►
From YouTube: IETF98-TUTORIAL-INDEPENDENTSTREAM-20170326-1230
Description
INDEPENDENTSTREAM tutorial session at IETF98
A
B
Guess
my
watch
is:
is
it's
about
time
to
start
so
really
the
small
but
select
company
presents
the
ones
who
come
along
to
find
out
about
the
independent
stream
and
I'm
told
that
this
gets
recorded
and
the
slides
will
be
available.
So
lots
of
people
can
catch
up
on
it
later
so
I'm,
never
bromley,
I'm,
the
independent
submissions,
editor
and
I've
been
the
independent
submissions
who
didn't
for
quite
a
long.
B
What
seems
like
a
very
long
time
now,
but
the
stream
has
been
through
a
period
where
there
were
lots
of
submissions
coming
in,
and
that
was
fine,
but
over
the
last
little
while
they
fallen
off
of
it.
So
it
seemed
it's
high
time,
I
put
a
bit
of
effort
into
making
sure
that
people
really
knew
what
the
stream
was
all
about.
B
So
I'll
put
together
a
slide
set,
we'll
talk
about
about
the
history
of
the
screen
and
about
of
the
ROC,
but
they
are
assessing
I
mustn't,
say
series
at
this
point
because
it
wasn't
a
series
in
the
beginning
all
about
the
history
of
the
RSC's,
the
independent
stream
and
I'm.
Using
that
weird
abbreviation,
I
nst,
because
one
of
the
people
who
proof
read
these
slides
for
me
seem
like
is
as
a
abbreviation
for
the
opinion
screen.
B
B
Look
at
that
in
a
bit
more
detail
and
then
I
thought
it
would
be
useful
for
you
to
know
a
little
more
about
the
actual
process.
What
Howard,
how
I
make
it
all
work?
So
that's
the
agenda
slide
if
you
like.
So
we
start
by
having
a
look
at
the
early
history
of
the
rfcs
RFC,
either
the
Volusion
one
and
these
go
back.
They
go
back
a
very
long
time.
They
go
back
to
the
up
in
it
project
and
in
april
of
nineteen
sixty-nine
Steve
Crocker
published
the
first
such
document
David
a
number.
B
Well,
it's
the
first
document.
Naturally,
it
was
our
FC
one
and
in
the
early
stages
of
the
upper
neck,
the
RFC's
really
were
request
for
comments.
They
were
information
about
whatever
the
group
is
working
on
shared
among
the
people
working
in
the
group,
and
it
wasn't
too
long
before
they
realized
well,
actually,
there's
a
growing
number
of
these.
B
We
need
to
allocate
the
numbers-
and
we
look
after
those-
and
that
was
the
point
where
jon
postel,
what
his
hand
up
and
said
I'll
do
that
it
was
a
really
very
small
group
back
then
so
he
became
the
keeper
of
the
numbers
and
all
the
documents
were
allocated
numbers
over
there
weren't
originally
RFC's.
They
were
engineered
engineering
notes
which
didn't
happen.
B
It
people
he
used
to
keep
track
of
what
they
were
doing,
but
jon
postel
gave
them
RFC
numbers,
and
so
that
was
the
big
very
beginning,
but
then
a
few
years
later
in
1986
quite
a
few
years
later.
Actually
in
1986,
the
ITF
got
started.
So
that
was
the
point
where
the
up
and
it
had
given
what
even
way
a
little
to
the
Internet
and
lots
more
people
were
starting
to
access
and
use
internet.
B
B
So
the
IAB
basically
appointed
the
I,
eat
the
iesg
and
looked
after
everything
to
do
with
the
idea,
and
it
stayed
like
that
for
86
3
2
92,
you
can
see
I've
been
getting
a
lot
of
expert
help
in
country
rediscovering
this
early
history
from
1992.
That's
when
the
iesg
structure
was
well
defined,
then
the
iesg
started
to
decide
exactly
how
they
were
going
to
handle
documents
I.
B
What
were
going
to
look
after
the
working
groups
and
so
on
and
up
to
that
point,
the
ROC
editor
existed
as
a
separate
entity
whose
job
it
was
to
edit
and
publish
RFC.
So
that
was
the
reality
of
it
was
it
was
a
small
team
of
people
at
ISI
and
who
looked
after
the
idea,
the
rfcs
so
from
the
very
beginning,
until
nineteen
ninety-eight
a
little
bit
later
still
jon
postel
was
the
editor.
