►
From YouTube: IETF109-RFCEFDP-20201119-0900
Description
RFCEFDP meeting session at IETF109
2020/11/19 0900
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/proceedings/
A
I
think
we're
having
a
little
new
moment
here.
So,
let's
see,
if
all
right,
that's
good
yeah
if
you're,
not
speaking.
Obviously
you
want
to
mute
and
good
very
early
morning
to
those
on
the
east
coast,
including
my
co-chair,
welcome.
B
A
C
A
All
right,
we
will
start
in
just
a
minute.
Let
people
all
get
in.
Let's
see
if
I
can
share
those
slides.
B
A
F
G
B
Well
looks
like
you're,
not
even
in
slide
view
at
all.
We
see
the
edit
page.
A
Okay,
yeah,
let
me
just
take
it
out
of
that
mode.
I
think
we'll
just
go
with
this
for
the
moment.
C
A
Okay,
so
note:
well,
I
think
most
people
are
familiar
with
this.
This
has
to
do
with
our
ipr
policies,
our
code
of
conduct,
our
working
group
processes
and
the
rest.
If
people
have
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask
at
this
time,
I'm
not
sure
I'll
be
able
to
answer
every
question,
but
please
feel
free.
A
Okay,
moving
on.
A
As
soon
as
I
can,
we
have
ourselves
an
agenda
today
so
before
we
go
through
that,
just
to
reintroduce
myself
and
my
co-chair,
you
are
in
the
rfc
editor
future
program.
My
name
is
elliott
lear,
I'm
the
co-chair
of
this
program.
My
co-chair
is
brian
rosen
and
he
is
also
visible
to
you.
Hopefully,
the
program
is
looking
at
how
we
involve
the
function
of
the
rfc
editor.
A
A
So
our
agenda
for
today
is
to
go
through
the
note
well,
which
we
did
to
bash
this
agenda,
which
we
are
to
review
the
issues
as
many
as
we
can
that
are
listed
there
and
to
see
how
far
we
can
get.
The
chairs
would
like
to
have
a
brief
discussion
about.
Well
what
happens
once
we
resolve
issues?
How
do
we
record
those
results
and
we
think
probably
the
best
way
to
go
about
that
is
to
have
a
draft
that
is
based
on
the
rough
consensus.
A
We
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
at
the
end
about
meeting
timing
and
operating
methods
and
then
any
other
business,
but
before
we
proceed,
as
is
traditional,
this
is
clearly
your
opportunity
to
bash.
A
And
I
want
to
thank
rich
sauls
who's
agreed
to
take
minutes
for
us.
May
I
ask
for
a
volunteer
in
the
group
to
just
keep
an
eye
on
jabber,
such
as
when
it
becomes
functional
again
that
that,
if
somebody
wants
to
call
out
anything
that
is
seen
in
jabber,
they
can
in
terms
of
if
people
need
access
to
the
microphone
and
I
have
a
volunteer.
C
B
C
You
need
to
reload
if
you
want
to
be
able
to
get
the
jabber
back
working
within
your
window,
though
okay.
C
A
Okay,
I
think,
from
a
chair's
perspective,
maybe
I
I
stay
on
and
brian.
If
you
want
to
reload
great,
if
you
don't.
A
Okay,
and
will
people-
please
forgive
me
if,
if
they,
if
they
don't,
if
I
don't
respond
to
something
in
jabber,
it's
because
at
the
moment
I
can't
see
it.
The
chairs
has
had
somewhat
agreed
that
that
I'd
probably
run
the
show,
because
it's
middle
of
the
day,
my
time
in
the
middle
of
the
night
brian's
time,
but
just
a
byway
of
process.
A
The
way
we
had
discussed
moving
forward
at
this
point
was
that
we
were
going
to
sort
of
tackle
issue
by
issue
that
we
would
raise
issues
on
the
mailing
list,
but
discuss
them
on
in
meetings.
A
We'll
come
back
to
a
little
bit
of
the
methodology,
see
if
we
can
evolve
that
just
slightly
towards
the
end
of
the
meeting.
But
this
is
how
we
agreed.
We
would
operate
at
least
in
this
meeting,
and
then
you
know
we'll
we'll,
try
and
know
how
far
we
can
get
in
this
meeting
on
the
issues
that
are
open
any
comments
or
questions
before
we
move
forward
to
the
issues.
A
Okay,
then
we'll
start
the
issue
tracker
is
available
to
people.
You
can
see
the
issues
in
github.
That's
that's
been
posted
to
the
mailing
list,
as
has
been
a
summary
of
each
of
the
issues
that
are
open.
A
The
chairs
did
do
a
little
bit
of
documentary
work
on
the
issues
just
to
indicate
whether
they
were
in
discussion,
whether
they're,
pending
discussion
or
whether
we
think
we're
deferring
them
until
later.
If
any
issue
can
be
discussed.
Of
course
right.
This
is
just
our
observation
and
perhaps
a
little
bit
of
a
recommendation
from
the
chairs.
There
are
a
few
things
that
it
seemed
to
make
sense
to
defer
till
later,
but
obviously
the
working
group
participants
can
raise
any
point
that
they
wish
to
raise
right.
A
How
we're
discussing
today-
but
you
know,
you're,
free
to
discuss
what
you
want
to
discuss
so
moving
then
to
issue
10..
A
So,
let's
see
here,
why
didn't
we
in
fact
move
tuition
there?
It
is
okay,
so
the
the
this
issue,
the
chairs,
don't
think
we
have
to
spend
a
huge
amount
of
time
on
this
today
and
I'll
explain
why?
But
but
of
course,
the
working
group-
and
this
is
how
we
operate
is
as
a
working
group.
A
Even
though
we're
an
id
program,
there
seem
to
be
a
a
general
feel
that
people
learning
thinks
there
needs
to
be
a
body,
but
we're
not
prepared
to
call
consensus
on
this
point
yet
and
the
reason
we're
not
is
that
some
people
have
raised
concerns.
They
said
they
really
want
to
see
exactly
how
the
position
is
going
to
fill
out
before
they
they
they
pass
judgment.
A
In
particular.
I
don't
know
if
ecker's
on
the
call,
but
I
think
that
was
really
the
the
crux
of
ecker's
point
and
I
think
one
other
person
made
that
point
as
well
and
we
want
to
respect
that
position.
But
before
I
go
any
further,
I
do
see
that
I
would
invite
echo
if
I
miss
on,
if
I'm
mistaken,
what
you
your
position,
if
you
want
to
comment
or
if
other
people
want
to
comment,
we
think
this
one
is
probably
you
know
exactly
whether
or
not
we
we
have
a
role.
A
K
I
think
that's
roughly
accurate.
Oh,
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
roughly
accurate
characterization
of
my
of
my
position.
I'm
not
sure
that
I
agree
the
characterization
of
the
of
the
overall
demographics
of
the
positions.
A
The
other
point
we
want
to
highlight
as
part
of
this
is
we
do
think
there
was
a
very
strong
consensus
that
nobody
likes
the
term
thought
leader
at
the
moment,
nor
did
did
and
a
few
people
had
said
that
it
probably
should
be
deferred
in
terms
of
what
the
term
is
and
that
got
linked
to
a
bunch
of
other
issues
as
well,
and
so
I
think
we
have
to
talk
about
what
the
term
is
and
it
will
come
up
in
a
little
bit,
but
for
the
moment
let
we're
gonna,
put
thought
leader
aside
right
and
and
say
we're
not
gonna
use
that
term,
at
least
for
the
moment
we
might
come
back
to
it
later.
A
I
don't
know,
but
we're
not
going
to
use
that
term
for
the
moment
to
describe
this
person,
and
we
know
that
we
have
a
separate
issue.
We
have
issue
24,
that's
opened
on
this
and
exactly
how
that
works
is
tied
directly
to
issue
12,
which
talks
about
advisor
or
leader.
So
we
think
all
of
this
we
want
to
just
push
along
until
into
the
next
coming
issues.
A
so
issue.
11
says:
if
there
is
a
figurehead,
is
this
person
a
paid
expert
in
in
technic
in
technical
publishing,
and
we
split
that
out?
Is
the
person
paid
and
the
reason
we
did
that
was
that
early
on
in
the
discussions,
there
was
some
question
as
to
whether
anybody
should
be
paid
for
this,
and
does
the
person
have
technical
experience
and
a
technical
expertise
in
in
publishing?
A
So
we
think
if
there
is
a
person
at
all,
we
think
that
we
have.
We
believe
we
have
general
consensus
that
the
person
will
be
paid,
but
this
is
our
view,
and
this
is
what
we
we
perceive,
but
we
would
like
to
open
this
up
for
conversation
if
people
feel
like
they
don't
agree
with
with
the
view
and
again
it's
only
if
we
have
someone,
if
we
don't,
if
we
don't
have
anybody,
then
who's
taking
this
role,
then
this
issue
doesn't.
A
A
K
Yeah
this
seems
like
a
very
odd
way
to
proceed.
I
don't
understand
how
we
can,
given
that
we
have
no
job
description
and
no
consistency.
We
need
this
person
the
idea
that
somehow
we
decide
that
if
we
need
a
person
with
an
unspecified
description,
they
ought
to
be
paid,
and
that
would
be
a
terrible
publishing.
So
it's
really
odd,
like
they
maybe
they'd,
be
an
expert.
K
I
don't
know
you
know
taxidermy
so
like
like
I
mean,
like
I
understand,
you're
trying
to
close
issues,
but
like
really,
we
actually
have
to
like
address
the
main
issue
of
like
what
it
is,
we're
trying
to
think
this
person
ought
to
do
rather
than
trying
to
like
find
peripheral
issues
that
you
think
your
consensus
on
conditional
on.
Like
some,
you
know
on
something
unspecified
thing
so.
A
Just
to
highlight
where
we're
going,
maybe
the
thing
you're
saying
is
you
know
the
the
key
issue
right
that
I
think
we're
aiming
to
to
aim
at
is
sort
of
issue
12
right,
which
is
what
is
this?
You
know
the
issue
12
sort
of
aims
at
exactly
that,
but
people
prefer
that
we
go
right
there
and
then
skip
issue
12
11
for
the
moment.
B
I
It
suddenly
decided
I
needed
to
re-authorize
the
microphone.
I
I
entered
this
into
the
into
the
chat,
but
basically
there
are
unlike
what
eric
said.
There
are
documents
that
describe
you
know
the
role
of
quote:
unquote
a
figurehead
or
the
rsc
editor.
I
A
A
Okay
yeah,
so
you
know
I
I
I
take
eric's
point
and
bernie
go
ahead.
