►
Description
RFC Editor Future Development Program Meeting, 2020-05-27
A
A
A
A
Alright,
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
the
preliminaries,
and
people
can
catch
up.
First
of
all,
welcome
to
the
RFC
editor
futures
programs.
Second,
virtual
meeting
this
program
operates
under
charter
by
the
IEP,
but
based
on
that
Charter
we've
agreed
to
note
well
rules
and
looking
at
the
attendee
list,
I
see
that
everybody
here
should
be
familiar
with
these
rules.
So.
A
All
right
today
again,
as
is
typical
when
we
run
when
working
group
style,
which
is
how
this
program
runs,
we
bash
the
agenda.
I'll,
do
a
very
brief
program,
introduction
with
you,
because
I
think
nearly
everybody
was
on
the
at
the
last
call
and
I
think
most
people.
We
have
really
two
discussion
points
for
today,
but
I'll
step
through
the
some
of
them
some
of
what
I've
seen
on
a
mailing
list
and
then
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
at
least
get
through.
The
first
bullet
point
a
little
bit,
it's
a
very
high-level
discussion.
A
One
of
the
concerns
that
people
have
raised
with
me
is
that
we
tend
to
jump
right
into
the
weeds
and
so
the
high
level
I
wonder
if
we
could
at
least
try
to
have
the
high
level
discussion.
This
is
something
where
we
ended
things
the
last
time
and
in
the
last
virtual
I
posted
something
to
the
mailing
list
about
trying
to
do.
A
poll
on
this
and
I
got
absolutely
no
feedback,
so
this
is
sort
of
a
bit
of
a
prod
the
organizational
discussion.
The
topic
is
really
about.
A
A
On
the
mailing
list,
overnight
said
that
we
really
aren't
agreed
on
the
problem
space.
Yet
I
have
to
agree
with
that,
though
I
think
we're
getting
there,
and
so
that
as
we
get
as
we
go
forward,
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
take
ideas
from
the
room
as
to
how
best
to
proceed
organization
I,
don't
know
how
many
more
poles
will
do,
but
I
think
that
I
want
to
I
want
at
least
stake
out
the
next
future
meeting,
but
I'm
not
sure
I'm
going
to
have
it.
In
two
weeks
we
haven't.
We
haven't
agreed
to
that.
C
I
just
wanted
coming
out
something
you
said
before
about
them
agenda
together,
you're,
getting
no
comments,
which
is
that
was
on
the
poll
on
the
poll.
John
I
I
suggest
that
at
least
for
some
of
us
the
amount
of
traffic
on
the
list,
especially
as
you
mentioned
earlier
out
of
the
weeds,
is
just
overwhelming
and
not
getting
response
to
any
given
poll
or
posting
or
comment.
May
it
lead
over
Wellman's
rather
than
anything
else,.
A
A
Okay
hearing
nobody
will
move
on.
So
here
is
the
various
bits
of
program.
Information
on
these
slides
by
the
way
have
already
been
uploaded
onto
the
data
tracker
site
that
you
see
there
I
want
to
thank
the
the
tooling
team
and
Cindy
for
having
made
the
effort
to
make
sure
that
the
programs
and
can
use
the
data
tracker.
The
minutes
from
the
last
virtual
meeting
are
uploaded
and
up
from
from
what
I
said
at
the
very
beginning,
these
particular
virtual
meetings
are
non
decisional
and
we
will
decide
things
on
the
list.
A
There's
a
github
it's
a
little
bit
of
updating
based
on
the
last
week.
In
terms
of
the
conversation
that's
been
going
on
and
over
the
next
day
or
two,
there
are
a
couple
of
X
as
well
earlier
this
week
it
was
one
extra
draft,
I
should
say
the
etherpad
is
already
in
the
WebEx
it
was
was
put
into
a
vintage
WebEx.
A
So
here's
the
purpose
of
the
program
unless
anybody
feels
like
they
need
to
reminded
of
this
I'm
just
move
on,
because
you
guys
see
much
of
this.
The
Charter
is
basically
the
same
side
right.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
constraints
on
us,
but
we
need
to
impose
some
on
ourselves
in
terms
of
being
able
to
get
work
done,
and
so
the
arrow
here
is
sort
of
in-between
these
two
dots
here
right
on
what
problems
to
solve
and
go
solve
them
and
the
reason
it's
between
the
two
dots
is.
A
We
are
beginning
to
see
some
solutions
crop
up
while
there's
still
a
little
bit
of
a
lack
of
agreement
as
to
what
problems
were
trying
to
solve
and
I
think
some
freewheeling
ideas
along
these
lines
is
really
good.