B
So
whenever
the
isg
said
write,
this
document
is
ready
to
go,
John
would
take
it
to
look
at
it
and
do
whatever
needed
way
of
editing
and
go
ahead
and
publish
it.
Put
it
up
on
the
website
and
that's
one
of
the
things
which
distinguishes
the
RFC's
and
the
IETF
from
many
other
standards
organizations.
The
RFC's
have
always
been
publicly
available
free
to
everyone.
B
Early
on
John
was
assisted
by
Joyce
Reynolds,
so
she
is
the
other
person
who
everybody
thinks
of
as
one
of
the.
What,
as
the
RFC
editor
from
the
beginning,
the
thing
about
John
I
only
ever
meet
him
myself
once
but
everybody
says
about
them,
he
was
a
a
determined
prison.
He
believed
that
the
text
was
the
important
thing
and
making
sure
that
it
was
clean,
easily
readable
and
understandable
was
the
most
important
thing.
B
So
I
summarized
that
he
exercised
strong
editorial
control,
John
didn't
like
it,
it
didn't
get
published
basically,
but
what
I'm
getting
here
of
myself
there
so
until
the
IDF
got
started,
1986
all
the
RFC's,
a
lot
of
those
which
were
generated
inside
the
egg
and
I
TF
were
independent
submissions.
In
other
words,
anybody
who
wanted
your
head
material
they
wanted
to
get
out
in
front
of
the
internet.
Internet
community
could
send
a
document
to
John,
and
if
you
like
that,
he
would
publish
it,
it
didn't
like
it.
B
B
So
things
continued
about
like
that,
until
about
the
middle
of
the
2000s,
and
by
that
stage
the
volume
of
the
number
of
documents
being
sent
across
to
the
RFC
editor
got
bigger
and
bigger,
and
so
read
about
that
stage.
The
IAB
stepped
up
to
it
and
basically,
what
took
over
the
high-level
oversight
of
the
RFC's,
and
so
they
set
up
well,
they
took
what
had
been
the
oh,
it's
either
door
and
split
it
into
three
parts:
well,
our
sec
receiver,
that
he
said
we
need
somebody
to
maintain.
B
Overall
control
of
the
of
the
RFC's
will
have
the
eris
e
production
center,
those
other
people
who
actually
do
the
editing
and
publish
the
documents
and
the
I
I
a
OC
have
yet
another
different
idea
about
what
publisher
really
means
and
we've
set
up
for
document
streams
and
what
they
meant
by
our
document
stream
was.
This
is
an
outfit
an
organization
which
will
produce
documents,
approve
them
for
publication
as
RFC's
and
pass
them
to
the
production
center.
B
B
B
There's
the
IAB
internet
architecture
board
they
from
time
to
time
published
documents
which
basically
record
what
they
give
riot
of
things.
The
housekeeping
documents,
which
spell
out
structures
for
other
parts
of
the
IDF
generally
and
have
our
documents
which
has
set
down
the
IAB
view
of
that
particular
things.
B
There
aren't
too
many
of
them.
The
ones
of
most
interest
to
be
those
to
us
in
the
RFC
world
at
the
moment
are
the
set
of
documents
about
the
new
formats.
It's
taken
us
coming
on
for
years
now
to
get
to
that
and
with
any
luck
we
will
start
to
see
documents
appearing
in
the
new
formats,
maybe
not
this
year,
but
certainly
next
year.
That's
the
way
of
it
yeah!
Well,
alright.
B
We
see
those
as
still
being
research
work,
so
we're
going
to
push
that
part
of
the
work
into
the
irt
year
so
and
the
various
the
IOUs
RTF
work
is
divided
into
a
set
of
different
their
research
groups
somewhat
similar
to
IT
working
groups.
The
one
I'm
most
familiar
with
these
days
is
the
cryptography
research
group,
which
has
a
very
act
of
mailing
list
so
anyway,
when
only
I
arted
winner
and
a
research
group
has
considered
some
documents
and
decided.
Yes,
we
would
like
to
see
these
published
as
overseas.
B
Then
I
think
there
is
an
I,
our
SG,
but
essentially
the
chair
of
the
IRT.
As
the
stream
manager
says,
us,
pirg
of
us
collectively
published
and
passes
it
to
the
production
center,
and
the
last
of
the
streams
is
the
independent
screen,
which
continues
to
do
exactly
what
John
Castell
agrees
to
do
to
provide
a
venue
for
anything
up
not
covered
by
the
other
streams.
