►
From YouTube: IETF 95 Newcomers
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Possible
from
creating
internet-drafts
and
other
documents
that
are
working
group
products,
we
do
have
a
way
to
adopt
something:
that's
not
a
working
group
process,
not
through
the
working
group
process
and
I'll
mention
that
in
a
bit,
the
working
groups
are
broken
up
into
areas
for
managerial
efficiency,
not
necessarily
crisp
belt
borders
between
the
areas.
There
are
things
in
the
applications
area
which
could
just
assume
going
the
Rio
and
very
advice
versa.
It's
it's
not
a
not
a
crisp
environment.
A
A
Monitoring
the
activities,
the
working
group
monitoring
the
quality
of
the
documents
produced
by
the
working
groups
and
the
like
the
area
director
sitting
together
as
a
body
makeup,
the
iesg
internet,
Engineering
steering
group
and
in
the
IETF
the
iesg,
is
the
body
which
decides
whether
something's
going
to
be
published
as
an
RFC
and
therefore
as
a
standard
or
some
case
information.
But
it's
the
iesg
who
gets
to
decide
this
with
input
from
the
community
and
you'll
see
how
that
works
in
a
minute.
A
There
is
also
a
internet
architecture
board
which
doesn't
have
any
formal
Authority
used
to
once
upon
a
time
that
was
the
body
that
made
the
technology
decisions
and
approved
rfcs,
but
it
was
a
palace
revolt
and
they
were
kicked
out
and
the
isg
was
created
to
take
taken.
West
wasn't
creative,
but
Gaius
tree
was
a
sin
assigned
the
authority
that
the
IAB
once
had
now.
A
The
reason
that
there
was
a
perilous
revolt
was
that
the
IAB
was
seen
as
getting
too
remote
and
doing
their
own
thing
rather
than
involving
the
community
rather
than
involving
the
working
groups
and
involving
the
individuals
in
the
community.
They
were
seen
as
doing
their
own
thing
too
much,
and
so
they
were
slapped
down.
That
hasn't
happened
to
the
isg
yet,
but
it
might
we'll
see
is
they
are
ATF
areas
at
applications
and
I
would
be
there
with
a
number
of
working
groups
in
each
one.
A
A
A
There
require
they're
required
to
manage
the
process
itself,
to
be
sure
that
working
groups
are
making
progress
and
if
working
group
isn't
making
progress,
because
maybe
it's
talking
too
much,
or
maybe
the
people
at
the
volunteers
in
charge,
I
involved
in
it,
aren't
doing
their
thing
quite
as
much
as
they
might.
The
area
directress
is
supposed
to
figure
out
what
to
do
about
that.
Maybe
change,
chairs
and
working
groups,
maybe
change
the
document.
A
Experts
in
transport
and
they're
expected
to
review
the
documents
to
come
out
of
the
working
groups
in
their
areas
for
their
technical
competence
before
they're
hit
hand
it
off
to
the
rest
of
the
isg.
So,
unlike
many
standards
bodies
where
the
working
group
does
its
thing
and
produces
a
document
and
then
from
then
on
it's
process
and
the
IETF,
the
working
group
produces
a
document.
A
It
gets
reviewed
by
the
area
director
for
technical,
capable
functions
and
then
it's
it's
handed
to
the
isg,
which
also
does
a
review
technical
review
across
Area
Technical
Review,
so
security
people
review
the
stuff
that
comes
out
of
the
operations
area
and
the
transport
people
review
things
that
come
out
of
the
security
area.
To
be
sure
that
we
have
a
full
range
of
opinions
and
full
range
of
technical
review
on
these
proposals.
A
So
one
of
the
disadvantages
of
the
traditional
method
where
the
working
group
does
all
of
the
work
is
the
working
group
is
not
a
by
definition.
On
a
broad
thing.
Working
group
is
a
peep
group
of
people
who
are
interested
in
a
particular
topic,
rather
than
a
broad
span
of
all
of
the
topics
that
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
technology
is
manageable
and
secure
and
all
of
those
things,
so
they
air.
The
second
level
review
that
we
have
in
the
area.
Directors
in
the
isg.
A
A
They
do
create
they're
they're,
the
people
there,
the
group
that's
responsible
and
for
the
for
creating
working
groups
and
for
tearing
down
working
groups
when
their
job
is
done.
So
the
work
in
the
ITF
is
in
working
groups.
That's
it's
not
anywhere,
it's
an
ordinance
in
it's
in
the
corridors
actually
in
the
bar
at
night.
It's
that
sort
of
thing,
you'll
hear
about
a
barb
off
from
time
to
time
and
that's
people
getting
together
to
work
on
some
problem.
A
The
formal
work,
though,
is
done
in
working
groups,
and
the
working
group
activity
is
to
create
documents
which
are
then
reviewed
by
the
community
and
and
adopted
by
the
iesg.
The
first
stage
of
any
documents
as
the
internet
draft
internet
draft
is
the
musings
of
an
individual
and
we'll
get
to
that
in
a
few
minutes.
A
That
is
then
worked
on
within
a
working
group
and
different
generation.
So
the
internet
draft
are
done
to
reflect
the
working
group
consensus
as
it
goes
along
once
that
is
once
the
working
group
believes
that
this
is
ready
for
publication.
Then
it's
handed
off
to
the
Erica,
the
area
director
for
the
area
directors
review.
If
the
area
director
believes
it's
ready,
if
the
very
good
director
doesn't
believe
it's
right,
he
sends
it
back.
They
he
or
she
sends
it
back
to
the
working
group
for
more
work.
Very
director
believes
it's
writing.
A
It
then
goes
off
to
the
iesg,
and
the
first
thing
the
isg
does
is
to
issue
a
ie.
Tf
last
call
a
message
sent
out
to
the
entire
I
ATF
community
saying
this
document
has
been
submitted
to
the
isg
for
adoption.
What
do
you
think,
and
it
goes
to
the
whole
community
and
that
the
people
outside
the
working
group
specifically
wants
to
bring
in
the
people
who
are
not
part
of
that
working
group
who
have
different
expertise
and
can
look
at
this
with
a
different
set
of
eyes?
A
A
The
IETF
is
not
a
traditional
standard
development
organization,
it's
certainly
a
informal
as
you
can,
as
all
of
you
got
the
message,
as
only
I
only
see
one
tie
and
that's
right
over
there.
This
ties,
ladies
wearing
a
tie,
and
that's
okay.
That's
okay!
There's
nothing
against
that.
We
do
have
three
people
who
regularly
come
to
these
meetings
that
wear
ties,
but
it's
not
a
it's,
not
the
kind
of
formal
thing
and
I've
been
at
other
standards
bodies
where
anybody
in
the
room
has
to
address
the
chair.
Mr.
A
A
They
are
at,
let's
say,
they're,
overly
direct,
and
you
may
find
that's
difficult
and
we
find
it's
difficult.
It
doesn't
make
newcomers
as
welcome
as
it
should
and
we
should.
We
would
like
to
do
something
about
that.
We've
tried
in
the
past
to
try
and
tell
people
to
be
nicer
to
other
people,
and
it
works
some
some
of
the
amount,
if
you
run
into
trouble.
If
somebody
is
not
treating
you
well,
then
let
us
know
let
somebody
with
a
dot
know
that's
going
on,
because
we
don't
want
that.
A
We
want
you
to
feel
welcome,
because
we
want
your
input.
We
want
your
help
we
want
to.
We
want
to
exploit
you,
we
want,
we
want
your
technical
abilities,
so
some
of
these
people
are
can
be
quite
blunt.
Some
of
them,
with
with
with
real
cause
I,
mean
that
they're
there
they're
blunt
because
they
see
silliness
and
they
want
to
correct
it.
But
that's
not
the
right
way
to
do
it
and
it's
an
unfortunate
feature.
A
We
have
our
own
culture.
We've
been
around
for
a
long
time,
so
I've
got
our
ways
to
do
things
and
they're,
not
kind
of
the
the
ways
aren't
going
to
change,
because
you're
here
you've
got
to
adopt
if
you're
going
to.
If
you're
going
to
succeed
in
this
organization,
you
have
to
adopt
some
of
our
culture,
whether
that's
you're,
going
to
find
that
Pleasant
or
not.
That's
really
not
the
issue
its.
It's
just
part
of
the
way
things
get
done.
A
If
you
go
to
any
standards
organization
go
to
the
ITU
or
at
Etsy
or
I,
so
you
have
to
adopt
to
their
culture.
