►
Description
RFC Editor Future Development Program Meeting, 2020-05-14
C
That's
another
story
all
right,
so
when
we
go
ahead
and
get
started,
it's
it's
well
past
five
past
the
hour
and
it's
late
on.
First
thanks,
everybody
for
joining,
it's
particularly
difficult
for
a
good
number
of
people,
equally
convenient
or
inconvenient
for
for
for
many.
So
thanks
for
taking
this
discussion
before
we
go
too
much
further
a
reminder,
I
think
everybody
on
this
call
has
not
only
seen
this
slide,
but
I
think
nearly
everybody
has
presented
this
slide.
C
C
Okay,
then,
moving
on
so
the
this
group,
the
the
programs
being
run.
You
know
very
much
like
working
group,
we'll
have
a
very
working
groupish
feel
to
it
and
you
know
minutes
are
being
taken,
we're
doing
our
work
mostly
on
the
mailing
list
and
we're
doing
a
call.
You
know
I'm
varying
that
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
how
to
proceed
in
discussions.
E
C
Working
group,
so
part
of
that,
of
course,
is
everybody
here
knows
is
when
we
get
to
the
agenda
slide.
The
first
thing
we
do
is
bash
the
agenda,
and
so
I
wanna
just
go
through
this
very
quickly.
I
wanna
do
just
a
brief
program.
Introduction
review
for
people
who
haven't
been
following
mailing
list
day
to
day.
C
Okay,
then
we'll
proceed
so
just
some
some
basic
housekeeping.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
cindy
and
the
tools
team,
and
I
presume
russ-
you
had
something
to
do
with
this-
that
now
we
have
a
data
tracker
page,
that's
not
quite
on
these
slides
yet,
but
it
will
be
on
the
next
patch
thanks
to
all
the
people
who
did
the
work
on
that.
C
That
was
robert.
That
was
robert.
Okay,
please
pass
along
the
thanks
of
the
chair,
and
hopefully
everybody
who's
on
the
call
as
well,
so
that
we'll
we'll
use
that
and
we're
we're
it's
more
of
the
evidence
that
we'll
try
and
run
this.
You
know
pretty
much
as
a
working
group,
but
not
all
programs
will,
but
this
one.
C
So
there's
also
you
know.
Obviously
I
think
everybody's
on
the
mailing
list.
You've
seen
the
charter.
We
have
this
lovely
little
github
area
we're
not
necessarily
using
it
in
in
its
fullest
capacity
at
the
moment-
and
I
presume,
as
we
get
going
a
little
further,
there
will
be
issues
and
things
that
need
to
be
tracked
and
github
is
particularly
good.
C
Let's
see
here
the
this
is
right
out
of
the
charter
right,
so
we
we
have.
You
know
I
just
want
to
go
over
this
for
a
moment.
You
know
our
purposes
is
to
really
discuss
potential
changes
to
the
rfc
editor
model
and
the
rfc
and
how
the
function
is
to
be
managed,
staffed
and
overseen
and
that's
all
within
scope
and
then
we'll
output,
some
documents
as
we
as
we
get
going
now.
C
Amongst
other
things,
we
might
need
to
at
some
point
another
form
with
questions,
maybe
to
help
develop
text.
I
presume
there'll
be
some
editors
who
rise
to
the
to
the
challenge
of
trying
to
work
with
with
updating
a
process
that
a
lot
of
us
have
have
deep
feelings
about
so
again,
it'll
all
feel
very
working
like
the
the
work
program,
I've
sort
of
simplified
it
out
right,
which
is
to
seek
agreement
on
what
problems
to
solve
them.
C
So,
and
this
is
sort
of
where
we
are-
and
you
know
your
your
humble
chair
has
been
mostly
sitting
back
the
last
couple
days
and
very
much
enjoying
the
the
back
and
forth.
That's
been
going
on
and
greatly
appreciative
to
brian
for
having
put
out
a
document
that
has
a
spurred
discussion
and
helped
us,
I
think,
focus
quite
a
ways.
C
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
I
thought
it
would
be
useful
to
to
get
to
this
point
and
why
I'm
talking
about
it
with
this
slide
is
that
we
can
make
sure
we
can
sort
of
try
and
over
the
next
weeks,
maybe
a
month
or
two
to
to
try
and
close
out.
You
know
what
it
is,
the
problems
that
we're
trying
to
solve
and
then
go
and
solve
them.
