►
From YouTube: ANIMA WG Interim Meeting, 2020-04-09
Description
ANIMA WG Interim Meeting, 2020-04-09
A
So
right,
so
all
your
quality
of
many
of
the
presenters
has
been
a
challenge.
You
know
in
some
of
the
meetings
I
listened
to
in
before
so
you
know
if
you're
presenting-
maybe
you
know
yourself
a
second,
you
know
audio
channel
like
your
phone
or
so
just
in
case
the
the
inline
audio
doesn't
work,
make
sure
your
video
is
off
normally,
if
you're
presenting,
please
feel
free
to
have
your
video
seen
by
the
others.
A
I
think
that
should
still
be
perfectly
fine
from
the
bandwidth
requirements
and
otherwise
I
think
people
can
chime
in
on
the
chat
if
they
are
having
problems
with
reception
bandwidth.
Typically,
it's
the
sending
bandwidth
right
mute
your
microphone
unless
you're
speaking,
we
may
mute
you
if
you're
kind
of
you
know
not
noting
that
you're
causing
problems
and
so
before,
you're
speaking
on,
please
check
that
you
are
unmuted.
A
The
WebEx
chat
is
only
for
the
cue
Q&A
in
question,
so
every
one
of
the
presenters
please
indicate
when
you
would
like
to
be
interrupted
or
not
typically,
I,
guess
and
if
somebody
doesn't
say
something
would
do
it
at
the
end
of
the
presentation
and
I'm.
Just
looking
at
that
and
checking
the
chat
on
the
second
screen
so
that
we
know
when
somebody
wants
to
say
something.
The
etherpad.
C
A
D
A
Okay,
so
I'm
video
of
let's
see
if
that
helps
so
here
is
the
etherpad
all
the
same
logistics
that
we
said
agenda
you're
going
through
and
please
you
know
just
in
a
normal
ITF
blue
sheet.
Please
add
yourself
to
the
list
of
attendance
in
the
etherpad.
You
know
how
it
works.
If
we
don't
have
a
long
list
of
participants,
the
virtual
meeting
room
will
be
smaller
next
time.
I.
A
E
A
A
Itf
note
well
I,
think
you're
all
aware
of
this,
and
it
applies
equally
to
any
of
these
virtual
interim
meetings
as
it
attends
applies
to
the
in-person
meeting.
So
unless
you
step
out
and
go
to
the
hallway
jabber,
you
know
everything
is
meant
to
be
public
and
all
the
BCP
applies
alright.
So,
and
this
is
back
to
the
standard
slides,
so
we.
A
A
Join
to
the
jabber
as
soon
as
I'm,
through
with
the
edge
chair,
slides
and
and
and
help
there
as
well
and
etherpad
right,
so
we've
got
the
slide,
got
the
WebEx,
so
I
don't
think
we
need
a
jabber
slide,
jabber
scribe,
given
how
the
presentation
needs
to
be
so
that
everybody
remotely
can
follow.
Denia,
okay,
so
standard
at
share
slide
deck.
A
So
here
is
just
the
list
of
working
group
documents
we're
just
not
going
to
do
a
lot
of
it
today,
I'm
going
to
give
an
update
about
the
autonomic
control
plane,
which
is
the
you
know,
pretty
much
the
last
one
of
the
slack
off
of
the
chartered
documents
that
were
hanging
on
to
and
there
will
be
at
the
end
of
the
session
now,
because
the
iesg
telecall
is
still
on
the
first
hour.
So
everything
you
can
only
join
in
the
second
hour,
so
then
for
the
bootstrapping.
He
infrared
no
need
to
do
slides.
D
A
So
for
next
time
somebody
has
to
figure
out
how
to
do
the
year
virtual
champagne
and
yeah,
and
then,
of
course
we
have
the
poor
documents
waiting
in
line.
So
we
had
some
discussion
with
Brian
about
you
know
the
dependencies.
But
let's
take
that
I
think
after
this
virtual
meeting.
If
we
need
to
change
any
of
the
strategy
on
how
we're
dealing
with
our
cluster
here.
D
C
A
Notes
for
the
administrative
stuff
I
need
to
follow
up
with
that
too.
Okay,
so
the
one
slide
we
never
gave,
but
which
seemed
to
be
good.
So
that
was
coming
from
me,
stealing
slides
from
another
working
group.
For
those
folks
who
you
know
have
recently
joined
and
started
to
work
with
with
an
enema,
we
do
have
a
github
URL.
A
Is
there
it's
very
informal
I'm,
not
sure
if
I
TF
has
any
more
formal
things
about
github
right
now,
but
I
think
you
know
and
Michael
started
this
github,
so
you
may
want
to
chime
in,
but
I
think
we'd
be
more
than
happy
to
have
any.
You
know
additional
work
that
people
feel
relates
to
enema,
whether
it's
in
group
document
or
else
you
know
software
anything
related
to
it,
use
that
github.
So
they
simply
reach
out
to
the
members
of
the
github
to
get
added
to
it
anymore.
A
D
F
D
F
E
E
Items
for
secretary
at
City,
does
another
one
on
guidelines
and
how
to
use
github
with
choices
working
group
in
terms
of
having
and
managed
producing
hub.
So
it
might
be
worth
having
a
look.
A
look
at
that
draft.
I
see
you've
this
bits
of
that
that
you
wanted
opt
for
either
general
process
or
for
particular
draft,
but
I
think
it's
up
to
the
working
to
decide
exactly
how
to
do
it.
They
just
recommendations.
E
A
Yeah,
so
I
would
also
say
that
you
know
maybe
I'll
just
say:
I'll
race,
thee,
the
need
for
the
queue
as
soon
as
I
see
too
many
people
I
talked
to
at
the
same
time.
So
please,
sir
chime
in
whenever
you
want
right
now,
yeah
so
I
guess
we'll
just
you
know,
stick
to
be
informal
here
and
then
you
know
somebody
will
hit
the
chairs
procrastinating
on
reading
the
github
RFC's,
and
so
then
we'll
do
that
and
you
know
become
more
formal.
A
G
The
next
slide
basically
describes
a
problem
statement
which
has
been
also
discussed
during
the
last
IDF
meeting.
So
the
draft
provides
an
introduction
about
different
industrial
scenarios,
which
may
have
problems
with
a
current
approach
that
is
described
and
risky,
because
there
is,
there
are
some
situations
where
we
have
limited
online
connectivity
to
back-end
services
like
a
PKI
which
is
used
during
the
the
on
boring
on
road.