So
it's
nothing
special
about
the
fact
you
have
to
adopt
here,
but
it
is
worse
than
some
areas,
because
we're
not
quite
as
formal
and
that
in
formality
means
that
people
can
get
insulted
when
they
shouldn't
be
either
either
end.
They
shouldn't
be
the
person
who
doing
the
insulting
shouldn't
be
insulting
in
the
person
who
was
receiving
it
shouldn't
be
insulted,
but
we
do
try
and
do
the
best
we
can.
A
A
An
individual
publishes,
an
internet
draft
you've
got
this
great
idea
for
a
marvelous
pinochle
playing
protocol,
and
so
you
read
an
internet
draft
about
that
and
you
publish
that
internet
draft
and
you
get
rally
people
around
who
like
pinochle,
and
they
want
to
talk
about
it
once
you
get
enough
people
that
you
think
that
are
interested
in
this,
you
go
to
an
area
director
and
say:
I
got
this
great
protocol,
I
think
it
should
be
a
standard,
and
sometimes
the
area
director
will
say
great.
It's
perfect
stuff,
that's
exactly
what
we
need
to
be
doing.
A
We've
got
the
right
number
of
people
and
the
right
enthusiasm
and
that
the
internet
drafts
a
great
one.
So
let's
just
create
a
working
group,
but
more
often
the
area
director
will
say
well,
let's
find
out
whether
this
interest
in
the
community
and
the
way
they
do,
that
is
to
create
a
birds
of
a
feather
session.
That's
an
ad-hoc
session,
usually
held
only
once
per
topic
and
that's
a
way
for
the
area
director
to
gauge
the
level
of
interest.
Now,
birds
of
a
feather
sessions
can
also
be
for
other
purposes.
A
They
could
be
just
general
information
when
I
was
area
director.
We
had
a
birds
of
a
feather
session
on
what
big
companies
would
do
for
internet
if
they
could
control
it,
technology-wise,
not
not,
process
wise
or
our
social,
wise
man.
We
writing
people
from
fedex
and
the
big
banks
and
big
I'll
become
lots
of
big
companies
and
they
all
said
actually
almost
universally.
They
said
they
wanted
predictability,
quality
and
service
predictability.
A
That
they're
well
enough
directed
it's
not
pure
research.
If
it's
pure
research,
we
kick
it
over
the
corner
to
the
I
RTF
IETF
is
trying
to
make
technologies
that
people
can
run
and
will
use
well.
So
we
part
of
all
that
sort
of
stuff
is
done
in
the
birds
of
a
feather
session.
I
do
remember
one
case
where
I
had
a
birds
of
a
feather
said:
big
popular
topic.
A
It
was
300
or
so
people
in
the
room,
which
is
a
pretty
good-sized
turnout
for
that
sort
of
thing,
and
at
the
end
I
got
up
as
area
director
said:
okay.
Well,
how
many
people
think
that
this
is
ready
to
be
a
I
ATF
working
group
and
about
half
the
people
stuck
up
their
hands
and
you'll?
See
that's
actually
a
pretty
big
number,
because
most
of
the
time
people
just
sit
there
in
the
Guru
and
I,
don't
say
anything
and
they
don't
stick
up
their
hand.
They
don't
express
an
opinion.
A
They
just
sort
of
sit
there.
A
lot
of
observers
in
this
community,
so
I
said:
okay,
that's
that's
cool!
How
many
people
don't
think
it
should
be,
and
the
other
has
stuck
up
their
hand,
so
we
had
about
everybody
expressed
an
opinion
and
they
were
dimension,
diametrically
opposed
so
I
concluded
from
that
it
wasn't
ready
to
be
a
working
group
and
it
was.
It
became
a
working
group
a
number
of
years
later,
but
that
was
the
kind
of
thing
that
I
figured
out
as
an
area
director
using
a
birds
of
a
feather
session.
A
So
working
groups
are
where
the
works
done
sometimes
preceded
by
a
Boff,
but
basically
this
is
where
the
work
is
done.
Note
that
a
working
group-
you
don't
have
to
come
to
an
ietf
me
where
he
said
this.
You
don't
have
to
come
to
an
IA
to
have
meeting
to
be
part
of
working.
In
fact,
you
will
see
the
sessions
that
you
go
to
this
week
are
not
really
a
place
where
you
do
a
lot
of
work.
A
Yeah
the
IETF
meeting
we
have
this
meeting
they'll
be
I,
have
a
list
of
how
many
sessions
there
are
there's
not
enough
time
in
the
week
to
actually
do
to
do
the
actual
work.
Some
standards
bodies
meet
for
two
weeks
and
they
sit
there
and
they
edit
the
document
for
two
weeks
in
a
particular
working
group.
But
it's
not
the
way
we
work
here.
They've
got
a
session
that
might
be
an
hour
and
a
half
or
two
hours,
and
some
of
them
are
two
and
a
half
hours.
A
A
What
is
what's
a
problem,
try
and
resolve
problems
where
the
face-to-face
communication
is
helpful
to
do
that,
but
you
don't
write
the
actual
internet-drafts
or
the
rfcs
in
a
working
group
meeting
itself,
because
it's
not
enough
time
to
do
that,
so
the
meetings
themselves
are
very
short,
as
I
already
mentioned.
It's
mostly
bottoms
up.
It's
you
guys
coming
up
with
an
idea
and
then
bring
them
bringing
that
forth
rather
than
the
area
director
or
the
IAB
imposing
an
ID,
an
area
that
idea
a
topic.
A
Working
groups
have
charters
a
charter,
is
a
contract
having
a
contract
with
volunteer.
Labor
is
somewhat
pointless,
but
that's
the
idea.
So
the
contract
says
here's
what
you're
going
to
work
on
here's,
what
you're
not
going
to
work
on.
If
you
bring
an
idea
to
a
working
group
and
it's
not
in
their
charter,
they're
not
permitted
to
working
on
it,
they
can
go
back
to
the
area
director
in
the
ISU
saying.
Let's
change
the
Charter
to
include
this,
but
you'll
frequently
hear
the
message
from
the
working
group
chairs:
it's
not
in
the
Charter.
A
A
We've
got
some
working
groups
that
have
been
very
long-lived
because
they
keep
getting
new
topics
to
do,
but,
unlike
many
standards
bodies
where,
if
you
get
your
work
done
in
a
working
group,
you're
given
more
work
by
definition
because
you've
been
successful,
the
ITF
most
of
the
time,
the
working
groups
are
closed
when
their
jobs
done,
which
can
be
quite
a
shock
to
somebody
coming
from
one
of
those
other
organizations,
because
suddenly
the
working
group
goes
away
and
they
feel
insulted.
But
that's
not
the
case.
A
Here's
that
a
pictorial
diagram
of
how
working
groups
are
created,
the
may
have
AB
off.
You
have
come
up
with
a
working
group,
Charter
and
description.
That
goes
the
area
director,
the
area
director
police's
that
and
figures
out,
whether
is
that
something
they
want
to
do
maybe
hold
up
off
to
figure
out
how
much
interest
there
is.
Then
it
goes
the
isg
which
then
sends
a
message
out
to
the
community
and
by
the
way,
this
thing
on
the
lower
left
hand
corner
here,
new
work.
A
One
of
the
criticisms
we
got
a
number
of
years
ago
was:
we
were
off
to
win
our
own
things,
which
can
sometimes
was
completely
in
parallel
and
contradictory
to
work
being
done
under
standards
organizations.
So
what
we
did
was
we
added
and
created
this
new
work
list
where
participants
are
more
managed,
more
likely
management
and
other
standards.
Organizations
can
subscribe
to
this
mailing
list
and
they
will
get
notice
whenever
we're
thinking
of
creating
a
working
group
so
that
they
can
say
oops
we're
already
working
in
this
area.
A
Please
work
with
us
or
still
do
that,
because
we're
working
in
it
we're
this
far
along
in
it.
It's
a
way
to
get
feedback
from
the
other
Santa's
organizations
and
keep
them
in
keep
them
up
to
one.
What
we're
doing,
and
they
in
turn
do
the
same
thing
for
the
for
that.
For
us
they
they
send
us
notes
through
the
new
work
list
and
therefore
to
all
the
other
Santa's
organizations
on
the
new
work
list
to
let
us
to
let
us
know
what
they're
doing
so.
