►
From YouTube: IETF111-RFCEFDP-20210729-2200
Description
RFCEFDP meeting session at IETF111
2021/07/29 2200
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/proceedings/
A
A
All
right,
I
think
most
people
are
back
so
we're
here
at
rsca,
higher
fire
management
and
I'm
going
to
turn
off
and
we'll
bring
up
the
github
tracker
and.
A
A
Be
good
to
make
that
along
yeah,
I
don't
know
I'll
get
my
own
window
bigger
and
see
if
that
hard
to
read
okay,
so
there
was
the
who
creates
the
committee
that
selects
rsea.
A
A
D
Queue,
thank
you.
The
the
main
thing
was
that
there
was
various
discussions
of
various
ideas
as
to
who
the
llc
should
be
mandated
to
have
in
the
loop
in
order
to
try
to
make
sure
that
the
right
thing
has
happened,
and
I
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
thought
that
was
a
good
idea
that,
which
is
why
I've
gotten
on
here
now,
because
the
more
I've
thought
about
it.
The
more
I
listen
to
the
discussion.
I
think
it
doesn't
work,
and
so
we
just
will
have
to
go
with
keeping
it
general.
A
E
E
I
thought
we
had
a
revised
text
somewhere.
That
said,
that
didn't
actually
talk
about
having
a
committee
that,
like
just
said,
that
the
director
is
responsible
for
making
finding
a
way
for
making
this
election,
where
comedy
might
be
one
option,
but
sorry,
yeah.
E
So
that
was
the
basis
of
my
of
my
comment
here.
My
issue
here
was
that
I'm
not
sure
if
we
need
that
level
of
detail,
I
don't
think
it's
super
harmful
but
like
if
we
just
take
it
out,
I'm
fine
as
well.
F
Probably
sort
of
try
to
split
the
difference
between
what
miri
is
suggesting
and
and
otherwise,
and
simply
say
that
the
llc
is
responsible
for
making
any
hiring
or
contracting
decision
and
and
leave
it
at
that.
Obviously,
that
probably
falls
to
the
executive
director,
but
there's
no
need
to
specify
that
so
directly.
C
Sorry,
no,
no
problem.
For
me
I
mean
I
I
I
like
the
the
statement
about
forming
a
search
committee
because
it
links
that
to
the
community.
It
ensures
that
there
is
community
involvement
in
the
hiring
process,
but
if
it's
not
there,
I'm
not
going
to
object
to
it.
That's
fine.
A
G
I
had
a
question
for
jay,
which
is:
is
there
currently
language
in
your
contract,
about
the
process
that
you
use
when
you're
contracting
for
other
roles?
Would
that
cover?
This
is
community
consultation,
part
of
that.
C
There
isn't
anything
in
there
about
that
that
I'm
aware
of,
and
I
don't
think
there
is
in
any
of
the
rfcs
either
that
govern
the
ihf
llc.
C
The
the
the
board
may
give
me
stronger
instructions,
but
generally
that's
the
case.
Yes,.
B
Yeah
this
is
peter,
I
not
with
my
editor
hat
on
I
like
having
something
about
a
search
committee
or
a
selection
committee,
or
whatever
we
call
it.
I
think
otherwise
there
could
be
concern
that
you
know
the
llc
executive
director
is
going
to
shoulder
tap
someone
and
you
know
not
have
a
open
process
or
that
kind
of
thing.
So
I
think
specifying
that
we
have
a
search
committee
is
a
good
idea.
A
I
Sorry,
one
of
the
things
that
should
go
here
in
here,
possibly
is
the
pot-
is
the
possible
ability
of
hiring
a
search
firm
specifically
for
this
job,
in
conjunction
with
the
search
committee,
I
it's
still
up
to
the
llc,
but
one
of
the
things
one
of
the
things
that
triggered
all
this
was
the
rsoc
saying.
Well,
we
only
got
one
person
applying
for
the
job
the
last
time
around,
so
I
don't
know.
E
A
C
So
the
the
the
the
point
that
miriam
was
making-
I
understand
so
the
the
word
search
committee-
is
a
little
bit
problematic
here.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
that
it.
What
is
useful
to
me
is
that
it
is
a
group
of
community
people
that
meet
and
choose
the
rsea.
That
is
that's
what's
useful.
