►
From YouTube: IETF115-EMODIR-20221109-1145
Description
EMODIR meeting session at IETF115
2022/11/09 1145
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/proceedings/
A
A
C
C
C
C
As
I
mentioned,
we
do
have
a
fairly
full
agenda
today,
and
so
we
do
have
a
little
bit
of
time
for
an
open
mic
at
the
end
and
any
continuing
conversations
can
all
always
continue
on
the
mailing
list.
There
is
a
notes
page
linked
from
the
agenda.
I
will
note
that
there's
also
a
chat
room
link
from
the
agenda,
but
we
have
a
tiny
issue
where
the
it's
not
linked
actually
to
the
working
group
chairs
zulip,
it's
linked
to
the
emo
der
Zulu.
C
So
for
today's
meeting,
if
you're
going
to
use
the
chat
room
online,
it's
going
to
be
linked
to
emoder
and
we'll
get
that
fixed
in
the
future.
That's
one
of
the
things
that
we're
kind
of
aware
of
so
with
that
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
get
started.
The
first
item-
I
guess
there
I-
should
allow
a
tiny
agenda.
Bash
agenda:
bashing:
anybody,
nope,
nope,
okay,
excellent!
D
E
So
if
you
have
anything
that
you
would
like
to
bring
up
me,
the
current
things
I'm
working
on
are
a
revamp
of
the
RFC
editor.org
website
kind
of
getting
all
of
our
archiving
agreements
up
to
date,
where
we
take
full
sets
of
the
rfcs
and
make
sure
they're
housed
somewhere
else
for
safe
keeping
and
also
I
just
started
working
on
making
sure
that
all
of
the
outlinks
from
rfcs
get
preserved.
The
idea
behind
that,
being
you
put
all
this
time
into
writing
something.
E
You
want
people
to
be
able
to
actually
understand
what
your
references
meant
10
or
20
years
from
now.
Those
links
will
probably
die
so
we're
going
to
get
those
archived
and
make
sure
that
those
remain
legible
over
time.
If
you
have
other
things
that
you
think
I
should
be
looking
at
in
the
future,
or
if
you
just
want
to
talk
to
me
about
any
of
those
things,
please
come
find
me.
Okay,.
C
F
G
F
You
gotta
eat
it
got
it
yeah.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
to
introduce
ourselves
I'm,
Brad
Biddle
and
my
colleague
big
disbrander,
we're
part
of
the
legal
team
that
supports
ietf.
We've
been
in
this
role
since
2018.
many
of
you
I'm
sure,
know
George
Contreras,
who
played
the
the
role
of
legal
support
for
the
ITF
for
many
years,
George
an
excellent
lawyer
who
really
built
an
incredible
foundation
and
we
do
still
stay
in
touch
with
George
and
use
him
as
a
as
a
consultant
at
various
times.
F
We
have
15
minutes
today,
which
I
don't
know
that
we
really
will
need
I
thought.
Maybe
we
would
just
spend
a
minute
kind
of
giving
a
little
bit
of
background
about
ourselves
and
and
just
really
as
an
introduction.
So
you
have
names
and
faces
and
a
general
sense
of
of
who
we
are
in
terms
of
substantive
things
we
could
potentially
talk
about.
The
Anti-Trust
issue
is
one
that's
been
up.
F
Lately
we
have
a
internet
draft,
that's
in
front
of
the
Gen
dispatch
group
right
now,
and
one
of
the
points
of
feedback
we've
gotten
about
that
has
related
to
working
group
chairs.
So
maybe
I'll
Circle
back
to
that
and
just
see
if
there's
any
you
know,
give
you
a
little
more
sense
of
what
we're
doing
there
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
potential
for
antitrust
training,
if
that
would
be
of
interest
to
the
working
group
chairs.
F
But
why
don't?
We
start
just
initially
with
a
little
bit
about
us
and
our
our
firm
and
so
we're
part
of
a
small
law
firm
called
bit
of
Law
PC.
As
I
mentioned,
we
took
over
the
role
of
supporting
ITF
back
in
2018
generally.
What
we
do
is
for
a
boutique
law
firm
with
three
lawyers,
and
we
supported
several
different
standards.
Organizations
in
addition
to,
in
addition
to
the
ITF
and
that's
really
all
we
do-
is
support
standards
organizations.
F
H
So
hi
everyone,
my
name,
is
Victor
bronder
and
I
work
with
Brad.
My
background
was
also
at
a
large
Law
Firm,
where
I
started
out
in
Tech
transactions
and
went
in-house
in
a
tech,
Council
role
and
then
moved
out
west
in
search
of
a
better
life
and
found
Brad,
and
he
introduced
me
to
the
world
of
standards
and
I've
been
dedicating
my
practice
to
that
since
then
so
great
to
meet
you
all.
F
So
yeah,
so
let's
maybe
just
spend
a
minute
I,
can
give
you
some
background
on
this
issue
of
antitrust,
because
I
do
think
that
is
maybe
the
one
current
topic.