A
A
A
So
if
you're
going
to
a
working
group
which
I
hope
you
that's,
why
you're
here
is
to
go
to
working
groups,
you
go
to
a
working
group
and
there's
a
bunch
of
discussion
about
particular
topics.
If
you
know
something
about
that,
and
you
have
read
the
documents
set,
stand
up
at
the
microphone
and
talk,
tell
them
what
you
think,
but
conditionally
you
do
it
when
you
know
what
you're
talking
about
there's
an
old
saying
of
don't
open
your
mouth,
improve
your
a
fool:
they
let
people
just
guess.
So
you
want
to
be
careful
about
that.
A
But
if
you
do
know
what
you're
talking
about
then
definitely
do
stand
up
and
talk.
These
sessions
are
live
stream
well
and
they're
recorded
for
future,
their
audio
stream
and
and
video
street.
Because
cameras
right
here
there's
a
couple.
Different
cameras
around
there
live
streamed
all
over
the
world.
So
when
you
go
to
the
microphone,
you
are
talking
to
the
world
through
that
microphone.
So,
like
the
microphone,
don't
do
it
down
here.
Don't
dare
talk
to
the
microphone
pretend
to
like
the
microphone
look
directly
at
the
microphone.
A
If
the
person
over
here
asked
you
the
question,
don't
look
at
them.
Look
at
the
microphone
because
the
people
out
there,
an
audio
land,
can't
hear
you
unless
you're
talking
into
the
microphone
and
second,
because
it's
also
audio
stream,
not
just
video
streamed
and
because
there's
somebody
taking
notes
all
we
say
who
you
are
you
walk
to
the
microphone.
A
You
say
you
know
it's
so
and
so:
Fred
Smith,
Scott,
Bratton
or
whatever
you
don't
say
who
you're
from
because
that's
irrelevant,
but
you
say
is
my
name
and
then
I
go
off
and
have
the
opinion
whatever
I
want
to
say.
You
need
to
say
that
every
time,
even
though
you
were
there
three
seconds
before,
because
the
person
taking
the
notes
may
not
is
not
looking
at
you
and
the
people
on
audio
won't
necessarily
recognize
your
voice.
A
So
every
time
you
go
to
the
microphone
say
who
you
are,
you
will
see
blue
sheets,
you
don't
have
them
in
this
this
session,
but
you'll
see
what
are
called
blue
sheets
in
all
sessions
and
all
other
regular
sessions,
and
they
are
a
listing
of
who's
attending
this
meeting.
This
is
important
for
openness.
Whenever
you're
doing
technical
technology
standards,
you
want
to
know
who
was
involved
in
the
creation
of
the
standards.
That's
it's
a
fact
for
all
types
of
standards,
organizations
and
the
way
we
do
it
is
we,
you
sign
the
blue
sheet.
A
Now
we
don't
have
any
police
talent
and
watching
you
to
be
sure
that
you
do
do
sign
it,
but
please
sign
the
blue
sheet
used
to
be
that
we
had
you
sign
it
with
your
name
and
your
email
address,
drop
the
email
address,
because
that
we
couldn't
just
publish
the
blue
sheets
with
email
address
on
it,
because
people
use
it
with
spam
spam
bait.
So
we
now
change
it.
A
We
want
to
know
who's
who's
discussing
these
things
this
week,
133
sessions
of
which
119
are
unique,
meaning
that
some
some
sessions
are
some
working
groups
have
more
than
one
session
of
that
there
are
11
boss
and
11
are
known
to
seven
boss
and
11
I
re
RTF
sessions
will
talk
about
that
in
a
second
there's,
a
ministration
and
technical
prime
plenary,
which
is
not
going
to
have
anything
technical
in
it.
This
time,
I'm
not
quite
sure
why?
But
there
isn't
going
to
be
anything
technical
in
the
administrative
and
technical
plenary.
A
What
I
urge
you
to
go
anyway,
because
it's
a
place
where
the
community
can
talk
back
to
the
management
folks
as
an
open
mic
for
the
isg
to
talk
back
to
the
isg
and
open
mic
for
the
IAB
and
the
iowa
see
all
different
community
groups
that
are
sort
of
managing
one
way
or
another.
The
IETF
there's
a
bits
and
bytes
session
on
Thursday
Thursday
evening,
and
this
is
technology.
It's
companies
purchasing
tables
which
to
show
off
their
wares
and
to
make
the
watching
the
technology
easier,
there's,
booze
and
cookies
or
nibbles
of
various
types.
A
There's
babel
routing
protocol,
low-power,
wide
area
networks,
alternative
resolution,
context
for
internet
naming,
limited
use,
remote
keys,
etc.
If
you're
interested
in
any
of
those
topics,
there
will
be
at
the
at
the
session.
The
the
meeting
session
this
afternoon,
the
reception
this
afternoon,
the
posters
for
each
of
these
boss.
A
A
So
at
the
beginning,
I
had
that
quote
from
Dave
Clark
rough
consensus
and
running
code.
Well,
the
IETF
decided
to
do
this
to
use
this
concept
of
rough
consensus
it
as
opposed
to
consensus,
which
is
in
many
standards
bodies.
Consensus
as
Margaret
Thatcher
once
as
famously
to
have
said,
consensus
is
where
everybody
is
equally
dissatisfied.
Well,
that's
not
the
way
we
do
it.
A
We
use
rough
consensus,
which
means
some
people
are
very
dissatisfied,
but
the
rest
are
satisfied
and
that
far
we're
saying
there
is
not
everybody
has
to
agree
if
you've
got
a
bee
in
your
bonnet
and
you
want
this
particular
result
and
nobody
else
cares,
and
nobody
else
really
supports
you.
We're
going
to
move
on,
you
might
be
upset
or
going
to
move
on.
We
don't
have
to
have
everybody
in
agreement.
A
That's
a
relatively
easy
thing
to
do
in
a
room
in
a
meeting
room.
It's
hard
to
do
in
a
mailing
list
understand
what
level
of
consensus
there
is
because
they're
mailing
lists,
one
guy
who
types
very
well,
and
it
was
that
a
lot
of
extra
time
can
dominate
the
condition.
But
in
a
room
like
this,
how
do
we
figure
out
what
the
consensus
is?
A
Well,
we
do
we
do
a
couple
different
ways.
One
way
we
get
derided
for,
but
let's
try
wit
so
show
the
show
hands
how
many
people
took
more
than
four
hours
to
get
to
this
meeting
and
how
many
people
took
less
than
four
hours
to
get
to
this
game.
Some
people
don't
know
how
long
it
took
so.
The
key
rough
consensus
is:
it
takes
an
ietf
meetings
more
than
four
hours
away.
No
no
I
didn't
count.
I,
just
looked
at
the
general
main
Lucy,
how
many
people
were
saying
one
way
or
the
other?
A
If
you
see
somebody
counting
in
a
meeting
of
showing
of
hands,
then
that's
a
mistake,
because
that's
not
what
you're
trying
to
find
out
you're
trying
to
find
out
whether
the
part
dominant
view
is
one
thing
or
another.
Now
what
happens?
Let's
say
that
you
work
for
Mike.
Your
opinion
is
different
than
Mike's.
If
you
put
up
your
hand
when
I
say,
should
we
do
this
and
Mike
thinks
you
shouldn't
do
that?
That's
not
me
a
good
day
back
at
the
farm.
So
what
do
you
do?
A
A
A
So
I
ATF
documents,
all
I
ATF
documents
are
open,
they're
open
for
anybody,
as
we
can
download
them.
You
can
print
them
out,
you
can.
You
can
sell
them
and
we've
had
history
where
companies
have
downloaded
rfcs
packaged
up
up
under
books
and
sell
them
and
that's
fine.
We
don't
care,
that's
great,
but
gets
the
stuff
out
there.
It
used
to
be
that
you
couldn't.
If
you
are
at
a
library,
you
wanted
a
pretty
book.
We
didn't
do
printed
books,
so
the
fact
that
some
companies
did
that
was
great,
there's
no
in
division
at
all.
A
A
A
I've
mentioned
internet-drafts
a
bunch
of
times
internet-drafts
instead
of
the
first
stage.
An
internet
draft
is
some
individuals,
ideas
or
could
be
a
working
groups
ideas,
but
it's
there's
no
admissions
control
on
internet
dress.
