►
From YouTube: IETF99-RTGAREA-20170719-0930
Description
RTGAREA meeting session at IETF99
2017/07/19 0930
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/proceedings/
A
C
C
So
this
is
the
always
exciting.
Never,
though,
routing
area
open,
meeting
I'm
sure
all
of
you
are
here
for
that
meeting,
so
I
won't
even
tell
you
if
you're
not
here,
for
that
meeting,
go
away.
I
know
that
probably
people
are
outside
in
line
waiting
to
come
in
as
well
so
and
I'll
girl.
This
is
alia,
Debora
is.
C
C
We
are
going
to
have
a
description
about
this
and
some
other
IPR
stuff
for
a
little
bit
later
in
the
in
the
program.
So
what
I
got
talk
about
it
right
now?
There's
also
that
always
projects
some
other
resources
and
tools
throughout
a
wiki,
the
routing
area,
Directorate
that
we're
gonna
have
a
report
from
them
as
well
later
the
blue
sheets
are
going
around
etc.
C
As
always,
we
want
to
ask
to
please
please
please
review
documents.
The
mission
of
the
ATF
is
to
make
the
internet
work
better.
That's
what
we
have
our
documents
that
we
produce
for
people
to
go
implementing
will
deploy
to
go
operate
to
go,
do
whatever
they
do
with
the
RFC's
and
high
quality.
Rfc's
are
important,
and
this
is
the
job
of
everyone.
The
job
of
the
people
writing
the
RFC's
of
the
working
groups
themselves
of
everyone.
In
the
working
group
of
the
chairs
of
the
Shepherd,
so
the
abyzou
everyone
else
electorate.
C
C
C
If
you
want
to
talk
to
the
NomCom,
for
example,
you
can
as
well.
You
know
it's
always
a
good
thing.
Now
the
NomCom
has
been
given
us
feedback,
even
when
we
are
not
up
for
selection,
for
example,
so
the
last
noncom
period,
the
long-term
collective
feedback,
pretty
much
for
everyone
and
gave
feedback
back
as
well.
So
that's
another
way
to
do
it.
C
If
you
want
to
do
that,
the
agenda
which
I
did
not
do
in
my
slides
here
but
as
reflected
on
the
online
agenda,
is
this
one
that
I'm
gonna
show
soon
that
move
somewhere
I
have
a
little
duck
and
other
things
there
is
this
agenda
so
we're
going
through
the
administrivia
stuff?
Of
course,
I
said:
Lou
is
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
note.
Well,
the
new
node
well
Adrian
is
going
to
talk
about
RCC
701.
C
What
sanctions
are
available
and
why
it's
really
really
important
to
declare
IPR
early
and
then
we're
going
to
go
into
the
lightning
round
of
director
reports
and
working
group
and
both
reports
and
then
I'm
gonna
have
enough
time
at
the
end,
to
discuss
the
feature
of
the
routing
area,
the
future
of
the
world
anything
else
you
want
to
discuss
that,
including,
of
course,
I
said
before
feedback
to
the
ADIZ
to
the
area.
To
anything
you
want.
C
C
E
C
So
we
see
many
more
groups,
you
know
progressing,
there's,
probably
a
couple
of
working
groups
that
in
the
short
term,
we
could
close
or
finish
the
work,
and
we
see
groups
already,
maybe
recharter-
that
we
should
be
talking
about
that
as
well.
So
you
know,
working
group
in
general
I
think
is
progressing.
We
just
haven't
done
any
upward
changes.
We
do
have
a
bomb
today
after
lunch,
that
is
in
the
routing
area.
It's
called
the
ideas
Bluff.
C
Hopefully,
while
the
chairs
is
here
to
talk
in
the
lightning
round,
so
we
can
talk
about
it
there,
that's
it
so
in
case
you
don't
know
who
your
ad
is
again.
This
is
Lea
Debra
and
me
El
burro
and
those
are
assignments
right
now.
This
is,
of
course,
can
change
or
we
can
shuffle
chairs
around
or
anything
else.
We
feel
like.
E
And
so
what
this
means
is
things
between
you
know
configuration
being
able
to
see
what
was
written,
but
not
necessarily
is
our
the
intended
to
be
able
to
see
that
the
operational
state
is
to
have
what,
when
you
go
and
look
at
them
are
actually
simpler,
much
more
easy
to
read
yang
models
that
aren't
forced
to
depend
on
things
like
lots
of
groupings,
but
that
technology
also
needs
net
conformist.
Comp
extensions
in
order
to
be
implementable,
and
we
all
know,
there's
an
implementable
right.
You
know
there's
an
implementation
lag.
E
I
would
like
to
see
the
existing
IETF
models
able
to
get
finished
and
go
out,
but
you
know
RFC's
are
carefully
chiseled
into
stone,
and
so
we
had
this
dilemma
of
how
to
handle
it.
So
we
decided,
after
quite
a
lot
of
discussion,
that
what
we
would
like
what
we
are
recommending
is,
if
you're
doing
a
yang
model,
it
should
follow
the
nmda
structure
and
for
many
models
that
works.
Just
fine,
there's
not
a
need
for
a
distinction
between
the
configuration
state
and
operational
state.
E
However,
for
some
models
depending
on
what's
being
modeled,
it
does
matter
and
for
those
we
can
have
another
module
in
the
appendix
which
gives
the
state
information,
so
that's
possible
to
do
that
until
the
revised
data
store,
work
has
been
fully
defined
as
far
as
the
functionality
in
that
MA
in
Netcom
from
rest
comfort
is
really
far
along
and
in
fact
before
that
has
a
chance
to
get
implemented.
So
the
yang
models
should
be
fully
usable
with
being
able
to
access
the
information
needed
now.
The
gate
should
do
it.
E
Nmda
is
something
that
you
know
it's
a
shut,
because
this
is
the
IHF
and
we're
all
really
well
aware
that
each
example
and
use
case
you
know
each
particular
model
may
have
some
differences
and
its
unique
reason.
So
we're
certainly
happy
to
talk
about
it.
But
this
is
the
recommendation.
Rob
Wilson
gave
a
very
nice
presentation
on
some
of
the
details
of
this
in
our
to
GWT
and
if
you
haven't
tragically
seen
that,
then,
if
you're
interested
I
would
really
recommend
looking
at
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I
guess
I'm
the
82
hunt
thanks.
C
C
F
F
F
So
there's
a
new
document
covering
IPR
disclosures
in
the
IETF.
That
means
there's
a
new
document
to
be
familiar
with
the
that
document
updates
a
number
of
items
in
a
way
that
is
intended
to
provide
clarification
to
the
disclosure
rules
based
on
questions
that
have
arisen
since
the
original
document
was
published,
I
did
talk
to
the
authors,
about
sort
of
helping
educate
the
folks
on
the
details.
They've
posted
a
nice
vlog
that
tells
you
identifies
the
areas
that
have
been
updated,
but
they
don't
say,
what's
been
updated.
F
The
plan
fro
is
for
George
who's,
the
lawyer
for
the
ietf
to
prepare
a
detailed
presentation
on
that
and
actually
discuss
it
in
Singapore
I'm,
not
sure
where
it's
going
to
be
presented
in
Singapore,
but
if
you're
really
interested
in
being
walked
through
the
details,
as
well
as
asked,
questions
about
the
details
of
81-79
there'll
be
an
opportunity
there.
But
what
are
the
key
takeaways
number
one.
There's
some
clarification
on.
F
What
is
a
contribution?
They've
written
up
I
mentioned
that
the
authors
wrote
up
a
little
blog.
One
of
the
things
they
mention
there
is
is
anything
that
you
do
to
contribute
to
the
process
or
to
provide
input
to
the
process
that
we
follow
here
in
any
of
the
forums
that
we
provide.
That
includes
rooms
like
this,
our
email
jabber,
any
electronic
media,
any
personal
media
in
any
of
this
worms
any
contribution,
even
as
something
as
subtle
as
a
frown
in
a
public
forum,
can
be
taken
as
a
contribution.
F
So,
for
example,
John
just
contributed
by
sort
of
smiling
at
my
comment.
Now
it
turns
out
I,
don't
have
any
IPR
on
this,
so
it's
not
a
big
deal,
but
if
I
was
talking
about
a
technical
idea
and
he
smiled-
and
that
was
taken
by
maybe
the
chairs
a
support-
and
he
knows
of
some
IPR-
that's
related
to
this
and
the
reason
he's
smiling.
