►
From YouTube: GENDISPATCH WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-01
Description
GENDISPATCH WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-01
B
Very
good
well
good
afternoon
to
north
american
folks
good
evening
to
european
folks.
I
don't
see
anybody
to
whom
I
have
to
say
good
morning
to
you.
But
yes,
you
do
oh
well,
there
you
go
you
wild
and
wooly
waking
up
ungodly
hours,
people
good
morning,
brian
and
so
a
final
reminder.
Please
go
to
kodi
md
page.
B
Please
do
go
to
codymd.itf.org
the
main
page
for
that
site
and
sign
yourself
in
through
the
data
tracker,
because
that
will
be
helpful
and
add
your
name
to
the
gen
to
the
blue
sheet
in
our
page.
If
you
would-
and
we
are
recording
this
session
and
let's
get
started
with
the
agenda
bash
and
just
a
reminder-
this
is
an
ietf
meeting.
B
B
B
B
The
purpose
of
this
session
is
to
dispatch
this
topic
area
and
or
these
documents,
which
is
to
say
the
discussion
on
content
in
any
of
the
documents,
should
be
kept
along
the
lines
of
where
we're
going
to
have
this
discussion
in
the
future
and
what
form
it
will
take.
We
don't
need
to
be
going
to
the
details
and
solving
the
problems
of
these
documents
in
this
session.
We're
dispatching
and
the
dispatch
choices
which
you
know
from
the
charter
can
be
anything
from.
B
But
one
of
the
things
that
is
specifically
not
chartered
for
gen
dispatch
is:
we
do
not
work
on
documents
as
a
working
group.
We
dispatch
them.
That's
it,
unlike
some
other
dispatch
working
groups,
so
we
want
to
know
what
would
be
a
satisfactory
output,
whether
a
bcp
informational
document
updates
to
the
rc
style
guide,
changes
to
the
nips
tool.
Gen
art
review
guidelines,
a
manual
of
style
whatever
that
might
be.
B
Those
are
okay
things
to
come
to
a
conclusion
that
this
is
what
we
think
the
way
forward
should
be.
The
chairs
have
gone
through
the
minutes
and
the
jabber
logs
and
the
mailing
list,
and
we
sent
out
a
summary
beforehand.
You
can
see
it
if
you
want
to
scroll
down
in
your
code
at
cody,
md
we've
got
assorted,
summaries
and
brian
came
up
with
a
short
summary
in
one
of
his
email
messages,
which
we
thought
was
helpful.
B
B
If,
if
you
would
care
to,
please
do
add
to
her
notes.
That
would
be
helpful
if
you
can
just
type
something
or
keep
an
eye
on
what
she's
typing
and
say.
Oh,
I
can
clarify
that
a
bit
that
is
helpful
to
us,
we're
not
asking
anyone
to
be
the
note
taker
that
will
be
francesca,
but
your
help
is
appreciated.
B
C
Good
morning,
good
afternoon,
good
evening,
I'll
turn
on
my
video.
I
just
have
a
question
for
the
chairs
about
these
documents
and
how
and
what
our
options
are.
If,
if
we're
not
available,
if
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
discuss
any
of
the
content,
then
I
mean:
isn't
our
option
really
only
to
to
dispatch
to
a
working
group
or
a
bot
or
something
no.
B
No,
no,
no,
no,
I
mean,
first
of
all,
let
me
qualify
the
we
can
discuss
the
content
insofar
as
it
is
helpful
to
determine
what
the
dispatch
is
right.
So,
if
you
say
look,
this
document
says
such
and
so
I
think
that
would
make
a
good
basis
for
a
buff
or
a
working
group
or
whatever.
It
might
be.
That's
a
perfectly
reasonable
comment.
This
document
says
such,
and
so
I
don't
think
we
should
concentrate
on
that
area
whatsoever.
So
our
dispatch
claim
should
be
do
this
work,
but
not
that
work.
B
B
E
B
B
F
B
B
B
G
Thanks
so
I'll
just
review
the
basic
info
very
quickly,
it's
always
helpful
for
us
to
state
what
our
objective
is
and
what
our
non-objectives
are.
We
just
want
to
increase
the
readability
and
readership
of
these
rfcs
and
ids.
That's
it
the
non-objectives,
we're
not
trying
to
change
existing
rfc's
existing
language
and
we're
not
trying
to
forbid
any
words.
G
So
it's
not
very
recent,
and
since
it's
cited
by
a
code
spell
which
is
a
tooling
that
you
can
use
that,
treats
these
exclusionary
words
as
typos
and
we'll
suggest
alternatives
and
then
very
helpfully.
We've
now
got
a
repository
of
all
the
other
communities
that
are
adjacent
to
the
ietf
that
are
also
doing
the
same
thing
and
their
language
and
rational
around
that,
as
well
as
documented.
G
So
we
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please
thanks!
So
the
biggest
change
in
version
4
over
version
3
is
that
now
there
exists
another
repository
which
is
an
ietf
github
repository
that
alissa
and
others
have
populated
called
inclusive
terminology
and
ietf
documents.
So
because
this
exists,
we
wanted
to
point
to
that
and
make
that
the
focus
and
this
draft
turning
into
really
the
rationale
for
the
existence
of
that
repo.
G
So
the
I
and
I'd
be
happy
for
alyssa
to
chime
in
after
I'm
done,
presenting
in
one
more
slide,
but
that's
meaning
to
track
alternative
terminology
suggestions
that
authors
and
reviewers
might
follow
guidance
as
to
how
to
apply
this
to
new
and
novel
cases
as
well,
and
then
the
very
useful
referencing.