At
the
beginning
of
a
process
and
I'd
like
to
say
that
we're
really
at
the
beginning
of
this
process,
you
all
saw
the
you
know
the
various
calls
for
participation,
calls
for
chairs
and
then
input
on
chairs
and
I.
Imagine
the
IAB
will
be
making
a
decision
soon
about
adding
a
second
chair.
A
So
you
know,
let's
say
that
we're
so
early
in
this
program.
There's
been
a
lot
of
good
discussion.
I've
tried
to
capture
a
lot
of
the
ideas.
I
may
not
have
captured
all
of
them,
and
so
we're
going
to
need
to
formalize
that
a
bit
as
we
go
further
and
I'll
be
looking
for
help
in
terms
of
and
and
suggestions
from
from
everybody
here
in
terms
of
how
this
to
do
that
on
the
problems
faced
from
the
chair
perspective,
I
do
see
a
certain
diversity
in
terms
of
opinion,
which
is
I
think
to
be
expected.
A
People
are
pretty
passionate
about
about
all
of
this.
Some
you
know
some
people
believe
that
you
know
things
and
things
were
generally
working,
quite
fine
up
to
the
point.
Other
people
believe
that
we
need
radical
change
in
terms
of
what
the
series
looks
like
or
what
the
process
is.
So
there's
a
quite
a
diversity
of
opinion
and
what
we
need
to
be
able
to
do
I
think
at
least
is
decide
on
an
approach
in
terms
of
resolving
some
of
that.
A
A
I
think
each
of
the
people
on
this
call
and
everybody
who's
participating
in
that
group
as
a
person,
a
very
good
character
and
understands
that
consensus
is
something
that
will
be
difficult
to
find
here,
but
we'll
work
to
find
it
from
the
last
time
we
covered
we
sort
of
began
at
this
point
in
terms
of
looking
at
these
questions
and
quickly.
It
became
clear
that
particularly
thanks
to
Colin
Perkins,
who
really
said
well,
you
know
he
didn't
say
it
in
these
words,
but
I
think
he
is.
A
This
does
lead
into
some
discussion
about
arcs
the
editor
qualities
right
if
we're
having
a
leader
who's,
bringing
this
this
conversation
in
and
bringing
us
forward
in
terms
of
our
own
thinking.
That's
somebody
who's
going
to,
for
instance,
have
some
understanding
of
our
community,
probably
very
good
skills
in
terms
of
driving
consensus,
and,
of
course,
you
know
that
it's
a
little
different
from
say
just
a
project
management.
Perhaps
so
one
of
the
outputs
of
our
group
of
courses
is
having
some
understanding
of
the
quality
of
the
arts.
A
That
is
the
perhaps
only
point
that
that
we
have
broad
consensus
on,
because
overnight
I'm
not
so
sure
that
we
have
the
same
broad
consensus,
that
I
thought
we
had
on
whether
the
RSC
editor
has
an
editorial
veto.
However,
probably
this
is
a
question
that
we
can
explore
further,
that
is
to
say,
I,
think
people
would
agree
that
that
if
a
document
is
so
unreadable
that
the
RFC
editors
can't
handle
it,
it
it
probably
shouldn't,
but
there
are
PC
should
handle
it
probably
should
receive
brawlin.
You
have
a
question.
D
A
And
I
think
by
the
way
that,
even
though
they
should
have
that
conversation,
so
I
think
that
there
has
been
a
at
least
some
conversation
as
to
can
the
series
evolve
with
with
amendments.
This
was
raised
early
I.
Think
in
our
conversation
you
know
maybe
over
a
month
ago,
even
that
that
it's
too
hard
to
make
changes.
A
A
A
A
Neville
put
out
a
document
and
I
just
captured
two
points
from
that
document
and
I'll
mention
a
third
one
of
those
is,
should
the
RSC
serve,
and
this
goes
to
the
independence
of
the
RSC
and
not
only
Neville,
but
but
other
people
have
asked
the
question
of
who
should
have
oversight
of
the
artists
and
people
saw
Mike's
proposal
and
email
which
he
specified
a
structure.
I
want
to
reiterate
my
thanks
to
you
Mike
for
putting
that
out
and
also
to
John
for
sharing
opinions
for
following
through
based
on
our
previous
meeting.
A
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
or
comments
on
sort
of
my
observations
as
to
what
I'm
seeing
on
the
list
or
additions
that
they
want
to
add
as
important
points
that
that
needs
that
they
they'd?
