►
From YouTube: IETF114 GENDISPATCH 20220727 1730
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Oh
wait,
which
slides
are
you
referring
to
the
dow,
no
I'll
I'll,
make
sure
that
we
get
those
if
they
haven't
I'll,
make
sure
christy
knows
about
that.
A
Yeah,
just
put
it
in
as
a
request,
and
you
know
on
the
meeting
materials
and
we'll
approve
them
in
that
way.
I
can
share
them
easy.
A
That
ted,
yes,
I
was
speaking
to
lars
off
mike,
so
I
will
be
more
careful
about
aiming
to
the
mic.
When
I
mean
to
speak.
A
A
A
All
right
welcome
to
gen
dispatch
for
itf
114.
I
am
pete
resnick
kirsty
payne
is
out
in
remote
land.
For
this
particular
one.
B
A
So
kirsty
will
be
taking
notes.
I
posted
the
notes
url
in
the
chat.
Please
go
and
join
her
if
you
would
and
fill
in
any
details,
if
you
hear
them
that
she
does
not,
that's
always
helpful,
and
we
have
the
note
well,
you
should
all
by
wednesday
know
this
stuff,
but
by
participating
here
you
are
agreeing
to
the
ietf
policies
and
procedures.
A
A
You
need
to
be
aware
that
by
participating,
there
are
lots
of
rules
regarding
patents
and
patent
applications
that
are
controlled
or
owned
by
you
or
your
sponsor
and
you're
going
to
have
to
disclose
such
patents.
If
those
become
an
issue,
if
you
don't
want
to
do
that,
you
should
probably
not
participate.
A
A
If
you
are
in
the
room
physically
here,
please
do
either
use
the
qr
code
there
or
find
the
agenda
page,
and
please
do
log
into
the
light
meetup
echo
session.
At
least
you
may
use
the
full
meat
echo
session.
If
you
like,
for
everybody
remote,
they
will
have
done
so
already,
but
that
way
you
can
put
yourself
in
the
queue
for
raising
hands
and
then
you
become
part
of
the
blue
sheets.
A
Please
do
that
if
you
are
remote,
please
make
sure
to
use
headphones
and
mute
yourself
appropriately
in
between
speaking
and
not
and
try
not
to
turn
on
your
video
unless
you
are
speaking
a
bunch
of
links.
If
you
look
at
the
meeting
materials
link
on
the
agenda
page,
you
can
download
this
stuff
and
find
all
the
documents
we're
using
and
contact
either
of
your
chairs.
A
A
So
please
get
your
name
into
lars.
Help
would
be
very
much
appreciated.
A
A
reminder
of
the
gen
dispatch
process,
gen
dispatch,
recommends
next
steps
for
new
work.
I
hear
some
noises
in
the
background
is
that
okay,
just
checking
gen
dispatch,
recommends
next
steps
for
new
work.
We
do
not
adopt
drafts
ourself.
A
We
do
not
do
work
on
drafts
in
this
room
except
to
discuss
them
slightly,
so
we
understand
how
to
dispatch
them.
The
possible
outcomes
include
directing
to
an
existing
working
group
proposing
a
new
focused
working
group
asking
for
ad
sponsorship.
If
the
ad
in
question
is
willing
and
able,
additional
discussion
or
community
development
might
be
required,
and
we
might
ask
for
that
before
further
dispatch
or
we
might
decide
to
dispatch
to
the
trash
can,
as
in
the
ietf,
should
not
take
on
this
topic.
A
Please,
when
you
get
up
to
the
mic
state
your
name,
I
will
try
and
remember
to
introduce
you
from
the
cue
list,
but
if
I
do
not,
please
do
state
your
name,
keep
the
dispatch
questions
in
mind.
When
you
make
your
comments,
we
don't
need
to
comment
on
the
direct.
You
know
knits
and
pieces
of
the
proposal,
but
whether
we
should
do
something
with
it
and
if
so,
what
and
please
keep
your
comments
reasonably
brief?
We
don't
have
a
very
long
session.
A
A
A
Lars
is
going
to
talk
to
updating
the
dow.
Then
we're
going
to
have
some
discussion
about
namco
eligibility,
but
martin
won't
be
doing
that.
I
will
because
there
have
been
some
changes
afoot
even
this
week
on
that
topic
and
then
we'll
have
a
conclusion
and
summarize
what
we
need
to
summarize
any
further
things.
If
there
is
time
at
the
end,
obviously,
we'll
have
other
business.
If
people
want
to
bring
it
up,
are
there
any
agenda?
Bashes
that
need
to
happen?
A
The
stairs
and
your
computer
screens
are
delightful.
Then
the
next
step
will
be.
Let
me
get
lars's
slides
up.
A
C
This
was
off
now,
it's
on.
My
name
is
lars
eggert
and
I'm
the
itf,
germany
general
area
id,
and
I
have
two
topics.
First
of
one,
is
how
we're
going
to
go
about
updating
the
dao
in
the
future.
The
dial
used
to
be
an
rfc.
Can
you
go
next
slide
the
tahoe,
so
the
screen
down
here
has
a
curtain
that
makes
you
can't
read
the
corners
which
is
kind
of
cute,
so
the
the
dao
was
published
as
an
rfc
up
until
2006.
