►
From YouTube: IETF-DANCE-20230126-1500
Description
DANCE meeting session at IETF
2023/01/26 1500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
A
C
Right,
so
it
is
the
top
of
the
error.
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
have
a
gigantic
contingent
based
on
the
doodle
result,
but
thank
you
everybody
for
coming.
We
will
remind
you
that
that,
even
when
we're
dancing
in
between
dance
sessions,
that
with
the
note
well
still
applies
so
please
do
everybody
understands
and
read
all
that
because
you
had
to
do
it
in
order
to
use
the
data
tracker
and
you
had
to
log
in
with
the
data
tracker.
Therefore,
you've
read
the
note.
C
D
B
E
B
B
D
D
Move
this
to
there
yeah,
so
we
created
this
template.
I,
don't
know
I
think
originally
back
in
2011
or
12
in
the
role
working
group,
and
so
it
had
all
these
questions
to
be
answered.
If
you're
going
to
use
roll
for
something
and
as
you
see
most
of
those
entries
were
empty
with
the
idea
that
you
were
supposed
to
put
some
text
here,
this
section
should
detail
what's
going
on,
so
that
was
the
idea
and
that
would,
at
least
if
you
didn't,
have
something
to
put
there.
D
Then
the
answer
was:
why
not
right
and-
and
so
this
document
got
replicated,
I
think
three
or
four
times
and
in
one
case
we
were
unable
to
do
it
for
one
applicability
area
and
that
actually
was
what
created
the
six
dish
working
group,
because
we
didn't
have
any
answers.
So
we
created
something
a
whole
working
group
to
answer
the
question,
so
that's
the
intention
and
I
need
some
help.
Brainstorming.
You
know
the
the
questions
that
go
into
this
park.
D
G
D
D
G
B
Let's
take
a
helicopter
view,
we
we
have
the
architecture
document
which
is
dancing
in
general
right
and
we
have
a
couple
of
documents
on
secure
dancing.
That
is
the
operations
that
we
need
to
modify
in
the
Taylor
sunshake
and
so
and
now
we're
down
to
specifying
protocol
specific
dances
dancing
with
Dancing,
with
SMTP
dancing
with
oauth
yeah,
so
requirements
on
protocol
implementations
and
documentation
on
the
protocol.
So
the
template
needs
to
have
requirements.
What
you
need
to
document
for
a
dance
implementation,
okay,.
D
C
C
Some
past
specifications
have
put
the
template.
You
know
in
an
RFC,
often
at
the
bottom,
in
an
appendix
or
something
like
that,
did
you
consider
putting
it
at
the
bottom
of
the
architecture?
Why
do
you
think
it
should
be
in
an
internet
draft
that
is
never
published,
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
right
or
wrong
answer.
I'm.
D
Just
curious
so
I
think
that
when
it
comes
to
doing
something
like
a
mime,
a
mime
registration
which
is
really
an
activity
that
where
you
interact
with
Diana
and
then
they
take
the
results
and
stuff
it
in
a
database
somewhere,
then
I
think
that
we
just
said
put
it
at
the
bottom
of
the
RFC
say:
fill
out.
This
template
send
it
in
blah
blah
blah
you're
done.
That's
great,
okay
or
you
put
it
as
part
of
your
existing
RFC.
D
That
explains
other
things,
so
I
think
that's
a
different
kind
of
a
template
than
I
think
we're
after
here,
whereas
this
is
kind
of
the
idea
is
to
make
the
different
dancing
documents
similar
answer
the
same
kind
of
questions
and
get
some
kind
of
muscle
memory.
Maybe
is
the
right
answer.
You
know.
Ideally
the
ISD
will
be
like.
Oh
that's
another
one
of
these
documents.
Oh
okay,
well,
I
only
carried
about
0.4.7
in
that
template
which
always
bothered
me
I'm
gonna
go
skip
right
to
it
and
oh
yeah.
That's
good!
D
D
We
got
some
weird
reviews
back
because
people
didn't
understand,
it
was
template
template,
so
we
had
to
start
over
again,
but
the
idea
was,
if
you
were
doing
a
Security
review
of
this
document.
What
questions
would
you
be
asking
and
are
the
questions
in
this
document?
The
questions
you
would
be
asking
or
have
we
missed
some,
and
that
was
the
idea
of
you-
know
kind
of
preloading
that
review
part
so
that
we
would
always
we
would.
D
C
C
Well,
I,
don't
know
that
it
would
block
it,
but
so
that's
up
to
the
working
group
right,
we're
proposing
it
as
a
as
a
question.
I
think
that
the
working
group
needs
to
specifically
answer
I'm
fine
doing
it
either
way:
I
actually
Wonder
having
just
reviewed
A
J
map
document
for
sector.
It
was
definitely
a
predefined
kind
of
structure,
but
I,
don't
think
that
they
have
a
template.
I,
think
that
was
they
just
keep
copying
other
stuff,
Schumer
yeah.
D
E
H
D
F
D
Yeah
and
and
if
and
in
the
worst
case,
you'll
have
to
go
back
through
you
might
you
know
GitHub,
explodes
and
and
no
one
has
a
copy
and
it's
we're
living
on
Mars.