Is
he
yeah
that's
my
thing:
I'm
gonna
get
it
advanced,
he
just
contributed
and
he
would,
under
the
new
rules,
be
obligated
to
disclose.
F
So
the
document
also
tries
to
be
pretty
explicit,
explicit
on
what
do
you
do
if
you
don't
want
to
disclose
or
can't
disclose,
we've
all
come
in
to
see
situations,
or
many
of
us
have
come
into
situations
where
we
know
that
there
of
some
technology
that
we
personally
are
patent
a
patent,
an
ink
or
that
the
company
work
for
that
someone
working
with
has
a
patent
in
the
process,
and
they
don't
want
to
talk
about
it.
What
do
we
do
that?
That's
going
to
happen,
this
is
clarified
in
the
document.
F
It
basically
says
you
can't
contribute
at
all.
You
can't
smile
or
frown
when
that
discussion
has
taken
place
when
that
occurred
with
me
personally,
I
never
entered
the
room
that
the
working
group
was
discussing.
That
idea
that
I
was
working
on
I
didn't
subscribe
to
the
mailing
list.
I
occasionally
read
archives,
but
in
no
way
did
I
contribute
in
that
area.
That
was
my
personal.
Take
on
how
to
deal
with
the
situation.
F
F
One
other
thing:
the
document
does
that
the
previous
document
did
not
do
is
point
to
RFC
67
and
one
which
covers
sanctions
of
what
can
the
IETF
do
when
someone
doesn't
comply
with
their
SLOS
or
responsibilities?
Adrienne's
can
actually
going
to
talk
about
that
a
little
bit.
The
one
thing
I
want
to
talk
about.
The
last
thing
I
want
to
mention
is
what
is
the
responsibility
of
an
IPR
holder,
so
someone
who
is
not
a
participant
in
the
IETF
but
holds
IPR?
F
What
is
their
responsibility
to
the
IETF
process
turns
out
it's
nothing.
They
have
no
responsibility
to
disclose
their
IPR.
They
have
no
responsibility
to
come
to
the
IETF
and
talk
about
it.
They
have
no
responsibility
to
say
that
the
thing
you're
doing
directly
matches
my
path.
We
can't
compel
anyone
to
do
anything
who
is
not
involved
in
our
process.
F
C
G
G
That's
actually
quite
important
for
me
to
save
my
own
protection
and
for
you
to
be
aware
of
and
I'm
also
not
studying
law.
So
this
is
this
is
important
legal
stuff.
It
affects
your
life,
protect
yourself
and
your
employer.
Your
employer
probably
has
somebody
responsible
for
all
this
use
them
get
advice
find
out
what
process
you
should
be
following
and
use
them
to
file
disclosures
on
your
behalf,
so
that
you
can
hide
behind
them
while
still
fulfilling
your
requirements.
G
So
why
sanctions?
The
point
is
that
we
want
people
to
disclose.
All
disclosures
are
good
because
they
help
us
understand
what
we're
building
and
why,
but
the
late
ones
can
be
disruptive.
We
might
have
to
go
back
and
revisit
work,
but
they're
still
better
than
no
disclosure
very
late.
Disclosures,
for
example,
disclosures
that
come
only
after
an
RFC
has
been
published.
I
can
actually
be
really
disruptive.
We
may
have
to
return
stuff
to
the
working
group.
G
G
Well,
firstly,
it
shows
a
lack
of
respect.
It
shows
a
lack
of
risk
for
the
ITF
for
the
people
who
work
here
for
the
industry
and
my
opinion.
It
shows
a
lack
of
respect
for
the
work
that
an
individual
is
doing.
It
can
be
really
disruptive
because
we've
invested
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
in
a
particular
solution,
and
now
we
need
to
go
back
and
decide
whether
we
do
it
all
again.
G
It
may
trick
us
into
making
the
particular
protocol
choice
that
we
thought
we
were
making
and
like
I'm
a
toss
of
a
coin,
but
actually,
if
we'd
known
about
the
IPR
we'd,
have
gone
a
different
way,
it
may
actually
be
bad
in
law
and
I'll.
Come
on
to
that
in
a
moment,
and
just
essentially
it's
an
abuse
of
the
igf
process.
By
being
here,
you
have
signed
up
to
follow
the
ITF
process.
So
what
do
we
do
about
that?
G
Rfc,
six
7:01
describes
and
sanctions
that
can
be
applied
by
the
ITF
to
people
who
abuse
the
IPR
process.
It's
pretty
clear
that
the
punishment
should
fit
the
crime
okay,
so
we
have
so
far
not
had
any
executions
for
violation
of
IPR
rules,
but
there
have
been
cases
where,
where
minor
things
have
been
done,
the
decisions
and
punishments
are
made
by
the
working
group
chairs
working
with
their
abs
for
support.
G
And
if
you
are
a
working
group
chair
and
this
sort
of
thing
happens,
I
strongly
advise
you
talk
to
the
ad
straight
up
so
that
you've
got
backing
for
whatever
you
do,
and
you
should
also
talk
to
the
individual
concerned,
because
they
may
have
a
legitimate
reason
why
something
went
wrong
and
you
don't
want
to
punishment
then
too
strongly
my
team
might
want
to.
You
might
enjoy
it,
but
you
shouldn't.
So
what
might
happen
in
the
ITF?
G
G
You
might
even
deprecated
their
RFC's
and
at
the
far
end
of
this,
people
can
be
banned
from
mailing
lists,
and
that
starts
with
a
temporary
ban,
which
I
think
it's
30
days
from
a
working
group
mailing
list
and
escalates
to
a
year-long
ban
from
a
working
group
list
which
can
then
be
picked
up
automatically
by
other
IETF
lists.
So
it
becomes
a
full
idea,
one
year
ban
and
in
absolute
extreme
cases
that
can
be
made
into
a
permanent
but
revisit
able
ban
from
IETF
mailing
lists.
G
There
may
be
mitigation,
but
a
lot
of
mitigation,
I
think
is,
is
fragile
excuses.
So
there
really
is
no
excuse
under
the
law
and
the
law
is
you
will
declare
if
you're
making
a
contribution,
but
you
know
stuff
happens.
So
every
situation
has
to
be
looked
at
unreasonable
excuses.
I
have
heard
I
forgot.
Oh,
you
forgot.
That's
still
a
violation.
I
forgot
about
this
patent.
Well,
whose
patent
was
it
you?
You
have
a
duty
to
remember:
I
have
so
many
patents.
I
can't
be
expected
to
track
them
all.
G
G
What
you're
promising
to
do
when
participate
is
that
a
disclosure
will
happen
in
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
So
when
that
reasonable
amount
of
time
expires
and
your
company
has
still
not
disclosed,
get
out
or
file
a
third-party
disclosure
against
your
own
company,
that's
kind
of
fun,
but
that
happens
when
you
move
to
a
new
company.
Okay,
you
had
you
wrote
a
patent
with
company
X
you're,
now
a
company,
why
you
can't
influence
company
X
to
disclose
that
patent?
G
G
And
the
last
point
is
that
courts
may
also
apply
sanction,
so
this
is
why
your
employer
really
needs
to
pay
attention,
because
in
the
end
patents
may
come
to
court
and
courts
have
been
known
to
be
quite
aggressive
when
they
hear
that
a
standards
bodies
procedures
have
been
violated.
They
can
do
things
like
force
that
the
patent
holder
to
license
at
very
cheap
terms
or
they
can
even
strike
down
a
whole
patent.
G
F
F
So
this
is
a
good
discussion
for
George.
We
should
ask
him,
but
I
think
it
says
before
you
actually
make
the
contribution
or
as
you're
making
the
contribution
so
I
think
that's
interesting
and
I
think
we
choose,
as
in
the
response,
as
chairs,
to
be
a
little
more
lenient,
but
I
think
the
rules
say
as
soon
as
you
are
making
the
contribution
you're
supposed
to
be
making
the
deck.
Let's.
H
F
Really
interesting
about
this
is
that
should
never
occur
because
the
I,
the
ietf,
should
never
make
a
judgement
on
whether
or
not
IPR
applies.
