►
From YouTube: IETF114 RSAB 20220725 1230
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).
E
F
All
right
good
morning.
G
F
I
just
took
a
little
while
because
my
mail.app
become
unresponsive
and
it's
still
unresponsive,
and
I
know
what
that
means.
So
we
have
a
bunch
of
people
in
the
room.
We
have
a
bunch
of
people
online.
I
see
at
least
colin.
I
think
I
saw
elliot
so
we
have,
I
think,
everybody
who's
on
the
rsap,
except
for
jay,
who
sends
us
apologies.
F
He
isn't
feeling
well
and
we
have
an
agenda.
That's
been
published
and
as
we
set
this
meeting
up,
so
thanks
for
being
flexible
isaac
meetings
are
supposed
to
be
public.
F
We
needed
to
shuffle
a
bunch
of
stuff,
and
so
we're
in
this
isg
breakfast
room
where
not
a
lot
of
observers
are
going
to
fit
in,
but
I
think
we're
doing
fine
at
the
moment
still
and
we
can
grow
some,
and
I
hear
we
have
quite
a
few
people
online,
which
is
also
great
to
see
before
we
start.
I
want
to
sort
of
jay
yesterday
informed
the
isg
and
ib
that
the
hiring
of
the
rsce
is
going
according
to
the
timeline.
F
I
think
they've
finished
the
first
round
of
interviews
and
they
were
gonna
discuss.
I
think
thursday
this
week.
What
they're
going
to
do
knowledge
isn't
feeling
so
great,
we'll
see
if
that
timeline
slips
a
little
bit,
but
basically
they
are
going
to
decide
whether
they
have
a
candidate
that
they
can
go
forward
with
in
terms
of
the
hiring
process
or,
if
they're
going
to
do
a
second
round
of
interviews
with
an
expanded
group
of
candidates,
and
that's
all
I
know
so.
I
wanted
to
pass
that
on.
F
E
Okay,
hopefully
the
folks
who
are
on
the
other
end
can
hear
me.
The
first
thing
on
the
agenda
is
actually
bashing
the
agenda,
so
I
just
want
to
run
through
these
slides,
real
quick
so
that
we
can
see
what
there's
anything
to
bash.
E
But
there
is
agenda
bash
discussing
how
the
rslab
our
saab
excuse
me-
wants
to
handle
minute
approval
discussing
how
the
rsab
wants
to
set
their
meeting
schedule
going
forward,
the
selection
of
the
rsab
chair
or,
if
not,
actually,
a
selection.
Today,
then
the
process
for
how
you'll
do
that
a
discussion
with
the
folks
from
rsoc,
because
they
had
some
points
they
wanted
to
raise
for
rsab
and
then
discussion.
E
This
would
be
a
standing
item
about
document
approval.
There's
nothing
here
yet,
but
possibly
some
tooling
related
discussion
here
about
how
that
we
want
to
handle
that
in
a
data
tracker
and
then
the
last
thing
would
be
another
standing
item
for
rpc
things
to
note
and
we've
got
sandy
here
and
I
think
alice
is
on
the
other
end
of
midiko.
If
there's
anything
they
needed
to
talk
about
so
anything
to
bash
on
this
agenda,.
F
So
I
have
a
bash,
and
so
I
also
invited
the
chairs
of
the
rswg
to
join
and
peter's
here
and
ecker
said
he
might
try
to
make
it
because
we
might
wanna
also
have
a
chat
with
them
about
how
we're
gonna
actually
do
the
handoff
of
work
from
the
rswg
to
the
rsap.
F
E
Okay,
then,
if
there's
nothing
else
to
bash
on
the
agenda,
the
next
one
is
meeting
minutes.
How
does
rsab
want
to
handle
approving
them?
Do
you
want
to
do
it
by
email?
Do
you
need
if
you
would
do
it
the
way
the
iab
does
theirs?
It's
you
have
one
person
who
explicitly
says
yes
and
no
objection.
Then
they
are
considered
approved.
E
The
meeting
minutes
can
be
published
as
part
of
the
this
it'll
be
set
up
in
the
data
tracker
like
how,
inter
meetings
are,
you
can
put
meeting
materials
so
that's
where
the
minutes
will
go.
Yeah.
D
I
think
having
one
person
signing
up
is
a
good
process,
at
least
also.
We
are
just
a
handful
of
people,
but
still.
F
E
And
just
to
confirm
that
you
guys
are
okay,
reviewing
the
minutes
via
email.
F
E
E
Had
to
ask
if
there's
nothing
else
on
meeting
minutes,
then
the
next
thing
is
the
rsap
meeting
schedule.
Do
you
want
to
try
and
schedule
a
regular
monthly
or
some
other
interval
meeting
or
just
schedule
them
as
needed,
based
on
stuff
coming
out
of
rswg.
D
D
On
the
other
hand,
if
everybody
is
in
the
same
city,
it's
like
actually
nice
to
meet
in
person,
I'm
I'm
not
expecting
that
we
will
have
very
lot
of
documents
to
handle
at
the
very
beginning,
but
we
might
want
to
have
some
kind
of
standing
meeting
to
figure
out
if
there
are
any
rpc
issues
so
like
I
was
thinking
about
just
scheduling
a
meeting
once
per
meeting
cycle
at
this
point,
but
like
I'm
not
sure
what
your
input
is
from
the
rpc
side.
I
For
right
now,
I
think
once
per
meeting
makes
sense.
I
mean
it
may
turn
out
that
we
want
more,
but
we
could,
you
know
address
that
as
necessary.
F
I
think
it
is
right
cendy
and
I
think
we
chatted
a
little
bit
of
this
mirror
and
me
chatted,
and
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
roll
that
into
the
rsap
meeting,
because
it's
the
same
people
basically
and
we're
already
talking
about
rpc
production
stuff
in
this
group
as
well
and
so
having
yet
another
group
with
meeting
with
the
same
people
is
fine,
and
if
you
want
to
buy
us
food,
you
can
still
do
that.