B
So
in
putting
these
slides
together,
I
had
a
look
through
and
just
basically
using
my
favorite
search
engine
to
find
out
about
the
independent
screen.
Thinking
there's
got
to
be
some
material,
that's
been
written
down
already
and
at
the
time,
then,
the
transition
is
made
so
that
the
independent
stream
was
set
up
as
a
separate
screen.
Bisley
daigle
and
wrote
an
article
for
the
internet
protocol
journal.
B
It
was
January
20-10
talking
about
the
transition
of
the
RFC
editor
from
way
it
have
been
for
all
those
years
before
into
the
way
it
is
now,
and
there
were
a
couple
of
quotes
in
Man,
which
I
thought
were
worth
putting
on
the
slide,
one
from
Bob
indan.
Commenting
on
what
the
RFC
series
really
is.
If
you
ask
people
what
they
think,
the
RFC
series
is
you'll
get
a
variety
of
opinions
from
people
who
think
that
only
the
standards
documents
are
important
through
to
on
well
Bob
Hannan,
summed
it
up.
B
Prc
series
is
what
enables
people
been
doors,
particularly
to
build
products,
service
providers
to
build
networks
and
for
the
internet
really
to
keep
working
and
then
sandy
Ginoza,
who
has
been
editing
heresies
for
a
very
long
time
way
back
actually
Jon,
Postel
and
Joyce
Reynolds
days
shared
this
nice
comment
talking
about
the
independence
dream,
something
that
can
offer
TriNet
view
to
what
happens
within
the
ITF,
so
things
where
people
believe
that
they've
got
something
worth
saying
along
the
lines
of
well.
We
tried
that
and
it
didn't
work
or
something
some
other
group
has
done
something.
B
But
here
is
our
idea
and
we
think
it's
a
bit
that
kind
of
thing
other
people
have,
of
course
written
more
things
down.
So
if
you
have
a
look
in
our
nervously,
4846
there's
a
long
list
there
of
different
kinds
of
things
which
the
people
who
write
4846
thought
might
be
reasonably
the
other
thing
about
it.
What
about
the
independent
stream
is?
It
has
to
have
somebody
to
look
after
it.
That's
the
independent
submissions
editor.
B
Is
a
group
of
people
appointed
by
the
IAB
to
keep
track
of
what's
happening
with
the
production
of
RF
seeds
and
the
series
in
general,
but
the
independent
stream
is
independent
of
all
of
that.
So
it's
directly
appointed
there
in
the
pen
extremely
secure.
It's
a
part-time
volunteer
position
at
the
time
when
I
was
originally
approached,
I
was
led
to
believe
that
there
wasn't
much
work
in
it
that
maybe
like
two
documents
per
month
would
come
in,
didn't
work
out
that
way.
B
B
B
B
Then
there
I
reproduced
the
abstract
from
4846
there,
because
I
thought
it's
quite
a
nice
summary
of
exactly
what
the
stream
is
supposed
to
do
and
to
publish
materials
that
are
not
rooted
in
the
ietf
standards
process
and
its
review
and
approval
mechanisms,
which
is
code
for
saying
not
under
any
particular
influenced
by
the
iesg
and
yeah.
So
I.
Don't
think
that
when
you
say
more
about
that,
but
next
question-
and
this
is
one
which
people
do
tend
to
ask
now-
then
just
exactly
how
independent
really
is
the
independent
stream?
B
Well,
the
line
out
of
48
46
is
they
are
most
valuable
if
they
are
completely
in
fact
independent
of
the
idea
process
and
just
to
make
sure
of
that,
the
iesg
may
tell
the
independent
submission
editor
that
all
we'd
really
much.
Rather
you
didn't
publish
such
and
such
a
document,
but
the
independents
dream
editor
is
allowed
to
say
too
bad
I'm
been
published.
One
might
be
quite
that
blunt
about
it,
but
he
is
definitely
about
go
ahead
and
publish
anything.
B
But
in
return
for
that
that
the
Talmud
for
the
4846
was
written.
The
authors
agreed
that
every
document
which
the
ioc
was
in
TKE
proposing
to
publish
would
be
submitted
to
the
iesg
for
a
conflict
review,
so
the
iesg
do
get
to
look
at
the
documents
go
through
the
independent
stream,
and
if
there
are
things
they
don't
like,
they
can
write
an
A
and
is
get
a
note
which
it
gets
published.
