►
From YouTube: IETF99-MTGVENUE-20170719-1520
Description
MTGVENUE meeting session at IETF99
2017/07/19 1520
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/proceedings/
B
A
C
D
C
F
C
Score
yeah
I
dialed
in
from
the
the
restaurant
for
TLS
I
thought
it
was
better
than
sitting
in
the
room
with
all
the
people
and
a
note
that
says
hearing
is
okay,
love
that
thank
you
all
right,
so
we're
gonna
get
started
here.
We're
waiting
for
Elliot
to
show
but
and
Elliot
showed
what
a
deal
well
either
way.
C
The
one
request
for
the
agenda
Bash
was
to
let
Suresh
go
first,
since
it's
basically
a
summary
and
we
think
we're
moving
along
rather
nicely
everybody.
Okay,
with
that
I
I
see
no
screams
of
horror
so
Suresh.
Why
don't
you
go
through
your
update
and
you
don't
have
any
particular
slides?
Do
you
and
and
and
there's
a
mic
and
a
pink
box
that
you're
meant
to
stand
in.
G
Hey
all
I'm
serious,
like
I'm
author
of
one
of
the
working
group
documents,
that's
the
high-level
meeting
policy.
So
this
one
is
like
kind
of
converged
like
already
last
meeting
and
we
had
like
some
small
open
items.
So
I
actually
had
an
open
item
section
in
the
draft
and
that's
now
gone
so
the
open
items
were
weather.
Attracting
new
participants
is
like
a
explicit
goal
of
this
policy
and
the
consensus
was
it
was
not
so
that's
gone
and
another
thing
was
like
how
do
we
describe
exploratory
meetings?
G
So
there
are
some
meetings
like
you
know,
the
old
Yokohama
meeting,
not
the
one
or
the
one
before
and
like
Amsterdam
meeting,
which
kind
of
ended
up
being
exploratory
meetings.
But
right
now
look
like
a
regular
meeting
because
they're
on
Europe
and
Asia,
but
they
didn't
have
any
meetings
in
Europe
in
Asia,
so
I
added
those
things
in
there
and
remove
the
stuff
about
whether
we
should
do
stuff
by
our
ion
or
not.
So
one
of
the
things
that
came
out
was
like.
G
We
don't
want
to
define
this
with
too
much
precision,
so
we
want
to
be
like
a
little
bit
flexible
on
how
the
areas
are
defined,
so
we
decided
to
not
bike
shed
that
thing
so
that
stuff
is
removed.
Now,
I
saw
and
I
believe
the
document
is
ready
for
work,
no
class
call
and
there's
no
open
comments,
but
willing
to
take
any
comments
here
or
on
the
mailing
list.
C
H
C
To
go
so
you
you,
your
current
Rev
that
is
out
there
is
the
one
that
you
believe
is
work
ready
for
working
professional,
great,
perfect.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you,
sir
sure
Elliot
would
you
prefer
I
can
drive
slides
and
you
can
sit
if
you
want
or
if
you
want
to
be
in
the
pink
box
or
whatever
works?
C
Okay,
so
where
you
can
sit
in
the
box,
whatever
you
like
bring
a
chair,
you
know,
are
you
yeah,
I?
Think
if
you
sit
on
the
floor
in
the
box,
the
camera
won't
see
you
wherever
you
want
to
be.
F
I
C
C
Well,
there's
a
mic
right
there
too.
So
all
right,
so
we
are
discussing
the
selection
process
document
I
posted
a
list
of
issues
that
I
believed
were
resolved
and
issues
that
I
believed
needed
more
discussion.
If
people
wanted
to
discuss
them,
these
are
the
issues
save
one
that
were
I
thought
people
might
want
to
discuss,
and
so
I'm
gonna
go
through
these
one
by
one
just
quickly
and
make
sure
that
we
are
all
on
board
with
moving
along.
C
So
the
first
was
issue
number
six,
which
was
I,
believe
Andrews
initial
terminology
hard
to
follow
comments
and
I
believe
these
are
now
resolved.
No
one
spoke
up
to
say:
oh
my
god,
we
need
to
change
terminology
again,
so
I'm,
going
to
presume
by
the
eyeballs
looking
at
me,
none
of
which
are
complaining
that
we're
good
to
go.
So
that's
going
to
be
closed
as
resolved.
C
There
was
a
an
issue:
number
fifteen
distinction
between
two
requirements
and
I
believe
that
was
a
misunderstanding
on
the
part
of
participants,
as
I
noted
on
the
list,
and
so
I'm
gonna
close
that
with
no
change.
Unless
there
is
some
objection.
If
folks
want
me
to
I've
got
the
github
that
I
can
project,
but
if
these
are
not
recognizable
to
you
and
you
think
just
fine
we'll
expect
you'll
go
over
it
again
and
working
the
blast
call
the
issue.
Eighteen
align
mandatories
with
values,
was
Laura's
message
back
in
February.
C
It
got
a
little
bit
of
discussion,
but
not
very
much
I'm.
Basically,
gonna
hold
that
issue
open
for
working
group.
Last
call
review
and
we'll
talk
about
that
in
a
moment,
but
I
think
there's
no
particular
change.
Given
our
last
two
revs,
there
was
issue
number
22,
which
is
about
freedom
of
expression.