I
F
I
think
a
breakfast
like
this
or
or
the
lunch
slot
that
we
had
sort
of
scheduled
in
on
the
wednesday
lunches
or
something
that
that
might
then
then
work
going
forward,
and
we
can,
I
think,
in
between
right
as
the
need
arises,
as
work
comes
from
the
rswg
we
can
either
you
know,
do
online
meetings
or
we
can
also
just
approve
things
from
the
rswg
by
email
right.
I
don't
necessarily
need
to
meet
for
that.
We
just
need
a
minute
and
announce
it.
H
That
all
sounds
pretty
good
to
me.
You
know
the.
I
think
the
most
important
thing
to
me
is
that
the
meetings
are
properly
announced.
You
know
enough
in
advance
and
that
when
the
rswg
presents
the
arsab
with
a
document
that
it
is
handled
in
a
timely
fashion
and
if
we
need
to
meet
in
order
for
that
to
if
there
are
issues
we
need
to
meet,
then
we'll
just
schedule.
The
meeting.
I
So
the
only
thing
that
slightly
worries
me
is
that
rs
I
mean
rsab
is
explicitly
for
policy
issues
right.
So
if
there
are
anything
where
we
want
to
get
input
from
the
stream
managers
about
operational
things,
we
want
those
to
be
separate.
F
I
I
think
we
can
do
this
as
part
of
this
meeting
and
if
you
wanted
it
to
be
off
the
record
for
whatever
reason,
but
if
it's
a
sensitive
issue
that
when
names
need
to
be
named
because
things
are
moving
slow
or
something
like
that,
we
can.
We
can
have
the
ability
to
do
this.
Even
as
part
of
this
meeting-
and
I
talked
over
somebody
from
remote.
So.
H
Yeah,
no,
I
I
think
you
said
it
well
lars
I
mean.
Obviously
we
should
avoid
having
too
many
meetings
off
the
record.
In
fact,
none
would
be
a
very
nice
number
so,
but
if
there
are
you
know,
personnel
issues
we're
allowed,
we
are
allowed
to
meet
an
executive
session
for
that,
but
let's
hopefully
aim
to
to
not
have
to
a
have
too
many
meetings.
D
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
I
mean
it's
the
same
people
saying:
okay,
it's
the
same
answer
right,
no
matter
which
meeting-
and
I
think
this
question
about
how
to
separate
policy
from
operational
stuff
that
any
anyway,
something
that
we
need
to
learn
how
to
handle
that
so
like.
If
we,
if
we
figure
out
any
point
of
time,
it
doesn't
work,
we
can
find
a
different
solution.
F
Yeah,
that
makes
sense
so
let's
get
started
and
and
if
it
doesn't
work
then
we'll
figure
out
how
to
fix
it.
But
it
seems
like
it
should
work,
then
all
right
so
basically
meeting
once
during
the
itf
slot,
tbd,
usually
probably
breakfast
or
lunch,
and
then
additional
meetings
online
as
as
needed.
F
H
Which
is
that
the
rsap
meeting
as
it
is
open-
and
it
is
not
part
of
the
ietf
if
people
want
to
attend
remotely
that
they
should
be
able
to
do
so
without
having
to
pay
a
fee?.
H
Possible
that
we
would
have
invited
peter
saint
andre
to
present
from
the
arsoc
but,
as
he
said
in
the
chat,
he's
not
paying
the
the
one-day
fee
just
to
do
that.
D
E
Maybe
it
we
could,
I
we
would
need
to
play
around
with
that.
Peter
should
be
able
to
join
us
here,
because
I
just
sent
him
a
comp
code,
because
there
was
an
explicit
thing
for
him,
so
that
one
was
taken
care
of.
F
No,
but
that
that's
a
good
point
ellie
we
should
for
meetings
during
the
itf
week.
We
need
to
figure
out
how
people
can
attend
this
meeting
or
observe
this
meeting
without
needing
to
pay
the
fee
and
an
apologies
that
we
didn't
for
this
instance,
because
we
moved
this
year
so
on
short
notice
and
then
it
fell
through
the
cracks.
So
sorry
about
that-
and
if
any
of
you
paid
just
to
be
here
and
not
for
anything
else
in
the
itf,
let
us
know
and
we'll
figure
something
out.
E
A
A
question
since
rswg
is
not
formally
part
of
ietf.
D
I
I
would
think
for
remote
attendance.
We
should
probably
get
the
same
setup
that
people
don't
have
to
register
but
for
in
person
for
personal
attendance,
like
they're,
actually
at
the
itm.
A
F
Probably
something
that
should
be
dealt
with.
I
would
assume
that
the
set
of
people
that
would
come
to
an
in-person
meeting
only
to
go
to
rsap
or
to
for
observation
and
maybe
to
rsw
is
probably
pretty
small,
and
we
can
say
that
if
that
ever
happens,
they
should
contact
us
and
we'll
figure
something
out
individually.
But
I
think
the
default
assumption
is
that
if
you
want
to
observe
here
in
person
during
an
itf
meeting
or
attend
rswg
in
person,
you're
registering
for
the
itf
in
some
way.
G
I
guess
this
is
eric,
I
mean
when
you
say
register
you
mean
pay
a
fee.
F
D
Actually,
as
we're
talking
about
the
in-person
meeting
and
it's
not
on
the
agenda,
but
the
question
that
also
came
up
was
like:
do
we
want
to
do
anything
at
the
plenary
from
this
group?
Do
we
want
somebody
to
speak
at
the
plenary
usually
or.
F
F
Okay,
so
fine,
but
yeah,
so
if
anything
ever
needs
to
sort
of
go
to
plenary
level,
we
can
do
that
and
also,
I
guess,
if
something
needs
to
go
to
itf,
announce
that
that
can
happen
right
either
from
the
rsap
or
the
rswg
it'll
happen
like
via
somebody
who
has
posting
rights
or
speaking
rights
for
the
plenary,
but
by
default.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
have
a
report
or
something
like
that.
D
I
mean
the
whoever
is
a
chair
should
have
posting
and
speaking
right,
the
chair
of
this
group
at
the
end,
which
probably
brings
us
to
the
next
point.
Yes,.
F
E
F
I
think
we
should
try
to
do
this
today,
because
that
was
one
of
the
main
reasons
for
having
this
meeting
remind
me.