Like
to
cover
today,
this
is
more
agenda
bashing,
but
I
would
entertain
it.
People
have
think
it
important.
A
A
So
to
this
question
here,
which
is
at
what
level
do
we
want
to
tackle?
How
much
power
do
we
want
to
vest
the
RSU
with
what
power
needs
to
be
reserved
to
the
community
through
the
RFC
update
process,
for
instance,
using
using
rock
consensus
and
so
I
would
I'm
gonna
have
comments
that
they'd
like
to
make
on
this
point
would
like
to
share
their
opinions,
but
please,
please
speak
up.
A
E
A
Think
actually,
Neville.
If,
if
people
haven't
read
you
draft,
they
should
novel.
You
raised
sort
of
a
an
interesting
point
which
I
I
said:
I
was
going
to
mention
it
I
do
at
the
time,
but
I
will
now.
You
said
that
this
perk
this
program
should
separate
from
the
IAB
to
further
independence
of
product
of
the
series.
I
presume.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
that
point.
E
There
is
duty
who
can
do
what
and
though
the
question
of
the
independence
question
is
that
basically
see
there
are
theater
is
the
person
who
has
to
implement
any
any
changes
and
I
think
one
of
the
responsibilities
really
does
need
to
be
to
support
which
that
the
various
streams
are
asking
for
within
reason,
but
the
pushback
is
well.
If
the
publication's
experience
the
publishing
experience
doesn't
support
me,
then
what
this
is.
This
is
something
not
something
that
can
be
done
and
now
you
know,
arguments
about
the
borderline
between.
E
A
E
Well,
that
was
my
point
about
maybe
seeing
the
RIC
is
running,
something
like
a
working
group
to
agree
on
potential
changes
that
they
are
and
then
that's
how
the
area
yeah
RC
would
would
influence
that
such
changes,
and
once
once
we
can
see
that
there
is
agreement
on
non
changes.
Then
there
is
mr.
help
make
it
happen.
F
Yes,
mark
may
hear
me
good
evening
mark
now.
It's
not
I
I
think
I
agree
that
that's
an
interesting
potential
model
in
that
you
know
it
might
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
I
have.
But
when
you
talk
about
independence,
I
I
hear
a
lot
of
people
talking
about
independence
as
a
goal
and
into
itself
and
I'd
much.
F
Rather,
we
consider
independence
as
a
mechanism
that
might
get
us
some
desired
result
and
and
if
we
can
think
about
what
the
results
we
want
are,
and
we
can
figure
out
what
magnums
mechanisms
we
want
to
use
I
think
you
know
if
you
run,
for
example,
this
function
like
an
IETF
working
group.
That's
really
interesting
idea
and
I
think
we've
talked
about
it
a
few
times
in
different
ways.
F
But
inevitably,
if
you
talk
about
running
it
as
a
working
group,
you
need
to
talk
about
how
you
handle
conflicts
and
that
usually
involves
different
methods
like
appeal
chains
or
whatever
and
and
I
think
there
are
some
really
interesting
discussions.
We
could
have
around
that
in
that
you
know
what
is.
F
B
Yeah
sorry:
zero
yeah.
It
is
evening,
for
me
at
least
for
the
next
34
minutes,
so
I
think
you
know
I
I,
guess
I.
Think
I'd
also
like
to
understand
what
the
boundaries
of
or
perhaps
that
the
thing
people
are
trying
to
accomplish
with
independence
is,
you
know,
I,
think
by
my
opinion,
but
I
think
also
by
like
measurement.
B
The
vast
majority
of
these
documents
are
ITF
tentacle
specifications
and
so
on,
like
the
our
t-shirt
really
does
have
to
serve
the
purposes
that
are
that
are
required
to
have
those
have
specifications
be
effective
and
so
to
send
to
which
what
one
thinks
that
the
RC
series
should
be
a
dependent
of
serving
those
purposes.
Then
that
seems
like
quite
problematic
to
me.
So
I
guess
I'd
be
interested
hearing
what
people
are
trying
to
achieve
in
that
respect.
A
H
H
H
I
I
think
we
we've
probably
all
to
have
different
ideas
about
what
we
mean
by
independence.
In
my
particular
thing
is
the
IETF
and
this
whole
structure,
so
consensus
driven
that
sometimes
we
paralyze
ourselves
with
respect
to
the
evolution
of
the
look
and
feel
the
input
and
the
output
of
the
RFC
series.
I
I've
rather
hire
an
expert
if
somebody
with
some
skills
in
that
space,
give
them
the
broad,
the
broad
brush
of
that
and
and
leave
them
to
go,
do
it
we
got
into
this
model.