So
that's
just
keeping
track
of
all
the
all
the
work
that
other
people
are
doing
and-
and
I
wanted
to
note
too,
because
andrew
campbling
brought
this
up
earlier
today
and
his
email
to
the
gen
dispatch
list.
G
This
is
essentially
what
barbara
stark
had
suggested
very
helpfully,
and
so
I'm
glad
to
see
that
there's
support
for
something
like
this,
because
it
exists
next
slide
and
then
so.
Lastly,
this
has
not
really
changed
since
the
last
meeting
108.
What
we
think
needs
to
be
happen.
What
we
think
needs
to
happen
with
this
is,
I
don't
think
it
should
be
just
dispatched
anywhere
else.
I
think
this
is
where
it
belongs.
G
G
B
J
J
I
wanted
to
specifically
make
sure
that
we're
not
trying
to
solve
all
the
world's
problems
and
and
take
sides,
because
there
clearly
is
a
lot
of
political
debate
around
this.
It's
particularly
an
explosive
topic
in
the
usa
at
the
moment
so
also
in
other
parts
of
the
world,
and
I
wanted
to
go
back,
I'm
fairly
new
to
the
ietf
compared
to
a
lot
of
people
on
this
call.
But
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
ietf
submission
and
base
things
on
that.
If
you
could
go
to
the
next
slide,
please.
J
J
J
And
specifically,
also
we
we
want
to
have
some
constraints
over
who
we
bring
in.
We
want
people
who
are
technically
competent
and
who
want
to
improve
the
internet.
I
took
some
examples
of
stuff
that
we
don't
want
in
the
iatf,
because
it's
good
to
define
our
boundaries,
so
we
know
what
we're
working
with
I'm
sure
there
are
other
things
there.
There
was
an
example.
I
came
up
with
on
the
mailing
list
to
do
with
the
idea
that
we
don't
want
people
who
say
work
is
oppression.
The
word
network
contains
work.
J
J
We
want
people
to
behave
professionally
so
that
communication
is
clear.
We
want
people
to
behave
in
a
manner
that
allows
everybody
to
interact,
which
means
that
you
don't
bring
your
entire
culture,
you
adapt
to
the
culture
of
the
group
and
the
working
culture,
so
we
we
want
to
find
norms
that
do
that,
but
welcome
everybody
who
has
contributions
to
make
as
much
as
possible.
So
there's
a
balancing
act.
J
And
I
I
don't
know
if
I
have
collected
all
the
things
that
consensus
consists
of
or
ways
to
get
to
consensus,
but
the
three
I
could
see
where
you
persuade
people
to
agree
with
your
consensus.
You
fatigue
them,
you
just
keep
pushing
until
everyone
gives
up
and
then
you've
got
consensus
because
nobody's
arguing
anymore
or
fear
you.
J
A
F
So
you
know,
the
first
thing
I
think
is
that
we,
I
think
no
one
here
really
wants
to
use
unproductive
language
if
we
offend
someone
or
distract
someone
that
is
going
to
get
in
the
way
of
understanding
our
documents,
and
I
certainly
admit
that
we
have
not
always
done
this
ideally
in
the
past,
and
we
can
improve
what
we're
doing,
and
I
I
really
believe
that
the
community
overall
shares
that
sentiment.
I
I
don't
think
people
want
to
make
documents
that
bother
people.
F
F
Again,
I
think
next
bullet
most
of
the
suggestions
made
about
words.
We
shouldn't
use-
probably
not
controversial,
because
if
you
look
when
I
look
at
the
list
on
github
most
of
these,
I
go
yeah
yeah
yeah,
not
a
problem.
No,
no,
and
that's
that's
my
opinion,
of
course,
not
everyone's,
but
I
think
most
of
these
words
are
not
going
to
be
a
problem.
E
F
So,
there's
a
lot
of
recommendations
in
the
draft
and
they're
a
varying
quality.
I
won't
say
that
I
think
that
I
certainly
don't
think
they're
all
equally
good.
I
just
wanted
to
have
some
talking
points,
but
I
think
the
right
place
to
maintain
information
about
exclusionary
language
is
probably
with
the
rfc
editor,
if
they're
willing
to
do
it,
and
the
reason
is
because
I
think
this
lumps
in
with
other
considerations
about
document
readability,
and
we
don't
want
to
be
looking
at
those
considerations
in
different
places.
F
We
really
want
when
you're
writing
a
document
or
editing
a
document.
You
want
to
be
able
to
sort
of,
compare
and
say
well,
if
I
use
these
words
it
might
cause,
it
might
impair
the
readability
of
the
document,
but
it's
at
the
same
time.
Perhaps
these
words
are
valuable
in
helping
to
get
the
point
across
where
some
substitutes
might
not
be
so.
Those
are
trade-offs,
I
think,
should
be
make
made
at
the
same
place
rather
than
in
different
places.
F
The
second
bit
is
that
I,
it
seems
like
a
good
idea
to
me.
If
the
the
internet
draft
tools
we
have
so
every
time
you
submit
an
internet
draft,
it
could
say
by
the
way
I
noticed
you've
got
these
words
here
and
they
might
or
might
not
be
exclusionary,
but
we,
you
know,
maybe
you'd,
want
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
it's
not.
It
should
be
advisory
only,
but
the
idea
is
to
tell
authors
and
editors
or
as
early
as
possible.
Really
you
might
have
an
issue
here
that
you
want
to
look
at.
F
F
B
F
B
And
if
I'm
not
well
I'll
leave
the
screen
shared
up
here
for
the
time
being,
just
in
case
people
want
me
to
bring
the
slides
back
up
for
their
questions.
So
I've
got
a
few
of
folks,
which
I'm
assuming
are
all
to
the
general
discussion.