G
There
are
sites
which
assume
only
limited
on-site,
PKI
functionality
so
like
an
LRA
instead
of
an
RA
where
the
local,
local
Registration,
Authority
ra
and
the
backend
performs
the
final
authorization
of
the
certification
request.
New,
and
this
draft
is
the
introduction
of
a
scenario
where
we
have
limited
connectivity
to
a
registrar
and
I
will
come
to
that
one
later
on.
G
The
main
contribution
that
the
draft
provides
is
to
utilize
authenticated
self-contained
object,
objects
for
the
certificate,
enrollment
more
or
less,
in
a
similar
way
as
being
applied
for
the
voucher
handling,
and
the
intention
is
to
be
transport.
Independent
I
think
that
that
approach
so
next
slide,
please
those
it
changes
from
version
o
to
203,
and
there
are
some
some
smallest
changes,
like
the
update
of
the
terminology
used.
G
G
There
are
some
editorial
improvements.
I
simplified
the
picture
we
have
for
the
for
the
initial
use
case,
with
an
off-site
PKI
to
avoid
showing
complexity
and
the
offside
pique
I
like
an
inventory
management,
or
something
like
that,
and
the
main
part
of
the
main
change
from
o
to
2
or
3
version
was
the
introduction
of
the
new
application
scenario,
using
also
the
approach
of
authenticated
self-contained
objects
or
situations
where
we
don't
have
an
online
connection
to
a
registrar.
This
requires
some
changes
in
the
call
flow
sequence.
G
G
This
is
basically
a
repetition,
the
the
notion
of
as
an
Chronos
of
enrollment
utilizing,
authenticated
self-contained
objects
basically
relates
to.
We
would
like
to
have
objects
that
bind
the
proof
of
possession
of
the
private
key
like
we
have
another
normal
pkcs,
10
or
the
CSR,
and,
additionally,
the
proof
of
identity
to
be
transferred,
independent
and
the
current
approach
it
is.
G
So
what
we,
in
addition
need,
is
some
kind
of
certificate
waiting
indication
if
the
contract
contracted
ra
or
the
Registrar
is
not
able
to
issue
the
certificate
at
the
same
time
when
he
gets
the
request.
So
the
document
basically
lists
the
different
requirements
for
handling
those
self-contained
objects,
and
the
intention
is
to
be
agnostic
regarding
the
actual
enrollment
protocol.
That's
also
one
reason
we
utilized
well-known
naming
for
to
enabled
other
enrollment
protocols
in
the
same
way
like
we
have
it
right
now
with
es.
G
The
next
slide
is
also
some
kind
of
repetition,
sorry
for
repeating
some
of
those
things,
but
we
moved
the
main
main
scenario
that
we
had
in
the
draft
so
far,
3
2
a
use
case
1
this
use
case
1
describes
the
off-site
PKI
components.
So
it's
it's
just
a
smaller
change
and
the
original
figure
of
brewski,
where
we
basically
ripped
out
all
the
PKI
components
and
put
them
in
the
backend
domain
or
an
off-site
domain,
and
there
is
a
connectivity
to
the
on-site
domain,
but
that
may
be
only
temporarily
available.
On
that
respect.
G
A
One
quick
comment
right
so
would
be
nice
in
the
graphical
thing
to
have
a
little
bit
more
distinction
between
what
our
online
communication
protocols
versus
you
know.
Offline
steps
taken
off
of
communication,
I
guess
the
dropship
is
well
yeah,
no,
not
not
quite
clear
where
the
offline
stuff
right.
So
the
difference,
because
this
picture
looks
pretty
much
the
same
as
from
Bruschi
right.
G
Right,
so
the
difference
is
that
the
the
rectangle
in
the
original
document
comprises
not
only
the
join
proxy
and
the
domain
registrar,
but
also
the
PKI,
and
we
ripped
out
the
PKI
here
and
put
it
underneath
as
off
site
domain
components
and
off
site.
Two
main
components
comprise
the
registration
authority
that
is
performing
final
authorization
of
the
certificate
signing
request
and
also
the
CA
was
the
domain
registrar
would
more
or
less
act
as
local
registration
authority.
A
G
On
the
next
slide,
that
is
the
second
use
case
we
just
introduced
in
the
recent
version
of
AE.
That
is
the
case
where
we
have
pledged
not
directly
connected
to
the
domain
registrar.
So
there
may
be
different
reasons
for
that.
One
might
be
that
the
pledge
doesn't
have
connection
yet
so
the
domain
registrar.
Another
reason
might
be
that
there
is
a
different
technology
stack,
but
that
technology
stack
would
also
use
certificates
for
authenticating
the
pledge
in
the
in
the
domain
itself.
G
So
what
we
introduced
here
is
a
pledge
agent,
so
decouple
the
pledge
from
the
domain.
Registrar
and
an
example
scenario
might
be
if
you
have
something
like
a
building
automation
network
and
you
have
certain
installations
of
fire
detectors
fire
sensors
in
the
basement-
and
there
is
no
connection
yet
to
the
to
the
domain
registrar,
which
might
be
part
of
the
of
the
rest
of
the
building
automation
system.
So
the
service
technician
more
or
less
works.
Go
to
the
cellar.
That's
the
different
information
necessary
to
onboard
the
different
pledges.
G
He
can
forward
those
information
objects
to
the
domain
registrar
for
further
processing
and
then
once
he
gets
the
answers
from
the
domain
registrar,
he
can
step
back
to
the
total
seller
to
the
basement
and
provide
the
information
to
the
to
the
pledges
that
that
also
would
allow
for
a
bike
onboarding
of
devices
so
assume
that
in
the
basement,
where
you
have
no
connectivity,
there
is
not
just
one
pledge
to
be
on
board,
but
a
couple
of
pledges.
So
a
couple
of
fire
centers,
basically,
okay,
so
in
the
next
slide,
we
have
the
potential
call
flow.
H
G
G
We
have
a
discussion
if
it
is
necessary
that
the
pledge
agent
provides
the
proximity
certificate
from
the
domain
registrar
already
to
the
pledge
at
that
point
in
time.
If
he
does,
then
the
pledge
can
insert
the
the
proximity
third
already
in
the
voucher
request,
and
the
letch
would
be
triggered
to
create
a
certification
request
optional.
Here
is
the
delivery
of
attributes
for
the
certificate
certificate
in
request.