That's
whether
a
disclosure
has
been
made
or
it
hasn't
been
made,
that's
not
for
the
IETF
to
decide
now.
Another
individual
may
go
look
at
a
patent
and
do
a
third
party
disclosure
on
you
saying:
hey
this,
this
IPR
exists,
I
found
it
and
I
think
it
applies,
but
we
won't
judge
that
it's
not
the
IDF's
role
to
judge
the
applicability
of
a
patent.
That's
courts,
job.
I
G
This
is
six
seven,
oh
two,
which
is
discusses
measures
to
ensure
that
people
are
conforming
to
the
VIP.
Our
rules
and
702
is
really
clear
that
you
do
not
ever
need
to
do
an
IPR
power
on
anything.
Okay,
so
working
group
chairs
are
applying
six
702
differently
depending
on
how
they
feel
that
their
working
group
has
been
burnt
in
the
past.
Some
of
them
don't
do
IPR
polls
at
all,
because
you
will
notice
that
by
being
named
on
a
draft,
you've
already
made
the
commitment.
G
Some
don't
do
polls
at
all,
because
they
the
note
well
when
you
sign
up
yep
everything
you
see
the
note
well
so
you've
already
made
the
commitment,
but
others
are
giving
IPR
polls
at
key
times
just
to
remind
people.
So
back
to
your
question,
should
we
do
an
IPR
poll
every
time
lower
pawns
a
face
in
the
room,
at
least.
F
F
Where
I'm
going
want
couple
additional
things,
it's
the
working
group
chairs
call
and
how
that's
run
today.
There
is
a
question
in
the
Shepherd
right
up
that
asks
about.
Has
I,
don't
remember
the
exact
phrasing,
but
it
is,
is
there
IPR
and
have
you
asked
if
there's
an
IPR,
so
there
is
some
obligation
for
the
Shepherd?
It's
not
on
that
working
group
chair
actually
on
the
shepherd
to
ensure
that
the
disclosures
that
everyone
has
followed
the
disclosure
process.
I
A
F
Obligation,
though,
of
on
IPR
disclosure,
applies
to
anyone
who
contributes
in
in
on
a
particular
Peck.
So
if
you
contribute
on
a
topic,
you
have
that
obligation,
whether
or
not
you're
just
sitting
in
the
room
or
you're
the
editor
you're,
the
author.
The
obligations
are
the
same
according
to
was
it
81
79,
whatever
the
new
RFC
numbers,
so.
I
Slightly
other
subject,
and
when
we
have
it,
we
actually
ban
someone
from
a
mailing
list
because
of
IP
IP
or
disclosure
violations.
We
actually
stop
that
person
from
doing
a
kind
of
future
IPR
disclosure.
So
it's
something
that
is
kind
of
a
bit
blunt.
If
we,
if
we
know
that
that
was
named
or
more
than
one
document
in
the
working
group,
if
I
ban
him,
it
can't
make
it
as
loose
on
the
other.
So.
G
I
just
made
a
contribution
there
and
which
people
who
watch
in
my
face
would
have
noticed.
That's
not
the
case
company
disclosures
are
made
by
the
made
through
the
web
package
for
disclosing,
so
you
can
do
that
and
you
can.
Obviously
you
can
read
any
mailing
list
and
see
what's
going
on,
so
you
can
be
aware.
C
Sorry
before
you,
you
ask
a
question:
if
you
want
to
say
real,
quick
there,
it
is
true.
Yes,
we
don't
have
to
ask
everyone.
It
has
been
I,
think
a
good
prayer.
He
practice
in
the
area,
which
I
think
is
a
good
practice
to
remind
people
whether
they
have
anything
to
disclose
at
key
moments.
Many
working
groups
right.
It's
been
my
experience,
adoption
working
group.
J
So
yeah
I
know
Gabe
can
put
a
loud
kiss
I,
actually
think
it's
a
good
practice
for
working
groups
to
make
this
call
earlier,
because,
as
it
stands
today,
you
can
have
a
standard
that
could
very
well
be
an
IPR
by
a
company
and
an
implementer.
It
would
be
great
for
implementers
to
know
if
there
is
such
a
case
than
how
do
they
go
about
handling
such
situations.
G
K
So
the
question
is:
that's
in
the
Delta
about
3
to
18
months
between
filing
kpr,
and
it
appears
first
time
on
light,
so
I've
witnessed
there's
possibility
after
declining
IPR,
which
is
unavailable
online,
so
it's
unavailable
in
general
to
say:
I,
don't
know
what
your
care
is,
but
I
don't
like
it.
So
I
want
your
document
to
progress.
She
looks
available
which
could
take
any
time
afterwards.
K
F
I
think
you're,
alluding
to
what
does
the
working
group
do?
What
if
IPR
is
disclosed
and
whether
or
not
you
can
read
it
or
not?
The
process
is
the
ITF
doesn't
discuss
the
substance
of
the
disclosure,
whether
the
or
the
validity
of
it.
Now
working
group
participants
are
more
than
welcome
to
take
whatever
steps
they
think
are
appropriate
to
then
vote
or
to
voice
an
opinion
on
whether
or
not
they
support
the
work
that
has
been
covered
by
an
IPR
disclosure.
Some
groups
are
really
want
to
push
towards
sort
of
open
licensing.
F
I
know
this
has
been
in
the
security
area.
They
have
made
it
they've
intentionally
avoided
encumbered
technologies.
That's
been
the
choice
of
that
group
of
the
groups
doing
that
work
in
a
particular
working
group.
If
there's
an
IPR
disclosure,
the
group
can
decide
whether
or
not
it
wants
to
proceed
with
the
technology.
With
the
draft
with
the
based
on
that
IPR
disclosure,
it's
a
working
group
consensus
process,
it's
not
about
the
validity
of
the
or
the
applicability
or
the
correctness,
or
necessarily
even
all
the
details.
G
So
I
think
part
of
your
point.
Jeff
is
that
it's
impossible
to
engineer
a
solution
around
IPR
that
you
can't
see
exactly
so
one
of
the
influencing
factors
that
individual
participants
may
consider
when
deciding
whether
or
not
to
engineer
around
a
solution
is
what
the
licensing
terms
are
now
for
clarity.
I
am
NOT
seeking
to
influence
the
way
that
companies
license
their
IPR.
G
If
they
license,
if
the
license
that
comes
along
with
a
piece
of
IPR
that
you
can't
see,
says
if
you
implement
this,
we
will
come
and
take
your
firstborn.
Then
it's
likely
that
people
are
going
to
try
to
engineer
around
it.
Whereas
if
the
license
says
hey,
you
know
what
we've
got
IPR,
but
you
can
have
it
for
nothing.
Then
people
are
probably
not
going
to
try
to
engineer
around
it
so
that
that
comes
into
the
mix
when
looking
at
this.
G
F
So
before
we
run
off
stage
just
a
reminder,
you
just
have
two
people
talking
about
their
personal
opinions
here.
Talk
to
your
company
attorneys
read
the
documents
for
yourselves
and
if
you
have
questions
and
want
to
hear
from
the
IETF
Saturn
II,
that's
that'll
happen
in
Singapore,
but
right
now,
you've
just
heard
from
two
individuals,
not
anything
beyond
that.
Even
though.
L
F
C
K
E
M
M
C
Best
this
next
needle
Martin
or
Thomas
will
be
here
today.
They
are
here,
however,
so
the
working
group
was
making
progress
as
usual,
with
the
very
clear
and
straightforward
EPM
and
VPN
type
documents.
This
is
one
of
the
type
of
documents
that
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
go,
read
they're,
very,
very
inspiring,
there's
work
going
on,
of
course,
new
work
in
2003
and
yeah
bottles
and
everything
else.
You
can
read
the
numbers
out
there.
E
N
N
Documents
are
going
through
working
group
last
call:
we've
got
some
feedback
on
there
and
we're
waiting
to
hear
from
an
implementer
in
terms
of
what
their
implementation
does
in
terms
of
matching
the
spec
we're
having
some
issues
of
the
PFD
yang
module
in
terms
of
how
it
interacts
with
the
IG
key
modules
you
know,
and
the
IG
PE
chairs
will
point
out:
we've
gone
back
and
forth
on
this
a
few
times.
You
know
the
solution.
That's
currently
in
both
documents
is
neither
of
them
will
actually
talk
to
each
other.
