing
with
smart
organization,
but
what
we
really
do
is
actually
we
check
sit.
There
is
a
sound.
The
definition
in
the
other
organizations.
I
D
E
F
F
J
F
E
I
D
E
K
F
F
E
E
F
B
B
B
G
L
F
M
Ok,
so
I'm
going
I'm
going
to
briefly
introduce
a
situation
of
this
draft
and
a
discussion
minimalist
okay,
this
draft
has
got
user,
went
to
the
isg
valuation
are
in
September
last
year,
no
separate,
I
think,
is
november
yeah
and
after
that
I
pr
disclosure
from
our
company
hallway
has
sent
to
the
draft
and
during
the
iesg
evaluation
a
first
row.
I
am
approaching
for
the
trapper
that
my
company
are
made
to
this
draft.
M
M
M
M
My
calmly
have
confirm
that
you
are
is
willing
to
withdraw
the
drop
the
IPR
disclosure
at
toward.
I
think
they
have
already
us
and
withdrawal
request:
itude
I,
tf-idf
action
man
this
at
I
think,
though
I
think
so,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
right
a
process
to
whistle
the
IPR
so
but
but
maybe
I'll
ask
for
80s
I'll
help.
Oh,
is
that
so
that's
please
so.
M
I
D
M
Please
so
this
the
changes
from
the
last
version
just
remove
the
relevant
test
and
her
rubber
arm
I
lines,
not
happy
with
the
situation
that
we
caused
the
to
the
draft
and
he's
not
willing
to
physical
walls
of
the
job
day
in
MO.
So
I
have
to
remove
him
from
the
also
lists
as
he
requested.
Yes,
please,
so
the
nest,
let's
step
arm
we
are
requested
continued
to
progress,
is
draft
after
withdrawing
the
IPR
and
I'll
pay
more
attention
to
the
power
of
future
work.
D
I
N
Stefan
Wanga
I
just
want
to
remark
that
the
ITF
and
the
implementer
community
after
this
withdrawal
is
actually
in
a
worse
situation
than
they
were
before.
It's
not
your
fault,
it's
absolutely
not
your
fault,
because
you
have,
as
you
stated
before,
and
I,
have
to
assume
that's
correct,
no
personal
disclosure
application.
No
one
else
has
what
head
one?
Who
is
here
so
that
I
be
a
declaration
that
wire
has
made
was
voluntary
right.
N
N
They
may
still
have
on
this
draft
under
reasonable
and
non-discriminatory
where's
with
this
with
this
particular
statement
on
file,
they
are
so
keep
that
in
mind
when
you
asked
this
type
of
when
you
ask
this
type
of
clarifications
in
the
future,
not
addressing
you,
Rachel
I,
mere
addressing
the
gang
here
and
I
wish
Alain,
where
he
earned
we're
listening
to
that.
Maybe
he
is.
The
other
thing
is,
as
a
general
remark.
Also,
it's
a
good
idea
to
have
a
printout
of
that
statement
in
your
file.
I
So
I,
don't
think
that's
it's
really
the
case
that
you
are
necessarily
in
a
worse
situation
now
than
you
were
before.
It
depends
on
your
your
own
personal
evaluation
of
the
claim
and
its
applicability
to
this
draft
and
again,
like
nobody
made
anybody
change
their
mind.
Everybody
is
allowed
to
there
in
defending
about
this.
So
just
take
that
in
my
in
as
part
of
that,
your
consideration.
O
Michael
Michael
malo,
cisco
systems,
just
an
observation,
I
noticed
the
email
that
Allen
had
sent
and
I
see
is
no
longer
listed
as
author.
However,
I
presume
that
he
had
significant
input
or
comments.
The
document
might
be
worthy
of
a
mention
in
the
acknowledgments
section
if
he
would
be
if
he
would
welcome
that
and
I
presume
that
the
ideas
she
would
not
block
by
such
an
assertion
of
his
name.
So
just
a
comment.
Suggestion
yeah.
D
D
Sorry,
no,
no,
no
so
we
have
and
we
don't,
if
you
don't
have,
we
can
put
an
acknowledgement
session,
a
section
which
says
thanks
to
the
following
people
who
contributed
to
to
this
and
just
ask
Ellen
if
he
is
okay,
because
the
point
has
been
made
and
I
believes
it's
a
fair
point.
Support
has
been
maintained.
The
meeting
that
he
he
is
a
significant
significant
contributor
to
the
document,
even
if
not
an
order,
but
is
he
comfortable
with
being
thanked
for
the
contribution?
And
he
may
say
no.
You
may
say
yes.
M
D
D
44
ITF
sessions,
ITF
91
and
the
discussion
concluded
to
is
also
where,
at
that
point
in
time
as
optimistic
as
we're
today,
by
next
time,
everything
will
be
progressed
and
that
we
will
not
need
to
have
a
meeting.