That's
that
has
some
relevance
for
for
all
of
you,
the
generally,
when
we
talk
about
interest
law,
we're
talking
also
it's
like
the
terminology
can
also
be
competition
law,
and
so
that's
the
the
general
issue
in
connection
with
standards
is
anytime.
You
know
a
set
of
competitors,
potential
competitors
are
getting
together
and
talking
with
each
other.
F
That
can
be
really
beneficial
and
ultimately
result
in
in
consumer
benefit,
but
there's
always
the
kind
of
risk
of
some
kind
of
collusion
among
commercial
entities
that
that
have
some
Market
power,
and
so
it's
it's
a
kind
of
perennial
issue
for
standards.
Organizations
is
how
do
you
manage
the
risk
of
antitrust?
You
know
law
problems
or
competition
law
problems.
F
The
ITF
is
actually
very
cleverly
designed
and
I
think
very
intentionally
designed
in
a
way
that
that
mitigates
antitrust
risks
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
reasons
why
this
is
true.
We
have
a
blog
post,
the
the
the
ITF
LLC
a
while
back
did
a
blog
post
that
kind
of
walked
through
this
analysis
and
it's
something
that's
captured
to
some
degree
in
the
in
the
ID,
that's
currently
in
front
of
gen
dispatch.
So
so,
generally,
our
our
key
message
around
antitrust
in
connection
with
the
iitf
is
follow
our
policies.
F
We
we
do
have
this
ID,
that's
currently,
as
I
mentioned
in
front
of
the
of
gen
dispatch,
and
and
it's
not
intended
to
be
a
new
policy,
it's
really
intended
to
say
Hey,
you
know,
stakeholders
who
are
worried
about
Anti-Trust
risks
in
connection
with
iitf.
Please
understand
this
is
our
approach.
Our
approach
is,
you
know
we
do
have
these
various
elements
of
how
we're
organized
how
the
iotf
is
designed
that
do
mitigate
these
risks,
and
so
the
really
key
message
is
follow
these
policies.
F
It
also
makes
the
point
that
there
are
some
areas,
some
topics
that
are
kind
of
potentially
fraught
with
antitrust
risk
that
they're
not
off
limits
but
but
potentially
you
know,
can
can
be
a
little
dicey
and
the
specific
issues
that
are
flagged
are
one.
When
we're
trying
to
compare
the
relative
cost
of
different
implementations,
you
know,
that's
a
that
that
analysis
can
be,
can
get
tricky.
Sorry,
not
yeah
the
microphone.
F
F
Another
area
of
concern
potentially
is
around
something
that's
perceived
as
negotiating
IPR
terms,
and
so
this
can
be
a
tricky
one
in
the
ITF
context,
because
we
do,
you
know
specifically
go
and
ask
it's
a
requirement
that
people
disclose
something
about
their
relevant
IPR
where
it
can
get
a
little
bit.
Tricky
is
if
we
get
a
ambiguous
or
or
potentially
problematic,
disclosure
and
there's
some
desire
to
go
and
talk
with
that.
That
discloser
the
party
that
disclosed
about
their
disclosure-
that's
that's
a
legitimate
thing
to
do.
F
The
the
area
that
gets
a
bit
fraud
is
if
it
starts
to
look
like
there's
some
kind
of
collective
negotiation
with
that
party
about
their
IP
terms.
So
so
that's
a
point.
That's
made
in
in
the
document
that
what
we
say
there
is
hey
these
aren't
off
limits,
but
do
talk
to
ietf
experts
about
this
before
you
start
doing
these
kinds
of
things,
I
think
some
of
the
input
we
got
from
the
working
group
chairs
was
well
hey
whoa.
F
F
So
if,
if
at
any
point,
there's
any
elements
of
you
know
antitrust
law
or
really
any
other
issue
where
you
receive
questions
that
feel
uncomfortable
for
any
reason
you
can
escalate
to
us,
it's
probably
best
to
escalate
to
us
through
Jay
or
through
the
the
legal
at
Intel
legal
at
idf.org.
Mailing
list,
but
but
we
really
are
here
as
a
as
a
resource
for
you.
F
Our
intent
is
to
come
back
to
you
at
some
point
in
the
future
and
do
a
round
of
a
little
bit
more
formal
training
on
antitrust
issues.
So
I
hope
this
would
be
of
interest
to
you.
It's
not
required
or
anything
like
that.
It's
it's
really
designed
to
be
something
that's
educational,
and
so
we
really,
you
know
we'll
we'll
be
interested
to
come
back
and
and
and
do
that
I
see.
Sean
has
a
question.
I
Check
all
right,
I'll
eat
it,
hey
so
Brad,
I,
guess
the
question
about
the
IPR
thing
you
can
I
think
the
tool
actually
allows
you
to
submit
an
IPR
disclosure,
even
third
party,
with
no
statement,
so
you
can
go
and
ask
so
should
that
be
tweaked
where
they
actually
have
to
put
something
to
kind
of
stop.
This
nebulous,
like
kind
of
not
clear,
clean.