N
This
actually
asked
to
be
addressed
and
we'll
try
to
get
a
short
virtual
interim.
After
the
session
we
had
some
fun
in
the
MPLS
session
about
the
DFT
directed
in
the
future.
This
is
partially
an
issue,
an
IPR,
partially
a
matter
of
whether
or
not
the
working
group
thinks
it's.
These
will
feature
and
potentially
change
to
58
84.
C
C
E
O
Bizarre
all
right,
we
have
bunch
of
drafts
that
actually
come
another
last
call.
Now
we
have
one
an
acute
architecture.
Graph
we've
got
one
outstanding
discuss
on
that,
but
I
think
has
been
addressed
really
well
by
the
list
and
the
authors,
but
whoever's
got
the
name.
The
discuss
hasn't
really
fed
back
yet.
O
The
other
point
that's
probably
gonna
be
launched
now
from
the
group
is
our
work
towards
justifying
move
from
experimental
standards.
Just
following
the
the
Charter
information
getting
the
draft
in
place
reaching
the
you
know
the
full
four
bullet
points
that
are
from
there
and
then
feedback
in
the
field.
I.
C
K
C
H
Shirley,
foresee
camp
I'm
happy
to
see
that
our
contribution
is
the
right
private
right
part
of
the
branch
of
the
merge
so
we're
meeting
twice.
As
usual,
we
have
a
joint
young
session
with
other
working
groups
of
the
writing
era.
Teas
on
pls
MPC
is
time
exhausted
by
teas.
We
are
meeting
on
Thursday
afternoon
session,
one
and
immediately
after
with
our
cecum
dedicated
session,
I
lied.
So
we
still
have
to
design
team
some
work
for
microwave
one
for
transport
and
bi,
the
microwave.
The
design
team
is
doing
pretty
well
going
faster.
H
They
had
the
two
deliverables.
Both
documents
are
now
working
group
documents.
They
also
participated
at
to
the
hackathon
and
the
day,
one
as
best
contribution
regarding
the
transport
MDI.
We
two
documents.
Now
we
are
in
the
process
of
adopting
them
young
models.
We
have
a
number
a
huge
number
of
drafts
or
optical
OT
n
IP
over
WDM,
and
we
recently
adopted
also
UTM
topology
and
the
tunnel
models
which
are
an
augmentation
of
the
t's
document.
The
Tito
college
and
the
TA
tunnel
model
stay
tuned.
We
have
one
rough
in
the
editor
cube.
H
P
Ok,
Pat
Taylor
dead
net,
so
the
focus
for
this
meeting
is
moving
forward
on
the
data
plane.
We
think
we're
converging
on
pseudo
wire,
MPLS
and
IP
/
802
dot,
1
TSN,
we're
also
looking
at
the
definition
of
the
service
parameters
and
we're
talking
about
the
traffic
treatment.
That's
required
and
we're
going
to
have
discussions
on
security
and
there's
also
a
little
demonstration
of
the
debt
net
data
plane.
Actually,
protection
for
failover.
So
there's
a
cute
little
Lego
robot.
P
Q
Out
u.s.,
we
had
two
sessions
this
week
we
have
two
main
data
models:
topology
and
rip-rip
has
both
info
model
and
and
regular
model
follow
they're,
both
past
working
group
or
working
group.
Last
call.
We
are
grateful
to
the
yang
doctors
who
are
reviewing
and
we
hope
to
have
this
back
at
the
ISSG
and
approved.
That's
our
hope.
There
are
interest
in
to
date,
new
data
miles
a
fabric
and
a
split
between
data,
plane
and
user.
Q
We
need
two
editors
for
two
main
documents,
so
our
second
half
of
the
session
was
an
editing
which,
again
we
are
grateful
to
the
new
revised
datastore
team
that
came
and
gave
us
a
suggestions.
I
am
looking
for
a
few
editors
or
authors
for
the
two
main
documents
for
the
ephemeral
datastore
and
for
a
rest,
comp
thing.
If
you're
interested
in
working
on
that,
please
see
me.
Q
The
second
session
will
really
be
an
editor
session.
I
will
be
there,
but
we
will
probably
change
the
location.
I'll
probably
just
be
at
the
registration
desk.
Looking
for
an
editor,
please
contact
me.
Most
of
these
documents
are
done
and
we
think
if
we
just
have
a
long
editing
session,
we
can
close
it
off
here.
C
K
C
After
lunch
at
1:30,
I'm
not
sure
where
so
like
any
other
bar
while
we're
here
we're
gonna
talk
about
the
problem
safely
and
some
discussion
about
what
needs
to
be
done,
and
then
this
is
intended
to
be
a
working
group.
For
me,
Bob
some
of
the
normal
questions
are
gonna
be
asked.
Is
the
problem
statement
clear?
Is
this
work
that
the
ATF
should
do
who's
going
to
actually
do
the
work
and
then
we'll
see
where
we
go
from
there?
So
please
go
to
the
ideas
off
this
afternoon.
Okay,.
Q
Idea
idea
is
Thursday
9:00
to
12:00.
Our
topics
are,
we
still
are
considering
trying
to
respond
to
operators
and
make
sure
we're
getting
through
thing.
I
sat
again
at
the
Grove
working
group
and
we
found
we're
still
not
getting
through
some
of
the
things
the
operators
need.
So
again
we
encourage
operators
to
be
there
and
tell
us
what
we
need
to
do:
we're
trying
to
get
rid
of
squatting
by
early
allocation
or
changing
allocation.
So
please
come
and
see
the
chairs
list.
Q
We
really
have
things
on
the
list
on
bTW
pls
John's
got
a
really
good
discussion
thread
there.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
it,
John's
here
and
he'll
take
care
of
it
say:
John,
okay,
other
things
we're
going
to
talk
about
our
flowspec,
our
flowspec
b1
head
again
operator
input,
and
we
believe
that
the
revision
that
now
makes
it
clears
up
any
speck
problems
is
ready
for
working
group.
Last
call.
Q
We
have
bgp
tunnel
attributes
route
server
b,
FD
interaction
to
make
sure
link
loss
that
is
piece
taken
care
brought
that
should
be
route
leak,
not
lead.
Prevention,
I
need
more
coffee
and
we
have
new
work.
That's
either
reviewing
gross
stuff
on
congestion
or
fib,
or
link
logical,
come
and
see
the
new
work
and
listen.
This
is
a
good
idea.
Rs.
We
have
a
little
extra
time
this
time
so
come
and
ask
questions
by.
D
I
guess
the
vs
item
would
be
that
we're
discussing
combining
OSPF
and
ice
is
again
seems
like
the
last
time.
We
did
this
I
say
a
lot
more
sort
of
separate
stuff
and
we
have
a
lot
more
overlap
lately
with
segment
routing.
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we're
looking
at
all
so
they
get
cross-pollination
between
the
two.
D
So
we
talked
about
this
in
the
in
the
working
group
and
surprising
sort
of
50/50
split
on
whether
people
wanted
to
do
it
or
not.
There
were
a
lot
of
opinions,
I'm
sure
that
will
carry
over
maybe
into
the
list.
In
the
meantime,
the
plan
is
to
run
an
experiment
and
we're
going
to
try
to
combine
the
list.
That's
appearing
to
be
harder
than
we
thought
it
would
be,
but
yeah
we'll
figure
something
out
so
ice
ice
meal
will
go
to
OSPF.
D
Ospf
Millwood
is,
is,
and
hopefully
not
loop
and
then
we'll
run
a
combined
session,
not
just
a
back-to-back
session,
so
everybody
can
leave
after
the
first
one
that
doesn't
care
about
the
second
one
and
then
we'll
see
how
people
feel
about
it
and
whether
it
seems
like
it
works
or
it's
a
hassle
go
from
there.
The
other
issue,
the
other
things
I
guess
of
note,
are
we
have
two
new
RFC's,
the
auto
configuration
and
then
the
this
update
to
multi
topology
and
also
we
have
something
the
LG
bundles
is
about
to
go
RFC.
D
S
Okay,
Lisp
met
on
Monday
1:30.
We've
had
one
RFC
recently
published
very
many
thanks
to
our
80s
and
to
the
RFC
editor
and
tyanna,
because
we
ran
into
a
little
code
point
allocation
problem
and
everybody
worked
together
to
solve
it.
