►
From YouTube: IETF-LPWAN-20230117-1500
Description
LPWAN meeting session at IETF
2023/01/17 1500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
D
A
A
Note
that
there
was
a
typo
in
the
agenda
for
this
session.
In
the
previous
session,
there
was
a
missing
zero
in
front
of
the
the
number
of
the
sessions.
So
it's
in
the
URL.
It
should
spell
zero
one
zero
two
notches,
one
or
two.
That's
why.
Last
week
we
enter
the
agenda
in
the
in
the
minutes.
Actually,
the
the
the
agenda
was
in
the
wrong
Link
in
the
minutes
were
taken
in
the
right
link.
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
A
A
Okay,
so
welcome
to
this
lq1
meeting.
This
is
an
official
ITF
meeting
so
as
such
the
not
well
the
ATF
Network
applies
and
with
all
the
best
practices.
As
you
know,
from
attending
many
of
those
meetings,
there
are
patent
rules.
If
you're
aware
of
any
IPR
a
new
IPL,
that's
been
discussed
in
this
meeting,
then
please
let
the
group
know-
or
at
least
let
the
chair
know,
and
there
are
also
Auto
residents
and
best
practices
for
personal
conduct.
A
So
if
you're
victim
or
with
the
witness
of
a
non-appropriate
behavior
again,
please
please
let
us
know,
and
then
you
can
also
contact
this
ombuds
team
and
there
is
the
the
URL
of
the
empaths
team
given
there
and
with
this
we
have
a
heavy
loaded
agenda
for
today.
So
we
we're
going
through
this
television
and
then
we'll
continue
on
the
rechargering
discussion
that
we
started
last
week,
and
so
the
text
has
been
updated
based
on
customs
and
other
commands.
So
so
it's
been
a
bit
reshuffled.
A
Then
there
is
the
discussion
by
Laura
on
the
sheet
data
model,
so
Laurence
indicated
and
an
email
that
there
was
some
tools,
compatibility
issues
that
maybe
the
ship
data
model
had
to
be
slightly
tweaked
and
the
ship
data
model
is
not
yet
RFC.
So
I
expected
that's
about
the
the
current
draft,
not
the
second
document,
so
you'll
tell
us
that.
A
Then
there
is
this.
This
proposal
to
to
manage
the
access
control
for
the
rules-
and
you
remember
that
in
the
new
chapter
we
expect
to
be
able
to
fetch
the
rules
from
some
location.
Then
there's
a
need
to
ensure
that
this
setup,
that's
full
set,
is
proper,
so
some
kind
of
signature
or
something
to
Pro
to
prove
that
which
is
the
right
tool
set.
Then
you
can
access
it.
You
can
modify
some
stuff
inside
the
rule
set
Etc.
A
So
there
needs
to
be
a
very
fine
great
access
inside
the
rules
themselves.
I
guess
that's
what
Lahore
wants
to
discuss
as
well
and
from
there
there
was
this
discussion
started
by
Ivan
on
the
mailing
list
about
the
structure
of
the
pure
architecture
document
like
some
ideas
to
merge
some
fields.
That
kind
of
stuff-
and
so
Anna
has
been
responding,
so
maybe
we
will
have
a
we
continue
that
discussion
and
see
that
even
is
there
and
is
there.
So
maybe
we
can
continue
on
that
discussion
time
provided.
A
A
B
A
E
F
D
A
C
Yes,
so
it's
everything
is
done
and
there's
I
was
really
like:
okay,
I'm
going
to
press
the
button
and
a
couple
of
lines
that
are
okay,
it's
a
very
minor
thing,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
I
should
press
the
button
and
then
fix
this
when
the
isg
comes
back
and
says,
hey
these
lines
are
longer
or
or
a
way
to
fix
it
by
by
Sergio.
A
E
A
Okay,
so
for
the
rest,
yes,
nothing
has
changed
since
last
time.
So
let's
just
move
on
so
so
this
is
getting
the
list
of
the
the
items
we
started
discussing
last
time
on
the
the
things
that
we
could
work
on.
If
we
reach
out
there
compared
to
last
week-
and
you
haven't-
did
the
line
number
sheet,
because
that
was
a
heavy
discussion
and
I
I
provided
the
list
that
was
discussed
last
time.
So
we
said
we
could
work
on
a
purifier
could
work
on
TCP
that
was
Anna.
