►
From YouTube: ROLL WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-21
Description
ROLL WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-21
A
So
the
question
is
about
the
this.
We
were
talking
about
pascal
about
the
update
for
rfc
6550,
so
we
have
three
documents
and
what
do
you
think
ripple
update?
I
use
of
repair
evil
update
for
indicating
the
new
rpi
in
the
corporation
option
plug,
but
we
indicate
as
well
that
this
use
of
spring,
for
I
work
for
modern
operation,
from
zero
to
six
and
from
four
seven.
We
don't
it
might
indicate
something
different.
A
B
So
can
we
take
a
step
back
and
before
we
talk
about
how
we
need
to
change,
because
I
think
there's
three
documents
that
have
come
forward.
Publication
turn
on
use
of
ripple
info
and
unaware
leaves
right
that,
based
on
the
recent
discussions,
we
may
want
to
update
6550
and
change
the
mop
definition
all
that
stuff.
B
B
That's
exactly
what
I
think,
because
I
think
that
that
you
know
I
know
the
working
group
is
obviously
discussing
ripple,
v2
and
mopex
and
capabilities
and
all
this
stuff,
but
we
have
this
sort
of
not
parallel
but
but
related
work,
which
is
all
the
publication
work
and
we're
running
behind
right,
meaning
that
everything
that
we're
publishing
now
is
ripple
v1.
B
B
B
Instead
of
us
updating
some
things
now
and
having.
I
don't
know
five
different
documents,
updating
different
things
and
registries
and
all
the
stuff
where
maybe-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
true
or
not-
but
it
could
be
that
we
update
something
today
and
six
months
from
now
or
a
year
from
now
when
mob
picks
comes
through,
that
you
guys
decide
that
that
was
the
wrong
update
or
that
we
need
to
update
it
again
right,
maybe
not
the
wrong
update,
but
that
we
need
to
update
something
different.
B
That's
what
I
what
I
would
like
to
advocate.
You
know
to
keep
these
documents,
the
ones
that
are
already
set
for
publication
and
repo
v1
documents,
which
would
mean
that,
for
example,
for
the
tidbit
t-bit,
it
would
say:
well,
here's
a
bit
and
that's
it
right,
we're
going
to
actually
say
anything
about
the
mops,
because
by
default
it
applies
to
all
the
mobs.
B
D
D
D
To
to
do
the
test
is
less
than
six,
then
we
imply
that
this
implementation
with
the
af
will
read
the
tibet
and
internet
with
us.
So
if
you
define
something
else
in
the
future,
it
will
not
be
backward
compatible.
So
you
will
break
that
compatibility
unless
you
tell
today
to
the
implementer
not
to
trust
the
bullet
flag.
C
I'm
totally
I'm
totally
with
that,
and
the
only
discussion
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
was
I
was
thinking
that
we
could
just
leave
it
undefined
as
to
what
the
behavior
was.
But
pascal
is
right
because
it
is
a
data
plane
change,
as
is,
I
guess
I
realize
now
the
the
flag
in
in
use
of
rpl.
I
didn't
really
think
of
it
that
way
before,
then
we
need
to
tell
them
there.
We
need
to
tell
them
that
it's
on.
B
B
So
I
don't
know
someone
comes
up
with
a
new
motor
operation
that
they
want
to
call
five
right
or
that
that's
the
allocated
number
for
five
yeah,
and
today
we
already
defined
the
t-bit
yeah
right.
B
D
B
B
Okay,
so
I
understand
that
I
still
don't
understand
why
moppex
can't
reclaim
those
bits
for
seven.
D
Okay,
so
we
need
to
give
it
a
time
bomb
and
because
the
implementation
of
today,
if
you
want
it,
compatible
in
the
future
and
as
michael
said,
first
thing
understand
about
the
title,
because
it's
for
them
at
all
you,
the
host
a
node,
a
node
that
does
not
understand
the
mode
of
operation
like
a
code
done
today
will
be
a
leaf.
It
cannot
be
a
router
if
it
does
not
understand
of
operation,
so
it
will
be
a
leaf
today's
code,
oh,
I
have
to
be
a
leaf.
Sorry,
I
don't
understand
this
map.
D
Now
he
wants
to
generate
a
packet.
What
does
it
do?
They
still
need
to
be
on
to
be
able
to
know?
Oh,
should
I
use
ox
23
for
the
ripple
up
information,
and
should
I
compress
on
that
compromise
he
needs
to
know
what
to
do
even
as
a
leaf.