The
I
I
to
this
day
got
kind
of
frustrated
with
the
management
of
the
IETF.
When
one
of
the
folks,
when
we
were
talking
about
the
RFC
series
and
this
RFC
series,
editor
input
on
things
said:
oh
she's,
just
a
contractor
and
I
don't
ever
want
to
have
that
I.
Don't
ever
want
to
have
a
conversation
like
that
again.
Just.
A
My
reading
of
history
is
is
indeed
that
it
was.
It
was
quite
a
difficult
struggle
for
the
for
Heather
to
to
gain
consensus
on
to
this
series.
It
was
really
a
what
changed
she
got.
I
think
is
a
testimony
to
her
abilities,
but
I
think
that
history,
there
is
some
history
there
that
backs
you
up,
Mike
any
other
comments,
colony.
J
Listening
to
be
very
strong
views
about
particular
terms
such
as
a
contractor,
which
possibly
been
colored
by
different
backgrounds
and
different
experiences,
certainly
where
I
come
from
just
a
contractor
seems
like
a
good
thing.
Perhaps
that's
that
has
a
different
connotation
for
different
parts
of
the
world.
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
perhaps
over
interpreting
certain
statements.
A
F
Think
that
you
have
to
be
careful
when
you
phrase
that
I
think
they
should
be
treated
as
someone
from
our
community.
We
frankly
treat
a
lot
of
people
in
our
community
with
disrespect
I'd.
Rather
we
treat
everyone
with
respect,
but
I
don't
think
that
this
I
continue
to
be
confused
as
to
why
this
position
is
so
different.
I
understand
in
some
aspects
why
it
is
different,
but
why
it's
so
many
exemptions,
I,
don't
understand
yet.
C
Part
of
the
problem
I
think
we're
having
here
at
what
makes
this
so
different
mark
and
others.
If
there
are
a
number
of
areas
where
the
IETF
needs
to,
or
ought
to
be
doing
things,
whatever,
those
things
are
in
which
the
level
of
expertise
native
community
is
extremely
low
and
the
level
of
understanding
that
the
ITF
community,
that
mostly
on
the
ITF
community,
don't
have
that
expertise
is
even
lower.
C
Coming
back
to
an
earlier
comment,
if
not
only
independence
with
regard
to
strategy,
its
independence
with
regard
to
never
wanting
to
see
an
appeal
or
an
IEP,
there
is
G
group
coming
in
and
saying.
Well,
we
disagree
with
how
you
handle
that
English
language
construction
and
we
want
to
get
community
consent,
some
bad
both
because
it's
a
considerable
waste
the
time
and
because
the
communities
level
of
expertise
in
that
area
as
a
material
as
a
whole
interns.
C
Expertise
in
that
area,
with
notable
exceptions,
is,
is
a
whole
lot
better
at
network
engineering
than
they
are
than
they
are.
We
already
straightening
out
those
kinds
of
problems,
and
that
makes
this
role
and
parenthetically
a
number
of
other
activities,
some
very
technical
and
some
not,
but
but
requiring
a
great
deal
of
expertise
which
is
not
widely
shared
in
the
community
and
not
widely
understood
that
many
people,
the
community,
don't
have
turned
to
promise
for
the
idea
of
globally,
and
in
that
sense
this
is
not
that
much
different
from
any
of
those
other
high
importance.
C
F
Thank
you
can
hear
me
so
I
can't
square
your
assertion
that
you
know
this
expertise
is
so
special
with
the
fact
that
so
many
other
communities
like
ours
have
done
this
without
somebody
in
a
role
like
this
I,
you
know.
Yes,
it
does
require
some
skills
which
aren't
prevalent
in
the
community,
but
they're
still
apparent
I
still,
don't
know
why
that
that
necessitates
an
exception.
We
don't
have
an
exception,
for
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
knowledge,
for
example
in
HTTP
that
isn't
present
in
routing.
F
Yet
we
still
have
Reading
area
directors,
reviewing
HIV
doctrines
when
they
go
to
last
call
I,
don't
understand
why
this
is
so
different
and
and
and
we
have
other
roles
like
the
LLC
which
are
not
the
you
know,
LLC
director,
which
are
not
exempt
from
criticism
or
from
review
or
oversight.
So
I'm
not
sure
why
this
is
different.
Okay,.
G
I'm
really
tired,
and
it
is
only
four
o'clock
in
the
afternoon,
so
there
you
go
I
wanted
to
get
back
to
some
of
the
things
that
John
said
and
I
think
it
the
root
of
the
problem.