Were
there
any
specifics
for
keith
that
people
had
questions
or
something
like
that.
L
F
I
hadn't
considered
that
question,
but
I
think
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
think
that
is
perhaps
an
option.
Another
option
that
I
considered
was
maybe
maybe
we
want
to
revise
terminology
and
say
moving
forward,
we're
going
to
change
these
terms,
and
you
could
you
know,
I
don't
see
anything
inherently
wrong
with
publishing.
F
You
know
a
two-page
rfc
that
says
that
what
I
don't
want
to
do
is
open
up
the
old
rfc
and
all
the
potential
ripple
effects
that
that
can
have
you
got
to
update
all
the
references
you've
got
to
update
the
boilerplate
you've
got
now.
You've
got
other
documents
that
are
being
in
the
process
of
being
revised
and
the
new
rfc
has
to
wait
until
those
revisions
are
complete.
F
F
J
Or
ask
a
question:
another
thing
that
came
up
on
this
specific
topic
that
I
think
is
quite
important
is
that
changing
terminology,
a
lot
of
people
have
commented
on
the
list
that
it's
easy,
just
search,
replace
master
with
primary
enslave,
with
secondary
and
you're
done,
which
is
fine
in
the
documents
itself,
but
these
terms
have
also
found
their
way
into
a
lot
of
codes
into
a
lot
of
other
stuff.
That's
built
on
top
of
this,
and
so
what
you'll
wind
up?
J
Having
is
two
terms
traveling
in
parallel,
as
mostly
synonyms
into
the
future,
for
quite
a
way-
and
there
are
plenty
of
examples
where,
having
multiple
terms
for
the
same
thing
causes
confusion
and
failures
and
systems.
So
there
will
be
some
and
who
knows
how
much
and
that's
the
problem
with
pretty
much.
Everything
on
this
topic
is
that
there
are
different
opinions
about
how
much
weight
and
how
much
damage
each
thing
does.
M
F
You
know,
I
think,
that
I
think
you
need
a
really
good
reason
to
change
the
existing
terminology,
even
when
quoting
because
I
think
it's
is
much
more
likely
to
add
to
confusion
than
to
now
now.
Maybe
there
is
a
document
out
there
for
which
there's
a
really
good
reason.
I
don't
know
that,
but
overall,
I
think
that
we
expect
old
documents
to
use
historic
language.
I
mean
part
of
what
we're
doing
language
changes
over
time
and
we're
part
of
what
we're
doing
is
really
adapting
to
that.
F
F
F
For
instance,
database
people
are
going
to
be
aware
of
what
database
people
what
language
they
are
using,
not
only
within
ietf
and
elsewhere,
and
I
expect
the
language
we
use
in
ietf
documents
to
adapt,
along
with
everyone
else,
rather
than
iutf
putting
a
stake
in
the
ground
and
saying
this
is
how
we're
going
to
talk
about
it
and
we'll
be
stubborn
about
that,
and
some
other
organization
says
this
is
how
we're
going
to
talk
about
it.
I
expect
these
to
be
moving
targets
and
the
subject
matter.
F
Experts
should
do
what
they
think
is
best
informed
by
the
rfc,
editor
style
and
whatever
input.
We
have.
That
says:
hey
we're
offended
by
this
language
and
here's.
Why
it's
like?
Oh
okay,
we
should
take
that
into
account,
but
I
don't
want
to
make
I'm
really
skeptical
of
making
sort
of
rules
that
say
you
shall
do
things
this
way.
I
think
that's
going
to
cause
us
more
problems
to
help
us
so
with
the
last.
B
B
O
N
P
P
You
know
you
look
at
github.com
ietf
terminology,
and
you
get
this
this
thing.
That
really
looks
like
it's
an
official
ietf
position,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
I
I'm
concerned
that
you
know
we're
we're
making
decisions
about
this
and
people
are
going
to
interpret
what's
there
as
ietf
has
decided.
B
Yeah
I
I
mean
this
is
this
is
a
constant
problem
and
I
I
appreciate
the
reminder
and
if
folks
can,
label
stuff
appropriately,
the
drafts
are
already
labeled.
You
know
these
are
individual,
not
product
of
the
itf,
but
do
keep
reminding
people
when
that
is
the
case.
I
appreciate
the
comment.
Jim
thanks,
victor
you're
next
on
the
list.
Q
Q
So
I'm
far
from
convinced
that
any
of
these
need
to
progress
in
order
to
see
the
ietf
using
language.
That's
currently
deemed
acceptable.
That
happens
automatically
and
I
think
that's
largely
aligned
with
what
keith
is
saying,
and
I
like
in
many
ways
his
draft,
but
even
there
I
see
no
need
for
any
of
it.
Q
The
other
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
there
are
some
ways
in
which
the
itf
is
indeed
quite
exclusionary,
but
it
is
not
exclusionary
on
on
any
of
the
criteria
which
these
drafts
set
out
to
address.
The
itf
is
exclusionary
primarily
on
the
you
know,
the
the
energy
and
time
that
one
needs
to
be
able
to
afford
to
engage
and
therefore
one
needs
to
have
adequate
resources.
Q
You
know
in
terms
of
support
in
company
and
income
or
time
to
be
able
to
engage
and
is
also
exclusionary,
because
much
of
its
activities
are
funded
by
major
market
participants
who
want
to
see
their
standards
adopted
in
this
space
and
the
game
is
to
you
know,
get
your
products.
You
know
to
be
compatible
with
the
standards
without
making
too
many
enemies
and
while
you're
not
making
too
many
enemies.