A
Then
there
are
all
the
ipv
smpv6
based
protocol
that
would
include
oim
by
the
way,
then
maybe
the
LMS
I
don't
know
if
we
could
work
on
the
Airbus
or
or
any
other.
Actually,
the
sentence
is
a
bit
longer.
I
had
to
cut
it,
but
it's
other
code
based
protocol.
That's
the
full
sentence!
Next,
we'll
see
that
again
in
the
chapter,
so
there
is
discussion
on
the
fact
fragment
and
it
is
now
compared
to
last
week.
A
F
A
F
I
mean
a
little
bit
noisy
place,
so
hopefully
it's
okay
about
other
places
where
it
can
be
used
cheap.
Actually,
we
are
having
some
discussions
about
zero
energy
devices
for
six
years
and
I
have
this
idea,
if
you
remember
some
months
ago,
of
using
chicks
for
basically,
they
lay
tolerant,
Transmissions,
so
basically
transmit
packets
on
time
frames,
which
are
can
take
even
a
week
or
even
more.
F
So
then
I
think
there
is
an
opportunity
to
tie
that
to
this
zero
energy
or
or
harvesting
energy
devices,
so
that
we
can
actually
make
Chic
directly
something
that
can
be
used
in
the
in
the
cellular
network
for
adapting
IP
transmission
and
then
allowing
this
kind
of
devices
which
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
transmit
all
the
time
to
do
this
kind
of
very
short
and
diversity
Transmissions
according
to
how
they
harvest
energy.
So
that's
another
case
that
we
can
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
to
include
it
in
the
free
chartering.
A
Yeah
I
I
mean
I
I,
I'd
love
to
I,
just
want
to
understand
what
exactly
exactly
we
don't
really
say,
whether
the
devices
that
we
support,
or
that's
reiterated
or
if
they
have,
if
they're,
scavengers
and
and
we
don't
mention
the
letter-
is-
is
this
something
that
mentally
it?
What
does
it
change
in
the
protocol.
A
A
A
Which
is
not
necessarily
Laura
or
something
but
yeah
and
so
sometimes
have
to
be.
You
know
considered
differently.
So,
yes,
I
mean
I,
I,
okay,
okay,
I
I.
It
makes
sense
of
what
you're
saying
so
so
would
you
call
them
Zero
Energy,
then
later
on
devices
or
Scavenging
devices?
Okay,
we
can.
We
can
work
out
something
please.
B
A
Yes,
yeah
yeah.
The
the
question
between
yes,
certainly
is
fragmentation
is
part
of
our
Charter
effectively
I
just
discussed
that
we
will
be
working
on
the
fact
thing,
but
the
the
point
was:
how
do
we
verify?
You
know
what
Edgar
wants
to
do
and
it
would
be
qualified
as
a
breed
of
devices
or
a
breed
of
interface,
where
you
know
there
have
to
be
the
letter
around
there.
They
they
don't
have
batteries
so
the
other
energy
or
Scavenging
devices,
and
so
that
means
that
effectively
you
don't
expect
the
same
timings.
H
C
I
think
that
the
delay
the
delay,
tolerance
aspect
of
of
what
Edgar
was
was
proposing
is
is
something
that
maybe
we
need
to
look
a
little
bit
closer
yeah,
because
I,
remember
yours,
presentation
and
you
know
it
can.
You
can
have
questions
such
as
like,
okay,
I
I
send
like
a
very
big
packet
and
then
it
gets
fragmented
and
sent
over
a
week
or
over
a
month,
and
you
know
how
do
I
know
if
it's
been
aborted-
and
you
know
there
are,
there
are
things
and
this
Pascal.
C
A
A
So
so,
basically,
you
will
see
I
just
type
a
sentence
in
in
the
chat,
and
that
is
the
first
sentence
of
the
proposed
Charter,
which
you'll
see
in
a
minute
with
a
slight
position
where
we
we
add
the
after
the
end,
even
stricter.
That's
that's!
What's
new
versus
what
what
was
in
the
first
chapter?
Okay,
so
yeah?
C
A
A
Now
Alex,
actually
so,
let's
just
go
through
it
and
just
figure
that
the
sentence
that
you
have
on
the
chat
replaces
the
first
sentence
in
the
proposed
chapter
and
discuss
from
that
I
mean
so
I,
just
not
want
to
to
edit
the
the
slides
that
we
are
going
through,
because
it's
not
really
easy
to
to
work
like
that.