B
Okay,
so
what
you
guys
are
doing
is
for
the
notes
that
we
have
today
by
defining
this
behavior
of
seven
in
the
future
when
seven
is
defined.
Some
of
these
notes
are
not
going
to
be
updated.
B
C
Okay,
and
and-
and
I
think
the
other
thing
to
realize
about
mop
x
to
go
to
that
is
that-
is
that
one
of
the
extensions
that
today's
code
is
not
going
to
know
is
mop
x
and,
since
mop
x,
is
likely
signaled
by
value.
Seven,
okay,
they're
not
going
to
know
this.
What
the
actual
mop
value
is
because
they
don't
know
how
to
decode
the
mop
x
extension,
which
gives
us
more
bits
more
values.
Okay,
I
understand
okay.
B
Okay,
great
so,
okay,
so
several
things
we
need
to
do.
Of
course,
right
we
need
to
if
we're
going,
to
go,
update,
65.50
right.
One
of
the
things
someone
needs
to
define
at
some
point
in
one
of
the
documents
is
how
we're
treating
this
differently
right,
because
6550
assumes
that
all
the
bits
are
applied
to
all
the
bits
apply
to
all
of
the
mobs
correct
yeah.
So
someone
needs
to
go
change
that
right.
B
One
of
the
documents
needs
to
go
change
that
the
other
thing
that
needs
to
happen
is
that
in
this
latest,
one
in
turn
on,
for
example,
it
says
seven
is
considered
unassigned
or
something
like
that.
I
don't
have
the
document
for
me,
the
t
bit
for
seven
is
considered
unassigned
right
or
something
like
that.
Yeah.
B
C
C
B
D
That
matters,
that's
the
question
for
you
right.
Do
we
need
to
do
that
now.
A
D
B
C
C
B
No,
you
can
put
that
in
the
turn
on
right
in
the
turn
on
document
only
valid
for
certain
mobs
right,
exactly
because
in
there
is
where
you're
saying
that
the
t
bit
is
not
assigned
for
seven
right.
That
bit
is
free,
is
the
second
position
or
whatever
it
is
for
the
other
ones.
Yeah.
C
B
B
I
think
that,
because,
in
turn
on
whatever
8138,
that
is,
where
you're
saying
that
the
t
does
not
apply
to
seven
right.
B
Sure
I
mean,
if
you
want
to
go
change
it
there
sure
we
can
go
change
there
in
some
document.
What
I
mean
is
we
don't
need
an
extra
document.
We
already
have
some
documents
that
are
allocating
values
from
there
right
from
that
registry.
So
we
can
just
use
that.
C
C
A
and
bcs
yes,
yeah,
okay,
so
we're
two
and
that
because
we
have
only
two
bits
left,
I
think
that's
why
we
really
desperately
want
them
back,
and
so
why?
I
guess
one
question
is:
why
didn't
this
come
up?
Well,
we
didn't
say
we
didn't
say
we
wouldn't
want
it
for
mo
value.
7
for
rpa
rpi
enable.
B
So
I
think
yeah
honestly,
I
think
well,
I
missed
that
and
everyone
else
visited
the
asg
as
well.
C
B
No,
we
do
want
a
new
column
right,
so
in
this
this
registry,
in
that
dota
configuration
option
flags
right,
we
need
a
new
column,
or
that
says
I
don't
know:
mops
valid,
valid
format,
correct
either
a
new
column
or
we
need
to
figure
out
some
format
so
that
when
I
look
at
it-
and
I
can
see
that
bit
three
right
from
user
or
field
info
applies
to
everything
up
to
six
and
that
for
seven,
that
bit
is
free.
Okay,
do
you
want
us
to
do
this
in
use
of
rpl
info?
B
We
can
do
it
there
if
that's
the
first
place,
and
I
think
that
is
what
makes
sense
right.
Okay,
I.
B
D
A
C
Okay,
I
will
write
that
this
afternoon,
I'll
write
that
this
afternoon
and
and
is
use
of
rpl
info,
I
think,
is
not
back
in
the
rfc
editor
queue.
Yet
no.
C
And
yeah
I'll.
B
Yeah,
correct
yeah,
it's
been
a
while
and
I
need
to
figure
out.
C
All
right,
well,
I
will
write
that.
