►
From YouTube: STIR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-04-20
Description
STIR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-04-20
B
And
we
are
now
being
recorded
so
welcome
to
the
stir
inner
meeting
on
1st
of
2020
we'll
see
if
we
have
more
as
we
go
along.
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
note
that
this
meeting
is
operating
under
the
note.
Well,
if
you're
not
familiar
with
the
note
well,
please
take
some
time
to
familiarize
yourself
with
it
before
you
contribute
to
this
meeting.
B
Our
agenda
today
is
on
the
screen.
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
find
minute
takers,
jabber,
scribe
and
to
again
point
people
at
the
blue
sheets.
Some
people
are
having
issues
connecting
you
that
keep
trying
several
people
have
been
able
to
attach.
We've
got
a
few
people
that
have
already
added
their
name
to
the
blue
sheet.
There
see
if
you
can
get
in
before
the
meetings
over
and
add
yourself.
If
you
can't
send
me
email
and
I
will
take
care
of
it
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
B
B
B
Of
everybody
else
all
right,
so
our
plan
is
to
go
to
our
active
working
documents
we
get
through
those.
We
can
update
on
our
documents
that
are
in
working
group
last
call
and
post
working
group
last
call,
and
if
we
have
time
remaining,
we've
got
three
drafts
that
the
presenters
would
like
to
to
tell
us
about
and
start
to
close
issues
and
those.
If,
if
the
group
wants
to
jump
in
so
anybody
have
any
agenda
bashes
before
we
start.
B
C
B
C
There
are
few
issues
there,
though
some
most
of
them
I,
say:
concern,
give
o
the
idea
of
using
div
in
this
nested
fashion,
with
the
the
opt
former
passport
inserted
into
it,
and
I'll
talk
a
bit
about
these
another
slide.
But
Benjamin
also
raised
an
issue
about
hiding
the
original
called
number
by,
not
including
it
did
passport
kind
of
kind
of
what
the
security
implications
are.
C
If
you
really
do
want
to
obscure
what
the
original
called
number
was,
because
you
want
to
obscure
whatever
like
service
logic
you're
using
for
forwarding,
you
know
kind
of
what
what
what
the
results
of
that
really
are,
and
so
there
probably
is
some
tax
assume.
You
need
to
add
it
for
that,
and
you
had
a
ton
of
minor
comments
like
quite
a
slew
that
we'll
have
to
work
through
here
and
as
well.
Just
if
the
reviewers,
including
the
Ino
review,
found
a
number
of
nits.
D
C
Editorials
that
need
to
be
fixed
as
well
I'll
go
through
a
few
of
those
now
so
next
slide
right,
so
div
Oh
so
did
the
demo
text.
That's
in
the
diversion
draft
is
frankly
a
bit
of
a
stub,
so
it
defines
this
new
passport
option
for
div.
Oh,
and
this
is
something
really
you've
mostly
used
for
out-of-band.
This
is
not
something
we
expect
would
be
used
for
for
in
band
sip
based
diversion
where
you
know.
C
C
To
carry
multiple
identity
headers
and
for
people
you
always
sort
it
out
on
the
end
and
I
mean
I,
think
the
main
thing
that
Benjamin
razors
in
actually
both
Benjamin
and
roman,
raised
as
nor
abusers,
there's
kind
of
no
particular
ASVs
behavior,
that's
described
for
them
in
the
drafted.
A
and
partly
I
think
it's
that
the
division
of
labor
between
this
document
OB
is
is
perhaps
unclear
in
that
regard,
since
OB
goes
to
great
lengths
to
kind
of
discuss.
C
Happy
about
that
and
so
I
mean
that
that,
though,
would
not
be
a
small
lift.
That
would
be
the
kind
of
lift
where
I
imagine.
This
would
probably
have
to
come
back
to
the
working
group
afterwards,
because
it
would
be
the
addition
of
the
considerable
amount
of
normative
text
to
that
section,
and
you
know
I'm
willing
to
do
that.
But
I
think
we
should
probably
float
that
here.
So
people
have
an
opinion
about.
You
know
the
perspective
value
of
doing
this
at
this
point,
because
for
better
for
worse
I
understand
there
a.