B
It
occurs
to
me
that
perhaps
I
could
refuse
to
do
that,
but
I've
never
done
that
or
they
may
suggest
other
modifications
to
the
document,
and
that
does
mean
as
far
as
the
is
concerned.
Well,
that's
an
extra
set
of
eyes
who
at
least
take
a
quick
look
edit,
the
document
it
goes
by
so
one
not
all
that
often
they've
got
lots
of
other
documents
that
they're
worried
about,
but
from
time
to
time,
one
or
other
of
the
area
directors
will
suggest
helpful
changes
to
the
document.
B
B
B
So
what
kind
of
material
works?
What
is
most
suitable
for?
The
independence
trip?
Well,
I've
lost
three
category
categories
here
these
are.
This
is
my
experience
of
our
last
few
years.
The
first
is
work
which
just
doesn't
fit
within
another
stream,
it's
something
which
didn't
done,
but
there
was
no
working
group
interested
in
it.
There
was
no
research
group
interested
in
it.
No
a
bee,
certainly
weren't
interested
in
it.
Okay,
then
it's
a
candidate
for
the
infinite
stream
and
some
examples
of
things
like
that.
B
Well,
I
published
a
document
about
Ed
Rome
and
as
far
as
I
know,
it's
the
only
published
documentation
to
eat
your
own
and
how
it
works,
and
a
few
years
back
and
then
live.
So
that's
one
nice
example.
Then
there
are
vent
or
developed
systems
and
the
one
that's
comes
to
mind
is
e
I
grp,
that's
a
cisco,
specific
routing
protocol.
Suppose
cisco
have
been
putting
it
in
mirror
artists
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember,
certainly
back
into
the
early
90s,
but
it
was.
B
It
was
starting
with
it
through
a
one
or
two
academic
articles
about
it,
but
there
was
no
other
real
documentation.
Everybody
just
used
it
and
it
just
worked.
So
I
had
a
bet,
a
rather
long
document
and
spelling
out
in
great
detail,
exactly
hard
work,
and
that
was
a
nice
accommodation
for
the
infinite
stream.
B
It's
a
bit
late
now
for
the
help
of
lyric,
doing
independent
implementations
of
eigrp,
but
should
they
want
to
and
now
they
can,
and
there
are
quite
a
number
of
other
kind
of
specific
systems
where
I've
published
documents
so
that
other
people
from
implement
it
and
use
it.
Then
there
are
historic
documents
and
there's
I
have
one
really
good
example:
there.
B
Somebody
who
sent
me
the
original
ARPANET
Emmanuel
don't
have
to
look
that
one
up
on
Wikipedia.
If
you
want
to
know
more
about
that,
but
he
had
taken
the
trouble
to
take
the
original
paper
copy
which
he
had
and
turn
it
into
a
minute
draft,
and
so
there
is
a
truly
historic
document
nicely
sitting
with
from
the
independent
stream.
B
So
that's
the
modernen
doesn't
fit
in
another
stream
class.
The
next
one
is
work
which
might
well
fit
into
one
of
the
other
streams,
but
that
stream
doesn't
want
it.
So
this
is
a
situation
where
a
bunch
of
authors
have
tried
to
get
their
ideas
to
take
hold
in
an
ATF
working
group.
Working
group
cheers
and
said:
look
we're
terribly
sorry,
but
we've
got
so
much
that
we're
trying
to
get
through.
We
are
not
going
to
pick
up
on
North
document
or
whatever
reason.
One
of
the
reasons
is
well.
B
Some
of
them
can
actually
be
quite
tricky
because
well
because
I
have
to
take
their
requests
to
I
Anna
and
work
out
exactly
what
it
is.
It's
needed,
I,
unasked,
to
find
an
expert
to
the
subject
it
to
review
that
request
and
so
on.
So
there
can
be
quite
quite
tricky,
but
it's
something
which
doesn't
need
an
ietf
consensus,
so
it
can
go
through
the
independent
stream
know.
B
Once
you
have,
I've
jumped
the
gun
on
the
bottom
bullet,
they're
not
adopted
in
the
working
group,
but
is
already
deployed
out
in
the
internet
and
being
used
widely
used.
So
an
example
of
that
Aaron
was
the
document
about
Denmark
for
email
and
hand
him
which
was
sent
in
Jimmy
by
a
group
of
big
email
providers,
technologies
that
certainly
hadn't
been
developed
in
or
we
can
grip,
but
it's
out
there
it's
widely
used,
and
so,
if
it's
documented
in
an
RFC
other
people
can
implement
it
and
use
it
now.