L
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
again,
I
do
think
that
there
was
a
general
view
that
people
felt
we
needed
someone
the
exact
job
description,
though
I
think
I
want
to
recognize
ecker's
point
as
well
like
it
helps
to
understand.
You
know
what
the
person
needs
to
do
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
work
needs
to
be
done.
A
A
If
we
looked
at
the
note
that
sandy
sent,
if
we
look
at
some
of
the
discussion
that
we've
seen
from
the
rtc
in
terms
of
what
what
they,
what
what
they've
been
tracking,
if
we
look
at
what
brian
has
proposed,
I
think,
between
those
three
things
we
get
sort
of
towards
the
general
direction
of
a
a
job
description.
A
And
if,
if
I
may
right,
if
we
go,
if
we
go
past
just
that,
if
we
go
into
issues
well
right,
here's
here's
what
brian
sent
right,
which
is
you
know
it's
slightly
modified
and
it's
slightly
modified
beta
based
on
a
later
message
from
brian
right
as
to
whether
we
call
this
person
an
advisor
or
an
editor
or
what
we
call
him
or
her
and
you'll
see
that
the
chairs
have
tried
to
highlight.
A
We
think
are
some
of
the
key
points
of
contention
in
what
that
goal
might
be
right,
and
so
maybe
spending
the
time
here
is
is
worth
it
and
then
backing
up
and
looking
at
looking
at.
This
is
part
of
issue
12
right
and
look
at
look
at
this
and
see
if
we
can
have
the
discussion
about
this
text
here
and
hopefully
maybe
that
will
help
inform
your
answers
to
both
issue
11
issue,
24,
what
we
call
the
person
right
and
and
in
fact,
issue
10
what
what
person
we
have
right.
A
So
maybe
the
thing
to
do
is
to
invite
commentary
and
discussion
right
here
on
this
text.
Here,
okay,
we
had
some
discussion
on
the
list.
People
have
raised
concerns
about
ability
to
hire
if
the.
If
the
text
is,
if
the
position
sounds
weak
people
have
raised
concerns
about
whether
this
person
would
be
able
to
affirmatively
bring
things
to
the
to
the
the
to
the
group
and
and
for
for
discussion
when
they
when
they
see
problems.
A
A
A
And
just
to
say,
I
might
put
you,
I
might
do
some
live
editing.
If
people
have
suggestions
to
you
know
to
improve
text
or
to
make
changes,
maybe
in
brackets
or
something
like
that
as
another
organization
might
do.
I
Go
ahead
mike
all
right,
I'm
kind
of
amused
at
the
text,
because
it's
pretty
similar
to
what
I
wrote
in
the
original
draft.
The
draft
that
I
did
with
respect
to
their
sort
of
the
split
between
the
professional
person
and
whatever
body
is,
is
related
to
that.
So
I
don't
have.
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
problems
with
this.
I
think
it
has
more
to
do
with
sort
of
the
the
split
of
responsibilities
between
person
and
whatever.
B
M
M
So
I'm
reading
this
in
isolation
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
water
under
the
bridge,
it
seems
like
this
is
saying
that
the
rsc
excuse
me.
The
rc
role
is
a
facilitator
of
a
working
group,
and
so
we
know
what
a
working
group
is.
We
know
how
that
works.
M
I'm
not
sure
what
a
facilitator
of
a
working
group
is
in
terms
of
do
they
call
consensus.
Do
you
appeal
their
decision?
I
don't
know,
and
I
think
we
really
need
to
be
really
crisp
about
the
nature
of
this
role,
and-
and
the
other
thing
I
would
note
here
is-
is
that
we
are
conflating
whatever
facilitating
is
bd
and
expertise.
M
So
you
know
one
function
of
this
person
which
some
people,
the
community
believe
is
very
important
and
others,
maybe
don't,
but
that
aside,
one
function
of
this
person
is
to
be
a
senior
professional,
with
deep
knowledge
of
technical
publishing
to
serve
as
a
resource
to
advise
us
in
in
in
publishing
the
rfc
series.
M
Fine,
so
conflating
that
with
this
facilitating
role,
especially
if
the
facilitating
role
is,
has
the
effect
of
being.
N
M
Makes
me
kind
of
nervous,
you
know
we
don't
have
expertise.
Experts
come
in
that
we
use
as
resources
like
that
and
also
driving
consensus
and
and
coming
up
with
meeting
agendas
and
having
that
level
of
ownership
of
of
of
the
process.
So
that's
something
that
you
know
to
my
eye.
We
should
pick
apart
a
little
bit
and
at
least
examine
that
relationship.
A
Yes,
stay
on
stay
on
for
just
a
moment.
Just
my
mistake,
I
should
have
said
this
earlier.
The
red
is
the
things
that
I
think
we
don't
have
consensus
on
and
I
think
you've
touched
on
the
exact
reason
as
to
why
we
wouldn't
have
consensus
on
them.
A
Actually,
so
my
apologies
for
not
for
not
stating
that
earlier
so.
M
You're
exactly
right
here,
you
know
sure
so
we're
now
exploring
the
pink
time
between
australia
and
and
switzerland.
So
fantastic.
A
A
If
you
were
to
sort
of
you
know,
add
a
filter,
add
a
red
filter
to
this
right,
so
you
didn't
see
the
red
text.
Would
you
be
otherwise
comfortable
with
what
you
see.
M
I
think
there's
still
question:
I
don't
have
strong
feelings
about
it,
but
I
think
there's
still
questions
in
in
the
community
about
whether
we
need
a
senior
professional,
deep
knowledge
of
technical
publishing.
But
let's,
let's
say
that
we
do.
I
think,
there's
also
a
question
of
whether
that
needs
to
be
a
full-time
position
or
or
on-call
or
whatever.
M
So
I
question
that
part
of
it.
The
next
paragraph
operate
by
providing
expert
advice
to
the
art.
Well,
that
would
be
the
function
if
we
had
an
expert
of
some
sort.
Yes
and
if
requested
rpc.
Yes,
that
makes
sense.
M
The
rca
will
be
talking
about
proposed
changes,
top
guide
rc
for
anyone
yeah
that
so
that
second
paragraph
after
the
role,
the
rfc
editor
is
very
reasonable.
I
think
we
need
you
know
we.
We
arguably
need
someone
to
provide
that
kind
of
advice
in
some
fashion
sure
I
question
the
name.
Rfc
editors
series
editor,
but
that's,
I
think,
a
different
issue
already,
there's
expected
to
attend
all
meetings.
M
I
guess
there's
a
question
there
about
whether
it's
an
ongoing
you
know
they
are
involved
in
all
discussions
or
it's
just
an
on-call
basis,
participate
in
online
discussions
yeah.
Maybe
then
they're
expected
to
be
active
and
proposed
improvements
to
the
rfc
series,
developing
vision
of
policy
documents
establishing
community
consensus
for
them
expect
to
be
active
in
proposing
improvements
to
rfc
series.
M
Fine,
if,
if
we
want
our
expert
to
be
proactive,
that's
one
way
to
spell
this,
I
think
we
should
make
a
conscious
decision
as
to
whether
they're
proactive
or
we
just
consult
them-
that
in
developing
vision
and
policy
documents.
That
is
the
strategy
role,
and
I
don't
think
we
come
to
consensus
about
where
the
strategy
role
sits.
I
I
don't
think
that
seems
to
be
giving
the
rsc
ownership
of
what
I
was
starting
to
understand.
M
A
Okay,
so
good.
Thank
first
of
all,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
comments.
I
think
you
did
a
really
good
job
at
articulating
if
you
will
that
the
issues,
so
thank
you
for
that
before
I
go
further
on
my
thoughts,
let's
go
through
the
queue
a
bit:
okay,.
E
I
I
think
that
there's
there's
a
real
risk
when
you,
when
you
pay
someone
to
do
a
job,
that's
specifically
focused
in
an
area
that
they
end
up
dominating
discussion
in
a
particular
group
like
this
and
that's
probably,
okay
to
a
certain
extent,
if,
if
you
think
of
this
person
as
being
active
and
actively
contributing
to
the
to
the
discussion,
but
when
you
have
things
like
establishing
community
consensus
and
and
being
responsible
for
documents
and
and
the
implication
that
perhaps
maybe
they're
a
chair
or
have
some
sort
of
official
standing
in
in
this
group,
that
really
gets
a
little
little
muddy.
E
So
I'm
kind
of
with
mark
on
this
one.
If
you
strike
all
the
red-
and
you
still
have
to
deal
with
that
last
last
paragraph-
I
would-
I
would
probably
say
that
attendance
and
participation
would
be
enough.
E
A
J
Yeah,
first
of
all,
I
well
what
what
while
I
like
the
general
organization
of
this
and
that
probably
matches
mike's
comments.
J
I
I
certainly
agree
with
with
market
with
martin
that
this
text,
as
it's
reading
is,
is
papering
over
a
whole
series
of
issues
about
which
I
don't
think
we
have
agreement
and
and
listening
to
mark
and
martin
in
the
last
few
moments
leads
me
to
believe
that
we
still
have
very,
very
fundamental
conflicts
about
what
this
this
whole
business
is
about.
J
Maybe
maybe
not
just
this
role
but
the
whole
rfc
editor
function
and-
and
we've
made
no
progress
on
that
since,
since
back
when
the
thing
I
would
add
to
those
comments,
is
that,
as
I've
said
on
the
list,
I'm
still
concerned
not
only
whether
the
so-called
working
group
is
open
or
closed,
but
whether
there's
enough
expertise
there
to
actually
make
that
a
a
decision-making
body.
J
And
if
the
expertise
isn't
there,
then
a
very
important
part
of
the
of
the
role
of
the
whatever.
If
there's
a
whatever
becomes
to
to
educate
that
group
on
things
which,
given
other
things
we've
seen
in
the
ietf
over
in
recent
years,
that
group,
unless
carefully
selected,
may
not
be
interested
being
educated
about
so
again,
I
think
there's
a
lot.
I
think
there's
a
lot
here
that
we
have
less
consensus
about.
J
K
Ecker
I
found
myself
in
the
position
of
agreeing
with
john
mark
and
martin.
I
think
I
think
john
did
a
much
better
job
frankly
of
summarizing
what
I
was
sort
of
complaining
about
earlier
than
I
did,
which
is
like.
We
have
fundamental
disagreements
about
how
this
thing
should
be
structured
and
to
sort
of
be
like
hey.
K
We
can
just
like
words
with
the
text,
so
everybody's
happy
and
like
try
to
like
that's
just
not
gonna
work,
so
we
actually
need
to
like
like
either
like,
like
throw
up
our
hands
and
give
up
or
like
actually
try
to
just
discuss
those
fundamental
issues
not
be
like
hey.