Q
Q
Q
It
is
the
kind
of
rough
and
tumble
politics
of
getting
things
you
know
over
the
line
that
you
know
makes
the
itf
a
difficult
place,
and
none
of
it
has
anything
to
do
with
you
know
race
or
offensive
language
or
any
of
those
things.
The
itf
is
a
very
harsh
environment
in
which
one
negotiates
you
know
ultimately
technical
standards,
but
it
is
not
these
kinds
of
things
that
make
it
so
I'll
probably
have
more
to
say,
but
this
is
the
the
opening
remark.
Perhaps
I
should
hear
what
others
have
to
say.
First,.
E
E
H
E
Well,
victor
said
some
of
what
I
was
going
to
say,
but
this
is
partly
with
reference
to
keith's
draft,
but
in
general
one
out
one
outcome
that
that
would
not
work
would
be
to
dump
this
in
the
lap
of
of
the
rfc
editor's
production
center
and
staff.
I
mean
we've
already
had
somebody
say
hey.
We
can't
decide
whether
to
use
this
potentially
concerning
words,
so
we'll
just
flag
it
and
ask
the
editors
to
fix
it,
and
they
can't
do
that.
That's
not
their
job,
they're
contractors
they're,
not
language
police.
E
So,
while
if
we
came
up
with
an
outcome,
you
know
there
was
a
style
guide,
you
know
if
we
wanted
to
have
had
suggested
terms
to
use
or
not
used
as
part
of
the
style
guide.
That
would
be
fine,
but
it
look
the
decisions
about
what
language
goes
into.
The
document
still
has
to
remain
with
the
authors
and
the
working
groups
and
the
ietf
you
know,
and
not
with
some.
You
know
we
can't
point
it
to
outside
outside
authorities,
because
that's
not
how
we
work
as
far
as
moving
stuff
forward.
E
R
Yeah
thanks,
so
I
guess
I
I
want
to
second
what
jim
said.
I
I've
I've
gotten
contacted
by
and
two
separate
occasions
of
people
telling
me
that
that
mallory's
draft
is
an
rfc
and
that
it's
ietf
direction
in
this
in
this
arena,
and
it
it's
an
incredible
amount
of
pushback
I
have
to
make
because
of
the
misconceptions.
I
don't
know
why
this
is
getting
traction,
but
it
is
so.
Regarding
the
the
issue
of
dispatching,
you
know,
I
I
think
I'd
like
to
agree
with
victor.
R
That
would
be
I'd
just
like
to
see
this
go
away,
but
sadly
I
think
that
there's
too
many
people
that
that
that
might
not
be
possible.
I
think
I
I
think
a
boss
would
be
a
show
and
I
think
a
a
a
working
group
would
be
a
little
bit
more
managed
show,
but
it
would
still
be
pretty
bad
so,
but
I
think
probably
an
80
sponsored
draft
to
that,
and
then
I
think
the
best
draft
is
probably
bronze,
because
it
does,
I
think,
balance
these
these
contentious
issues
more
more
appropriately.
R
I
think
I
do
like
section
3
2,
where
he
talks
about
you
know
we.
We
follow
the
the
world
and
the
world's
use
of
language,
and
we
do
not
dictate
how
the
world
should
be
using
language.
Not,
I
think
is,
is
the
direction
we
should
go
that
I
don't
see
in,
for
instance,
draft
nodal
regarding
draft
modal,
I
think
if
we
were
to
to
take
away
all
of
the
offensive
and
unprofessional
parts
of
that
document,
I
think
we'd
be
left
with
pretty
much
the
boilerplate
for
an
internet
draft
so
that
draft.
R
J
J
J
Some
of
the
drafts
we
have
here
have
already
been
used
in
the
outside
world,
see
the
itf
is
already
doing
this
and
I
feel
like
there
is
an
intent
to
use
this
document
in
the
rest
of
the
world
to
say
see.
The
ietf
is
doing
this
his
so
clearly.
Clearly,
this
group
believes
in
this
and
you
should
follow.
J
B
G
Thanks
so
I
just
wanted
to
comment
generally
about
where
I
think
the
way
forward
is
with
this
particular
discussion
and
what
comes
out
of
it
without
the
original
draft.
So
the
draft
that
niels
and
I
put
together,
I
don't
think
the
other
two
make
a
lot
of
sense,
for
example
like
what
keith
is
saying,
is
that
we
need
to
have
for
raising
the
bar
actually
on
comments
and
suggested
changes
to
language
which
should
be
rather
benign
and
suggest.
Maybe
the
wording
could
be
improved.
G
There
were
a
lot
of
these
questions
that
folks
were
asking
around
acknowledging
the
harm
is
the
harm
legitimate.
This
draft
came
out
of
that.
It
was
just
simply
to
put
all
the
thoughts
in
one
place
that
were
in
various
places
through
a
long
thread
and
try
to
get
some
citations
and
some
backing
behind
it
because
folks
were
having
they
were
having
questions
about
like.
Is
this
actually
a
problem?
G
Bronze
draft
doesn't
make
a
whole
lot
of
sense
in
it
and
it's
clearly
because
it
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
citations,
because
it's
not
really
approached
in
the
same
sort
of
rational
way
with
logical
outputs,
like
our
original
draft,
is
that
it's
kind
of
meant
to
make
everyone
feel
a
little
bit
better
about
this
whole
discussion,
which
I
totally
understand
as
a
you
know,
we
do.
We
have.
G
There
has
been
a
lot
of
really
difficult
conversations,
but
as
a
bcp,
I
don't
think
it
really
fits,
and
I
do
think
that
we,
you
know,
I
know
I've
gotten
a
lot
of
pushback
from
including
the
part
about
the
harm
of
the
discussion
itself
in
our
draft.