B
What
about
anime
is
going
on
with
other
things?
These
ones
are
the
categories
from
4846
yeah,
that's
better.
These
are
the
ones
4836
and
the
the
outer
level
bullets
are
from
4846
critical
reviews
of
IDT
for
other
technical
word.
Well
as
an
example
of
that,
I
had
a
submission
which
was
documenting
the
discussions
inside
a
working
group
where
they've
been
developing
a
particular
protocol.
B
B
B
The
other
possibility
or
next
possibility
re
publication
of
standards
developed
by
other
bodies.
Now
we
have
done
that
the
time
and
time
to
time,
but
not
within
my
time.
This
is
e
and
4846
has
still
other
bilities
and
even
then
the
list
is
not
not
at
all.
It's
also.
The
bottom
line
is
the
IAC
wants
to
publish
it,
citizen
worth
publishing
them
with
candy,
but
there's
one
from
I'm
in
that
list,
which
I
thought
was
interesting.
It
includes
eulogies
and
there's
a
reference.
Theater
RFC,
2441,
John,
Costello
John
died.
I
was
very
unexpectedly
in
1998.
B
It
was
a
big
loss
to
everybody
and
RFC
and
the
ITF
community,
so
that
particular
RFC
is
a
really
nice
eulogy
to
them,
and
it
gives
you
a
very
good
idea,
what's
kind
of
a
person
he
was
and
how
great
it
was
to
directly
now
moving
on
from
history
at
last,
so
you're
going
to
submit
them
independent
stream,
a
document
to
the
independence
trip.
Well,
what
are
the
minimal
requirements?
Okay?
Well,
it
has
to
be
it.
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
B
B
This
may
be
a
problem.
If
you
thought
you
were
looking
for
some
IPR
protection
from
it
being
an
IRC.
Well,
it
doesn't
have
it
come
from
independent
streams.
If
you
have
worries
about
your
your
intellectual
property,
then
you
need
to
post
it
as
an
intimate
draft,
and
if
you
do
that,
then
you
can
make
an
IPR
declaration
and
that's
about
as
much
as
the
ITF
can
do.
For
it
remember.
B
None
of
us
allow
it,
but
there
were
having
said
that
the
ITF
at
the
our
policy
does
apply
to
the
internet
drafts
and
usually
independent
submissions
are
posted
as
internet-drafts.
So
if
you,
if
you're
worried
about
that,
then
that's
what
you
do
to
actually
make
a
submission.
You
post
your
document,
isn't
it
in
a
draft
and
there's?
Well,
that's
the
URL
for
posting,
but
finding
out
about
independent
internet
draft
and
then
the
next
URL
a
second
one.
There
and
point
you
to
the
page
vrsc
editor
page,
which
gives
you
the
instructions
for
submitting.
B
So
you
check
to
see
that
you've
got
everything
in
your
email
and
which
that
page
asks
you
for,
and
then
you
send
it
to
our
CIS
e
at
arts
editor
throttle
and
the
kind
of
information
which
you
need
to
support.
The
submission
I
think
I'm
going
to
skip
through
these
next
three
slides
few
slides
very
quickly.
B
When
you
need
to
know
the
file
name
of
the
draft,
I
need
to
know
what
status
it's
going
to
be
before
I
have
to
actually
look
at
it
and
read
it
up
and
I
need
to
know
whether
this
document
has
been
discussed
in
working
group
or
on
mailing
list,
or
anything
like
that.
I
need
to
know
that
heartless
I
understand
its
background
and
partly
because
it
gives
me
clues
as
to
who
I
might
be
able
to
approach
to
review.
That
document.
B
Then,
if
you're
asking
for
I
Anna
code
points,
I
need
to
know
that
this
draft
is
one
which
doesn't
require
ITF
consensus
or
standards,
action
and
there's
atop
5226
tells
you
about
that
specification
required
of
the
kind
of
Vienna
coke
once
which
the
screen
can
handle
statement
of
purpose
of
publishing
the
document.
Why
do
you
think
this
document
should
be
published
just
having
it
as
an
RFC?
Isn't
a
good
reason.
B
You
need
to
know
what
sort
of
audience
are
aiming
at
them
who
you
hope
will
read,
and
the
page
asks
for
suggestions
of
component
independent
potential
reviewers
for
the
document.
Now
the
IAC
can
and
will
find
reviewers.