We
can
just
like
issue
track
our
way
into
this
being
done
and
to
to
that.
K
Me
actually
suggest
a
a
a
piece
of
title
that
might
be
useful,
which
is
to
separate
out
the
topic
of
managing
the
tooling
and
the
technology
for
the
topic
of
managing
the
the
sort
of
style-
and
I
think,
maybe
extra
interfacing
stuff
like
by
which
I
mean,
like
you,
know,
libraries
and
those
kinds
of
things
I
mean
we
make
a
very
real
need,
like
in
the
fashion
relatively
short
term,
to
make
sure
that,
like
the
you
know
that
the
tooling
is
like
properly
hitched
and
and
and
and
that
is
actually
a
lot
of
designer
tactical,
some
of
the
strategic
and
and
and
yet
and
then
we
also
have
long-term
questions.
K
I
think
that
perhaps
people
think
of
that
are
more
more
about.
I.
I
don't
use
that
editorial
but
more
about
content,
and
so
perhaps
you
could
discuss
separately
how
we
think
of
those
things.
A
Okay,
I'm
not
quite
sure
I
fully
understood
the
split
that
you
were
proposing,
so
so
stick
around
for
a
sec.
Okay,
sure
it
may
be
incoherent
too
yeah,
it's
it's
with
the
hours
right.
Let
me
make
a
couple
of
comments
right.
First
of
all,
the
very
next
issue
talks
about
what
you
know:
the
structure
of
the
group
that
governs
strategy
right.
So
it's
that
you
know
we
have
this
issue
right
in
this
group,
we've
tried
to
put
together
sort
of
you
know.
A
We
tried
to
put
together
a
couple
different
proposals
right,
I'm
very
grateful
to
the
authors
who
did
that
right
to
see
if
we
had
a
starting
point
and
people
said
well,
wait
a
minute
really.
We
don't
want
to
use
these
drafts
as
a
starting
point
we
want
to.
We
really
need
to
go
through
the
core
issues
before
we
start
writing
drafts.
So
we
tried
to
do
that
right
and
that's
where
we,
you
know
landed
in
discussions.
A
The
ordering
of
the
issues
is
always
tricky,
because,
what's
your
what
you
know,
some
people
view
the
something
as
the
cart
and
other
people
view
it
as
the
horse.
So
I
asked
the
group
for
a
little
bit
of
leeway
on
that
right
to
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
cover.
We
are
covering
some
core
issues
today,
all
right.
What
is
the
role
of
the
r
seater?
A
What
is
the
role
of
the
committee?
That's
going
to
handle
strategy
right?
How
or
how
is
it
constructed
right?
These
are
probably
the
the
two
key
issues
that
I
think
people
are
fundamentally
expressing
concern
on.
So
now
you
eric
have
said
that
you
would
like
to
split
out
sort
of
the
the
tooling
from
other
aspects,
but
I
I'm
sure
I'm
butchering
this,
so
can
you
go?
Can
you
go
through
a
little
bit
on
that.
K
Well,
I
can
try
again
again
I'm
going
to
be
told
this
is
incoherent.
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
that
we
have
like.
We
have
like
an
immediate
need.
We
have
like
like
so
it's
like.
K
You
know
we
got
along
for
like
a
really
long
time
with,
like
you
know,
with
a
set
of
arrangements
that
were
semi-static
and
you
know,
and
whatever
one
thinks
of
you
know
of
of
you
know
that
like
and
we
get
along
for
like
a
while
without
the
style
guide,
changing
we
get
along
for
a
while
without
like
doing
more
work
with
libraries
or
whatever,
whether
when
things
are
important
or
not
like,
we
get
a
lot
longer
for
a
while.
K
That
goes,
but
like
right
now,
like
the
tool
chain,
is
kind
of
in
a
mess,
and
we
actually
need
someone
to
fix
the
tool
chain
and
so
and
that's
like
actually
really
urgent,
like
I
don't
need,
like
you
know,
we
could
like.
K
I
guess
we
could
be
like
hey
john,
like
john
levine
could
just
like
sit
on
this
for
like
a
long
time
at
a
time,
but,
like
you
know,
it'd
be
nice
to
have
like
a
community
structure,
understood
that
it's
what
I'm
saying
is
like,
and
I
think
that's
like
a
non-pro,
not
only
a
matter
of
tactical
procedure,
but
also
like
a
not
on
principle
distinction
between
like
the
software
and,
like
you
know,
the
circuit
content
matters,
and
so
I'm
suggesting
that
perhaps
we
could
come
to
some
agreement
on
how
how
the
software
would
be
handled,
and
that
leads
to
some
form
of
progress
and
then
and
then
the
content
matters
especially
got
a
different
form
of
agreement.
A
K
I
believe
that,
but
you
know
but
like
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
we
have
like
a
we
have
like
like
I
I
I
like
to
start
from
needs
rather
than
from
like
structure,
and
what
I'm
saying
is
the
need
we
have
is
for,
like
a
relatively
fast
tactical
mech
structure
for
like
dealing
with,
you
know
dealing
with
our
like
not
optimal,
pulling
structure
and-
and
that
is
I'm
like
I'm
like
well,
it
can't
be
the
case
like
all
that
has
to
like,
like
every
decision
about
that
has
to
go
back
to
the
working
questions
right
and
so,
and
so
we
need
something.
K
A
Yeah,
okay:
let's
go
on
okay,
I
guess
the
queue
is
empty.
Actually,
okay,
so
I
think
what
I
I'm
sorry.
O
Yeah,
sorry
about
that,
so
I'm
listening
to
all
this
and
I've
been
trying
to
follow
the
discussion
too,
and
you
know
I.
I
think
that
this
group
has
made
really
good
progress
in
the
beginning,
but
I'm
I'm
sort
of
getting
concerned
about
the
level
of
spinning
that's
gone
on
in
the
last.
You
know
a
couple
of
months
for
good
reason
right.
You
know
we
were
actually
finally
getting
the
points
of,
as
some
people
put
it
today.
O
These
are
the
fundamental
places
that
we
disagree
about,
and
you
know
I
think
some
of
what
I'm
hearing
is
a
lot
of
discussion
around
sort
of
the
trying
to
define
the
nebulous
roles,
and
I
started
writing
down
you
know.
Maybe
we
could
talk
about
some
concrete
scenarios.
Right
here
is
a
here's,
a
scenario
and
then
right
as
I
was
typing
that
eric
piped
up
with
actively
fixed
the
toolkit
right.
O
It
was
a
concrete
scenario
and
I
I
kind
of
agree
with
ecker
that
that
was
sort
of
a
possibly
a
good
way
to
go
where
maybe,
if
you,
you
know
thought
of
what
is
the
role
of
this
person
in
this
specific
situation,
it
will
allow
you
to
sort
of.
You
know,
come
from
the
other
direction,
to
extrapolate
upward
into
what
the
larger
role
might
be.
I'm
brainstorming
out
loud
trying
to
figure
out.
You
know
how
can
we
get
beyond
the
stumbling
block
that
we're
on
right
now,
thanks.
A
Yeah,
that
sort
of-
and
indeed
was
that,
was
where
my
question
was
aiming
right,
which
is
okay.
We
have
the
need.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
resolve
it
in
in
a
context
that,
in
in
this
context,
so
I'm
all
for
that?
I'm
not
sure
we
can
do
it
live.
It
may
be
a
bit
too
much
to
ask
with
people,
but
it
sounds
like
a
good
example
to
to
flesh
out
if
you
will.
B
What
do
people
think
I
mean
the
the
tooling
you
know,
there's
there's
clearly
a
bunch
of
discussion
right
now
about
the
tooling,
and
there
was
a
you
know,
a
big
deal
about
tooling
a
little
while
ago,
as
I
recall.
So
what
do
we
want?
This
person's
role
to
be
in
handling
the
tooling.
B
A
Yeah
and
let
me
just
add
a
a
scope
question:
let's
leave
this
to
the
scope
of
rfcs
and
and
document
publishing
right,
let's
not
try
and
talk
about
every
tooling
aspect
of
the
itf.
G
Just
ruled
out
what
I
was
going
to
to
point
out
problem
with
your
question:
is
it
assumes
an
agreement
on
something
which
we
don't
agree
on
if
we
assume,
as
I
would
like
to,
we
want
to
continue
rfcs
the
way
they
are
then
figuring
out
exactly
how
to
get
the
tooling
to
work
might
well
be
something
we
could
put
on.
We
could
just
ask
rob,
give
robert
enough
apparently
to
figure
out,
for
example,
but
and
not
burden
the
rfc
editor
with
it,
but
that's
because
that
really
becomes
if
we
assume
the
agreement,
the
software
development.
E
Martin,
I
think
charles
hit
on
something
that's
pretty
reasonable
here
and
in
fact
I
was
going
to
suggest
exactly
that
that
we
can
leave
this
to
robert
for,
for
the
most
part,
unless
and
until
the
whatever
body,
whatever
individual
comes
up
with
strategy,
has
some
tooling
requirements
that
need
negotiation,
and
even
at
that
point
I
would
suggest
that
this
is
an
llc
responsibility
that
could
be
discharged
by
the
llc
entirely,
and
I
think
that's
what
my
draft
said
that
was
specifically
a
carve
out
for
tooling.
E
A
Okay,
so
I
guess
what
I've
heard
is
that
maybe
if
we
were
to
look
at
at
tooling
right
there,
the
division
of
labor
here
might
be
to
to
maybe
to
lay
out
certain
requirements
to
hand
to
robert
right
who
hands
those
things
to
robert
is
still
at
issue,
but
and
when
the
what
the
deliverables
are
would
be
a
question
that
as
to
who,
who
specifies
those
deliverables
but
there's
probably
a
general
requirement
that
has
to
be
expressed
from
the
from
either
the
person
or
the
community.
K
Like
maybe
a
couple
so
I
liked
west's
hypotheticals
idea
and
I
think
me
a
couple
hypotheticals
were
useful.
You
know,
I
think
perhaps
one
I
think
would
be
you
know,
given
our
current
state,
where
we're
effective,
what
we
have
you
know
we
have
some.
We
have
some
structure
instead
of
tooling
xml,
v3
et
cetera,
but
clearly
it
needs
some
cleanup
and
so
one
question.
We
asked
how
did
that
clean
up
work
and
I
think
what
I'm
hearing,
what
I
heard
you
know.
Martin's
just
was
like.
K
Basically
let
robert
sort
it
out
and
like
basically
like
just
do
take
whatever
he
likes
and
then
there's
and
martin
feel
free
to
correct
me.