C
I
guess
there
have
been
five.
Thank
you
five
revisions,
six
revisions
at
a
time,
and
then
we
decided
that
that
was
too
heavy
way
to
process,
and
instead
we
decided
we're
going
to
publish
it
as
a
web
page
and
we
published
rfc
6722
to
describe
how
we're
going
to
do
that
and
the
intent
was
to
have
more
rapid
updates
to
the
dao
that
started
out
well
in
2012
we
had
three
revisions,
but
then
it
sort
of
slowed
again
and
by
now
we've
had
done
two
more.
C
So
if
you
look
at
the
the
counts,
it's
not
significantly
improved
our
rate
of
updates
to
the
dao,
and
so
this
is
an
opportunity
for
a
different
process.
I
think,
but
it's
also
the
opportunity
for
a
broader
discussion
about.
Maybe
what
do
we
want?
The
dow
to
be
next
slide.
C
So
there's
a
bunch
of
processes
with
what
6722
says
we
should
do
and
I'm
gonna,
I
put
them
in
an
email
a
while
ago.
I'm
gonna
list
them
here,
but
first,
although
the
dao
is
published
as
a
web
page
now,
revisions
still
require
isg
approval
and
the
isg
reviews
and
approves
many
documents,
and
we
use
the
data
tracker
for
that.
But
the
dollar
revisions
don't
live
in
the
data
tracker,
so
they're
really
hard
to
track
and
approve
in
a
timely
manner.
C
If
you
overload
it
like,
we
all
are,
and
it
would
be
overkill,
I
think,
to
add
bespoke
tooling
to
the
data
tracker
just
to
deal
with
our
revisions
and
craig
guy's
questions
for
community
is.
Does
the
isg
really
need
to
review
these
dollar
revisions?
Would
it
be
better
or
easier
if
somebody
else
did
so
we'll
see
next
slide?
C
Another
problem
is
that
old
data
revisions
are
still
available
as
rfcs,
because
we
never
change
them
and
unpublish
them,
and
that
means
they
get
indexed
by
search
engines
and
people
cite
them
because
people
like
to
cite
proper
documents
over
web
pages,
especially
like
when
they
write
articles
and
things,
and
so
you
know
these
old
revisions
don't
seem
to
die,
which
is
a
little
bit
of
a
problem,
because
the
contents
of
the
tower
change
next
slide,
then
rfc
6722
is
pretty
prescriptive.
C
It
has
a
process
that
again
includes
some
urls
and
instructs
the
isg
exactly
how
it
needs
to
sort
of
go
about
publishing,
updates
and
then
it
also
talks
about
how
you
archive
the
dao
and
again
it's
the
url
scheme,
so
it
seems
it
might
have
made
sense
at
the
time
we
published
this
10
years
ago.
These
days,
this
sort
of
restricts
us
a
little
bit
in
how
we
run
the
web
front
end.
C
So
we
might
want
to
change
that
and
give
the
operations
people
a
bit
more
flexibility
next
slide,
so
personal
view
for
what
we
could
do
here
right
and
basically,
there's
sort
of
two
broad
categories.
In
my
mind,
if
there's
a
desire
that
the
isg
continue
review
dar
revisions,
it
would
be
awfully
nice
if
we
could
like
publish
them
as
rfcs
again.
So
we
can
use
the
regular
process
in
the
data
tracker
to
manage
that
review
and
approval.
C
A
D
E
Document
enthusiast,
I
guess
so
first
point:
yes,
I'm
somewhat
horrified
to
see
in
2021
http
only
urls,
like
some
point
like
yeah.
My
browser
is
about
to
stop
allowing
those
at
some
point
so
yeah,
that's
being
this
prescriptive
makes
absolutely
no
sense
in
this
day
and
age.
So
I
fully
agree
with
you
lars.
That's
some
that
doesn't
need
to
be
this
strictly
specified
like
no
one's
gonna,
actually
follow
you
or
like
no
one
discovers
the
dao
by
looking
at
an
rc.
E
That
tells
you
what
the
process
for
the
dao
is,
if
someone's
doing
that,
they're,
not
the
target
audience
of
the
dao.
But
then
my
second
point
is
on
this
discoverability
and
target
audience.
I
kind
of
think
of
the
dao
as
the
decodering
of
the
itf.
E
But
then
I'm
very
confused
because
I
don't
know
much
about
taoism
and
why
is
our
decoder
ring
has
a
name
that
needs
to
be
decoded
itself.
It
would
be
nice
if
we
had
this
like
front
and
center
on
with
a
name
that
is
useful,
that
people
can
understand
what
it
is.
I
know
that
the
dao
was
a
cute
name
back
in
the
day,
but
if
our
goal
of
this
document
is
to
help,
newcomers
understand
how
we
are,
maybe
a
rename
could
be
useful.
F
My
now
after
david's
comment,
mine
can
be
very
short
closer
to
the
mic.
Please
now
that
david
has
spoken,
mine
can
be
very
short.
I
agree
with
that
last
bit
of
david's
that
we
should
be
targeting
this
to
beginners
at
the
ietf
and
focus
it
differently.
G
Thank
you
very
much,
pete
jim
reads.
I
think
we
need
to
keep
publishing
this
as
an
rfc
because,
as
you
said
lars,
this
is
how
people
make
reference
to
the
style
of
documents
and
so
on.