With
this
treating
it
as
a
fungible
code.
Monkey
unit
is
derived
largely
from
the
fact
that
we
build
up
this
one
individual,
who
has
a
great
deal
of
responsibility
and
scope
and
demands
about
quite
an
extraordinary
set
of
skills.
A
G
B
Brought
to
my
life,
you
know:
III
have
a
lawyer
who
I
hired
to
like
you
know,
advise
me
on
legal
things.
So,
certainly
I
take
his
advice
very
seriously,
but
I
think
you
know
on
I
think
was
important
to
conflate
two
questions.
One
question
is
on
the
question
of
Independence
that
there's
question
of
expertise.
So
you
know
in
that
relationship
I'm,
the
customer
and
my
true
self
disregards
advice.
B
You
know,
that's
not
my
responsibility
or
if
I
choose
to
hire
a
lawyer,
that's
my
responsibility
and
I,
certainly
don't
handcuff
myself
and
make
it
impossible
to
hire
a
new
lawyer
on
or
said.
I
only
has
be
independent
of
me,
though,
this
is
addressed
ability
on
the
customer
and
etc,
and
so
as
I
sort
of
indicating
earlier
on.
B
In
this
situation,
the
ITF
is
one
customer
of
the
RFC
series
and
is
I
guess
I,
don't
understand
a
situation
in
which
you
know
we
should
handcuff
ourselves
and
say
well,
we
should
be
a
lot
of
opinions,
because
the
RFC,
sir,
should
be
independent
in
that
respect,
that's
expertise,
but
that,
but
that's
a
customer.
It's
customer
client
relationship
customer
because
we're
better
relationship.
K
Morning,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
there
are
two
aspects
to
independence.
One
was
already
mentioned,
which
is
the
authority
to
act,
possibly
unilaterally,
let's
find
out
why
we
would
want
to
do
that
and
the
other
one
is
checks
and
balances.
So
you,
you
cannot
get
by
an
individual
or
whoever
holds
this
position
and
and
why
might
that
be
important
and
I
think
we
we
all
have
experience
with
bodies
that
tend
to
track
them.
Tell
them
selves
into
some
rube
thing
that
makes
a
bad
decision
seem
inevitable.
K
What
I
value
about
checks
and
balances
is
not
just
these
skills.
Of
course
you
need
this
skills
to
even
understand
the
the
prop
in
the
first
place
and
the
results
of
actions
and
so
on,
but
it's
also
a
matter
of
perspective
and
I.
Think
that's,
maybe
even
more
important,
so
I
would
expect
the
RFC
editor
to
really
bring
the
perspective
of
the
long-term
health
of
the
serious
in
the
editor
would
not
be
mired
into
some
iesg
discussion
there.
K
D
Hi
yeah
I
was
a
while
back
when
we're
talking
about
with
their
very
respected
member
of
the
community.
The
question
is:
are
they
a
member
of
the
community
semi
somebody
else,
or
does
this
person
have
special
Authority
and
special
powers
in
some
way
and
I
think
just
saying
should
be
a
respected?
Member
of
the
community
doesn't
answer
that
question.
In
which
situations
are
they
the
same
as
every
other
member
of
the
community
and
in
which
situations?
Are
they
someone
with
special
authority
who
must
be
listened
to
so.
B
A
C
To
it
to
an
earlier
comment,
comparing
a
situation
with
the
RFC
editor
to
the
situation
of
a
of
a
review
of
routing
by
somebody
else
by
somebody's,
not
a
routing
expert.
Our
expectation
is
that,
if
someone
who
has
done
that
routing
expert
reviews,
the
routing
documents
that
they
will
not
make
strong
assertions
about
routing
which
are
outside
their
knowledge
range-
and
our
experience
has
been
such
people
do
make
strong
assertions
about
routing
which
is
significance
in
their
knowledge
range.
C
So
we
end
up
with
very
long
threads
about
about
details
and
publications,
management
and
publication
strategy.
I
people
have
no
experience
whatsoever
in
that
area
and
nobody
has
read
in
general.
Nobody
has
the
authority
or
will
to
try
to
rein
them
in,
in
the
same
sense
that
somebody
who
was
criticizing
a
routing
document
but
didn't
know
anything
about
routing
would
be
promptly
reined
in
cuz.
That's
much
more.
Ietf,
mainstream
and
I
got
doubly
sensitive
this
over
the
last
several
months,
because
we've
got
the
same
problem
in
internationalization.
C
We
have
a
problem
in
the
IETF
that
everybody
who
speaks
at
least
one
line,
speaks
and
writes
at
least
one
language.