F
I
I
think
my
my
instinct
right
now
is
like
nothing's
really
broken.
You
know
the
the
that,
like
we
we
have
I
mean
these
issues
are
complex
and
there's
lots
of
moving
parts
and
and
what
we
have
just
like
works.
You
know
99
of
the
time
so
I'm
I'm
less
inclined
to
go
and
make
changes
for
these
sort
of
one-off.
You
know
potential
edge
cases,
so
I
guess
my
answer
is.
J
F
Don't
really
have
an
equation
to
to
change
anything
right
now,
it's
more
of
just
an
educational
thing.
If
you
get
that
weird
situation
where
you
feel
compelled
to
go
and
ask
questions,
it's
worth,
looping
in
either
just
people
who
are
experienced
in
how
we've
done
that
in
the
past
or
looping
us,
but
to
get
get
some
help
for
those
okay.
K
F
L
F
K
Yeah
it's
causing
causing
a
hundred
people
in
the
working
group
to
waste
two
hours
of
their
time
figuring
out.
What's
going
on
so
I
mean
we
have
to
decide
if,
if
we
care
or
not-
and
we're
not
supposed
to
really
do
this
collectively,
so
we
actually
individually
have
to
somehow
decide
this
is
and
then
there's
no
consequence.
They
can
just
do
it
again.
Yeah.
F
Right
so
yeah
interesting
feedback
and
useful
like
I,
think
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
would
that
I
think
we
would
say.
Oh
is
my
theory
that
nothing
really
is
broken
correct
and
if
there
is
something
broken,
let's
identify
that
and
think
about
a
solution.
So
I'm
happy
to
have
more
discussion
about
that.
M
F
D
F
Know
kind
of
like
classic
antitrust
problems
like
let's
divide
this
Market
or
or
things
like
that,
so
there's
some
things
that
would
just
be
like
big
red
flags,
I
think
those
kinds
of
discussions
right
were
really
happen
here.
The
the
trickier
ones
are
probably
the
two
that
I
mentioned.
You
know
we're
trying
to
do
some
kind
of
comparative
cost
analysis
or
we're
trying
to
have
a
kind
of
a
nuanced
IPR
discussion.
F
A
B
G
Hi
Juan,
Carlos,
I
I
sure
I
would
like
to
respond
a
little
bit
to
Michael's.
Point
I
know
that
most
of
us
have
very
little
understanding
of
legal
language
and
it's
hard
for
engineers
to
understand
and
act
upon
legal
text.
So
it's
indeed
something
that
is
confusing
and
hard
to
to
follow.
Whenever
there's
a
declaration
that
it's
hard
to
understand,
especially
if
we
don't
understand
the
the
claims,
what
is
what
is
exactly
the
the
the
licensing
terms
that
are
being
disclosed?
G
What
how
will
that
affect
my
business
model,
respect
to
the
product
Etc?
So
all
these
little
details
should
be
taken
into
account
whenever
we
act
upon
that
and
of
course,
most
people
here
do
not
understand
those
details.
So
perhaps
we
should
trying
to
to
make
sure
that
the
process
flows,
educate
people
on
simple
things
like
licensing
terms,
for
instance,
whenever
there's
a
declaration,
what
type
of
license
is
being
declared
right?
Is
it
a
friend?
Is
it
a
royalty-free?
G
How
would
this
affect
the
future
of
the
product
that
will
implement
this
specification?
Those
little
rules
could
help
us
understand
and
make
sure
that
the
group
understands
how
they
should
act
upon
that
declaration,
because
indeed,
I've
seen
multiple
times
that
people
take
a
declaration
there's
a
patent.
Oh
yes,
no,
no
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
we
have
to
understand.
G
Beyond
whether
the
pattern
applies
to
that
part
of
the
specification,
if
it's
an
optional
mandatory
or
not
so
so
we
can
go
deeper
and
deeper,
but
and
we
are
not
going
to
have
a
legal
discussion
in
the
working
group
because
we
are
technical
people
right,
but
at
least
maybe
just
to
make
things
clearer
to
people.
We
should
understand
the
type
of
licenses,
the
consequences,
the
implications
and
from
there
we
say.
Okay,
if
you
need
more
information,
go
talk
to
your
legal
team,
because
this
will
potentially
affect
your
company.
F
Got
it?
Okay,
yeah,
that's
quite
helpful
input.
So
what
I'm
hearing
is
you
know
we
had
some
interest
in
coming
back
and
presenting
training
on
antitrust
issues.
It
sounds
like
there'd
also
potentially
be
some
interest
in
a
practical
issue
that
you
all
have.
Is
you
get
an
IPR
declaration?
It's
confusing
you're,
not
sure
how
to
react
to
it
and
so
giving
some
suggestions
for
you
about
how
to
interpret
and
potentially
how
to
react
to
IPR
declarations
could
be
something
that's
useful.
So
I've
heard
message
heard
on
that.
O
O
F
D
F
C
P
Thank
you
Karen,
sorry
for
the
last
minute,
just
to
Echo
the
previous
things
about
IPR
decorations,
being
important
one
thing
to
consider
as
well
as
document
Shepherds.