I
heard
no
one
speak
up
that
there
needed
to
be
any
additional
text,
so
I
think
that
is
closed
with
no
change,
and
then
there
was
issue
number
23,
no
guns,
I
heard
no
support
on
the
list.
C
Correct
a
Barry's
question
from
the
floor
was
the
issue
for
23
22
or
23.
Were
you
asking
23
the
issue
for
23?
It
was
proposed
that
some
text
be
added.
There
was
no
support
beyond
the
person
who
proposed
it
and
so
I'm
saying
that
that
issue
is
closed
with
no
change
to
the
document.
So
anyone
want
to
speak
to
these
now
or
forever
hold
your
peace,
not
referring
to
a
gun
at
well
until
last
call
all
right,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
these
and
github
and
consider
those
issues
close.
C
That
leaves
the
two
open
issues,
one
which
has
been
in
github
and
one
which
Elliott
just
and
I.
Don't
we
don't
even
have
it
in
github
yet
but
open
this
week
and
I'll
talk
about
that
in
a
moment.
The
first
is
issue
20,
which
was
Brian's
suggestion
that
most
of
the
occurrences
of
IAO
see
in
the
document
actually
were
more
properly.
C
I
asseh
Brian
went
and
proposed
a
fall
old
new
replacement
text,
Elliott
went
through
them,
I
believe
now
has
text
prepared
to
replace,
with
and
I
didn't
hear
any
objections
on
the
list
from
what
we've
got.
Elliott,
did
you
want
to
speak
to
what
you've
got
in
there
and
what
you
think
is
ready
to
go
yeah
I.
I
Took
all
of
Brian's
proposed
changes
with
one
exception,
which
is
he
called
the
meetings
committee,
a
subcommittee.
You
know
he
referred
to
meetings
committee
in
some
sort
of
subordinate
way
to
directly
subordinate
to
I
ass
and
it's
really
a
an
IOC
committee
and
as
that
is
the
factual
case,
I
thought
I
would
just
leave
the
IOC
reference
in
Hertz
I.
Think
it's
editorial,
but
there's
thought
other.
J
C
Sorry
about
that,
I
should
have
put
it
on
the
slides
repeatedly,
but
alright,
so
I
believe
we've
got
the
IAO
C
versus
I
asked
a
thing
covered.
Does
anybody
have
any
concerns
about
that?
I
love
the
way
this
is
going.
We're
gonna
be
out
of
here
in
a
half
hour
all
right.
So
then
the
only
issue
left
is
the
travel
barriers
issue.
So
if
you
were
reading
the
list
this
week,
Eliot
posted
a
message.
C
Basically,
the
section
on
travel
barriers
which
includes
visa
requirements
got
some
running
code,
run
against
it
this
week
because
of
the
San
Francisco
issue
and
Eliot's
question
was
well.
Does
the
text
match
what
actually
happened
now,
I
believe
I
posted
and
that
there's
a
double
negative
in
the
current
text
and
Eliot
thought
that
it
actually
didn't
match
what
happened?
I
believe
in
John
Levine
followed
up
on
this,
that
the
text
actually
does
match
what
happened,
but
either
way.
The
text
needs
to
be
clarified,
because
you
can't
that
you
can
read
it
the
opposite
way.
C
C
But
the
way
it's
written
is
very
upside-down
with,
if
not
a
double
negative,
it's
just
confusing,
and
then
they
were
followed
up
with
a
discussion
of
whether
we
wanted
to
attach
some
numeric
value,
either
percentage
or
numbers
of
bodies
to,
and
there
were
some
back-and-forth
about
that
I'd
like
to
open
the
discussion
on
the
latter
issue,
especially,
but
if
folks
have
comments
about
how
they,
it
could
be
better
clarified,
just
the
text
that
would
be
useful
as
well.
Yeah.
J
D
Could
have
been
is
individual
contributor
just
to
make
sure
that
you
can't
leave
home
can't
leave
in
like
two
minutes,
I'm
disagreeing
I
think
the
meeting
was
moved
because
there
was
a
large
uncertainty
about
what
would
happen.
The
travel
barriers
didn't
really
notice,
be
change
for
the
participants
yet
and
the
other
point.
But
so,
ladies,
it's
just
a
guess
right
and
the
other
point
about
it
and
the
decision
to
move
the
meeting
is
also
about
timing.
D
So
if
you
can
make
a
decision
early
in
advance,
it's
cheaper
than
if
you
have
to
make
a
last-minute
decision
and
I,
don't
think
that
anything
about
in
certainty
or
fears
that
people
may
have
have
which
may
map
reality
or
not,
which
lead
to
people
not
coming.
Even
so,
there
are
no
barriers,
but
you
know
just
because
there
might
be
some
at
the
point
where
the
actual
travel.
This
is
not
kept
out
at
all.
K
K
I
believe
that
it
can
be
read
to
take
in
the
uncertainty,
but
maybe
it
needs
that
interpretation
maybe
needs
to
be
made
more
more
clear
because
I
already
read
it
that
way,
that
it
was
trying
to
take
in
the
uncertainty
and
being
purposefully
vague
so
that
it
could
account
for
that.
But
I
curious
to
think
you
know
hear
what
others
others
say
and
if
you
have
more
thoughts
on
it.