C
C
The
the
first,
where
I
think
a
lot
of
people
focus
down
on
words
was
what
are
the
roles?
What
is
their
relationship
to
one
another
and
obviously
I
think
that
ties
directly
to
the
charter.
If
we,
if
we
solve
this
top
problem
right,
if
we
were
able
to
do
a
decent
job
of
this
one,
I
think
we
would
have
been.
We
would
really
have
done
a
good
day's
work.
Maybe
a
good
year's
work.
C
C
C
So
these
are
the
sort
of
the
high
level
points
and-
and
I
figured
we'd-
spend
a
fair
amount
of
time.
You
know
again
mostly
talking
about
these
two
points,
I'm
not
really
too
fussed
about
which
order
we
tackle
them
in,
but
I
I
think
it's
it
sounds
like
we
should
probably
at
least
get
on
the
table.
If
people
have
views
about
that,
they
want
to
express
about
what
what
do
they
want
from
the
series
right?
C
So
what
I'm
going
to
propose
is
I'm
going
to
just
take
this
out
of
presenter
mode,
so
I
can
see
the
list
of
people
and
just
I
haven't
been
following
the
chat
and
I
apologize
if
people
have
been
commenting
and
wanting
to
make
comments
before
I
go
on.
Do
people
want
to
comment
about
any
of
the
slides
that
I
presented
or
the
the
way
to
go
forward
here.
C
C
How
do
I
stop
it?
Just
a
second
I'm
just
gonna!
Oh
here
it
is
annotations.
There
we
go.
I
think
it
all
went
away
so
I'll
invite
people
just
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
they.
What
they
see
is
the
vision
for
the
series,
the
you
know
the:
what
does
it
look
like
50
years
from
now,
what
is
arc?
What's
important
to
you
about
the
series
that
need
that
the
rfc
series
editor
needs
to
take
to
heart
and
it's
in
his
core
to
the
role
of
the
rfc
series
center.
C
C
E
H
H
So
when
we
look
at
publication
venues,
we
oh
I
see
brian
is
here
too,
when
we
look
at
publication
venues,
then
one
thing,
of
course,
is
something
that
can
be
summarized
as
reputation,
and
I
don't
want
to
go
into
all
the
details
of
that.
But
just
one
aspect
of
reputation
that
has
received
a
lot
of
attention
recently
is
the
the
foundations,
are
guidelines
for
good
scientific
practice,
so
that
that
may
not
be
something
that
that
is
close
to
the
the
heart
of
everyone
in
this
meeting.
I
Yeah
good
morning,
thank
you
for
this
very
convenient
meeting
time
by
the
way
perfect.
I
just
wanted
to
say
I'm
paying
a
lot
of
attention
to
what
people
are
saying
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
put
stuff
into
my
draft
when
I
revise
it
next
week,
because
there's
been
an
awful
lot
of
stuff
written
between
the
lines.
I
think
some
of
the
comments
that
I've
got,
but
I
haven't
had
many
comments
that
are
really
directly
saying.
I
C
J
J
So
I'm
I'm
worried
about
how
we
get
a
little
more
focused
on
this.
I'm
worried
about
how
we
do
this
either
explicitly
addressing
the
modern
living
document
versus
archival
standards
and
and
things
that
procurement
people
can
use
questions.
We
should
either
try
to
tackle
those
head
on
or
try
to
push
them
out
of
the
way
and
and
a
series
of
other
things
like
that
and,
as
I
have
tried
a
fairly
unsuccessfully
to
to
follow
the
list
over
the
last
several
weeks
it.
J
C
C
If
I
may
that
that
I
think
at
the
beginning
of
these
sorts
of
efforts,
one
does
tend
to
lengthen
the
needs
a
little
bit,
it's
good
to
back
up
and
make
sure
that
we're
hitting
the
high
points,
as
as
you
pointed
out,
I
I
do
think
you
know
something
like
what
we
want
out
of
the
series
ties
to
our
our
work,
but
I
just
want
to
read
out
what
what
doug
said
in
case.
People
have.
C
J
Now
you
can
solve
those
problems
after
a
fashion
by
permitting
things
to
be
in
multiple
categories,
but
the
more
categories
you
put
them
in
the
less
useful
the
categorization
gets
and
and
that's
where
the
these
things
belong
together
and
those
things
don't
is,
is
ultimately
substantive,
technical
matter.
Okay,.
