►
From YouTube: CORE WG Virtual Interim Meeting, 2019-10-02
Description
CORE WG Virtual Interim Meeting, 2019-10-02
A
A
A
C
D
A
B
B
C
C
C
B
So,
just
in
case,
you
wonder
close
beside
me,
that's
why
he
haven't
switched
on
the
audio
and
Aria
is
still
over
in
the
other
room
in
the
one
diem
meeting
fixing
some
example
data
models
which
we
were
discussing
there.
So
this
is
making
interesting
progress
and
we
just
fill
it
finish.
Our
first
release
candidate
of
the
modeling
language,
so
that
that's
a
big
milestone
reached
earlier
today,
just
for
information,
so
anything
we
need
to
add
with
your
gender
change
in
the
agenda.
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Good,
so,
let's
quickly
run
through
this
talking
about
document
status,
the
multi-part
content
format
is
in
the
RSC
editor
Q.
So
that's
another
document
that
we
have
completed
the
resource
directory
is
in
the
continues
to
be
in
the
a
deviation
which
I
think
is
kind
of
knowledge,
because
it's
not
a
short
document
and
it
does
raise
a
few
questions.
B
The
cinema
edge
are,
we
just
told
me,
I,
can
report
he
is
working
on
on
the
remaining
issues.
As
you
may
know,
Ari
is
not
actually
working
these
days
because
he
has
a
recent
tried
and
he
still
couldn't
tell
me
what's
his
name,
so
they
probably
spent
the
next
few
days
finding
a
name
for
him.
So
if
you
have
suggestions,
you
can
send
them
to
him.
Also
cinnamon
edge
should
should
become
ready
and
in
a
couple
of
weeks
hop
limit.
B
We
will
have
a
short
item
as
the
next
agenda
item
and
I
think
we
are
all
done
with
this
document,
but
there
is
an
ops
ear
review.
That
is
questioning
why
we
are
not
making
a
stronger
recommendation
about
actually
using
this.
So
let's
talk
about
that
in
a
couple
of
minutes,
the
actual
request
tag
document
is
in
post
working
of
last
class
called
processing
and
Francesca
has
submitted,
and
you.
B
B
I
think
this
was
a
good
review,
so
we
certainly
want
to
make
sure
that
the
authors
have
a
chance
to
work
on
this
and
if
other
people
are
interested
in
the
points
that
Francesca
raised.
Of
course,
you
can
also
make
yourself
heard
so
I
think
that
that
we
will
have
to
wait
for
the
authors
to
react
on
that
sentiment.
B
More
units
is
in
working
class
call
for
another
week,
so
so
far,
I
haven't
heard
anything
but
I
wouldn't
mind
getting
some
feedback
when
people
have
read
this
really
short
document,
whether
they
like
it
or
what
needs
to
be
fixed.
So
these
are
the
the
current
documents
that
are
actually
in
in
some
processing
stage.
B
I
see
that
the
core
cornstalk
humans
have
recently
some
of
them
have
recently
been
updated
and
I
expect
the
rest
of
them
to
be
updated
in
in
sync.
So
any
day
now
we
should
be
able
to
do
the
working
of
blast
code
unless
somebody
has
a
problem
with
that
and
the
other
item
that
I
put
on
the
other
end
of
originally
the
table
shake
stuff.
That's
not
something
that
happens
in
this
working,
but
this
is
VIP
when
Everton
and
they
are
defining
a
way
to
process
the
type
protocol
and
particular
to
compress
it.
B
And
of
course
we
should
make
sure
that
this
compression
scheme
doesn't
have
any
properties
there
that
restrict
us
and
the
further
development
of
the
protocol
and
so
on.
So
it's
important
for
us
to
actually
review
where
this
I
I
know
that
some
reviews
have
already
happened
behind
the
scenes
and
yeah.
If
you
are
interested
in
the
quad
protocol
itself,
that's
one
one
document
that's
recommended
for
reading
and
I
forgot
to
put
on
the
name
there
I
do
that
in
a
minute.
B
C
B
B
Yeah,
so
what
the
will
say
that
there
was
a
sense
in
the
room
that
we
need
to
solve
this,
and
there
was
also
another
document
from
RE
and
I
was
kind
of
assuming
that
re
and
you
are
going
to
get
together
and
find
out
what
was
the
next
step,
because
that
there
are
some
architectural
requirements
on
on
doing
this.
Yeah.
C
B
B
D
C
It's
probably
a
longer
discussion,
but
the
idea
is
that
you
don't
have
to
what
you
don't
send
a
unique
base
name
because
the
uniqueness
is
implied
by
its
use
and
we
somehow
had
to
distinguish
it
from
from
the
other
base
name.