L
C
Let
me
put
the
question
to
you,
given
the
current
words,
do
you
feel,
like
the
meetings
committee
could
have
looked
at
the
current
words
and
said
yeah?
This
is
a
justification
for
changing
things
based
on
what
it
says
in
the
document
we
should
go
and
make
the
change
or
we're
justified
in
making
the
change
or
or.
L
C
C
C
G
C
C
Yes,
sorry
and-
and
the
context
is
not
deeply
helpful,
which
I
think
again
points
to
wanting
to
clarify
this
section
in
general,
but
yeah.
It
goes
through
a
list
of
what
makes
for
a
reasonable
venue
city
criteria.
One
of
them
is
travel
barriers
to
entry,
including
visa
requirements,
are
unlikely
to
impede
attendance
by
an
overwhelming
majority
of
participants.
C
C
M
Lesley
Nagel,
so
the
I
think
these
venues
venues
city
criteria,
work
for
evaluating
cities
at
any
point
in
time,
which
is
what
the
meetings
committee
does.
M
It
was
the
IOC
that
actually
took
the
decision
to
move
the
meeting
based
on
the
recommendation
from
the
meetings
committee,
as
well
as
the
other
research
that
we
did
is
outlined
in
the
note
that
I
sent.
However
many
hours
or
days
ago,
that
was
I
think
that
the
challenge
I
have
with
this
Texas
I
think
that
it
that
this
set
of
criteria
identifies
candidate
locations
at
any
given
point
in
time,
but
doesn't
really
speak
to
the
question
of
when.
Is
it
a
good
idea
to
change
right?
M
So
did
we
leave
San
Francisco
because
it
ceased
being
a
valid
venue
for
the
meeting?
Did
we
leave
San
Francisco
because
there
was
a
better
venue
for
a
more
successful
meeting
that
would
where
the
trade-off
of
more
likely
successful
meeting
was
in
favor
of
that,
rather
than
cost
of
moving
and
I.
Think
that's
what
we
did
and
I
think
that
that
means
that
modulo
number
of
negatives.
The
wording
here
is
okay
and
the
challenge
is
more
in
a
later
part
when
it
talks
about
late
changes
and
I'm
I.
M
I
D
I
I
So
this
is
the
text
around
light
changes.
This
was
an
initial
attempt
to
address
comments
that
that
said.
Well,
you
know
we
don't
want
to
have
a
lot
of
process,
I
mean
in
the
document
around
late
changes.
We
want
to
have
this
there's
a
stab
at
a
little
bit
of
process
to
say
here's
sort
of
how
the
IOC
operates.
So,
if
there's
a
change,
that's
needed
here,
let's
and.
M
Actually
reading
it
now
on
the
screen
here,
I
think
this
is
fine
because
gauging
the
cost
of
making
the
change
against
the
ability,
the
idea
to
conclude
a
successful
meeting-
is
exactly
what
we
thought
we
were
doing.
We
made
a
determination
based
on
the
information
we
had
from
consulting
various
sources,
including
the
community,
about
moving
the
dates
and
also
including
people's
experiences
and
coming
to
Chicago.
M
C
D
Accouterments,
it
I
think
it
actually
fits,
but
also
because
all
of
the
qualifying
quantifying
words
here
are
very
unclear.
That,
like
when
does
the
circumstances
have
significantly
changed
right
and
there's
another
significantly
and
the
other
sentence
say
and
that
you
know,
makes
the
decision
again
kind
of
as
random
as
without
having
the
guidance
well.
G
C
Some
time
is
that
you've
got
a
there's,
got
to
be
a
judgement,
call
at
some
point
by
the
IOC
that
it
is
significant
or,
as
in
the
earlier
paragraph,
it
says
unlikely
that
it
is
unlikely
or
is
likely
that
people
will
have
trouble
getting
visas.
Those
those
kinds
of
weasel
words
I
think
have
to
be
in
the
document
just
to
give
enough
latitude
so
we're
not
in
the
well.
We
think
sixty
people
can
or
can't
MIT
well
how
about
sixty.
D
D
N
O
N
Rosen
I
want
to
apply
what
you
just
said
specifically
to
the
to
the
other
section
where
you
use
the
words
significant
majority
over
well.
N
Majority:
okay,
so
majority
1200,
roughly
twelve
hundred
things
at
majorities.
Six
hundred
an
overwhelming
majority
is
a
hundred
right.
I
I
would
I
would
like
you
to
come
up
with
another
set
of
weasel
words
that
it
leads
you
to
believe
that
twenty
five
fifty
is
a
number
that
were
starting
to
worry
about
and
not
to,
but
not
a
hundred
or
two
hundred,
which
would
most
people
would
consider
overwhelming
majority
of
a
twelve
hundred
meeting
person
to
be
eleven
hundred.
I
If
I
may
just
ask
point
of
information
from
people
who
are
on
the
meetings
committee
or
people
who
are
working
with
Ray,
one
of
the
questions
that
came
to
him
on
the
list
was,
you
know
we
always
get
some
people
who
are
turned
away
or
discouraged
for
some
reason.
Do
we
have
some
sort
of
baseline
number?
We
have
some
sort
of
notion
as
to
where
that
that
number
sits.
P
Deliberately
sent
just
looking
at
spire
graph
and
I'll
come
back
to
what
Lesley
said
so
I
think
said
when
it
was
being
talked
about.