If
the
rfc
says
anything
about
who's
qualified
to
be
this
year,
does
it
need
to
be
one
of
the
stream
representatives
or.
F
Okay,
so
theoretically
it
could
be
others,
but
I
guess
realistically
it
would
be
one
of
the
stream
owners.
Is
there
any
do
we
have
a
volunteer
from
among
the
stream
representatives
to
serve
as
a
chair
and
mary,
and
I
chatted
and
because
there's
a
rollover
at
least
for
the
for
oh
but
there's
a
potential
rover
for
the
iab
representative
and
for
the
isg
representative,
but
after
every
non-com
cycle,
and
so
I
guess
we're
going
to
have
to
do
this
sort
of
as
an
annual
thing
after
the
norm
comes
elections
settle
in
case.
F
D
F
All
right
so
miria
is
our
only
volunteer.
D
Okay,
then
I
can
take
over
the
meeting.
Yes,
I
think
we
went
through
all
the
admin
stuff
so
now
we're
getting
to
the
fun
part,
which
is
the
rsoc
handover.
Do
we
have
peter
with
us
by
now.
E
D
Sorry
we
should
okay,
so
yeah
peter
it's
it's
your
turn.
Basically,.
K
Hey
sorry,
this
is
peter
c
andre
yeah.
Thank
you
sab,
folks,
for
serving
and
for
taking
over,
for
for
basically
sort
of
taking
over
from
what
some
of
our
stock
was
doing.
Two
things
that
we
wanted
to
make
you
folks,
aware
of
as
you're
getting
started,
I'll
actually
switch.
The
order
here,
I
think
so
one
is
john
levine-
has
been
serving
as
temporary
rfc
series
project
manager
and
we
don't
have
the
rsce
yet
the
consulting
editor.
K
Although
we're
working
on
the
selection
process
there,
so
someone's
going
to
need
to
oversee
john's
work,
we
know
how
much
of
a
loose
cannon.
He
is
no
I'm
just
joking
and
you
know
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
management
of
that
role,
and
I
don't
know
you
know
someone's
got
to
choose
when
his
his
term
will
end.
Hopefully
after
the
rsce
is
chosen,
so
there's
some
help
with
some.
K
You
know
handovers
there
and
so
on.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
the
our
sab
aware
of
that
need
related
to
that
is
this
work
that
the
change
management
team
has
been
doing
so
john
serves
on
that
team.
This
team
was
authorized
at
one
point
by
the
rsoc
and
basically
works
through
these
day-to-day
issues
that
come
up.
K
There
are
tooling
issues
there
are,
you
know
things
that
are
authors
request
to
do
things
a
little
bit
differently,
there's
bugs
in
the
in
the
code
somewhere
that
come
up,
and
I
don't
really
foresee
the
rsab.
K
K
Now,
maybe
someone
especi,
especially
once
we
have
an
rsce,
should
be
paying
attention
to
this,
because
things
will
bubble
up
out
of
that
that
need
to
get
shuffled
off
to
the
rswg,
but
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
stuff
just
comes
up
and
we
meet
every
two
weeks
to
try
to
work
through
issues
that
come
up
in
the
publication
process,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
team
would
continue
if
the
rsab
wants
to
form
a
subcommittee.
You
know
how
you
want
to
do
this.
K
I
have
no
preference
but
someone's
going
to
help
work
through
the
day-to-day
issues
with
the
rpc.
Currently,
that's
me
john
levine,
as
the
project
manager
me
was
in
my
role
as
the
arsoc
chair,
robert
and
kasara,
from
the
tools
team
and
allison
sandy
from
rpc,
and
we
just
talked
through
stuff
that
comes
up.
We
also
at
some
point
we're
working
through
a
large
backlog
of
issues
that
had
come
up
over
time
with
rfc
7991
bis.
That
john
was
working
through.
K
You
know,
I
think
that's
work
will
probably
get
sent
off
to
rswg
at
some
point
once
that
group
is
formed
and
up
and
running
that's
up
to
the
chairs
of
that
group
how
they
want
to
handle
that,
but
the
day-to-day
stuff
that
comes
up
someone's
got
to
be
paying
attention,
and
I
just
want
to
make
you
folks
aware
of
that,
as
as
the
outgoing
or
stock
chair.
Thank
you.
D
A
couple
of
questions
peter-
and
I
I
think
I
asked
you
all
of
them
already,
but
I
don't
know
the
answer
so
this
this
team
right
that
was,
as
he
just
said,
it
was
initially
set
up
because
there
was
a
big
backlog
and
it
wasn't
necessarily
supposed
to
be
there
permanently.
But
what
you're
saying
is
this
has
proven
to
be
useful
and
you
would
like
to
keep
it
on
a
permanent
basis.
K
Not
necessarily
what
I'm
saying
is
that
stuff
comes
up
all
the
time.
A
lot
of
this
is
tooling
related.
There's
a
new
version
of
weezy
print,
which
is
you
know,
the
pdf
converter
that
we
use,
and
you
know,
there's
some
do
we.
When
do
we
want
to
switch
to
that
and
so
on?
So
I
think
some
of
those
issues
could
be
worked
out
between
rpc
and
the
tools
team.
Folks
to
about
you
know,
xml
to
rfc
things
that
are
that
are
happening
and
wheezy
print
and
so
on
down
the
line.
K
There
are
things
that
come
up
sort
of
day-to-day
publication
issues.
Well,
you
know
what
how
are
we
going
to
handle?
You
know
mono
space
fonts
in
pdf
files
and
stuff,
like
that,
and
it's
been
helpful.
I
believe-
and
sandy
can
speak
to
this
more
directly,
but
I
think
it's
been
helpful
for
the
rpc
to
have
someone
to
bounce
these
things
around
with
now
and
then.
The
other
thing
that
comes
up
is
well
some
of
these
start
to.
K
Are
they
procedural
issues
for
the
rpc?
Are
they
policy
issues?
Could
they
be
policy
issues?
Could
they
have
policy
implications?
Those
need
to
bubble
up
probably
to
the
rsab
how
that
meant
what
the
mechanism
is
for.