C
Yes,
I
would
use
a
search
firm
to
do
that
with
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
attempt
to
do
it
myself,
that's
silly
and
the
the
in
the
way
that
it
happens
so
far
is
that
for
a
role
of
that
level,
the
llc
board
is
the
final
sign
off.
So
I
go
and
say
right.
This
is
the
candidate
that
I
have
you
know
chosen
through
this
process
or
has
been
chosen
through.
C
A
Okay,
I
maybe
we
we
should
fall
back
on
what
we've
done
all
the
way
so
far,
which
is
charge
you
and
and
and
peter
with
constructing
the
text
that
that
does
that,
I
think
that's.
I
think
that
everybody
is
going
that
way.
A
Right,
it's
an
advisory,
it
doesn't
it
it.
It
is
ultimately
llc
has
to
decide
that
they
like
this
they're
paying
for
it.
So
the
committee
advises.
A
Others
we
wanted.
D
I
thought
we
wanted
to
have
a
committee
that
this
we're
not
trying
to
create
an
open
committee
that
everybody
in
the
community
gets
to
give
input
on
every
candidate
and
review
candidates
and
put
together
the
list
of
no
no
that's
a
disaster,
but
we
do
want
jet.
It
helps
jay
to
be
and
the
llc
for
this
to
be
told.
We
expect
you
to
delegate
this
to
a
commit,
a
set
of
people
to
do
a
bunch
of
the
initial
work
that
come
from
the
community
as
representatives,
we
can't
have
the
whole
committee
doing
this
gods.
D
E
It
was
not
what
I
was
asking
for,
but
if
you
actually
want
to
specify
here
that
you
want
a
search
committee,
then
I
think
you
have
to
say
something
about
who
is
supposed
to
be
on
that
committee,
because
you
can
always
have
a
search
committee
and
just
put
like
the
best
three
friends
on
it
and
it
would
not
be
open
at
all
right.
So
that's
not
what
you
want
to
achieve.
B
Yeah
this
is
peter.
I
think
what
I
heard
from
what
jay
was
saying
was
to
address
that
concern.
Media
is
to
say
it's
a
search
committee
formed
from
amongst
the
community.
You
know,
members
of
the
community
that
way
that
we
have
that
community
engagement
as
jay
put
it,
and
that
seems
to
address
the
concern
and
that
I
can
craft
some
text
along
those
lines.
E
I
I
the
trade-off
is
between
confidence
and
openness.
I
would
be
going
for
confidence.
I'd
actually
be
looking
for
specific
people
with
experience
in
the
space
to
be
on
the
slide
on
the
search
committee
and
again,
like
I
said
it
may
be
more,
it
may
make
more
sense
to
go
professional,
the
professional
executive
search
type
of
thing
than
it
is
to
try
and
do
this
as
a
volunteer
effort
yeah.
I
think
I
get
really
nervous
about
trying
to
make
everything
in
this
ietf
a
completely
community
guest
gets
to
touch
everything.
B
A
You're
you're,
muted,
jay.
J
C
Go
the
the
committee
that
I
am
specifically
interested
in
is
the
committee
that
assesses
candidates
brought
from
the
firm
together
with
the
ietf
executive
director
and
which
produces
the
recommended
candidate
at
the
end
of
it,
using
a
search
firm
to
do
that
with
so
that
the
decision
about
who
that
person
is
is
not
solely
an
llc
decision.
C
Given
that
there
are
so
many
community
views
on
what
this
type
of
person
should
be,
that
can,
some
of
which
I'm
sure
can
be
captured
within
the
the
role
definition,
but
many
of
which
are,
you
know
more
visceral
than
that,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
suggesting
that
as
the
way
forward
in
that
type
of
committee.
A
H
All
right,
clearly
I
I
I
what
you're
suggesting
jay
is
that
there
now
should
be
a
text
around
a
committee
in
here
or
and
that
that
is
representative
of
the
community,
or
I
I
mean
I.
I
guess
I
at
one
point
I
think
I
heard
you
say
you
don't
want
the
term
committee
or
this
term
search
committee
there,
but
you
do
want
some
committee.
Can
you
be
just
a
little
more
explicit
for
me?
Sorry.
C
My
preference
is
for
it
to
talk
about
committee,
but
if
it
doesn't,
I'm
happy
for
it
just
to
talk
about
you
know
involving
the
community
and
if
it
I,
I
don't
actually
have
I'm
not.