The
meetings
committee
in
the
IOC
were
deciding
whether
to
move
the
venue
that
both
that
San
Francisco
still
met
the
the
meeting
criteria
that
we
had
up
at
the
beginning.
The
meeting
venue
criteria-
it's
still
met
that,
but
there
was
another
venue
that
seemed
to
meet
it
better.
C
C
Elliot's
point
of
posting
this
in
the
first
place
we
we
would
like
it
to
be
the
case
that
the
document
at
least
does
not
look
insane
in
the
face
of
running
code
and
and
so
insofar
as
we
go
well,
that's
an
edge
case
and
it's
okay,
that
it
was
not
perfectly
captured.
I.
Think
that's
fine!
If
we
say
this
doesn't
really
represent
what
the
IOC
can
do
and
feels
that
they
should
do,
then
we
probably
need
to
change
things
so.
Q
Joelly,
it's
just
a
quick
observation.
This
text
here
talks
about
when
the
IOC
must
reconsider.
It
doesn't
say
it
must
not
reconsider
in
any
other
circumstance,
I
mean.
Maybe
it
makes
sense
to
be
more
clear
and
say
it
may
reconsider
any
time
it
feels
like,
but
I
think
that's
implied
this
just
says.
In
this
circumstance
you
have
to
reconsider
I.
C
C
J
R
Jordi
ballot
I
am
late.
It
was
more
concerning
the
the
previous
point
that
we
were
discussing,
but
I
was
trying
to
find
my
email
in
the
mailing
list
and
I
was
not
able
to
find
it
quickly.
I
think
it
was
a
couple
of
days
ago,
I
mentioned
one
of
the
things
that
I
am
not
really
sure
is
covered
with
the
actual
document
is.
R
Are
we
willing
to
travel
to
a
country
that
this
allow
us
to
bring
our
computers
on
the
plane
and
I
am
not
really
sure
that's
covered
by
the
actual
text?
Maybe
it's
some
small
change,
but
I
think
that's
probably
key
for
most
of
us,
because
if
we
cannot
carry
over
computers
or
more
I'm,
not
sure
that's
a
qualifying
venue
or
not
can.
C
L
I
wouldn't
yeah,
go
there
too
much
either
I
mean
I
just
had
to
do
this.
Last
month,
where
I
had
to
check
my
computer
in
the
I
was
on
Turkish
errand
lunch
from
Istanbul,
but
these
rules
also
change
a
lot
and
it
was
annoying,
but
it
didn't
stop
me
from
doing
anything
other
than
I
couldn't
use
my
computer
on
board.
So
it
wouldn't.
You
know
as
long
as
long
as
you
can
bring
your
computer.
If
you
couldn't
bring
your
computer
to
the
meeting.
That
would
be
different,
but
now
this
is
annoying.
It's
not
showstopper
yeah.
C
A
C
D
Again
so
I
would
actually
read
in
a
more
closest
since
I
would
read
a
travel
barrier
as
something
where
I
actually
can't
enter
the
country
and
like
a
decision,
because
there
are
some
stuff
I
have
to
do,
and
that
brings
me
to
my
decision
to
decision
that
I
don't
want
to
enter
the
country
is
maybe
something
else,
but
I
think
that
should
be
considered
in
the
same
way
like.
If
everybody
says
we
just
don't
want
to
go
there.
We
could
you
shouldn't,
hold
a
meeting
there.
S
Yeah
yeah
Jonathan,
it
sounds
like
we
probably
could
use
weasel
words
about
travel
barriers
be,
but
I
vigorously
concur
with
the
plan
that
weekly
we
construed,
travel
vet
barriers
broadly
because,
frankly,
we
cannot
predict
when
they
will
be
like
the
laptop
banned
for
you
and
me
it
is
a
it's
an
annoyance.
My
understanding
is
there.
There
are
companies
with
with
corporate
policies
that
you
may
not
check
your
laptop
because
we're
worried
that
they'll
be
stolen
for
them.
You
know
that's
a
deal-breaker
and
similarly
you
know
we
hear
stories
about.
S
You
know
we
go
to
a
country
where
you
need
a
visa
and
visa
offices,
for
some
reason
are
in
places
that
are
very
hard
for
a
lot
of
our
people
to
get
to.
You
know
it's
like,
as
we
saw
on
the
mailing
list,
somebody
said
gee,
there's
no
Czech
consulate,
you
know,
and
it
turns
out,
there's
there's
a
there's,
a
secret
backdoor
that
you
can
use
you
can
go
to.
You
can
go
to
the
German
Consulate
instead
and
get
the
same
visa,
which
turns
out
to
be
a
workaround
for
that.
S
M
Illegal,
so
I
was
just
partly
trying
to
respond
to
this
notion
of
you
know
is
that
is
not
being
able
to
bring
your
laptop
of
travel
barrier
or
not.
It
may
be
reasonable,
as
an
additional
venue
city
criterion,
to
have
something
along
the
lines
of
stating
what
I
would
consider
to
be.
The
obvious,
which
is
the
venue
city,
will
actually
support
a
productive
meeting
and
I
don't
mean
that
flippantly,
because
I
mean
that's,
that's
largely
the
basis
of
choices
here.
It's
the
ability
of
the
IETF.
M
To
conclude
a
successful
meeting
is
what
drives
where
we
go,
and
it's
it's
not
cut
and
dried.