We
have
a
step
in
the
process
where
we
have
to
show
that
we've
sufficiently
pestered
people
to
make
their
appropriate
IPR
declarations,
and
it's
not
clear
how
best
to
do
that.
F
C
All
right,
so
thank
you
both
very
much
and
as
you've
heard
they've
offered
to
do
training
so
any
things
that
any
further
things
that
you
think
you
might
want.
Some
additional
training
on.
You
could
post
that
to
the
working
group
chairs
mailing
list
and
we'll
make
sure
that
they
get
a
chance
to
see
that
so
next
up
is
Ignacio.
Q
Okay,
well,
hello,
everybody
I'm
gonna,
be
telling
you
a
little
bit
about
what
I
see
that
is
going
on
the
idea
file
through
some
work
that
I've
been
doing
with
colleagues
from
the
University
of
Glasgow,
some
of
which
you
might
know,
and
most
of
the
findings
that
I'm
presenting
here
are
in
some
papers
that
we
have
already
published.
We
combine
a
little
bit
of
social
network
analysis
and
natural
language
processing
to
analyze
emails
drops
and
everything
that
is
going
on
there
next
slide.
Please.
Q
On
the
basic
key
takeaways
that
we
have
seen
through
this
couple
of
years
of
researching
on
the
ITF
data
is
that
conversation
seems
to
be
more
complex.
It
seems
to
be
harder
to
publish
and
it
seems
that
there
is
a
minor
influence
and
minority
that
is
becoming
increasingly
relevant
next
slide.
Please
thank
you
and
this
seems
to
be
interrelated
next,
please.
Q
So
let
me
Focus
quickly,
first
on
whether
it's
harder
to
publish
next,
please
it's
quite
a
few
grabs,
so
maybe
don't
worry
too
much
about
reading
into
the
access,
but
basically
the
key
takeaways
that
in
the
last
20
years
it
now
we
triple
the
amount
of
time
it
takes
for
under
FC
to
be
published
from
the
time.
The
first
draft
appears
next
slide.
Q
It
also
takes
a
more
than
double
the
number
of
drops
for
Nerf
C
to
be
published
next
slide,
and
there
are
a
few
other
findings
like
there
are
more
affiliations,
more
areas,
more
offers
for
every
single
draft
pretty
consistently,
and
this
seems
to
point
in
the
direction
that
it's
harder
to
publish.
Of
course,
this
is
all
with
kavits,
because
the
numbers
are
numbers,
but
interpretation
might
be
subtle.
Conversations
also
seem
to
be
more
complex
in
Texas
like
this.
Q
Next,
the
idea
is
becoming
quite
chatty.
There
is
a
decreasing
number
of
female
participants.
This
is
people
who
have
sent
at
least
one
email
in
one
year.
So
if
for
one
year
you
don't
send
anything,
you
would
appear
as
not
a
participant
and
in
the
next
one
you
just
an
email,
you
could
appear
there
and
Nexus
live.
Please.
If
you
look
at
the
red
line,
that's
the
number
of
emails
and,
as
you
can
see,
there
is
an
increase
in
Divergence,
which
is
what
I
refer
to
as
the
idea
of
becoming
chatty.
Q
Q
There
is
also
an
increasing
number
of
mentions
or
two
drops
in
the
emails.
This
is
normalized
by
the
number
of
active
drafts
at
a
given
in
a
given
year
to
me,
these
points
to
increasing
cross
references,
increasing
number
of
things
that
need
to
be
taken
into
account
and
that's
what
I
refer
to
as
conversations
becoming
more
complex.
So
you
need
to.
Q
You
need
to
be
on
top
of
more
drops
on
Nexus
slide,
please,
and
it
there
is.
It
seems
to
be
that
at
the
same
time,
there's
an
influential
minority
that
is
gaining
relevance
and
I
have
more
results
on
the
papers,
pointing,
for
example,
to
more
Arias,
more
topics
being
discussed
in
the
conversations
so
next
slide.
Please.
Q
Next,
so
to
get
a
better
understanding
on
what's
going
on
in
the
inside
of
the
mail,
is
we
we
graph?
We
do
a
graph
of
the
people
in
the
middle,
so
basically
each
one
of
you
could
be
a
note,
and
if
you
reply
to
a
message
of
someone
else,
that
would
be
a
link
and
then
we
calculate
between
a
symmetric
of
influence,
which
is
typically
done
social
network
analysis
and
what
you
consider
is
people
plotted
by
the
level
of
influence
that
they
have
from
more
to
less
so
on
the
extreme
left.
Q
You
have
the
more
influential
people
on
the
right,
less
influential
people
according
to
that
metric,
and
what
you
can
see
is
that
on
one
hand,
people
are
discussing
more
areas
over
the
years
and
these
are
itfres
and
on
the
other
hand,
this
is
mostly
done
by
people
who
is
more
influential.
So
over
the
years,
more
areas
are
being
discussed
and
influencer
people
are
particularly
prominent
in
discussing
more
areas
and
next
slide.