Obviously,
and
then
I'm
not
sure
I
think
about
that.
I'm
just
trying
to
like
lay
out
the
space
and
then
I
think
there's
like
imagine
that
we
like
imagine,
we
wanted
to
do
markdown
or
there
was
a
desire
to
do
markdown.
K
How
would
that
decision
get
made
and
like
and
like
what
would
that
decision
and
then
what
would
the
and
and
then
you
know
what
would
be
that
the
the
project
of
design
of
defining?
You
know
you
know
where
what
the
detailed
design
of
the
other
structures-
so
I
don't
know
like
I
mean,
like
the
people-
think
those
are
cycles-
are
useful.
A
Well,
let's
step
through
that,
just
for
a
moment:
okay,
all
right!
You
could
imagine
that
we
have
this
committee
of
some
form,
whether
it's
you
know
appointed
or
whether
it's
a
a
an
open
committee
and
the
committee
says
you
know
what
we
really
want:
the
input
to
be
marked
down,
for
instance,
or
output,
to
be
marked
whatever.
A
Be
right
what
level
specification,
what
level
of
specificity
does
the
community
need
to
decide
on
this?
Who
who
makes
the
proposal
right
and
who,
who
agrees
to
the
proposal
like?
What's
the
you
know,
what's
the
back
and
forth
that
occurs
right?
A
You
know,
based
on
what
people
have
brought
to
the
group,
to
work
with
the
group
to
formulate
the
the
requirements
in
such
a
way
that
robert
could
execute
or
work
with
robert
to
put
together
a
proposal
to
bring
back
to
the
to
the
community.
P
Hi,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
yes
good,
so
I
I
think
this.
This
is
kind
of
getting
to
some
of
the
the
same
issues
that
I
think
mark
raised
earlier,
and
the
problem
with
a
lot
of
this
is
that
the
community
likes
to
bike,
and
if
we
have
someone
with
publishing
expertise
and
that's
yeah,
you
know
I
you
know,
look
looking
at
the
text
on
the
slide
you
I
can
see.
We
could
find
someone
with
publishing
expertise
quite
easily.
P
I
could
see
we
could.
We
could
find
someone
with
itf
process
expertise
quite
easily,
who
wants
to
be
involved
with
the
community?
We
seem
to
be
sort
of
looking
at
roles
which
conflate
those
two
and
I
think
the
set
of
people
who
wish
to
be
that
closely
involved
in
both
communities
is,
quite
perhaps
quite
small.
Quite
a
small
pool-
and
I
think
that's
where
we're
getting
hung
up-
is
the
the
interactions
and
how
much
involvement
the
publishing
expert
needs
with
the
community.
A
So
let
me
let
me
see
if
I
can
tease
that
out
a
little
bit
colin.
Okay
is,
if,
if
you
look
at
the
way
that
an
accountant
works
right,
an
accountant
probably
can
can
say
you
know
to
the
client
right,
you
want
your
taxes
done.
I
have
a
bunch
of
questions
that
I
need
to
ask
right,
and
this
goes
into
our
red
text
a
little
bit
right.
It
may
be
for
the
account
the
accountant
to
help
crystallize
the
questions.
A
If
you
will
and
maybe
guide
the
discussion
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
you
know,
by
bringing
color
to
the
the
discussion
so
that
people
are,
it
can
make
informed
decisions,
and
then
it's
for
the
chairs
of
this
group,
and
maybe
it's
the
same
person
or
not.
We
can
discuss
that
to
help
sort
of
consolidate.
Consensus
right
is.
Is
that
really
where
we're
aiming.
P
I
think
that
this
community
doesn't
deal
well
with
that
type
of
input
and-
and
I
think
that's
where,
where
we
get
diffic,
where
we
will
run
into
difficulties.
P
Someone
who
looks
like
they're
in
some
sort
of
and
president
say
leadership
or
authority
role,
because
I'm
not
sure
those
are
the
right
words,
but
someone
coming
in
with
expertise
and
saying
well.
This
is
what
I
think
should
happen.
P
We
we
tend
to
second-guess
that,
and
those
discussions
tend
not
to
reach
closure
very
quickly,
and
I
think
that
would
be
quite
frustrating
for
someone
who
who
is
coming
from
perhaps
the
publishing
community
unless
they
are
very
used
to
our
processes-
and
I
think
that's
a
very
small
pool
of
people
and
we
get
stuck,
do
you
have
a
solve
for
that?
P
Q
Yeah,
so
actually
I
think
I
mean
like
you:
can
it's
all
the
nuances,
but
I
think
this
text
is
a
little
bit
a
step
back.
I
I
thought
that
we
had
already
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
need
for
an
advisor
role
and,
like
I
know
also
about
the
term
advisor,
we
had
a
lot
of
discussion,
but
the
idea
that
you
can
pay
somebody
to
actually
provide
technical
expertise
and
then
a
lot
of
other
responsibilities
that
you
list
here
in
this
slide
should
potentially
be
taken
over
by
other
entities.
Q
A
I
think
that
there
I
I
think,
we've
been
going
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
maria
right.
We
thought
I
think
the
chairs
thought
we
were
in
that
same
point
and
then
we
had
the
interim
and
then
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
raised
about
that
approach.
To
the
point
where
we
had
to
raise
another
issue
on
this
and
and
then
brian
helped
us
sort
that
quite
a
bit.
Q
B
B
When
you
need
them,
you
ask
them
they
come
in
and
they
help
you
with
whatever
your
immediate
problem
is,
then
they
fade
into
the
background.
There
are
people
who
think
that's
it
and
there
are
people
who
think
no
there's
more
to
it
than
that,
and
that's
where
our
problem
is
so.
Yes,
we
agree,
there
is
some
kind
of
advisor
the.
B
A
F
Hear
me:
yes,
yes,
I
don't
hear
you
at
the
moment
kind
of
to
me.
The
terms
of
a
permanent
strategic
advisor
came
to
my
mind,
and
it
would
look
to
me
like
finding
the
right
advisor,
bringing
in
the
expertise
on
the
technical
publishing,
well,
okay,
finding
finding
a
good
match.
There
can
already
be
difficult
expecting
that
person
to
be
also
a
an
expert
in
some
in
some
area.
That,
typically
is
a
different
job
like
expertise
in
software
engineering
and
tooling
makes
it
much
much
more
unlikely
to
find
a
good
match.
F
F
Publishing
advisor
would
be
would
be,
would
be
a
good
thing
and
actually
and
actually
for
getting
a
permanent
strategy,
picking
picking
a
person
and
putting
into
the
publishing
advisor
description
of
a
reference
that
interaction
with
that
person
is
expected,
I
think,
would
make
a
sense.
A
Okay,
now
we
can't
hear
you
either
or
I
can't
hear
anybody
else,
let's
just
test
that
mike.
Do
you
want
to
go
on.
I
Yeah,
one
of
the
things
that
I
keep
thinking
about
with
this
is
that
we're
missing
a
point
that
the
grunt
work
for
this
is
not
exciting.
It's
and
having
it
having
the
expert
there
to
advise
us
and
to
do
most
of
the
grunt
work
of
writing.
Writing
the
frameworks.
The
documents
that
we
need
to
to
implement
this
thing
seems
to
be
seems
to
make
a
lot
of
sense.
I
Otherwise
we're
going
to
be
dependent
upon
volunteers
or
something
that
is
fairly
critical.
Not
just
for
this.
You
know
not
just
for
a
tiny
little
piece
of
the
problem,
but
for
the
operation
of
the
whole
system.
I
I
don't
know
how
much
arm
twisting
was
necessary
with
respect
to
getting
the
various
people
who
wrote
the
rfc
documents
before,
and
I
know
russ
and
ola
olaf
and
a
few
others
worked
on
them.
It'd
be
interesting
to
actually
find
out
how
much
arm
twisting
it
took
to
get
them
to
do
that.
So.
A
R
Okay,
so
it
did
not
take
a
lot
of
arm
twisting.
There
was
a
lot
of
people
interested
in
solving
the
problem
at
the
time
and
we
drew
heavily
on
the
iab.
A
Okay,
so
all
right,
john
thanks
russ
by
the
way.
J
I
just
want
to
push
a
little
bit,
not
not
necessarily
back
but
push
a
little
bit
on
this
lawyer
and
account
analogy
my
my
attorney
father
used
to
used
to
claim
that,
in
addition
to
the
bad
ones,
there
were
two
kinds
of
lawyers
both
good
but
for
different
purposes.
J
J
There
are
accountants
who
are
very
good
at
dealing
with
whatever
needs
to
be
dealt
with.
You
handle
the
documents
and
but
who
will
not
push
further,
although
they
may
ask
questions
about
those
documents
and
accountants
who
will
call
you
up
and
say,
I
know
enough
about
your
financial
picture
to
know
that
you
should
be
paying
attention
to
this
issue.
J
Are
you
doing
so,
and
those
distinctions
are
really
important
when
we
start
saying
advisor
is
like
a
lawyer
or
accountant,
because,
depending
on
what
else,
we
think
we
need
the
difference
between
those
two
models
gets
to
be
very
important,
and
I
don't
think
I
have
an
answer
to
pick
because
it
interacts
with
everything
else.
We
were
talking
about.
A
That
was
something
I
think
we
discussed
a
little
bit
on
the
list.
So
it's
it's
a
good
point
to
have.
He
stated
and
I.
A
Good,
you
know
it's
a
good.
It
was
a
good
point.
Let
me
do
this
right.
What
I
propose
is,
let
me
just
back
up
a
little
bit
for
one
moment
to
bring
up
one
point
that
was
in
the
slides
that
we
published
right.
We've
started:
we've
gone
off
a
little
bit
right.
A
Well,
let
me
just
highlight
what
we
thought
we
had
consensus
on
right,
assuming
that
there
is
a
person
right,
we
thought
that
the
person
could
raise
issues
along
the
lines
that
you
just
mentioned,
john,
that
if
there's
something
that
needs
to
be
brought
to
the
group's
attention,
that
person
should
certainly
do
that.
I
don't
think
anybody
would
be,
and
and
not
only
that
but
there's
another
implication
there
that
there's
a
bit
of
a
long-term
relationship.
A
Such
the
person
knows
to
raise
those
issues
right,
and
we
also
think
that
there
that
you
know
assuming
the
person
exists,
that
regardless
whether
the
person
exists,
we
think
everybody
agrees
that
there's
some
strategic
body
that's
going
to
make
some
that's
going
to
make
these
decisions
and
we
think
those
are
going
to
get
documented
in
rfcs
right.
A
That's,
we
think
that's
the
case.