We
already
have
explored
this
notion
of.
Should
we
not
should
we
change
a
venue
because
of
the
possibility
of
having
our
computer's
hard
drives,
explored
on
entry
to
the
country
and
I'm
talking
about
2000
London
in
2000?
So
it's
not
uncommon,
and
the
only
thing
I
would
say
is
when
whether
we
choose
to
make
these
changes
has
to
be
gated
on.
M
C
I
just
want
to
summarize,
where
I'm
at
so
far,
what
I
hear
Elliot's
tasks
to
be
is
gotta
fix
the
double
negative
one
way
or
the
other
I'm
hearing
the
is
so
far.
Editors
choice
to
propose
Tech's
that
either
broadens
travel
ban
or
adds
another
bullet
to
somehow
indicate
support
for
the
meeting
or
support
for
facilities
and
whatever
you
come
up
with
it'll
address.
Leslie's
last
comment:.
I
K
C
E
This
was
speaking
to
last
point.
I
was
just
talking
about
on
the
barrister.
Intro
I
think
it's
important
that
that,
as
we
read
that
broadly
to
it,
is
read
as
things
that
cause
people
not
to
people
to
not
want
to
come.
Okay,
not
things
that
would
be.
You
know
legal
like
if
Canada
suddenly
we
required
you
have
a
maple
leaf
tattoo
to
come
to
Canada.
Okay,
everyone
could
get
a
tattoo
it
there,
not
right,
there's
not
like.
We
just
can't
get
them,
but
we
didn't
some
people
probably
wouldn't
want
to
right.
E
E
What's
the
risk
of
this
spreading
and
I
know
we
have
health
stuff,
I
I
think
think
it's
I
think
we
need
to
keep
this
very
open
to
apply
common
sense
as
we
have
and
the
running
code
that
they're
currently
running
of
chance
of
a
successful
meeting
is
far
more
important
than
an
argument
about
whether
someone
could
or
could
not
get
into
the
country.
Yeah
and
Charles.
J
There
are
none
barrier
than
I
Sean
Leonard,
also
note
the
travel
barriers
can
change
frequently
and
existing
travel
barriers
at
the
time
of
contracting
may
go
away
by
the
time
of
the
meeting
such
as
the
u.s.
Argentine
entry
fee
fee.
Slash
tax
can't
predict
reliably.
Consider
it
mention
that
it
can
change
either
way.
I
agree
that
it
depends.
How
close
we
are
to
the
meeting
text
to
that
effect
is
good.
D
Again,
yeah
I
was
also
wondering
if
I
look
at
the
process.
That
happened
this
time.
If
there
should
be
a
recommendation
if
the
uncertainty
uncertainty
is
very
high,
that
for
one
specific
decision,
actually
it's
good
to
survey
the
community
and
get
some
feedback
and
get
actually
some
numbers
that
I
mean
this
is
what
happened
this
time.
C
I
I
Think
there
is
some
text
above
in
terms
of
principles
and
I'll
just
need
to
check
to
see.
If
it
covers
this,
this
would
be
in
the
venue
selection
objectives
and,
if
there's
something
to
squeeze
something
in
there,
I'll
look,
but
it
could
be
that
it's
already
well
covered,
and
so
in
that
case,
I'll
leave
it
alone.
So.
C
My
plan
on
this
one
is
I'll
open
up
a
github
issue
or
two
on
this
set
of
issues
and
yeah
I
think
Elliott
you're
right
will
you
and
I
can
hash
out
a
little
and
then
we'll
propose
something
to
the
list
and
yeah
and
get
something
figure
it
out
all
right,
so
I
think
have
we
discussed
that
enough?
I
think
we're
good
all
right.
So.
C
The
plan
is
Elliott
publishes
a
oh
eight
once
we
get,
this
text
worked
out.
That
may
take
a
little
bit
after
that
we
will
start
a
two-week
working
group.
Last
call
just
to
do
a
final
pass,
make
sure
everybody's
convinced,
as
part
of
that
simultaneously,
with
that
I
talked
to
Laura
in
the
Secretariat
I,
would
like
the
Secretariat
folks,
who
sort
of
pulled
the
knobs
and
levers
of
the
actual
process
to
do
a
sanity
check
of
the
document,
because
there
were
issues
upfront
about
was
this
manageable?
C
C
C
Again
de
the
agenda
slide
I.
In
fact,
when
I
sent
them
to
Charles
I
said:
look
at
the
slides,
that's
what
they
are
all
right.
So
we
are
well
ahead.
We
have
completed
Suresh
at
the
beginning,
we've
taken
care
of
Eliot's
document,
so
we've
got
the
meeting
network
and
other
technical
requirements
which
Jordi.
C
C
R
R
It
was
a
different
kind
of
document,
but
more
or
less
I
think
the
idea
of
the
contents
is
is
almost
the
same
and
also
to
work
on
a
document
describing
the
technical
requirements
that
that
we
have
for
our
met
were
and
other
other
pieces
of
technical
things
like
power
and
things
like
that.
Okay,
so
not
just
the
network.
R
So
the
idea
was
at
that
point
to
coordinate
somehow
about
documents,
but
we
didn't
have
a
working
group
at
that
time
and
well
somehow
it
didn't
move
it
from
there
and
and
they
died
so
about
a
couple
of
months
ago.