So
so.
The
first
slide
is
text
which
will
not
be
in
the
charter
and
that
we
renamed
background
based
on
a
recommendation
by
casting.
We
also
Chef
all
the
text
a
little
bit.
A
The
first
sentence
is
in
place
and
the
third
paragraph
kind
of
moved.
First,
as
a
result,
blah
blah
this
has
moved
up
a
little
bit
and
then
the
list
of
the
documents
comes
next
anyway.
I
said
Rick
said
we.
This
is
not
to
be
part
of
the
chapter.
This
is
just
to
be
in
the
envelope
of
the
chat.
So
if
you
want
to
have
a
quick
look
at
now,
it's
reshuffled
a
short
more
changes
in
there.
A
A
A
E
A
E
Intense
here
is
perfect.
The
rest
is
a
little
bit
too
much
a
thing
anyway.
There
will
be
called
multiple
iteration
right
so
once
the
working
group
is
ready,
then
propose
it
to
the
isg
with
some
review,
and
then
it's
proposed
to
the
active
Community
by
your
last
call
where
we
can
do
another
change
as
well.
So.
A
E
A
I
mean
a
little
better,
all
right,
so
so
we
we
give
you
like
this
block
of
text
and
if
you
want
to
pick
some
some
of
the
sentences,
the
first
group
and
move
them
in
a
second
in
this
slide
here,
I
mean
I'll,
be
also
happy
to
do.
That
I
mean
we
kind
of
move
the
background
away,
because
that
was
your
recommendation.
If
you
want
to
take
one
sentence
back
we'll
do
it.
C
A
super
short
question
here,
because,
right
now
it's
the
like
the
the
charter
starts
with,
like
the
group
will
extend
its
scope
to
enable
the
benefits
blah
blah
blah.
It
can
isn't.
I
mean
okay
and
thinking
about
someone
coming
in
reading
for
the
first
time,
the
charter,
and
it's
like
okay,
they
extends
something,
but
what's
the
something
right.
A
Question
last
time
as
well,
yes,
and-
and
that
is
background-
tells
right
and
and
the
previous
chapter
I
mean
it's
a
recharger,
so
the
English
people
they
still
have
access
to
the
old
chapter.
That's
one
thing
and
the
thing
is
it's
written
there
in
the
envelope,
but
it's
not
part
of
the
contract.
Okay,.
C
A
C
C
A
B
B
A
C
A
He
has
to
do
the
more
contentious
things
could
be.
You
know
the
new
proposed
Charter
items,
which
is
re,
I
think
this
is
the
most
important
slide
right.
That's
the
last,
but
most
important,
that's
where
we
we
go
and
discuss
what
we
will
be
doing
and
what
we
could
be
doing.
You
see
the
big
man
for
the
the
bar,
because
we
were
not
very
clear
on
which
bar
we
would
support.
If
you
remember
last
last
time,
the
discussion
was
okay.
We
want
to
do
some
chicory
food
and
some
Baro
vershek,
but
we
don't
want.
A
We
don't
know
yet
that
we
will
add
documents
for
all
those
things
that
we
could
be
doing,
and
so
we
can't
commit
that
we'll
do
TCP
or
ipd4,
for
instance,
which
are
listed
here
or
the
LMS
by
the
way.
So
so
do
we
want
to
still
list
them
if
it
is
nothing,
it's
just
open
bar
on
the
video,
as
you
would
not
like
it.
A
C
A
The
problem
that
if
we
don't
list
anything,
that's
open.
Well,
that's
why
I
was
saying
so
you
could
work
on
anything,
but
the
NSG
will
probably
you
know
fight.
If
we
list
stuff,
we
try
to
say
hey,
we
we
are
taking
some
of
them
now.
If
you
want
to
do
something
which
is
not
listed,
it's
gonna
be
hard
because
it
can.
If
we
are
providing
the
envelope
from
which
you
would
pick
now
see.
Some
of
some
of
that
is
open.
Like
ICM
pv6
based
protocol,
it's
very
wide,
then
custom
wants
to
speak.
D
A
A
D
Course
they
have
wonderful
classes
to
avoid
this
principle,
so
without
limiting
to
blast
something
I,
don't
think
we
need
that,
because
really
these
these
work
items
should
be
in
a
list
of
milestones
and
not
in
the
actual
Charter
proper.