The
reason
it's
included
is
because
it's
important
if
we're
trying
to
actually
affect
change.
Sometimes
it's
going
to
feel
a
little
uncomfortable,
but
I
agree
with
keith.
I
think
the
ietf
can
handle
it.
G
I
think
we
can
sit
with
this
discomfort
in
an
effort
to
actually
achieve
something,
that's
really
meaningful,
and
that
makes
a
clear
statement
like
the
iesg
has
already
done
that
we're
committed
to
diversity,
inclusion
in
the
ietf.
So
that's
why
I
think
that
the
original
draft
just
needs
to
stand
and
move
forward.
I
am
happy
to
make
changes.
I
agree
with
andrew's
email
earlier
today
where
it
doesn't
need
to
have
the
specific
examples
anymore
and
I'd
be
happy
to
make
changes
like
that.
So
thanks
so
much.
N
N
N
Certainly
master
slave
whitelist
blacklist,
I'm
not
sure
about
master
other
things,
master
key
master
whatever,
because,
for
example,
draft
nadal
does
not
actually
mention
this,
but
in
any
case
I
think
that
the
effect
has
been
had.
I
don't
think
we'll
even
see
internet
drafts
that
actually
use
these
terms,
let
alone
rfcs.
N
N
Certainly
they
can
proceed
on
the
isc
if
they're
going
to
be
informational,
although
I
don't
really
have
an
opinion
as
to
where
they
should
go,
if
not
on
the
isc
again,
I
agree
with
some
of
what
has
been
said
about
above
or
a
working
group,
so
I
I
don't
know
I
don't
have
any
opinion
on
that,
but
I
wanted
to
respond
to
a
couple
of
things
that
were
said
earlier
regarding
the
rfc
publication
center
and
the
rsc
setting
any
kind
of
language
policies.
I
agree
that
the
rfc,
the
rpc
cannot
do
it.
N
The
rsc
should
be
able
to
do
it.
Perhaps
if
there's
a
process
the
atf
is
about
process,
so
process
requires
you
know
a
forum
to
discuss
changes,
and
you
know
everything,
including
how
do
we
determine
consensus
and,
of
course,
appeals
processes
as
well,
but
I
think
the
rsc
is
probably
the
best
place
in
a
way.
I
think
you
know,
provided
we
give
them
the
right
process.
N
N
So
I
think
we
can
focus
on
inclusion,
because
we
can
certainly
make
a
difference
in
that
side
of
things
and
on
the
side
of
exclusionary
language.
It's
just
kind
of
you
know.
Maybe
it
is
maybe
it
isn't
exclusionary.
We
don't
know,
and
in
any
case
we
won't
be
using
this
language
anymore,
regardless
of
whether
we
even
publish
one
rfc,
let
alone
three.
B
S
I
think
it
should
probably
be
along
the
bcp,
and
what
I
would
like
is
something
that
creates
a
maintained
list
of
terminology
to
be
cautious
about
about
using,
and
I
think
that
bronze
you
know
in
my
looking
it
over
is
a
really
good
start.
I
think
keith
has
some
good
points
in
his
honestly.
I
don't
think
we
need
a
whole
lot
of
the
history,
and
much
of
that
is
because
number
one,
the
ietf,
does
not
have
the
expertise
to
peer
review.
S
To
said,
oh,
no,
that's
not
at
all
what
you
should
do
and
my
study
was
totally
horrible
and
you
shouldn't
you
know,
do
some
reaction
like
this.
On
the
basis
of
my
study,
the
reason
we
need
awareness
of
these
words
is
simply
because,
as
language
changes,
language
changes,
we
don't
need
a
whole
lot
of
research
to
prove
that
language
changes
over
time.
S
Saying,
don't
use
these
in
our
you
know
software
documentation
whatever
and
then
it's
simply
a
decision,
as
you
know,
for
working
group
drafts,
as
you
do
a
working
group,
but
anyway
I'm
I
digress.
I
support
having
something
published.
You
know
with
an
ad
I'm
a
bit
concerned
about
the
ability
for
it
to
be
crafted
by
multiple
people,
but
I
don't
know
thanks.
F
Yes,
okay,
I
think
back
to
victor's
point
and
about
what
is
exclusionary,
and
I
think
the
statement
has
been
made
that
one
of
the
ways
in
which
we're
exclusionary
is
that
people
come
into
the
ietf
and
we
don't
speak
and
use
and
use
the
terminology
and
think
and
model
things
like
they
do.
And
that's
then
that
is
exclusionary,
and
I
want
to
emphatically
disagree
with
that
idea.
F
F
F
I
do
think
we
there's
somehow
a
document
needs
to
be
produced
out
of
this,
I'm
a
bit
skeptical
about
doing
it
as
an
ad
sponsored
document.
It
might
work,
but
this
is
something
that
is
at
least
potentially
controversial
and
could
could
affect
the
whole
community,
and
so
it
might
actually
need
to
be
something
with
a
bit
more
visibility,
even
though
it
will
be
more
difficult.
So
that's
kind
of
where
I
sit
with
that
at
this
point.
T
T
Excellent
so
several
times
it
has
now
been
mentioned
that
norms
from
the
outside
world
kind
of
permeate
the
ietf
by
itself
as
if
it
would
happen
by
itself,
but
I
think
we
see
that
the
ietf
really
does
not
look
like
the
rest
of
the
world.
We
have
very
different
behaviors
different
meetings,
different
text
structures,
our
tooling,
even
looks
very
different
from
what
other
people
use.
That's,
not
necessarily
bad,
but
that
kind
of
twists
around
that
idea.
That
will
automatically
start
to
do
what
other
people
do.