So
that's
why
I
call
it
local
base
name
but
yeah.
So
I
don't
know
if
other
people
sort
of
got
that
wrong.
C
We,
as
you
know
like
in
likely
them
to
em
in
the
group.
The
group
didn't
notice
it
until
someone
pointed
it
out.
Unfortunately,
after
the
document
was
published,
so
I
I
suspect
in
the
intro
events.
Everyone
has
gotten
that
wrong
so
and
the
entropic
when
takes
place
next
week,
so
I
will
be
able
to
tell
more
next
week.
B
C
B
One
one
way
to
read
this
document
would
have
been
to
say:
oh,
this
is
just
for
for
singling,
and
nobody
else
cares
about
this.
But
what
the
the
section
1.1
of
the
document
is
trying
to
say
is:
this
is
a
general
functionality
and
it's
actually
now
recommended
to
to
implement,
and
there
was
a
comment
from
Scott
Radner
as
part
of
the
operations
area,
Directorate
review
that
this
might
even
be
too
weak,
and
we
really
should
always
send
this
and
so
on.
B
And
what
I
would
like
to
find
out
in
this
meeting
is:
is
the
the
text
that
we
have
in
the
current
document?
Actually,
the
consensus
of
the
working
group,
or
in
other
words,
should
we
try
to
push
back
on
Scott
redness
comment,
or
do
we
actually
agree
that
that
the
language
actually
should
be
even
stronger,
and
we
might
even
include
something
about
updating
and
a
seven
to
five
to
four
for
this
requirement.
B
D
At
least
from
when
I
was
reviewing
the
hop
limit
option,
he
was
very
reasonable
from
the
protection
in
the
cases
that
dot
was
having,
but
I,
don't
know
if
people
environment
into
em,
for
example,
you
know
might
have
it
is
the
same
problem.
So
I
don't
know
if
it
solves
any
problems
up.
At
least
one
of
them
came
to
Michael
Allen
I
think
their
hair
may
be
noticed.
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
A
B
B
B
You
would
you
have
to
give
the
confidence
of
the
option
to
turn
it
off
now.
The
if
you
actually
write
must
include
this
option
or
something
like
that.
You
reach
another
effect,
which
is
that
a
receiver
can
lie
on.
Having
that
option
add
and
I.
We
don't
think
that
sounds
something
we
want
to
say.
So.
Receiver
should
still
be
prepared
to
accept,
curb
messages
that
do
not
have
this
option
and.
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
B
See
you
at
n
bits.
Of
course
you
can
also
find
in
the
specification
reference
from
the
registry,
but
they
are
also
expressed
in
the
option.
Number
and
I.
Think
God's
comment
was
that
we
all
this
information
should
be
in
the
registry
and
that's
not
something
I
would
strictly
I.
Am
that
what
the
registry
would
be
more
useful
with
all
that
info?
Raishin
energy,
but
that's
a
change
that
kind
of
orthogonal
to
to
list
out
I.
B
E
Yet
there
is
only
this
review
from
the
district
security
Directorate
that
it
is
only
editorial
which
a
modification
there
is
no
nothing,
so
nothing
I
would
say
and
problematic
is
there.
Yeah
came
back
to
detail,
is
coming
from
class
about
updating,
RFC
7230
to
it,
I,
don't
think
we
will
formally
added
that
RFC,
so
I
am
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
reopen
that
that
at
that
point
again.
B
Yeah
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
now,
because
it's
not
our
Dutch
word
at
the
moment,
is
just
define
the
red
lines
within
the
working
within
which
the
working
can
move.
So
if
any
of
the
ad
says
yes,
there
should
be
an
update,
then
we
can
just
react
by
saying:
okay:
let's
do
that,
just
making
sure
that
we
don't
do
something
that
the
work
you
wouldn't
want
us
to
do.
E
B
B
A
And
they
there
was
some
dance
made
in
Montreal
for
having
a
short
workshop
on
the
topic.
Yes,
my
hearing,
Heastie
and
I
sent
out
it's
beautiful
a
couple
of
months
ago,
and
that
indicated
that
the
week
of
October
16th
would
be
best
for
for
everyone
where
filled
out
the
doodle
poll
to
Marco
and
Vegard
and
Francesca,
and
should
we
pick
Monday
in
qfjo
that
week
and
then
use
the
interim
on
the
16th
to
get
by
their
feedback?
So.
F
F
B
Think
it
would
be
good,
so
you
would
be
discussing
these
together,
so
so
you
make
sure
they
actually
fit
well
to
each
other.
But
yes,
we
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
in
the
Kovac
group.
It's
not
just
the
ACE
work,
it's
the
core
work.
That
needs
to
be
done,
and
it
would
be
grateful
to
have
a
meeting
for
that.