So
that
was
great.
We've
got
one
document
on
her
final
iesg
review.
One
in
working
group
last
call
a
bunch
of
things
we've
adopted
for
interesting
work.
The
real
key
is
those
two
main
documents
right
there.
Sixty-Eight
30
bits
in
1633
bits
both
are
in
good
shape,
are
progressing.
S
Our
goal
is
to
get
those
two
proposed
standard
and
we
are
hoping
to
hand
those
up
soon.
I,
don't
know
what
soon
means
yet
the
per
Adrienne's
screed
somewhere,
but
we're
trying
that's
the
thing
that
is
currently
the
high
priority
for
the
working
group,
and
so
we're
going
to
do
that.
There's
some
individual
drafts.
There
have
been
some
individual
drafts
that
requested
adoption
and
not
enough
people
spoke
up,
and
so
we
said
well.
Okay,
there's
still
individual
drafts.
C
Lynnae
I
don't
see
Justin
or
staying
here
when
they
didn't
meet
this
time.
I
didn't
have
to
say
that
the
same
as
there
are
IP
are
possible
sanctions
for
not
disclosing.
There
are
possible
sanctions
for
not
filling
out
the
wiki
and
one
of
them
that
adrian
mention
as
effective
is
naming
and
shaming,
so
I'm,
officially
publicly,
shaming,
Justin
and
staying
for
not
filling
out
their
their
status.
Here,
at
least
in
the
other
cases
where
the
service
will
fill
the
chair
was
able
to
stay
that
here,
nothing
double
chain
to
them.
C
F
C
I
We
have
had
capital
thing
that
has
been
kind
of
rocking
things:
a
bit
George
couldn't
travel
and
our
secretary
couldn't
travel
this
time
George
because
of
financing,
I,
think
and
tarik
because
of
weather.
It
was
raining
in
Toronto,
so
we
had
one
session
yesterday,
Nick
and
I
think
we
actually
could
made
it
through
that
second
acceptable
level.
We
have
a
new
session
of
Friday,
we
can
just
continue
on
the
agenda
and
on
Thursday
we
had
the
joint
session
on
gang
models.
I
So
in
that
first
session
we
had,
we
discussed
one
document
and
I
didn't
want
to
be
particular,
but
you're
already
mention
it.
It's
a
bit
indirect.
In
document
we
discussed
the
IP
our
process
and
I
think
we
are
closing
on
that
one,
and
we
have
technical
comments
on
the
document
that
we
haven't
closed.
Yet
we
also
have
quite
a
bit
the
new
work
coming
in,
not
like
it
was
like
five
years
ago,
but
it's
actually
picking
up
coming
new
dowse
coming
in
and
pretty
good
shapes.
We
have
three
new
our
seasons.
I
T
Hi
Matthew
Bochy
for
mvo
3,
so
we're
meeting
this
afternoon
at
3:20.
We
make
all
the
progress
now
on
data
plain
encapsulation,
so
the
working
group
is
kind
of
selected
draft.
You
need
for
standards
transition
within
the
working
group,
the
last
ITF
we
held
an
experiment
and
held
some
roundtables
discussions
on
control,
playing
security
and
data,
plane,
related
work
and
the
security
work.
Certainly,
security
roundtable
was
quite
productive
and
has
resulted
in
some
new
drafts
in
the
working
group
that
we
are
discussing
this
afternoon
ran
requirements
and
architecture
and
solutions
for
security
with
drogyny.
T
We
also
another
thing
of
note
is
that
we
try
to
adopt
a
couple
of
drafts
that
were
an
output
of
the
routine
working
group,
Valais
REM
design
team
and
a
lot
of
pushback
in
the
working
group
to
adopting
these,
mostly
regarding
the
desirability
of
a
common
header
across
different
encapsulations
and
whether
or
not
this
is
really
necessary-
am
I
currently
trying
to
resolve
this
issue
in
the
working
group.
So
it's
quick
status,
update,
1u
RFC,
since
the
last
ITF
use
cases
for
dCPP
ends
and
the
MDI
three
multicast
framework
is
currently
with
for
their.
D
Chris
already
covered
the
fact
that
we're
going
to
have
a
truly
joint
meeting
in
Singapore
as
an
experiment
with
the
like,
like
topics
interleaved,
for
instance,
if
we
have
segment
routing
or
attributes,
we
talked
about
attribute,
reuse
or
things
like
that.
We
talked
about
both
protocols
back-to-back
in
terms
of
OSPF
specific
highlights
the
extended
attributes
for
OSPF
III.
We
have
two.
D
We
have
two
implementations
when
we're
gonna
proceed
toward
our
publication
on
that,
and
that's
really
a
great
milestone,
because
then
we'll
get
to
a
truly
TLV
based
protocol,
not
only
for
the
that
LSAs
we've
added
in
recent
years,
but
the
base
lsas
the
te
attribute
of
been
discussing
this
for
a
long
time.
We
have
a
meeting
among
to
talk
about
how
we
get
consensus
forward.
D
L
And
emails
for
pals
we
we've
actually
had
some
work
of
interest
come
up
lately,
there's
been
some
problems
observed
in
the
field
with
Ethernet
pseudo
wires
as
a
result
of
some
implementations
or
operators,
not
using
the
control.
Word
I'm,
not
on
Ethernet
pseudo,
wise,
with
the
result
that
some
MAC
addresses
in
the
embedded,
Ethernet
frames
of
being
looked
at
by
the
router
and
being
identified
incorrectly
as
ipv4
or
ipv6.
L
B
L
Wires
and
the
the
two
co-chairs
of
the
working
group
are
the
co-authors
in
this
draft,
so
Mathew
Bochy
has
agreed
to
be
the
Shepherd
for
this
draft
and
and
to
run
the
process
other
than
that
we
had
one
other
thing
come
up
in
our
meeting
on
Monday.
That
was
a
proposal
for
a
pseudo
wire
yang
data
model.
However,
I
have
to
thank
the
best
working
because
the
the
best
working
group
has
been
very
happy
to
work
on
a
unified
yang
data
model
for
both
l2
VPN
and
pseudo
wires.
L
So
we
spoke
to
the
authors
of
this
proposal
and
tell
them
to
to
basically
fold
in
their
work
with
the
ongoing
working
best.
So
we
don't
have
multiple
solutions
going
on
for
the
same
problem
other
than
that
we've
been
extremely
prolific
and
working
towards
shutting
down
since
November
2015
the
last
year
in
three
quarters
we've
published
14-hour
seas.
We
have
four
more
that
are
coming
out
soon
and
right
now
we
have
no
other
working
group
drafts,
but
but
the
but
the
one
on
Ethernet
pseudo
wires
will
be
the
last
one.
U
Genomic-Based
competition
element
working
group.
We
are
meeting
yesterday
evening
riding
a
bit
with
the
best
departure
for
the
social
anyway,
it
was
mr.
listing
meeting.
One
of
the
major
heaven
related
to
the
PC
working
group
is
the
chant
of
secretary
Daniel
King
step
down.
So
we
thank
him
for
the
work
on
Ravi,
as
agreed
to
be
our
new
secretary.
U
So
thank
to
him
main
topic.
This
Turkish
yesterday,
the
use
of
the
PC
as
a
central
controller,
some
work
related
to
the
stateful
DC
extensions
and
the
Yorkie
call
ways
of
using
the
the
PCE
some
optical
specific
extensions
on.
We
may
also
mention
the
disagreement
that
ended
the
session
yesterday.
That
may
require
some
talk
with
Deborah
who's.
Already
aware
of
the
topic
there.
U
From
the
administrative
perspective
we
have
we
haven't
published
in
EOC
since
the
previous
meeting,
but
we
really
think
we
will
have
a
bunch
of
them
before
the
next
ITF,
because
we
are
for
Indy
receive
little
q3
with
the
AG
on
some
other
coming
up
in
the
near
future.
So
we
hope
that
considering
dependency
between
a
set
of
the
documents
there,
they
will
be
released
soon
on
published
as
RFC
s.
U
M
So
protocols
for
IP
multicast
are
still
alive
and
well
for
better
or
for
worse.
We
met
yesterday
morning
with
an
Bondi
ops
group
back
to
back.
We've
done
that
for
several
ITF
now
and
it's
worked
quite
well.