Possibly
two
believes
that
they
have
the
expertise
to
comment
on
things
which
are
much
broader
and
that's
not
the
only
example.
So
it's
a
matter
of
looking
at
it.
I
ET
f
poor
expertise
and
scope
in
terms
of
people,
understanding
what
they
don't
know
and
other
people
understanding
of
what
individuals
don't
know
pulling
back
on
that
versus
the
situation.
C
We've
got
with
feed,
RFC
ad
occur,
and
one
was,
incidentally,
we
finally
got
into
control,
I
think
broad
spectrum
et
planning
and
strategy.
Again
everybody
has
a
dozen
a
opinion,
but
the
number
of
people
with
significant
expertise
and
the
issues
there
is
quite
limited.
The
number
of
you'll
recognise
they
don't
have
that
expertise
is
also
quite
limited.
C
A
John
before
I
give
the
floor
back
to
mark
I.
Wonder
if
you'd
like
to
take
a
stab
at
answering
the
the
point
that
mark
made
earlier,
which
is
how
do
you
reconcile
the
level
of
expertise
and
deference
that
we
that
we
apply
to
RFC
editor
role
in
this
organization
versus
how
it's
handled
in
other
organizations.
C
A
F
So
I
John
I
would
encourage
you
to
look
more
closely
at
the
what
working
group
and
the
w3c,
for
example.
They
have
that
tension
in
what
they
do
just
as
much
and
it
doesn't
prevent
them
from
from
not
having
this
role
to
find
they
source
this
mostly
from
the
community
in
both
cases
and
and
so
I.
Don't
see
that
as
a
differentiator.
F
But
what
I
queued
up
to
talk
about
was
you
know,
listening
to
John,
I,
guess
if
anything
more
concerned
now,
because
you
know
the
way
that
you
described
the
interaction
with
the
community
seem
to
be
that
the
the
the
what
you
have
in
mind
is
a
role
that
is,
is
so
aloof
or
or
insulated
from
the
community
that
it's
discouraging
interaction
or
feedback
with
the
community
and
I
I
really
hope.
That's
not
the
case.
A
C
C
When
I
was
told
her
city
on
an
seaboards
by
their
lawyers,
its
antitrust
bait,
but
that's
another
problem
entirely,
but
it's
very,
very
different
situation.
We
find
ourselves
here
and
what
the
BG
is
not
out.
There
publishing
events
about
the
directions
of
the
technology
into
the
future,
in
a
variety
of
other
things
like
that
there,
in
that
regard,
very
much
more
narrow
than
our
RFC
series
community
is
and
and
as
I
say,
quite
different
and
the
differences
between
there
and
w3c
are
are
more
complicated,
harder.
Dissect
I
still
claim
their
differences.
C
A
D
A
A
So
I
guess,
if
I'm
trying
to
pop
the
stack
a
little
bit
there,
because
that's
that's
a
very,
very
specific
aspect
of
interaction
gets
to
authorize
that
sort
of
interaction.
Is
it
the
RSC
is
that
the
community
is
the
stream
owner?
Is
it?
Is
it
an
agreement
between
the
screen
moment
owner
and
the
RSC?
What
I'm
trying
to
get
at
here
right
is
you.
E
A
A
Opportunity
in
this
group
to
boil
an
ocean,
or
maybe
two
and
so,
and
thus
not
get
anything
accomplished
and
and
I-
think
it's
gonna
take
time
to
get
anything
accomplished,
just
to
be
clear
right.
We're
we're
not
we're
not
coming
to
a
halt.
We're
just
there's
a
lot,
we're
still
gathering
artron
trying
to
organize
our
thinking
in
terms
of
this,
this
effort.
A
What
is
the,
what
level
should
that?
How
should
we
state
agreements
or
or
changes
along
those
lines?
Should
it
be
that
the
community
writes
in
RFC?
It
goes
to
the
you
know:
it
goes
to
the
LLC
so
that
there's
costs
involved.
I'm,
not
gonna,
suggest
that
you
try
and
answer
that
now
wrong.
But
one
of
the
things
to
think
about
is
what
would
be
the
interaction
that
you
would
expect
with.
The
high
level
of
authorization
has
been
granted
to
the
RSC
that
has
to
be
granted
to
the
RPC.
A
A
Yeah,
so
that
that
is
just
you
know
to
restate
the
where
we
are
today
and
then
I'll
go
to
mark
the
today.