I
know
what
you
want
to
written
I'll,
write
that
this
afternoon
and
I'll
post,
the
the
the
two
or
three
paragraphs
to
the
list
directly
and
you
might
want
to
last
call
that
only
on
its
own
or
something
or.
C
Now
so
it
will
be
four.
B
Right
so
that's
like
12
versions,
right
or
something
yeah
that
you
guys
had.
So
we
need
to
figure
that
out
right,
whether
we
do
a
quick
last
call
or
what
do
we
do,
but
in
any
case
yes,
we
need
to
put
that
there.
The
other
thing
that
someone
needs
to
say-
and
I
don't
know
exactly
where
in
650
it
talks
about
all
the
bits
applying
to
all
the
mops,
but
it
clearly
needs
to
be
spelled
out
that
that
is
the
update.
That
is
another.
C
Add
so
I'm
gonna
add
an
three
paragraphs
to
use
of
rpl.
B
D
I
have
a
question
yeah,
so
there
are
two
other
things
which
are
in
this
flag.
Based
on
you
know,
we
want
to
reclaim
the
the
ones
that
we
are
declaring.
The
question
really
is
those
other
things
which
are
there?
One
is
to
control
the
fan,
art,
nobody
ever
implemented
it
and
the
other
is
about
the
security,
and
that
was
built
in
ripple
and
for
all.
I
know.
D
And
implemented
as
well,
so
those
are
the
two.
These
are
two
things
which
actually
got
zero
success
in
level
z1.
So
one
way
of
doing
the
change
is
to
actually
say
hey
by
the
way,
all
those
flags,
including
the
existing
ones,
are
just
valid
for
variable
v1
and
we
in
ripple
v2.
We
may
relocate
the
exact
same
abs
if
we
like,
or
we
may
not.
C
The
point
is,
I
think,
pascal,
is
that
all
of
those
flags
are
now
going
to
have
a
mop
value
for
which
they're
valid
exactly
okay,
the
cyanide
consideration
has
to
initialize
the
other,
a
and
pcs
columns
to
something
reasonable,
and
I
think
you're
suggesting
that
they
be
zero
through
six.
Only.
D
As
well
through
six,
in
which
case,
in
which
case
we
don't
really
want
a
column,
I
I
you
know,
we
suffered
a
lot
from
columns
before
for
six
lap.
We
have
those
pages
and
stuff
and
we
started
creating
a
column,
and
now
it's
becoming
a
total
nightmare
yeah.
You
have
to
produce
everything
for
each.
When
you
turn
something
in
the
class,
I
mean
it's
becoming
critical
impossible.
D
Rolling
back
the
prime
of
column,
so
what
I
would
suggest
is,
instead
of
calling
things
column,
just
tell
ayana
that
this
registry
is
only
valid
till
map
six
and
from
map
seven
on.
We
created
your
registry,
which
will
have
the
new
flap
and
we
will
define
them
all,
but
just
just
give
a
time
bomb
to
the
whole
registry.
That
could
be
the
event.
D
B
It's
empty
sure
that
works.
B
D
D
I'm
sorry,
I'm
saying
this
map
7
might
never
exist.
If
it
does,
then
it's
time
to
create
the
registry
when
it
exists
right
as
long
as
we
we
place
the
time
bomb
because
we
never
have
a
wrong
registry.
The
registry
would
be
exactly
what
we
wanted
the
code.
Just
by
saying
the
registry
applies
up
to
6.
That's
exactly
what
we
want
in
the
code.
The
code
would
be
totally
in
size
of
the
registry.
If
we
don't
define
7.,
why
should
we.
B
So,
okay,
so
what
you're
really
going
to
do
is
something
different
right.
What
we're
going
to
do
is,
and
I
need
to
fill
up
6550
to
know
how
this
is
defined,
but
the
mobs
are
defined,
which
I
don't
know
where
they
are
just
in
this
option,
this
header
yeah,
what's
the
section
there
just
so
I
can
look
at
it.
B
Well,
anyways!
You
now
have
these
three
bits
right,
well,
whatever,
so
what
you're?
Basically
doing?
If,
if
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
say,
pascal
is
you
want
to
sort
of
reserve
take
that
bit?
And
I
don't
know
how
this
is
set
up-
take
that
bit
of
that
value
and
say
well,
this
value
is
reserved
so
that
you
can't
assign
seven
at
all.
B
So
there's
a
there's,
a
registry
right
that
is
about
the
mops.