I
think
it
would
be
a
key
if
we
ended
up
having
that
being
referenced
through
a
url
or
something
like
that.
I'm
also
now
keen
on
the
idea
of
sticking
stuff
in
github.
As
far
as
the
review
process
is
concerned,
I
agree
an
ieg
review
is
overkill,
so
I
would
maybe
suggest
that
the
chair
of
the
ietf
does
that?
C
H
I
I
I
don't
think
the
isg
needs
to
review
something
that's
overkill.
I
would
personally
like
to
see
this
on
github
and
publish
just
as
a
web
page,
and
I
think
it's
again
the
comments
that
barry
and
others
have
made,
that
the
focus
of
this
should
be
to
newcomers
and
I
think,
trying
to
target
this
or
even
a
collection
of
pages
more
towards
that
is
better.
I
I
find
this
hard
to
read.
I
didn't
read
all
this.
When
I
came
to
the
itf
and
I've
managed,
I
know
I
know
other
people
have
done
the
same
thing.
A
All
right,
ecker,
you're
next.
J
Yeah,
I
guess
I'd
like
to
disentangle
two
questions,
one,
what
we
have
to
apply
to
newcomers
and
two
what
the
fate
of
this
artifact
ought
to
be.
This
artifact
is
not
appropriate
for
the
current
era.
J
Like
many
finances
and
knitters
is
like.
I
understand
people
are
attached
to
our
history
and
like
for
the
dow
to
continue
to
like
document
those
historical
arcana
and
our
history
like
it's,
a
fantastic
is
like
it's
like
good.
I've
read
john
peterson's
books
on
dnd.
I
enjoy
them.
This
can
serve
that
same
purpose,
but
for
the
purpose
of
bringing
in
newcomers.
You
need
something
else,
and
so
I'd
like
to
decouple
those
two
questions.
J
I
think
it's
fine
for
the
dow
to
continue
to
be
and
some
something
that
is
published
by
publishers
in
rfc
and
that
is
reviewed
by
isg
and
people
who
think
that
that
kind
of
history
is
important
or
attached
to
it
and
feel
that
feel
like
that's.
An
important
thing
to
work
on
should
continue
to
do
so,
but
we
should
produce
a
separate
set
of
artifacts
which
are
targeted
at
newcomers
that
bring
them
to
speed
quickly
and
the
way
that
people
now
expect
and
like
that
is
web
pages.
J
It's
videos,
it's
tutorials,
it's
like
all
the
material
you
go
if
you
like.
If
you
want
to
learn
how
to
use
like
you
know,
if
you
want
to
learn
how
to
like
deploy
something
on
cloudflare
or
fastly
like
that
or
like
learn
how
to
write
node
code
right,
there's
like
tutorials,
you
can
read
that
and
that's
the
kind
of
stuff
material
you
need,
and
we
should
like,
engage
people
on
how
to
write
the
material
and
we
should
put
it
out
on
our
website.
A
Thanks
don
easley
you're
up.
H
K
He's
like
from
future
way
technologies.
I
guess
I
wanted
to
endorse
at
least
periodic
publication
as
an
rfc-
and
I
don't
know
I'm
fine
with
reorganizing
things
so
that
it's
more
top-down
and
has
less
discursive
stuff
throughout,
but
more
of
the
stuff.
You
need
most
urgently
near
the
beginning
of
the
document
and
stuff
and
things
like
that.
But
I
I'm
in
favor
of
solid
permanent
written
documentation,
and
maybe
people
who
are
are
likely
to
be
successful
in
the
itf
can't
absorb
that
kind
of
stuff.
C
So,
hang
on,
I've
got
a
follow-up
question
to
you
and
there
was
somebody
else
at
the
same
idea.
So
can
we
talk
a
little
bit
how
that
would
work
in
practice
right?
So,
if
you'd
like
say
to
do
an
rfc
every
three
years,
would
we
then,
in
the
meantime,
allow
the
editors
to
push
things
to
the
web
page
without
review
by
the
isg
and
then.
K
And
hopefully,
after
three
years,
the
ietf
reviews
going
through
the
isg,
but
I
I
think
that
maybe
this
working
group
review-
I
don't
know
somebody
else-
can
review
in
the
meantime.
But.
K
A
Thanks
don
dave,
schnazzy
again.
E
Is
me
again
web
enthusiast
now?
First,
I
really
want
to
agree
with
ecker
like
I
brought
three
three
newcomers
with
me
to
this
meeting.
E
I
didn't
tell
them
to
read
the
dao
first
because,
like
kecker
says,
it
is
somewhat
inscrutable
so
having
a
better
format.
That
is
what
people
expect
is
what
we
should
do,
because
we
should
meet
people
where
they
are.
If
we're
looking
to
have
more
newcomers,
which
I
personally
believe
we
are.
E
So
that
said,
if
some
folks
feel
strongly
that
this
should
be
an
rfc
well,
the
correct
solution
would
be
a
mutable
I've
seen
but
I'll
avoid
the
third
rail
over
there
then
yeah
just
have
a
thing
that
takes
the
website,
turns
it
into
text
and
then
have
the
ise
publish
it
at
once
a
year
like
get
rid
of
as
much
process
as
you
can.