G
C
Okay,
one
of
the
points
that
was
made-
I
think
it
was
mark
nottingham,
but
what
may
be
wrong
was
that
one
of
one
of
the
things
we
want
out
of
rfc
editors
to
help
make
the
series
now
it
might
have
been
neville
too.
Who
is
that,
but
is
that
something
that
is
is
the
the
responsibility
of
the
rfc
or
is
that
something
that's
the
responsibility
of
the
streams.
C
C
Okay,
we're
definitely
going
to
run
out
of
agenda
items
really
soon
and
I'll
probably
have
to
try
a
different
tact
in
terms
of
these
these
these
meetings
as
they
go
forward.
If
people
don't
feel
that
they'd
like
to
comment
in
these
points,
so
sort
of
last
call,
if
you'd
like
to
talk
about
it,
any
of
these
components.
C
Okay,
well,
if
people
are
aren't,
don't
feel
comfortable
talking
about
these
things,
let
me
turn
to
any
other
business
and
how
would
people
like
to
to
to
use
the
time
both
on
the
list,
and
let
me
just
ask
a
question:
do
people
like
the
organization
that
they
see
here?
Would
you
like
to
turn
the
rfc
editor
qualities
because
I
didn't
spend
any?
I
didn't
ask
that
question
I'll
open
the
floor.
Does
anybody?
K
Yeah
neville
here,
I'm
wondering
whether
it
would
be
good
to
talk
about
what
we're
looking
for
in
the
way
of
an
rfc
editor
and
in
particular
to
maybe
poke
a
bit
at
the
question
of.
What's
the
important
thing
for
the
series
really,
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
historical
record
as
compared
to
being
a
newspaper
editor
and
things
like
that
which,
although
it
was.
J
I
I
may
be
the
only
one,
but
the
reason
why
I'm
not
commenting
on
a
lot
of
this
isn't
because
I'm
too
shy
to
speak
up,
as
you
probably
all
know,
but
but
because
I
have,
I
find
it
much
easier
to
try
to
think
through
these
things
and
and
analyze
and
write
than
to
try
to
respond
on
topics
just
general
on
a
on
a
real-time
voice.
Conversation.
J
That
would
even
be
true
if
we
were
face
to
face,
but
it's
a
little
worse
here,
and
I
don't
know
if
others
are
having
that
problem
or
not.
When
we
get
down
to
very
specific
things.
It's
a
little
different,
but
even
neville's
question
is,
is
pretty
general
for
me
to
figure
out
how
to
respond
to
in
a
in
in
in
a
broad
and
yet
specific
way.
C
L
Well,
it's
hard
to
have
our
see
better
the
qualities
unless
you
know
how
what
we
want
from
the
series
itself
and
again
if
this
is
a
place
to
park
documents
after
they've,
been
edited
someplace
else,
and
we
need
a
little
bit
of
help
of
getting
them
in
the
appropriate
format
and
the
rfc
editor
quality
is
a
project
manager.
I
think
doug
mentioned
that
comment
on
on
there,
whereas,
if
we're
looking
for
someone
to
represent
the
series-
and
basically,
if
you
will
be
its
advocate
within
the
ietf
community-
that's
a
whole
different
set
of
things.
L
A
You
know
topics
of
what
we
want
in
the
series
and
you
know
how
do
we
want
management
and
oversight
to
happen?
And,
unfortunately,
you
know
those
longer-term
discussions
which
I
absolutely
agree.
I
think
this
group,
you
know
if
we
want
to
take
on
that
level
of
planning
and
thought
needs
to
be
done
carefully
and-
and
you
know,
mike's
comment
about
this
needs
to
last
beyond
10
years
is
spot
on.
A
How
do
we?
How
do
we
fix
the
short-term
problem
without
you
know,
going
spending
a
long
time
on
the
long-term
goals,
so
I
would
love
to
hear
people's
thoughts
on
you
know.
What's
the
right
road
map
forward,
what
what
things
should
we
tackle
immediately
then
tackle
the
longer
term
and
then
maybe
come
back
to
re-architect
what
we
did
first,
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
we
do
seem
to
be
having
a
bipolar
position
to
some
extent.
C
A
Ib
has
made
clear
you
you'll
notice
that
I'm
not
inserting
my
own
opinion
into
most
of
the
points
that
I
raise
bringing
up
to
the
list.
We
really
want
to
be
hands
off.
This
is
the
community's.
You
know
decision
to
a
large
extent.