Assuming
there
is
new
work,
there
is
no.
There
is
New
York.
We
entertain
each
activity,
there
is
no
new
work.
The
proposal
was
to
keep
the
working
group
in
a
dormant
or
semi
dormant
state,
meaning
we
don't
conclude.
The
working
group
leave,
of
course,
they
may
least
open
for
any
discussions.
D
L
Ronnie,
heaven
I
think
we
probably
will
need
to
look
at
a
whole
work
on
the
old
apt
asking
you
how
to
continue,
because
I
mean
the
reason
we
created
this
work
ago,
because
we
had
all
this
stack
of
of
Exile
blocks
document.
I
think
there
was
to
a
10
or
12
documents.
They
didn't
have
time
to
go
over,
but
maybe
if
we
try
to
do
restructure
or
something
we
can
put
it
in
one
of
a
new
working
group
together
with
other
words,
it
depends
how
we
we
figure
the
work
right.
I
Right
yeah,
so
I
think
when
we
talked
about
this
before
it's
basically
like
it's
sort
of
what
you
get
with
a
working
group.
Is
you
get
chairs,
as
opposed
to
you
know
not
having
one,
and
these
fine
people
seemed
willing
to
be
Anna,
dormant
state
of
working
group,
so
it
just
seemed
like
it
was
not
all.
I
H
I
E
I
J
Yes,
thanks
I
mean
the
other
fault.
You
know
thing
is
that
you
know
XR.
If
X
our
blocks
weren't
it's
on
working
group,
it
would
be
and
thoughtful,
I
think,
fall
into
the
scope
of
a
vtx,
because
it's
an
exception
to
the
apt
to
the
RTP
protocol.
So
I
mean
not
that
I.
You
know,
if
not
nothing.
You
know
I
about
that.
I
particularly
need
to
have
a
zillion
XR
blocks
dropped
on
me,
but
you
know
I,
don't
think
they're
going
to
be
a
zillion
I
shower
blocks
so.
L
One,
even
that
seems
reasonable
to
do
a
dominant
thinking
in
terms
of
just
the
management
of
that
that,
if
you
have
a
document
to
review,
you
want
to
have
some
time
in
the
meeting.
Then
probably
what
we
can
do
is
just
have
it
with
one
of
the
other
apt
workgroups
to
say
in
the
same
timeslot.
Another
night.
If
you
don't
think
like
this,
is
this
meeting,
for
example,
maybe
tico
we
make
we.
We
said
that
we
probably
will
want
just
one
hour
in
the
next
meeting,
because
we
don't
see
any
more
document
currently.
L
P
So
I'll
come
at
first
as
an
individual
been
commonly.
First
is
an
individual
and
then
second
as
the
irresponsible
lady
in
the
room,
the
as
an
individual,
I
kind
of
agree
with
Harold
and
for
a
slightly
different
reason.
It's
been
my
experience
that
dormant
or
working
or
working
groups
that
don't
have
a
lot
of
activity
people
tend
to
forget
about,
and
then,
if
activity
happens,
so
you're
not
paying
attention.
So
it's
actually
often
hard
to
get
your
constituency
to
notice.
P
If
someone
drops
a
a
new
metric,
you
may
find
a
whole
lot
of
crickets
and
then,
as
the
irresponsible
ad
I,
had
a
conversation
with
Magnus
on
a
similar
subject
at
the
end
of
a
BD
core
this
morning,
and
we
see
all
right.
Here's
suggestion
which
I
tend
to
agree
with
is,
let's
just
sit,
maybe
for
a
cycle
and
see
where
things
are
because
right
now,
ABT
core
is
looking
really
quiet
and
accel
x.
P
F
J
Relaying
for
the
remote
by
the
Berlin
says
it
because
it's
a
presenter
apparently
kept
trying
the
comment
n
Q
so
but
anyway,
so
a
first
Colin
says
Tom
Perkins
says
as
long
as
RTP
is
actively
developed
protocol.
We
need
a
home
for
do
X
our
blocks
new
bailout
formats.
We
need
to
keep
XR
blocker
with
the
work
into
the
scope
of
apt
x
and
similarly
with
payload
and
then
Bruins
comments
is,
you
know,
wait
for
our
mcat
request,
report
blocks
or
SVC
or
simulcast
XR
blocks
a
budding
says.
D
So
probably
we
are
any
anyway.
We,
it
will
probably
take
2-3
months
as
Oh,
probably
by
beverlyn
will
Kevin
still
have
the
document
in
eyes.
G
reviews
02
documentales.
They
do
one
over
the
other,
so
I
believes
it.
Three
visiting
his
discussion
by
at
the
end
of
the
year,
makes
sense
or
by
ITF
97,
probably
and
uncles,
and
we
go
dormant.