►
From YouTube: IETF-ELEGY-20220927-1400
Description
ELEGY meeting session at IETF
2022/09/27 1400
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
C
C
C
C
The
discussion
there's.
Basically,
the
only
thing
on
the
agenda
is
to
agree
on
where
we're
going
and
start
discussion
on
the
document.
So
Michael
has
an
agenda
there.
Let's
have
a
look
at
that
and
Bash
it
does
anybody
think
there's
anything
needed
on
the
agenda
besides
to
discussing
how
we're
going
to
run
the
working
group
and
then
getting
right
into
the
document.
C
Hearing
nothing
will
move
on
so
the
one
thing
I
wanted
to
say
about
working
group
management,
and
you
know
how
we're
going
to
do
this-
is
that
the
the
draft
that's
out
there
reflects
what
was
in
the
experiment
that
we
already
had
consensus,
Community
consensus
on,
so
my
proposal
is
that
while
the
details
are
all
up
for
grabs
and
we
can
change
any
detail,
we
want
to
change.
We
need
consensus
to
make
the
change.
D
C
E
C
C
F
F
You
know
how
many,
how
many,
how
many
people
that
I
would
add
to
the
pool
I
I,
don't
have
any
data
I,
don't
really
have
a
strong
conviction
as
to
what
data
should
be
there
so
feel
free
to
like
send
me
some
data
or
do
a
PR
or
add
something
to
the
issue
about
things.
You
would
like
to
see
and
I'm
happy
to
consider
those
things
The,
Other
Well.
Actually,
let
me
just
open
that
up
first,
if
anyone
has
any
comments
right
now
about
that.
B
E
Really
well
defined
questions
for
what
it
is
that
you
want
this
document
to
actually
show
and
I
know
that
I've
got
some
implementation
to
finish
before.
I
could
actually
run
the
data
out
for
the
what
I
anticipate
those
questions
would
be
so
it
would,
it
would
very
likely
be
mid-october
before
I
could
provide
anything
so
still
within
the
Realms
of
stuff
Landing.
In
for
a
November
deadline,
but
I'd
like
to
First
challenge,
we
really
need
it
and
are
we
trying
to
prove
anything
with
the
I
mean
when
we
were
doing
the
experiment?
E
I
think
we
needed
to
motivate
the
experiment,
but
now
I'm
not
sure
we
need
to
provide
the
motivation
and,
while
I'm
happy
to
do
the
data
mining
work,
I'm
wondering
if
it's
a
distraction
for
actually
getting
the
document
out,
and
we,
if
we
wanted
to
have
a
you,
know
some
sort
of
efficacy
study.
It
might
happen
as
a
separate
effort.
F
Thank
you
Robert,
so
yeah
I
am
not
married
to
having
a
section
by
any
means.
I
would
say
that.
Well,
first
of
all,
if
no
one
put
does
anything
respond
to
this
issue,
then
I
will
just
close
it
and
not
have
the
section,
but
I
would
say
that
often,
when
you
take
an
experimental
RFC
and
make
it
standard,
usually
has
the
first
results
of
the
experiment
and
it
might
be
appropriate
to
to
have
something
to
that
effects.
Kind
of-
and
you
know
includes,
the
data
Michael.
A
Did
I
get
the
microphone
right?
Yes,
I
think
so
so
Robert
and
Martin?
What
about
any?
The
to
the
document
have
any
requirements
for
ongoing
collection
of
the
the
data
like
a
yearly
snapshot
of
essentially,
the
data
that
went
into
the
Venn
diagram.
Is
that
something
that
you
think
that
we
will
need
ongoing?
E
So
it's
going
to
become
a
little
bit
easier
to
produce
retroactively
in
that,
since
one
a
nom
come
2021
I've
had
the
data
I
have
the
data
tracker
showing
the
volunteer,
pool,
capturing
the
volunteer
pool
and
the
data
and
also
displaying
it,
but
we
actually
have
it
by
person
instead
of
by
some
name
handled.
It
is
hard
to
match
against
the
the
identity
that
we're
we're
trying
to
work
with.
A
E
Now,
at
least
with
the
metrics
that
we
are
using
right
now
and
what
are
proposed
in
this
document,
the
odds
of
the
data
destroying
the
ability
to
to
look
at
those
calculations
are
zero.
I
mean
we're
looking
at
who
we're
document
authors
who
were
working
group
chairs
leaders
and
who
attended
meetings
and
that's
not
data
we're
going
to
throw
away
foreign.
F
Requested
data
collection
in
the
security
considerations-
it's
not
really
written
as
such,
but
it
for
those
of
you
who
haven't
read
it's
very
considerations:
attempts
to
like
create
the
front
model
and
how
someone
might
try
to
take
control
of
the
nom-com
and
the
ITF
or
nefarious
purposes
and
like
it,
it's
just
the
thought
experiment.
There
does
sort
of
point
out
some
early
indicators
that
this
is
going
on,
but
there's
an
informal
like
requirement.
C
F
So
I've
heard
some
interesting
discussion.
I
haven't
really
gotten
a
clear
action
item.
My
intent
remains
to
leave
this
open
for
a
while.
If
the
pr
comes
in
or
a
or
some
additional
information
issue
comes
in,
I
will
consider
it
and
I
will
run
it
by
Robert
and
see
if
it
is
useful
and
if
and
if
those
things
are
true,
I'm
happy
to
make
changes
to
the
document.