T
Next
to
that,
the
ietf
also
does
not
really
look
like
the
rest
of
the
world.
The
iatf
looked
like
a
really
particular
part
of
the
world,
so
the
ietf
itself
has
not
diversified
as
what
much
as
we
wanted
as
much,
and
if
we
want
to
do
that,
then
perhaps
we
should
take
the
norms
into
account,
not
just
of
all
the
people
that
are.
F
T
So
I
do
hope
that
we
can
continue
with
this
work
and
maybe
indeed
ask
people
who
have
more
experience
with
diversity
and
making
communities
more
diverse
and
language,
more
diverse,
help
them
to
input
in
the
process
of
the
draft
id.
I
agree
that
that
is
not
perhaps
the
best
work.
The
working
group
would
be
a
best
place,
because
maybe
the
ietf
does
not
have
all
the
expertise
that
is
needed.
T
So
I'm
not
saying
we
should
outsource
it
to
another
group,
but
perhaps
we
could
find
a
group
of
people
that
could
help
advise
the
ad
and
us
on
how
to
make
next
steps
and
people
that
could
perhaps
assess
the
the
literature
and
and
best
practices
if
people
feel
that
the
current
research
or
papers
that
they
do
not
know
are
currently
are
not
good
enough.
Maybe
they
could
look
for
expertise
because
I
think
yeah
that's.
We
know
that
you
know
what
expertise
you
have.
You
know
what
expertise
you
don't
have.
K
Hi
yeah
a
couple
thoughts,
so
it
first
of
all.
It
seems
to
me
that
some
of
these
drafts
are
like
architecture
documents
in
the
ihf
that
are
very
useful,
to
have
the
discussion
to
talk
about
the
issues
but
can
be
very
hard
to
actually
ever
get
completed
and
published.
I
think
many
of
us
are
aware
of
these,
which
just
they
have
value,
but
not
necessarily
as
the
published
rfc.
K
F
K
I
think
that's,
I
think
that
sort
of
thing
we
could
actually
get
a
consensus
around
because
it
I
didn't
see
anything
I
found
objectionable
and
so
basically
a
document
that
points
to
saying
we're
going
to
have
an
external
list,
and
you
know,
for
example
like
this
one
and
then
it's
something
that
all
authors
can
can
look
at
and
maybe
id
nets
does
some
checking,
I
think,
would
be
just
fine.
I
don't
think
we
need
a
working
group
to
do
that.
U
U
In
other
words,
I
think
the
industry
is
really
converging
on
that
already
and
we
just
really
need
to
catch
up
to
keep
up
and
incorporate
that
somehow,
although
I
really
know
opinion
on
the
editorial
details
of
how
much
explanatory
text
there
is-
and
I
do
have
a
question
like
are:
do
the
authors
have
fundamental
disagreements
about
this?
Or
can
we
productively?
B
The
the
authors
are
welcome
to
jump
in
or
not
as
they
see
fit
to
address.
Martin,
I
I
will
mention
that
you
know
if
the
dispatch
move
is
to
a
working
group.
The
chair
of
said
working
group
might
decide
to
query
different
people.
Maybe
the
authors
of
these
drafts
or
someone
else
to
be
the
working
group
document
editor,
but.
U
Well,
I
guess
we
don't
know
if
they're
disagreements
or
not
but
well.
I
find
it
interesting
that
really
and
some
people
don't
want
to
do
anything
but
but
pretty
much.
The
whole
spectrum
found
something
to
like
about
one
of
the
giraffes.
You
know
somewhere
on
the
so
maybe
there's
some
common
ground
that
you
can
find
here.
I'm
more
optimistic
about
that
after
this
discussion
than
I
was
two
hours
ago,
thanks.
B
A
C
C
C
Mnot
has
has
demonstrated
the
power
of
the
issues
list
in
in
both
the
https
and
and
and
the
quick
working
groups
at
some
point
so
he's
you
know,
there's
leadership
there
in
terms
of
how
to
do
it,
but
this
is
another
possibility
in
terms
of
how
to
go
about
it.
What
I
would
add
just
to
finish
is
while
I
have
a
preference
for
bronze
draft
in
its
starting
form,
as
we
as
we
might
say.
C
I
don't
know
that
I
would
want
to
lose
the
work
that
mallory
and
niels
have
done,
but
it
might
not
be
that
I
want
it
to
be
the
beast
the
bcp,
but
that
supporting
information
is
something
that
I
think
could
be
further
developed.
Now,
where
it
could
be
further
developed,
raises
an
important
question
which
is:
do
we
have,
as
barbara
said,
the
expertise
to
really
review
the
work?
In
that
context
we
do
we
do.
We
know
how
to
review
the
research
work.
We
have
the
right
people
in
the
room.
C
I
don't
know
that's
a
problem
and
it's
something
that
I'd
like
to
work
on
fixing.
You
know
from
an
industry
standpoint
which
is
to
say
to
to
go
through
my
organization
to
try
and
drive
some
some
questions
about
this,
and
I
know
that
other
people
are
thinking
along
the
same
lines,
but
I
did
want
to
add
that
I
thought
that
that
work
was
interesting
and
I
just
don't.
I
don't
know
how
to
dispatch
it
to
where
it
could
be
productive.
But
I
do
like
the
the
work.
That's
that's
going
on.
Q
Q
It
is
in
the
process
of
in
reaching
consensus
for
for
views
that
might
be
right,
but
not
popular
or
various
other
reasons
why
one
might
have
a
hard
time,
bringing
one
colleague's
one's
colleagues
along
it's
a
difficult
process,
so,
to
the
extent
that
there's
exclusion
in
the
itf,
it's
largely
about
whether
one's
ideas
will
or
will
not
be
accepted
and
the
difficulties
of
doing
that.