Please,
and
this
influencing
minority
is
also
dominating
draft
creation.
So
more
an
increasing
number
of
drafts
are
offered
by
these
people.
Q
Q
And
to
focus
a
little
bit
on
you
guys,
this
is
a
about
working
group
chairs.
So
this
is
looking
one
year
before
someone
becomes
a
working
group
chair
and
when
you
are
looking
after
the
person
becomes
working
group
chair-
and
this
is
in
the
period
2000
2020,
which
most
of
the
analysis
is
because
data
tracker
is
more
reliable
for
that
period,
and
we
also
built
a
graph
for
authorship
pretty
much
similar
to
the
one
of
the
males
and
we
calculate
again
between
a
symmetric
of
influence.
Q
So,
basically,
if
you
are
in
The
Crossroads
of
many
drops,
you
will
have
high
between
us
asymmetric
of
influence.
Next
slide.
Please-
and
there
are
I-
could
say
two
key
takeaways
here.
One
is
that
the
most
of
the
working
chairs
are
pretty
influential,
both
in
the
draft
authorship
graph
and
on
on
the
main
list.
Q
Q
Very
quickly,
the
research
that
you
can
find
those
papers-
and
my
impression
is
that
I
it
is
harder
to
publish
and
the
conversations
are
more
complex,
and
this
is
pretty
much
interrelated.
The
space
is
smaller,
many
things
are
becoming
a
community.
Many
things
are
not
novel
developments,
but
frequently
patching.
So
there
is
increasing
dependence
between
drops
between
Technologies
and,
as
a
result
of
this
conversations
are
quite
complicated.
You
need
to
be
on
top
of
many
things.
Q
You
need
to
be
on
top
of
multiple
areas
and,
as
a
result
of
this
I
hypothesize
that
some
of
these
people
that
appear
to
be
influential
are
somehow
a
little
bit
of
our
share,
pass
or
shepherding
other
people
that
might
have
a
less
knowledge
of
multiple
areas,
Dynamics
on
the
idea
for
and
are
maybe
helping
them
to
go
through
the
standardization
process.
Some
of
our
preliminary
results
suggest
that
this
could
be
the
case.
Q
Next
steps,
we
are
looking
into
getting
some
ground
truth
on
several
things,
so
at
the
moment
we
are
annotating
conversations
or
agreement
disagreement
and
that
type
of
stuff
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
are
the
internal
Dynamics
at
the
scale
in
the
conversations
within
the
ITF.
This
is
about
drops
in
general.
As
you
probably
know,
nerfc
there
are
many
rfcs,
but
not
all
the
rfcs
are
equal.
Some
are
deployed,
some
are
not
deployed.
Some
are
relevant.
Q
Q
Q
R
R
R
S-I-M-C-O-E
lawyer
did
a
study
in
this
working
group
reference.
He
looked
at
the
speed
of
drafts
through
the
itft
looked
at
conflict,
which
you
haven't
mentioned
inside
of
the
working
group.
He
looked
at
complexity.
He
then
demonstrate
he
demonstrated
a
reference
between
complexity
of
informational
standards,
non-informational
standards,
things
which
you
can
track
directly
on
the
data
attacker.
He
also
looked
at
the
type
of
participants
creating
it
and
so
I'm.
R
Just
asking
whether
you've
looked
at
this
past
statistical
work,
which
was
done
on
the
same
type
of
data
that
you're
working
on,
which
is
mail
list
with
different
assumptions
and
I'm,
also
would
like
to
know
your
background.
Scholarly.
You
know
reference
in
group
dynamics
so
again,
I'm
just
pointing
out.
There
was
a
past
study
and
asking
first.
What
past
studies
do
you
reference
and
then
how
do
you
differentiate.
Q
R
Q
R
Q
There
are
a
bunch
of
things
that
point
in
that
direction,
but
again
are
I.
Don't
think
that
I
could
claim
that
it's
harder
to
publish,
because
that's
a
that's
a
judgment
based
on
evidence,
but
what
I
can
say
is
that
it
takes
longer
to
publish
it,
takes
much
more
drops
and
up
a
few
other
bits
point
in
that
direction
as
well.
I
I.
R
Would
suggest
that
perhaps
you
need
to
dig
a
little
deeper
in
that
last
statement,
because
there
are
several
steps
between
a
working
group,
internet
draft
to
working
group
approval
to
isg
approval
to
RFC
everywhere,
and
all
of
these
have
different
float,
so
I
hope
you're
draft
will
give
us
more
details.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
Q
A
Q
S
S
S
The
observation
I
will
give
is
that
it's
possible
that
the
difficulty
you're
seeing
and
the
trajectories
you're
seeing
are
based
on
new
working
groups,
move
fast.
They
put
out
rfcs
more
often,
and
they
have
no
fewer
considerations
about
having
to
worry
about
backward
compatibility
for
changing.
So
that
probably,
is
one
of
your
inputs
to
your
trajectory
so
re-running.