We
are
here
to
facilitate
help
and
everything
else,
but
it's
not
our
goal
to
do
any
sort
of
direction.
That's
that's
why
we
have
wonderful
chairs
that
are
not
part
of.
A
A
That
there
are
priorities
or
things
that
need
to
be
dealt
with.
The
fact
that
we
are,
we
are
missing.
A
long-term
rc
at
the
moment
is,
is,
I
think,
a
problem
that
I
believe
everybody
believes
is,
is
something
that
we
ought
to
fix
and
it's
it's
hard
to
create
a
plan
to
get
out
of
the
pickle
at
the
same
time,
as
do
the
long
great
term
planning.
C
C
Are
these
pretty
good
questions
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
like,
in
particular,
in
terms
of
the
role
and
in
terms
I
mean,
I
think,
that
what
do
we
want
from
the
rc
series
is
a
bit
open-ended
to
really
to
really
sink
one's
teeth
into,
and
I
think
that's
the
problem
that
mike
sees
with
that-
and
I
think
john
in
terms
of
you
know
your
comments
as
well.
What
are
the
questions
that
I
put
up
there,
which
are
really
your
questions?
C
M
M
M
Who
is
also
looking
at
the
overall,
interconnected
nature
and
and
has
kind
of
the
technical
aptitude
to
be
looking
across
all
of
these
things
and
say:
okay,
we
have
these
two
things
that
are
similar
that
are
on
different
sides
of
the
equip
different
sides
of
stuff
and
that
we
should
maybe
be
trying
to
connect
those
as
well
as
part
of
the
series.
So
I
I
think
that,
like
I
said
the
right
questions,
I
also
agree
with
the
earlier
comments
of.
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
pin
this
down.
M
What
what
are
the
rules
here
is
it?
Is
it
to
you
know?
You
know
different
areas.
Is
it
to
the
ietf
llc?
Is
it
you
know
wherever,
and
you
know
I
I.
I
think
that
there
is
value
and
they're
being
you
know
talking
about
some
of
these
qualities
here.
At
the
end,
I
think
there's
value
in
the
person
having
some
technical
experience.
M
I
think
there's
value
in
them
understanding
how
the
protocols
are
being
used
that
we're
defining
here,
and
I
think
that
there's
there's
value
in
the
tools
that
we're
using
to
have
a
very
low,
low,
friction
or
or
low
drag
coefficient
to
interact
with
that
trying
to
use
xml
to
rfc
can
be
a
little
bit
daunting
to
somebody
who's
brand
new
to
this
and
so
trying
to
make
sure
that
you
know
the
tools
are.
Very
you
know.
M
User
intuitive,
I
think,
would
also
be
helpful
here,
but
I
think
that,
like
these
are
also
sort
of
general
thoughts
that
I
have
about
it
and-
and
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
if
that's
the
overall
consensus
here
or
if
you
know
or
if
we're
all
kind
of
just
sitting
back
and
waiting
for
the
fireworks
as
well.
I
think
there's
some
of
that
as
well.
C
So
thanks
jared
before
we
go
to
mike,
who
I
think
is
next
in
the
queue
I
just
want
to.
I
I
just
want
to
note
the
conversation.
That's
gone
on
a
little
bit
on
the
chat
right,
because
that's
a
valid
viewpoint,
which
is
these
might
be
great
questions,
but
maybe
these
are
questions
that
the
rsc
him
or
his
or
herself
should
should
manage.
The
answer
you
know
bring
the
community
along
in
terms
of
managing
the
answers
to
these
is
is,
is
that
of
you?
C
E
So
I'll
jump
in
and
no
I'm
not
putting
forward
a
view,
because
I
don't
have
a
view.
Obviously
my
role,
but
I
am
asking
the
question
as
to
why,
given
that
that
is
part
of
the
role
of
the
current
rse,
that
that
is
not
expected
to
sort
of
part
of
the
current
role
of
the
rsc,
that
that
is
not
expected
to
continue.
E
Where
is
the
the
the
reasoning
for
saying
that
needs
to
be
taken
away
from
that
role
and
work
through
through
a
separate
process?
And
the
second
point
is
that
which
I
didn't
write
is
that
if
that
is
correct,
that
it
is
part
of
the
rse
role
and
should
stay.
That
is
not
the
question
then
has
that
happened
before
and
if
it
hasn't
happened?