Anybody
can
publish
it
in
a
draft
on
any
topic,
and
if
you
look
at
the
internet
drafts
director,
you
can
see
there's
no
admissions
control,
there's
some
very
strange
internet-drafts
out
there
and
we
have
somebody
solving
Fermat's,
theorem,
we've
had
other
things.
We've
got
three
bits
with
three
values:
things
like
that
that
shows
up
in
internet-drafts
and
they
weren't
april
fools.
A
They
are
as
soon
as
they
were.
They
were
serious,
so
anybody
can
do
that
most
internet-drafts
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
activities
of
the
IETF
in
the
sense
that
there's
no
approval
by
the
IETF.
For
that,
no,
no,
a
statement
that
we're
supporting
something
that
an
interac
stress
internet-draft
says
this
is
something
also
that
news
in
the
news
people
seem
to
have
a
hard
time
with
that
they
don't
get
the
fact
that
you
put
in
this
internet-draft
and
nobody
cares,
but
they
see
it
as
the
IETF
is
about
to
adopt
this
proposal.
A
Well,
that's
not
the
way
it
works,
but
be
that
as
it
may
and
then
we've
got
our
FCS
RC
is
used
to
stand
for
a
request
for
comment.
They
don't
anymore.
They
stay
in
for
RC
because
by
the
time
it
gets
to
be
an
RFC
is
too
late
to
comment
on
it.
It's
the
internet
draft.
You
comment
on
so
RFC's
now
are
sort
of
a
brand
name.
It's
just
this
is
our
archival
publication.
Once
an
RFC
gets
published
of
our
RFC
1234
is
published,
it
never
changes.
A
A
The
unlike
the
language
of
the
IETF
is
English
for
a
good
or
bad.
It's
English
and
it's
a
restricted
set
of
English
when
you
move
obligations
or
it
has
been
we're
in
the
middle
of
changing
a
little
bit.
The
way
publications
are
done
up
until
now,
they've
been
asking
English,
so
there's
always
had
to
be
printable
ASCII
characters.
A
A
We
can
support
going
all
the
way
back
and
that's
a
big
advantage,
but
it
does
mean
that
we've
got
derision,
because
you
can't
really
draw
pictures
and
things
like
that,
because
it's
pure
text,
you
will
see
that
there
are
pictures
in
rfcs,
it's
called
ascii
art,
it's
all
using
exclamation
points
and
diagonals
diagonal
lines
and
up
arrows
and
nicol
bars
to
draw
pictures.
It
is
a
remarkably
laborious
thing
to
do
and
it
helps
to
have
really
good
drugs.
It's
just
really
hard
stuff,
but
there's
a
bunch
of
it
out
there.
A
But
now
this
revision
is
allowing
more
more
pictures,
it's
allowing
postscript
its
PDF
and
it's
allowing
other
kinds
of
formats,
but
the
canonical
form
the
form
which
is
the
definitive
one
will
still
be
asking
that's
being
done
right
at
this
moment.
It's
it's
it's
changing
over
the
next
few
weeks,
so
it
internet-drafts
random
thoughts.
Things
like
that
publish
an
internet
draft
and
you
don't
do
anything
about
it.
You
just
publish
it:
it'll,
be
removed
from
the
main
internet
draft
directory
with
after
six
months,
they're
not
meant
to
be
permanent
documents.
A
Now
it's
moved
into
another
another
duck
another
directory.
Where
it
can
be
found,
Google
finds
it
things
like
that,
and
it's
in
it's
in
an
archive
which
we
can
use,
but
it's
not
seen
as
primary
anymore.
So
internet-drafts
are
moved
to
this
backup
directory
whenever
they
time
out
or
when
they're
replaced,
and
they
can
be
replaced
by
an
updated
version.
For
example,
all
rfcs
other
than
a
few
specific
exceptions
must
pre
exist
as
internet-drafts.
The
reason
for
that
is
that
the
beginning
of
the
internet
draft.
A
Yet
if
you
are
submitting
internet-draft,
you
are
agreeing
to
buy
abide
by
the
iaf's
rules.
Now
intellectual
property
rights
rules
and
process
rules.
It
says
right
at
the
top
of
the
boil
play
at
the
top
of
the
internet
draft
so
that
by
doing
so,
by
submitting
that
you
were
agreeing
to
participation
rules,
so
you've
got
to
do
that
in
order
to
get
to
be
an
RFC,
because
we
want
to
be
sure
that
you
have
read
participation
rules
before
it
comes
on
RC.
A
There
are
some
very
specific
exemptions,
but
internet-drafts
have
file
names
and
those
file
names
are
useful
in
figuring
out
what
the
credit
part
of
the
pedigree
of
the
internet
draft
is.
If
you,
if
I,
write
a
draft
myself,
it's
not
part
of
a
working
group,
the
draft
name
starts
with
draft
radnor
because
that's
indicating
the
last
name
of
the
primary
author-
it
no
no
relationship
to
any
working
group.
It's
just
I'm
publishing
my
own.
A
If
indeed
it
is
the
work
of
a
working
group,
then
the
name
is
draft
dash,
IETF
dash
working
group
name,
that's
the
the
lead
into
it
so
and
then
stuff
after.
That
is
the
subject
and
version
number
and
things
like
that.
Some
examples
of
that
our
draft
IETF
IDR
dash
BGP
for
dash
26
text.
This
was
the
twenty
sixth
iteration
of
trying
to
get
the
BGP
standard
right.
A
It
was
hard
to
do
because
the
BGP
kept
changing,
because
the
offenders
when
they
were
working
on
this
routing
protocol
found
a
bug
or
found
some
new
condition
they
hadn't
seen
before
and
they
changed
it.
So
I
had
to
go
back
and
change
it
in
the
specification.
So
this
took
many
many
many
years
and
many
revisions-
draft
adner,
Brandner,
RC,
3979,
biss
stashed,
06.
It's
now
up
to
08.
A
This
is
a
proposed
revision
of
the
IETF
intellectual
property
rights
patent
trolls,
which
will
be
it's
in
last,
call
right
now,
it's
being
evaluated
by
the
community
right
now
and
then
draft
IAB,
RFC
format,
requirements
dash
zero.
Three
was
the
third
generation
of
the
IEDs
who
manages
the
RFC
editor
in
the
RFC
series,
their
effort
to
come
up
with
this
new,
replacing
plain
text
RC
formats.
So
you
can
immediately
look
at
an
internet
draft
and
see
what
it's
what
generation
is.
Why
is
this
related
to
particular
working
group?
A
Is
this
a
working
group
document
or
an
individual
document?
Rfc
is
a
little
harder
because
it's
just
a
number
sequence:
they
could
be
individuals
publishing
RFC's,
they
could
be
working
group
publishing
rfcs.
Maybe
RFC
has
published
a
very
long
time
ago.
Long
before
the
IETF
existed,
our
seas
were
being
published.
The
first
IRC
was
host
software
by
Steve
Crocker
in
1969
Steve
Crocker,
who
is
now
the
chair
of
the
ICANN
board.
A
The
over
7,000
IRC
is
not
sure
exactly
how
many,
because
many
of
the
numbers
were
never
used,
even
though
we
can.
We
know
what
the
top
number
is.
We
don't
know
which,
which
ones
weren't
used
in
between
not
all
our
Caesar
standards.
Some
RFC
is
informational.
Some
our
individuals,
ideas.
Some
are
our
CSR
publications
of
a
company's
internal
specification
for
something
just
for
the
for
the
community's
purpose.
A
You
can
only
tell
by
looking
at
the
index,
to
see
what
the
story
is.
So
here's
the
kind
of
things
we've
got.
Four
rfcs
we've
got
sanders
track,
RFC's,
regular
things
that
you
normally
think
of
as
RFC's.
It's
a
standard
track.
These
are
the
routing
protocols
or
sip
the
internet
telephony
protocol
and
things
like
that.
A
There's
obsolete
standards,
things
which
are
no
longer
which
we're
good
at
standards
at
the
time,
but
they've
been
overtaken
by
events
like
our
rip
version,
one
was
overtaken
by
the
fact
that
we
no
longer
assign
addresses
in
Class
A,
B
and
C.
It's
a
much
more
mixed
bag
requirements.
So
this
is
a
list
of
we're
going
to
do
a
protocol
here
of
the
requirements
to
do
that
protocol
or
here
the
requirements
how
to
set
up
a
device.
The
host
requirements
were
that
policies.
A
This
was
documents
which
describe
the
process
for
doing
something
or
the
fact
we're
doing
this,
and
what,
which
is
why
poetry?