F
C
C
B
C
It's
my
interest
as
well,
unfortunately,
because
it
kind
of
seems
like
a
lot
of
work,
but
if
that
work
is
going
to
live
somewhere
since
Obi
is
already
in
the
artsy
editor
queue,
you
know
from
a
division
of
labor
perspective.
It
probably
belongs
in
this
draft
and
I
mean
the
good
news
is
OB
does
really
talked
a
lot
about
what
Oba
ssnvs
is.
C
As
we
can
kind
of
build
on
that
tags,
you
know
I
mean
it's
because
OB
is
informational
and
this
is
PS.
You
know,
there's
a
certain
amount
of
do.
We
want
to
have
room
to
things
pointing
to
behavior
of
OB
and
that's
mildly
annoying
process
perspective.
So
probably
I'll
have
to
just
make
a
lot
of
normative
statements
about
this,
to
kind
of
compensate
for
that
in
the
div
draft,
and
it
will
it'll
add
some
tax
and
it's
not
going
to
add,
like
a
huge
amount
of
text,
but
it'll
definitely
be
adding
some
text
here.
C
E
C
C
Next
slide:
yeah
thanks,
perfect,
okay,
so
ITF
Stewart
delegation
finished
working
through
class
call
Russ.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
comments
on
that.
Basically,
I'm
just
have
them
accepting
all
those
comments
right,
so
there's
something
nothing
there.
That
I
think
we
really
need
to
go
through
in
any
detail.
I
was
talking.
C
The
eight
kids
kid
chaining
right,
I
mean
really
always
trying
to
say
is
that,
like
the
order
of
the
certificates
or
the
Pam
document
should
correspond
to
the
order
in
which
the
the
you
know,
a
kid
Ness
kid
like
like
actually
link
the
certs
together
and
I,
don't
know
if
there's
already
a
word
for
how
the
path
should
correspond
to
that
I
mean
it's
kind
of
like
an
obvious
thing
to
say,
and
it's
it's
probably
you
know
really
also
just
like
an
optimization
right.
It's
it's
not
like.
C
B
I
mean
you
could
say
something
Ted.
This
is
Shawn
Turner.
You
could
say
somebody
in
effect
from
the
signer
to
the
route
I
mean
there's,
you
could
provide
more
information
for
the
for
the
implementers,
but
you're.
Absolutely
right
is
that
if
the
blob
asserts
is
there
once
they
start
processing
these
things
you're
going
to
know
from
the
issuer,
subject:
name
who's.
What
yeah.
C
E
B
E
B
A
Further,
this
is
roughly
the
issue
is
that
some
validators
may
have
a
different
trust
anchor
in
some
people
eoz,
especially
where
there's
cross
certification
in
this
one.
We
don't
have
that
problem
yeah,
so
there
ought
to
be
some
way
to
say
that,
but
I
can't
think
of
any
RFC
with
the
vine
closure
work,
yeah.
C
C
C
But
yeah
I
mean
so
I.
Think
next
slide
I
think
we're
pretty
much
through
all
this
random
yeah.
So
we
should
probably
fix
this
DeVoe
stop
and
cycle
back
both
to
the
working
group
and
the
is
G.
You
know
all
issue
is
you're
a
nine
to
that
and
then
you
know
we'll
do
a
vision
of
delegation
I
think
to
incorporate
the
fixes
that
Russ
asked
for
in
that
advanced
at
the
ISD.
Those
those
would
be
our
next
steps.
C
E
B
E
E
A
reference
for
support
of
the
you
know
the
the
service
URL,
which
is
the
SOS
arm
and
we're
waiting
on
feedback
from
Brian
Rosen
on
on
getting
that
reference
as
a
next
step
arm.
You
know
with
respect
to
anonymous,
you
know
we
had
a
conference
call
and
that's
still
an
open
item
and
how,
to
you
know,
address
a
nom
anonymous
arm.
This
is
something
that
is
also
going
to
be
discussed
in
3gpp
arm
and
is
currently
right
now
arm
in
stir
shaken
arm
carriers
are
supporting
arm.
E
They
are
passing
that
and
now
unfortunately,
because
this
never
really
got
standardized
everybody
from
what
we
could
tell
is
not
everybody,
but
I
mean
there's
various
variant.
Implementations
of
how
to
encode
anonymous
in
a
URL
and
carriers
will
at
this
time
are
like
normalizing
for
what
their
network
expects,
and
so
you
know.