That
is
not
clear
to
me,
but
I
know
that
we
have
found
it
valuable
to
be
able
to
talk
frequently
to
try
to
work
through
stuff
that
comes
up
during
the
publication
process.
With
authors.
D
And
the
second
question
is
like:
what's
your
commitment
here,
are
you
would
you
be
available
to
be
still
involved
or
what's
the
plan.
K
Well,
I'd
have
no
fit
no
official
capacity
anymore
because
I'm
no
longer
the
chair
of
our
stock
because
our
second
has
gone
away,
I'm
not
a
special
person.
I
don't
think
that
you
know
I
necessarily
need
to
be
involved
in
these
sorts
of
work,
but
I
think
someone
needs
to
do
this
and-
and
it
could
be
that
you
know
once
the
rsce
is
seated-
that
that
person
can
sit
on
that.
You
know
help
out
with
those
conversations
I
don't
know,
I'm
not
sure
who
needs
to
do
that.
K
Speaking
personally,
you
know
I've
sort
of
gotten
out
of
the
tech
industry
and
I'm
starting
a
company
with
my
wife,
and
you
know
this
is
not
really
a
high
priority
for
me
if
asked,
if
require.
If
you
know
if
people
want
me
to
serve,
I
can
continue
to
do
that
for
a
while,
and
I
would
be
happy
to
do
that,
but
I'm
completely
volunteer
basis
now,
because
I'm
focused
elsewhere.
D
No,
I
was
always
mainly
asking
because
then
kind
of
the
remaining
people
at
some
point,
john
levine
will
step
down,
but
he
might
be
around
with
his
expertise.
I
don't
know,
but
the
remaining
people
are
basically
the
rpc
and
the
tooltip
tools
team
right.
K
K
K
You
know
getting
involved
at
that
level
of
detail,
because
things
will
just
grind
to
a
halt
and
we
still
need
to
get
the
rfcs
published,
but
again,
I'm
not
necessarily
planning
to
be
deeply
involved
in
rswg
either.
So
this
is
up
to
peyton
and
eric
and
and
other
folks
who
are
involved
there.
But
I
think
personally,
we
need
some
sort
of
team
sort
of
work
through
these
day-to-day
issues
very
much.
K
D
B
H
So
thank
you
and
thank
you
peter
and
I
I
must
disagree
with
you
on
one
particular
point
peter.
You
are
special,
but
maybe
not
for
the
reasons
that
you
were
saying
a
a
couple
of
points.
H
The
way
that
this
was
envisioned,
I
think,
is
like
my
view
of
the
document
that
we
just
created
that
peter
you
were
the
the
editor
of
the
way
I
think
this
was
viewed
was
that
indeed
the
rswg
should
not
be
involved
in
the
minutia.
I
love
the
way
you
put
it.
The
the.
H
Goal
or
their
role
in
general,
it's
also
not
the
rsab's
role
right.
That's
that's
not
what
we
should
be
doing
either,
but
that
doesn't
mean
there
isn't
a
need
for
operational
discussion.
So
to
that
end
right
my
proposal.
The
way
this
was
envisioned,
I
think,
was
that
the
llc
would
draw
upon
the
expertise
that
they
need
to
do
the
day-to-day
job.
H
So
my
suggestion
is
that
the
llc
you
know
jay
and
the
rpc-
bring
together
the
res
the
experts
that
they
need
to
do
the
day-to-day
job
and
and
I'm
sure
that
the
people
on
people
on
both
the
rsap
some
of
the
people
in
the
rswg,
some
of
the
people
on
a
tooling
team
will
be
very
happy
to
to
contribute
to
that
effort
so
that
things
keep
moving
and
if
you
have
a
need,
a
reasonable
mix
of
people.
H
They'll
also
help
the
identify
to
the
rpc
when
the
rsab
or
the
rswg
really
does
need
to
be
consulted
on
something.
Thank
you.
F
A
quick
question
clarification
question
elliot
when
you
say
that
the
llc
should
you
know
own
this
in
some
form,
do
you
specifically
mean
the
the
take
on
the
role
that
the
rfc
xml
style,
guide
change
management
team
has
been
doing,
or
do
you
also
mean
the
oversight
over
john
levine.
H
Well,
the
oversight
over
over
the.
I
guess
we
should
talk
about
both
of
those.
So
actually
I
meant
neither
as
it
turns
out
what
I
meant
was
day-to-day
decision
making,
whether
it
has
to
do
with
xml
and
style
guide
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
Whatever
day-to-day
help
the
rpc
needs,
they
should
organize
themselves
to
get
that
help
right
with,
with
whatever
assistance
the
llc
needs
to
bring
to
the
table
and
with
whatever
you
know,
and
of
course
they
can
consult.
H
You
know
whoever
they
want
to
consult
and
bring
in
whoever
they
want
to
bring
in
in
order
to
manage
the
day-to-day
activities.
That
was
the
division
of
labor
now
regarding
so
so
that
would
include
whatever
xml
style
guide
issues
there
are,
but
it
also
include
anything
else
that
the
rpc
thinks
that
they
need
to
address
right.
H
The
john
issue,
I
think,
that's
mostly
a
j
issue
and
again
in
the
case
of
the
executive
director,
he
can
bring
in
the
people
that
he
needs
in
order
to
provide
whatever
guidance
he
needs
to
establish.
You
know
you
know
how
john's
doing
when
the
contract
needs
to
end
if
it
needs
to
be
extended,
how
you
know
and
and
how
the
transition
to
the
rsce
occurs.
I
don't
think
the
rsap
needs
to
be
involved
formally
at
that
point,
but
again
jay
can
bring
in
whoever
he
needs
for
this
purpose.
F
F
That's,
I
think,
we're
mostly
talking
about
the
the
content
of
the
work,
the
technical
part,
and
at
least
I
would
expect
part
of
the
community
to
sort
of
maybe
be
a
bit
nervous
about
the
llc
or
jay
doing
that
part,
I'm
fine
with
if
we
agree
that
that's
a
good
thing
to
do,
but
I
I
imagine
you
could
make
an
argument
that
you
know
jade
shouldn't
like
set
direction
like
that,
like,
for
example,
what
the
xml
look
like.