True
yeah
motive
operations,
registry,
yeah,
right
yeah,
so
right
now,
five
through
seven
is
unassigned
or
unassigned.
D
B
Let
me
think
about
this,
so
if
you
reserve
seven
right,
that
means
that
no
one
can
assign
it
so
five
and
six
would
be
unassigned,
seven
will
be
reserved
later
mop
backs
or
someone
is
going
to
come
u7
for
something
else,
and
then
the
other
registry
can
just
say,
because
what
you
want
to
avoid
is
to
define
that
other
registry
for
seven
right,
because
that
may
be
some
other
bits
later,
that
we
can
reclaim.
B
Right,
that's
what
I'm
thinking
that,
if
we
mark
seven,
is
reserved
and
rename
the
current
registry
for
just
zero
through
six
and
that's
it-
I
more
importantly
than
me
buying
that
martin
luke
has
to
discuss
on.
Why
aren't
we
assigning
seven
right?
B
We
named
it
the
we
named
it
the
registry,
because
now
it's
clear
that
you
know
things
apply
to
what
martin
was
making
the
point
that,
if
we're
doing
things
to
seven
but
seven
is
not
assigned,
then
maybe
we
can't
do
things
seven,
but
you
know.
Maybe
we
can
convince
him
that
this
is
okay.
If.
C
The
mop
value
is
in
the
dio
base
thing
and
the
the
flags
in
question
are
actually
in
the
dodag
configuration
option.
C
So
so
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
separation
between
these
two,
but
what
we're
actually
saying
is
the
dodag
configuration
option
is
valid
only
for
zero
through
seven
six.
B
B
B
Okay,
right
and
so
in
the
text
you
can
say
something
like
yeah
there's
going
to
be
reserved
for
future
enhancements,
whatever
right
yeah.
It
should
be
specific
about
that,
and
and
that's
it
right,
so
we're
actually
doing
a
good
thing
right,
we're
reserving
something
for
extensibility
in
the
future
and
we're
basically
saying
well,
because
we
don't
know
whether
that
accessibility
is
then
all
the
flags
that
are
currently
defined
apply
to
the
things
that
we
kind
of
know
or
the
normal
stuff
right.
B
Not
the
future
things
also
zero
through
six
through
six
and
and
that's
it-
I
mean.
The
only
part
where
we
need
to
convince
martin
is
because
the
document,
if
you're
still
going
to
say
even
though
seven
is
not
defined-
it's
not
assigned
et
cetera,
but
you
still
must
do
compression
or
whatever
that's
the
only
place
where
he
might
be.
D
Actually,
there
is
another
one
here
he
said
hey.
Why
do
you
say
it's
okay
for
five
sec
to
use
the
bed?
It
does
not
define
either
right,
but
that's
because
those
bits
everything
we
defined
there
is
for
a
transition,
basically
that
the
transition
happens
between
six
and
seven
and
that
that's
the
piece
where
he
was
not
too
happy.
D
But
there
is
a
reason
for
that.
It's
that
we
know
we
cannot
live
foreign.
We
know
they
are
just
to
mark
to
enable
a
transition.
They
are
therefore
the
we
don't
know
it's
called
it
now,
but
used
to
be
called
brownfield,
and
so
there
is
a
point
where
the
transition
will
be
over
and
when
you
implement
something
today,
people
must
know.
Oh
if
there
is
this
code
in
that
device,
here
is
how
it's
going
to
react
for
fly
for
system
performance.
D
C
What
one
reason
is
we
don't
have
any
private
use
mop
value
so
having
five
and
six
you
know
we
may
never
use
them.
They
may
wind
up
being
one
of
the
mic,
but
signed
later
on
as
a
private
use
for
someone
to
experiment
with
or
something
like
this.
B
Martin,
I
I
don't
think
you
know
this
is
he
was
about
to
clear
his
disgust
anyways.
So
I
think
we
can
convince
him
that
this
is
okay.
If
we
market
it
as
we're
reserving
something
for
extension,
and
we
just
know
that
compression
is
a
good
thing.
So
we're
just
saying:
if
you
do,
if
you're
using
seven
you
have
to
use
it,
I
mean
the
same
thing.
You
told
me
about
either
in
the
future,
because
you
don't
you
you're,
going
to
only
do
belief.
D
B
Yeah
so
yeah,
so
we
can
explain
that
there
as
we
reserve
it
then
yeah.
That's
a
good
thing
right.