G
G
G
He
can
accept
the
domain
registrar
certificate
s
as
trusted
certificate
on
his
own
side
and
then
validates
a
certificate
that
he
got
from
the
pledge
agent
and,
if
both
is
done,
he
can
provide
the
voucher
status
and
also
the
certificate
confirmation
which
can
be
fetched
by
the
pledge
agent
and
then
provided
back
as
telemetry
option.
That
brueski
provides
I.
G
I
For
presenting
the
straps,
the
only
question,
the
only
the
only
comment
I
wanted
to
add
was
that
that
mostly
my
view,
this
draft
as
being
more
about
est
even
about
brewski,
and
so
it's
a
slight
'no
snow
mer,
in
my
view,
but
other
than
that.
I
see
this
as
a
good
extension
to
make
your
ski
a
little
bit
more
robust,
an
est
a
little
bit
more
robust,
because
not
only
will
these
requests
have
to
occur.
I
D
G
Sorry,
my
connection
here
I
have
a
more
or
less
narrowband
connection,
so
I
hope
everything
that
I
said
so
far
came
anyway.
I
I
think
it's
not
just
a
pointer
to
est
here
to
specify
the
full
CMC
or
to
specify
the
full
CMC
request
as
part
of
est.
It's
also
the
change
of
of
the
sequence
in
brewski
by
fetching
the
voucher
request
and
the
certificate
request
at
one
point
in
time
and
delivering
pose
at
a
later
point
in
time
from
the
color
flow
I.
Don't
think
that
this
really
disturbs
anything
of
Bruschi.
G
A
Question
with
this
being
very
specific
to
let's
say
est,
maybe
brewski
right
so
whether
or
not
they
wanted
that's
the
name.
That
kind
of
is
what
I
heard
implicitly
from
I
guess.
What
Elliott
is
saying.
The
larger
question
to
me
is,
you
know,
is
other
principles
in
there
that
you
know
go
beyond
applying
it
explicitly
to
you
know
est
in
brewski,
because
you
know
we
already
have
alternative
protocols
in
the
ITF
like
Netcom,
zero,
yeah.
G
G
Question
so
the
the
intention
that
we
had
was
the
first
use
case
was
to
open
up
the
possibility
to
also
utilize
other
enrollment
protocols,
and
that
is
reflected
in
the
adoption
of
the
way
known
scheme
to
basically
allow
other
existing
enrollment
protocols
in
there
as
well.
That
could
be
a
CMP
CMC
or
it
could
also
be
the
approach
I'm,
not
quite
sure
how
far
advanced.
That,
meanwhile,
is
to
utilize
Oscar
for
certificate
management.
A
We
don't
have
a
clear
you
know:
separation
in
our
naming
so
far
between
brewski
the
protocol
and
brewski
the
kind
of
architecture
right.
So
we
call
everything
brewski
and
maybe
you
know
one
of
those
naming
issues
to
solve
through
write
that
this
is
good
extent.
Nes,
you
say
more
about
this
whole
would
strap
architecture
in
as
a
bright
key
protocol
itself,
but
you
know
I
I'd
like
to
leave
it
up
to
you
know
somebody
like
Michael
or
others
to
come
up
with.
You
know
maybe
suggestion
how
to
unconscious
our
naming.
G
That
would
probably
be
good
if
I
mean
right
now.
If
the
brewski
are
see
we
come
out
in
the
next
couple
of
days.
Hopefully,
then
the
name
brewski
basically
reflects
the
overall
protocol
approach
here,
not
just
that
sets
my
understanding.
So
basically
the
combination
of
the
voucher
exchange
with
est
or
with
wissen
enrollment.
Let's
call
it
that
way
with
an
enrollment
and.
A
I
G
Let's
go
to
the
next
slides
because
I'm,
just
starting
with
with
the
discussion
and
the
open
issues,
and
that
is
obviously
one
of
the
questions
that
we
need
to
ask
there.
Those
are
so
some
of
the
questions
may
already
already
be
very
specific
for
the
use
cases
that
are
described
there
so
one
we
don't.
We
probably
don't
need
to
answer
that
question
right
now.
So
one
is
a
pledge.
Agent,
authentication
authorization
issue
in
use
case
two,
so
the
intention
actually
is
not
to
require
the
pledge
agent
to
have
specific
credentials.
G
So
you
can
sink
in
the
easiest
form.
You
can
sing
of
the
pledge
agents
like
a
an
app
that
you
have
on
your
on
your
mobile
phone,
for
instance,
to
allow
for
onboarding
and
the
mobile
phone
may
talk,
for
instance,
Bluetooth
to
the
pledge
and
IP
to
the
to
the
registrar,
and
if
there
is
only
the
information
object
described
like
the
voter
request,
object
and
the
certificate
request,
then
it's
fine
to
have
some
kind
of
enter
and
security
by
sticking
that
toe
to
the
information
object
exchange.
G
What
would
be
interesting
if
the
thing
that
I
mentioned,
that
the
service
technician
that
does
he
on
boring
has
some
kind
of
authorization
that
he
shows
what's
a
registrar,
but
this
can
be
done
by
using
a
user
authentication.
Basically,
this
is
something
that
we
can
we
can
discuss
in
in
the
draft.
So
there
are.
It
is
already
named
or
stated
in
the
draft
as
question
or
as
proposal.
This
is
something
that
that
probably
needs
more
work.
G
There
is
a
second
question
connected
with
that.
If
we
provides
a
proximity
register
our
certificate
to
the
pledge
from
the
pledge
agent.
So
if
we
do
that,
then
I
guess
we
need
some
kind
of
additional
authentication
by
the
pledge
agent
that
the
pledge
agent,
that
the
pledge
knows
that
he's
talking
to
the
right
agent.
G
That
is,
but
what
I
would
expect
there,
and
this
type
of
authentication
may
make
the
the
pledge
agent
a
little
bit
more
complex.
So
if
we
assume
that
the
pledge
agent
is
coming
from
the
from
the
vendor,
then
the
pledge
could
probably
authenticate
the
pledge
agent
very
easily
by
by
validating
a
certificate
if
it
is
issued
by
the
same
vendor
CA.
G
But
if
we
think
on
something
like
a
universal
commissioning
tool
that
may
onboard
the
pledge
independent
of
the
vendor,
then
there
would
be
some
steps
necessary
to
equip
the
pledge
agent,
also
with
a
with
a
kind
of
credential
that
can
be
validated
during
the
unborn
by
the
pledge
again.
Those
two
questions
I
think
there
are
more
related
to
the
further
proceeding
of
the
draft,
and
so.
