►
From YouTube: IETF-CORE-20210915-1400
Description
CORE meeting session at IETF
2021/09/15 1400
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
B
C
A
C
E
A
Okay,
but
we
are
for
past,
so
let's
start
the
meeting
now
so
welcome
everybody
to
this
co-working
group
interview
meeting.
This
is
marco
tiloca.
My
co-chair
is
how
many
minutes,
and
of
course
this
is
an
official
idf
meeting.
So
the
not
well
applies
be
sure
to
get
familiar
with
that,
if
you're
not
already,
it's
not
just
about
ipr,
it's
also
about
our
code
of
conduct
so
be
nice
and
professional
to
each
other,
and
we
need
some
help
with
taking
the
minutes.
A
A
A
B
D
Well,
that's
on
the
agenda,
but
you
can
answer
now
that
we
have
pulled
it
up.
So
that's
that's
of
the
two
for
coconut
documents
listed
here.
It's
the
first
two
young
zebra
and
sid,
and
there
were
some
some
really
good
comments,
but
unfortunately
comments
that
actually
require
some
some
thinking
how
to
properly
handle
them
and
I'm
I
have
been
for
57
days
trying
to
find
a
day
where
I
can
do
that
that
they
might
be
tomorrow.
B
A
D
D
B
B
A
D
Yeah,
so
we
had
two
reviews
so
far:
francesca's
and
and
the
gennad
review,
which
was
pretty
nice
from
christopher
heimberg,
so
francesca's
review
was
really
pushing
the
document
forward.
Thank
you,
and
just
also
had
some
some
useful
comments
and
I
have
processed
these
comments
with
ari
and
we
now
have
a
dash
of
five,
which
I
think
is
covering
these.
D
B
D
D
D
So
this
this
is
the
the
dash
comma
thing
and
yang
library
really.
Somebody
has
to
sit
down
and
and
track
everything
that
has
happened
in
the
young
universe,
since
that
was
done,
because
it's
essentially
a
constrained
version
of
of
a
document
that
essentially
has
has
received
a
lot
of
attention
in
in
the
young
world.
So
this
this
is
a
nice
little
exercise
for
a
student.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
have
a
student
working
on
that
certificate.
At
the
moment,.
D
D
A
A
D
D
We
still
have
limited
implementation
experience,
so
I
have
a
half
implementation.
Christian
has
a
complete
implementation,
but
we
probably
want
to
collect
more
more
experience
with
that
and
last
week
in
the
cbo
meeting,
I
gave
a
quick
indication
of
of
I
wouldn't
say
problem,
but
a
certain
lack
of
smoothness
that
I'm
currently
experiencing
with
bringing
href
and
sibo
pact
together,
so
that
that's
also
something
that
we
probably
want
to
discuss.
D
A
D
I
think
so
it's
just
another
thing
on
the
to-do
list.
Sure
the
the
problem
with
this
young
zebra
stuff
is
really
that,
with
a
certain
amount
of
load,
one
switches
to
shortest
job
next
processing
and
charges
drop.
Next
processing
has
the
well-known
property
that
it
is
the
best
property,
the
best
processing
scheme
to
get
to
to
minimize
average
waiting
time,
but
also
it
means
you
get
starvation.
A
A
A
Yeah
moving
to
coral,
I
can
start
with
an
update,
because
christian,
crystal
and
thomas
could
not
be
here
today,
unfortunately,
but
the
work
is
continuing.
There
are
also
design
team
meetings
for
that,
mostly
by
the
authors,
in
fact,
and
there's
a
lot
left
to
do
here
on
course,
but
it
was
a
decision
to
focus
especially
on
two
main
points
in
the
short
mid
term.
D
A
D
B
C
D
D
D
D
Jaws
actually
proposed
doing
something
similar
for
daytime
objects.
So
we
may
just
keep
that
part
of
the
bespoke
text
notation
and
and
put
it
unchanged
into
the
application.
Specific
extensions
and,
of
course,
being
able
to
notate
a
daytime
is
something
that
is
not
really
very
application
specific
at
all,
so
that
this
might
become
a
rather
common
use
of
diagnostic
notation.