J
H
Right,
but
if
we
haven't
specified
the
policy
and
the
rswg
hasn't
specified
the
policy,
I
don't
know
that
we
have
a
formal
role.
C
I
I
I
think,
elliot
said
a
lot
of
what
I
was
going
to
say
it.
It's
not
clear
to
me
what
a
lot
of
the
day-to-day
things
are,
anything
other
than
operational
that
should
just
be
handled
by
the
combination
of
the
rpc
and
the
tools
team.
Obviously,
things
bubble
up
to
the
policy
level.
The
rsap
needs
to
be
involved
or
the
rswg
needs
to
be
involved,
but
and
perhaps
not
not
understanding
what
what
needs
broader
insight.
K
I
mean
perhaps
I
could
provide
a
little
bit
of
clarification
for
on
that.
First
of
all,
we've
been
in
a
little
bit
of
an
interregnum
here,
because
we
haven't
had
the
rsce
and
or
the
rsce
and
we've
been,
and
the
the
this
change
management
team
has
been
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
a
stop
gap
and
not
pursuing
anything.
That
is
remotely
policy
related
because
we've
been
waiting
for
the
new
structure
to
go
into
place.
K
K
K
It
perhaps
would
be
helpful
for
me
to
point
to
some
of
the
minutes,
because
this
group
does
keep
minutes
about
what's
been
going
on,
but
you
can
see
the
sorts
of
issues
that
come
up
this.
This
group
is
very
conservative
about
anything
that
would
potentially
impinge
upon
policy
and
has
not
been
working
on
those
things
and
has
been
delaying.
But
of
course
the
rfcs
need
to
continue
to
flow.
K
So
most
things
are
already
handled
by
existing
policies,
but
you
know
style,
guide,
issues
and,
and
so
on.
I
don't
have
examples
off
the
top
of
my
head
about
what
some
of
the
things
are
that
we've
talked
about,
but
we've
been
meeting
every
two
weeks
for
you
know
two
years
or
something
like
that.
So
there's
a
large
large
number
of
kinds
of
things
that
we've
been
dealing
with,
but
those
are
like
these
are
implementation
issues.
K
I
do
not
see
these
being
policy
issues
and,
like
I
say,
the
group
is
very
conservative
about
anything
that
is
remotely
policy
related.
It's
going
to
get
bubbled
up
to
someone
and
once
envisioned
in
the
rfc
and
in
9280
is
that
you
know
someone's
going
to
work
through
these
things,
but
if
anything
seems
to
be
policy
related,
our
sab
is
someone
from
our
sam.
K
More
than
likely,
maybe
the
rce
at
some
point
is
going
to
say
hey.
You
know.
This
is
something
that
we
really
ought
to
raise
over
in
the
rswg,
and
that
was
the
transmission
belt.
The
mechanism
that
was
envisioned
in
9280
to
try
to
get
these
things
handled,
but
the
the
implementation
issues
you
know
I'll,
give
you
an
example.
So
there
we
have
these
things
called.
We
have
the
source
code
element
in
xml
and
there's
new
people
are
always
wanting
to
have
new
kinds
of
source
code
things.
K
Oh
well,
these
are
now
you
know
python
code
or
whatever,
and
do
we
add
things
to
the
list
of
the
source
code
types,
and
does
this
one
seem
like
it's
a
good
idea
to
be
added
and
this
sort
of
thing?
K
These
are
day-to-day
implementation
issues
and
I'm
just
concerned
that
a
the
rsab
does
not
want
to
be
involved
in
this
kind
of
stuff,
and
I
don't
see
these
things
being
rswg
issues
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
Now,
if
the
rswg
says,
we
really
think
there
ought
to
be
an
idea.
I
had
a
registry
for
all
these
source
code
types
yeah.
You
know,
maybe
that's
something
that
gets
pursued
and
then
there's
some
sort
of
defined
process
for
adding
these
things.
I
don't
know
right
those
that's
more
of
a
policy
issue,
but
the
day-to-day
stuff.
G
Oh
so
so
I
mean,
I
generally
agree
with
peter's
substandard
statement,
but
I
think
procedurally,
it's
wrong.
Procedurally,
the
rsab
and
other
people
have
precisely
the
power
9280
gives
them
and
no
more
and
so
they
sent
to
which
these
things
are
they're
not
charged
to
do
this,
then.
G
What
has
to
happen
is
the
rsw
has
to
publish
a
document
enabling
to
do
this
and
in
the
meantime
nothing
happens
and
that's
like
you
know,
I'm
sure
there
are
small
things
that
have
to
be
decided
and
it
must
be,
and
rfcs
will
stop
if
those
don't
happen,
but
there
are
very
few
of
them
and
what
actually
these
are
talking.
These
are
things,
are
minor
enhancements
to
the
system
and
can
simply
be
blocked
until
the
process
is
great
for
dealing
with
them.
G
B
F
I'm
sorry
so
I
I
think
I
actually
do
agree
with
echo
right,
because
the
rsap
was
specifically
set
up
to
be
the
approval
body
only
right,
and
so
basically
it's
it's
questionable
whether
we
can
just
take
on
projects
independently
of
getting
a
mandate
from
rswg
right.
So
I
think,
if,
if
there's
a
desire
that
these
functions
be
homed
here,
we
need
to
be
specifically
allowed
to
do
that,
because
at
the.
D
D
Not
only
so,
there
is
something
in
the
rc
saying
that,
like
there
is,
if
we
detect
the
need
for
a
policy,
we
should
give
it
into
the
rswg,
but
in
the
meantime
we
can
make
a
decision,
so
things
can
move
on
right.
C
G
D
Yeah
yeah,
so
let
me
let
me
make
my
proposal,
so
I
think
what
we
have
here
is
so
currently
the
situation
is
that
this
team
is
chartered
by
rsoc,
but
I
don't
think
that's
the
right
setup,
but
the
rpc
is,
of
course
they
are
free
to
meet
with
whoever
they
want
to
meet,
to
make
things
running
and
I
think,
with
the
publication
of
the
model
3.