This
is
Vince
surfs
attempt
at
poetry
the
night
before
start
up
some
white
papers
on
just
we
did
a
white
paper
on
what
what
input
should
be
given
from
the
community
to
the
IP
next
generation
effort
that
produce
ipv6.
It
was
a
white
paper
calling
for
white
papers,
corporate
documentation.
I
mentioned
that
that's
a
case
where
a
corporation
publishes
this
in
order
to
document
something
for
the
community.
A
Another
example
of
this
is
that
the
ITF,
a
few
years
ago
after
a
great
gnashing
of
teeth
and
work,
decided
that
we're
not
going
to
include
wiretapping
requirements
in
our
protocols
and
our
standards
track
protocols.
We're
not
going
to
do
that
be,
and
there
were
number
of
reasons
and
they're
all
documented
in
an
RFC
and
reasons
such
as
there
wasn't
a
consistency
across
the
cross,
the
world
as
to
what
they
requirements
are
putting
in
a
backdoor
is,
by
definition,
making
something
less
secure
and
you're
supposed
to
be
using
end
and
encryption.
A
Any
way
in
which
case
wiretapping
doesn't
help
you.
So
we
put
in
a
bunch
of
things
like
that,
but
at
the
same
time
we
decided
we're
not
going
to
put
their
requirements
for
describing
wire
tapping
into
the
protocol
itself.
We
said
we
encourage
companies
who
are
doing
wiretapping,
work
well,
they're
related
to
IETF,
not
technologies,
publish
them,
as
rfcs
Francisco
published
their
the
way
they
do
wiretapping
in
their
routers.
They
publish
that
as
an
informational
RFC.
So
we
know
that
and
they
can
be
reviewed
when
it
was
being
published.
A
A
Some
his
history
of
experiments
and
some
the
ITF
process
itself
is
documented
in
RFC
s,
the
one
I
left
off
here
is
April
Fool's,
Day,
rfcs,
April,
Fool's,
Day
rfcs,
or
something
that
jon
postel.
The
original
RFC
editor
came
up
with.
He
published
crispin
I
think
it
was
the
telnet
randomly
lose
option.
A
It
has
been
implemented
and
it
works
very
well,
but
actually
the
particular
implementation
isn't
great,
but
and
then
there
was
another
one
which
was
the
omniscience
requirements.
Protocol
initiatives,
requirements
RFC,
and
that
was
because
we
had
a
senator
in
the
US
orrin
hatch,
who
said
he
wanted
to
destroy
your
computer.
If
you
were
using
it
for
illicit
music
sharing
your
personal
computer,
he
would
come
and
destroy
your
computer
and
when
asked
did
he
really
mean
destroyed?
He
said:
yes,
he
really
meant
destroyed.
Well,
if
you're
going
to
do
that,
then
you
have
to
be
omniscient.
A
You
have
to
know
that
that
music
is
on
that
machine
because
of
for
some
bad
purpose.
It's
not
that
you
purchased
it
someplace.
So
I
described
an
omniscience
protocol
of
what
you
would
have
to
do
in
order
to
know
that
this
was
ok,
so
the
requirements
for
an
omniscient
protocol
and
I
got
well
and
truly
trash
for
that
which
is
exactly
what
I
wanted
people
thought.
A
I
was
in
bed
with
Orrin
Hatch,
coming
up
with
ways
to
destroy
people's
computers,
and
that
was
that
was
exactly
what
you
should
come
up
with
and
you'll
see
that
they
are
the
April
Fool's
arrc.
Is
this
some
pretty
good
ones
out
there?
There's?
That's
that's
one
other
case
where
somebody
is
collectible
into
a
book,
got
a
couple
of
people
to
write,
introductions
and
sold
the
book
and
the
IETF.
That's
just
fine.
We
don't
we
don't
question
you
to
do
that.
A
We
used
to
have
a
three-step
standards
process
and
I
put
this
slide
in
to
remind
you
that
we
do
not
have
a
three-step
process
in
case
you
had
heard
that
we
really
have
two
different
types
of
standards
track
processes.
One
is
a
one-step
standards
process
called
the
best
practice
or
bcp.
That's
mostly
used
for
processed
documents
such
as
the
ietf
standards
process
itself,
but
it
also
is
used
for
how
to
allocate
values
in
protocols
and
things
like
that.
It's
ways
to
do
things
and
it's
a
one
step
into
each.
A
This
is
the
best
way
we
know
how
to
do
it
today.
Then
we
have
a
two-step
standards
track.
The
first
step
is
what
is
called
proposed
standard,
and
that
doesn't
mean
its
proposed
to
be
a
standard.
It
is
a
standard
at
the
proposed
level,
so
it
means
that
it's
passed
through
the
working
group.
It's
pastor
the
eye
area
director
its
pastor,
the
iesg
all
of
the
problems
that
people
have
found
have
been
fixed
or
documented.
So
this
is
the
output
of
the
IETF.
This
is
exactly
equivalent
to
the
output
of
most
standards
bodies.
A
It
is
something
that
you
don't
know
that
actually
works,
it's
all
documented,
but
you
don't
necessarily
have
implemented
it
and
then
the
second
level
of
the
standards
track
is
internet,
standard
or
full
standard,
and
that
is
where
there
have
been
multiple
interoperable
implementations
of
the
dock
of
the
protocol.
Now
we
don't
do
multiple
interoperable
implementations
to
say
how
popular
it
is.
That's
actually
not
the
problem.
That's
not
the
problem.
We're
trying
to
solve
what
we
want
to
do
is
to
ensure
that
the
documentation
itself
is
clear.
A
A
So
there's
an
RFC
index
and
the
RFC
index
is
how
you
find
out
what
the
Sakura
status
of
an
intimate
RC
is
always
look
at
the
index
to
make
sure
that
you're
dealing
with
a
current
document,
our
SEO
rfcs,
are
published
by
the
RFC
editor
once
upon
a
time
that
was
Jon
Postel
one
person
doing
most
of
the
work
he
brought
on
some
other
people
to
help
him
and
then
later
on,
it's
turned
into
a
separate
organization
contracted
by
the
Internet
Society
for
the
IETF.
We
have
a.
A
We
have
an
RSC
editor
and
there's
a
separate
oversight
group
and
those
all
kinds
of
machinations
to
make
this
work,
this
an
editor
and
then
there's
publisher
and
a
publication
arm.
The
publication
itself
is
being
done
by
the
secretariat
same
people
that
bring
you
the
meeting
itself,
there's
also
an
independent
streams.
Editor.
The
intermittent
stream,
is
something
that
came
about
primarily
because
jon
postel,
when
he
was
publishing
RFC's,
believed
that
it
was
he
even
after
the
ATF
was
formed,
believed
it
was
important
that
people
had
individual
people
had
access
to
the
RFC
series.
A
The
way
you
find
that
out
is
again
through
the
through
the
index,
but
it's
a
escape
valve.
Also,
if
you
create
a
document,
a
working
group
works
on,
but
then
decides
not
to
progress.
You
can
then
take
that
document
to
the
independent
stream.
Editor
and
get
that
published
most
of
the
time,
and
that
gives
you
what
a
way
to
get
your
to
information
published.
Even
if
a
working
group
has
turned
it
down.
A
That's
the
independent
stream
editor,
the
ITF
this
process
for
ITF
submissions
is
a
working
group,
creates
the
document
hands
it
off
to
the
area
director
hands
it
off
to
the
iesg,
goes
out
for
community
review.
For
that
last
call
that
I
mentioned
back
to
the
isg.
The
is
you
can
kick
it
back
to
the
working
group
or
ask
for
it
to
be
published
for
the
non
IETF
submissions,
the
independent
stream
editor.
A
You
send
off
a
the
internet
draft
or
a
pointer
to
the
internet,
draft
to
the
independent
stream
editor
and
say:
I'd
like
this
publish
the
independent
stream
editor
talks
to
their
their
internal,
his
or
her
internal
advisory
group,
and
then,
if
that
internal
advisory
group
says
it's
ready
for
poets,
it's
okay
to
publish
the
our
stream
editor
talks
to
the
iesg.
To
be
sure,
this
is
not
something
directly
conflicts
with
the
IETF
activities
or
something
where
the
IETF
leadership
ie
the
is.
A
A
That's
the
that's
the
mechanism,
the
Mac
mechanics
of
the
IETF
is
all
that
stuff.
So
why
don't?
Why
we
doing
it?