So
that
is
an
item
that
does
need
attention
and
then
the
last
thing
is
the
unregistered
Yui
and
again
this
was
discussed
on
the
conference
call,
and
so
after
this
meeting
we
need
to
or
get
some
feedback
here.
B
All
right,
I
will
issue
a
call
for
explicit,
volunteer
reviewers
on
the
list
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
I
think
we're
still
a
little
bit
aways
from
the
point
where
we
would
want
to
work
in
great,
less
call
lifts.
Do
you
have
a
feel
for
just
in
your
mind
what
the
timeline
is
for
closing
these
items
that
you've
identified,
that
that
need
a
little
bit
more
text
where
we
were,
it
would
be
reasonable
to
working
request.
B
C
Getting
a
fair
amount
of
Industry
attention
at
the
moment,
and
you
know
I
think,
there's
still
some
things.
The
industry
is
chewing
on
in
general
about
kind
of
how
they
want
to
do
this.
What
what
what
constraints
they
want
to
put
around
it?
What
actors,
they
think
should
be
helping
to
generate
our
CD,
but
you
know
this.
This
is
something
where
I
think
this
is
going
to
start
moving
toward
this
year.
I
have
heard
about
our
CD
in
the
wild
being
used
to
attest
this
stuff.
C
So
this
this
is
getting
kind
of
increasingly
important
that
we
probably
will
try
to
lock
this
down
in
the
near
term.
The
major
updates
here
is
an
interesting
one,
which
is
the
addition
of
the
CRN
claim,
which
corresponds
to
a
reason
more
strings
as
representing
the
intent
for
a
call,
and
this
this
is
a
big
component
of
this.
We
put
together
a
corresponding
update
to
the
support
draft
for
this
on
using
Colin
phone
for
this
function.
C
This
reflects
kind
of
what
our
strategy
has
been
recently
for
our
CD,
which
is
to
look
at
our
CD
as
something
is
really
signing.
What's
in
call
info-
and
you
know
this-
this
kind
of
reflects
the
way
we've
looked
at
passport
in
general.
As
you
know,
a
signature
that
duplicates
or
signs
over
some
elements
of
the
SIP
request,
rather
than
just
having
our
CD
be
a
completely
kind
of
one-off
thing
that
only
appears
in
passports.
C
Probably
we
should
be
defining
the
way
that
we
want
this
sort
of
rich
call
data
to
appear
in
sip
in
general,
and
then
say:
here's
how
you
sign
it
with
a
passport
and
call
reason
was
an
interesting
one
of
these
view.
Do
we
have
a
slide
on
call
reason?
I,
don't
get
actually
the
number
of
looking
at
this
time.
Every
turn
I
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
C
Yeah
so
I
mean
the
call
recent
claim.
Can
they
use
the
college
intention
in
contacting
the
Coleen,
and
you
know
looking
at
this-
it
was
kind
of
fun
for
me,
looking
back
at
sip
and
looking
at
like
what
what
do
we
think
the
subject
feel
that,
like
a
sip
request
means,
like
would
subject,
suffice
for
this,
and
there
are
variety
reasons
why
I
think?
Probably
we
want
something
new,
a
one-off.
C
Just
given
what
the
historical
usages
or
lack
thereof,
subject
have
been,
and
instead
have
something
in
just
a
string
that
we
can
stick
into
the
call
info
itself
is
an
additional
parameter
that
defines
live.
Somebody
is
placing
this
call,
so,
for
example,
this
is
a
restaurant,
that's
calling
you,
it
could
be
the
confirm.
Your
reservation
will
be
listed
in
that
reason
field,
and
the
idea
is
that
that
is
something
that
the
user
agents
themselves
could
ultimately
have
a
way
to
access,
and
what
that
is
is
a
complicated
question.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
controversy.
C
I'd
say
still
about
exactly
how
much
data
from
a
passport
is
going
to
end
up
making
its
way
down
to
the
you
ease
at
the
end
of
the
day,
and
we
think
that
doing
that
with
subject,
for
example,
because
subject
historically,
has
not
been
something
that's
just
like
rendered
to
a
you.
Ii
didn't
make
sense.