D
D
We
might
still
want
to
have
a
bespoke
text
notation
at
any
point
in
time
that
can
be
added
at
any
time.
So
we
are
not
completely
giving
up
on
the
idea,
but
we
are
giving
up
on
the
the
idea
of
having
it
right
out
of
the
box
and
we
make
sure
that
the
the
sibo
diagnostic
notation
can
actually
represent
coral
documents
nicely,
and
the
next
step,
of
course,
is
to
make
sure
that
the
sebor
pact
approach
actually
works
well
with
the
the
curry
mechanism.
D
If
you
have
something
like
like
scheme
authority
player,
called
s,
slash,
slash,
co-op
dot
me
is
this:
game
is
an
authority.
So
these
are
the
two
first
elements
of
the
href
array
and
you
can
just
use
existing
zero,
packed
mechanisms
to
append
a
path
array
to
that
and
you
have
a
valid
ci,
but
it's
much
harder
to
do
this
for
the
next
prefix,
which
looks
very
similar
in
the
curry
notation.
D
But
if
you
look
at
this
from
a
ci
point
of
view,
it's
essentially
a
three-element
array
with
a
scheme,
an
authority
and
a
path,
and
we
don't
have
a
way
in
the
packed
mechanism
to
actually
reach
into
that
array
and
append
something
to
the
the
inner
array.
The
embedded
array
that
already
has
a
foo
so
to
get
slash,
fuselage
bar
into
a
ci.
D
A
D
So
the
the
there
are
two
ways
to
to
handle
this
one
is
to
handle
it
outside
in
by
by
essentially
saying
this.
This
is
a
pact
reference
and-
and
we
we
reach
into
that
data
structure
to
put
stuff
in
there
or
it
can
be
handled
inside
out
by
identifying
in
the
data
structure
where
it
actually
is
meant
to
be
extended.
It's
a
little
bit
like
like
christian
circumfix
compression
that
he
proposed
for
sibo
pact.
D
So
that's
one
way
of
addressing
it.
It's
not
going
to
look
as
pretty
as
curry's,
but
curries
have
their
own
little
problem
because
they
they
are
essentially
doing
string,
concatenation
and
then
running
the
parsing
on
the
concatenated
string.
They
really
they
don't
have
actual
semantics.
So
you
only
know
the
semantics
after
having
passed
the
strings,
and
we
could
have
a
more
semantic
way
of
of
doing
curry
like
thing
with
the
eyes.
A
A
Actually,
the
first
part
was
mostly
an
editorial
revision,
so
we
really
need
input
from
the
group,
even
if
you
think
unlikely
that
everything
is
fine,
as
is
please
say
so,
on
the
list
or
commenting
in
line
in
the
codemd,
where
you
need
to
log
in
to
be
logged
in
to
comment,
and
we
plan
to
bring
this
up.
Also,
the
next
entry
meetings
to
check
the
progress
of
this,
and,
of
course,
if
you
have
early
comment
input
already
to
share
today,
please
do.
D
Yeah,
so
I
I
didn't
really
do
a
gif
of
the
two
yet
so
whatever
comment
I
have
is
is
more
on
the
meta
side,
so
when
co-op
was
actually
approved,
we
had
very
unlikely
number
of
yes
votes.
I
think
it
was
eight
yes
votes
or
something
I
don't
remember
the
actual
number,
but
something
that
hadn't
happened
before
so
we
used
to
have
an
isg
that
was
very,
very
supportive
of
doing
the
co-op
work
and
yeah
right
now.
D
A
It
started
out
of
spontaneous
considerations
among
chairs
and
the
id,
and
the
two
main
reasons
also
stated
at
the
last
itf
meeting
was
yeah
to
make
things
easier
and
safer
with
the
isg
actually
because
it,
it
became
more
often
the
case
that
they
could
bring.
Argument
like
this
is
not
in
the
charter
or
is
not
well
aligned
with
the
charter
yeah,
and
it
would
also
be
helpful
for
newcomers
to
have
an
up-to-date
idea
of
what
is
going
on.
F
D
B
D
A
A
D
C
B
C
F
Doesn't
have
a
clear,
it
doesn't
have
a
clear
of
clear
focus
because
it's
done
its
core
work
and
it
has
a
whole
bunch
of
little
things
and
probably
yeah.