A
Thanks
and
I'm
going
to
close
the
queue
in
just
a
moment,
so
please
add
yourself
now,
if
you
want
to
get
on
the
the
bandwagon
here,
we
should
have
plenty
of
time
andrew
campaign.
L
Sorry
is
that
better?
Yes,
thanks
yeah,
so
pick
you
up
under
the
number
of
points
I
I
agree.
I
think,
with
what
ekka
said
about
the
naming
and
so
on,
that
could
usefully
be
modernized
to
make
it
more
obvious
what
it's
actually
for
the
process
seems
not
fit
for
purpose.
L
L
So
to
be
honest,
if
it
only
needed
to
be
updated
five
times,
the
process
is
almost
irrelevant,
even
though
it
does
feel
not
fit
for
purpose,
assuming
that
it
will
be
updated
more
frequently
if
the
process
was
different,
then
so
tying
it
back
to
an
rfc
may
be
updated
every
three
years
to
catch
up,
but
empowering
someone
to
sort
of
manage
the
the
page
in
the
meantime
would
seem
like
a
good
way
of
doing
it,
and
maybe,
since
it's
mainly
for
newcomers,
I
would
suggest
perhaps
putting
under
the
responsibility
of
emodia
as
a
working
group
to
just
keep
oversight
of
the
content
in.
C
Like
a
good
solution,
didn't
say
that
on
the
slides,
there
is
an
editor
team
for
the
dao
that
is
sort
of
maintaining
it
and,
and
they
are
at
least
sort
of
cross,
reviewing
each
other's
changes,
and
I
think
it's
been
done
in
github
now
in
a
way
that
isn't
congruent
with
6722,
but
that
also
allows
the
community
to
see
the
proposed
changes
and
weigh
in,
and
recently
that's
had
has
happened
more
frequently.
So
we
have
that
team
and
I
didn't
mention
it.
M
Yeah
me,
I
could
even
so
actually
one
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
about
this
like
if
they
need
to
update
and
yes,
there
is
a
need,
because
it
outdates
very
quickly,
there's
things
that
are
changing
and
just
like
not
correct
anymore,
but
on
the
other
hand,
no
there's
no
need,
because
it
doesn't
seem.
Anybody
actually
cares
about
it
so
and
and
like
this
is
really
not
the
right
document
for
newcomers.
There's
very
little
information.
That's
helpful
for
newcomers.
M
When
I
was
a
newcomer,
the
only
information
that
I
got
out
of
this
is
that
I
don't
have
to
wear
a
suit,
which
was
very
helpful,
but
it's
a
very
long
document
for
that,
and
I
agree
with
ekka
it's
not
in
the
right
format
that,
like
the
information,
is
easily
accessible.
So
this
idea
this
is
for
newcomers.
We
should
just
like
completely
forget
about
it.
So
what's
that
what's
the
top
down
for,
I
don't
know,
I'm
like.
M
I
also
feel
sad
about
this,
getting
rid
of
it
because
it's
part
of
our
tradition,
it's
part
of
our
culture,
but
on
the
other
hand,
we
will
never
get
rid
of
it,
because
it's
it's
published
as
an
rfc,
and
even
it's
if
it's
like
historic
or
obsoleted
or
whatever
it
will
be
around
people
keep
eating
it,
so
it
will
be
there
forever.
I
think
we
should
just
do
nothing
and
forget
about
it.
A
And
just
to
say,
georgios,
you
don't
have
to
stand
there.
You
can't
take
one
of
the
seats,
we'll
we'll
call.
I
swear
I'll
call.
N
Jim
fenton
you're
up
next
hi,
jim
fenton,
I
think,
there's
actually
at
least
two
issues
here.
One
is
the
the
structure
of
the
document
or
what
it
says
and-
and
you
know,
is
it
like
one
long
piece
of
text
like
it
is
currently
or
do
we
break
it
up
into
pieces
or
somehow
make
it
friendlier
and
easier?
I
think
ecker
had
a
lot
of
great
points
on
that
and
then
there's
the
other
question
of
how
we
do
configuration
control
on
it.
N
It
seems
to
me
like
something
github
or
something
of
that
sort
is
very
well
suited
to
doing
this.
You
you
keep
the
history,
you
it.
It
accommodates.
You
know
breaking
it
up
into
a
bunch
of
pieces
that
link
to
each
other
and
so
forth.
So
I
would.
I
would
recommend
that
we
might
possibly
want
to
publish
one
more
rfc
that
just
you
know,
supersedes,
or
you
know,
updates
the
the
the
latest
one
that
was
published.
That
says.
N
Go
look,
go
look
here
instead
of
in
instead
of
for
this
text
directly,
just
so
that
we
have
something
that
people
can
reference.
Although,
honestly,
I
think
we
should
be
focusing
on
trying
to
make
the
the
document
as
useful
as
possible
to
participants
and
if
somebody
wants
to
reference
it
fine,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
really
have
to
focus
on
that.
O
Dkg
hi.
I
want
to
echo
what
everybody
else
is
saying
about
this,
not
being
appropriate
for
newcomers
for
the
class
of
basically
all
newcomers
who
might
come
to
the
itf.
I
read
the
dao
when
I
started
coming
here.