We
we
wanted
to
find
a
new
field
that
has
the
security
property
associated
with
it,
that
it
can
be
signs.
A
C
C
We
do
want
to
make
it
extensible,
though,
so
that
we
can
support
more
structured
data
in
the
future.
If
we
wanted
this
to
be
again
for
internationalization,
where
we
want
to
trigger
off
of
a
language
indicator
and
maybe
render
one
of
a
set
of
strings
that
are
available
even
have
some
things,
you
could
act
on
more
programmatically.
We
wanted
to.
C
F
This
is
Brian
I,
I
approve.
I,
think
that
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
think
subject
is
so
problematic.
We
basically
have
to
redefine
what
subject
was
in
order
to
make
it
useful
I.
Think
using
call
info
is
the
right
way
you,
you
might
want
to
think
ahead
a
little
bit
in
the
kind
of
directions,
your
your
going,
where
it
might
get
more
complex
and
allow
the
kind
of
body
you
know
allow
it
to
be
in
a
body
or
a
URL
if
it
gets
really
complex
body,
probably.
E
E
F
B
C
It's
all
tied
into
the
trust,
yeah,
the
trust
anchor
I
mean
you
trust
for
this.
This
is
not
intended
to
replace
the
culantro
mechanism
is
in
the
emergency
draft,
which
contains
all
that
kind
of
good
stuff.
You
want
for
testing
who
the
sources
of
emergency
communications.
This
is
much
more
for
the
enterprise.
Frankly,
casar
may
be,
to
some
degree
the
consumer
case,
but
I.
Don't
imagine.
Consumers
are
going
to
have
access
to
systems
that,
let
them
a
tactical
reason
say
they
could
I
guess
then
the
long
term
you.
C
C
Of
CRN
for
your
ears,
only
James,
Bond
and
yeah,
so
that
this
this
shows
kind
of
the
two
approaches
as
well
to
our
CD
that
we're
working
off
of
today.
We,
if
you
look
at
the
RCD
element
there
you'll
see
it-
has
two
child
elements
this
this
this
name
field
that
points
to
what
is
effectively
the
display
name
that
would
appear
in
the
from
or
the
ps3
identity
header
in
this
notion
that
there
is
aj
card
provided
by
reference
linking
out
to
where
you
can
get
the
full
json
object.
C
That
would
contain
all
this
interesting
material.
What
one
important
thing
to
note
about
this-
and
this
is
a
security
decision
that
we
made
very
intentionally-
that
our
CDI
hash,
which
you
know,
covers
the
RCD
element
itself
and
make
sure
that
you
get
you
know
kind
of
an
attestation
that
that
hasn't
been
in
any
way
modified,
say
if
the
contents
of
that
that
j
card
that
has
identified
reference
has
been
modified,
the
hash
would
detect
that
CRN
is
very
intentionally
not
in
that
hash,
and
the
intention
of
this
was
you
have
an
enterprise.
C
Let's
say
it
is
American
Express
or
something
that
is
calling
you,
because
our
CDI
can
be
linked
to
the
JWT
constraints
that
appear
in
assert
themselves
that
restrict
what
the
value
of
our
CI
could
be
for
a
particular
signer.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
CRN
was
independent
of
that,
so
that
American
Express
to
kind
of
interpose.
You
know,
or
maybe
we'll
use
Comcast
as
better
example.
Your
Comcast
is
rolling
a
truck
and
they're
sending
a
particular
agent.
You
know
you
want
to
be
able
to
show
what
the
reason
is
for
that
agent
appearing.
C
That
stuff
is
not
covered
by
the
signature,
but
the
things
that
tell
you
who
the
agent
is
and
gives
you
a
picture.
Those
things
are
all
bound
up
within
our
CPI.
So
there
was
a
security
decision
that
we're
making
here
where
to
put
CRM,
and
if
people
want
to
push
back
on
this
and
say
instead,
no,
we
really
think
CRM
should
be
covered
by
the
same
hash
signature
as
their
means,
your
of
our
CD.
That
would
be
an
interesting
discussion.
Anybody
feels
that
way.
We
thought
it
made
sense
to
keep
it
outside.
C
F
This
is
Brian
again
the
thing
that
I
don't
like
about
this,
and
that's
not
clear
that
this
isn't
the
right
thing
on
it
probably
is,
but
as
I
mentioned,
there
are
other
uses
or
call
info
and
protecting
them
would
be
really
useful.