D
Basically,
all
these
operational
things
went
over
to
like
full
responsibility
of
the
rpc,
so
I
think
the
rpc
should
decide
if
they
want
to
keep
the
team
like
that
and
manage
that
team,
and
if
the
rpc
wants
to
have
a
liaison
from
this
group
to
this
team,
just
to
make
sure
that
we
are
I'm
able
to
detect
any
policy
issues
and
bring
them
up
here
correctly.
I
I
think
that
makes
sense,
but
just
to
give
a
little
more
context
here
on
some
of
the
operational
things,
so
we're
not
xml
experts
right
in
particular
vocabulary.
So
some
of
the
things
that
come
up
are
is
this
a
bug?
Is
it
a
vocab?
Does
a
vocab?
Does
the
vocabulary
need
to
be
fixed?
I
Can
we
use
the
vocabulary
in
this
way
right
because
you
can
you
do
workarounds
for
many
things
right,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
use
something
incorrectly
and
or
so
these
kinds
of
things
come
up
somewhat
regularly,
and
I
could
imagine
us
talking
to
the
tools,
team
and
and
john
for
now,
right
and
and
that
being
sufficient
and
if
something
falls
outside
of
that,
then
we'll
figure
out
what
to
do
from
there.
D
That
sounds
good
to
me.
My
proposal
was
exactly
like
that.
You
actually
organized
this
meeting
in
a
way
that
you
have
the
right
expertise
that
you
need
in
the
meeting
you
reach
out
to
the
right
people
and
get
them
in
the
meeting.
If
you
need
any
support,
I'm
happy
to
help,
but
it
should
be
your
responsibility
at
the
end.
How
you
want
to
organize
this
meeting.
H
Yes,
so
two.
B
H
First,
I
agree
with
the
proposal
I
just
wanna,
so
let
me
actually
let
me
separate
these.
Let
me
just
say
I
agree
with
the
proposal
when
we
finish
that
I
have
an
additional
comment.
D
Actually
and
then
there's
a
second
point
about
how
to
handle
oversight
for
john
in
the
meantime
and
like
I
would
I
wouldn't
be
too
too
formal
about
this.
I
would
just
propose
to
invite
john
to
our
meetings
as
long
as
as
is
he's
around
in
this
position,
and
we
can
chat
about
whatever
is
needed
to
be
chatted
about.
That's
it.
C
C
It
john
is,
he
will
be
stepping
down
once
we've
appointed
the
new
rsce,
so
it's
a
relatively
short
timeframe.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
do
anything
for
that.
C
Yeah
I
I
would
agree
that
the
the
rpc
should
have
a
responsibility
for
the
rest
and
talk
to
whoever
they
they
feel
they
need
to.
J
J
I
mean
which
I
would
summarize
as
saying
the
way
xml
what
what
xml
the
rfc
actually
does
is
quite
different
from
what
the
rfcs
say
and
there's
a
there's
a
there's,
a
great
deal
of
work
involved
in
reconciling
you
know,
either
up
fixing
fixing
the
code
or
fixing
the
documentation
to
make
them
work
and
and
going
back
and
reviewing
things
where
neither
is
quite
right.
You
know,
and
so
I
think
I
know
more
about
that
than
anybody
else
at
this
point
you
know.
J
D
Yeah,
probably
that's
a
discussion
we
want
to
have
together
with
jay
or
the
llc
and
and
the
new
rce
as
soon
as
this
person
is
around,
so
there's
definitely
more
to
discuss.
I
believe
yes,
and
the
other
point
is
also
I
don't
know-
I
mean
like
independent
of
the
question
like
who
makes
a
decision
at
the
end.
D
D
G
D
D
D
It's
not
it's
not
a
question
for
this
body,
but
I
think
it's
if
we,
if
we
sit
in
the
same
room
and
we
all
have
the
same
understanding,
he
might
be
right
about
it.
If
there
is
a
lot
of
disagreement,
we
have
to
figure
out
a
way
how
to
find
a
solution.
H
D
H
So
this
is
elliott.
First
of
all,
I
pretty
much
agree
with
what
ecker
is
saying.
I
mean
we
have
to
be
a
little
cautious
here
and
my
suggestion
is
and
it's
a
suggestion,
because
this
body
has
no
ability
to
direct
at
this
point.
It
would
be
really
nice
if
john,
if
you
were
able
to
lay
out
these
sorts
of
open
issues
in
a
summary
to
the
rswg,
and
maybe
the
rswd
could
invite
you
to
do
that.
I
mean
I'll
leave
it
to
eker
and
pete
and
the
rswg
to
decide
that.
H
But
knowing
what
these
sorts
of
open
issues
are,
I
think
is
would
be
helpful
for
the
community
so
that
you
know
if,
if
we
think
everything's
going
swimmingly-
and
I
don't
mean
we
just
the
rsav-
I
mean
we
as
the
community.
If
we
think
if
we
think
everything's
going
humanly
and
you
don't-
we
probably
want
to
correct
for
that
and
so
to
that
end
right.
I
think
it's
great
that
you
presented
this
information.
Hopefully
the
rswg
will
invite
you
to
present
it
and
you'd
be
willing
to
present
it
there.
H
You
know
personally,
I
like
reading
stuff,
but
other
people
may
feel
differently
right
and
it's
good
and-
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
showing
up
here
and
and
providing
a
view.
Thank
you.
D
So
I
mean
I
I.
F
Think
we
should
have
one
sec.
I
want
to
do
a
quick
time
check
because
we
have
20
minutes
left.
Then
we
have
a
height
cut
off
at
10
to
10,
because
the
room
needs
to
be
set
up.
Sorry,
950
right,
what's
left
on
our
agenda.
D
The
our
process
questions,
but
that's
not
urgent
and
then,
like
anything,
the
rpc
wants
to
raise.
So
it's
do.
You
need
time
on
the
agenda.
Yeah.
D
Okay,
I
I
want
to
make
one
comment,
so
I
think
we
should
just
make
this
work
right.
You
shouldn't
make
it
overly
complicated,
but
I
think
the
way
it's
defined
there
is
actually
a
role
for
the
asset
to
be
the
place
where
the
rpc
can
raise
issues
and
then
the
rsup
can
provide
feedback.