I
don't
really
mind
what
the
text
is.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
conceptual
understanding
about
what
the
actual
process
will
be.
C
J
G
If
the
llc
did
a
process
where
they
requested
volunteers
for
a
committee
across
the
broad
spectrum
of
communities
interested
in
the
rfc
series
and
then
made
a
selection
of
a
committee,
that
committee
could
then
support
jay
and
I
like
having
it
come
through.
The
llc
since
they're
nom
come
appointed
and
answerable
to
the
community.
F
Rapidly
closing
on
something
here
either.
This
is
good
I've
put
in
some
text
above,
I
noticed
that
elliot's
typing.
Curiously,
there
I've
made
a
recommendation
there,
and
I
changed
that
just
now
to
selection
committee
rather
than
search
committee
to,
I
think,
jay's
feedback
is
good
there.
It
will
use
members
from
the
community
be
responsible,
making
a
recommendation
to
the
llc
for
the
rca
and
they'll
take
into
account
all
the
role,
definitions
and
information
from
the
community
and
the
llc
is
responsible
for
contracting.
E
Miriam
you
jay
for
for
summarizing
this
problem,
because
I
think
I'm
actually
in
the
in
the
second
bucket
here
where
I
think
the
requirements
from
the
community
should
be
super
clear.
But
then
the
details
on
how
these
requirements
are
actually
implemented
is
is
less
important,
and
so
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
the
community
who
actually
is
involved
in
the
selection.
E
As
long
as
the
requirements
from
the
community
are
very
clear
if
the
lsc
who
would
be
responsible
for
selection,
then
decides
they
want
to
have
some
additional
community
members
to
get
more
input
for
their
finance
decision.
You
know
that's
an
implementation
detail
and
they
can
always
do
that,
but
it
also
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
of
overhead
to
me
to
actually
have
a
appointment
process
to
form
a
committee
to
then
appoint
somebody
basically.
A
Lucy
you're
still
on
you
do
you
want
to
say
something
else?
No,
so
I
I
think
we're
heading
in
a
uniform
direction.
Lucy
did
confuse
me
a
little
bit.
I
I
don't
think
lucy
that
you
really
wanted
to
have
a
committee
find
participants,
a
search
committee,
that
I
don't
think
you
were
arguing
for
that.
A
Yes,
all
right,
so
at
this
point
you
have
text
that
that
elliott
has
in
that
window.
You
have
text
in
the
chat
box.
I
think
we
should
give
leave
it
to
you
and
jay
to
take
all
of
that
construct,
something
and
and
propose
it
as
candidate
text
to
include
in
the
in
the
document.
H
Just
I
just
want
to
note
that
I
did
hear
what
I
think
is
two
dissenting
points
of
view
on
this
text.
H
Just
that
we're
clear,
I
think,
miriah,
you
were
just
dissenting
if
I
misunderstood,
unless
I
misunderstood
that
this
this
is,
this
is
sort
of
the
bucket
one
version
and
I
think
joel.
You
were
also
dissenting
from
this
text.
If
I,
unless
I
misunderstood-
and
I
just
want
to
give
you
two
the
opportunity
to
confirm
or
deny
my
understanding.
D
E
A
All
right
we've
done
that,
and
our
next
issue
is.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
brian
and
elliot-
and
I
were
talking
to
try
to
put
together
the
topics,
and
I
think
I
saw
this
as
one
that
impinged
upon
this
whole
topic
of
how
do
we
select
our
the
rca
and
so
on,
and
so
anyway.
I
think
this
is
an
important
topic
to
address
here.
In
this
context,.
I
Rereading
this
I
actually
didn't
realize
this
was
going
to
come
up
today.
I
A
I
I'm
actually
looking
at
this
as
how
the
whole
process
we've
got.
A
lot
of
moving.
We've
got
a
little
bit
a
lot
of
moving
parts.
We've
got
some.
I
We
don't
have
anything
in
there
for
failure
of
the
rswg
that
you
know
it
goes
off
into
never
never
land.
It
would
be.
I
think
we,
I
think,
we've
dealt
with
some
of
this
by
basically
talking
about
the
fact
that
they
have
to
be
paid
for
and
there's
a
process
for
doing
that.
Piece
of
the
evaluation
has
been
being
added
into
this
process.