Right
we're
still,
we
still
have
to
focus
on
this.
This
big
point
here
and
one
of
the
questions
I
raised
on
list-
and
this
is
the
one
that
I
thought
was
you
know
what,
if
this,
what
if
we
view
this
person
as
something
of
a
senior
member
of
the
rpc,
maybe
with
slightly
different
responsibilities
right
yeah,
I
mean,
is
where
they,
where
they
guide
this
this
conversation
now
a
while
ago,
we
made
the
split
right.
A
We
said:
okay,
the
the
rsc
doesn't
doesn't
work
in
the
rpc,
but
works
closely
with
the
rpc.
But
if
I
don't
know
if
it
helps
people's
thinking
right
to
think,
okay,
really.
What
we
have
here
is
somebody
who's
trying
to
determine
what
the
community
you
know,
how
to
facilitate
community
needs
right
in
terms
of
an
interaction
with
the
rpc,
so
the
rpc
can
deliver
appropriate
product
and
and
similarly
along
and
similarly
with
the
tooling
team
right.
A
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
the
conversation,
but
coming
back
to
what
miriam
said,
I
do
think
we
have
some
some
consensus
here
and
I
think
the
chairs
think
we
have
some
consensus.
Assuming
that
there
is
such
a
person
right,
I
don't
know
if
this
helps
advance
the
conversation.
But
if
this
question
here
helps
people
think
about
the
position,
then
maybe
we
should
discuss
it.
If
it
doesn't,
then
let's
not
right.
A
I
did
raise
it
on
this
and
didn't
get
a
lot
of
bites
on
that.
To
be
honest,
to
see
to
see
if
we
could
clarify
it,
but
I
based
this
question
largely
on
sort
of
a
direction
from
where
martin
was
coming
from,
which
is
to
give
the
rpc
a
little
bit
more
of
ability
to
tackle
things
day
to
day.
G
M
M
We
get
a
rough
consensus
that
that's
where
we
that
that
fulfills
all
the
requirements
of
what
the
community
needs
out
of.
However,
we
sell
this,
so
I
just
didn't
want
you
to
leave
thinking
that
this
is
not
a
viable
solution
anymore.
It's
just
that
it's
a
solution
and
we
still
haven't
gone
through
the
process
of
figuring
out
what
paths
lead
us
to
what
possible
solutions.
Yet,
okay,
personally,
this
is
potentially
viable.
M
A
Right
so
so,
just
to
apply
this
a
little
bit
right.
We're
talking
about
the
tooling
example
that
ecker
gave,
for
instance,
or
you
know,
for
or
for
for,
say,
markdown
right,
this
person
would
be
would
be
saying.
Okay,
the
community
would,
like
you,
know,
input
or
output
of
markdown,
depending
on
how
you
want
to
look
at
it
right.
A
You
know
the
the
the
person
would
know
that
would
would
have
worked
and
maybe
would
have
worked
in
the
rpc
or
maybe
is
brought
into
the
rpc
as
a
senior
person,
or
something
like
that
to
sort
of
work
with
this.
This
body,
this
this
governance
body
that
we've
been
talking
about
to
try-
and
you
know-
ask
pointed
questions
along
the
lines
that
john
was
raising
in
the
context
of
say,
a
long-term
account
right
is
I'm
just
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
apply
that
hypothetical
that
we
were
discussing
mark
you
want.
A
Oh
okay,
I
saw
your
hand
up.
That's
why
I
okay,
so
let
me
let
me
leave
that
as
food
for
thought,
all
right!
Martin,
if
you
want
to
comment
as
well,
I
don't
know.
E
Yeah,
that
was
a
misfire
of
me
hitting
the
button
here.
I'm
okay,
I'm
not
so
sure
that
I'm
confident
in
saying
that
the
senior
member
of
the
rpc
to
give
the
example
that
you
you
took
there
is
the
person
that
would
fulfill
all
of
the
functions
that
we've
been
talking
about
here
and
that
that
to
me
is
that
the
challenge
that
I
face.
E
I
think
that
there
is
a
greater
role,
for,
I
guess
leadership
of
the
rpc
and
having
some
involvement
in
the
process
here,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
that
is
the
totality
of
what
we're
looking
for
here.
So
it's
it's
a
little
difficult
for
me
to
to
answer
this
question.
A
A
Maybe
the
thing
that
we
take
away
from
this
discussion
right
is:
what
is
that
interface
between
the
rpc
and
the
committee
that
we're
going
to
bridge
and
ask
people
to
maybe
just
share
their
thoughts
on
the
list,
as
we
as
we
perceive?
Is
that
a
reasonable
approach,
russ
going.
R
It
was
the
case
before
all
of
the
structure
that
we
have
now
where
the
rfc
editor
was
one
contract.
It
had
lived
over
underneath
isoc
and
we
asked
the
question:
why
are
we
paying
two
vendors,
the
rfc
editor
and
the
secretariat,
to
manage
websites
shouldn't?
We
just
be
paying
one
person
to
to
manage
putting
things
on
the
web
and
that
led
to
the
rc
editor
being
broken
into
four
roles.
R
The
rfc
series
editor
the
production
center,
the
publisher
and
the
independent
stream
editor.
So
it
be
careful
questions
you
ask.
Sometimes
they
lead
you
places,
you
don't
expect,
but
what
we
realized
was
the
rfc
series
editor
had
nothing
to
do
with
publishing
the
works
it
had
to
do
with
strategic
things,
not
mechanical
things,
and
we
tried
to
separate
that,
and
so
I
think
it's
a
really
bad
idea
now
to
slam
them
back
together.
A
B
I
I
I
kind
of
want
to
go
back
to
russ
and
ask
is:
do
you
say
that
even
though
the
rpc
came
out
and
said
no,
no,
no,
we
need
some
help.
R
B
Oh
okay,
so
so
I
understand
that
point,
and
but
you
and
and
just
just
asking
for
your
opinion,
you
don't
object
to
fulfilling
the
record
the
the
the
ask
of
the
of
the
rpc
to
get
get
some
get
them
some
expertise
because
they
say
they
rely
on
that
expertise
from
time
to
time.
I
I
again
I
don't.
No
one
has
argued
against
doing
that
right.
Everybody
says:
oh
okay!
Well,
we
have
to.
R
A
What
I'm
going
to
say
is:
let's,
let's
please
continue
to
ponder
the
the
this
role.
I'd
like
we
might
come
back
to
this
slide
after
the
next
one,
but
I'm
going
to
press
on
with
the
idea
that
people
should
should
ponder
this
interface
right
and
express
what
they
want
and
maybe
using
a
hypothetical
if
it
helps
to
express
that.
A
On
this
call
and
we'll
take
the
results
to
the
mailing
list,
unless
we
find
that
after
the
next
issue,
we
actually
have
more
to
talk
about
okay,
which
leads
us
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
we
started
talking
about
unless
the
decision-making
body
right
this
the
strategic
body
right,
and
we
saw
three,
three
four
proposals
come
in,
two
of
which
had
an
open
body
and
two
of
which
had
a
closed
body
right.
A
What
we
also
were
able
to
recognize
in
the
discussion
is
that
it's
only
when
we
say
closed,
we
don't
mean
closed
meetings.
We
mean
that
the
decision
processes
are
the
people
who
vote
or
the
people
who
decide
the
people
who
have
who
get
to
have
a
voice
in
the
decision,
either
through
rough
consensus
or
through
whatever
voting
mechanism.
A
A
Okay
and
and
I'm
sure
people
will
tell
me
just
how
wrong
they
are
all
right,
but
just
to
to
give
a
view
right,
it
seemed
to
me
you
know
we
end
up
in
situations
where
we're
in
sort
of
binary
position
right,
and
so
it
probably
helps
to
tease
out
what
these
differences
are,
and
this
is
only
meant
as
a
starting
point
and
certainly
not
it's
not
a
working
group
position
at
all.
A
It's
just
here's
how
I
saw
these
things
right,
and
I
think
brian
probably
has
a
similar
view
right
in
terms
of
where
we,
what
we
were
interpreting,
what
we're
seeing
in
the
discussions
and
why
people
were
putting
things
forward
in
different
ways
and
so,
for
instance,
in
the
in
the
open
membership
model
right.
It's
this.
It's
we're
using
our
rough
consensus
model
just
the
same
way.
We
always
do
for
working
groups
right
if
the
community
wants
somebody.
A
Some
somebody
writes
a
draft
right
and
it's
discussed
in
a
working
group
and
then
pushed
through
it
forward
through
the
process,
and
you
know
there
is
obviously
the
potential
for
lack
of
rough
consensus
and
if
something's
really
important
to
get
done
and
there's
no
rough
consensus,
then
one
can
end
up
in
a
situation
of
analysis
paralysis.
So
it's
it's.
A
You
know
one
of
the
risks
there's
also
the
with
open
membership
there
there
there
might
be
people
who
don't
have
skin
in
the
game,
making
have
having
an
outsized
voice,
but
that's
always
a
risk
with
a
with,
with
with
our
community
driven
model
right.
This
is
not
new
or
specific
to
this
process.
What
might
be
a
little
different
about
this
process
is
that
we
may
be
talking
about
issues
that
don't
normally
come
into
play
with
the
I
you
know
in
in
terms
of
the
ietf
like
we
don't.
A
We
don't
know
we're
mostly
experts
on
networking
and
not
publishing
and
that
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
and
then,
if
there's
an
open
membership
model
right,
the
accountability
is
to
the
community
and
those
and
and
and
whether
or
not
you
participated,
and
the
only
people
you
have
to
blame
is
the
people
who
participated
in
the
process
and
and
if
you
didn't,
then
you
know
and
that's
it
in
a
closed
membership
right.
You
have,
you
can
do
expert
selection.
A
If
you
want
you
can
do
people
who
you
can
represent
the
the
you
can
have
participation
from
those
people
who
are
essentially
the
ones
who
who
have
to
work
day-to-day.
With
the
with
the
with
our
rfc
development
process
production
process,
the
stream
managers,
maybe
maybe
others,
the
the
accountability-
is
to
those
individuals
who
participate
in
assuming
that
it
isn't
a
long
chain
to
get
there
right.
It's
sometimes,
I
think,
sometimes
frustrating
some
people
view
this
as
a
good
thing.
A
Some
people
view
this
as
a
bad
thing
and,
and
then
the
definition
of
community
comes
back
into
this
question
like
who
is
this
process
solving
as
a
serving
right?
Is
it
serving
the
ietf
community?
Is
it
serving
a
broader
community?
A
How
broad-
and
these
are
all
topics
that
have
been
raised
on
the
mailing
list
so
again,
this
is
just
my
view.