Your
graphs,
based
on
working
groups
by
age,
may
give
you
a
different
set
of
graphs
yeah,
and
this
is
the
related
pieces
influence
as
well
influence
matters.
You
know,
because
you
have
a
long
deployed
thing.
S
Q
Yeah,
no,
no
I,
completely
agree
and
I
mean
one
of
the
problems
that
we
face.
Is
that,
even
though
I'm
quite
well
aware
of
a
bunch
of
our
areas,
I'm
not
aware
of
them
all
and
certainly
I
cannot
consistently
classify
Technologies
and
drafts
easily,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
was
saying
that
they're
grown
truth
in
some
stuff
is
really
required,
because
it's
very
difficult
to
classify
things
so
I
can't
classify
it
in
areas
and
we're
even
trying
to
look
at
the
emerging
Technologies.
Q
But
what
are
the
definition
of
scientific
or
consistent
definition
that
we
could
use
of?
That
is
a
very
tricky
thing
and
that's
also
why,
for
example,
I
want
to
look
at
the
rfcs
that
have
been
deployed
because
it's
very
different,
something
that
gets
deployed
from
something
that
is
not.
But
my
intuition
is
exactly
the
same
right.
S
T
T
Q
So
It's
tricky
to
say,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
emails,
so
indeed
it
seems
like
the
number
of
yearly
participants
is
on
decline
with
a
bit
of
our
Cycles,
but
the
number
of
females
remains
consistent.
There
are
several
things
interacting
at
the
same
time
and
there
is
an
increasing
number
of
automated
emails,
as
you
probably
know,
but
that
does
not
change
the
Trends.
Q
T
T
Q
I
really
don't
know
that,
to
be
frank,
is
a
question
for
you,
guys
that
have
a
better
advantage
and
understanding
I'm
looking
at
the
numbers
and
I
have
a
rough
understanding
of
summaries
of
the
ITF
but
I'm
not
fully
embedded
on
it,
but
the
numbers
that
I
find
look
a
little
bit.
You
might
have
seen
studies
of
Wikipedia
that
they
over
the
time
there's
an
increasing
characterization,
because
the
structure
grows
more
on
the
let's
say
explosive
moment
of
emergence
it's
over.
So
there
are
some
similarities
with
those
Trends.
Q
Is
that
the
case?
It's
really
hard
to
say?
I'm?
Probably
it
really
depends
on
which
specific
moments
you
are
looking
at,
because
the
ITF
goes
a
little
bit
in
Cycles
right
like
a
suddenly
Voiceover.
Ip
is
a
new
thing
and
there
is
a
huge
way
for
follow
drafts
that
are
related
to
that
instant
Rising
that
technology.
So
if
suddenly,
next
year
or
in
the
next
five
years,
there
is
an
emergence
of
something
completely
new.
We
could
see
very
different
Dynamics.
T
Q
J
Q
Q
Look
at
now,
like
the
number
of
replies
and
the
amount
of
content
in
the
replies
as
a
potential
metric
indicating
engagement,
we're
labeling
now
some
conversations
for
agreement,
disagreement
and
a
few
other
simple
tags
that
they
can
help
understand.
What's
going
on
in
that
conversation,
and
hopefully
that
might
help
a
little
bit
to
have
an
understanding
of
something
like
a
okay
density
of
conversations
and
how
much
engagement
the
animal
creates.
J
U
Q
I
think
that
we
were
including
them
all,
but
if
I,
if
I
remember
nobody
if
I
remember,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
emails
comes
from
the
working
group
of
from
the
working
group
mail
lists.
So
anything
that
would
happen
in
this
Casa
would
not
alter
the
findings,
but,
to
be
frank,
I
would
have
to
check
because
I
I,
don't
remember.
I
recall
that
we
did.
We
excluded
a
few.
Q
C
While
Greg
wood
is
coming
up
in
Myriad,
if
she's
in
here,
I'd
like
to
remind
everybody,
if
you
have
not
signed
in
to
please
sign
in
and
if
you
feel
like
you're
a
little
bit
too
hot
and
in
a
closed
room,
remember
that
accurate
numbers
on
how
many
people
are
in
the
room
help
us
with
capacity
planning.
So
if
you
want
a
bigger
room
next
time
be
sure
you
sign
in.
V
Yeah,
so
just
a
few
quick
updates,
you've
seen
emails
on
both
of
these.
The
first
one
is
that
we're
moving
to
a
new
Wiki
platform,
and
one
of
the
things
we
want
to
do
is
make
sure
to
get
all
the
working
group
con
working
group
wikis
onto
the
new
platform.
A
few
of
you
have
already
done
that
so
congrats
your
prize
is
in
the
mail.
V
A
few
of
you
have
talked
to
me
about
making
that
happen
and
congrats
on
that
too,
because
we're
definitely
here
to
help
if
you
haven't
yet
migrated
your
content
or
if
you
need
help
doing
that,
please
contact
me
directly.
All
I
can
say
is
that
the
new
platform
is
super.
Nice
works
on
mobile.