What's
policy
related
and
not
right
so
having
these
issues
list
of
issues
presented
here
and
then
go
afterwards
to
the
rswg
with
maybe
a
smaller
list.
If
that's
possible,
I
think,
is
the
right
process.
H
D
So
I
think
that
the
one
reason
why
it's
useful
to
go
the
strap
step
over
the
rsap
is
because,
if
you,
if
you
go
to
the
community
group,
people
will
jump
on
everything
right.
You
will
not
consider
the
question
first.
If
this
policy
are
not
policy
related-
and
it's
not
like
that,
I
want
to
kind
of
like
hide
anything
there,
but
I
want
to
like
make
sure
we
have
we
don't
the
discussion
doesn't
go
out
of
control
completely
from
the
beginning,
so
being
a
little
bit
careful
here
might
be
useful.
I
think.
B
K
B
D
Yes,
so
what
my
understanding
is-
and
let's
start
with
with
the
second
point
here-
first-
that
we
just
invite
john
for
the
time
being
to
join
our
meetings
and
raise
any
kind
of
issues
that
might
come
up
and
therefore
thereby
fulfill
at
least
kind
of
informally.
This
oversight
role,
and
we
also
discussed
that
any
kind
of
brain
dump
john
wants
to
make.
D
We
go
through
this
group
as
a
first
step
and
then
decide
about
how
to
move
on
next
meeting,
probably
and
then
for
the
change
management
team.
I
think
we
will
officially
kind
of
resolve
this
team
at
this
point,
because
that
was
chartered
by
arsoc,
but
the
rpc
can
start
a
new
team
and
we
are
happy
to
send
the
news
all
to
that
team.
If
you
would
like
that.
F
F
F
D
So
I
don't
know,
did
you
did
you
invite
robert
to
the
meeting?
At
the
end,
robert.
D
Perfect
because,
like
my
understanding
was
that
actually
kind
of
setting
up
this
thing,
similar
to
like
other
groups,
is
like
probably
not
a
lot
of
effort
and
like
if
we
can
just
have
it,
we
probably
should
just
do
it
also
for
transparency
reasons
in
the
data
tracker,
but.
L
So
it
is
on
my
plan
to
add
balloting,
and
I
do
think
that
you're
going
to
need
it,
because
the
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
are
going
to
come
through
rswg
that
are
going
to
require
careful
analysis
for
approval
are
the
updates
to
the
documents
that
define
the
the
grammar
and
the
rendering
formats.
F
What's
your
view
on
the
level
of
average
required
to
get
this
tooling
done?
Are
we
talking
minutes
days
weeks.
L
It's
not
weeks,
it's
maybe
a
day.
I
part
we,
we
did
the
bulk
of
the
work
when
we
added
balloting
to
the
irtf
to
the
I,
the
irsg,
and
I
want
to
the
the
only
reason
this
isn't
just
half
a
day's
work
is.
I
want
to
refactor
that
a
little
bit
to.
L
F
Okay,
so
so
that
is
great
to
hear,
I
think
then,
let's
use
the
data
tracker
since
we
have
it,
and
my
feeling
is
we
we
could.
Probably
if
we
have
this
in
place
by
115
that'll
be
soon
enough
right.
We
don't
need
it
any
sooner
than
that.
I
don't
expect
the
rswg
to
have
anything
to
approve
for
us
before
115.
C
D
Yep,
the
other
thing
is,
is
like
how
we
want
to
handle
the
balloting
in
process
itself,
and
I
think
we
should
because,
like
there's,
not
many
documents
to
expect,
so
I
think
we
should
just
try
to
actually
handle
those
documents
very
quickly,
and
I
would
propose
that
as
soon
as
we
get
a
request,
we
just
get
like
have
like
a
one
week
deadline
or
whatever
you
can
discuss
that
to
get
the
ballots
in
and
probably
we
can
also
do
this
by
email,
except
there
is
a
perceived
need
for
a
discussion,
and
then
we
have
to
quickly
schedule
a
call.
F
Can
anybody
remind
me
if
the
rfc
says
anything
about
how
we're
supposed
to
approve?
Do
all
rsap
members
need
a
ballot
for
something
to
pass,
or
can
there
be
vacancies
on
the
ballot
because
people
take
vacations
and
stuff.
D
So
I
think
all
have
to
balance
and
I
think,
there's
even
a
deadline
in
the
draft,
something
like
four
weeks,
maybe
actually.
C
C
It
sounds
like
we
should.
Perhaps
you
know
the
tools
team
should
perhaps
go
through
and
figure
out
a
suggested
process
and
how
it
can
be
reflected
into
the
data
tracker,
and
then
we
can
check
that
it
makes
it
matches
what's
in
the
rfc,
because
there
might
be
multiple
stages
if
you
want
to
collect,
collect
review
feedback
before
paletting,
for
example,.
D
Yeah
yeah,
please.
A
It
does
not
say
that
all
of
you
need
to
ballot.
It
simply
says
that
the
members
are
expected
to
participate
in
the
discussions
and
and
and
then
are
asked
to
ballot,
and
if
there
is
still
a
concern
outstanding,
then
three
people
voting,
yes
approves.
F
But
yeah,
I
think
I
think
robert
s
you're,
going
to
look
at
this.
This
document,
pretty
pretty
in
detail
over
the
next
couple
weeks,
maybe
propose
a
way.
How
would
you
support
how
you
would
support
the
process
in
the
rfc
with
tooling
and
we'll
discuss
it
then,
in
a
future
meeting.
D
D
G
Correct
correct
the
minimum,
the
minimum
is
rfc
interest
yeah,
but
as
far
as
I
can
tell
you,
or
is
your.
D
F
So
for
the
isg
it
makes
sense
because
typically
the
isg
hasn't
seen
the
documents
before
they
hit
the
isg.
An
error
director
might
have
right,
but
here
the
rsa
people
are
supposed
to
participate
in
the
rswg,
basically
continuously
right,
so
we
should
already
know
what's
in
those
documents
before
they
get
to
us,
and
so
I
I
think
you
know
parallelizing.
The
community
last
call
review
consultation,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
and
our
review
seems
doable
and
might
save
some
time.