G
We
have
the
addressing
scheme
right,
so
this
is
what
what
I
mentioned
told
us
as
you
asked
so
the
we
basically
leverage
the
notion
that,
with
a
when
on
approach
or
was
a
way
known
scheme-
and
we
currently
have
the
notion
of
when
on
slash
enrolled,
protocol
or
enrollment
protocol
request,
and
the
proposal
is
to
change
that,
where
known
and
then
just
enrollment
protocol
and
leave
the
remaining
part
of
the
addressing
to
the
enrollment
protocol
itself.
So
est
has
some
some
notion
of
that.
G
A
I
think
that
that
that
goes
way
beyond
the
level
of
detail
and
I'm,
currently
grasping
I
think
they
think
that
this
is
probably
fine
for
you
know
bootstrap
I,
guess
for
me
a
little
bit
the
question
is
you
know
how
would
this
go
further
on
into
something
like
a
CP
where,
for
example,
for
certificate
renewal?
We're
currently,
you
know
mandating
EST,
as
the
you
know
mandatory
to
implement,
and
so,
if
we
basically
broaden
ourselves
beyond
hiest
you'd
have
to
think
about
how
that
trickles
over
to
a
CP
extensions
as
well.
I
guess,
oh.
D
D
That's
what
you're
doing
you
buy
a
new
house
right,
you
change
all
the
locks
and
so
that
that
now
they
would
then
provide
some
EST
or
cmp
renewal
function
when
they
essentially
restarted
their
home
controller
with
a
fresh
factory,
defaulted
thing
and
then
provide
the
keys,
and
then
it
would
take
over
getting
rid
of
all
the
construction
companies
identities.
Out
of
it.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
It
definitely
makes
sense
to
remove
the
word
DP
and
replace
it
purely
with
how
about
certificate
renewal,
and
you
know
I
could
start.
You
know
complaining
about
my
Tivo
again,
which
doesn't
have
certificate
renewal.
So
all
the
certificates
are
expire
and
you
know
I,
don't
think
that
re-enrollment,
which
I
think
I
heard
you
saying
in
a
period
of
two
to
five
years,
no.
A
Let
me
just
say
that
you
know
I
inherited
a
lot
of
pain,
trying
to
specify
all
the
certificate
rekeying
renewal
for
the
ACP.
So
if
we
go
further
on
and
especially
saying,
there
is
no
ACP
and
we
don't,
you
know,
specify
those
pieces
here,
then
you
know
these
solutions
will
not
work
after
the
point
where
we
Keene
would
be
required.
So
I'm
not.
D
So
let
me
so
let
me
let
me
suggest
that
an
industrial
association
like
the
building
Association
may
write
a
document
similar
to
the
ACP
document
that
specifies
how
that
works
and
that,
if
I
bring
a
commercial
fridge
to
my
home,
that
I
may
have
the
problem
that
the
commercial
fridge
consortium
decided
on
a
different
protocol
than
the
home
construction
consortium
and
I
have
to
do
something
in
magic,
right
and,
and
that
may
be
intentional
market.
You
know
what
is
it
called
when
you
split
up
the
market?
D
Yeah
there's
a
word
for
that,
and
that
may
be
intentional,
or
that
may
just
be
the
where
they
each
went,
but
but
I
think
that
for
the
moment,
I
think
that
that
that
the
specification
is
not
that
complicated
to
write
outside
of
the
space
of
the
ACP.
You
just
needed
to
write
that
part.
It's
not
that
complicated,
but
it
might
be
that
he
doesn't
need
to
specify
it
itself,
because
it's
better
done
in
an
industrial
document.
D
D
G
That's
what
I
said
so
just
just
to
give
an
example
from
a
different
domain
in
power
system,
automation,
for
instance.
There
is
also
the
case
that
the
infrastructure
needs
to
support
two
different
enrollment
protocol.
It's
because
there
was
a
request
to
support
different
and
Ronen
protocols
before,
let's
call
it
historic
reasons,
so
one
escape
the
other.
One
is
EST,
so
we
ended
up
in
a
situation
where
the
infrastructure
has
to
support
both
enrollment
protocols,
while
the
pledge
or
the
the
enrolling
entity
in
that
case
can
choose
it's
not
nice.
A
G
Sorry
for
keeping
the
discussion
running
so
that's
the
last
slide,
so
it
mainly
describes
the
the
next
steps
that
are
envisioned
visit
draft.
The
goal
is
to
reuse
the
brewski
architecture,
elements
as
much
as
possible
and
just
adapt,
for
instance,
the
sequences
from
the
from
the
brewski
document,
but
we
utilize
all
of
the
different
elements.
A
A
I
A
A
Okay
glitzen:
can
we
take
this
offline
I'm,
just
as
the
process
I
was
just
checking
beside.
Obviously,
you
know
an
appropriate
adoption
call
on
the
list
which
we
must
do
anyhow,
whether
anybody
has
seen
a
useful
way
to
to
hold
the
virtual
room
here
on
WebEx.
If
not,
then
let's
not
try
to
do
this
now
there
is
the
raise
hand
in
WebEx,
but
I
haven't
seen
people
trying
to
use
it
successfully.
G
E
A
B
A
B
A
B
G
B
A
A
B
B
D
D
J
Okay,
let's
begin
this
mean
hello:
everyone
yeah,
okay,
let's
begin
tall
and
price
customer
is
saying
hello
already
in
standard
deploy
a
solution.
Meantime,
during
their
network
deployment
for
hire,
we
have
initiated
service
continued
failure.
Oneidas.
I
monaco
and
redundant
little
work,
a
link
between
devices
like
the
right
tool,
a
tool
case,
but
the
ICT
is
IP
based
architecture,
so
there
needs
some
tangency
in
korea,
18
acp,
you
met
who
st
network
likes
less
next.
J
J
A
J
J
That's
the
right
feel
figure
is
cry
who
hast
eggs
cuts
the
traffic
one
loop
will
be
made
between
switch
a
and
the
switch
B,
so
the
to
deploy
loop
braking
mechanism,
conditionally
STB
is
famous,
but
because
fsvp
can
be
Katy
the
topple
calculation,
so
the
layer,
2
network
convergence,
very
slow
for
light
network
item
magical
configuration,
especially
during
embody,
is
not
good
solution.
Bintang
st
be
made
me
some
device
all
may
discover
and
trust
devices.
This
will
cause
terrible
problem
next
list.