What
are
we
doing
here?
Why
we
doing
it?
Well,
when
I
first
started
coming
to
the
IETF
in
1990,
I
was
told
that
the
IETF
scope
was
above
the
wire
and
below
the
application,
but
the
ITF
did
not
describe
how
the
user
interface
worked.
No,
actually
right
after
I
got
here.
A
They
they
did
when
they
mucked
up
ftp
and
said
what
do
users
had
to
be
able
to
do
with
ftp,
but
mostly
we
don't
deal
with
that
and
we
didn't
deal
with
wires.
We
didn't
create
Ethernet
and
things
like
that,
but
things
aren't
quite
as
clear.
They
once
were
the
ITF
s
technology
and
particularly
in
the
pseudowire
area,
or
we
can
pretend
we
can
make
a
fake
Ethernet
that
runs
on
top
of
IP.
It
looks
like
an
Ethernet.
A
It
acts
like
an
Ethernet
is
just
running
on
top
of
IP
and
we
can
make
a
fake
ATM
network
and
a
fake
frame
relay
Network
and
a
freak
optical
connection,
SONET
Network.
We
can
do
all
of
those
things
running.
On
top
of
IP
or
mpls,
so
you
can
have
IP
running
on
top
of
on
top
of
frame
relay
running
on
top
of
IP
running
on
top
of
sonnet
running
on
top
of
IP
running
on
top
of
mpls
nothing's
real
in
there.
A
Until
you
get
down
to
the
bottom
level,
which
is
the
glass
all
the
rest
is
being
defined
by
the
IETF,
something
that
looks
like
that
technology.
That
think,
makes
things
fuzzy
where
our
scope
is
pretty
fuzzy
and
it's
particularly
fuzzy
when
we
start
to
talk
about
the
things
which
now
run
over
the
Internet.
What
doesn't
everything
runs
over
the
Internet
telephony
video
everything
runs
over
the
Internet
and
we're
working
in
all
of
those
areas,
because
people
have
interesting
ideas.
They
have
good
proposals,
we're
working
in
all
of
those
I'd.
A
Those
areas
which
gets
directly
into
conflict
with
other
standards,
development
organizations,
standards,
develop
mornings,
age
like
Etsy
or
itu,
which
have
been
in
the
telephone
business
for
a
very
long
time
here
comes
along
the
IETF
and
defines
Internet
telephony.
Well,
wait
a
second
how
that
happened.
They
don't
like
that,
and
we've
got
conflicts
with
that.
Some
of
the
standards
organizations
have
decided
that
I
TF
technology
is
really
good
almost
so
they
take
it
and
they
modify
it.
A
The
ITU
is
done
this
two
or
three
times
now,
where
they've
taken
a
ITF
standard
and
changed
it
and
published
again
as
their
own
standard
and
that's
different
now,
this
copyright
issue,
so
they're
just
wants
to
do
that,
but
in
but
more
particularly
as
interoperability
issues
for
the
world.
Now
they
got
an
ITU
standard,
that's
different,
the
IETF
standard
to
do
the
same
thing.
What
do
you
do
there
and
that's
cause
some
real
conflicts?
An
example
of
that
is
the
with
with
the
ITU
/
mpls-tp
or
transport
protocol,
or
its
okotie
mpls,
and
that's
been.
A
It
was
a
very
difficult
situation
and
went
all
the
way
up
to
the
executive
office
of
the
president
of
the
u.s.
to
try
and
resolve
this.
Where
the
I.t
I.t,
you
was
seeming
to
take
IETF
technology
modified
for
their
own
purposes,
a
little
bit
of
a
view
of
hot
worthy
where
the
IETF
sits
relative
to
other
organizations
area
in
green
is
the
IETF.
That's
includes
the
IAB,
the
iesg
wall
of
the
area.
A
All
of
the
areas
and
all
of
the
working
groups
within
the
areas,
the
I
asset,
which
will
mention
the
RFC
editor,
is
not
entirely
in
the
IETF,
because
it
does
this
independent,
scream,
independent
submissions
process,
which
is
something
different,
I
RTF
internet
research
task
force,
was
also
not
within
the
IETF.
It
was
a
parallel
task
force
at
the
time
the
IETF
was
created.
A
A
If
your
company
is
in
the
internet
biz
one
way
or
another,
persuade
them
to
join
the
Internet
Society,
the
Internet
Society
helps
fund.
These
meetings
helps
on
the
activities
of
the
the
ietf.
It
also
does
much
else.
It
does
many
many
more
activities.
You
can
see
it
on
the
internet
society
web
page
of
what
other
kinds
of
activities
as
security
and
evangelizing
for
the
internet
being
heavily
involved.
Internet
internet
governance
issues.
A
There's
a
big
internet
governance
issue
going
around
right
now
over
the
I
Anna
and
the
US
government's
decision
to
let
go
of
the
Anna
I
Anna
to
some
degree,
and
all
of
that
activity
is
stuff
that
the
internet
society
is
heavily
involved
in
joint
as
an
individual
member
join
as
a
in
which
you
can
do
for
free
joint.
As
a
corporate
member
pay,
some
money
to
help
support
these
functions.
A
So
the
idea
the
IETF
did
agree
to
come
under
the
legal
umbrella
in
96.
That
decision
was
made
through
a
very
long
and
contentious
open
working
group
process.
So
the
decision
was
made
within
the
work
within
an
ietf
structure
with
an
ni,
ATF
working
group,
and
it
was
only
after
some
change
would
have
made
in
the
internet
society
structure
that
the
IETF
agreed
to
be
part
of
the
I
internet
society.
A
But
now
it
really
is
it's
a
separate
activity,
but
it's
under
the
all
of
the
funds
to
check
the
check
you
wrote
or
the
credit
card
that
you
use
to
pay
for
getting
into
this
meeting
that
went
into
a
nice
OCH
budget
and
I
sock
bank
account
and
then
the
I
sock
pays
for
any
overages.
This
is
going
to
be
quite
a
bit
of
overage
this.
This
particular
meeting
and
I
sock
will
cover
that
out
of
this
other
funds
and
you'll
hear
about
that
in
the
administrative
plenary.
A
A
The
I
RTF
research
task
force
that's
looking
at
things
which
aren't
ready
for
prime
time
they're,
not
ready
to
actually
be
actually
be
turned
into
standards.
There
are
things
which
are
research
projects
like
there
was
any
spam
working
band
research
group.
Nobody
knows
how
to
stop
spam.
So
it's
research,
it's
not
it's!
Not.
Technology
is
not
ready
for
prime
time.
These
are
the
the
I
RTF
work.
A
The
research
groups
that
are
there
now
the
ones
with
a
red
asterisk,
are
ones
that
are
meeting
this
week,
it's
only
relatively
recently
last
decade
or
so
that
the
irts
started
regularly
meeting
their
research
groups
started
regularly
meeting
at
the
IETF
but
they're
there.
Anybody
can
join
in
to
the
meetings
and
that's
seeing
what's
the
cutting
edges
what's
beyond
the
cutting
edge?
What's
coming
down
the
pike
day
after
tomorrow,
I
mentioned
the
IAB.
A
He
under
that
architecture
board
has
the
body
that
had
been
thrown
out
when
the
isg
took
over
as
the
standards
approval
body,
but
there
I
beam
plays
an
important
role
in
the
external
relationships.
The
IETF
has
now
the
standards
bodies
they're
heavily
involved
in
the
internet
government's
fight,
and
things
like
that
maybe
has
a
number
of
internal
activities
which
they
do
do
workshops
and
other
things
where
there's
trying
to
set
the
technology
envelope
for
the
for
the
IETF.
A
What's
the
sort
of
things
that
I
TF
working
group
should
keep
in
mind
when
working
on
particular
technologies,
then
this
is
the
I
Anna
once
upon
a
time.
A
long
long
time
ago
was
the
predecessor
to
the
IETF
was
working
on
technology,
where
there
were
values
in
that
technology,
which
had
to
be
the
same.
So
if
I
send
you
a
packet,
there's
a
field
in
that
packet,
which
has
a
protocol
parameter
in
it,
and
it
says
something
like
25.
That
means
email
you
and
I
both
have
to
agree
that
it
means
email.
A
So
somebody
has
write
down.
25
equals
email,
jon
postel
did
that
he
wrote
down
those
numbers.
They
have
no
value
to
them
other
than
that
all
they
have
to
be
as
consistent.