I
I
Yeah
and
like
I
said,
we
figured
out
what
the
skeleton
is
for
for
what
things
it
basically
provides
some
pushback
against
the
rswg.
Basically
thinking
they
don't
have
a
budget
there
there's
you
know,
there's
a
requirement
there
that
things
get
paid
for
and
there's
a
way
to
make
sure
that
happens,
at
least
for
the
rpc.
I
Do
we
do
we
put
in
the
evaluation
process
for
what
is
the
public
perception,
the
rfc
series
now
and
five
years
from
now?
Do
we
provide
a
do?
We
do
we
have
do
we
make
sure
we
spin
up
an
independent
or
independent
body
that
that
every
five
years
looks
at
what's
been
going
on
and
says,
or
we
spin
this
thing
up
and
go
okay,
let's
look
at,
let's
everybody
who
isn't
involved
in
this.
I
I
F
We
could
engage
with
this
one
and
I
think,
there's
there's
probably
some
fairly
basic
statements
we
could
make
relatively
early
on,
but
I
think
what
mike's
kind
of
looking
for
is
an
agreement
on
something
like
a
mission
statement
or
a
set
of
principles
by
which
the
the
series
as
a
whole
can
be
judged
and
and
the
success
of
the
series
can
be
can
be
judged,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
necessarily
need
to
have
that
as
part
of
a
process
document,
which
is
the
work
that
we're
primarily
doing
here,
but
it
may
be
one
of
the
the
early
deliverables
or
maybe
maybe
a
continuing
bone
of
contention.
F
I
don't
know,
but
certainly
I'd,
consider
this
within
the
scope
of
work
for
for
a
working
group
is
to
sit
down
and
discuss
what
the
principles
are,
that
that
drive
their
work
and
attempt
to
document
those
and
and
capture
those.
Ideally,
what
would
happen
is
that
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time,
some
very
basic
statements
can
be
made
about
what
things
people
agree
on
a
mission
statement.
F
If
you
will
and
and
then
more
work
can
be
done
on
an
ongoing
basis
to
work
through
some
of
the
finer
details
of
that
that
sort
of
thing
there
are
some
very
pragmatic
things
you
could
say
like
the
rfcs
need
to
keep
flowing,
but
I
don't
think
that
that's
that's
really
particularly
helpful
at
the
level
of
being
able
to
make
decisions
about
whether
something
is
good
or
not.
B
I
think
this
is
an
important
topic,
but
I
suggest
we
put
a
pin
in
it
and
not
talk
about
it
in
this
session,
because
we're
kind
of
working
through
these
issues
about
our
ir,
our
sea,
you
know
contracting
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
I
suggest
we
put
an
opinion
for
this
meeting
and
but
come
to
back
to
it
in
a
future
one
and
try
to
get
some
clarity
around
this.
A
G
Peter
just
cut
me
I
I
did,
but
peter
just
got
me
off,
so
I
actually
think
that
this
is
a
question
about
stewardship,
as
opposed
to
funding.
G
A
A
Okay
charter
of
the
working
group-
okay,
that's
a
good
point
all
right!
I
think
we'll
take
peter's
suggestion
and
move
on
to
a
different
topic
and
come
back
to
this
one
and
anybody
wants
to
contribute
text.
Please
contribute
text.
So
where
were
we
that
that
was
49
47
we're
going
to
49.
A
A
A
Do
do
people
think
that
we
ought
to
have
text
in
our
document
that
that
says
that
there's
an
explicit
review
opportunity
for
the
community
on
the
performance
of
the
rca.
A
I
Yeah,
this
was
in
there
when
this
was
in
there,
assuming
this
was
in
there
when
we
were
talking
about
oversight
from
the
rsab
or
the
rswg
on
the
on
the
raca.
I
As
long
as
the
llc
has
has
oversight
on
this
position
and
the
contracts
are
working
their
way
back
through
there,
I
don't
know
that
we
have
to
be
more
yeah.
We've
got
that
section
in
there.
That
really
is
somewhat
problematic,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
that
jay's
gonna
need
to
do
is
actually
throw
it
at
the
at
the
lawyers
and
take
a
look
and
see
what
what
works
there.
But
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that.
I
During
the
heather
thing,
I
was
told
about
a
number
of
comments
that
went
between
the
rs,
our
sock
and
individuals
that
weren't
made
available
to
heather.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
no
surprises
going
forward
with
anybody.