But
if
you
can
give
me
a
few
names
to
start
with,
that's
very
healthy
I,
don't
know
everything
myself.
B
That's
assuming,
of
course,
that
I
decide
to
go
ahead
with
the
document,
but
given
that
I
accepted
into
the
stream,
then
I
have
to
go
out
and
find
at
least
two
reviewers
I
can
ask
almost
anybody,
including
the
IETF
leadership,
so
I
can
ask
your
either,
because
I
can
ask
quickly
good
chairs
and
when
I
do
the
request
is
tactically
set,
as
could
you
review
this
better?
What
otherwise
can
you
suggest
likely
reviewers
so
I?
B
It
hasn't
been
that
impossibly
hard
to
find
reviews
for
documents.
I
normally
ask
them
for
too
just
give
me
a
brief
heads
up
on.
Do
you
think
this
is
worth
while
duckin
me
or
not?
So
if
they
look
at
it
and
they
think
oh
gosh
not
another,
like
that,
I
can
tell
me
that
and
not
waste
any
more
of
their
time.
Mine
just
means
I
have
to
go
looking
for
other
reviewers,
but
if
they
accept
that,
then
I
ask
them
to
give
a
review
back
to
the
inside
three
weeks.
B
What
will
go
on
to
that
people
who
haven't
written
reviews
for
me
before
ask
what
should
the
review
look
like
that's
involved
in
doing
this,
so
I
write
down
some
guidelines
for
them,
so
the
first
one
is:
is
it
technically
sound?
Does
it
look
as
though
it
could
be
implemented?
If
the
you
can
see,
the
reviewer
can
see
things
which
need
to
be
changed
or
which
would
cause
problems
were
implemented
and
deployed.
Then
we
need
to
know
about
it,
so
the
authors
can
sort
those
out.
B
So
this
is
very
like
again
what
happens
with
comments
and
a
working
group
if
this
particular
document
is
describing
a
protocol
then
same
question
as
a
working
group.
Is
there
enough
detail
to
let
somebody
implement
somebody
else
implement
this
from
the
text,
and
this
is
going
back
to
jon
postel
an
example
code,
or
it
is
not
enough.
B
Sometimes
that's
all.
There
is,
and
sometimes
well
nevermind.
It's
like
only
hood.
You
have
to
be
able
to
implement
from
the
text
and
are
all
the
required
sections
of
the
draft
they
they're
like
they're
supposed
to
so
it
has
to
be
an
inr
consider
section
which
I
this
is.
Nothing
is
required
or
spells
out
what
is
required.
There
has
to
be
security
considerations
because
without
those,
but
it
just
can't
go
any
further
so
when
in
any
high
AC
has
got
some
reviews
back.
He
sends
copies
of
those
to
the
draft
authors.
B
You
may
also
send
suggestions
and
requests
improvements
to
be
made
before
we
can
get
any
further
with
the
graph
and
as
well
as
their
unlike
paper
being
submitted
to
an
academic
journal
where
you
don't
know
who
the
reviewer
is
most
reviewers
are
perfectly
happy
to
swap
emails
and
healthy
authors
make
the
changes
so
that
we
could
do
it
in
really
good
shape
before
trying
to
go
any
further.
So
in
the
authors
have
made
the
changes
and
the
reviewers
envia
ISE
happy
that
the
document
is
ready
to
go
further.
Then
last
phase
last
hurdle
to
jump.
B
B
This
is
a
list
of
the
people
who
reviewed
it
for
me
and
we
are
played
and
I
agree
that
it's
fine
overview
and
they
came
back
to
say,
oh,
but
we're
not
quite
sure
that
we
trust
those
reviewers
or
we
don't
know
those
reviewers
particularly
or
it
will
generally
not
happy.
We
need
more
information,
so
I've
reached
a
point
now
of
writing
things
up
for
them.
B
So
I
give
him
the
abstract
brief
history
of
where
the
draft
came
from
how
it
was
developed
comments
if
any
are
needed
on
what
the
I,
immigrants,
relations
or
security
considerations
might
be
a
list
of
the
reviewers
and
copies
of
the
reviews.
Usually
now
that's
because
4846
says
that
reviews
will
be
published.
B
So
it's
part
of
the
iat
community
that
everything
is
done
in
public,
that
this
independent
stream
there
doesn't
have
to
be
consensus,
but
the
reviews
are
published
usually
with
the
reviewers
names,
but
if
you're
reviewing-
and
this
does
happen-
sometimes
we're
having
work,
it
happens
where
people
working
in
a
company
has
said
that
my
bosses-
please
don't
please
make
this
an
armed
and
anonymous
review.