J
Next
yeah,
so
we
think
with
we
think
about
their
tool
based
device
discovery,
protocol
and
in
standard
I,
probably
don't
need
control
a
to
calculate
air
D
people
only
with
puppies
and
remote
we
Pat
Healy
only
beat
between
switch
B
and
switch
a,
but
by
this
did
he
doesn't
cause
ruthless
work
and
our
bot
nerdy
beef
frame
for
what
in
play
already
sent
them
to
see
you.
This
is
a
CP
design
behavior,
so
we
can
comply
to
combine
ACP
and
their
DVD
together.
Next.
J
Okay,
thank
you
and
for
layer
two
for
their
toothpaste
esteem.
Every
week.
Each
minute,
sweetie
must
be
discovered,
even
exist,
multiple
layer
of
a
mere
tool
connectivity,
unlike
the
right
figure
and
our
must
avoid
including
and
system
into
topic,
Oh
Pope,
for
example,
best
toes
because
this
and
sister
may
have
malware
and
the
pretend
to
be
our
water
in
Hank,
because
this
is
Adam.
This
is
our
own
numbers
Network.
So
when
param
new
sweetie
need
to
be
discovered
autumn
Italy
and
one
ever
summoning
team,
the
cavalry
need
to
be
continues
tool.
J
Yes,
new
new
system
here
next,
okay,
this
is
a
anundson
who
are
chief
ICP.
You
said
air
DP.
There
are
many
the
following
process
to
do.
Firstly,
in
cups
in
capitulate
ipv6
into
RDP,
here
V
system,
then
after
receiving
RTP
packets,
is
he
we
label
Mallory
ICD
at
Kingston
table
to
finish
device
discovery
once
new
switches
unbowed
through
risky
and
by
the
help
of
a
joy,
impressive
new
switches
will
be
discovered
next
slide.
J
A
J
Let's
see
air
DP
frame
famous
early
bpdu
air
be
RDP,
RDP
EU
is
in
the
data
ever
including
the
tier
V
header
and
the
ipv6
packet
information,
because
at
third
tier
VIII,
information
stream
in
air
DP
frame
famous
has
their
limit
over
500
800
T's
by
the
meaning
I.
Can
we
6
m2
is
a
1280,
so
I
peel
with
6
hello
need
to
be
fragment?
That's
he
to
say,
RDP
ipv6
fragment
contain
more
than
one
tip
theory.
This
theory
in
Cuddapah
are
two
points:
sub
trv
type
and
the
SAP
ERP
and
okay.
Next,
okay,.
J
B
J
J
E
D
E
Answer
is
I,
don't
know,
I
would
be
surprised
if
they
did
I.
Think
I
think
my
question
is
more
about
whether
we
should
be
trying
to
speak
to
eighty
two
dot,
one
working
group
to
see
if
they
have
in
this
area
or
third
have
any
concerns.
What
we're
doing
here,
maybe
that
doesn't
matter
I'm
I,
just
thought
is:
if
they
already
have
a
mechanism
for
doing
this,
is
there
something
we
can
piggyback
on
rather
than
potentially
inventing
the
wheel?
It's
like
different.
Well,
that's.
H
K
F
F
L
D
Think
what
you're
saying
is
that
we
could
get
the
same
effect
with
that
with
a
specific
destination
MAC
address
and
without
the
same
ether
type.
And
if
that's
the
case,
then
we
could
try
something
else
but
lldp
itself.
However,
it
gets
there
gets
up
to
the
control
plane
and
that's
actually
the
property.
We
really
want.
D
Bypasses
all
of
the
forwarding
mechanism
of
the
of
in
the
forwarding,
plane,
ASIC
and
goes
straight
up
to
the
control
plane
and
we're
really
which,
which
means
that
we
were
completely
divorced
from.
However
configured
or
misconfigured,
the
ASIC
is,
and
so
we
always
get
the
out-of-band
channel
that
we
want
or
the
in
band
load
band
control
that
we
want
for
the
ACP.
That
makes
sense
so.
A
Let
me
also
make
a
suggestion
here
right,
so
it
would
be
very
good
and
I
think
to
me
you
know
as
an
individual
contributor.
That
would
be
my
my
you
know
suggestion
to
have
a
comparison
of
this
mechanism
with
the
ACP
over
or
for
l2
switches,
that
is
in
the
ACP
document
itself,
because
that,
basically
is
an
existing
solution.
Option
and
I
think
you
know
every
reader
would
like
to
understand
what
the
difference
and
benefits
are
of
this
approach.
J
J
Thanks
yeah,
second,
second
sale,
it
is
the
mania
Stacy.
For
example,
you
to
create
her
all
bank
wrap,
wrap,
UT
manufacturing
defy
divides
the
transportal
winning
seller
later
another
example
for
our
cloud
or
public
heavy
either
register
will
we
should
I
change
in
CA
at
a
something
these
things
we
sail
like
this
sliced
diagram.
There
are
button
new
button,
blue
mister
master,
override
URL,
nothing
green,
which
is
free
for
for
sure
here,
the
green.
Mr.,
it's
a
dedication
also
read
here:
sled.
J
I
J
C
J
Next
click,
yeah
and
the
in
our
and
after
zero
gives
our
village
either
proposed
mutation
about
dedication,
variegated
furniture,
yellow
yeah.
You
know
Mac,
okay,
here
at
4-under,
and
here
we,
if
our
issues
are
about
about
a
delegation
franchise
is
intention,
determines
whether
is
a
are
right
or
not,
and
there
are
other
because
the
temperature
have
changed
them
so
the
plate,
another
and
register
may
be
enhancing.
So
so
here
we
give
three
issues
to
sing
about
and
ask
for
an
email
to
review
whether
it
is
fan,
Fanny
Beaufort,
a
lot,
it's
okay!
Thank
you.
F
G
Thank
you,
yeah
I
should
turn
my
sorry.
This
is
Stephanie
just
going
back
to
the
slide
where
you
mentioned,
the
the
third
scenario
was
a
transparent
assembly.
Just
from
my
understanding,
this
would
basically
resemble
the
functionality
that
was
described
in
this
marketing
draft.
Is
that
the
same
approach?
If
you
want
to
see
the
slide
and
I
should.
D
Okay,
understood,
okay,
so
so
that
that's
a
low
that
because
the
everything's
local
is
localized,
so
I
agree
that
it's
similar
but
and
that
and
and
I
hope.