So,
typically
when,
when
we
discuss
a
charter,
we
always
discuss
a
list
of
Milestones
with
that
and
yeah.
This
looks
a
lot
like
a
list
of
livestocks.
The
the
exception
here
is
that
there
are
statements
about
collaboration
with
other
organizations,
so
I
think
these
need
to
go
into
the
charter.
A
D
A
D
A
Yeah
relatives
don't
know,
I
mean
it's
free
for
for
the
ASG
to
tell
us
if,
if
they're
happy,
that
we
remove
everything
from
the
list,
that's
better
I'm
with
you
and
at
least
to
to
based
on
just
as
you
say,
it
really
makes
sense,
but
I
think
this
list.
If
we
asked,
is
kind
of
comfortable
versus
you
know,
we
don't
have
this
list
ready
for
that.
Yeah.
E
So
I
would
not
overdo
it.
This
chapter
will
be
revised
by
the
isg
and
we
make
minor
tweaks
like
this,
so
I
think
in
this
working
group.
What
you
should
do
right
now
is
to
not
select
the
precise
wording
but
more
about
the
topics
you
want
to
work
on
Among
Us,
and
then
you
send
it
to
the
area
to
myself
and
together
with
the
IG,
we'll
use
the
right
word.
So
don't
spend
too
much
time
on
this
right
now.
A
E
A
A
A
A
B
B
Okay,
so
what's
wrong
in
fact
that
when
we
Define
the
data
model,
we
Define
a
type
and
inside
this
type
it
was
a
union
between
two
things.
One
was
an
identity
and
the
other
one
was
an
integer,
so
this
type
is
used,
for
example,
for
the
field
length
and
the
fins
length
we
give
the
size
or
we
call
a
function.
So
that's
why
we,
we
need
a
union
here
and
we
stayed
that
with
Union
was
included
in
the
rules
that
works
for
with
the
compression.
B
So
when
you
run
some
tools
to
validate
this,
there
is
a
strange
behavior
is
that
they
ask
that
the
integer
has
to
be
a
string,
and
so
that's
quite
strange
because
it
is
defined
as
an
integer.
But
in
my
understanding
of
the
problem
is
that
when
you
do
a
model
in
how
you
put
data
in
XML,
then
there
is
no
difference
between
strings
and
num
number.
But
when
you
do
Jesus.
E
B
Okay,
so
I
don't
see
the
slides
but
I
think
I,
don't
know
where
I
have
been
cut,
but
I
said
that
the
representation
in
in
XML
is
Json.
You
have
different
type,
and
so
it
means
that
the
the
tool
that
check
I
think
I've
been
tested
widely
on
XML
and
do
not
detect
this.
And
when
we
go
to
Jason,
then
we
we
may
have
this
problem.
So
what
I
propose
I,
don't
see
this
fine
anymore,
but
I
can
do
it
by
memory.
B
So
for
me
it's
better
because
here
when
we
use
existing
tools,
we
have.
We
can
put
this
value
as
an
integer
and
the
second
thing
that
it's
very
close
to
the
model,
so
validation
tools
may
have
an
easier
access
to
this
information
and
unconstrained
device.
Maybe
it
will
be
more
easy
to
to
implement
because
you
don't
have
to
to
look
at
the
definition.
B
B
For
okay,
this
one,
so
it's
just
to
to
move
the
union
from
the
type
Dev
to
the
definition,
the
grouping,
so
what
what
I
will
propose
to
to
change
in
in
the
in
the
draft,
and
since
we
are
doing
the
change
I
also
put
in
the
next
slide,
some
change
that
counter
with
a
discussion
with
content.
We
we
had
was
just
about
the
co-op
option
and
to
create
a
sub.
Can
you
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please
Pascal.
B
H
For
reference,
the
idea
was
that
the
co-op
option,
when
we
describe
Co-op
options,
there's
a
there's,
a
need
to
actually
pass
several
Fields.
So
basically
the
co-op
option,
Delta
the
co-op
option,
length,
option,
value
and
Etc,
and
so
so
the
question
I'm
raising
is:
is
there
a
an
interest
in
also
being
able
to
address
those
raw
Fields
as
well?
So
not
not
using
the
inter
what?