But
otherwise
the
evidence
that
the
itf
is
exclusionary
of
participation
is
thin
and
very
questionable.
Q
On
the
other
hand,
what
I
really
did
try
to
say
was
that,
though
the
itf
is
not
exclusionary,
it
is
not
possible
and
it's
not
going
to
be
representative,
because
the
people
who
can
afford
the
energy
and
time
to
participate
in
this
very
difficult
process
are
unusual
people,
and
we
cannot
change
that.
So
we
cannot
arrive
at
quote.
Unquote,
diversity,
no
matter
how
hard
we
try.
If
diversity
means
representative
of
the
broader
community,
that's
not
going
to
happen,
it
is
not
a
reasonable
goal
and
we
shouldn't
go
there
now.
Q
The
other
thing
is
that
I
still
want
to
defend
the
idea
that
the
best
outcome
here
is
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
language
is
changing,
publish
none
of
these
documents
and
move
on,
and
with
that
I
want
a
couple
of
examples
as
to
their
content.
For
example,
today
re-reading
draft
no
dell.
I
saw
that
draft
no
dell
says
by
the
way
you
know
man
in
the
middle
is
a
terrible
construct.
It's
not
even
standard,
and
it's
you
know
exclusionary.
It
mentions
the
word
man
or
something
I
don't
know.
Q
What
exactly
is
the
problem
with
it,
but
you
know
I
opened
up
my
copy
of
schneier.
I
could
you
know
if
you
I
can
put
my
camera
on
you
know
here
it
is
you
know,
schneier
applied
cryptography.
You
know
you
can
you
can
find
a
copy
in
the
nearest
bookstore
in
the
index.
I
find
man
in
the
middle
attacks
with
all
kinds
of
descriptions
and
language.
You
know
four
people
practiced
in
the
art
who
understand
what
a
man-in-the-middle
attack
is.
Q
There
is
no
not
a
single
mention
of
an
on-path
attack
in
that
in
that
book
or
any
other
book
you'll
find
on
cryptography.
These
are
retroactive
constructions
of
problems
where
there
are
none
by
and
large.
Now
I
agree
that
at
this
point
I
would
be
reluctant
to
use
my
to
use
whitelist
blacklist.
In
most
cases,
they're
not
really
such
good
words,
not
because
they're
racist
mind
you
to
me
blacklist
means
is
a
reference
to
you
know,
mccarthyism
right
and
you
know
the
blacklists
of
you
know
of
the
50s,
perhaps
to
somebody
else.
Q
Q
The
the
entire
thing
about
master
is
nonsense.
Master
is
a
word
we
use
in
polite
society,
if
it's
okay,
in
newspapers
and
on
the
radio
and
in
tv
to
talk
about
master's
degrees
and
master
whatever
it
is,
and
even
to
talk
about
slavery.
It
is
not
a
root
word.
It
is
not
a
swear
word:
it's
not
the
n-word,
it's
not
the
f-bomb,
it's
just
the
word
slave
and
we
use
it
every
day
and
nobody
gets
offended
when
they
hear
the
word
slave.
Q
Q
There
are
master
copies
of
records
and
so
on-
and
I
think
I
mentioned
in
the
email
discussion
in
ietf
that,
while
I
don't
use
master
and
slave
name
servers
anymore
to
me,
a
master
zone
file
being
master
in
a
sense
of
original
rather
than
controlling,
is
a
far
more
apt
description
than
anything
else.
I've
seen
and
while
others
come
close,
the
this
one
is
already
as
well
established
in
documentation
has
clearly
no
hostile
intent
and
nobody's
going
to
be
offended
when
they
read
about
master
zone
files.
Q
B
Q
B
M
M
M
On
the
matter
in
hand,
specifically,
it
may
be
a
relatively
small
part
of
a
larger
issue
around
inclusion,
but
because
of
the
airing
it's
been
given
and
the
way
it
was
positioned
when
the
document
was
sort
of
delivered
from
the
itf.
I
think
something
needs
to
be
published
rather
than
nothing
and,
as
you
would
have
seen
from
my
email,
I
think
bronze
document
is
the
right
starting
point,
but
could
usually
be
extended,
but
I
think
it's
the
right
sort
of
foundation
to
build
from.
M
O
Yes,
so
all
I
really
wanted
to
say
is
that
one
element
hasn't
been
mentioned
in
this
discussion,
which
I
think
is
relevant
to
the
dispatch
question,
is
the
review
teams
in
the
itf,
because
I'm
in
one
of
them
and
we
get
to
look
at
everything
that
comes
up
for
last
call.
I
can't
remember
a
single
case
where
my
review
has
said
you
might
want
to
change
the
word
x
to
the
word
y,
but
you
know
whatever
happens.
O
I
think
the
key
practical
thing
that
we
should
dispatch
is
to
make
sure
the
review
teams
are
all
in
tune
with
this
issue
and
the
people
who
are
watching
out
for
it
without
needing
a
specific
allow
list
and
block
list
of
words
right.
It's
just
we
have
a
process
and
we
should
just
make
sure
we
use
it.
O
B
F
O
O
N
N
N
Essentially
it
is
a
function,
a
form
of
a
prior
restraint-
and
I
mentioned
in
my
in
my
posts
on
the
list
that
you
know
avoiding
prior
prior
restraint,
would
be
a
good
idea
for
people
who
are
not
familiar
with
the
term
in
the
u.s.
It
basically
means
you
can
get
punished
after
the
fact,
rather
than
you
know,
as
you
do
it
or
or
having
devices
to
prevent
you
from
doing
it.