I
think
people
should
feel
free
to
absolutely
use
your
own
criteria
in
terms
of
how
you
view
this
issue
discard
anything
you
see
on
this
slide,
if
you,
if
you
think
it's
not
useful
and
develop
consensus
based
on
any
other
point
right,
but
this
is
sort
of
how
I
was
perceiving
it
so
without
mike.
I
Yeah,
so
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
make
a
point
about
is
how
this
group
might
differ
from
a
normal
working
group
as
an
open
membership
thing.
I
We
don't
normally
acknowledge
it,
but
our
working
groups
sort
of
function
as
meritocracies
of
some
flavor,
the
people
who
are
involved,
the
people
who
are
talking
people
who
are
writing
the
code
tend
to
have
heavier
weight
given
to
their
decisions
than
than
the
other
people
given
the
product
here
is
going
to
be
the
documents
that
describe
the
standards
process
unless
we
get
volunteers
who
are
writing
this
stuff
and
again
like
I
said,
I
don't
know
that
that's
going
to
happen
a
lot.
I
I
You
may
want
to
think
about
how
you
would
how
you
would
structure
the
thing
so
that
again
we
don't
get
to
the
consensus
paralysis
problem.
If
we
don't
have
that
meritocracy
thing
happening.
A
Thanks
for
that
mark.
M
Yeah
yep
yeah.
I
I
think
I
I
agree
that
that
that
dynamic
is
going
to
be
important
to
watch.
I
do
think
that
this
group
can
operate
with
open
membership
if
we
set
it
up
in
a
way
that
encourages
good
participation.
M
I
think
this
this,
in
my
mind,
you
know,
brings
to
mind
this
role
of
the
expert
advisor
and
how
their
voice
would
be
heard
in
this
group,
and
my
expectation
would
be
that
that
is
one
form
of
the
meritocracy
that
you
know.
Phil
was
referring
to
sorry
mike.
I
I
I
I
have
a.
I
guess:
a
medium-ish,
strong
preference
for
a
membership
on
this,
but
my
lie
down
in
the
road
kind
of
aspect
of
this
is
that
if
it
does,
it
does
have
a
closed
membership
of
some
form.
M
A
Yeah
just
a
a
comment,
I
think
and
tell
me
if
you
think,
I'm
wrong
mark.
I
think
mike's
draft
sort
of
covered
that
ground
pretty
well.
You
know
in
terms
of
making
these
decisions
out
in
the
open.
Did
you
would
you
agree
or
disagree
with
that.
M
I
I
don't
have
it
paged
in
I.
I
could
go
and
have
a
look,
but
if
anybody
disagrees
with
you
know
the
characterization
that
I
just
gave
I'd
love
to
hear
it
and
I'd
love
to
hear
why.
A
K
I
think
I
partly
agree
with
mark
and
that
I
think,
but
I
guess
I
think
I
think
it
should
be
open.
I
don't
think
like
I
don't
think
even
the
amount
of
daylight
he's
proposing
is
really
acceptable.
K
I
want
to
talk
about
this
sort
of
this
topic
of
skin
in
the
game,
which
I
think
is
a
little
odd
in
the
sense
that,
like
the
basic
assumption
here
is
that
the
people
who
participate
in
the
itf
working
groups,
the
people
who
are
writing
the
documents
and
therefore
are
the
like
people
who
will
be
like
engaging
with
the
engaging
with
the
rfc
publication
process.
K
So
you
know
it
was
of
course
possible
that
people
were
just
hanging
out
and
not
engaging
with
rc
publication
process,
but
I
think
we
should
reasonably
waste
nothing
to
have
some
skin
in
the
game,
and
so
the
idea
that,
like
close,
close
group,
somehow
because
there's
a
people
have
more
seen
in
the
games,
it's
unusual
with
me
like.
Why
would
that
be
the
case?
So
I
guess
I
I'd
like.
I
think
to
hear
you
elaborate
on
why
you
think
that
case
that
close
group
of
houses
more
skin
in
the
game
than
an
open
group.
A
Okay,
the
the
thinking
is
that
the
people
can
just
walk
into
a
working
group.
You
know
they
and
participate.
We
allow
that,
in
fact,
we
encourage
it.
It's
how
people
get
their
start.
They
don't
get
their
start,
usually
by
writing
an
internet
draft.
Sometimes
they
do
right
and
maybe
they
participate
in
the
development
of
work.
That's
already
ongoing,
they
may
or
may
not.
They
may
have
walked
into
the
room
for
reasons
that
you
know
they
just
wanted
to
see
what
was
going
on.
They
found.
A
Oh,
this
is
interesting
and
they
comment
and
they
and
they
may
not
be
publishing
rfcs
right.
They
may
not.
Even
they
may
not
be
in
the
editor
queue.
They
might
not
even
have
an
internet
drive,
but
they
might
be
interested,
maybe
for
other
reasons
right
unto
themselves,
and
it's
not
like
they
would
be
illegitimate
right.
It's
just
that
the
people
who
are
day-to-day
active
in
in
these
things
tend
to
be
the
stream
managers
who
have
to
stream
managers
and
to
a
slightly
lesser
extent,
but
only
slightly
the
authors
right.
A
The
the
stream
managers
have
to
you
know,
work
with
each
of
the
authors
pretty
pretty
closely
in
terms
of
publishing.
That's
certainly
much
more
so
the
case
you
know
the
ise
is
a
specific
individual
right.
Who,
who
does
this?
The
you
know
the
area
directors
in
their
capacities
as
representing
the
ietf
stream?
When
a
document
comes
forward
for
discussion
right,
though
they
have
to,
they
have
to
interact,
interact
directly.
A
That's
that's
all
I
meant
and
again
you
can
choose
that
logic
or
not
by
the
way
you
you
could
say.
Well,
actually
I
don't
agree
with
elliot.
Anybody
should
be
able
to
participate
and
everybody's
has
skin
in
the
game.
It's
the
readers
that
have
skin
in
the
game.
You
can
fill
in
that
value
for
yourself
right
it.
It
was
just
you
know
my
own
perception
and
entirely
reasonable
to
maybe
even
more
reasonable
than
I
than
I
have
on
the
side
to
to
disagree
with
me.
K
It's
actually
like
this
is
a
situation
in
which,
like
these
people
will
probably
have
more
skin
in
the
game
than
almost
any
other
situation.
You
know
like
an
ietf
where
you
know
we
routinely
like
you
know,
routinely
made
to
make
made
technical
decisions
based
on
people
who,
like
may
never
implement.
The
protocols
have
opinions
right,
but
like
more
or
less
by
definition,
the
people
who
are
like
you
know
who
are
in
in
these
meetings
like
are
engaging
in
the
idea.
Center's
process
are
probably
consumers
of,
and
potentially
future
authors
or
rfcs.
K
A
Entirely
reasonable
martin.
E
Yeah,
so
I
was
about
to
make
a
similar
point
when
you
look
at
both
of
these
options.
Here
you
are
essentially
still
staffing
them
with
volunteers
and
whether
they
are
appointed
for
a
term
or
or
just
turn
up
on
on
their
own
recognizance.
E
So
I
actually
think
that
the
open
membership
program
stands
a
better
chance
of
taking
the
sorts
of
input
that
we're
like
likely
to
see
from
document
authors
and
and
the
like,
whereas
the
the
close
membership
thing
has
this
barrier
to
engagement
whereby
okay,
so
the
meetings
are
in
public
but
they're
at
a
scheduled
time,
that's
inconvenient.
For
me,
I
I
don't
feel
like
like.
I
can
send
an
email
and
then
then
engage
in
the
conversation
on
an
ongoing
basis,
because
that
that's
just
not
how
these
bodies
operate.
E
Necessarily,
I
I'd
have
to
re-read
mike's
draft
in
order
to
see
whether
he
had
addressed
that
or
had
ideas
along
those
lines.
But
I
ultimately
think
that
the
open
membership
is
is
more
likely
to
to
attract
the
sorts
of
input
that
we're
looking
for
here,
and
I
share
mark's
concerns
about
making
sure
that
this
process
is
open
and
well
documented.
What
not.
A
Okay,
before
we
go
further,
let
me
just
ask:
are
there
people
who
would
actively
object
to
the
open
membership
model
and
if
you
could
john
and
phil,
can
you
can
you
unless
you
are
going
to
actively
object,
could
you
let
those
who
are
skip
the
queue
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you.
J
I
I
I
had
intended
to
okay,
please,
since
since
I'm
first
in
the
queue,
let
me
let
me
come
back
to
that
that
working
group
meritocracy
analogy
and
make
another
one
in
the
case
of
a
working
group,
the
people
who
become
active
in
a
working
group
and
that
is
active
as
distinct
from
half
asleep
in
the
back
of
the
room.
J
Doing
email
tend
to
be
people
with
specific
interest
in
subject
matter
and
specific
expert
and
and
specific
expertise
in
subject
matter
and
within
a
working
group,
and
I
think
this
is
part
of
what
mike
was
talking
about
we're
just
talking
about
expertise.
J
J
But
the
effect
is
the
same,
and
sometimes
that
doesn't
even
work
very
well,
because
the
boundary
between
not
expert
and
and
having
expert
and
competent
views
which
the
people
driving
the
working
group
don't
agree
with
sometimes
get
very
confused
with
each
other.
But
let's
draw
another
analogy
to
something
which
is
open.
Is
discussions
on
the
ietf
list
and
discussions
in
the
iedf
list
have
often,
especially
in
recent
years,
turned
into
situations
where
people
are
expressing
very
strong
opinions
about
subjects.
J
They
know
almost
nothing
about
and
and
then
we
go
into
rat
hole
tours
with
very
long
threads,
which
never
really
go
any
anywhere,
and
my
concern
about
an
open
group
gets
back
to
the
question
of
having
sufficient
expertise
and,
to
paraphrase
a
comment
which
was
made
in
the
chat,
a
situation
in
which
the
expertise
loses,
because
the
people
with
very
strong
opinions
and
the
people
who
may
be
there
because
they
have
agendas
which
are
different
from
whatever
the
agenda
is
of
the
expert.
J
And
indeed
whatever
the
agenda
is
that
we
come
up
with
dominate
the
discussions
because
they
have
the
time
and
energy
and
passion
as
distinctly
because
they
know
what
they're
talking
about
and
again,
we've
seen
that
on
the
ietf
list.
So
I'm
not
a
whole.
I
certainly
want
the
kind
of
openness
that
mark
was
talking
about
and-
and
I'm
not
opposed
to
any
of
that.