I
foresee
us
continuing
to
do
that
on
the
off
side.
A
lot
of
interesting
use,
cases
for
multicast
and
discussions
about
deprecating,
ASM
and
Wi-Fi
multicast,
and
on
the
protocol
side
pim
a
lot
of
progress
happening
on
Yang.
We
have
public
publication
requested
for
both
p.m.
and
IGMP
MLD
yang
grass.
M
There
may
need
to
be
some
update
with
new
yang
config
formats
happening,
but
they
are
progressing
a
couple
new
documents
that
are
progressing
Stig
presented
a
draft
that
appeared
to
be
well
received
with
regards
to
accessing
an
ipv4
prefix
over
an
ipv6
next
hop
and
when
there's
multiple
RPF
neighbors
that
are
v4
neighbors.
How
do
you
choose
so
that's
its
that's
interesting
network,
so
otherwise
we
plan
to
meet
again
in
Singapore.
Thank
you.
V
So
we
want
to
the
work
group
to
decide
if
they
argue
or
not,
and
then
we
are
working
in
the
working
group
topics
that
we
have
recharter
and
we
have
the
seasonal
routing
header
finished,
that
is
the
RFC
81
3
8,
okay,
so
the
topics
that
we
charted
and
we
are
working
currently
it's
like
constrain,
multicast,
routing,
multicast
for
repo
and
our
projection.
The
modifications
already
be
a
ripple,
they
want
to
be
presented
tomorrow
and
we
are
now-
and
we
are
not
going
to
present
like
this
modification
and
get
model
for
MPL
this
time.
V
K
Rosen,
we
are
meeting
twice
side
here,
highlight
good
progress
in
the
health
models,
representation
routing
in
data
center
progressing
on
seven
charging.
Fast
convergence
is
going
to
presentation,
VPN
plus,
which
has
to
do
with
slicing
some
other
stuff.
So
we
all
step
short
presentations
and
informational
drop.
Er
Ian
must
have
put
together.
You
talk
about
systematic
approach
to
latency,
which
definitely
affects
routing
status.
We've
got
one
year
of
C
young
model
for
keychain
two
drafts
are
with
SG.
S
Sfc
Monday,
the
important
work
is
we're
trying
to
get
the
nsh
document
completed.
We
are
this
close.
Of
course
we
keep
being
this
close,
but
I
think
we
have
a
draft
15
which
addresses
all
of
the
comments.
The
working
group
members
made
either
on
the
list
or
in
the
meeting.
So
we
hope
to
be
able
to
hand
that
off
on
Jim
and
I
have
to
do
our
reviews
and
then
I've
got
a
shepherd
write-up
for
the
ad.
S
As
soon
as
that's
done
a
lot
of
discussion
on
OAM
lots
of
different
things,
people
want
to
do
with
OAM
different
approaches
to
em
we're
trying
to
get
the
framework
so
that
we
can
say.
Okay,
all
of
the
OEM
solutions
have
to
do
this
much
the
same,
and
then
you
can
do
your
own
thing
for
what
you
want
to
do
for
the
problem
you
want
to
solve.
So
we
can
get
clarity,
we're
trying
to
move
that
work
forward.
There's
some
work
on
the
MD
types
for
how
we
carry
metadata
work
is
basically
making
good
progress.
C
C
W
W
C
So
after
review
the
history
I'm
going
to
renew
my
chaining
of
Chris,
not
Chris,
Myers,
Chris
morrow,
just
so
that
were
clear
and
Sandy
the
chair,
so
the
sides
are
working
scigirls.
I
was
saying:
didn't
meet
this
time,
mostly
because,
as
you
may
remember,
from
a
couple
years
ago,
we
pretty
much
finished
to
work.
We
opened
a
new
working
group
that
has
been
meeting
last
two
ICS,
where
Chris
also
chair
called
cider
ops
in
the
ops
area,
or
we
now
that's
causing,
of
course,
operational
working,
etc.
C
X
Who
know
the
cotton
spring
so
spring
is
not
meeting
this
week
in
term
of
highlights.
We
have
the
spring
conflict
resolution
which
is
under
working
with
brass
quorum,
which
is
good
because
it
has
been
a
long
discussion
in
to
working
group
starting
in
I,
sighs,
I'm
moving
to
spring
so
we're
progressing.
As
of
today.
We
have
eight
big
documents
in
our
is
G
ends
my
stuff
next
steps.
We
still
have
a
few
ones
to
progress.
X
We
have
started
in
a
description
on
possible
early
shelter,
although
we
may
adopt
a
shoe
or
a
couple
of
one
in
the
meantime
them
up
statues.
We
have
just
then
sent
to
ing
as
yet
interact
draft
so
monix
part
of
the
eighth
one
I'll
ask
part
of
the
review
of
zom
your
skills.
We've
got
to
command
that
it's
more
than
the
new
use
case,
our
only
tidier
to
stop
tracks.
We
have
to
discuss
that
I'm
telling
me
a
big
thanks
to
to
our
Laurel,
which
has
a
big
set
of
large
document
to
Trimble.
J
Won't
be
run
for
teas,
we
met
for
our
regular
session
yesterday
morning.
We
have
what
is
now
like
this
customary
joint
young
session
coming
up
tomorrow
afternoon
in
terms
of
highlights,
the
modeling
work
that's
being
done
as
reached
of
an
acceptable
level
of
maturity.
The
tea
topology
model
is
nmda
compliant
now
and
as
padarthas
its
last
quality.
J
The
tea
and
RSVP
models
are
not
NMDA
compliant,
but
there
are
significant
portions
of
the
models
which
are
sufficiently
baked
in
terms
of
ECT
and
the
framework
and
requirement
Stockman's
are
almost
ready
for
last
call
there's
a
records
from
the
chairs
to
pull
in
some
text
from
an
individual
draft
or
either
one
or
both
of
these
documents.
Apart
from
that
these
of
sufficiently
cut,
there
are
also
a
few
other
documents
and
the
day
CT
number
love
which
are
progressing
quite
well
and
getting
ready
for
adoption.
J
Q
Q
We
know
this
because
we've
been
gratefully
accepting
the
revision
that
the
that
the
ATS
did
to
the
routing
Directorate.
We
trill
had
a
lot
of
drafts
that
we're
sitting
waiting
for
routing
Directorate
review,
they're
people
who
have
been
very
good
to
review
things
for
us
thanks.
We
have
nice
engineering
solutions
by
the
way,
if
you're
in
vo3,
you
should
really
look
at
some
of
the
stuff
that's
going
through.
At
the
end,
at
least,
you
can
learn
from
what
what
we've
gained.
We
have
areas
of
work
that
are
being
convened.
Q
We
are
having
this
time
very
focused
drafts
on
things
which
these
reviews
uncovered,
for
example,
TRO
over
IP.
We
finally
got
a
really
terrific
COO
review
from
Magna
Switzerland
and
he
pointed
out
a
whole
bunch
of
things
previously.
We've
gotten
a
really
good
review
from
Alvaro
on
and
the
in
director
on
optimization
and
we're
just
talking
about
these
things
and
some
things
with
wine
green
living,
we're
presenting
one
or
two
less
pieces
of
new
work
that
will
are
in
the
middle
of
Dobson
prior
to
our
hiatus.
Q
C
C
C
Some
things
that
popped
out
at
me
just
because
I'm
thinking
about
that
is
there
were
a
couple
of
there's
a
couple
of
work
that,
for
example,
could
be
leveraged.
We
could
leverage
other
people.
Reviews
is
not
only
that
we
talked
about
at
the
beginning.
Reviews
are
only
the
work
of
the
route
directory,
it's
the
work
of
everyone
and
we
can
leverage
say
other
working
groups.
For
example,
there
was
some
architecture,
work,
I
think
on
multicast,
like
a
picture
for
something
that
fit
me.
Is
there
right?
There's
a
bunch
of
multicast
people
in
him.
C
There's
some
work
that
I
saw
in
the
raw
report
around
multicast.
Well,
you
know
we
don't
have
to
adopt
the
work
anywhere,
but
we
could
send
it
for
a
review
there's
this
work
that
was
called
just
now
on
its
oral
aural
existence,
there's
something
similar
in
spring
for
SR
and
LTP
interoperability.