We
managed
to
hire
for
this
role
or
whenever
we're
going
to
get
somebody
in
there
again.
I
If
jay
wants
to
go,
if
jay
wants
to
go
on,
it's
fine,
but
I
mean
this
is
not
a
bad
set
of
things.
All
I'm
saying
is
that,
regardless,
what
gets
collected
it
doesn't
get
thrown
into
the
bucket
of
this
is
a
personal
personnel
issue.
That's
made
available
to
jay,
but
not
many
available
to
the
actual
person.
I
B
C
Something
we
can
document,
and
certainly
the
proposed
text
in
the
in
the
issue
tracker
is
way
too
detailed
and
way
too
constraining
about
that.
I
think
that
there
there
are
times
when
it
is
reasonable
for
somebody
who
gives
feedback
to
expect
anonymity
around
that
feedback
where,
for
example,
we
already
do
that
within
the
nomincon
process
and
that's
well
established,
so
I
don't
think
we
can
exclude
anonymity.
It
has
to
come
down
to
good
management
of
that,
and
I
don't
think
we
can
define
it
better.
A
Is
there
any
anyone
else
who
believes
who
thinks
that
we
need
to
you
know,
provide
additional
texts
in
in
this
section
I
mean
is,
is
mike
on
the
ragged
edge.
A
I
Like
it
like,
I
said,
the
the
it
it
ought
not.
If
I
I
believe
that
the
I
the
the
iad
and
the
the
rsa
b
minus
the
the
rca,
it
should
basically
get
better
and
review
the
comments.
If
there
is
a
an
issue
that's
affecting
the
public,
there
really
ought
to
be
public
commentary.
I
mean
this
is
more
along
the
lines
of
something
like
the
public
comment
period
for
a
radio
station.
I
This
is
this
is
an
organization
that
is
serving
the
public
good
here
and
comments
on
a
particular
issue
ought
to
address,
ought
to
basically
be
something
you
can
say
in
public
rather
than
oh,
you
know
the
rca
was
mean
to
me
and
making
them
public
will
actually
sort
of
focus
people
in
that
space.
E
A
A
I
don't
think
we
need
to
say
that
so
unless
unless
there's
someone
else
here,
I
you
know
and
if
you
have
a
specific
text
proposal
by
all
means,
go
ahead
and
propose
it,
and
we
can
consider
that.
But
I'd
like
to
close
this
issue,
otherwise.
A
J
I
A
J
A
C
So
if
I
can
introduce
your
brand,
so
what
I'm?
What
I'm
looking
for
here
again
is
some
form
of
community
engagement
around
that
the
outcome
of
the
performance
evaluation
process,
and
so
just
looking,
you
know,
as
I've
put
there,
the
community
feedback,
while
often
of
high
quality
may
be
potentially
biased
or
incomplete,
and
so
just
putting
in
some
form
of
community
check
around
that,
and
given
that
this
is
confidential,
trying
to
find
a
mechanism.
You
know
a
group
that
this
can
go
to
confidentiality
confidentially.
Who
can
be
to
do
that?
A
Okay,
let's
first
ask
do:
do
we
agree
with
this?
Is
this
the
reasonable
that
this
notion
a
reasonable
anyone,
don't
thinks
that
this
is
not
a
reasonable
thing
to
do.
H
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
it's
not
clear
that
if,
if
the
text
is
really
that
the
rsab
will,
let
me
just
understand
what
we're
saying
the
rsa
is
to
be
the
review
board
for
for
community
feedback
for
confidential
community
feedback
or
for
all
communities
feedback.
I'm
just
trying
to
understand.
A
H
A
Then
the
llc
produces
a
document
which
is
what
it
believed
is
the
performance
evaluation
of
the
rsea,
which
is
confidential,
shares
that
with
rsab
and
gets
their
feedback
on
that
confidential
performance
of
overall
performance
evaluation
that
had
community
input
and
then,
with
that
resp
that
feedback
from
the
rsab
the
llc
makes
a
decision
on
what
to
do.
I
get
that
right.
Jay.
C
C
So
two
is
actually
a
draft
performance
evaluation
or
a
you
know,
a
everything
so
far
the
rsab
gets
the
chance
to
add.
You
know
challenge
whatever
do
those
bits
on
that
and
it
says
in
the
in
my
text
the
rsa
b,
excluding
the
rsca.