And
so
this
mechanism
is
tied
to
the
specific
uses
of
call
info
that
you're
defining,
and
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could
cover
other
uses
of
call
info,
possibly
with
an
extension
I'm,
not
saying
it
has
to
be
here,
but,
let's
think
about
other,
because
we're
using
call
info
and
other
circumstances.
C
You're
right-
and
we
should
talk
about
that-
yeah
I
mean
I
I,
guess
it
would
come
down
the
same
that
the
interesting
question
about
how
to
protect
things
from
pass.
For
for
our
CD.
Is
this
our
CD
I
in
this
connection
to
the
data
Beauty
constraints
in
a
certificate?
That's
signing
it?
Is
that
constrain
a
valuable
constraint
you
think
for
the
emergency
cases
like?
Would
you
want
to
restrict
you
know?
I
mean
again.
F
Maybe
maybe
we
just
come
up
with
a
pattern
and
then
say
for
any
use
case
you
have
to
you
know,
fill
in
the
specifics
of
your
pattern,
but
here's
an
example
right
you,
you
may
have
an
IOT
device
that
reports
a
radiation
accident
and
if
it
could
say,
I
have
a
radiation
after
that
the
size
of
the
city
of
Wichita,
that's
bad.
So
so
you
know.
Where
did
this
come
from?
And
you
know
what
what
are
we
allowing
from?
You
is
definitely
a
concern.
F
A
C
I
mean
there's
some
text
about
the
started
with
so
the
the
basic
idea
is
we'll
start
with
I
want
to
start
with
something
simple
that
is
gonna
attract.
You
know
the
85%
use
case
of
what
people
in
use
it
for
today
whether
it
is
texting
air
that
addresses
how
you
would
put
a
more
complex
data
structure
into
CRM,
specifically
to
accommodate
this
and,
as
Brian
was
saying,
would
probably
involve
a
layer
of
indirection
where
that's
pointing
to
a
URL.
C
The
more
structured
data
object
with
different
values
for
different
languages
and
things
like
it
like
I,
the
degree
to
which
we
need
to
specify
that
from
the
Gecko
I
think
right
now,
we're
kind
of
saying:
let's
create
a
point
of
extensibility.
We
dress
that,
but
I
mean
if
people
feel
like.
We
really
do
need
to
address
that
more
from
the.
A
A
C
A
C
C
C
So
so
yeah,
that's
where
we
are
with
this.
We
think
this
helps.
We
have.
We
hear
a
lot
of
people
wanting
this
reason
stuff,
and
so
we
figured
this.
This
may
people
last
major
part
of
this
we're
going
to
add,
but
the
core
things
you
see
there,
the
the
RCD
stanza
and
the
our
CDI
stand.
Those
are
the
main
mechanisms
that
we're
planning
on
using
to
kind
of
secure
the
display
that
goes
to
the
end
user
and
reason
is
just
a
little
bit
icing
on
the
cake
for
us
that
seems
necessary.
So.
C
E
C
Look
like
to
have
a
weak,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
if
that
will
be
in
this
document.
Okay,
this
could
be
a
separate
document.
Primarily
it's
going
to
visit
it,
because
it's
not
our
CD
itself.
We
could
make
a
something-
that's
very
close
to
our
CD.
That
would
work
for
the
adversity
case.
I
guess
the
real
question
of
that
is
just
do
we
want
to
define
a
one-off
of
our
CD
I
or
do
we
want
to
have
a
more
generic
here's
a
way
to
sign
a
set
of
elements
that
are
appearing
in
our
CD.
C
That
is
here
is
a
hook
for
JWT
constrains
and
instead
of
just
having
it
be
an
element.
Color
see
our
CD
I
could
be
the
JWT
hook
right
and
did
jadibooti
hook.
Here
is
our
CD
I
and
here's
the
hash,
and
you
could
also
have
J
Beauty
hook
for
emergency
services
and
here's
the
hash.
So
maybe
we
want
to
talk
about
something
like
that
that
would
reopen
the
patient
for
a
bit
more
surgery,
I.
F
F
Think
we
could
probably
sketch
out
how
to
how
to
handle
other
uses
of
call
info
with
a
relatively
small
amount
of
work.