So
you
know
there's
some
synergy
right,
not
overlap
necessarily,
but
some
synergy
between
the
working
group.
C
Y
Y
So
I
just
a
reminder
of
the
role
the
rats
and
Directorate
is
a
panel
of
rats
and
Gary
experts
and
they're
appointed
by
the
ADEs.
We
currently
have
46
people
on
this
panel
and
by
job
is
on
the
panel
to
provide
expert
reviews
of
drafts,
which
can
either
be
out
by
ATF
last
call,
either
from
inside
the
routing
area
or
from
outside
the
routing
area
or
before
we
get
to
the
ITF
last
call.
While
the
documents
are
still
in
the
working
groups,
we,
the
director,
can
do
early
reviews
and
those
documents.
Y
We
tend
to
assign
our
reviews
across
a
Directorate
using
round
robins.
So
if
you're
on
by
Directorate,
it
means
you
could
end
up
with
some
random
drafts
a
review.
You
don't
need
to
be
a
deep
expert
in
that
area
of
technology.
In
fact,
it's
usually
better
if
you're
not
because,
then
you
can
sort
of
take
a
higher
level
view
and
look
for
for
wider
issues,
maybe
check
for
readability
or
things
that
are
not
explained,
which
a
working
group
will
not
necessarily
see,
but
we've
become
really
important.
Y
Once
you
get
the
the
draft
over
longer
the
process
to
the
iesg,
but
we
will
occasionally
handpick
reviewers.
So
if
the
chair
needs
a
particular
expertise
to
review
a
draft,
then
we
can
do
that
too.
Okay,
more
information
on
the
wiki,
these
statistics,
just
to
show
you
what
the
Directorate
has
done
this
last
ITF
period
we
reviewed
32
drafts
there
are
about
50/50
split
between
ITF
lascall
reviews
and
working
group
reviews.
Y
Maybe
a
few
more
of
the
ITF
last
call
the
the
way
the
drafts
we've
reviewed
rate
breakdown
by
by
area
sorry
by
working
group
kind
of
changes
each
time.
So
there's
you
know
it's
how
we
had
lost
some
wrath
on
working
group
and
quite
a
few
from
tease,
but
that's
just
sort
of
a
kind
of
counting
goes
as
drastic
umber
of
the
cycle.
In
terms
of
results.
Y
Finding
issues
which
are
you
know,
problems
to
discuss,
but
not
necessarily
blocking
problems
in
58
percent
of
the
drafts
we
reviewed
and
20
21
percent
had
nets
which
are
sort
of
editorial
things,
so
I
mean
the
58
percent
figure
is
cave.
The
directory
does
find
real
issues
in
post
document.
All
it
is
really
worth
having
you
address,
reviewed
in
the
Directorate
meantime
to
review
a
draft
by
the
director
is
about
15
days
and
I.
Y
G
Hey
good
Adrian
Farrell,
so
thank
you
right
back
at
you
administrating
this
I'd
like
the
ADEs
to
comment
on
that
58
percent
because
clearly
you're
right
that
having
the
Directorate.
Finally,
58
percent
is
really
good,
but
clearly
you're
wrong.
That
58
percent
of
documents
get
this
far
with
issues.
It's
not
that
because
that's
not
good
I.
C
Agree:
that's
not
good.
Now
we
notice
that
maybe
roughly
have
our
early
reviews,
which
are
reviews
that
the
chairs
requests
earlier
in
the
process.
Maybe
before
we
can
do,
let's
call
or
some
point
now
I
think
another.
That's
the
point
you're
trying
to
make
whether
I
want
to
make
is
that
we
shouldn't
expect
external
of
the
working
group
reviews
to
find
the
60%
of
the
issues,
the
58
percent.
That
has
issues
that
maybe
we
need
to.
C
We
should
have
resolved
in
the
working
group
before
and
obviously
more
stressing
is
that
three
percent
that
is
not
ready
now,
not
all
of
these
drafts
are
inside
the
routing
area.
Once
in
a
while,
when
there
is
ITF
lascall
of
documents
that
are
related
to
the
routing
area,
we
ask
for
review
of
those
as
well.
For
example,
recently
we
went
through
the
exercise
of
making
the
ap6
specifications
interest
and
routes,
and
so
we
asked
the
director
to
review
those
documents
because
we
thought
the
other
related
strongly
related
to
the
routing
area.
C
So
some
of
these
documents
and
I
we
have
a
breakdown
of
that
or
not,
but
some
of
them
that
may
have
had
issues
we're
not
ready
fitted
adults
I.
Think
it's
important
thing.
The
port,
where
that
I
want
to
make
is
that
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
have
said
a
couple
of
times
today
that
it
is
important
that
we
review.
We
review
that
we.
C
To
the
work
in
the
working
group,
I
see
too
many
Plus
Ones
and
too
many
just
yes
as
you
support.
Yes,
yes,
yes,
yes
in
the
working
groups
and
we
should
be
working
just
because
you
trust
me
and
you
think
I
did
a
good
job,
doesn't
mean
that
I
didn't
screw
up
my
draft
and
in
my
personal
case
I
mostly
do
so
a
please
review,
review
the
work
and
I,
even
though
the
directors
doing
a
great
job.
And
again
we
want
to
thank
everyone
for
that.
I
Low
Anderson
I
was
actually
doing
the
comment
on
the
yes
and
plus
ones,
but
I
don't
want
to
do
that.
I
want
to
say
something
totally
different.
I,
don't
know
about
the
rest
of
you,
but
I
need
to
state
how
much
actually
accrete
appreciate
the
improvement
of
the
work
in
the
routing
area
Directorate
over
the
last
year
and
with
the
people
get
getting
in
and
actually
taking
it
seriously,
and
we
knew
actually
now
we
actually
do
in
good
reviews.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thanks.
D
Y
R
Just
come
back,
I
I
think
it's
a
bar,
so
we
should
really
try
all
to
to
try
to
review
the
documents
earlier
in
the
process,
but
I
also
I,
don't
see
anything
wrong
with
the
Directorate
reviewer.
Giving
a
mark
that
it's
not
you
know
ready,
has
issues
because
I
don't
see
these
as
failing
grades.
I
see
this
as
just
trying
to
improve
it's
no
different
than
if
don't
is
G
review.
R
B
E
B
E
E
Know
it's
an
unfair
burden
on
the
area
directors
and
on
the
Directorate
to
expect
them
to
be
able
to
do
all
of
the
detailed
technical
quality
review
that
needs
to
be
coming
from
the
working
groups
and
I
can
tell
you
that
I
think
our
experience
of
issues
when
we
do
AG
reviews,
which
is
frequently
after
the
writing,
Directorate
or
at
the
same
time,
is
probably
on
the
well
higher
than
50%.
So
we'd
really
like
to
see
better
work
and
more
reviews.
Thank
you.
D
John
Scudder
you
people
who
were
awake
through
the
whole
lightning
round.
I'm
sure
noticed
see
talking
about
in
the
idea.
Our
portion
about
code-point
squatting,
blah
blah
blah
I
had
considered
asking
you
for
some
time
during
this
meeting.
For
no
it's
one
of
these
boring,
but
important
topics
and
I
didn't
get
around
to
it
or
preparing
any
materials,
but
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
either
at
a
you
know
one
of
our
periodic
chairs
virtual
meetings
or
something
it
might
be.
C
Sure,
please
remind
us
to
revisit
the
topic
at
some
of
the
future
chair
chats.
Another
was
the
last
idea
for
the
ITF
before
Jeff
the
representation
on
considerations
around
allocation
swelling
and
early
years,
and
other
things
I
think
he
did
it
here
so
we'll,
but
please
look
at
the
materials
and
I
think
I
know
John
you're
talking
about
other.
You
know
further
beyond
that.
C
The
other
thing
that
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
whatever
the
RFC
was
for
IANA
considerations
was
just
missed
and
it
is
now
some
other
RFC
number
in
the
8000
series
most
of
the
work
that
they
did
there.
They
try
to
clarify
some
of
the
procedures
and
allocation
policies
and
other
things.
It
might
be
a
good
idea
to
to
also
talk
about
that
or
to
get
maybe
Aiyanna
or
someone
to
give
us
a
refresher
or
or
an
overview
of
the
changes
and
things
along
those
lines.
You.