He
does.
C
J
On
technical
documents,
which
is
that
there's
a
last
call,
it's
public
a
document
the
document
gets
produced
by
by
inviting
sponsoring
a
d,
the
iab
can
take
input
directly
from
individuals
and
confidence
with
regard
to
the
risk
community
issue.
Rather
they
put
in
confidence
with
and
then
and
then
feed
that
back
and
makes,
and
some
decisions
happen
with
the
only
difference
being
the
llc
makes.
The
final
decision
is
that
a
correct.
J
A
Jay
sounds
like
it.
It
sounds
like
just
what
what
what
elliott
wrote.
A
Without
horrible
contributions
step,
one
community
feedback
step,
two
llc
produces
draft
performance
goes
to
the
rsa,
goes
to
the
rsab.
Ricb
provides
feedback
on
that
draft
to
the
llc,
and
the
llc
makes
a
decision.
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
The
draft
as
the
llc
does,
okay-
actually
it
says
the
ed
does
right.
That's
the
current
text.
A
All
right,
we
will
construct
text
that
reflects
these
three
steps
and
then
see
where
we
are
with
that
text.
A
That's
where
we're
going
all
right.
So
there
was
a
question
of
whether
25
item
25
is
in
this
bucket
of
rsca
management.
You
want
to
look
at
that
and
decide
25.
B
Yeah,
that's
about
the
that's
about
the
srw,
which
that
this
is
one
of
the
older
issues
that
doesn't
have
a
clear
explanation.
Really,
so
I'm
kind
of
curious
it
seems
like
it
might
relate.
But
I
defer
to
elliott
since
he's
the
one
to
type
that
one
in.
H
Oh,
look:
I'm
actually
not
muted,
okay,
so
yeah
there,
there
isn't
a
lot
here.
I
I
basically
copied
this
down.
I
think
it
was
probably
this
part.
It
was.
I
think
this
really
came
from
mike
actually,
but
I
did
a
such
a
piss-poor
job
of
of
documenting
it
that
unless
mike
you
you'd
like
to
to
elaborate
on
this,
maybe
we
close
and
if
you
want
to
open
another
issue,
that's
fine
mike.
Why
don't
you
take
a
shot?
Because
I
think
that
I
I
was
aiming
this
based
on
some
feedback
from
you.
H
I
This
is
just
a
simple
question.
This
is
just
a
simple
question
in
when
we
hired
john,
the
statement
of
work
was
written
by
the
rsoc
with
public
input
and
ended
up
being
about
80
of
the
text.
I
provided
by
the
time
all
was
said
and
done
prior
to
that
it
was.
It
was
done
by
the
i8
by
various
iab
members,
and
then
I
guess
with
the
input
of
the
lawyers
and
then
finally,
finally,
the
iaoc
at
the
time,
but
then
had
to
be
vetted
by
isak.
I
So
there's
this
new
model
does
the
does
the
llc
write
it
and
jay
is
going?
No,
no,
no,
no,
no!
No,
even
though
he
can't
see
him
but
putting
it
in
and
actually
having
a
plan
for
writing.
The
statement.
Work
for
the
for
the
raca
is
actually
kind
of
important.
If
we
want
to
get
actually
get
this
done
in
less
than
five
years.
K
C
The
the
level
of
detail
that
we
are
going
through
in
this
process
actually
goes
a
long
way
towards
understanding
what
that
statement
of
work
should
be
so
you
know
yeah,
I'm.
If
you'd
asked
me
some
weeks
ago,
I
would
have
gone
no,
no,
no!
No!
No!
Now
I'm
okay!
Yes,
the
llc
can
do
it
and
circulate
it
or
consultation
with
the
community,
as
martin
suggested.
I
H
All
right
so
we'll
add
that
in
and
I'm
just
gonna
suggest
I'll
mark
that
as
text
needed,
so
that
peter
that's
your
your
hint
that
we
have
some
sort
of
text
here.
Yep.
A
H
Like
that
one
for
today,
yeah
we
did
have
so
we
do
have
one
more
thing
that
I
just
want
to
mention,
which
is,
I
believe,
the
the
chairs
have
discussed
with
peter
trying
to
the
the
tempo
by
which
the
document
would
be
updated,
and
I
think
we
were
talking
about
monthly.