What
kind
of
surgery
this
does
to
the
document?
I'm,
not
sure
yet,
but
it
isn't
going
to
be
a
wholesale
replacement.
It's
just
whether
a
piece
of
it
gets
taken
out
and
abstract
into
another
document,
and
this
is
an
instance
of
it
or
whether
it's
just
a
pattern
that
we,
you
know,
create
another
document
that
looks
a
lot
like
this
document
that
covers
another
case.
B
All
right
Eric:
do
we
have
you,
okay,
I,
guess
you're
driving
yeah.
Just
let
me
know
when
to
advance
and
start
to
hear
ya
guys.
I
went
so
back
in
ITF
101.
There
was
a
lot
of
concern
over
the
strap
that
I
Anna
would
be
an
arbiter
who
gets
but
records
and
registration.
On
the
one
hand,
that
kind
of
was
not
the
case,
but
we
realized
that
it
doesn't
matter
not
that
it
doesn't
matter
that
I
Anna
would
be
an
arbiter,
but
that
we
don't
need
an
arbiter.
B
Basically,
the
realization
is,
if
you
think
at
halster,
is
actually
being
used,
particularly
in
combination
with
shaken.
It's
not
oh
there's
a
good
stir
signature.
The
phone
call
must
be
good.
I
nor
oh
there's
a
bad
signature.
The
phone
call
must
be
bad.
It's
that
this
is
just
one
more
piece
of
data
in
the
calculation
of
whether
the
phone
call
is
good
or
bad.
So,
for
example,
I
in
the
u.s.
B
4
+
1
OH,
you
know
I
connective
and
did
the
desert
whomever
will
have
an
entry
and
in
the
route
read
of
trust
and
yes,
somebody
could
put
in
another
one
by
some
evil.
Organized
crime,
boss-
and
the
point
is:
is
that
we're
not
going
to
ask
I
Anna
to
figure
out
who
is
allowed
and
who
isn't
allowed?
It
actually
would
allow
the
evil
registration
I'll
talk
about
that
in
the
sec.
You
go
to
the
next
slide.
I
think
I
covered
it,
but
yep
I
covered
that.
So,
if
you
go
to
the
next
one.
B
So
yes,
well,
they
really
allow
in
legal
registration,
not
exactly
so
I
Anna
we're
not
going
to
ask
Guyana
to
figure
out
who's
allowed
to
put
registrations
into
this
registry
I.
Even
in
the
United
States.
It's
going
to
be
very
complex
because
it's
not
going
to
be
the
FCC.
You
know
the
FCC
is
basically
told
that
ESCO
do
what
you're
going
to
do
and
Addis
and
contracts
out,
and
we
can't
expect
Diana
to
follow
all
that.
But
what
I
Anna
will
do
is
in
the
spirit
of
stir.
B
We
eat
our
own
dog
food,
namely
there.
And
if
you
look
in
the
draft,
you
see
the
mechanisms
they
basically
have
non:
reputable
identity
of
who's,
making
the
registration,
and
that
goes
into
the
registry,
which
means
it's
not
up
Diana,
to
figure
out.
If
it's,
how
should
we
say,
a
legitimate
registration,
but
it's
up
to
the
user
of
the
registry
to
figure
that
out.
I
I
thought
about
it
for
a
moment,
and
you
know
we
do
have
an
allergy
to
having
you
know
identifying
information
in
a
registry,
but
then
I
realized
hey.
B
This
is
all
driven
by
governments.
I,
you
know,
there's
not
a
you
know.
The
government
of
the
UK
does
not
need
to
have
it
secret
who's
registering
so
there's
no
privacy
as
she
there
and
then
basically,
the
users
figure
out.
You
know
if
they
see
a
registration
by
I,
connective
and
a
registration
by
evil
Corp.
You
know
they
can
figure
out
that
it
should
be
I
connected,
go
to
the
next
one
I.
B
So
we
are
again
like
with
the
last
draft
we're
working
with
I
Anna
on
this.
One
thing
they
pointed
out
is
the
current
draft
says:
the
registration
model
is
first-come,
first-serve
and
they
pointed
out
it's
not
really
first-come,
first-served
because
they
can
be
multiple
entries.
It's
kind
of
degenerate
case
of
expert
review.