The
area
director
has
the
responsibility,
along
with
the
working
group
chairs,
to
make
sure
that
awful
do
not
change
the
general
consensus
of
a
working
group
and
it's
a
bit
of
a
it's
a
bit
of
a
stream
as
I
see
it
mark.
F
It
just
doesn't
hurt.
John
John
said
that
it
wasn't
worth
going
into
too
much
detail
about
the
Morgan
working
group,
but
then
proceeded
to
give
quite
a
bit
of
a
very
colored
detail.
I,
don't
agree
with
this
characterization
of
what
working
group
I,
don't
think
it's
relevant
or
discussing
here,
but
if
folks
are
interested
I'd
encourage
them
to
actually
engage
in
that
community
make
their
own
judgments.
F
A
I'm,
frankly,
a
lot
of
what
he
said
was
quite
inaccurate.
Okay,
all
right
that
point
I
think
it's
not
to
be
taken
to
the
list
for
a
fact
for
if
there's
gonna
be
a
factual
discussion.
But
if
it
is
my
suggestion
is
that
it
be
done.
You
know,
in
a
manner
that
is
directly
relevant
to
the
to
the
level
that
we're
attempting
to
fill.
B
B
You
know
I
think
that's
that's
like
inevitably,
a
consequence
of
copy
editing.
You
know,
and
you
know,
if
I
don't
know
what
other
people
had
the
experience
of
writing
a
book.
But
you
know
you
you
guys
back
pays
copy
edit.
So
then
you're
like
well
I
want
to
take
these
ones,
and
not
these
ones
and
like
you
know
and
and
the
general
assumption
is
like
unless
you're
like
you
know,
grievously
wronged-
that
the
authors
in
charge
of
that
I'll
be
some
of
the
book
publication.
B
You
know
that,
generally,
you
were
free
to
take
whatever
copy
to
sue.
Please,
unless
you
know,
presumably
it's
like
really
really
wrong,
but
so
I
guess
like
if
I
had
to
fix
something
so
I,
don't
think
it's
really
about,
like
you
know,
equities
I,
think
it's
more
about
tooling,
frankly,
which
is
that
the
current
saloon
we
have
makes
it
really
difficult
to
like
work
with
a
copy
edit
with
distinguish
with
a
copy
edits,
are
from
the
free
formatting
edit,
some
other
things
and
from
a
nominal
set
to
call
it.
B
Heads
and
I
think
the
tooling
were
better
and
then
the
processor
late,
even
slightly
better
you'd,
be
like
really
a
lot
easier
to
figure
out
what
changed
your
gratuity
us
and
which
one's
worked.
So
I.
Don't
think
that
actually
a
question
of
the
add
various
equities
of
the
RPC
and
the
authors,
but
released
in
a
matter
of
like
having
a
tool
chain
which
is
like
not
terrible,
we'd
like
it
to
be
frank
bars.
It.
A
B
I
guess
you
know
I
think
I
think
I
think
you
shouldn't
be
surprised,
my
answer,
which
is
that
we're
the
customer,
and
so
while
you
know
us
dictating
the
exact
exact
look
of
everything,
is
not
a
great
idea.
Generally,
our
assessment
of
what
is
good
and
what
is
bad.
It
ought
to
be
what
to
take
for
decades.
A
Is
that
we
sit
there
and
we
say
we
sit
there
and
we
have
to
approve
or
disapprove
our
se
decisions
on
a
almost
a
case-by-case
basis.
That's
obviously
something
that
that
doesn't
scale
right.
The
other
is
that
we
allow
the
RC
to
make
a
great
many
decisions,
and
if
they
get
a
month
long,
you
go
get
a
new
RSC
where's
we're.
Where
do
you
set
things
on
a
spectrum?
Well,.
B
I
mean
I
think
you
know
again,
like
I
mean
you
know,
this
is
a
in.
This
particular
question
is
like
a
pretty
you
know,
pretty
common
kind
of
customer
vendor
relationship
right
and
you
know,
and
and
there's
you
know,
there's
a
firm
integration.
So
you
know
you
know
Missoula,
you
know,
uses
github
and
like
we
have
our
more
have
a
little
control
over
what
github
does
and
if
we
get
really
hard
to
get
up,
we
just
like
go
to
something
else.
On
the
other
hand,
you
know
we
have
other
things
that
we
have
on.
B
You
know
we
use
fabricator
and
we
have
some
more
control
of
what
fabricator
does,
because
we
are
we're
bigger.
You
know
compared
to
them,
that's
pretty
good
hub,
and
so
you
know
we
can
get
them
to
do
things
for
us,
so
I
think
they're
sort
of
like
you
know
it
really
depends
I.