O
You
know
I
thought
it
was
interesting,
but
people
shouldn't
have
to
there
was
a
comment
made
earlier
that
people
who
don't
have
the
time
or
the
patience
to
read
this
kind
of
document
won't
do
well
at
the
ietf,
which
makes
it
sound
like
this
is
some
sort
of
hazing
ritual,
and
I
don't
I
don't
like
hazing.
O
I
think
I
mean
I
I
enjoyed
reading
it
myself,
but
I
don't
like
hazing
and
I
I
have
to
agree
with
jim-
that
we
should
publish
a
tombstone
that
points
towards
something
that
emo
der
can
keep
up.
To
date.
That's
actually
focused
towards
the
tasks
that
newcomers
want
to
do
and
is
indexed
in
a
way,
that's
accessible
to
people
who
are
not
greybeards.
P
Thank
you
not
actually
vertical,
so
yeah.
Q
P
Pretty
much
agree
with
myria
and
ecker
and
others
that
a
lot
of
work
went
into
this
document.
It
was
marvelous
in
its
time,
but
that
time
I
think,
possibly
passed
10
years
ago,
that
just
to
break
down
some
of
the
problems
with
it,
because
I
think
people
may
not
necessarily
understand
it
the
tone.
The
way
it's
written
you,
the
newcomer,
is
actually
quite
divisive
in
that
it's
full
of
things.
P
That
say
you
might
think
this,
but
no
actually
we
do
this,
which
makes
me
want
to
run
to
reach
out,
and
you
know
each
time
I
hear
that
one,
it's
strangely
enough,
it's
a
reference
from
some
stuff.
That
is
nowhere
else.
It's
the
only
place
that
tells
us
how
what
the
dots
are
on
people's
badges.
P
P
I
would
not
want
to
lose
what
people
think
is
important
in
here,
the
folklore
and
other
things.
I
would
not
want
to
lose
the
community
input
into
these
things.
Those
are
vital,
so
whatever
structures
we
create
going
forwards
are
useful
but
basic,
well,
newcomers
guides
and
taking
things
forward.
I
I
would
I
I
to
be
entirely
honest
with
you.
I
cringe.
Whenever
we
tell
a
newcomer
to
look
at
the
dow,
it's
going
to
put
them
off
more
than
it's
actually
going
to
help
them,
and
so
I
really
like
us
to
take
a
different
approach.
There.
A
Thanks
and
and
feel
better
martin
duke.
Q
Martin,
duke
google
and
enthusiast
for
the
iesg
having
less
work
self-interestedly
so
number
one
plus
one
to
the
keep
it
as
a
cultural
artifact,
don't
use
it
for
newcomers,
but
the
the
two,
the
two
I
think
new
points
I'd
like
to
make
is
number
one.
I
don't
think
it's
an
actual
like
metric,
how
frequently
this
is
updated
and
it's
not
a
problem
that
hasn't
been
updated
in
x
years.
Q
If
it's
fine,
it's
fine,
especially
if
it's
just
the
cultural
artifact,
and
the
second
thing
is
regarding
iesu
review
like
it's
an
informational
document,
so
you
just
need
one
yes
ballot
to
make
it
to
to
move
it
forward.
So
it's
I
mean,
as
an
isg
member,
I
wouldn't
necessarily
feel
compelled
to
review
this
document.
Q
If
I
didn't
care,
which
is,
I
guess,
the
status
quo
of
which
is
the
case
for
either
like
not
rc
versus
rsc,
and
given
your
points
about
just
the
ease
of
using
the
tracker
and
all
that,
why
not
make
it
an
rfc
just
to
just
to
simplify
the
paperwork
without
actually
causing
any
more
work
for
the
isg
thanks.
R
I
have
a
some
ideas
on
on
what
could
happen.
For
example,
if
you
look
at
other
sdos,
there
are
articles
of
associations
that
are
very
important
for
a
certain
sdo.
The
tao
is
not
hasn't.
You
could
not
consider
it
to
be
in
the
same
category,
but
there
are
some
topics
like
you
know,
the
operation
of
the
work
group
and
working
group
and
the
chairs,
and
all
these
things
that
are
somehow
formalizing
the
way
of
how
the
process
in
groups
and
the
leadership
of
the
groups
are.
R
R
A
hard
time
hearing
you
yeah,
so
there
are
two
types
of
information
one
of
these
for
informal
for
you
know
for
newcomers,
but
other
one
other
information,
that's
more
formal,
so
I
don't
know
if
there
is
a
way
to
to
to
make
the
selection
and
for
the
informal
you
know,
inform
for
the
information
that
is
only
used
you
know
by
by
newcomers.
I
don't
know
I
agree
with
with
media
and
jay,
but
for
the
formal
one
we
maybe
we
should
think
fair
further,
but.
C
There
isn't
anything
formal
in
this
document,
because
it's
an
informational
document,
so
nothing
in
it
carries
any
weight
when
it
comes
to
the
standards
process.
It
might
explain
things
slightly
differently,
but
24
18
is
the
thing
that
that
matters
when
it
comes
to
working
groups
in
2026,
obviously
for
the
overall
process.
A
Thanks
west.
S
Europe
yep,
I
I
find
it
interesting
that
a
lot
of
people
that
aren't
newcomers
are
standing
up,
saying
that
the
document's
not
useful,
because
they're
no
longer
newcomers
to
a
large
extent.