J
J
We
usually
talk
about
elephants
in
the
rule,
but
it
may
be
more
like
alligators
in
the
room,
yet
issues
get
suppressed
because
we're
busy
trying
to
come
to
conclusions
and
that's
where
the
coming
collisions
worthwhile
ideas
when
our
conclusions
are
hiding
those
fundamental
issues
and
those
fundamental
disagreements
about
what
things
are,
what
things
are
about?
What
things
are
important?
J
A
Thank
you,
john
phil,.
D
You
sorry
yeah
on
the
open
versus
closed
piece.
The
problem
is,
though,
that
this
is
an
area
where,
if
you
close
the
working
group,
how
can
you
be
sure
that
you're
shutting
the
expert
in
rather
than
out?
D
I'm
a
bit,
I'm
feeling
a
bit
of
brisk
with
this
conversation,
because
I
can't
quite
see
how
many
levels
of
meta
we
are
at
the
moment.
We
seem
to
be
discussing
process
performing
a
process
to
discuss
something.
D
D
D
D
We
have
to
start
from
the
perspective
here
that
this
is
going
to
be
an
ongoing
process
that
doesn't
have
a
preset
end,
that
there's
going
to
be
refinement
and
that
people
have
to
underst
how
to
know
that.
Okay,
we
can
let
it
slide
now
because
there'll
be
another
opportunity
in
two
years
or
three
years
time
to
bring
this
up.
D
A
Okay,
so
so
I
think
I
want
to
just
tease
out
a
couple
of
things
here.
I
I
heard
your
point
that
which
I
thought
was
a
good
one,
which
was
that
if
you're,
if
you
have
a
closed
membership,
how
do
you
know
that
you're
not
shutting
that
the
experts
out
and
how.
A
Expertise,
I
think,
was
one
of
the
key
points
you
made.
The
other
point
that
you
were
making
was
the
timing
of
raising
issues
or
otherwise,
processing
changes.
G
Unfortunately,
I
don't
think
these,
as
we've
noted
multiple
times.
I
don't
think
these
questions
separate
doubt
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
issue
that
we
want
good
ways
to
get
real
community
input,
something
better
than
the
current
rfc
interest
email.
G
If
I
have
a
strong
rsa
model,
if
this
group
adopts
a
strong
rsa
model,
then
having
an
open
group
that
works
with
that
art,
strong
rsa
attracts
me
is
eminently
effective.
However,
if
I'm
stuck
with
a
weak
rsa
model,
then
it
better
be
a
carefully
selected
and
small
group.
It
works
with
that
rsa,
because
the
combination
of
a
weak
rsa
and
an
open
quasi-working
group
that's
supposed
to
make
the
whole
thing
magically
work
causes
my
head
to
explode.
A
G
A
Okay
gotcha.
Thank
you
very
much.
You
might
want
to
elaborate
that
a
bit
more
unless,
as
as
we
go
forward,
rudiger.
F
What
I'm
seeing
is
looking
at
how
we
are
running
stuff
in
the
ietf
there
are.
Actually
there
are
actually
things
that
kind
of
allow
allow
a
hybrid
operation.
F
Alongside
of
working
groups
in
regular
itf
organization,
we
sometimes
have
directorates,
which
are
kind
of
close,
close
groups
of
well
well-defined
groups
of
named
persons
and
for
say
the
interfacing
to
an
rrsa
of
of
some
kind.
Probably
such
such
a
fixed
group
would
be
much
better
than
the
not
so
clearly
defined
open
membership
group.
That
certainly
is
somewhat
better
for
representing
and
bringing
the
input
from
the
community
side
in
an
open
fashion.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
brian.
K
Hello,
so
a
couple
of
things,
actually,
I
I
kind
of
agree
with
rudiger
in
the
generalities,
but
probably
disagree
in
the
specifics.
Richard
burns
just
typed
into
the
into
the
chat,
something
that
I'd
like
to
reflect
here.
Does
it
need
to
be
said
that
closed
membership
does
not
imply
either
expert
or
skin
in
the
game,
I
think
it
does
imply
sort
of
like
accountability
can
be
had.
K
I
think
it
does
imply
that
there's
like
someone
who
is
designated
to
be
part
of
this
sort
of
decision
making
process
the
strategic
process,
and
I
think
that
there
are
our
wins
to
having
that.
Even
if
there's
not
like
sort
of
the
direct
implication
that
it's
always
going
to
be.
You
know
an
expert
within
the
game.
I
was
I
I'm
a
little
tempted
to
say
that,
like
this,
is
this
open
membership
versus
closed
membership
thing
is
a
little
bit
of
a
a
false
dichotomy.
K
I
think
we
can
have
a
process
or
something
that
gets
you
the
best
of
both
worlds
here.
So
that's
where
I
agree
with
rudiger
in
the
the
generalities.
K
K
K
In
the
past,
I'm
wondering
if
a
hybrid
model,
like
that
along
the
lines
of
an
iep
program,
could
work
where
you
essentially
have
a
set
of
appointed
people
to
this
body
who
are
required
to
have
open
meetings
that
would
have
sort
of
like
an
open
mic
portion
of
the
open
meeting
are
required
to
consider
that
input
and
also
have
them
sort
of
like
an
open
discussion
on
the
mailing
list.
K
So
it's
it's
not
closed
in
terms
of
we
have
a
closed
door
where
you
can
talk
about
things
that
will
remain
confidential
because
there's
no
disagreement
at
all,
but
we
don't
want
that.
But
it's
closed
in
terms
of
there
are
people
who
are
designated
by
the
community
who
are
responsible
for
be
for
being
this
strategic
body.
I
I
would
encourage
us
to
look
at
that
sort
of
like
a
hybrid
model
like
that.
A
So
brian,
are
you
familiar
with
mike
mike
st
john's
draft.
A
K
A
Congratulations
on
that
welcome
back,
can
you
read
mike's
draft?
Yes,.
A
A
little
bit
of
that
right,
but
I
think
so
I
think
the
contention
here
isn't
so
much
on
being
able
to
provide
input.
I
think
what
I
heard
from
mike's
draft
and
from
neville's
draft
as
well
was
that
there
should
be
an
input,
an
open
input
process
that
the
process
should
be
transparent,
but
that
there
are
p.
A
There
are
decision
makers
that
are
appointed
either
through
the
either
ex
officio
or
or
or
or
selected
through
nom
nom-com,
or
something
along
those
lines,
and
then
there's
a
different
view
right
where
it's
the
more
the
working
group
model
right.
K
So
so,
yeah,
okay,
so
so,
given
that
I
think
I
would
be,
I
would
you
know
my
opinion-
would
lean
toward
a
closed
membership
model.
A
closed
membership
open
process
model
simply
because
I
think
not
for
the
for
the
expert
selection
reason
not
for
the
skin
of
the
game
reason.
But
I
think
that
this
is
an
important
enough
function
to
the
community
that
we
want
people
who
are
essentially
held
accountable
for
for
driving
the
strategy
forward.
A
Then
I
have
a
request
of
you
not
just
to
read
the
draft
of
course,
but
always
and
to
everybody
else
right.
But
if
you
have
a
model,
a
selection
model
in
mind,
and
it
doesn't
match
that
of
mic.
Yeah
that
you
that
you
put
something
forward.
K
Yep
I
can,
I
can
do
that.
Definitely
I
I
don't
actually
have
a
model
in
mind,
but
I
will
think
about
it.
A
Okay,
we're
coming
close
to
the
time
where
we
want
to
move
on
to
some
of
the
other
points
in
that
we
have
on
the
agenda.
So,
let's
see
here
brian.
I
think
this
is
the
part
where
we
close
the
microphone
right
for
for
the
for
this
issue,
just
to
check
with
my
co-chair.
D
A
O
O
J
O
That
already
exists,
like
you
know
the
iv,
you
know
previously,
the
heather
sat
on
you
know.
So
I
think
community
feedback
is
an
important
consideration,
that
the
results
of
any
strategic
body
ends
up
greatly
affecting
the
the
participants
of
the
entire
atf,
and
there
has
to
be
a
feedback
mechanism
there.
What
does
that
feedback
feedback
mechanism?
Look
like.
A
Thank
you
mark.
M
Thank
you,
wes.
That
was
actually
really
good
and
it
leads
right
into
or
or
is
complimentary
to
what
I
was
thinking,
which
is,
I
think,
the
the
the
characterization
that's
bugging
me
here
is
the
word
closed
in
that
looking
at
the
disc
listening
to
the
discussion
looking
at
what's
happening
in
in
jabber,
I
I
can
see
a
model
where
the
decision
making
is
modified
from
how
our
group
works,
that
you
know
it's.
M
Some
combination
of
our
reported
experts
and
the
the
stream
leads,
and
maybe
some
other
folks,
but
you
have
a
nominated
set
of
people
who
are
either
either
make
the
decisions
or
have
unusual
weight
in
making
decisions,
and
that's
very
handy
I
know,
but
what
I
don't
want
to
see
is
a
an
expectation
that
they
will
talk
amongst
themselves.
M
The
community
will
just
merely
watch
or
or
be
allowed
to
dial
into
a
call
once
in
a
while
that
to
me
is
not
an
open
participation
model,
I
would
expect
as
a
member
of
the
community,
if
I'm
not
one
of
those
people
to
be
able
to
get
something
onto
a
meeting
agenda,
provided
that
enough
people
think
that
it's
reasonable
to
talk
about.
M
I
would
expect
to
have
an
open
discussion,
much
like
we're
happening
here
having
here
it's
just
that
the
final
decision
might
not
be
made
in
a
way
that
we
typically
make
in
a
working
group
and
if
we
can
come
up
with
a
model
like
that,
I
I
think
I
could
could
support
it,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
call
it
closed
membership.
I
think
well.
M
First
of
all,
membership
is
is
a
weird
concept
in
the
id
anyway,
so
I
think
it's
worth
exploring
in
that
direction,
but,
like
I
said
I
do
really
want
to
be
able
to
bring
something
to
the
group's
attention
and
if
it's
thumbs
down,
don't
do
it
because
of
reason:
xyz
fine,
but
none
of
this.
Oh,
you
can
listen
to
our
calls,
but
please
don't
talk.
A
Okay,
we
did
close
the
list,
but
if
you're
really
quick
mike
and
it's-
and
it's
just
like
to
respond-
please
please
just
be
brief.
I
Open,
we
have
closed
groups,
the
iab
and
the
iesg
are
selected
for
a
particular
set
of
responsibilities.
This
is
no
different.
A
Okay,
so
thank
you
all
right.
We
didn't
actually
neither
neither
of
the
chairs
actually
expected
to
close
this
issue
today.