I
think
it
was
in
April.
I
was
participating
in
a
on-site
survey
together,
which
which
the
staff
from
AMS
and
and
Jim
from
from
the
NOC
and
in
the
discussions
that
we
have
during
that
week.
We
realized
that
it.
R
It
will
be
a
good
idea,
probably
to
help
also
revive
it,
this
technical
document
and
that's
what
basically
ate
it
and
fortunately
I
had
a
lot
of
work
and
I
plan
it
to
do
that,
much
more
time
that
they
could
off
deadline.
But
I
could
only
finish
that
weekend
before
and
I
like
it
for
some
inputs,
for
example,
from
from
Jim
that
that
was
not
able
to
take
over
so
I
expect.
R
Things
like
that,
because
there
are
many
situations
where
you
can
do
the
same
in
different
ways.
So
it's
it's
general,
but
enough
for
the
the
team
doing
the
survey
on
site
from
the
NOC
to
take
the
decision
about
if
the
venue
will
let's
say,
survive
through
our
technical
requirements
of
not
next
next
slide.
Please
yeah!
Next,
one.
I
C
R
So
the
next
one,
so
what
I
have
here
is
only
the
table
of
contents.
The
the
goal
of
this
presentation
was
not
actually
to
discuss
about
all
the
details
of
the
document
is
just
to
to.
Let
know
the
people
that
the
document
is
there.
The
table
of
contents
basically
didn't
change
it
from
what
I
did
in
2005-2006
I
prove
it.
R
What
I
realized
that
during
the
the
week
or
participating
in
the
on-site
survey
and
I,
think
I
had
one
new
point,
which
is
number
nine
multi
property
building
meetings,
because
we
discovered
the
situation
that
that
we
really
need
to
specify
something
about
that
and
I
provided
actually
input
to
the
other
document.
About
the
same,
the
same
point,
so
next
one
please,
the
point
here
will
be
I-
would
like
to
to
get
inputs.
E
R
R
J
J
For
instance,
at
the
Seoul
meeting
we
weren't
sure
we
were
actually
going
to
have
a
meeting
network
for
a
while
during
the
months
leading
up
to
the
meeting
because
of
lack
of
a
sponsor
for
the
network,
and
you
know
who
was
gonna,
take
care
of
it
and
it
eventually
fell
into
place,
and
we
had
it.
I,
don't
know
how
much
of
this
we
can
actually
apply
at
the
time
we're
doing
me
there.
F
So
let
me
clarify
just
because
I'm
a
guy
who's
been
doing
it.
We
absolutely
do
figure
out
every
detail
down
to
what
ports
we
plug
things
into
and
what
fibers
we'd
use
when
we're
doing
the
analysis
at
the
site
qualification
level.
The
reason
for
that
is,
we
need
to
nail
down
what
how
we
would
do
it
if
we
do
choose
to
lose
location
and,
more
importantly,
if
there
are
modifications
that
are
necessary
to
the
facility
to
allow
us
to
come,
I'll
use
a
an
example
in
this
building.
F
We
learned
that
there
was
insufficient
fiber
to
really
do
we
wanted,
so
we
had
in
the
in
the
agreement
that
they
would
install
fiber
for
us
before
we
came
back,
and
so
it's
critical
that
we
understand
what
the
real
requirements
are
and
evaluate
the
potential
locations
against
those
requirements.
I
believe
what
Georgie's
doing
here
is
merely
documenting
what,
unfortunately,
has
existed
only
in
my
head
or
some
of
my
team
and
I
think
this
is
a
laudable
thing
just
because
it
allows
us
to
have
some
basis
to
move
forward
from
okay.
J
Q
Joelly,
this
might
also
be
extraneous
now.
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
if
Jim
hadn't
said
that,
if
Jim,
it
said,
we
already
have
these
requirements
already
written
down
somewhere
else
and
we're
fine
thanks,
there's
still
loads
of
really
good
stuff
in
this
document,
and
if
this
was
a
BCP
of
how
you
do
networks
of
meetings
in
general,
it's
still
really
important
to
push
there.
So
I,
don't
think
even
needs
to
be
in
this
working
group
to
be
relevant.
I
I
found.
R
A
web
page
I
think
I
put
it
in
the
mailing
list.
I
think
that
what
page
was
edited
in
the
IOC
website
in
2009
and
I
was
comparing
both
text
and
I
believe
that
that
webpage
was
based
on
my
initial
draft
I.
Don't
know
who
did
that
webpage?
Jim
can
say,
but
probably
that
information
is
what
what
it
was
in.
My
draft
in
2005.
I
F
H
F
To
answer
the
earlier
question
myself
and
a
number
of
the
members
of
the
not
team
worked
on
that
I
can't
Karen
or
Don,
you
drove
the
process,
but
the
base
require
don't
change
terribly.
They
do
evolve
a
bit
over
time,
but
on
the
scale
of
a
change
every
couple
of
years,
maybe
three
years
of
a
substantive,
a
substantive
change
for.
R
Example,
one
of
the
things
I
did
I,
try
it
to
keep
those
things
that
probably
will
change
somehow
open
and
one
example
can
be
different:
wireless
technologies
or
more
advanced,
cordless
technologies
or,
for
example,
in
terms
of
language
banquet
for
the
veneers.