You
know
there
are
oddities
in
it.
I
will
say
that
it
is
too
long.
There
are.
Certainly
it
could
be
trimmed
the
fat
could
be,
you
know,
trimmed.
We
could
make
it
a
better
document.
I
think
it's
up
to
you
know
emodure,
to
figure
out
how
to
fix
it.
S
That
being
said
with
my
guides
head
on,
we
refer
every
newcomer
to
it
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
people
saying
it's
a
useful
document,
so
you
know
I'm
not.
There
seems
to
be
a
discrepancy
between
this
between
the
people
that
have
been
around
a
long
time
saying
whether
it's
useful
and
the
newcomers
that
have
told
me
hey
that's
a
useful
document,
but
it's
you
know
too
long.
I
think
a
rewrite
is
definitely
an
order.
S
Karen
waking
up
karen
karen
hello,
I
I
will
say
that
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
should
do
is
on
the
thursday
newcomer
feedback
session.
Ask
how
many
people
read
it
and
get
their
feedback
on
it.
I
think
that
would
be
valuable
data
and
I
think
that
we
can
take
on
you
know
doing
that
as
well,
but
please
don't
get
rid
of
it,
because
I
need
something
to
point
to
it's:
it's.
S
T
Hi
it's
peter
from
desec,
so
essentially
I
agree
with
wes
and
I'm
quite
new
to
the
itf.
I
would
say
I
don't
know
a
bit
more
than
a
year
and
I
did
read
the
tower
and
I
did
find
it
quite
useful.
So
I
don't
know,
perhaps
it
could
be
a
little
bit
more
concise,
but
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
requires
a
change
in
format
then.
T
The
second
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is
that
I
also
agree
with
what
somebody
else
said
that
frequency
and
change
is
not
a
good
metric
for
whether
the
format
is
right
or
for
whether
the
process
of
updating
it
is
right.
I
think
the
frequency
of
updates
should
correspond
to
how
frequently
we
want
to
update
it,
and
I
don't
know
how
often
we
want
to
update
it.
T
Perhaps
there
is,
I
take
this
off
because
my
beard,
so
if
you
want
to
update
it,
let's
say
three
times
a
year
and
then
we
are
not
able
to
actually
do
that
because
of
process,
then,
of
course
the
process
has
to
change,
but,
for
example,
it
would
also
be
possible
to
combine
updates
and
only
do
it.
I
don't
know
every
two
three
years,
because
I
also
don't
think
it's
very
important
that
it's
completely
up
to
date.
T
I
think
things
that
change
are
mostly
details
and
even
if
a
bigger
thing
should
change,
let's
say
we
change
the
id
structure
or
something
it's
not
so
important.
For
a
newcomer
to
have
that
update
immediately,
I
think
and
yeah.
Then,
if
people
don't
read
it,
I
think
it
needs
to
be
advertised
better.
I
think
that's
true
for
all
kinds
of
newcomer
material.
So
let's
say
we
replace
this
with
something
else.
Let's
say
we
have
a
video,
you
know
a
set
of
tutorial
videos
and
how
the
itf
works
or
something
like
that.
T
Then
people
wouldn't
consume
that
necessarily
either
and
it
needs
to
be
more
prominent
regardless
of
format.
And
if
the
the
problem
is
that
people
don't
consume
it,
then
we
should
make
it
more
prominent
and
if
we're
trying
to
gather
data
like
wes
suggested
for
who
thinks
it's
a
good
thing
of
those
who
read
it,
we
could
also
ask
the
other
ones
why
they
didn't
read
it.
Perhaps
they
didn't
see
it
or
they
did
see
it.
A
D
Stefan
so
stefan
wenger,
I
just
I
dug
through
very,
very
very
old
files
of
mine,
and
I
did
a
little
bit
of
expert
witness
work
on
the
side
and
I
remembered
vaguely
that
this
was
that
a
version
of
the
dao
was
actually
cited,
yeah
in
a
lawsuit,
and
it's
indeed
true-
that
was
the
what
4677
version
yeah
so
don't
suspect.
That's
things
that
could
be
viewed
as
informal
representation
of
process
documents
wouldn't
be
read
by
people
who
may
have
an
agenda.
D
That's
adverse
to
your
employer's
agenda,
for
example,
and
wouldn't
be
interpreted
in
a
way.
That's
adverse.
So
I'm
saying
that
for
two
reasons,
one
reason.
Obviously,
if
we
are,
if
we
are
not
maintaining
this
as
an
rfc,
we
need
a
tombstone.
I
mean
that's
that's
a
no-brainer,
but
the
other
reason
is
don't
take
this
thing
lightly,
as
it's
for
the
newcomers
blah
blah
blah.
D
G
A
I
suspect
that
kirsty
and
I
will
have
to
go
circle
back
and
review
all
of
the
comments
and
the
notes
in
the
chat
room
I
mean
yeah
kirsty
says
you
know
there
is
some
indication
that
people
are
in
favor
of
materials
for
newcomers,
but
not
completely
in
agreement
about
what
that
what
those
should
be.
I
think
we'll
try
and
discuss
offline
for
a
bit
and
see
if
we
can
summarize
this.