It's
clear
that
you
could
have
multiple
layers
of
this
so
that
blue-ish
registrar,
the
rail
car,
rail
waggon
registrar,
could
be
then
doing
this
with
the
rail,
the
train
right
in
the
next
level
or
whatever
number
of
layers
of
encapsulation
you
have.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
all
of
the
parts
are
in
fact
registered
to
the
whatever
the
highest
level.
D
Registrar
is
there's
not
a
layers
of
registrar's
there's
it's
other
they're
flat
on
a
network.
I
think
that's
the
goal
right,
so
we
could
in
fact
have.
We
could
in
fact
have
secure
communications
between
left
front
brake
thing
on
bogie,
one
with
left
front
brake
on
bogey
and
also
the
one
at
the
back
of
the
train.
If
that's
somehow
made
sense.
D
J
A
A
J
J
H
J
J
J
See
CSR
and
CC
is
the
first,
the
first
consideration
for
register
for
different
cases
in
the
answer
network
scale,
all
enterprise
type
IP
network
you
rarely
deploy
in
medical,
look
in
different
location,
so
they
had
tea,
Swedes,
3-pack,
hello,
sorry,
Pam,
PKI,
instructor
you
to
me:
yes,
sir
leader
client
signification
for
Massa
and
the
server
certification
for
est.
At
the
same
time,
so
remote
so
recommend,
look
our
NOC
LCR
certificate
for
is
CI,
but
for
and
the
price
that
work
with
them.
J
If
they,
if
Enterprise
have
a
medical,
looks
MOC
MOC
for
using
Sarita
time,
higher
PKI
is
strategy
to
who
are
single
locations
with
or
he
for
even
single
locations
with
all
long
for
operation
operational
can
continue
by
installed
in
slowly
root.
Cae
you
one
in
several
Williams
Surrey
titled
KPI,
is
also
feasible
and
force
more
homework.
Sweet,
hello,
sweetheart
PKI,
is
a
redundant
re
comment:
locate,
okay,
locate
our
users
all
and
device.
B
J
J
So
there
will
be
a
larger
BR
higher
latency,
but
an
Essene,
a
synchro
per
file,
secure
or
Funky's
internal
facing
post
never
and
take
us
to
the
internet,
then
happy
to
list
the
manicures
influence
and
the
part
her
nice
across.
We
gesture
may
be
super
for
meadow
and
price
users.
This
is
three
option
calling
Prakriti.
C
J
These
three,
the
third
consideration
about
a
sickie
and
greicy,
are
tracing
based
on
Pete
risky
ipv6,
an
Inc
local,
unplayed,
ACP
connection,
make
register,
mast
and
hey
our
unique
ipv6
at
the
base
for
certifications
and
the
ipv6
address
have
two
halves.
If
he
call
one
address
and
if
equal,
zero,
Driss
so
limited
sold
me
mr.
nas
half
a
degree.
J
Facing
the
gesture
is
LAN,
it
work
exceeds
a
lot
of
IOT
device
if
some
device
exists
malware
this,
we
all
exhausted
bandwidth
between
your
impressive
and
the
register.
The
second
issue
is
in
the
in
common
network,
the
in
common,
our
home
network,
which
CA
cak
deploy.
Luckily
you
CA,
even
if
he
fail,
the
user
need
to
buy
back
our
database,
but
for
some
reason
he
failed.
Then
here
we
all
throw
out
so
our
way
his
city,
then
we
of
course
he
ki
KI
lost
and
underneath
his
home
device
most
of
control.
J
And
then,
finally,
on
this
level,
I
want
to
summarize,
we
just
wrote
consideration.
The
first
one
is
about
is
a
certificated
issue
for
different
use
case,
the
second
leader,
David
prayer,
hate,
her
prayer
process,
process
mechanism,
second
sink
rollers
or
hosting
a
synchronous
in
suitable
for
different
use
case.
The
surveys
are
about
ACP
ipv6
address
based
on
offense
scale,
whether
whether
recommend
F
echo,
one
for
most
enterprise
and
home
F
econ
equals
zero
for
ICP
the
for,
since
we
think
about
two
security
points
he
does
or
and
the
loss
of
Keith.
J
A
Just
a
quick
comment
from
my
side:
I
haven't
been
able
to
get
through
all
of
this
in
detail.
The
one
of
these
bullet
points
here
are
one
of
the
bullet
points
on
slide.
Seven
I
think
that
the
answer
to
question
number
one
may
depend
on
the
use
case,
for
example,
for
a
CP
the
discussions
about
whether
area
you
know
public
PKI
could
be
used
or
ACP
certificates
through
brewski
is
already
in
the
ACP
RFC.
That
was
just
you
know,
part
of
the
improvements
in
the
last.
A
You
know
half
a
year
to
make
that
clearer,
because
we
were
fairly
clear
that
you
need
private
PKI.
At
least
you
know
from
where
you
start
your
trust
anchors.
Now
that
trust
anchor
can
be
assigned
publicly,
but
it
doesn't
need
to
be
and
doesn't
have
a
big
benefit,
but
I
would
guess
that,
depending
on
you
know
how
you're
using
the
certificates-
and
there
may
be
similar
answers-
that
we
may
not
be
able
to
give
just
a
brewski
registers
all
the
recommendations,
the
same
as
across
all
use
cases.
A
A
You
know
the
topic
of
this
draft,
also
on
the
working
group
and
ask
the
question:
if
somebody
has
read
it
and
please
comment
on
it
or
just
say
whether
people
have
read
it
so
that
we
can
start
vetting
the
interest
of
the
working
group
in
this
somewhat
more
right.
So
please,
sir,
you
know
actively
drive
that
for
your
draft.
A
K
A
Didn't
feel
confident
of
assuming
that
this
would
work
pretty
well
in
in
WebEx.
So
that's
that's
a
little
bit.
The
challenge
will
have
to
adopt
too
and
so
I
think
it's
even
more
important,
for
you
know
the
authors
of
the
drafts
to
basically
erase
the
activity
in
the
working
group
about
their
draft
so
that
that
we
can
do
that
vetting
solely
from
the
mailing
list.
K
I
K
There
are
two
aspects
of
the
relationship
between
the
device
and
the
manufacturer.
First
is,
after
the
manufacturer
provisions
and
identity
aka
a
dev
ID
for
the
device,
so
this
device
identity
is
valid
by
the
masa
before
issuing
the
voucher.
The
later
consideration
include
the
key
pair
generation
and
the
pka
for
a
dev
ID.