What
were
the
constraints
that
prevented
that
happening,
and
is
it
the
focus
for
this
group
to
address
those
constraints.
N
C
E
Sorry,
so
if
it
has
been
expected
that
the
rsc
should
have
been
delivering
this,
you
know
the
process
of
developing
consensus
versions
of
policies,
but
that
process
has
not
happened.
Then.
Could
this
group
be
looking
at
why
that
has
not
happened?
What
the
constraints
were
and
trying
to
unblock
those
constraints
so
that
this
this
can
continue
as
it
should
do.
C
I
mean
one
way
to
read
what
you
said
is
that
the
person
who
should
lead
the
charge
in
terms
of
updating
the
rsce
series
document
governing
documents
is
the
rsc
themselves,
though
the
result
is
a
meant
to
be
a
consensus
stock.
I
understand
correctly
that
just
I'm
just
giving
you
an
example
as
to
how
that
would
receive
mike.
I
I
thank
you
for
your
patience.
L
L
I
think
one
I
think,
once
you
have
a
better
idea
of
what
you
want
on
the
series,
especially
short,
medium
and
long
term,
we
can
then
figure
out
what
we
want
out
of
our
rc
and
whether
or
not
the
rrc
is
a
developer
for
the
series.
You
know
a
development
agent
for
the
series
or
is
basically
just
executing
a
set
of
tasks
that
we've
laid
out
for
them,
going
back
to
jay's
question
about.
Can
we
leave
this
until
later?
C
C
C
Point
is
that
I
mean
that
that
I
can
see
the
point.
Let
me
let
me
turn
it
around
mike
and
ask
do
you
think
you
could
put
some
words
together
on
the
list?
I'm
not
asking
you
to
do
this
in
the
spot,
but
on
the
list
in
the
next
couple
days
as
to
what
you
want
from
the
series
sure
all
right
all
right,
so
we
got
an
outcome
already
from
this
meeting.
Look
at
that
john
you've
got.
F
Hi
there
yeah,
I
guess,
I'm
sort
of
agreeing
with
mike
but
saying
it
even
more
strongly,
which
is,
I
mean,
there's
some
sort
of
basic
facts
to
me.
That
seem
to
be
fairly
obvious,
like
the
rfc
series
is
only
interesting
to
the
world
insofar
as
it
publishes
standards
that
people
want
to
use,
and
I
think
we
all
agree
that
as
a
stan
that
in
its
current
form,
it
doesn't
do
that
very
well.
F
F
I
think
the
continuously
updated
living
document
model
is
a
pretty
bad
one.
I
mean,
I
think,
the
idea
that
you
know
that
that
our
50
year
old
model
of
documents
that
are
published
once
and
never
updated
and
that
it's
sort
of
it
is
somebody
else's
problem
to
figure
out,
what's
related
to
what
isn't
working
very
well
now
and
until
we
can
get
come
to
grips
with
that
issue,
and
we
can't
really
tell
the
rfc
editor
what
he
or
she
is
supposed
to
do.
F
F
C
C
F
E
C
K
O
Since
I,
since
I
have
a
login
for
my
working
group
role,
I
web
x
seems
to
want
to
use
that
all
the
time
it's
very
annoying,
so
I'm
not
speaking
for
the
six-man
working
group,
so
yeah,
I'm
sort
of
agreeing
with
with
that.
It
seems
like
a
lot
of
this
stuff
is
what
we
want
the
rfc
editor
to
do,
and
you
know
when
I
think
about.
We
have
all
these
documents
that
describe
that
role.
O
That
caused
us
to
not
that
you
know
to
have
heather
resign
and
I
think
we
need
to
also
be
talking
about
how
and-
and
I
think
this
is
perhaps
even
more
important
than
the
you
know-
what
the
job
well,
it's
related
to
the
job,
but
it's
also.
So
how
do
we
provide
management
or
oversight
of
this
role
or
person,
because
we
clearly
had
a
disaster
with
the
current
model?
O
O
C
You
know
put
forward
a
few
words
as
to
where
you
think
we
could
do
things
better
in
terms
of
the
model.
Now,
maybe
not
everything
about
the
model
was
broken,
which
is,
I
think,
your
other
point
too,
or
at
least
something
like
one
could
could
find.
In
your
other
point
and
and
to
your
first
point
about
understanding
where
we're
coming
from
mike
and
john
both
took
action
items
to
describe
sort
of
what
they
want
from
the
series.