All
those
nice
things
and
also
the
plan
currently
is
to
discontinue
track,
supporting
track
as
a
web
service
in
the
nourish
future.
So
you
definitely
do
do
need
to
make
the
move.
V
D
V
And
a
few
others
through
doting
and
so
forth,
so
I
really
encourage
you
to
sign
up
the
links
won't
work
on.
If
you
just
point
at
that
screen
there,
but
they
will
work
if
you
go
to
the
chairs,
dot,
iitf.org
training
and
you
can
just
sign
up
clarification-
is
some
confusion.
Sometimes
we
have
three
classes.
V
We
have
two
sessions
of
each
class,
so
you
only
need
to
sign
up
for
one
session
for
each
class
us
and
you
don't
need
to
sign
up
for
every
class,
so
you
can
pick
and
choose
for
what
works
for
you
and
I'm
also
happy
to
answer
questions
about
that.
The
last
thing
is
we're:
if
you
can't
make
any
of
those,
we
are
definitely
holding
a
or
developing
an
on-demand
version.
That
will
be
more
than
just
videos
that
are
an
hour
long,
so
those
will
also
be
new
and
approved
again.
D
O
Anything
here
actually,
this
is
this
is
just
more
of
a
comment.
Jim
Fenton,
just
to
point
out,
if
anybody
doesn't
realize
ITF
is,
you
know,
has
brought
in
outside
trainers,
professional
trainers
to
give
the
to
give
the
chairs
training
and
they're
getting
a
lot
of
input
from
several
of
us
on
what
the
content
should
be,
so
that
it's
not
just
as
standard.
You
know
resolving
conflict
thing
that
it
really
addresses
the
ietf
way
of
doing
things.
O
W
Yeah,
actually,
as
I'm
standing
here,
I
also
took
some
of
the
trainings
and
I.
Think
like
one
of
the
most
valuable
Parts
was
also
that
just
having
a
discussion
with
the
other
chairs
on
these
topics
during
the
trainings
was
super.
Well,
you
just
exchange
them
ideas.
How
do
you
handle
the
situation
like
this?
So
I?
W
Don't
think
the
video
that
will
show
up
will
give
you
the
same
thing,
but
that's
not
why
I'm
here
I
can
yeah
perfect
so
like
as
you're
all
here,
I
take
I
thought
I'd,
take
the
opportunity
and
talk
about
something
that
we're
working
on
so
I'm
I've
been
studying
this
initiative,
because
when
I
started
as
a
chair
at
some
point,
it
was
really
confusing
to
me
like
how
to
use
the
data
track
at
best
and
that's
not
necessary,
because
the
data
track
is
so
confusing.
It's
just
like.
Well,
it's
hard
to
use.
W
It's
just
like
I,
didn't
even
know
of
all
of
these
features
that
are
in
the
data
tracker
and
like
how
other
chairs
are
using
them
and
what's
the
great
best
way
to
use
them.
So,
in
order
to
address
this
problem,
maybe
a
little
bit
and
what
we've
been
trying
to
do
is
trying
to
create
some
quick
start.
How-To
guides
like
this
is
like,
as
a
example
shows
here,
it's
like
a
kind
of
I.
Don't
know
six
step
guides
how
to
adopt
a
document
which
buttons
to
click
and
what
are
the
steps.
W
So
this
document,
these
how-to
guides
were
actually
not
hard
to
create.
It
was
like
not
a
lot
of
effort,
but
what
took
more
time
is
to
figure
out
what
other
things
that
we
want
to
create
those
guides
about
and
I
think.
This
is
also
one
of
the
big
values,
hopefully
that
you
will
get
out
of
it.
Even
if
you
use
the
data
track
kind
of
extensively.
W
Looking
at
these
guides,
you
might
actually
know
what
other
functions
are
available
and
then
you
may
or
may
not
use
the
guide
to
actually
do
it.
So
and
that's
what
we're
doing
and
the
three
examples
that
are
on
the
slide,
I
think
those
are
already
online
Greg.
Where
did
you
go
soon
very
soon
on
the
chairs.itf.org
page
and
we
are
working
on
a
few
more
and
we
would
need
your
input
if
that's
actually
helpful
for
you
and
if
we
should
like
continue
it.
W
W
The
second
thing
is.
We
are
also
providing
just
one
way:
to
use
the
data
tracker
or
to
go
through
the
process.
There's
like
a
lot
of
cases.
The
process
is
very
wide
and
that's
also
why
the
data
tracker
has
all
these
different
states
and
buttons
so
in
these
quick
guides
are
intended
to
be
quick,
so
they
give
you
exactly
one
way
to
do
it
that
we
in
the
small
group
we've
been
developing.
W
These
things
is
like
kind
of
the
most
common
way
to
use
it,
but
like
of
course,
you
don't
have
to
do
it
that
way
and
I
think
the
third
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
also
that
the
data
tracker
is
not
only
there
to
support
you
in
your
management
of
the
working
group.
I
think
that's
like
one
of
the
main
tests,
but
it
does
also
have
the
participants,
if
you
put
some
information
in
the
data
tracker
and
they
can
look
it
up.