It
probably
just
needs
to
to
to
finish
its
work
and
shut
down,
not
try
to
adopt
something
new,
but
I
guess
I
would
say
that
the
kind
of
like
I
want
to
point
out,
I'm
sorry.
I
was
had
another
meeting
that
took
up
the
previous
45
minutes.
D
F
Yeah
so
I
agree
with
you
and
then
we
get
into
scheduling
conflicts
and
we
don't
get
enough
people
because
there's
too
many
conflicts,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
saying
maybe
that's
why
I
recanted
as
I
wrote
it
and
thought.
Well,
maybe
it
just
needs
to
have
a
more
structured
design
team
around
it
so
that
it
has
the
time
to
get
where
it
needs
to
go.
D
F
That
I
think
that
that
they,
that
ace,
has
concerned
itself
a
little
bit
that
this
is
a
product.
My
impression
is,
this
is
a
product
that
is
designed,
for
instance,
for
sending
a
turn
on
all
the
lights
message
and
ace
has
certainly
got
the
authorization
behind
that
there,
and
I
I
don't
know
for
creating
I'm
unclear
whether
we
have
two
solutions
happening
or
complementary
ones
or
ones
that
build
optionally
on
each
other.
Euron
has
some
comments
too.
Here.
G
Yeah,
so
about
the
grupo
score,
there
is
actually
a
design
team,
so,
but
it's
not
like
presenting
itself
as
now
the
design
team
is,
is
presenting
it's
it's
results,
it's
more
like
there
is.
There
are
reviews
of
the
ongoing
work
by
a
set
of
people,
and
one
example
of
that
is
the
the
the
there
was
a
a
paper
or
sorry.
G
It
was
a
pre-print
by
by
eric
thor
mark
kerry,
from
erickson
on
on
the
properties
of
what
kind
of
properties
you
need
to
put
in
the
in
in
in
the
key
derivation.
What
kind
of
information
you
put
in
the
key
derivation
to
allow
certain
certain
attacks,
and
that
was
sort
of
led
to
a
change
in
in
group
score
during
the
spring?
G
D
B
I
would
suggest
is
that
the
working
group
takes
a
look
at
the
list
of
documents
currently
adopted
by
the
working
group,
and
you
know
just
check
with
the
charter
and
see
how
well
this
fit,
because
that's
what
that's!
What
started
this
discussion
with
me
and
the
chairs,
and
I
could
foresee
some
some
discussion
in
the
isg
about
how
how
fitting
some
of
these
documents
are
with
the
current
charter
and
if,
if
the
working
group
believes
that
you
know
this
is
work
that
it's
not
worth
doing
a
rechartering
to
have
this
better
alignment.
B
D
B
B
D
G
Well,
yeah,
I
just
posted
what
I
think.
I
think
it
was
the
latest
version
of
the
ace
charter.
So
I
think
there
is
a
nice
tie
in
there
to
what
what's
happening
here.
So
it's
talking
about
what
is
needed
for
applicability
of
group
communication,
it
doesn't
say,
put
the
keys
in
place.
It's
that
applicability,
which
is
better,
of
course,
it's
authorization
and
other
stuff
as
well,
and
then
it
says
also
that
it
applies
specifically
to
to
to
the
security
protocols
that
are
relevant
for
co-op.
A
F
C
A
D
B
B
A
C
A
A
The
moment
you
have
a
security
association
between
a
client
and
the
proxy
you'd
be
good
to
have
it
based
on
on
oscor2,
and
especially
in
the
case
where
you're
using
oscor
already
into
end
between
client
and
server.
So
for
the
sake
of
stack
simplicity,
code,
reuse,
keep
provisioning
and
so
on.
It's
just
better
to
to
use
all
score
again.
Also
in
that
communication
leg.
A
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
current
oscar
rfc,
of
course,
the
only
intended
consumers
of
all
score
or
oscar
endpoints,
as
we
call
them,
are
just
the
origin,
client
and
server,
of
course,
and
and
you
can
also
imagine
that
if
you
start
from
end
to
end
oscar
and
you
add
an
additional
score
protection
between
say
the
client
and
the
proxy,
you
end
up
protecting
a
message
twice
in
a
row
and
that's
not
only
undefined,
but
it's
actually
forbidden
today.