So
one
of
the
things
I'll
ask
think
of
this
in
deltas,
so
that
we
can
understand.
C
O
C
J
J
It's
a
record
of
independent
thinking.
This
is
why
we
have
streams
other
than
the
idf
stream
and
indeed
why
the
idf
stream
has
has
experimental
and
informational
documents.
So
I
I
understand
where
the
comment
is
coming
from,
but
I
think
if
we
focus
on
that,
we're
we're
losing
a
bunch
of
important
things
which
we
have
traditionally
thought
were
important
and
we
don't
lose
it
by
accident.
J
C
C
I
don't,
I
don't
think
anybody
disagrees
and
the
question
I
asked
was
what
changes
would
need
to
be
necessary
in
order
for
that
to
happen,
then
the
answer
might
be
in
order
for
the
the
the
repeat
to
not
happen,
and
the
answer
might
be
no
structural
change
right.
It
could
be
that
nobody
that
they're
that
he
actually
liked
the
way
the
system
was
was
designed,
but
we
didn't
like
the
way
it
was
operated,
which
is
perfectly
reasonable
outcome.
C
I
So,
firstly,
I
want
to
say
unraveling
this
backwards.
I
completely
agree
with
both
of
john's
points
and
I
also
pretty
much
completely
agree
with
both
of
bob
hendon's
points,
but
on
the
first
of
bob
hinden's
points,
there
is
a
section
early
in
my
draft
that
attempts
to
gather
together
the
material
that
I
found
about
what
we
thought.
The
basic
existing
principles
and
objectives
of
the
rhc
series
are,
so
I'd
be
very
interested
if
people
can
dredge
other
material,
that's
in
our
documentation
somewhere.
That
gets
to.
I
E
J
C
Yeah,
so
I
agree
and
I'll
I'll
step
in
and
just
say
the
goal
isn't
just
here
in
in
that
we
don't
want
to
go
down
that
particular
raffle.
I
think
jay's
question
and
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong
jay
is
are.
Are
there?
Are
there
structural
impediments
to
an
rsc
answer
and
attempting
to
answer
these
questions
and
lead
the
community
in
in
answering
these
questions
and
that
I'm
not
I'm
not
prepared
to
answer
that
myself?
To
be
honest,.
J
C
C
C
You
know
what
what's
your
view
and
from
doug
and
from
colin
who
is
a
a
stream
owner
pretty
much.
What
do
you
want
from
this
series
right?
One
of
the,
in
fact,
if
I
can
give
you
some
homework,
I
know
it's
it's
late,
but
if
I
can
give
you
some
homework
one
of
the
historical
challenges,
the
irtf
is
that
sometimes
the
the
rfc
series
hasn't
really
fit
the
the
model.
C
Well,
maybe
there
are
things
you
want
that
that
the
rest
of
us
ietf
news,
don't
think
about
right
in
terms
of
things
you
might
need
from
from
the
series,
and
particularly
things
you
might
think
you
don't
have,
and
it
might
be
something
you
might
want
to.
Also
ask
your
your
your
friends
on
the
irsg.
I,
if
you
want
to
comment
now,
I've
certainly
put
you
on
the
spot,
as
it
were.
P
P
Yeah
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
format
I
I
think
it
clearly
has
been
limited
and
has
been
relaxed
at
least
somewhat
recently.
I
I
mean
I
there
are
certainly
changes
I
might
suggest,
but
I
don't
think
this
is
the
right
venue
for
them.
That
is
something
that
a
future
ric
should
be
leading
the
discussion,
and
I
would
suggest
in
terms
of
the,
how
will
we
phrase
actually
how
we
were
phrasing?
The
previous
thing,
the
process-
I
guess
I
I
didn't-
did
not
have
any
concerns
the
way
things
were
being
managed.
Q
Q
C
Q
C
But
I
do
think
wait
is
that
we
should
be
careful
about
spinning
in
circles.
So
on
this
question
we
have
to
come
to
terms
with
it.
I
think
pretty
quickly,
and
so
people
have
views
that
they
think
are
important
to
get
out
and
they
think
are
important
to
to
have
a
shared
perspective
on
in
order
to
answer
say
the
rest
of
these
questions.
C
Let's
do
this
and
I
I
said
we
wouldn't
be
decisional
on
this
call,
and
I
won't
be,
but
I'll
propose
on
the
list.