B
And
so
we
need
okay,
so
all
that
is
going
to
go
into
use
of
rpl
info
right,
yes,
okay,
and
so
in
turn
on,
which
is
when
we,
because
usually
rplf,
already
sort
of
passed
in
turn
on.
What
we
need
is
just
a
reference
to
that.
B
D
One
of
them
is,
we
need
to
decide
which
default
we're
gonna
have
for
seven
in
the
code.
So
that's
one
thing:
that's
all
different.
C
You
can't
use
compression
on
interfaces
that
don't
support
six
lopen
exactly
so.
We
could
definitely.
D
See
the
sentence
could
be
if
you
have
a
six
flap
interface,
the
compression,
if
you
have
a
non-six
separate
interface,
don't
use
compression
if
you
are
forwarding
between
the
two
compress
or
decompress
yeah
whatever
so
I
can.
I
can
do
those
words.
So
if
we
agree
on
them,
then
that's
easy
for
me
now.
The
second
piece
alvaro
is
the
one
which
kills
me.
Is
this
this
agreement,
I'm
seeing
with
all
the
reviewers
and
three
depends?
D
B
Right
so
I
think
you
know
the
the
reason
that
we're
asking
for
update
now
is
because
of
the
changes
to
seven
right.
B
Right,
so
that's
where
the
update
should
go
so
that
that's.
Why
I'm
saying
right
in
this
one
and
turn
on
and
turn
on.
We
say
basically,
the
same
language:
hey
we're
going
to
do,
7
is
undefined
or
we
don't
even
need
to
say
that
right
we
don't
even
need.
B
But
yeah
whatever
we
say,
we
point
to
user
rpl
info
we're
going
to
have
this
new
text,
that
updates
cc550
and
does
the
registry
and
whatever
else
we
talked
about,
and
so
that's
it
right.
If
they
say
well,
you
need
to
update.
No,
we
don't
need
to
update
anything
because
we're
updating
it.
There.
D
D
C
Yeah
I
have
to
go
because
I
have
a
10
45
and
I
I
have
to
visit
the
washroom
or
then
so.
I'm
gonna
do
this
text
and
they'll
happen
this
today
and
hopefully
that'll
I'm
gonna
post
the
text
the
list.
First,
I'm
not
gonna
push
the
the
version
out
immediately
that
okay
alvaro,
let
these
guys.
C
Then
and
then
I'll
I'll
put
a
version
out,
okay,
and
I
think
you
should
do
a,
I
think
you
should
do
a
short
ietf
last
call
on
use
of
rpl
info
yeah.
B
B
Yeah,
so
whenever
yeah
yeah,
that
sounds
good
yeah
go
michael
I'll,
I
have
something
so
yeah
for
user
info
when
you
guys
are
ready
and
dominique
you
right,
you're
doing
that
summary
so
that
I
understand
all
the
changes
quickly.
B
So
yes
I'll
basically
take
that
and
maybe
summarize
it
a
little
bit
more
and
do
the
atf
call
myself,
because
I
mean
the
working
group
has
already
been
talking
about.
This
there's
been
that
iot
review,
which
is
a
good
thing.
You
know
et
cetera,
and
so
I'll,
just
you
know,
put
a
summary
of
your
summary
in
the
in
the
atlas.
Call
do
the
last
call
and
then
I'll
put
the
document
back
in
the
asg
because
we
have
to,
but
then
I'll
put
the
same
summary.
B
So
what
that
usually
means
is
that
the
people
who
already
balloted
they
will
look
at
the
changes
and
hopefully
not
have
any
other
issues
with
that,
and
you
know
that's
where
I'll
talk
to
martin
and
ben
so
that
they
know
that
the
change
that
they
want
is
actually
going
into
a
different
document
for
the
update
of
65
6550,
and
we
might
have
to
wait
until
that
happens,
so
that
they
approve
everything
right.
And
so
we
approve
them.
B
You
know
both
at
the
same
time
or
something
along
those
lines
which
I
don't
think
it's
a
big
deal,
because
we're
going
to
have
to
wait
for
the
other
documents
anyways
and
then
we
should
be.
We
should
be
good.
D
Do
I
need
to
update
to
have
a
formal
update
for
rfc
8138
or
something
because
yeah
initially,
I
had
three
formal
updates,
because
I
thought
you
know
if
you
build
on
something,
then
you
update
it
now,
if
you
don't
change
the
existing
implementation,
you
don't
update
them,
so
I
removed
the
dco
thing
initially.