There's
no
vanity
numbers
for
protocol
parameters,
they're
just
numbers
and
John-
did
that
little
while
later
at
the
original
Internet
Protocol
NCPR
burnet
protocol
was
replaced
by
the
what
is
now
tcp/ip
the
Internet
Protocol,
and
in
doing
that,
somebody
had
to
write
down
who
you
was
using.
What
IP
address
so
128
103
00
class
b.
That's
Harvard's
I
got
that
from
John.
A
I
sent
him
when
I
sent
him
off
a
note
one
day
and
said:
I
need
some
addresses
John
and
he
sent
me
back.
A
note
saying
here
are
there's
your
addresses.
So
John
was
running
the
address
right,
a
top-level
address
or
industry
event
later
on,
assign
reassigned
delegated
some
of
that
two
different
organizations
around
the
world.
John
was
still
providing
the
big
blocks,
but
then
ripe
and
ap,
Nick
and
registries
like
Nick.
One
of
our
sponsors
here
provide
addresses
to
our
net
service
providers
and
systems
and
and
sites
within
a
particular
geographic
dirt
jurisdiction.
A
So
John
was
doing
the
top
level
and
then
it
became
clear
that
using
IP
addresses
to
address
things
was
not
human
friendly?
Tell
you
to
go
to
128
103
836
to
get
some
file
you're
going
to
get
that
wrong,
because
it's
just
numbers
and
people
don't
do
numbers
very
well,
particularly
with
the
phone
or
something
like
that
so
Paul,
Michael,
Petrus
and
John
came
up
with
this
idea
of
a
human
friendly
name.
A
That's
a
domain
name
which
was
used
to
get
translated
in
real
time
into
IP
addresses,
and
somebody
had
to
record
well
who's
going
to
have
the
different.
It's
a
hierarchical
naming
scheme
who's
going
to
have
the
top
level
names
now
who's.
Managing
those
typos,
limited
John
did
that
so
John
was
doing
these
three
basic
functions
of
protocol
parameters,
address
assignment
and
domain
name
top-level
domain
assignments.
Also
coordinating
activities
of
the
people
who
ran
the
top-level
domain
servers
John
then
got
other
people
to
come
in
and
help
use
using
US
government
funds
to
help
function.
A
Do
that
function.
That
function
was
called
the
iono,
the
internet
assigned
numbers
authority
and
that
was
jon
postel
and
then
a
bunch
of
people
helped
him
paid
by
the
US
government
to
do
that
in
the
at
some
point,
John
decided
that
he
really
needed
to
be
something
other
than
a
US
government
function
run
out
of
a
university
and
he
decided
that
he
wanted
to
institutionalize.
It
was
the
word
he
used
to
create
a
new
organization
to
do
this
function.
A
That
organization
turned
out
to
be
I
can,
after
a
lot
of
machinations,
it
turned
out
the
IQ
within
I.
Can
there
is
the
iono
function
and
the
ITF
has
a
relationship
with
that
I
and
a
function
only
for
protocol
parameters.
We
do
not
relate
to
the
domain
name
part
and
we
have
tenuous
relationship
to
the
IP
address
part.
So,
but
we
are
rin.
The
IETF
I
Anna
is
the
only
part
that
we're
concerned
with
the
protocol
parameters.
We
have
a
memorandum
of
understanding
with
with
I
can
to
provide
that
function.
A
But
they
do
provide
the
protocol
parameter
function.
So
if
you
create
a
document,
an
RFC
that
is
going
to
ask
for
a
protocol
parameter
like
a
new
protocol
type.
You
have
to
put
in
your
document
on
I
in
a
consideration
section
saying:
please
assign
these
values
to
my
protocol,
and
so
the
iono
then
does
that
function
and
that's
the
big
function
the
I
Anna
does
for
the
IETF.
A
Let's
see
so,
let's
see
what
time
is
it?
Ok,
so
I
TF
management,
Dave,
clarks,
originals
statement?
Was
we
don't
believe
in
presidents
and
and
the
like?
Well,
at
the
time
when
Dave
wrote
just
before,
Dave
wrote
that
IETF
manage
was
hereditary
in
a
sense
that
the
IETF
chair,
appointed
people
to
the
isg
and
to
the
IAB,
the
IAB
chair,
pointed
people
to
the
IME.
A
It
was
not
something
where
the
community
had
an
involvement
in
it
and
as
part
of
the
overthrow
turned
into
an
environment
where
the
community,
you
and
me
are
involved
in
the
selection
of
the
IETF
management.
There's
a
nominations
committee,
that's
formed.
The
nominations
committee
picks
the
candidates
to
be
fill
these
roles.
The
roles
are
all
voluntary.
The
IETF
does
not
pay
for
any
participation
by
any
of
the
management.
Folks
working
group
chairs,
ETF,
chair
I,
be
member
iesg
member.
A
None
of
those
are
paid
by
the
IETF
they
are
paid
by
their
companies
to
participate
in
this
company's
believe
that
it's
worthwhile
to
have
a
re,
basically
full
time
in
the
IETF
as
IETF
chair.
That's
a
value
judgment
that
company
is
me
area.
Director
job
is
half
to
three-quarters
times,
so
the
companies
that
are
that
those
area
director
for
are
donating
that
much
effort
to
the
IETF
process.
A
We
do
pay.
The
IETF
does
pay
for
the
secretariat
for
the
independent
stream
editor
and
I.
Actually,
the
independence
commanders
volunteer,
but
the
RSC
editor
and
we
do
pay
for
those
functions.
So
the
folks
running
around
in
the
black
shirt
saying
secretary
to
the
backers
there
they're
going
to
contract
for
them
and
that's
the
AMS
as
the
secretariat
function
there
that
they
provide
that
there
is
a
another
group
which
is
the
casa.
The
I
asset
is
a
sort
of
a
middle
mayor
middle
layer.
A
There's
a
administrative
director.
The
only
IETF
employee
is
Ray,
Ray
poet
there.
He
is
the
the
IAD
there.
A
ETF
administrative
director
he's
actually
an
employee
of
the
internet
society,
but
this
is
his
job.
The
IETF
is
his
job.
The
rent
is
so
the
ITU
has
hundreds
of
employees.
The
ITF
has
one
plus
a
secretary
that
we
contract,
for.
A
We
also
have
an
ietf
trust.
This
was
formed
to
hold
the
intellectual
property
rights
of
the
IETF,
the
actual
the
actual
documents
that
are
published,
RFC's
and
things
like
that.
I
need
any
work.
That's
done
under
hire
any
software,
this
developed
under
under
higher
for
the
IETF
that
goes
into
the
IETF
trust.
It's
not
a
patent
pool.
It
is
simply
a
repository
of
information.
A
So
how
do
we
select
these
management?
People
I
would
say.
There's
a
nominations.
Committee.
That's
formed
from
volunteers
from
the
community.
It's
quite
a
bit
of
work
to
be
a
non
calm
member,
but
we've
got
about
a
hundred
or
so
people
volunteer
each
year.
The
people
who
are
volunteering
for
the
commute
for
the
nomination
committee
have
to
have
been
at
three
of
the
last
five
physical
meetings.
The
idea
there
is.
We
want
people
who
actually
understand
how
the
ITF
actually
works
on
the
ground,
but
then
they
put
out
a
call
for
nominations.
A
A
The
original
nom
calm
chairs
wrote
the
names
of
volunteers
on
a
piece
of
paper,
put
him
in
a
hat
and
took
now
local
priest
to
to
pick
out
the
non
pensi.
Well,
actually,
John
Curran
to
so
a
number
of
them
did
that
that
was
seen
as
much
too
crude
and
too
biased.
I,
don't
know
if
priest
was
biased
or
something,
but
so
we
had
a.
We
have
a
ATF
member
who
decided
to
come
up
with
a
better
scheme.
That's
documented
in
this
are
I've
seen
here,
RC
7437
and
what
it
does
is.
A
It
comes
up
with
a
humungo
random
number.
Oh,
that's
non
calm
operations,
yeah,
it's
okay!
It's
on
another
slide!
Yeah,
yeah,
3790!
So
comes
up.
You
pre-announced
that
I'm
going
to
use
these
values
as
a
seed
for
my
random
number
generator,
like
the
number
of
shares
of
this
particular
stock
sold
in
the
US.
The
stock
exchange,
the
the
lot
the
irish
lottery
and
you
come
up
with
like
six
different
things.