What
I
call
the
interoperated
field,
because
in
the
packet
itself,
there's
not
a
cloud
option
if
much,
there's
there's
a
sequence
of
Club
options:
Etc
and
yeah.
B
B
I
think
we
for
this
version
it's
too
late
to
to
do
that,
because
it's
a
lot
of
change
and
we
have
to
discuss
about
this
change.
What
I
propose
here
is
just
I'm
not
changing
the
model.
In
fact
the
data
you
will,
if
you
have
generated
data
with
previous
all
the
actual
young
data
model,
they
will
be
compatible
with
this
version.
So
I
don't
change
anything
to
the
representation.
B
And
by
the
way,
if
you
there
is
a
nice
video
I
put
on
the
list,
I
hope
it's
a
nice
video
and
but
explain
all
the
things
we
can
do
with
open,
cheek
and
move
from
Json
representation
to
sibo
representation
and
use
yongsan,
for
example,
to
validate
a
model
Okay.
So
that's
for
the
first
part,
so
the
second
issue
was
about
access
control.
B
That
so
Pascal
can
you
go
to
the
next
line
and
just
to
remember
the
discussion
we
we
add
when
we
made
the
the
draft
and
also
discussion,
we
added
the
site
meeting
at
the
ATF
in
I,
think
it
was
in
London.
So
the
idea
that
if
you
look
right
now
at
the
Young
data
model,
all
the
fields
are
read
write,
so
everybody
can
modify
them
and
also
we
don't
have
defined
some
Access
Control
to
give
a
some
authenticated
device
access
to
some
field
or
not.
The
reason
is
on
the
next
slide.
B
Is
that
because
we
don't,
when
we
do
a
young
data
model?
In
fact,
we
don't
give
if
we
give
access
to
a
field
as
a
previous
data
model
is
to
give
access
to
a
column,
for
example,
all
the
six
column.
We
say
it's
read,
write
or
write
only
and
it's
not
really
what
we
expect.
What
we
would
like
to
say
is,
for
example,
you
cannot
change
the
source
address
or
the
application
address,
or
you
cannot
change
the
some
this
Co-op
URI.
B
So
here
it
means
that
we
don't.
We
have
to
give
access
not
to
a
column
but
to
align
and
say,
for
example,
the
third
line
cannot
be
or
Changed
by
any
one
else.
Anybody
so
to
do
that.
In
fact,
it's
quite
easy
because
we,
we
can
add
to
this
model
a
new
one
tree
and
this
entry.
We
say
it
is
possible
to
change
it
or
it's
not
possible
to
to
change
it.
So
we
can
extend
the
current
young
data
model
with
that,
and
so
next
slide.
B
So
it's
what
I
say.
So
we
can
extend
the
model
for
the
compression
and
say
this
entry
can
modify
or
not,
or
this
line
can
be
modified
or
not.
We
can
also
add
some
more
generic
property
to
add
or
delete
entries.
For
example,
in
a
compression
rule,
we
can
say
I
want
to
add
a
new
topic,
a
new
field
in
this
world.
So
this
is
a
possibility,
so
we
can
allow
it
or
avoid
it.
B
We
can
have
also
a
possibility
to
remove
some
some
lines
and
what
we
can
have
also
is
the
property
is
a
the
possibility
to
add
a
new
rule
inside
the
model
or
to
delete
a
rule
inside
the
model,
as,
for
example,
I
show
in
in
the
video,
so
I
think
that
these
properties
has
to
be
added
to
the
current
young
data
model
to
allow
this.
So
the
question
also
is
to
whom
this
means
that,
can
we
say
the
device,
can
we
say
some
directory?
Can
we
say
anybody?
B
B
So
for
me,
for
example,
if
we
want
to
modify
something
in
the
fragmentation,
it
can
be
the
timers
as
Edgar
talk
a
little
at
the
a
few
minutes
ago.
It
can
be
also
the
number
of
fragments
we
can
send
a
certain
time.
For
example,
it
can
be
used
to
to
do
flow
control,
and
so
an
application
say.
Okay,
now
I
am
saturated
or
the
network
is
set
rigid.
So
please
stop
sending.
So
that's
this
kind
of
thing
that
can
be
done,
but
to
change
over
parameter.
B
For
example,
I
want
to
change
now,
I
put
data
in
the
old
one
or
I,
don't
put
data
in
the
or
one
I
think
it's
maybe
too
complex
to
do
so.