It's
not
your
typical
expert
review
because,
again
we're
not
going
to
go,
you
know,
and
it's
not
going
to
come
to
the
store,
workgroup
and
say
hey.
B
B
Another
open
issue
is,
there
was
a
request
to
have
Vienna
removed
expired
certificates,
they
came
back
with
it,
they're
not
quite
sure
how
it
would
be
operationalized
and
that
we're
still
talking
about.
But
you
know
one
question
is
you
know?
Is
it
okay
just
to
leave
that
up
to
the
registries,
or
you
know
saying
that
users
must
check
the
validity
of
the
retrieved
certificate
so
that
those
were
the
two
open
issues
that
you
want
to
talk
about
it?
B
C
B
B
C
C
Yeah
I
mean
so
the
only
you
know.
The
thing
I
mentioned
about
this
before
that
concern
was
the
parallel,
obviously
the
UNCG
for
DARPA
and
kind
of
what
we
went
through
with
that
and
the
notion
that
effectively.
You
know
there
was
going
to
be
a
namespace
to
be
governed
by
the
ITF
that
was
going
to
be
able
to
designate
who
the
nation
states
were
the
responsible
for
the
country
codes
under
fact,
and
you
know
what
what.
C
Last
time
is
a
process
we
end
up
going
to.
That
was
one
where
straight
group
two
and
a
variety
people
who
believe
that
it
is
in
fact
their
prerogative
to
identify
who
those
entities
are
kind
of
wanted
to
be
engaged
in
that,
and
there
was
a
levy
some
process
for
that.
As
we
all
know,
it
didn't
end
particularly
smoothly.
So
like
the
expectation
here,
what
I'm
taking
away
from
this
is
that
now
we're
not
proposing
to
that
who
those
pennies
are
at
all
met
the
ITF
and
so
we're
not.
F
B
B
C
C
I,
don't
know
I
mean
this.
This
is
something
I
think
it's
above
my
pay
grade
to
decide
whether
the
INR
should
be
directed
to
do
things
like
that,
but
I
mean
III
honestly
can't
predict
what
the
results
of
that
would
be.
I
mean
if
the
results
it
could
be,
that
you
know
10,000
20,000
people
register
+,
8,
7,
8,
10,.
B
D
B
B
D
It
is
because
it
was
a
president.
It
would
be
helpful
because
I
think
for
them
I
mean
I,
think
it's
always
useful
to
try
to
shield
them
as
much
as
possible
from
having
to
make
like
substantive
policy
decisions.
So
even
like
which
mechanisms
you
know
counter
don't
like
if
they
have
to
go
down
the
path
of
specifying
which
mechanisms
are
are
appropriate
to
use
to
do
the
validation
I
think
that's
a
little
tricky
for
them
too.
So
the
more
that
can
be
cabined
off
so
that
they
don't
have
to
decide
the
better.
That's
right!
D
C
F
You
could
appoint
an
expert
and
give
directions
to
the
expert
to
be
very
lenient
right
when
in
doubt
put
it
in,
but
but
an
expert
can
do
things
like
look
to
see
who
that
who
they
are,
and
you
know,
figure
out
who
the
actual
authority
is
in
a
given
country
and
figure
out
where
there
is
conflict
and
blah
blah
blah
blah
you
just
let
a
person
do
the
job,
take
it
off
of
ini.
Let
an
expert
do
it.
So
that's
one
conflicting
idea.
F
Remembering
all
of
this
issue
that
John
brought
up
about
the
enum
thing,
we
said:
look
these
people
all
know
each
other
and
the
carrier's
all
know
who
the
regulator's
are
just.
Let
them
work
that
out
themselves
and
and
don't
have
a
registry,
so
they'll
figure
it
out
they'll
contact
each
other
and
they'll
figure
out
who
they
trust
and
side
among
themselves.
Who
it
is
it's
not
clear
that
you
need
a
registry.
C
E
B
Alright
folks
we're
getting
very
close
to
our
end
of
our
scheduled
time,
I'm
willing
to
let
the
call
run
over
for
people
that
want
to
to
continue
to
talk,
but
I
think
we
should
officially
close
the
official
part
of
the
meeting
in
in
the
next
couple
of
minutes.
Does
anyone
have
any
other
business
items
there
were?