A
You
poem
together
to
be
a
random
number,
and
then
you
use
that
to
turn
through
the
volunteers
to
see
which
ones
this
is
way
way
overkill
for
the
function.
But
it's
not
that
I'm
representative
of
the
way
the
ITF
works
times,
but
in
the
idea
is
that
the
NAM
calm
then
picks
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
on
the
different
panels.
A
The
dinner
is
G
the
IETF
ITF
chair,
IV
members,
IOC
members,
anam,
calm,
pics,
those
they
go
to
a
another
body
to
be
confirmed
and
that
body
can
turn
down
if
they
believe
that
the
person
wasn't
a
good
person,
they
can
turn
down.
So
it's
not
a
null,
not
a
null
function,
but
their
picture
on
the
community
you're.
Now
parts
of
the
community
part
of
the
community,
while
you
can't
be
yet
on
the
nam
calm
itself,
you
can
nominate
people,
there's
no
requirement
to
have
three
of
the
last
five
meetings.
A
In
order
to
nominate
somebody,
you
can
nominate
somebody
there
will
be
a
call
for
nominations
coming
up
in
the
fall
and
if
you
feel
you
know
somebody
that
would
make
a
good
I,
ITF
management
person
nominate
them
and
the
nam
calm
will
evaluate.
Those
mike
was
showing
you
his
thought.
The
ITF
badges
have
dots
on
them.
I've
got
two
dots
here.
They
look
the
same
color
from
where
you
are,
I
SPECT,
as
a
blue
dot
in
a
purple
dot.
The
blue
dot
means
I'm
a
working
group
co-chair
purple
dot
means
I'm
an
ioc
member.
A
The
orange
dot
like
mike
has
on
their
means,
he's
a
member
of
the
nominations
committee
than
on
phone,
these
other
ones,
red
for
IAB,
yellow
for
iesg,
etc.
When
I
was
on
the
isg,
I
found
the
yellow
really
good,
because
you
can't
see
it
from
across
the
room,
which
means
people
didn't
know
that
they
could
button
hold
you
to
do
something
for
them,
but
you
were
still
wearing
the
dot.
A
So
if
they
got
close
as
I
can
figure
it
out,
but
it's
all
sort
of
a
nice
pass
if
you're
doing
something
in
a
professional
standards
organization,
you
have
to
have
an
appeals
process,
an
individual
who
puts
forth
a
proposal
and
that
proposal
is
turned
down
by
the
working
group
and
at
the
individual
felt
they
were
improperly
treated.
There
must
be
a
way
for
that
individual
to
appeal
that
so
we
created
an
appeals
process
relatively
late
in
the
game
midnight
e
sometime
and
that
appeal
process
actually
works.
A
Some
percentage,
25
or
so
percent
of
Appeals
actually
succeed
that
the
the
iesg
is
told.
No,
that
was
done
wrong
or
the
working
group
chair
is
saying
that
was
done
wrong.
Try
again,
so
the
appeals
process
is
real.
If
you
feel
that
your
your
document
wasn't
properly
treated,
you
can
appeal
to
the
appeals
process.
It's
multistage
appeals
process.
You
appeal
to
the
level
which
insulted
you
the
first
time
working
group
chair.
If
they
turn
down
your
proposal,
if
you
didn't
like
what
they
said,
you
can
go
up
to
the
isg.
A
If
you
know,
like
my,
they
say,
got
at
the
IAB.
That's
normal
the
end
of
the
appeals
process,
the
IAB.
There
is
another
step
which
goes
to
the
ia,
the
Internet
Society
Board
of
Directors,
but
that's
only
for
the
cases
where
you
believe
that
the
standards
process
itself
is
faulty,
not
the
execution
of
the
process.
A
A
It's
a
very
big
issue
in
any
standards
organization,
there's
two
different
types
of
intellectual
property
rights
will
deal
with.
One
is
copyright
and
the
others
type
as
bright
as
the
patents.
Copyrights
is
pretty
straightforward.
If
you
write
an
internet
draft
that
internet-draft
on
the
pinnacle
protocol
that
you
wrote,
you
provide
to
the
IETF
the
right
to
publish
that
and
as
less
you
say
differently,
you
provide
to
the
IETF
the
right
to
modify
it
within
the
IETF
process
to
create
a
new
document
so
provide
their
derivative
rights
but
they're
on
their
own
river.
There.
A
You
can't
revoke
those
rights
you
give
them
to
the
IETF
by
doing
the
internet
draft,
the
ITF
has
the
rights
forever.
You
can
put
a
note
in
the
in
the
internet
draft
saying
nobody.
You
can't
make
any
derivative
works
and
that's
what
happens
when
we're
publishing
corporate
documentation,
for
example,
to
put
that
statement
and
they're
saying
no,
you
can't
publish
derivative
works,
we're
not
going
to
you
can't
modify
it,
but
that's
all
we're
requiring
that
document.
Is
your
document.
A
You
can't
you
have
all
the
rights
to
the
document
other
than
the
rights
you
gave
to
the
IETF,
to
publish
it
and
to
create
derivative
works
other
than
that.
It's
yours:
you
can
take
that
pinochle
protocol
at
proposal
and
turn
it
into
the
Great
American
Novel
of
the
great
you
know
great
German
novel
what
you
can
turn
it
into
whatever
you
want
to
do.
You
can
take
it
to
another
standard
spot.
It's
yours,
you
can
send
it
in
little
snippets
to
your
mother.
Anything
you
want
to
do
with
it.
A
It's
yours,
the
only
thing
you're
giving
up
to
the
IETF
is
the
the
right
to
publish
it
and
publish
it
as
an
internet
draft
and
if
it
makes
it
through
the
process,
polishes
and
RFC,
that's
the
only
thing
you're
giving
up.
Everything
else
is
yours.
That's
not
the
case
in
some
standards
bodies
where
you
have
to
hand
over
the
copyrights
and
then
patents,
patents
are
much
more
much
more
harder.
Speaking
of
the
RFC
editor,
patents
are
a
heart,
much
harder,
much
harder
problem.
A
Patents
get
in
the
way
of
a
lot
of
things,
but
the
IAF's
process
for
dealing
with
patents
is
knowledge.
If
you
have
a
patent.
I
mentioned
this
very
beginning.
If
you
have
a
patent
and
it's
right,
it's
it's
related
to
an
ietf
technology
that
you're
working
on
whether
you
put
in
an
internet
draft
describing
it
or
somebody
else
put
it
internet-draft,
describing
it
and
you're
modifying
your
working
on
that.
A
Then
you
have
to
tell
us
you
that
leave
it
up
to
the
working
group
to
decide
whether
that's
important
or
not,
but
you
have
to
tell
us
you
have
to
disclose
the
fact
you've
got.
They
got
the
patent
and
that's
requirement
is
for
you
individually
and
personally
and
it's
for
information.
You
have
knowledge.
You
have
individually,
not
general
knowledge.
Your
company
doesn't
have
to
do
a
exhaustive
patent
check
patent
search
for
it.
It's
just
you
personally.
If
you
know
about
it,
then
you
have
to
tell
us
about
it.
A
It's
not
a
particularly
onerous
thing,
but
it's
very
important
because
that's
the
way
the
working
groups
understand
whether
this
technology
they
want
to
work
on
or
not.
There's
more
information
on
for
newcomers
on
the
ITF
homepage.
There's
an
info
for
newcomers.
Button
that
you
can
go
to
is
a
mentoring
program
which
some
of
you
served
earlier,
but
there's
a
formal
mentoring
program
and
you
can
look
at
the
website
to
find
out
more
about
that
and
get
real
mentors.
A
So
what's
next
you're
now
here
you
made
the
effort
to
get
here,
get
on
mailing
lists.
Participating
sessions
go
to
sessions,
talk
to
people
talk
to
people
in
corridors.
Talk
to
people
at
the
reception
become
part
of
the
ITF.
Make
us
make
us
do
better
work
make
the
technology
comes
out
of
here,
good
or
even
better,
make
it
perfect.
A
Well
we're
not
going
to
do
that,
but
make
it
make
it
good
and
try
to
be
more
polite
than
something
people
will
be
to
you,
which
is
a
shame,
but
try
and
do
it
anyway
and
find
let's
not
settle
for
next
best.
Let's
settle
for
the
best
the
best
we
can
do
you're
now
part
of
this
effort
and
welcome
to
it.
Welcome
welcome.
Welcome
any
questions.