Is
that
you
press
this
question
for
the
next
two
weeks
or
so
and
then,
let's
you
know,
if
people
haven't
shared
their
views
by
then
we're
gonna,
you
know
if
they
have
that
we
can
start
to
to.
You
know
to
have
a
discussion
about
it.
C
R
R
But
not
everybody
agrees
with
that
perspective
and
I
understand
it,
but
I
don't
know
the
question
I
would
ask
if
one
is
going
to
say
you
want
something
different
I'd
like
to
understand
why
and
why
you're
willing
to
give
up
things.
You
don't
want
just
saying
I
want
food,
I
mean
I
want
a
pony
and
he
wants
a
unicorn.
Q
L
R
C
P
Just
to
follow
up
on
that,
we
we
seem
to
be
a
little
bit
confused
about
whether
we're
discussing
the
way
this
the
series
evolves
or
the
the
way
we
appoint
someone
or
manage
manage
it
is
who
decides
how
the
series
evolves?
I'm
not
sure
I'm
phrasing
that
well,
but
they
seem
to
be
two
different
topics
and
we're
conflating
the
two-
and
maybe
this
is
part
of
the
difficulty.
C
Right,
I
think
the
point
you're
making
if
I
may
use
a
little
is,
is
this
a
question
that
has
to
be
discussed
now?
Is
this
something
that
really
the
rfc
editor
does
in
over
time,
and
I
do
think
historically,
heather
did
try
to
do
this
to
try
to
address
this
point
by
the
way.
This
is
something
that
I
think
she
spent
a
lot
of
time
on.
M
C
C
I
E
S
Absolutely
right,
brian,
unless
you
want
to
come
in
further
sorry,
no,
it's
absolutely
right
and
heather
tried
very
hard
to
nail
down.
You
know.
Is
it
the
ietf?
Is
it
the
irtf?
What
the
streams
would
the
stream
with
the
rfc
series
is
bigger
than
any
of
those
communities?
How
do
you
reach
out
and
touch
the
operator
community
and
all
those
things,
and
so
that
point
ryan
made
is
obviously
unmeasurable.
C
C
Is
it
julian,
I
think
maybe
julian
you're
trying
to
get
in
or
okay
julian's
muted.
So
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
questions
we're
we
need
to
address,
which
is,
and,
as
you
said,
russ
it
sort
of
goes
to.
Who
is
the
you
know
to
who
is
it
it's
about?
Who
the
rfc
editor
has
to
be
accountable
to
almost
right?
If
the?
If
this
or
is
it
a
different
thing
right
is
it
who
the
rfc
is
accountable
to?
C
All
right,
I
think
we
have
drain
the
queue.
So
I
have
a
couple
of
actions
from
this
discussion
and
the
the
first
action
is.
I
think
that
those
who
wish
to
and
I'm
hoping
that
john
in
particular,
should
address
what
we
want
from
the
from
what
we
want
from
the
series
and
make
those
deltas
with.
You
know
a
little
bit
of
reasoning
as
to
why
to
address
joel's
point
and
also
bob
hinnon's
point
as
well.
C
I
think
the
other
action
that
we
just
took
was
in
order
to
focus
a
little
bit
on
the
which
problem
we
want
to
solve.
Do
we
want
to
do
we
want
to
solve
for
who
gets
to
lead
the
community
in
these
sorts
of
questions,
and
maybe
even
we
might
have
to
go
through
them
individually
right
as
to
whether
they
need
to
be
addressed.
C
C
S
S
C
Well,
first,
I'd
like
to
thank
everybody
for
participating.
We
had
a,
I
think,
a
pretty
good
discussion.
I
think
we
have
a.
I
think
we
have
a
couple
of
decent
action
items
that
will
help
us
focus,
for
I
realized
that
the
effort
has,
you
know,
start
off.
You
know
a
little
bit
vague.
Our
charter
is,
is
pretty
wide
open
and
it
helps
to
hear
you
know
different
views
as
to
how
people
want
to
proceed,
and
I
thought
we
had
a
very
good.
C
C
C
Okay,
before
we
journey,
I
just
want
to
also
add
I'd
like
to
thank
the
minute
takers,
who
were
tim
and
or
the
people
who
were
subscribing,
who
were
tim,
wisinski
and
now,
both
for
for
volunteering
and
thanks
for
everybody
to
just
sort
of
help.
Make
this
work
and
I'll
see
you
on
the
list
tomorrow
and
have
a
good
night
and
good
morning
good
afternoon.