So
right
now,
I
think
I
was
suggesting
something
like
1g
clings,
but
probably
in
the
future,
I
was
mentioning
that
it
will
be
the
same
cost
to
taint
ng
links
right,
so
things
like
that,
can
we
can
we
get
open
in
such
a
way
that
we
don't
really
need
to
update
the
document?
K
Yeah
Charles
ecologist
as
an
individual,
cuz,
yeah
I,
think
I.
Remember
asking
this
because
in
the
dock
in
your
dock
you
Nelly
its
document
are
draft
I
think
it
has
a
link
to
the
network
requirements
which
are
the
old
ones
and
and
so
okay
well
well,
it's
just
just
two
things.
First
of
all,
I
think
either
you
know
one
or
the
other
should
go
forward
either
a
draft
or
link.
So
it's
not
confusing
which
one
I
was
thinking.
K
R
The
advantage
of
having
a
document,
a
draft
for
FC
or
whatever
is
first
is,
is
it's
a
way
to
do
the
things?
Second,
you
are
sure
that
this
is
useful,
not
just
for
you,
but
also
for
other
entities,
doing
similar
networks
and
we
kick
updating
FF
C's.
Every
time
we
need
four
kind
of
protocol,
so
I
don't
think
updating
a
document
is
so
much
different
that
than
updating
a
what
Bates
actually
I
think
it
works
much
better,
because
it's
something,
let's
say
more
serious,
somehow
I.
F
F
That
said,
we
may
we
certainly
need
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
easy
place
to
get
to
this
from
the
various
websites,
because
Edie
is
often
that
a
potential
venue
wants
to
look
at
what
are
our
requirements
for
the
network
and
so
having
that
available
in
some
way
that
is
up
more
accessible
to
normal
people,
rather
than
you
know,
we're
all
very
comfortable,
RFC's,
the
rest,
the
world
ISM.
So.
R
R
I
think
that
that
it's
it's
difficult,
if
you
don't
read,
the
document
is
difficult
to
understand
what
I
am
trying
to
say
so
I
will
recommend
the
people
to
really
read
the
document
to
to
to
know
that
this
is
it's
a
generic
way
to
describing
what
our
requirements
not
necessary
need
to
be
part
of
the
contract.
The
document
itself,
okay,
Joe,
it's
a
way
to
evaluate
our
net
worth
the
facility
to
accommodate
our
network.
Q
Sharable
is
a
to
really
quick
points.
It
sounds
like
that
last
one
was
raised
saying
if
this
is
gonna
be
useful
to
me,
one
of
the
requirements
for
your
document
is
I
should
be
able
to
say,
implement
the
requirements
as
supply
as
specified
in
RFC.
Something,
and
have
that
mean
something
that's
acceptable
to
a
lawyer.
Q
I
don't
know,
but
the
other
point
I
was
gonna
make,
which
is
the
main
point,
is
that
one
other
benefit
of
putting
this
in
the
RFC
series
and
bumping
in
every
now
and
then
is
we
have
a
historical
record
of
how
we
ran
meetings
yeah,
which
otherwise
we
don't
have
and
I
think
that's
useful,
so
then
go
ahead
Bob.
Why.
L
I
mean
I.
Try
to
read
this
sorry,
just
I
I
think
there's
a
couple
things
it
shouldn't,
be
it
shouldn't
nail
down
specific
technologies
because
they
change
it
should
be
requirements.
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
should
be
the
thing
that
Ray
puts
in
the
contract
or
not
I
think
it
probably
shouldn't
be
because
I
think
that
has
to
be
more
specific
in
prayer
tailored
towards
a
specific
venue,
but
that's
something
that
Jim,
you
know,
that's
why
he
goes
on.
R
J
Sean
leonard,
I
would
like
to
see
more
how
more
network
hotel
considerations
right
now.
I
understand
that
IETF
hotel
access
is
mandatory
only
for
the
primary
meeting
hotel
lots
of
people
end
up
at
secondary
hotels,
I
understand
there
are
cost
to
setting
this
up.
What
are
the
costs
per
hotel?
Exactly
tech
text
proposal
quote.
Access
to
the
IETF
network
must
be
seriously
attempted
at
at
least
one
secondary
hotel
and
should
be
attempted
for
at
least
one
additional
secondary
hotel.
J
End
quote
additional
text
proposal
quote
the
hotel
page
for
the
IETF
meeting
shall
be
updated
promptly
with
IETF
network
access.
For
that
hotel
end
quote
additional
text
proposal
quote:
cost
estimating
for
providing
such
hotel
access
in
future
meetings
is
to
be
tracked
and
made
available.
End
quote
and
comment:
okay,.
C
That
could
be
you
and
perhaps
pieces
of
either
or
both
would
be
input
into
the
contracting.
That's
all
fine
and
an
interesting
discussion
to
have
my
two
questions
are
I.
Don't
see
that
as
plausibly
in
charter
right
now,
oh
yeah
I've
got
the
Charter
on
my
screen.
I'm
reading
it
over
this
would
be
a
new
charter
item.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
the
the
text
that
Shawn
mentioned
in
the
chat
room.
C
If
it's
aimed
at
this
document,
the
Jordi's
proposing
okay,
that
may
be
a
different
sort
of
thing
if
this
is
aimed
as
general
requirements
for
venue
selection.