We,
but
I
do
think
we've
had
a
pretty
productive
dialogue,
a
couple
of
comments
just
to
wrap
up
people,
don't
like
the
word
open
or
closed.
We
caught
that.
It's
it's,
how
the
it's
it's
the
selection
for
who
gets
to
decide
as
part
of
decision.
A
That's
number
one,
whether
it's
the
the
people
who
show
up
in
a
working
group
or
whether
it's
people
who
are
selected
based
on
some
criteria.
That's
that
that
was
one
issue.
I
think
the
second
issue
that
that
we
heard
loud
and
clear-
and
I
want
to
confirm
this
on
the
list,
but
any
model
that's
put
forth.
A
Even
if
it's
a
model
in
which
people
are
selected,
specific
people
are
selected
that
there
has
to
be
an
ability
for
the
community
to
interact
with
those
people
openly
that
there
be
transparency
that
and
that
decision
process
is
be
documented,
etc,
and
I
don't
think
anybody
has
argued
differently
along
those
lines.
The
one
the
one
exception
that
I
did
put
on
the
slide
was
that
there
was
the
possibility
that
personnel
decisions,
personnel
discussions
could
hit
in
in
mike's
case.
A
I
think
you
said
this:
the
rseb
that's
something
further
to
discuss
on
the
list
as
to
what
the
limits
of
openness
would
be
in
these
contexts
in
terms
of
any
sort
of
personnel
selection
and
whether
there
is
personnel
selection
discussions
in
in
these
things,
and
I
think
that
that
that
has
to
be
further
discussed.
There
are
some
issues
open
on
that,
and
I
I
encourage
you
to
take,
take
a
look
at
those
so
moving
forward.
A
A
If,
if
do
what
joel
did,
which
I
thought
was
great
and
I
think
mark
you
did
the
same
thing,
which
is
if
it
goes
away
that
maybe
I
might
not
prefer
right
what
would
be
the
parameters
under
which
I
could
find
it,
the
the
other
acceptable
if
people
can
get
those
out
onto
the
list,
I
think
that
will
help
move
the
discussion
forward,
and
so
with
that
the
chairs
had
two
other
issues
on
the
agenda.
A
I
think
we
are
going
to
call
me
an
internal
optimist,
but
I
believe,
like
that
last
issue,
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
start
to
find
some
common
ground
soon,
and
so
once
we
do
find
that
common
ground,
we
need
a
way
to
document
it
and,
of
course,
the
way
we
document
common
ground
at
the
ietf
is
through
a
draft,
and
so
we
think
we
need
a
skeleton
to
to
to
start
to
capture
this
so
that
we
have
text
that
we
can
bite
into
and
and
maybe
debate
a
little
bit
more.
A
As
as
we
come
closer
to
consensus,
it
should
have
the
mostly
capture
the
consensus
that
we
have
and
if
it's
not
perfectly
captured,
then
we
debate
it
and
get
towards
consensus,
and
we
think
we'll
need
an
editor
to
do
all
of
this.
We
haven't
discussed,
who
that
editor
would
be
yet,
but
we'd
like
to
proceed
along
the
lines
that
we'll
pick
up
a
person
to
do
this.
A
Of
course,
it'll
be
a
person
who
who's
involved
in
this
in
this
group,
I'm
sure-
and
so
all
I
want
to
ask
on
this
question:
does
anybody
have
any
objections
that
the
draft
would
not
take
positions
that
are
have
not
had
a
consensus
declared?
A
Okay,
ecker
did
you
want
to
get
a
word
in.
K
I
guess
I
don't.
I
have
half
a
concern,
as
you
mean.
I
think
this
is
a
fine
approach
in
general,
but
I
think
that,
like
as
I
sort
of
just
reiterate
my
comment
earlier,
that,
like
I
think
we're
going
to
get
substantially
further
along
before,
like
we're
going
to
be
able
to
iterate
on
this
in
this
way.
So,
but
I
have
no
problem
with
this
proceeding
at
this
point
once
we
get
to
the
point
where,
like
we
actually
already
start
putting
stuff
down.
A
To
just
be
clear
right,
we
do
have
a
few
things
that
we
have
consensus
on
right.
If
you
look
in
the
tracker,
they're,
very
basic,
stuff,
right
and
and
so
take
a
look
at
the
tracker-
provide
your
comments
on
list
if
you're
comfortable
with
those
at
least
being
written
down.
And
then,
if
you,
if
you
see
you
have
concerns,
and
for
instance,
adrian
raised
some,
I
forget
which
issue
was,
but
he
did
raise
some
concern
about
a
little
bit
of
the
text
that
needed
to
be
wordsmith
and
take
a
look
at
those.
A
A
J
First
of
all,
I
think
this
is
a
fine,
a
fine
approach
and
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
it.
I
just
want
to
raise
the
caution
again
that
we
not
managed
to
get
text
in
here
which
papers
over
a
very
fundamental
disagreements
where
we
are
agreeing
that
the
text
is
correct
in
papering
over
those
disagreements,
but
in
papering
over
those
disagreements
they
tend
to
get
lost.
A
So
just
a
question
we'll
take
it
pete
welcome.
H
N
Am
I
here
there?
I
am
you're
most
definitely
here
or
there
he's.
I
generally
try
to
duck
saying
anything
in
this
group,
but
I
I
would
ask
the
chairs
to
do
a
really
good
review
of
the
jabber
room
after
this
session,
because
I
think
there
are
a
bunch
of
people
who
actually
agree
on
a
lot
more
than
is
apparent
from
the
voiced
discussion.
That's
been
going
on.
I
I
think
there's
some
good
stuff
going
on
in
there.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
yeah.
We
have
this
little
problem,
which
is
one
of
the
chairs,
particularly,
I
cannot
see
the
jabber
because
of
the
technical
issues
earlier,
but
your
point
is
very
well
taken
and
thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
so
we'll
proceed
along
these
lines,
very
conservatively,
okay
to
john's
point
and
to
eric's
point
and
we'll
we'll
be
in
touch
with
you
about
this.
But
please
comment
on
the
list.
If
you
would
like
all
right.
A
That
brings
us
to
our
last
second
to
last
issue,
sorry
meeting
time
in
and
operating
methods,
so-
and
this
probably
goes
to
a
little
bit
of
what
pete
just
said
so
we'll
we'll
come
back
to
them.
Issues
are
going
to
at
least
get
aired
in
at
least
one
meeting,
and
that's
because
I
think
perhaps
we
do
a
little
better
in
in
terms
of
trying
to
go
through
these
issues
and
when
we
talk
together-
and
I
think
people
like
that
idea,
we
did
say
that
we
said
that
meetings
after
some
discussion.
A
We
said
that
meetings
would
take
place
roughly
every
four
weeks
with
varying
you
know,
varying
times
to
com,
to
accommodate
time
zone
issues
and-
and
we
said
that
everything
would
of
course
be
be
confirmed
on
list.
The
only
other
thing
I
would
say
is
if
they're,
if
the
opportunity
arises
to
gain
consensus
and
email.
A
A
In
terms
in
terms
of
that,
as
as
we
have
been
today
right,
we
didn't
we
didn't
try
and
say
well,
we
have,
except
for
on
one
point,
we're
pretty
sure
comfortable.
We
do
have
consensus,
I
don't
think
we.
It
wasn't
a
new
point
either.
So
on
that
second
bullet.
Is
anybody
uncomfortable
with
these
aspects
here?
A
If
you
want
to
comment
right,
we'll
still
continue
with
our
with
our
meetings
as
we
we
said,
and
if
there's,
if
we
can
knock
down
some
stuff,
you
know
prior
to
the
meeting,
that's
great
and
if
not
we'll
continue
along
the
same
ways.
Mark.
A
We'll
make
it
we
will
be
very
clear
about
it.
Thank
you,
okay.
I'm
not
hearing
a
lot
of
concern
about
this
and
we'll,
let's
see
how
we
go,
I
think
we
have
some
sticky
issues.
A
lot
of
a
lot
of
issues
won't
meet
the
model
we
don't
need
to
discuss,
but
maybe
some
will
along
the
lines
of
the
next
meeting
we
said
about
every
month.
Today's
the
19th
of
november,
the
19th
of
december,
is
a
saturday,
so
the
following
the
following
week
runs
us
into
holidays.
A
So
what
we
do
is
we
we
propose
to
have
the
meeting
at
at
this
time,
which
would
vary
the
the
time
based
on
you
know
the
the
fact
that
we're
relatively
we're
trying
to
hit
the
right
time
zone
you
know,
distribution.
A
What
I
would
say
is
if
people
have
strong
objections
to
this
time.
This
is
2300
gmt
if
they,
if
they'd
like
to
have
the
time
in
another
meeting,
just
drop
the
chairs
a
note.
If
you
want
to
copy
the
the
program
list,
that's
fine,
but
we
think
this
is
the
the
right
time
for
the
next
meeting
for
people
to
participate.
A
A
A
Okay-
and
that
brings
us
to
any
other
business,
do
we
have?
Does
anybody
want
to
raise
any
other
business
before
we
close.
A
All
right,
brian,
do
you
have
any
closing
thoughts?
You
want
to
add.
B
I
had
a
little
little
local
problem,
it's
okay!
No
I'm!
I'm!
I'm
okay,
we're
we're
slowly
getting
somewhere.
Hopefully
we
can
get
into
some
level
of
consensus,
and
some
of
these
more
not
relatively
here
given
where
we
are
now.
A
Okay,
all
right,
then,
I
would
like
to
thank
everybody
for
participating.
I
think
we
had
a
very
productive
conversation.
I
know
it
seems
frustrating
that
we're
moving
along
slowly
there's
a
lot
of
naughty
issues.
Here.
I
don't
want
to
gloss
over
any
of
it.
As
john
pointed
out,
it's
you
know
we're
talking
about
changes
to
a
model,
that's
pretty
core
to
the
organization.
Everybody
wants
to
proceed
carefully.
A
There's
there's!
I
do
think
we
have
some
common
ground,
though,
and
I'm
in
that
sense
I'm
encouraged,
but
it
will
take
a
while
it's
clear-
and
I
appreciate
everybody
having
patience
and
and
participating
and
engaging,
and
I
encourage
you
to
engage
on
the
mailing
list.
A
The
chairs
will
post
a
summary
of
this
as,
as
usual,
we'll
post
the
minutes,
I'll
post
the
updated
slides,
which
were
just
only
modestly
updated
since
since
the
previous
one-
and
I
wish
you
a
pleasant
rest
of
your
ietf
meeting
and
we'll
see
you
in
a
month.
Thank
you
very
much.