The
other
aspect
is
that
the
manufacturer
provides
our
mechanism.
This
mechanical
will
convince
the
device
to
trusted
the
new
owner,
so
the
device
can
validate
that
the
voucher
is
issued
by
a
legitimate
master.
K
I
K
Off
device
keep
your
generation
typically
the
it
is
say
that
the
manufacturer
generates
as
a
key
pair
and
the
issue
that
certificate
and
installed
the
private
key
and
the
certificate
to
the
device.
The
device
just
needs
to
store
this
private
key
and
a
certificate
out
of
energy
that
manufacture,
exact
infrastructure
to
generate
are
better.
We
are
a
private
private
key,
a
key
pair
with
better
randomness
and
the
authenticity
of
the
public
key
is
also
well
knowing
to
the
manufacturer.
F
K
Third
method
is
that
when
the
manufacturer
makes
them
device
and
when
to
use
some
like
silicon
fabrication
and
this
silicon
fabrication,
a
unique
secret
feet
and
also
this
secret,
kid
is
provision
that
you
CPU
to
the
device
and
is
revealed
to
to
the
OEM,
so
the
oh
yeah,
so
the
manufacturer
and
the
device
can
both
generate
the
key
pair
but
separately
and
the
the
manufacturer
after
the
manufacturer,
generate
it
generated
at
the
keep
it
where
it
can.
It
will
this
private
key
and
the
issuer
certificate
and
it
returns
the
certificate
to
the
device.
K
K
The
key
derivation
system
can
be
completely
disconnected
from
the
networks
because
they
can
post
do
the
do
the
key
generation
without
connected
to
each
other,
and
but
this
om,
the
manufacturer,
must
have
be
supplied
by
a
trusted
us
taken
fabrication
system.
With
this
secure,
unique
security
and
om.
The
manufacturer
must
store
and
care
for
this
case
very
carefully
and
the
bargain
for
a
loan.
A
K
Maybe
someone
saying
this
is
properly
a
ie
certificate
should
not
be
counted
as
I'll
tear.
But
oh
this
is
a
case.
The
picture
below
is
the
case
there
that
the
bottom
is
root
certificate
and
a
root
CA
issues
in
the
media
Tessier,
and
that
there
are
private
key
of
the
root.
Ca
should
be
kept
offline
to.
K
K
Okay,
the
part
is
about
the
operational
consideration
for
Massa.
First,
there
are
three
four
types:
cases
for
cases
we
want
is
described
and
first
is
about
the
multi-product
Amasa.
This
case
is
that
there
is
a
offline
CA
and
the
CH
private
key
is
kept
offline
in
the
safe,
like
the
in
some
kind
of,
say
in
left,
left
a
box
and
it
will
periodically
sign
on
new
and
the
entity
certificate.
It
is.
This.
K
Is
the
Marcel
certificate
in
the
you
can
see
in
the
middle
middle
box
and
use
this
user
e
certificates
online
private
key
to
issue
voucher
for
the
device,
and
you
can
see
our
manufacturer
level
Massa
and
the
manufacturer
may
be
high,
may
have
several
product
lines
and
it
will
have
only
one
Massa
and
this
Massa
issue
vouchers
for
different
types,
different
types,
products,
so
yeah.
This
is
a
case,
and
next
please.
K
K
K
So
one
the
compromise
of
a
single
product
line,
Massa,
doesn't
comprise
all
products
and
if
one
product
line
is
sold
to
another
entity
and
the
Massa
is
pro,
a
process
affects
only
this
single
prong
line
and
the
serial
number
of
the
products
of
the
device
can
complicated
among
different
product
lines.
But
is
this
requires
a
private
key
to
be
restored
per
for
each
product
line,
and
but
this
is
a
a
case
which
are
we
think
it
is
encouraging.
K
A
Wanted
to
give
date
on
the
status
of
the
ACP,
so
around
the
ITF
106
we
had
version
21.
We
had
gone
through
the
a
security
review
by
then
with
the
RFC
822
name.
Hopefully
having
been
the
only
discussed
that
was
keyed
up
I,
kept
it
open
and
then
a
new
area
director
was
assigned
to
the
document
Erik
pinky,
because
Ignasi,
who
was
the
area
director
at
that
point
in
time,
had
to
excuse
himself
and
because
of
the
term
ends
of
iesg
members.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
the
is
now
in
the
second
IDF
last
call
from
Eric
and
I
wanted
to
quickly
summarize
the
changes
that
were
done
in
February
March,
so
the
22
name
discuss
is
still
open.
So
now
brass
has
also
chimed
in
with
the
statement
from
Ben
that
using
RFC
822
names
seems
wrong,
but
what
you
I
haven't
seen
any
good.
You
know
a
technical
support
for
this,
so
that's
that's
going
to
be
part,
I.
A
Think
of
the
discussion
we
need
to
have-
and
there
is
a
long
section
of
you
know
reasons
for
doing
this
choice
from
a
lot
of
operational
reasons
in
Section.
Six
one
two
so
I
think
would
be
good
to
get
to
the
technical
level
of
argue
about
the
pros
and
cons.
I
haven't
seen
any.
You
know
supporting
arguments
that
there
is
really
anything
in
an
RFC
says.
We
can't
do
it
with
just
I.
Think
other
you
know
preference
choices
by
the
people,
and
you
know
the
document
right
now.
A
Reb
very
much
reflects
the
operation
of
preference
choices
from
the
working
group
and
the
implementations
that
we
have
to
see
yeah
so
to
finalize
that
review
in
the
next
few
days
to
address
and
try
to
upload
25.
There
is
also
some
of
the
IPSec
discussions
that
we
had.
There
needs
to
be
very
careful
removal,
some
of
redundant
text
that
we
had
about.
A
You
know,
refining
the
profile
versus
the
idea
actually
too
so
I
didn't
want
to
rush
that
to
make
sure
it's
it's
done
correctly,
so
the
major
changes
from
21
to
24
beyond
these
open
issues,
so
I
hope
that
the
overall
security
check
a
section
for
the
secured
channels.
It's
a
lot
more,
well-structured
because
I
doubt
what
really
is
applicable
to
all
secure
channels
from
the
IPSec
section.
So
things
like
that
there
is
no
MTI
protocol
that
you
know
the
security
for
the
latest.
Wink
is
what
the
weakest
link
is.
A
What
determines
the
security
of
the
oval
acp?