Well,
we
can
do
that,
but
but
they've,
let
start
works
right.
So
when
everything
is
set
the
offer
is
he
sends
it
to
the
isg.
B
They
have
a
look
at
the
draft
5742.
They
may
have
questions
in
which
patients
they
will
swap
email
with
the
IAC
or
with
the
authors,
and
then
this
is
the
point
that
they
may
pick
up
on
things
which
absolutely
as
mr..
Well
then,
they
think
of
things
little
changes
which
would
improve
it,
that's
fine
and
then
they
send
back
to
the
ISE
a
recommendation.
B
And
by
the
way,
the
independent
submissions
editorial
board
were
very,
very
helpful
in
reviewing
these
slides
through
about
six
iterations
to
get
all
of
us
spelled
out
clearly
so
the
IAC
and
the
iesg
send
a
recommendation.
They
may
make
review
like
comments.
That's
the
helpful
hints.
I
woke
up
for
suggestions
to
the
author's
or
textual
suggestions,
which
is
the
iesg
note
to
the
IAC.
B
B
Just
puzzled,
clearly,
it's
okay,
the
things
which
of
the
isg
are
now
to
say:
4846
gives
them
a
list
of
possible
responses
to
a
conflict
early.
They
can
say:
ok,
no
problems,
they
can
say
over
lets
the
work
of
such
and
such
a
working
group,
but
still
not
a
problem.
Those
two
are
just
fine.
They
can
say
this
well,
essentially,
they
can
say
we're
worried
that
this
will
break
the
internet,
please
don't
publish,
which
is
a
recommendation
to
the
privacy.
B
So
in
that
case
the
ISE
is
sort
of
put
under
the
cross
is
tim
has
to
decide,
am
I
going
to
publish
this
anyway,
because
I
certainly
can
or
not-
and
this
is
what
the
history
of
the
last
seven
years
is:
I've.
Only
ever
up
twice.
I
have
gone
ahead
and
published
a
document
which
the
admirers
ugc
done.
So
it
is
possible.
It
does
happen,
it
doesn't
happen
very
often
it
has
to
be
something
which
is
quite
important
and
especially
something
which
is
widely
deployed
and
used
already
and
before
the
AC
will
do
that.
B
One
of
the
editorial
board
members
pointed
out
that
this
is
the
optimistic
best
case.
If
everything
really
goes
the
way,
we
would
hope.
Well,
the
submission
comes
in
it
takes
a
week
or
so
to
find
reviewers
and
get
them
committed
to
producing
new
reviews.
They've
got
three
weeks
in
when
in
which
they
are
expected
to
seem
to
review.
Then
then,
the
authors
get
to
make
whatever
changes
we
needed.
So
that's
another
two
weeks
or
so
then
I
send
it
to
the
iesg
the
isg
meets
and
they
have
Tony
chats
every
two
weeks.
B
So
you
may,
it
may
be
a
near-perfect
draft
which
doesn't
need
revisions
and
goes
right
through
that
much
unchanged
or
it
may
be
one
which,
where
the
authors
had
to
spend
quite
a
lot
of
time,
swapping
email
with
reviewers
to
finally
get
it
right.
So
then
they
go
through
hasn't
come
through
the
revisions
at
that
stage,
now,
let's
tied
and
another
one
of
the
people
of
the
editorial
board,
people
said
it'll
be
good
to
see
some
statistics
for
them.
B
In
that
year
now,
I
had
93
drafts,
which
I
had
worked
on
during
the
year
of
those
bottom
of
the
slide.
There
39
were
still
in
my
active
list
at
the
end
of
in
March
2016,
so
anyone
off
the
more
waiting
for
reviewers
or
waiting
yeah.
Why
keep
looking
for
reviewers
or
waiting
Peruvians
18
of
the
more
waiting
on
author's
revisions
and
I'll
comment?
Some
authors,
once
they've
got
the
process
started,
losing
just
and
just
go
away.
B
B
Yes,
though,
those
are
12,
otherwise,
they'd
have
been
handled
and
finished,
so
the
ones
that
were
finished
22
of
them
were
published.
So
that's
22
in
a
year
and
actually
that's
about
what
I
was
originally
led
to
believe
would
go
through
at
the
street.
But
those
are
the
ones
which
was
successfully
published
of
the
others.