Think
in
this
case
you
know
I
would
expect
this
is
we're.
B
Or
one
of
them,
whether
one
of
one
of
four
customers
I
suppose,
but
we're
really
by
far
the
largest
we'd,
have
like
quite
a
bit
of
control
over
what
that
what
the
system
did
and
that
you
know
we
would
affirm
an
input
on
that
process.
On
the
usual
procedures
to
delegate
some
section
of
the
system
of
the
other
people,
you
know
the
community,
you
or
the
company
to
go
deal
with
that.
You
know
in
this
case
I
presume
it
would
be.
A
If,
unless
I
miss
my
mark,
the
ecers
comments
just
converged
with,
what's
going
on
in
the
WebEx
chat,
right
and
and
if,
if
people
don't
mind,
that
I
think
the
key
message
that
I'm
seeing
chat
is.
Is
that
we're
talking
about
is
trying
to
understand
the
delegations
that
that
occur
versus
where
the,
where
the
customer
has
to
make
decisions?.
B
Guess
I'm
one
resists
this
sort
of
delegation
of
authority
on
you
know
in
a
typical
customer
vendor
relationship.
You
say
we
have
these
requirements
and,
like
you,
have
this
product
which,
like
Mirman
I,
think
this
requirement
said
like
at
some
point.
We're
like
we're,
not
gonna
buy
that
if
it
doesn't
do
the
job
now,
when
you
have
a
long
term
relationship
with
someone
they're
a
long-term
vendor,
there's
like
a
bunch
of
back-and-forth
about
that,
but
I
mean
it's
like.
Is
it
we're
to
sort
of
call
it
delegation,
authorities
and
saying
it's
a
little
different.
A
Okay,
we
have
actually
drained
the
queue
before
I
move
on.
Does
anybody
want
any
add
any
additional
comments?
What
we've
been
talking
about
here
is
is
really
the
relationship
that
the
RSC
has
to
the
community
and
he's
has
been
a
pretty
good
discussion,
but
now
I
want
to
sort
of
change
tact
before
before
I.
Do
any
final
points
on
this.
A
So
what
what
we
have
been
talking
about,
what
we've
been
we've
been
trying
to
capture
as
many
ideas
as
possible
in
that
that
have
been
crossing
the
list
and
we've
been
having
a
fair
amount
of
ground
but
I
think
from
an
organizational
discussion.
It's
probably
time
to
start
formalizing
a
sort
of
a
problem-solution
set
of
documents.
A
The
way
we
tend
to
do
that
in
the
ITF
is
through
draft
and
what
I'm
thinking
about
at
this
point
and
I
haven't
put
this
out
on
the
list
yet,
but
I
will,
probably
you
know
the
next
day
or
two?
Is
that
I
think
it's
probably
a
good
idea
for
us
to
caption
to
use
use
at
least
an
internet
draft
to
capture
problems
that
we
saw
that
that
we
were
solving
and
that
might
involve
into
the
solutions
document
as
well,
but
I'm
probably
want
to
look
for
it.
A
A
What
I
propose
to
do
is
that
we
get
into
the
queue
as
it
were,
for
a
meeting
at
the
IETF
in
the
virtual
IETF,
the
virtual
Madrid
IETF,
if
you
will,
and
so
we'll
get
some
time
there.
If
the
group
decides
that
they'd
like
to
do
another
virtual
between
now
and
then
it
should,
you
can
have
that
conversation
online,
but
I'd
want
to
make
that
decision
pretty
quickly
so
that
we
can
get
it
scheduled,
and
so
that's
my
proposal
that
people
have
comments
or
thoughts
on
that.
A
A
I
think
we've
had
a
good
back-and-forth
these
last
couple
of
meetings,
and
now
probably
it's
time
to
you
know
to
try
to
solidify
a
little
bit
as
to
what
they
know
which
problems
we're
gonna
solve
what
how
we're
going
to
view
the
RSC
is
it
going
to
be
as
a
customer
relationship
very
much
the
way
I
could
describe
it?
Is
it
going
to
be
something
else
and
I
admit?
I
haven't
been
able
to
follow
every
last
bit
of
the
chat,
that's
going
on
I.
A
Think
people
are
going
to
want
to
review
that,
but
as
we,
if
we're
going
to
have
that
meeting,
I
think
if
you
now
begin
to
zoom
in
on
making
some
decisions
about
the
scope
of
the
role
in
how
we
view
it
I
think
that's
probably
the
high
level
point
that
needs
to
be
resolved
next
so
with
that
were
to
any
other
business.
Any
other
business.