D
D
A
A
A
If
the
scope
of
the
revisions
made
in
the
previous
step
is
substantial,
an
additional
community
call
will
be
made
once
the
rswg
chairs
confirm
that
the
concerns
received
during
the
community
calls
for
comments
have
been
addressed.
They
shall
inform
the
rsab
that
the
document
is
ready
for
balloting
by
the
rsab,
so
in
effect
that
sounds
like
ecker,
and
I
make
the
call
on
whether
we're
done
so.
You
all
can
make
comments
to
us.
During
that
period
you
can
evaluate
the
document.
The
community
can
make
those
comments
we
evaluate
we're
done.
Then
you
go
to
balloting.
A
F
This
might
mean
that
there's
a
bit
more
work
for
robert,
because
I
don't
think
any
other
balloting
has
this
ping
pong
thing,
but
I
think
the
since
we
have
eight
minutes
left.
I
think
the
proposal
is
for
robert
and
the
tools
team
to
look
take
a
look
at
the
rfc
propose
a
tool-supported
balloting
approach
that
that
implements
what
the
rfc
says
and
and
presented
here
for
consideration,
and
probably
also
in
rswg
rs
rswg,
because
they
have
a
role
as
well.
H
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
quick
comment
about
the
timing
right,
which
is
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
time
it
takes
to
ballot.
You
know
the
the
program
actually
looked
at
that
and
I
think
there
were.
There
were
various
versions
that
discussed
how
long
things
would
take.
The
only
reason.
H
Time
in
in
there
is
because
maybe
some
proposals
require
a
bit
more
consultation
within
the
streams.
So,
if
something's
going
to
make
have
a
major
impact
on
the
ietf,
for
instance,
then
it
may
be
that
the
the
rsap
member
wants
to
consult
colleagues
to
get
views
and
in
fact
the
it's
even
possible
for
the
streams
to
establish
policies
around
this.
But
let's
not
abuse
the
notion
of
reasonable
time
in
terms
of
how
long
it
takes
to
ballot,
and
also
I
just
want
to
note
that
there's
sort
of
several
rounds
of
potential
balloting
right.
H
So
the
first
round
is,
you
know
yes
concern
whatever,
and
if
the
concerns
aren't
resolved
right,
it's
possible
that
that
balloting
will
change
and
that's
that's.
The
intent
of
the
concern
is
that
concerns
get
addressed
and
hopefully,
by
the
end.
There
are
no
concerns,
but
it
may
take
several
rounds
of
back
and
forth
in
order
to
address
that
again.
The
way
this
was
envisioned
was
that
the
rsap
members
shouldn't
surprise
anybody
where
possible
and
that
this
should
come
up.
H
You
know
during
the
rswg
wherever
possible,
but
when
that
doesn't
happen,
probably
some
negotiations.
H
In
in
order
to
try
and
resolve
concerns-
and
I
just
want
to
mention
that
that
that
level
of
it
it's
very
similar
to
a
discuss
in
that
way-
that
eventually
they're
meant
to
be
cleared,
but
after
some
period
of
time
you
just
you
know,
you
just
count.
Heads.
H
C
No,
I
I
had
nothing.
I
just
can't
explain.
D
D
C
C
D
But
let
me
say
one
thing:
please
feel
free
when
you
have
any
issues
to
just
send
them
to
the
main
list
or
put
them
directly
on
the
agenda.
This
is
really
just
to
help
you.
F
A
A
D
As
you
say,
I
think
it
does
apply,
but
I
think
you
just
want
to
remove
the
word
itf
here
and
then
use
the
same
text,
but
it
might
also
be
just
a
question
for
the
group
itself.
C
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
a
problem
we
have
in
the
the
irtf
as
well
and
for
the
notewell
and
the
ipr.
We
have
a
statement
that
the
policy
applies,
substituting
iatf,
you
know
irtf,
I
etf
throughout,
but
I'm
not
convinced
that
works
very
well
and
I'm
hesitant
to
suggest
reopening
the
ipr
rfcs,
but
reopening
them
and
just
doing
the
textual
search
and
replace
might
not
be
a
terrible
thing
to
clarify
them
but
yeah.
This
is
something
we
need
to
work
out
for
the
irtf,
as
well
as
the
rswpg.
So.
H
This
is
elliott.
The
rfc
actually
speaks
to
this.
The
first
sentence
of
section
3.1.1.2
says
all
interested
individuals
are
welcome
to
participate
in
the
rswg.
Participants
are
subject
to
the
anti-harassment
policies
described
in
section
3.2.5
and
those
are
present.
B
C
The
same
thing
with
the
irtf,
which
is
the
the
iotf
documents,
say
something
similar
and
then
you
go
read
the
anti-harassment
policy
and
it
says
it
only
applies
to
the
ietf
and
similarly
for
the
the
ipr
statements
and
so
on
again
you
know
the
irtf
and
presumably
the
rswg
documents
say
they
apply.
And
then,
if
you
read
the
actual
rfc,
it
only
talks
about
atf.
So
there's
some
clarifications
that
might
be
needed.
G
So
I
think
there
are
two
questions,
what
the
rfcs
want
to
say
and
what
these
slides
ought
to
say.
So,
I'm
looking
at
the
slides
there
appear
to
be
three
categories
of
material.
There's
the
anti-harassment
policy,
which
I
think
we've
effectively
whatever
the
documents
like
specifically
say:
we've
patched
them
so
that
they
say
the
itf
and
your
hospital
policy
applies.
So
we
can
put
that
in
just
fine.
G
Then
there
is
the
ipr
policies
which
9280
is
silent
on
regrettably,
and
then
there
are
any
policies
that
are
involved
preceding
the
meeting
at
all,
like
giving
your
like
the
part
about.
You
know
acknowledging
their
making
a
photographic
record
and
personal
information.
You
give
the
itf
and
I
think
those
should
remain
the
way
they
are
because
you
actually
can't
come
to
this
meeting
right
now
without
participating
in
the
itf
and
so
like
as
a
practical
matter
that
those
are
the
rules,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
like
whatever
around
280
says.
So.
G
G
F
G
G
D
F
And
we're
one
minute
over.
Thank
you
all.