That's
a
very
different
sort
of
thing
and
I'm
not
clear
that
I
want
to
entertain
it
as
part
of
that
I
think
we
got
out
of
a
bunch
of
this
kind
of
text
in
the
venue
selection
document.
C
What
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
room
it
sounds
like
there
is
general
interest
in
this
topic.
Is
this
something
that
we
want
to
ask
the
isg
for
a
new
charter
item
on
that
we
want
to
work
in
this
venue
on
or
one
of
the
possibilities
is.
This
is
more
specialized
than
this
working
group
is
probably
set
up
to
deal
with.
Maybe
this
is
a
different
sort
of
venue
that
we
need
to
discuss
this
in.
R
F
Believe
that
what
we're
mostly
doing
would
be
documenting
an
existing
system
existing
an
existing
process,
I
think
that
Geordi
and
I
could
work
on
as
an
individual
submission
I.
Don't
think
that
we
need
the
whole
working
group
and
it
certainly
would
go
through
through
a
overall
IETF
review,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
need
the
the
whole
working
group
involved,
but
that's
letters.
I
Existing
practice,
you
don't
need
a
working
group
to
document
existing
practice.
You
put
out
an
informational
document.
The
only
thing
you
need
to
do
at
that
point
is
just
make
sure
that
you
have
an
area
director,
who's
willing
to
say:
yeah,
that's,
okay
and
or
the
IOC
can
put
something
out
on
its
stream
I.
Don't
know
how
it
does
that,
but
I
think
that
seems
like
a
perfectly
reasonable
thing
to
do
in
this
context,
without
going
through
all
the
working
group
process,
Jim.
F
U
Jacobson
meetings,
committee
chairs,
so
I
would
say
that
having
this
document
and
having
a
pointer
to
it,
like
you
said,
might
be
useful
and
I'll
leave
it
to
Jim
to
say
whether
whether
it
is
or
not,
but
you
know
it
might
be
one
of
those
cases
where
you
can
have
a
host.
Who
declares
that
we,
you
know
we're
sponsoring
this
meeting
and
we
conform
to
the
network
requirements
document
without
having
to
say
exactly
what
that
means
so
pointing
to
the
document
might
be
useful
in
that
case,
because
there
might
be
places
in
the
world.
U
E
Cullen
Jenks
I
think
the
group
of
people
that
care
deeply
about
visa
requirements
are
somewhat
different
than
the
group
of
people
that
care
deeply
about
whether
it's
cat5e
or
cat6-
and
you
know
both
documents
are
useful,
maybe
leaving
the
NOC
to
document
their
process,
preferably
a
github
might
be
you
know
or
best
left.
However,
the
NOC
wants
to
do
it
not.
You
know
not
I
think
these
are
separate
things
right,
so
I.
J
C
I'm
understanding
that
this
room
may
or
may
not
be
completely
representative
just
want
to
get,
and
you
know
how
much
I
love
hums,
but
but
actually
a
show
of
hands
folks
who
think
that
they
would
I'm
not
talking
about
the
working
group
that
they
would
be
interested
in
working
with
Geordi
and
or
Jim
on
this
document.
Other
documents
in
this
area
are
there
folks
in
this
room,
who
are
of
that
sort,
raise
your
hands
now
only
a
few
okay.
R
Q
C
C
And
again
that
goes
to
is:
is
the
working
group
the
right
venue
to
be
working
on
this,
or
maybe
it's
get
together
a
different
group
of
people
to
be
working
on
it
because
for
the
working
group
to
work
on
it
I'm
pretty
convinced
we
would
have
to
do
at
least
a
simple
recharter.
It
wouldn't
be
a
hard
recharter,
but
it
would
have
to
be
getting
the
I
ASG
to
approve.
C
J
C
D
C
F
Want
to
say
that
the
I
think
the
original
document
of
the
meeting
selection
document
has
enough
in
there
to
say
you
need
to
make
make
sure,
there's
an
infrastructure
capable
of
handling
what
we
need,
if
we're
doing,
is
projecting
another
document
that
describes
in
more
detail
from
a
more
practical
perspective,
things
that
we
need
to
share
with
other
with
other
entities,
things
that
need
to
go
into
contracts.
Things
like
that
I,
don't
think
that
they
need
to
be
tight
at
the
hip.
I
think
that
we've
we've
already
addressed
it
in
the
first
by
saying.
C
Then
here's
what
I'm
gonna
suggest
now,
at
least
these
folks
in
the
room,
have
been
made
aware
of
this
I'll
post
as
a
summary
of
this
discussion
to
the
list,
a
who
wants
to
work
on
this
with
Jordi,
and
is
this
a
venue
that
you
would
want
to
use
to
work
on
this?
Or
would
you
rather
do
it
offline
as
individual?
C
Then
those
are
the
basic
questions
if
having
the
infrastructure
of
the
working
group
helps
in
some
way
and
Marius
saying
we
could
squeeze
it
into
the
the
Charter,
then
that
infrastructure
can
be
used
if
the
infrastructure
is
not
going
to
help
folks,
if
it
is
just
going
to
be
an
individual
effort
anyway,
and
we're
all
going
to
be
sitting
around
twiddling
our
thumbs
and
Charles
and
I
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
determine
whether
there's
consensus
for
the
document.
There's
no
point
in
doing
it
in
the
working
group.