Two
of
them
were
moved
to
the
independent
street.
They
sorry
meant
to
the
ATF
stream,
so
these
were
ones
where
I
and
move
the
various
reviewers
said.
Look
this
world
really.
B
This
should
be
of
working
group
and
so
I
managed
to
persuade
an
area
director
or
working
groups
you
to
pick
it
up
and
take
it
over
so
that
work
then
and
19
were
withdrawn
by
authors,
which
is
my
polite
way
of
saying,
lost
interest
in
went
away
and
11
were
just
plain
outright
rejected,
so
the
RFC
editor
named
for
that
is
DMV,
do
not
publish
so
there's.
Quite
a
lot
of
material
goes
through
the
stream
one
way
or
another,
and
you
can
see
and
the
fact
that
you
send
it
to
me.
Doesn't
it
the
odds?
B
Aren't
all
that
high
for
being
actually
published,
but
I
do
my
best
to
push
it
to
where,
where
I
think
it
would
be
best
handled,
and
yes,
there's
pretty
good
understanding
about
that
right
through
now,
I
couldn't
resist
a
slide
about
myths
of
the
independent
stream.
Don't
get
the
idea
that
pushing
taking
a
document
through
the
independent
screen
will
be
faster
than
getting
it
through
a
working
group.
B
Of
course,
those
of
you
who
are
we
involved
with
working
groups
know
that
even
from
the
time
you
finally
managed
to
get
it
on
the
list
working
their
documents.
It
can
still
be
a
couple
of
years
by
the
time
fits
through,
and
maybe
the
independent
screen
can
do
better
network
ten
weeks
was
the
optimistic
deaths
case,
so
it
is
possible,
but
it
doesn't
happen
ever
like
that
very
often,
and
the
other
thing
which
really
is
rather
important
not
just
funny,
is
that
you
can't
use
the
independent
spring.
B
All
your
lies
I've
not
change
these
two
elements,
oops
it
can
be
used
to
make
an
end
run
around
the
work
you
do.
No,
it
really
can't
will
awake
to
that
idea
and
the
IOC
does
take
the
trouble
to
cheap
to
say.
Would
this
be
better
in
some
particular
working
group
and
then
ask
for
cheers?
Have
you
have
you
seen
lyst?
Do
you
think
it
would
be
good
on
the
working
group
and
if
the
effect
is
case,
then
I
will
come
back
and
say,
look
for
three
minutes
to
go
to
hear.
B
B
B
B
Some
of
them
are
just
driven
to
be,
while
I'm
standing
here
ready
my
hands
here
to
be
accepted.
As
an
april
first
draft
jon,
postel
and
Bob
Braden,
both
said
you
should
be
able
to
a
good
people,
should
read
it
to
at
least
the
end
of
the
second
page
before
they
realize
it's
a
split
and
going
back
to
avian
carriers
and
evil
bit
and
the
one
my
favorite
and
faster-than-light
communication.
B
And
yes,
the
equations
tell
you
that
the
tcp
will
still
work
when
we
have
faster-than-light
communications
technically
great,
but
the
bottom
line
is
they've
got
to
be
funny
able
to
appeal
to
people
with
a
technical
background.
You'll
see
from
this
back
so
last
year
there
weren't
any
like
that,
so
he
didn't
publish
any
a
professor
as.
B
Had
a
rather
beeper
number
higher
number
of
submissions
this
year,
so
look
out
for
this
year's
a
proposed
RFC's
and
oh
yes,
this
one
really
is
that
ice,
how
to
contact
the
IAC?
Well,
you
can
email
me,
that's
the
email
address
CIAC
at
RFC
edited
bottle
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
do
is
to
do
officers
during
ITF
meeting.
So
if
you
want
to
come
and
talk
about
a
particular
draft
which
you're
interested
in
trying
to
publish
or
if
you
want
to
find
out,
we
are
in
my
process.
B
Your
draft
is
at
the
moment
I'm
sitting
at
the
desk,
the
axially
desk
on
Wednesday
morning
or
on
Thursday
afternoon.
That
really
is
oh,
no,
it's
not
quite
lizards
from
the
Secretariat.
They
would
like
to
know
how
you
thought
this
tutorial
was.
Did
you
find
an
interesting?
Did
you
find
it
useful?
What
could
we
have
done
better,
so
they
put
up
a
survey.
Monkey
survey
at
that
URL.
Do
please
take
a
few
minutes.
It's
quite
a
shorts.