A
Do
you
have
any
further
comments,
or
did
you
get
enough
from
that?
Discussion
want
to
see
our
summary
first.
C
V
C
Thing
we
might
try
and
that
we
can
do
in
parallel
right
would
basically
ask
the
editors
of
the
dao
to
do
a
short.
You
know
half
pager
on
what
they
would
like
to
use
as
their
process
going
forward,
because
they're
actually
doing
the
work
and-
and
if
that
manages
to
you,
know
capture
consensus,
then
we're
done.
A
Yeah
that
doesn't
seem
unreasonable
to
me.
Okay,
I
think
we
have
some
work
to
do
as
as
chairs
and
then
we'll
get
back
to
the
group.
Thank
you.
That's
been
good
input,
so
let
me
do
a
little
refresh
of
the
slides
to
make
sure
I
have
the
most
current
and
see
if
oops,
that's
not
what
I
wanted
to
do.
H
P
A
All
right
so
going
on
to
the
nom-com
eligibility
thing.
Well,
let
me
first
summarize
where
what
happened
this
week,
so
martin
duke
had
written
up
a
draft
and
had
some
discussion
about
plausible
outcomes
for
changes
to
the
nomicon
eligibility
for
those
who
don't
know
the
issue.
A
We
have
this
experiment
underway
about
dealing
with
remote
participants
and
other
qualifications
for
people
to
be
on
the
nom-com
and,
of
course,
now
that
we've
gone
back
to
hybrid
meetings,
and
this
is
going
on
for
some
period
of
time.
The
question
comes
up.
Well
now
we
have
to
make
adjustments
to
what
we
had
said
earlier.
A
There
was
some
discussion
back
and
forth
earlier
this
week,
a
few
people
got
together
in
a
side
meeting
chatted
for
a
bit
and
lars
basically
proposed
that
he
would
be
happy
with
doing
this
as
a
working
group,
a
quick
spin
up,
spin
down
kind
of
working
group
that
we've
done
in
the
past,
and
so
the
dispatch
question
reduces
more
to
does
anybody
in
the
room
think
it's
a
bad
idea
for
lars
to
take
that
on?
A
He
would
still
like
our
input,
so
barry
wrote
up
a
quick
charter
proposal
and
you
can
see
it
here
on
the
screen
I'll
give
you
a
bit
to
read
it
over
and
we
would
like
input
on
whether
folks
think
this
is
a
good
thing
to
just
toss
off
as
a
quick
working
group
or
have
you
know,
objections
to
such.
V
V
So
I
think
we
would
have
to
clarify
whether,
when
something
says
only
eligibility
to
volunteer
for
the
nom-com,
we
actually
also
mean
all
the
other
things
that
we
use
nom-com
eligibility
as
a
signal
for
or
whether
we
really
mean
exactly
this,
and
only
this.
V
I
personally
think
it
would
be
quite
odd
to
have
one
for
the
nom
com
and
a
different
one
for
recall
committees,
not
that
we've
seen
one
in
the
wild,
but
I
think
clarity
would
would
be
welcome
here.
I.
V
V
A
J
All
right
just
to
add
two
things
just
to
add
a
list
of
things
it
has
to
cover
is
also
recall.
Signature
eligibility
not
just
recall
committee
eligibility,
which
I
think
it
should
cover
all
saying.
They're
the
same
the
same,
it's
the
same
essential
electorate.
I
think
this
is
this
all
seems
fine.
Ordinarily,
I'd
be
here
to
like
tell
you
that
the
2011
was
science
fiction,
but
actually,
I
think
it's
achievable
in
this
case,
so
yeah.
F
Yes,
and
just
responding
to
both
of
those
I
I
knocked
this
together
just
before
the
working
group
chairs
form
started
in
about
three
minutes.
So
yes,
I
left
that
out
and
that
needs
to
be
tweaked.
E
Dude,
it's
kenazi,
plus
one
to
everything.
That's
been
said
thumbs
up,
do
it
make
it
happen.
A
Great
thanks,
rich
sols.
You
are.
X
Not
up
enough
yeah,
okay,
everyone
else,
it
should
happen.
It's
gotta
happen
really
quickly,
because
there
will
be
data,
tracker
changes
and
robert's
probably
only
got
so
much
bandwidth
to
do
them
and
that's
it.
A
And
for
those
who
didn't
notice,
rich's
orange
dot,
it's
going
to
be
his
problem
this
year,
so
it
would
oh
you're
done
yes,
you're
you're,
yes,
you're
out
of
the
loop
now,
because
you've
already
published
the
list,
yeah
all
right,
well,
you're
going
to
be
on
next
year's.
Aren't
you
yeah,
so
lars
sorry
go
right
ahead!
Yeah.
C
Larry
sagar,
I
wanted
to
quickly
get
a
sense
of
the
the
group
whether
we're
comfortable
with
doing
a
a
buff-less
working
group.
A
A
fair
question:
I
see
at
least
thumbs
up
in
the
audience.
Does
anybody
want
to
raise
a
concern.
P
A
Q
Martin,
duke
google,
so
I
just
would
like
to
state
for
the
record
that
I'm
I'm
happy
to
be
the
author
of
the
product
for
this
and
for
those
of
you
who
saw
my
gen
dispatch
draft,
I'm
by
by
mutual
agreement
and
the
side
meeting,
I
will
strip
out
the
criteria,
changes
and
use
the
8989
criteria
as
a
baseline.