H
B
Yeah
with
my
document,
editor
hat
on
what
I
have
seen
working
well
so
far
for
us
is
that
we
have
an
interim
meeting
or
we
have
a
meeting
like
this
text
gets
crafted
shared
on
the
list.
We
have
discussion
and
then
so
maybe
you
know
then,
a
week
or
two
before
the
next
enter
a
meeting.
I
publish
a
updated
version
of
the
document.
H
H
All
right,
just
on
one
issue:
brian,
are
you
okay?
If
we
just
briefly
dip
into
one
last
issue,
which
is
there
was
the
delegate
discussion
that
we
just
finished
that
we
just
had
some
commentary
on
list.
H
We
can
probably
knock
this
one
off
because
I
think
we
saw
what
I
thought
was
emerging
consensus
sure.
Are
you
go.
H
So
I'll
just
introduce
where
I
think
things
are,
which
is
that
the
text
that
I
saw
fly
by
was
that
the
the
appointing
bodies
or
the
the
will
will
set
their
own
policies
for
how
delegates
are
how
they
are
represented
in
terms
of
appointing
and
withdrawing
their
their
delegates.
H
B
I
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
mostly
fine.
I
think
there
will
be
a
couple
of
things
that
won't
be
delegatable
and
we
should-
and
we
may
want
to
indicate
that
in
the
document,
but
what
I
was
actually
thinking
about
was
the
one
we've
just
been
discussing,
which
was
the
evaluation
process.
I
H
Yeah,
let
me
just
see
if,
if
we
can
be
clear
on
the
on
what's
being
proposed,
because
I
think
what's
being
proposed-
is
that,
for
instance,
the
ietf
or
the
iesg
representing
the
itf,
however,
they
define
their
processes
or
the
iap,
for
instance,
could
at
any
moment,
based
on
their
processes,
withdraw
the
current
representative
and
insert
a
new
one
and
do
so
as
as
early
and
as
often
as
their
processes
allow
them
to
do
so.
I.
L
People,
I
guess
country
review
that
seems
like
over
engineering
this.
I
think
that
the
the
fundamental
purpose
of
this
equal
is
to
represent
the
this,
represent
the
bodies
that
appointed
them
and
that
guys
want
to
swap
them
at
any
more
or
less
anytime.
They
can,
and
I
think
the
usual
social
pressure
will
stop
them
from
swapping
them
on
a
daily
basis.
D
Joel,
thank
you.
I
I
think
I'm
going
to
agree
with
slightly
different
wording
with
ecker.
That
is,
I
can't
come
up
with
any
sensible
way
to
constrain
the
bodies
on
what
they
who
they
appoint
when
they
appoint
when
they
reappoint.
H
Yeah,
okay,
so
mike,
are
you
okay
with
that
as
well
for
the
moment
and
put
it
another
way?
Let's
allow
the
the
pro
this
text
until
they
do
blow
it,
and
if
we
have
to
add
more
process,
we
add
more
process
later.
Does
that
work
for
you.
H
Yes,
okay,
all
right,
very
good!
Excellent!
Let
me
just
mark
that,
so
we
have
more
text
needed,
but
the
text
is
pretty
much
right
there
and
peter.
I
think
you
have
enough
to
work
with
right.
A
Sorry,
yes,
so
we're
we're
heading
to
the
top
of
the
hour.
So
I
think
that's
a
great
place
to
stop.
We've
we've
run
through
all
of
our
major
items.
A
A
So
look
for
the
doodle
poll
to
show
up
very
soon
anything
else.
People
want
to
talk
about
aob.
H
H
A
Yeah,
I
would
have
said
exactly
that.
I,
the
the
the
speed
at
which
we're
closing
items
and
and
not
opening
up
too
many
in
the
process,
is,
is
heartening
and
is
definitely
an
improvement
over
what
we
were
seeing
not
too
long
ago
and
as
always,
thanks
to
peter
for
taking
on
all
this
work
appreciate
it
anything
else.
H
Thanks
to
our
note
takers,
this
time
around,
let's
see
here
who
do
we
have
doing
note-taking
right
now,
I
I
have
lost
track,
but
I
know
we
had
someone
and
martin
earlier,
and
so
thank
you
to
both
thanks
to
both
of
you,
and
we
will
see
you
on
the
list
jared
thanks
jared.
Thank
you.
D
A
D
A
K
Bye,
bye,
oh
hey,
elliot.