In
my
my
vision
for
fragmentation,
we
have
to
limit
the
thing
the
number
of
things
that
can
be
changed
and
if
an
implementation
one
to
make
a
big
change,
then
it
will
have
to
create
a
another
rule
to
to
do
that.
B
D
B
A
D
B
C
So
so,
actually
there
is
something
and
I'll
go
into
the
sense
of
what
Carson
said.
Maybe
what
we,
what
we
need
to
do
is
because
we
discussed
a
couple
of
times
already
about
the
different
like
the
use
case.
So
what
are
the
things
that
we
envision
as
possible
attack
vectors
so
that
then
we
can,
as
you
say
like
all
these
Access
Control
lists.
A
A
Yes,
I
mean
progress
on
this.
We
we
need
to
to
have
the
specification
of
the
use
case.
We
want
to
serve
that.
There
is
an
another
item
that
that
worries
me
in
in
this
description.
Is
we
don't
really
say
in
which
chart
I
will
process
the
rules?
Do
we
so
if
somebody
writes
a
rule
which
is
almost
the
same
as
the
existing
Rule
and
and
both
match?
A
Could
it
be
that,
depending
on
the
device
one
rules
is
taken
or
the
other
rule
is
taken,
I
mean?
How
do
we
know?
There
are
two
rules
that
match
which
one
is
picked
by
the
implementation,
because,
as
you
discussed
attack
vectors
I
mean
writing
a
rule
which
is
similar
to
to
an
existing
one
could
be
an
attack.
Vector
I
mean
that
that
worries
me.
B
Oh,
so
that's
why
maybe
we
should
not
allow
to
create
new
rules,
but
we
just
allowed
to
create
to
add
or
to
change
some
parameters,
some
specific
parameters
into
a
rule.
If
I
go
back
to
lightweight
M2M,
for
example,
you
may
want
to
change
the
ID
that
is
used
in
the
co-op
URI,
but
you
don't
want
to
change
the
destination
address
because
you
want
to
keep
the
same
server.
C
Just
one
thing
and
and
I
think
so
what
pascara
was
said
so
I
agree
with
you,
maybe
so
my
feeling
about
this
is
that
then
I
think
that
we
need
a
document
here
because,
like
we
are
talking
otherwise
and
like
this,
we
I
think
we
mostly
agree,
but
then
the
devil
is
in
the
details.
So
start
with
the
document
in
which
we
start
describing,
we
have
like
a
maybe
a
bullet
list
of
saying:
hey.
This
is
a
possible
attack.
Vector.
This
is
a
possible
attack.
Vector
like
I,
can
create
what
Pascal
said.
C
I
can
create
a
new
rule.
That
is
that
also
matches
and
I
can
divert
the
traffic
from
other
device
to
me
so
I'm,
an
attacker
right
and
and
just
list
the
types
of
attacks
like
this
and
then
I
mean
we
know
the
solution
and
you
already
have
described
the
solution
like
we
have
an
ACL
and
blah
blah
blah
blah,
but
start
at
least
with
the
okay.
These
are
the
attack
vectors
and
then
you
know,
and
then,
when
we
when
we
agree
that
the
list
is
complete
enough,
then
we
can,
we
can
say
okay.
H
That
would
provide
kind
of
like
a
rule
that
has
the
same
signature
or
the
same
matching
properties
is
something
that
we
should
discuss
with
regards
to
the
scope
that
is
defined
by
this
by
by
the
context
that
that
hosts
our
I'm,
not
so
sure
that
this
is
so
exposed
to
attacks
but
I
suppose
that's
something
to
be
discussed.
Yeah.
B
H
But
the
core
has
a
collection
of
of
contexts
for
sets
of
endpoints
and
the
question
is
we
can
access
the
core
for
a
given
context
and
therefore,
who
has
access
to
a
context
and
those
those?
Does
it
provide
enough
security
to
say
the
ACL
should
not
be
on
the
rules
themselves,
but
on
the
context,
but
again.
A
This
is
a
great
discussion,
but
I
guess
we
have
to
take
it
to
the
mailing
list
and
and
continue
next
time.
So,
if
you
don't
mind,
we'll
have
a
slot
for
your
access
code
for
discussion.
I
hope
that
we
start
discussing
the
use
cases
first,
exactly
what
is
the
exposure
of
the
current
thing
and
what
is
it
that
people
would
want
to
do?