Then
you
know
you
could
go
back
and
through
the
internet,
archives
drafts
archives
and
find
them
or,
as
you
say,
we
could
just
take
some
existing
published
RFC
and
remove
all
the
text
from
it
and
just
have
the
headings
right.
But.
A
B
Doug
and
then
we're
back
to
West's
proposal
to
have
it
as
an
attachment.
I
think
that
that's
a
matter
of
timing,
I
I,
propose
that
we
postpone
that
decision
for
now,
because
if
the
requirements
document
is
in
a
publishing
state
by
the
time,
we
have
an
architecture
in
a
publishing
State
and
we
may
as
well
append
it
as
an
appendix
and
point
to
the
GitHub
repo
for
the
latest
version.
But
if
I
don't
want
to
delay
dance
architecture.
Because
of
this.
F
C
G
C
That
I
think
it
was
schumann's
point
of
it
should
be
published
somewhere.
If
we
expect
people
to
follow
it
right
in
order
to
publish
something-
and
we
want
a
standard
look,
even
if
it
doesn't
need
a
normative
reference
to
point
to
that
template
architecture,
you
do
want
it
findable
and
then
the
downside
of
an
Internet
draft
is,
you
know
they
do
go
to
expired
and
which
is
to
be
expected.
But
you
know
we
need
some
way
to
say
this
is
what
you.
This
is
what
you
should
use
when
publishing
a
new.
D
D
B
C
B
B
B
We
have
a
couple
issues
that
Michael
and
I
suggest
that
we
move
out
of
architecture
and
say
that
if
anyone
wants
to
write
on
how
to
dance
for
these,
that's
fine
but
we're
we
don't
want
as
authors
to
spend
any
more
time,
writing
text
on
these
I
think
they're.
Part
of
the
rest
here
so
issue
number
six,
six
in
the
GitHub
issue.
Tracker
is
os2.
B
H
G
G
C
B
G
B
B
H
H
Yeah
yeah
right
so
I
think
is
I
see.
Oh
Woody
is
here:
oh
hey,
Bill
Woodcock
is
here
I
think
he
had
proposed
a
use
case
for
doing
Dane,
client
authentication
for
DNS
privacy.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
still
a
a
use
case
that
is
being
contemplated,
but
that
may
be
why
it's
there
I
don't
know
if
Bill
wants
to
say
something
about
this.
C
B
Well,
architecture
should
cover
the
the
usages
we
have
now
and
give
examples,
but,
for
instance,
I
mean
sip.
Client
authentication
is
very
similar
to
SMTP
or
anyone
else.
It's
an
email
address
stall
address,
so
we
don't
have
to
cover
all
of
those
email
address
if
we
cover
one,
what
we're
couldn't
ask
for
the
rest,
but
if
this
is
using
a
very
special
identity
in
the
client
certificate,
that
should
have
a
very
special
strange
DNS
record
that
you
find
by
using
a
a
chain
of
SRV
records
and
not
the
records
for
some
reason.
H
B
H
Yes,
there
are
people
who
want
to
write
to
his
Victor
Duchovny
with
us
today
he
is
definitely
he
has
told
me
that
he's
definitely
definitely
going
to
implement
the
dance,
client
authentication
piece
in
SMTP
transport.
So
he
is
the
original
proponent
of
that
and
it
is
a
a
valid
use
case.
The
question
is
again:
doesn't
need
to
be
specifically
mentioned
in
the
arc
document
or
so
is
this
a
detail
in
a
separate
document.
B
F
G
B
B
D
Yeah,
maybe
there's
a
typo
in
the
sentence,
but
the
the
idea
is
that
when
you're
validating
a
mud
file,
you
might
need
to
know
how
to
get
the
key
that
was
used
to
sign
it.
Mud
doesn't
really
have
a
way
of
saying
that,
and
so
that
actually
might
be
a
situation
where
yeah
there's
some
magic
record,
an
SRV
or
something
else
that
tells
you
how
to
find
it
based
upon
the
URL
that
you're
looking
at,
we
would
do
them.
That
would
go
I.
Think
that
goes
somehow.
G
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
I
think
the
normal
procedure
I
mean
some
protocols,
including
DNS
rate,
have
now
published
I.
Think
three
terminology
rfcs
entirely
separate
I.
Don't
think
you
guys
need
that
right?
No,
you
need
to
define
the
terminology
that
might
be
unique
to
talking
about
Dane
and
dancing
in
our
in
our
in
the
architecture.
Document
I
suspect
it's
a
few
things
and
I.
Don't
think
it
needs
to
be
updated
very
much
so.
C
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
Right
hearing,
none
Joey
and
I
did
request
a
dance
session
for
itf116,
and
we
will
we
requested
one
hour.
I
suspect,
given
the
fact
that
we
just
burnt
35
minutes
one
hour
and
116
should
be
fine,
although
with
a
bigger
audience,
we'll
get
more
comments.
Hopefully,
if
you
know
we
should
also
start
putting
an
agenda
together
for
that
as
well.
Thank
you
to
Joey
for
putting
the
one
together
for
today,
and
so
please
do
let
us
know,
especially
as
that
time
gets
closer.