►
From YouTube: IETF99-TRANS-20170719-1520
Description
TRANS meeting session at IETF99
2017/07/19 1520
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/proceedings/
A
I'm,
actually
not
sure
and
I
have
no
idea
where,
where
Paul
is
we
generally,
we
have
a
practice
of
swapping
off
meeting
responsibilities.
This
is
this
meeting.
Is
his
so
I'm,
not
quite
sure
where
things
stand
and
we
are
still
Paulus,
okay,
so
first
order
of
business,
do
we
have
a
volunteer
to
take
notes?
A
B
A
Right
so
basically,
this
is
the
order
of
business.
For
today,
in
terms
of
updates,
there
are
no
changes
to
the
Charter.
The
one
thing
that
is
notable
is
that
one
who
blasts
column
69-62
disclosed
yesterday.
There
were
some
comments
on
that
need
to
be
resolved
before
the
document
is
sent
on
to
the
iesg,
but
they
do
not
appear
to
be
serious
enough
to
require
going
back
into
working
group.
Last
call
again,
so
it
looks
like
we've
achieved
a
major
milestone
here.
A
A
A
Yes,
okay,
redaction,
the
proponents
are
m.I.a.
It
appears
that
you
know
we
certainly
do
not
have
anything
approaching
consensus
to
take
on
mid-action
in
general
and
the
people
who
have
been
advocating
for
it
have
kind
of
gone
missing,
so
that
is
on
hold
for
the
you
know.
Until
that
situation
changes
a
threat
analysis,
it's
still
stuck,
I
I
know
Deb
has
volunteered
to
revise
the
document
and
is
waiting
for
some
text
from
Paul.
In
the
meantime
that
are
the
authors.
He
can't
read
the
document
without
changes
on
CTD
NSF
still
in
the
brainstorming
stage.
A
We
don't
have
a
document
and
we
don't
have
at
this
point.
You
don't
even
have
a
proposal
on
what
exactly
needs
to
be
logged.
Ct,
binaries
I
think
you
may
recall
that
we
had
a
document
at
the
last
meeting
that
people
thought
the
problem
was
interesting
and
appropriate
for
us,
but
that
the
document
was
not
a
very
good
place
to
start
Tiana's
extension
for
CT
question
mark.
Does
anybody
know
what's
going
on
with
that?
I.
A
C
A
A
D
A
E
A
D
Yeah
the
situation
appears
to
be
this
East
962
documented
their
code
point
so
is
okay,
so
sounds
like
who
I
don't
know
pretend
this
agenda
like
I,
don't
know
is.
Is
this
a
separate
there's
a
name,
a
document
for
this?
There
was
a
new
document
even
exist.
A
There's
no
document
that
exists,
it
was
I
was,
as
I
said,
I
was
surprised
to
see
this
show
up
on
the
agenda
and
I
put
this
agenda
together
and
not
sure
where
he
is
I.
A
D
I
mean
for
what
it's
worth
the
I
think
yeah
I
mean
I,
mean
I'm,
not
saying
that
the
doc
I'm
not
saying
that
the
write-up
is
here.
The
right
up
here
is
like
ideal,
but
it
does
seem
like
there
is
a
good
point
of
tension
and
it
is
register
Vienna,
and
so
probably
we
can
live
with
that,
though
I
admit
it's
not
a
very
that
the
description
is
like
four
paragraphs
long
and
it
takes
up
this
much
the
document
but
I'm
not
sure
anything.
Any
action
is
really
needed
here.
Yeah.
A
A
A
A
A
Are
we
done
well
at
this
point
like
we
have
this
one
major
deliverable,
16
inches
YouTube?
Is
that
right?
That's?
So
there
are
a
couple
of
questions
about
the
possibility
of
taking
on
new
logging
new
applications.
The
two
that
are
on
the
table
are
DNS
SEC
and
you
know
binary
code
distribution,
but
we
at
this
point
we
don't
have
credible
pieces.
You
know
basis
for
either
right.
A
F
D
So
I
guess
I
do
think.
If
we
could
there
be
a
fine
paper
document,
but
I
also
think
if
we
could
not
seven
working
group
this
and
doing
anything
so
I
guess
I
would
propose
that.
Perhaps
we
try
to
try
to
recruit
somebody
who
will
do
that
and
if
you
do
not
count
procore
you'll
do
that
we
give
up
and
declare
defeat
and
thankless
working
group.
Okay
I
mean
like
the
other
documents,
basically
like
the
DNS.
Second,
the
wineries,
like
absence
you
showing
of
interests
like
basically
they're,
not
gonna,
show
up
so
yeah.
D
A
There's
been
a
lot
of,
we
could
but
not
a
lot
of
yeah,
okay,
absent
anything
else.
We're
done!
Thank
you.