A
Thanks
excellent
and
by
the
looks
of
the
chat
room
there,
there
is
uncharacteristic
happiness
and
agreement,
so
I
think
we're
doing
well
any
other
questions.
You
have
lars,
no,
not.
C
A
question,
but
I'm
also
looking
for
chairs,
I'm
specifically
interested
in
some
former
nom-com
chairs
that
might
want
to
serve
again
and
that
have
significant
cycles
over
the
next
six
months,
because
this
will
need
to
be
kept
on
track
like
we
need
an
rfc
before
the
next
bum
come
cycle
right.
W
Senator
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
like
I
saw
very
chatter
right.
I
know
it's
quick,
but
I
think
it
needs
to
talk
about
87
13
instead
right
because
the
goal
is
to
replace
8713
with
this
bcp
not
to
continue
18
and
89.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
It's
like
even
reading
the
document.
It
was
not
like
totally
clear.
That's
what
it's
intending
to
do,
because
I
was
trying
to
do
a
point
update
on
8713,
but
this
would
be
probably
like
a
full
rewrite
of
that
right.
So
thanks.
Q
So
I'm
by
far
by
I'm
far
from
an
expert
on
this,
but
my
understanding
was
that
8713
addresses
a
number
of
nom-com
issues
and
there's
like
a
specific
section
like
414,
that
is
about
the
eligibility
and
so
88
80
80
90.
Thank
you
specifically
updates
that,
but
as
experimental,
so
we
essentially
upgrade
that
to
standard.
We
continue
to
update
87.13.
F
J
Becker,
yes,
I
just
meant
to
say
I'm
quite
confident
that,
like
between
barry
and
mars,
they
can
sort
out
which
things
update.
Something
thank.
A
W
Suresh
you
have
another
comment.
No,
like
my
content,
is
really
we
don't
want
to
go
back
to
the
kind
of
thing
where,
like
the
norm
comes
of
us
strewn
across
multiple
documents
like,
I
think,
like
barry
kind
of
worked
on
it
like
with
murray
and
gang
to
kind
of
pull
all
these
things
together
into
one
place,
and
I
think
we
should
try
to
kind
of
keep
it
all
together.
So
it's
not
hard
for
somebody
to
find
these
things.
A
Appreciated
this
is
being
discussed
on
eligibility,
discuss
and-
and
I
think
that
is
the
appropriate
form
to
hash
out
what
the
charter
should
say.
So
yeah
rich
go
right
ahead.
X
Q
Yeah
martin,
duke
google,
yeah
plus
one
of
rich,
like
8713,
covers
a
lot
of
stuff
and
if
our
scope
is
simply
eligibility,
I
don't
think
missing.
The
whole
thing
is
compatible
with
that.
W
Yeah,
no,
I
I
I
fully
understand
rich's
concern
and
martin's
concern
right
like
so.
It's
kind
of
hard
to
find,
but
I
do
understand
like,
but
one
thing
you've
done
is
like
kind
of
keep
only
this
thing
open
for
comment
like
that's
probably
the
way
to
do
it,
but
I
do
understand
the
concern
so
I'm
finding
the
way,
but
like
it,
I
wanted
to
be
easier
to
find
all
these
things
together
in
the
same
place.
That's
it
thanks,
maybe
like
a
same
bcp
number
going
across.
C
Lars,
I
think
summarize
here,
I
think
what
suresh
is
trying
to
say
is
he's
suggesting
an
update
of
8713,
whatever
the
number
is,
but
basically
leave
all
other
sections
unchanged
and
unchangeable.
C
A
I
I
would
suggest
that
you
being
the
sponsoring
a
d
of
said
working
group,
can
take
that
as
input
well,
good.
Anything
else
you
need
on
this.
No.
This
was
super.
A
Yay
team
rich:
did
you
have
a
follow-up.
A
To
leg
be
a
little
yes,
okay,
all
right!
Well,
I
think
we
are
actually
ahead
of
schedule.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
we
well,
we
have
five
minutes
left.
So
I
think
the
summary
from
that
discussion
is
clearly
at
least
in
the
room.
We
you've
got
very
good
support
for
going
forward
with
this
working
group.
A
As
you
know,
charter
with
amendments
and
very
tightly
scoped,
we'll
get
that
summarized
for
you
and
get
that
out
in
the
minutes,
any
other
business
in
our
last
five
minutes
that
we
have
not
covered.
A
Good
a
an
actually
productive
discussion
here,
thanks.
X
X
So
thanks
because
you
had
a
pretty
tumultuous
term
of
things
you
had
to
cover.
A
I
I
do
this
to
myself
from
time
to
time
great
well,
thank
you
all
and,
and
thank
my
co-chair
for
doing
all
of
the
background
work
that
you
all
didn't
notice.
That
was
going
on
in
the
background,
and
we
will
get
the
summary
out
to
the
list
as
soon
as
possible
confirm
all
of
our
decisions
there
and
then
I
think,
in
both
cases
forward
to
lars
what
the
conclusions
of
gen
dispatch
were
on
the
two
questions.
Thanks.