B
D
B
So
when
we
right,
when
we
put
it
until
shot,
it
was
11
and
from
11
11
also
says,
updates
81.38.
So
let's
leave
8138
and
there's
that
section
there
that
talks
about
that
and
let's
remove
65.50.
D
D
A
C
B
B
Yes,
so
yeah,
so
the
thing
right
so
going
back
to
the
interpretation
of
updates
right
changes
with
respect
to
say:
6550
is
different
than
updates:
6550,
meaning
it
may
behave
differently.
B
But
if
you
don't
need
a
6550
router
to
do
the
same
thing,
then
we
don't
update.
So
I
put
some
comments
there
where,
for
example,
you
need
for
the
unwear
leaves
you
need
the
6lr
and
you
the
root
and
someone
else
to
understand
all
this
stuff.
You
don't
need
all
the
other
brothers
in
the
middle,
so
I'm
really
leaving
it
up
to
you.
If
you
think
you
want
everyone
to
go,
update
their
behavior,
so
they
understand
the
stuff
in
case
they
become
the
root.
B
For
some
reason
I
don't
know,
or
they
become
a
6lr
for
some
reason.
Then
yeah,
that's
a
good
thing.
Yeah,
that's
fine!
B
If
not,
then
we
need
to
be
clear
who
right
and
then
there's
a
couple
of
other
things
that
are
flagged,
that
that
we
do
need
to
point
that
we're
updating
that,
like
a
registry
and
even
not
just
6550
but
67.75
or
whatever
the
other
one,
is
the
one
before
85
or
5
right,
because
we're
changing
the
size
of
that
field
and
I
think
not
just
the
extended
one
but
the
other
one.
The
normal
one
is
affected
right.
D
B
Right
so
I
mean,
if
you
so,
there
is
at
least-
and
I
I
I
mean
I'm
doing
this
from
memory-
there's
at
least
one
place,
maybe
two
where
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
6550
update.
B
So
you
know
there
are
changes
in
behavior,
but
you
need
to
be
specific
on
what
are
you
updating
yeah
because
I
mean
obviously
it's
in
your
specs,
so
there's
obviously
a
difference
in
behavior,
but.
D
B
Yes,
so
I
put
some
comments
in
there
right
for
each
of
the
points
that
you
were
making
and
I
think
at
least
one
of
them
I
said
yeah,
this
one
needs
an
update,
some
of
the
other
ones.
I
I
really
wasn't
too
sure
again,
because
in
some
cases
you
need
the
the
6lr
and
the
root
to
support
it.
You
don't
really
need
anyone
else,
but
you
know
think
about
it.
If
anyone
could
become
the
xlr,
then
everyone
needs
to
do
this.
D
B
Right
so
right,
no!
No!
So
I
I
understand
that,
and
I
agree
what
I'm
trying
to
make
the
point
now
is
that
that
intermediate
node
could
at
some
point
be
the
6lr.
A
D
Please
please
yeah,
I
try
I
try
to.
I
can
really
remove
but
yeah.
I
believe
that,
with
from
the
light
in
the
light
of
what
you
just
said,
maybe
we're
done.
Please
look
at
my
re.
My
response.
Please
look
at
the
new
text.
D
B
So,
oh,
the
other
thing
I'm
gonna
do
is
I'm
gonna,
maybe
after
this
I'm
gonna
send
the
note
to
ben
and
martin
telling
them
what
we
agreed
here
right
that
we're
gonna
go
update
the
other
document
last
call
and
that
this
document
is
going
to
point
to
that,
so
that
when
they
see
the
update
to
turn
on
that,
they
don't
immediately
immediately
react
and
say
well
that
didn't
fix
anything
or
something,
but
that
they,
you
know,
what's
going
to
happen
and
I'll
pretty
much
tell
them
that
I'll
tell
them
when
it's
time
for
them
to
go.
D
Okay,
but
I
will,
I
will
point
on
use
of
ripple
info
from
both,
so
I
still
I
need
to
catch
an
awareness
to
to
copy
the
exact
same
thing
as
I
will
do
in
nowhere.
You
know
turn
on
look
at
this
other
one,
it's
updating
repo,
so
so
this
will
copy
twice:
okay,
okay-
and
I
won't
republish
anywhere
until
I
have
the
global
reply
of
my
changes,
because
I
want
to
piggyback
everything.