So
there
needs
to
be
a
common,
lower,
lowest
lowest
common
security
level
across
all
the
secure
channel
protocols
being
used,
and
these
points
that
we
can
reuse
physical
link,
security
or
reuse
existing
l2
encryption
so
that
lets
basically
these
common
requirements
or
word.
Secrecy
suggested
lowest
common
denominator
of
security
for
for
the
data
packets
is
to
50
to
60
56.
A
Actually,
sorry
about
that
explicit
closure
of
the
channels
upon
authentication,
expiry
right
of
certificates
expire,
the
secure
channel
seem
to
be
closed
and
then
also
suggestion
to
create
strict
profiles
for
any
new
channel
protocols.
Because
and
that's
what
we
went
through
in
IPSec,
the
current
profiles
very
often
have
a
lot
of
legacy
in
then.
That
really
would
make
implementation
hard
work
forwarding
complex.
A
Now
on
the
control
plane.
Sorry
there
is
another
type
of
here:
the
the
ikely
to
BCP
RFC,
that
that
specification
primarily
says
to
use
ACP
certificates,
how
to
put
them
into
the
IP
to
signaling
and
must
use
digital
signature.
So
so
that's
basically
where
I
think
there
are
some
additional
text
that
we
have
there.
That
needs
to
be
stripped
overall.
We're
not
really
trying
to.
You
know
not
mandate,
anything
that's
in
a
two
to
one,
because
it
still
seems
that
simply
reusing
any
existing
software
implementation.
A
You
know
there
may
be
you
know,
issues
when
you
do
not
have
a
real-time
clock
and
you
do
start
with
just
you
know,
trusting
that
certificates
presented
to
you
are
valid
because
you
don't
have
a
better
clock
and
going
back
to
actually
getting
trustworthy
clock
through
the
ACP.
So
this
section
now
writes
this
down
DTLS
secondary
ACP
channel
protocol.
So
this
this
was
very
much
upgraded
to
mention
DTLS
1.3,
once
it
is
an
RFC
so
because
we
really
don't
benefit
a
lot
from
any
DTLS
1.3
improvements.
A
The
profile
already
is
a
fairly
close
to
detail,
that's
1.3
from
the
security
side,
and
we
don't
really
want
to
blocking
against
TTLs
1.3.
But
there
is
a
RFC
author
note
that
will
change
this
to
be
a
must
for
DTLS
1.3
once
there
is
an
RFC
before
we're
in
48
for
for
the
ACP,
and
the
main
reason,
of
course,
is
that
we
can't
simply
strip
out
DTLS,
1
or
2,
because
in
the
space
of
routers
firmware
off
devices
what
we
want
ACP
implementations.
A
A
As
close
as
we
can
with
one
or
two
to
TLS
1.3,
without
expecting
that
all
ACP
devices
support
TLS
1.3
and
hopefully
you
know,
there
would
be
faster
to
to
recognize
when
TLS
1.3
is
expected
to
be
available
across
all
the
candidate
ACP
devices,
and
always
a
reminder
that
in
an
ops
group,
you
know
trying
to
stick
to
the
standards
that
we
have
that
are
widely
available.
Is
you
know
something
of
the
pragmatic
compromises
that
you
know
in
ops
are
quite
important,
yeah,
hopefully
good.
A
You
know
improvement
on
the
text
of
all
these
ripple
data
playing
artifacts.
You
know,
if
you
know
something
like
SRB.
6
ripple
has
multiple
of
those,
so
that
was
confusing
to
to
Eric
and
to
me
as
well
on
the
text
side,
because
I'm
using
there
is
an
improvement
on
the
better
to
better
explain
how
the
secure
channels,
the
secure
associations,
are
mapped
to
the
virtual
interfaces.
A
And
then
there
was
a
rewrite
of
the
ACP
overall
to
a
section,
because
I
think
there
was
very
little,
if
not
none
at
all
review
of
that
section
before
Eric,
and
so
the
whole
idea
was
to
explain
how
it's
easy
on
an
a
layer
to
switch
to
implement
the,
at
least
in
software
without
in
any
new
hardware.
Forwarding
requirements-
and
that's
purely
done
through
you
know,
doing
the
right
thing
in
grasp
and
therefore
allowing
a
software
ACP
in
there
and
then
added
requirements
for
filtering
of
these
artifacts
on
ACP
XS.
Not
so.
K
A
C
D
Ma
and
my
my
question
is-
is
saying
actually
kind
of
more
to
to
to
Russ
Housley,
Eric
and
Rob,
who
is
this
I
noticed
that
quite
a
number
of
people
80s
gave
us
no
objections
or
we
have
no
record
even
these
that
have
been
that
are
not
new
and
therefore
we
effectively
have
one
yes
from
Terry
that
we
need
to
replace
and
one
discuss.
So
it
seems,
like
1580s,
have
basically
said
they're
just
leaving
it
to
the
one
discuss
and
that's
it
and
I
just
don't
understand.
L
Speaking
here,
so
it's
not
the
first
document,
that's
coming
back
after
one
year
or
two
years
and
of
course
is
G
members
has
changed.
It
vastly
depends
upon
the
change
of
the
document.
If
the
document
is
being
just
changed
and
enough
I
10%,
but
a
lot
of
things
change.
We
simply
come
back
in
front
of
the
telly
chat
and
people
may
change
their
point
and
of
course
it,
but
they
are
not
there
or
cannot
change
or
they
don't
count
and
new
ATS
can
vote
on
this.
L
But
in
this
case
pretty
much
like
I
have
asked
for
a
second
last
call,
because
the
document
has
vastly
change
and
thank
you
again
Torres
for
addressing
all
those
comments
and
working
on
it.
It
will
come
to
another
mallet
starting
from
scratch,
yeah,
but
the
last
one,
and
then
the
new
one
is
coming.
This.
F
L
H
A
21
I
removed
the
whole
changelog,
which
was
already
20
pages
long
and
did
a
summary
of
what
was
changed
from
you
know
the
start
to
the
iesg
process
to
the
end
of
the
iesg
process.
I
hope
that
people
trying
to
review
the
difference
will
get
a
fairly
good
summary,
except
that
from
22
now
they're
still
more
detailed.
A
A
Suggestion
would
be
if
basically,
authors
of
certain
documents
feel
that
there
is
enough
to
discuss
on
the
content
of
documents.
Please
bring
up
that
suggestion.
We
can
always
have
in
terms
and
the
more
we
training,
virtually
the
the
more
helpful,
so
I
think,
as
working
group
chairs
were
very
happy
to
set
up
insurance
for
for
this.