So
this
is
not
really
possible
right.
A
Eric
happen,
use
cases
is
also
summarized
in
the
draft
one.
I
mentioned
already
the
group
com
proxy
case
that
started
this
out
of
comments
from
from
christian.
Actually-
and
here
you
have
a
client
that
wants
to
reach
a
group
of
servers
through
a
proxy
that
practically
sends
out
the
request
over
multicast.
A
So,
given
this
context,
the
contribution
would
be
about
updating
your
score
rfc
to
make
this
possible
and
the
update
before
coming,
to
defining
the
actual
mechanics
of
how
this
works
is
about
enabling
oscar
to
be
used
also
at
a
proxy
and
intermediary.
Just
like
origin,
client
and
server
do
and
also
explicitly
admit
what
is
now
forbidden
so
having
what
is
called
nested
l
score
in
rfc
8613
and
in
the
current
version
of
the
draft.
A
We
actually
limited
this
to
exact
two
oscar
layers,
possibly
applied
to
the
same
message,
but
out
of
some
more
discussion
with
christian
and
joran.
It
is
actually
possible
to
do
and
interested
to
explore
to
not
put
this
hard
limit
because
it
is
possible,
first
of
all,
with
no
particular
additional
effort,
and
it
can
be
actually
useful
in
some
very
particular
cases
to
be
explored
more
and
the
focus
here
is
on
all
score
in
particular.
But
you
can
take
this
as
is,
and
it
works
just
as
well
with
group
score.
2.
A
And
during
the
design
phase
of
this,
we
found
pretty
useful
to
come
up
with
the
notation
like
this,
and
we
got
also
among
the
feedback
that
that
was
fine
during
the
design.
But
it's
just
better
to
get
rid
of
something
like
this.
That
can
be
too
heavy
to
read
and
process,
because
this
in
the
draft
evolves
into
a
pretty
fine
grain
description
of
the
message
processing,
and
we
already
have
in
mind
how
to
work
in
that
direction,
but
to
better
understand
at
least
this
first
example
focusing
on
colors.
A
To
be
sure
we
weren't
missing
any
any
corner
case,
but
we'll
hopefully
get
rid
of
most
of
this
heavy
notation
in
the
next
version
and
without
going
into
any
detail
at
all.
The
idea
is
that
the
client
can
first
of
all
protect
a
request
and
to
end
with
oscar
as
usual,
but
then,
if
it
has
also
or
only
enos
core
context
shared
with
the
proxy
and
it
can
protect
the
request.
A
A
We
we
learned
especially
that
the
use
cases
look
good
and
there
can
actually
be
a
few
more
and
the
overall
process
makes
sense,
but
it's
presented
in
a
far
too
complicated
way,
especially
considering
yet
flags
and
yet
configurations
I
showed
before
so
out
of
their
suggestion.
The
plan
is
to
do
a
major
revision
of
the
presentation
of
the
message
processing
to
make
it
a
more
general
high-level
algorithm.
A
Yeah,
so
the
plan
is
to
work
on
a
version,
one
especially
adopting
the
comments
we
we
got
and
especially
on
the
presentation
of
the
message
processing
to
make
it
easier
to
read
and
to
extend
to
a
chain
of
proxy
and
already
to
mention
possible.
This
additional
usage
of
this
and
yeah
start
thinking
on
the
triple
quadruple
application
of
oscar
layers,
so
we're
pretty
happy
with
the
feedback
so
far
already,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
clear
work
to
do.
Of
course,
more
comments.
Input
on
this
are
very
very
welcome.
D
D
D
E
A
F
A
G
G
A
F
C
A
B
B
C
B
I
followed
up
with
martin
d,
martin,
duke
and
murray,
and
they
were
happy
with
the
resolution.
So
the
only
two
left
in
these
comments
are
roman
and
ben
and
ben
has
replied
to
to
christian's
answers.
So
it's
back
with
the
authors
and
roman
has
not.
I
don't
think
he
has
had
time
to
look
at
the
reply.
So
that's
the
status.