D
Know
I
think
that
would
be
great
I
in
particular,
yeah
I
remember,
Jeff
talked
well
but
in
particular
I'm
suggesting
what
what
you
said,
which
is
to
focus
on
the
I
Anna
part
of
it,
which
I
think
a
lot
of
us
think
we
know
what's
in
there
until
we
go
and
read
it
and
then
we're
like.
Oh
actually,
it
says
something
different.
C
Rick
Taylor
just
trying
to
cover
a
topic
that
was
missed
out,
because
the
many
entry
in
the
wiki
was
missing.
Since
the
last
meeting,
we've
managed
to
get
RFC
81-75
out,
which
is
delet,
which
I
think
has
applicability
outside
of
manet.
If
you
have
interested
in
BFD
or
you're,
working
in
a
call,
routing
protocol
or
ITF
is
is
deal
app
is
probably
of
interest
to
you
when
you
start
to
get
beyond
the
fix
Network.
C
So
can
I
just
ask
people
to
have
a
look
at
it,
see
whether
it's
applicable
to
some
of
the
corner
cases
you
have
with
your
core
working
group
work.
I,
think
this
is
following
on
from
Alvarado's
comment
about.
Some
of
the
working
groups
are
doing
and
producing
work
has
much
wider
applicability
than
just
their
original
niche.
So
81-75
is
worth
a
look.
C
Thank
you
Eric
for
around
for
a
reminder.
Justin
and
Stan
did
a
presentation,
maybe
two
or
three
ATMs
ago,
about
the
work
that
had
been
to
holiday,
including
including
deal
up
the
fact
that
it
could
be
applicable
to
other
things
was
the
last.
There
was
actually
a
lot
of
this
question
in
the
ASG
about
that.
Please
go
find
those
slides.
C
The
other
thing
that
we
had
started
a
discussion
after
that
presentation
with
some
of
the
other
working
groups
here
for
sample
role
about
the
fact
that
there
is
you
know
you
should
bill
'ti
and
then
things
that
we
can
share
just
because
we're
doing
mechanisms
that
we
seem
to
be
targeting
at
mobile,
your
ad
hoc
environments
or
IOT
environments.
That
doesn't
mean
that
those
aren't
applicable
to
core
networks
or
my
sources
right.
Some
of
the
methodology
and
enhancements
that
we
do
into
core
networks
could
be
applicable
in
other
places.
C
X
C
B
C
So
anyone
else,
one
of
the
things
that
we
keep
thinking
about
ourselves
and
that
we
were
up
for
a
very
short
discussion
at
the
run
director
and
routing
chairs.
Meeting
on
Monday
is
where
we're
going.
What's
the
future
of
the
routing
area
or
routing
in
general,
one
of
the
new
things
that
we
see
many
of
the
working
groups,
as
you
saw,
are
making
progress
most
of
the
work
groups.
All
of
the
work
comes
from
making
progress
of
progress
faster
or
slower,
some
of
them.
C
We
consider
that
could
be
to
the
point
where
we
could
even
close
some
of
the
working
groups
at
some
point
in
the
relatively
short
future.
So
what
happens
next?
Are
we
ready
for
the
next
revolution
of
whatever
it
is?
Is
there
work
that
we
should
be
looking
in
the
IETF,
specifically
in
the
routing
area,
to
do
and
I'm
sure
the
answer
is
yes,
more
importantly,
how
do
we
attract
that
work
to
come
to
the
ITF?
C
Is
there
work
that
we're
not
looking
at
because
it
may
be
to
research
you
because
it
may
be,
for
runners
are
too
big
or
too
small
or
move
too
fast
or
too
slow.
So
what
we
want
to
we're
know
the
answers
to
those
questions
for
us,
but
want
to
hear
from
you
and,
more
importantly,
we
want
to
ask
you
to
please
work
towards
that
as
well.
In
other
words,
don't
just
tell
us,
oh
there's
a
new
hot
technology.
You
should
bring
it
to
the
ITF
you'll
help
us
do
that
as
well.
We
are
only
three.
C
You
are
a
lot
more
than
three
and
we
can
again
responsibility
is
the
responsibility
of
everyone.
So
if
anyone
has
opinions
thoughts,
flames,
please
stand
up.
Talk
about
them.
Send
us
email
later
talk
amongst
yourselves,
write
something
down
any
other
option.
Okay,
thank
you.
Rick
Rick,
Taylor,
again
I'm
the
chair
of
delay-tolerant
networking,
which
is
in
transport.
C
Currently
we're
not
chartered
to
do
routing,
because
that
would
probably
be
a
routing
area
task,
but
we're
we're
out
of
the
IRT
F,
we're
now
into
the
IETF
and
we're
trying
to
standardize.
How
do
you
push
packets
and
data
around
in
deeply
disrupted
and
heavily
delayed
network,
so
it's
email
2.0
done
properly.
C
So
at
a
certain
point,
we're
gonna
have
to
solve
these
routing
problems
and
what
kind
of
transport
focused
and
I'd
love
to
see
more
guys
with
the
deep
routing
expertise
who
are
sat
in
this
room
or
sat
in
this
room's
working
groups
to
come
and
help
us
solve
these
problems
again.
They're,
not
Charter
items
yet,
but
at
a
certain
point,
we're
gonna
finish.
Our
current
set
of
documents
and
we're
going
to
read
charter
and
routing
is
gonna
be
there.
So
we
would
like
to
kind
of
engage
with
you
guys
sooner
rather
than
later,
can.
E
I
suggest
thank
you
for
its.
The
suggestion
can
I
suggest
talking
to
Chris,
Powers
and
Jeff
tensor
of
the
chairs
for
our
GWG.
This
sounds
like
it
would
be
a
really
excellent
discussion
for
that
working
group
to
bring
in
and
educate
folks
on
what
that
problem.
Space
is
so
at
least
people
start
thinking
about.
It
know
to
pay
attention
sure.
C
But
in
the
future
you
want
to
probably
communicate
between
the
cars
or
between
the
car
and
someone
else,
and
you
are
gonna-
need
some
type
of
routing
stuff
in
there.
So
the
worker
you
that
whoop
is
not
charter
to
do
that.
But
we
also
know
that
at
some
point
the
the
the
need
for
the
work
will
happen
most
likely.
We
might
not
charter
that
working
group
to
do
that,
but
we
will
need
a
place
to
discuss
and
do
it.
K
So
it's
personal
view,
so
we
know
the
proximity
of
our
cloud
placement
stuff
is
coming
to
us.
Vm
containers
getting
out
of
data
center
being
placed
somewhere
else,
and
it's
important
to
know
how
do
we
get
the
cost
of
getting
there?
How
do
we
do
this
in
loop,
free
manner
and
regular
routing
stuff,
so
there's
some
very
early
stuff
in
tears,
but
it
was
a
lot
of
us
and
it's
humming.
So
it's
quite
interesting
work.
K
C
Another
reminder
to
me
already
said:
the
running
area
working
group
is
chartered
to
take
on
any
discussion
of
potential
future
work
in
the
Charter.
The
main
part
of
the
Charter
who
talks
about
how
the
earlier
group
conservatives,
a
mini
bomb,
type
place
right
where
we
can
go,
discuss
things
that
maybe
is
not
mature
enough
for
an
actual
bomb.
There
are
things
that
the
ing,
for
example,
has
been
making
statements
over
the
last
years
has
been
around.
C
Then
we
can
accelerate
work,
you
we
don't
need
to
go
to
two
Bob's
and
one
not
working
non-working,
reforming
one
and
then
something
else
and
then
whatever
and
then
figure
out
a
bunch
of
other
documents
before
we
can
actually
start
work
if
work
is
well
defined.
Well,
understood
and
more
importantly,
not
only
something
that
is
interesting
for
the
ATF,
but
something
that
people
are
going
to
actually
work
on.
Then
you
can
see
you
about
them
and
something
about
it.
C
If
it's
my
idea
as
much
as
it
would
be
a
great
idea,
but
it's
only
me
who's
interested
in
it,
then
it's
probably
not
something
that
we're
going
to
want
to
work
on.
So
you're
part
of
this
also
socializing
the
potential
work
that
we
would
want
to
do
so
that
we
get
some
some
support
behind
us
and
some
you
know
people
work
to
actually
write
and
again
review
documents.