But
if
nothing
happens,
I'm
just
going
to
close
it
out.
F
Okay,
the
other
some
more
sensitive
substantive
item
is
directorate
members
in
path
two.
So
at
this
point,
I
lack
data.
Whether
this
would
make
a
difference.
So
I
should
preface
everything
with
that,
but
we've
got
working
group
chat,
I've
actually
I
originally
proposed
this.
When
we
were
going
to
severely
curtail
the
number
of
people
that
were
eligible
as
a
result
of
being
remote,
attendee.
F
Now
so
like
we
needed
a
way
to
capture
like
you're,
actually
going
to
meetings
you're
doing
things
rather
than
going
to
online
meetings
and
just
kind
of
sitting
there
I'm
not
sure
this
is
needed
anymore,
the
more
I
think
about
it.
Because
now
do
we
really
want
someone
who's,
just
doing
direct
reviews
and
not
going
to
any
ITF
meetings
at
all
and
and
I
think
the
question
is
probably
the
answer.
Probably.
E
F
Okay,
I
mean
that's
good
enough
for
me.
If
no
one's
going
to
speak
up
for
it,
I'm
probably
going
to
close
this
issue.
I'm
no
longer
fired
up
about
it,
as
as
I
just
said,
so
it's
not
in
GitHub,
but
there's
one
other
question,
which
is
one
of
authorship.
I
know
there's
at
least
some
noise
that,
like
maybe
having
the
only
author
of
this
being
an
area
director
like
there's,
possibly
poor
Optics.
F
There
was
also
concern
that
maybe
it
would
be
too
much
work
for
me,
given
my
80
workload
and
as
I
said
on
the
list
like
this
won't
be
a
problem.
I
can
get
this
done.
However,
if
people
are
concerned
about
the
Optics,
there
are
like
three
things
we
could
do.
One
is
that
I
could
just
like
hand
depend
to
somebody
else
and
walk
away
from
this,
and
my
name
isn't
on
it
like
I'm,
not
here,
to
boost
my
authorship
stats.
F
The
second
option
is,
it
could
bring
on
a
a
a
co-author
and
if
we
just
need
one
like
sort
of
cosmetically
Stephen
Farrell
has
graciously
agreed
to
to
bring
his
name
over
from
89,
which
would
be
fine
with
me
or.
Third,
if
you
could
just
do
nothing
and
drive
on
with
me
as
a
co-author.
Any
of
those
is
fine
and
Robert.
You
have
a
question.
Another
comment,
or
you
still
is
that
from
before.
C
B
C
F
F
F
Okay,
so
then
that's
it
for
issues.
If
you
haven't
read
the
document,
I
encourage
you
to
do
so.
I
mean
the
core
normative
part
about
the
eligibility
is,
is
unchanged
for
89.89,
but
really
all
the
text
around
it
has
changed.
So
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
do
here
is
clean
up
the
acknowledgments.
As
I
as
I
wrote,
there
wait
a
little
bit
for
some
data
requests
to
come
in
and
then
I
think
we're
ready
for
working
with
last
call
unless
people
file
other
issues.
B
F
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I,
I,
think
I,
think
there's
something
to
that.
I
mean
ultimately
now
that
we
have
I
mean
if
we're
going
to
allow
like
even
the
sliced
amount
of
remote
participation,
as
at
you
know,
at
a
regular
ITF
meeting
as
it's
sufficient,
then
then,
really
like
the
question.
Is
we
really
want
someone
who
was
doing
these
other
things,
but
not
going
to
meetings
recently
to
be
on
the
num
com?
F
C
F
F
A
Given
that
we're
not
going
to
have
any
data
for
three
weeks
or
so,
and
that
seems
like
a
right
time
frame
to
actually
be
able
to
put
pretty
graphs
on
a
screen
at
a
in-person
meeting,
it's
that
sounds
like
a
good
plan
and
that
even
if
we
decide
not
to
include
the
data
in
it,
maybe
we
still
want
to
collect
it.
As
a
working
group,
the
thought
I
had
I
had
other
thought,
but
I
think
I'll
write
it
as
an
email.
A
I
agree
with
that:
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
have
the
data
not
really
speaking
as
a
working
group
chair
I.
Don't
think
that
we
need
to
have
the
data
in
the
document
to
there.
I
I
think
it's
useful.
If
we
have
a
notion
of
what
data
we
we
we
considered
or
looked
at,
but
I,
don't
think
that
we
need
to
have
some
numbers
or
we
put
Venn
diagrams
and
data
in
the
other
document.
I
agree
that
we
don't
need
to
do
that
this
time.
A
C
A
E
C
All
right
and
I
will
post
to
the
list
the
plan
that
I
said
at
the
beginning
of
this,
that
we're
looking
for
any
proposals
to
change
the
criteria
that
we
have
and
that
consensus
needs
to
be
achieved
on
plans
for
change
that
we
assume
we
have
consensus
on.
What's
there
and
then
I
will
encourage
people
to
read
the
document
and
post
their
suggestions
forth
with
with
the
idea
of
finalizing
things
at
ietf,
115.
A
Yeah
I
think
that
we
should
do
it
right
after
the
meeting.
If
we're
assuming
that
we
don't
get
major
issues,
I
think
that's
the
right
process.
There
I
think
that
still
meets
the
end
of
November,
so
I
mean
Martin.
If
you
want
to
you
know
whatever
it
is,
we
need
to
do
to
make
it
ready,
then
don't
stop
on
that
I
mean.