So
that's
also
something
we've
been
trying
to
address.
W
W
So
we
we
discussed
this
problem
that
we
have
this
online
humming
tool,
which
is
not
an
online
Hamming
tool
right,
like
some
people
say
it's
a
voting
tool
and
it's
also
sometimes
confusing
and
so
on.
So
this
is
just
a
reminder
that
it's
actually
not
supposed
to
be
a
Hammington
not
supposed
to
be
voting
to
because
we're
not
voting.
So
it
is
really
helpful.
W
Even
if
people
see
the
number
on
the
screens
that
you,
if
you're
sharing
a
session,
make
clear
that
this
is
not
the
decision-making
process,
the
decision-making
process
is
taking
this
boat
s,
input
to
the
rough
consensus
judgment
that
you're
making
and
actually
expressing
that
to
the
audience
to
your
group
is
really
important.
So
that's
just
a
very
quick
reminder.
C
L
You
have
these
additional
resources,
and
one
of
them
that
you
can
add,
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
is
you
can
put
in
related
implementations
and
you
actually
have
a
lot
of
freedom
in
terms
of
exactly
what
text
string
you
put
there
and,
and
where
say
the
link,
if
you
put
a
link
and
and
what
that
points
to,
we
haven't
formalized
that
as
to
what's
the
best
thing
to
do,
some
people
point
to
a
readme
that
lists
multiple
different
resources.
Some
people
put
one
of
these
for
each
resource.
L
One
of
the
things
I
think
would
be
good
for
us
to
think
about
is
do
we
want
to
recommend
a
certain
way
of
doing
this
and
then
the
second
thing
would
be
for
at
least
currently.
Anyone
can
use
this
and
add
this
for
a
an
individual
draft
they're
in
charge.
They
have
the
ability
to
put
this.
If,
once
it's
a
working
group
draft,
then
they
they
need
the
help
of
the
working
group
chair
to
add
this
I,
don't
think.
That's
necessarily
a
bad
thing.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
L
It's
kind
of
similar
that,
if
a
working
group,
if
the
working
group
that
is
tied
to
that
RFC,
still
exists,
well
then
that
working
group-
those
chairs,
can
actually
add
this
for
an
RFC
I
believe
otherwise
I
assume
it
goes
to
you
know
you
have
to
bug
one
of
the
the
people
who
who
are
really
making
changes
to
the
data
tracker,
and
maybe
they
have
some
super
user
skills
there.
So
they
can
help
you
out
Hank.
D
X
As
a
guidance,
how
to
reference
that
in
an
ID
that
will
go
away
when
this
is
becoming
an
RFC
or
for
post
standard,
so
at
the
moment
it's
not
a
big
problem.
We
are
referring
to
one
GitHub
thing,
there's
one
contact.
We
have
a
select
one
of
the
study.
We
would
have
the
future
problem
that
there
will
be
multiple.
X
L
Okay,
yeah
I
think
that
that's
a
good
point,
there's
a
there's,
actually
a
draft
that
I
wrote
that
I
think
is
expired.
Now
it's
in
the
EDM
working
group,
that
kind
of
looks
at
what
are
the
various
mechanisms
that
we
have
out
right
now
for
kind
of
for
relating
code
to
our
drafts.
What
you
mentioned,
the
implementation
status
is,
is
an
option.
I
know
a
lot
of
people
strip
that
out
as
part
of
your
your
document
becoming
an
RFC,
the
RFC
editor
kind.
L
We
remove
this
is
that,
okay,
if
you
don't
want
it,
you
need
to
you,
know
kind
of
get
your
ad
approval
of
that
I
see.
So
you
know
the
the
implementation
status
generally
means
the
implementation,
like
that's
a
little
more
narrow,
focused
in
a
way
than
just
related
implementation,
because
that's
related
implementation
might
just
be
a
tool
that
helps
you
with
debugging
the
deployment
you
know
in
case.
Someone
ever
does
implement
your
job,
your
RFC,
so
I
think
it's
that
they're
they're,
not
they're
related,
but
they
aren't
duplicates
of
each.
X
Other
yeah,
but
but
the
the
alleged
theme
Here
is
landing
pages,
so
the
data
tracker
could
be
a
landing
page
for
an
RFC
and
its
implementation,
so
that
you
can
find
them
at
the
tracker,
because
the
RFC
is,
someone
is
like
sealed
same
way
for
the
implementation
status.
The
link
there
doesn't
have
to
be
the
implementation.
It
can
be
a
landing
page,
pointing
again
to
various
implementations.
I
think
that's
the
theme
both
share
and
the
could
be
reflected
in
some
ways.
Okay,.
L
C
Okay,
unfortunately,
I've
had
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
queue
because
it's
12
up
just
turned
to
12
45.
So
at
this
point
the
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming.
Please
take
your
garbage
and
take
any
questions
to
the
mailing
list.
Rubbish
rubbish,
remove,
remove
your
rubbish
from
the
room.