N
N
So
I
think
when
we
revisit
this
in
january,
we
might
find
that
we
don't
have
bruising
fights
on
any
lists
about
this.
We
might
publish
one
or
two
or
three
drafts,
and
you
know-
and
I
would
also
recommend
that
you
know
you
merge
some
of
these-
perhaps
you
know
get
together
as
co-authors
and
lastly,
there
was
a
point
about
that:
elliot
made
about
expertise,
our
lack
of
expertise,
it's
true.
We
do
lack
expertise
in
this
area.
We're
not
social
scientists,
we're
not
yeah,
we
don't.
N
We
didn't
go
to
college
for
it
right,
we
don't
have
degrees
in
it
and
to
some
degree
this
is
something
that
yeah.
Maybe
it
has
to
come
from
outside,
but
remember
that
even
in
academia
there's
a
lot
of
debate
about
these
things,
so
it
might
take
time
to
arrive
at
a
consensus
where
people
don't
really
object
strenuously
anymore
and
again,
since
the
effect
has
been
had.
G
Yep,
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
few
things
that
have
actually
been
put
into
the
chat,
but
just
to
remind
everyone
that
there
are
like
I'm,
not
an
outsider.
I've
been
in
this
community
for
some
years
same
with
meals,
we're
not
coming
in
from
the
outside,
and
we
do
have
the
expertise.
I
would
say
that
more
is
needed,
but
that
also
goes
hand
in
hand.
So
if
you
want,
if
you
want
diversity
and
expertise,
you
need
to
also
then
have
appreciate
that
diversity
and
that's
this
is
one
small
step
for
that.
G
Towards
that
it's
I
think
I
do
agree
I'll
just
shift
into
what
I've
been
hearing
that
I
agree
with.
I
think
that
publishing
other
drafts,
besides
meals
in
my
draft,
is
fine,
but
again
I
find
them.
I
find
the
other
two
drafts
I
find
keith's
and
bronze
to
be
a
bit
odd
in
a
vacuum,
so
I
do
think
that
they're
they're
reacting
to
something-
and
this
is
sort
of
the
thing
that
establishes
what
that
is.
If
we
want
to
pare
it
down,
I'm
happy
to
do
that
too,
but
yeah.
G
But
my
main
point
was
just
to
remind
everyone
that
it's
not
that
there
are
outsiders
coming
in
to
talk
about
this
issue.
It's
also
not
that
we're
anticipating
to
increase
the
amount
of
outsiders
that
are
coming
in,
because
there
are
currently
people
in
this
community
that
feel
strongly
about
this,
and
that
there
is
expertise
within
it
and
it
would
be
really
as
a
way
of
continuing
to
be
sensitive
and
mindful
of
the
discussion
thanks.
V
Yeah
thanks.
I
I
wanted
to
comment
briefly
on
goals.
It
actually
sounds
to
me
from
the
presentations
of
what
I've
heard
from
some
people
on
the
cue
that
there
might
be
more
alignment
on
goals
than
than
I
had
initially
realized
on
increasing
readability
and
accessibility
of
the
language
that
we
use
in
documents.
I.
F
V
Think
it's
important
that
we're
talking
about
non-goals
or
that
there
are
other
problems
that
this
won't.
So
I
I
think
that's
important
in
terms
of
inclusion
and
participation.
I
wouldn't
conclude
from
that.
This
isn't
a
real
problem
I
have
certainly
seen
in
in
professional
communities
or
in
talking
with
my
students
at
berkeley
that
this
would
be
a
problem,
but
the
fact
that
it
might
be
a
problem
for
some
people
doesn't
mean
it's
a
problem
for
everyone
or
that
it's
the
only
problem
or
inhibitor
regarding
dispatch.
V
I
this
is
something
I
know
less
about,
but
I'd
be
curious.
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
interest
in
reviews
or
tooling
or
style
guides,
and
I'm
not
clear,
what's
necessary
for
us
to
decide
in
terms
of
dispatch
in
order
to
enable
updates
to
the
style,
guide
or
updates
to
this
hub,
repo
or
or
other
of
those
sort
of
lightweight
documents.
I
don't
know
what
we
need
to
do
to
use
those
tools,
but.
A
B
N
Yeah,
so
what
you
said
actually
reminded
me
of
something
I've
said
before
as
well,
which
is
that
we
can
say
we
can
use
informative
language
rather
than
normative
language,
and
it's
it's
I'm
a
lot
more
comfortable
with
that.
So
if
you
have
a
bcp
that
says
we
don't
say
this
or
whatever,
as
opposed
to
thou,
shall
not
say
this,
you
know
that
feels
a
lot
lot
better.
You
know,
and
I'm
and
again
a
bcp
that
doesn't
say
that
you
know
in
july
or
august
people
were
racist
on
the
list
or
whatever.
N
Please
don't
do
that
right
like
I,
I
will
appeal
that,
and
you
know
going
back
to
the
point
about
expertise.
You
know
the
point
was
specif
was
general
to
the
ietf:
I'm
not
calling
out
anybody
as
an
expert
in
this
area,
I'm
not
denying
that
some
might
be
or
might
not
be
or
whatever
I'm
not
making
that
statement,
I'm
saying
that
the
lion's
share
of
the
participation
at
the
ietf
is
by
people
who
don't
normally
spend
a
lot
of
time,
researching
social,
anything,
social.
W
X
Certainly
in
the
us
we've
seen
a
lot
of
organizations
move
rapidly
to
say
no,
you
know
we
reject
exclusionary
language,
whether
or
not
there's
a
academic
basis
behind
that
and
as
elliot
pointed
out
where
some
people
are
trying
to
work
on
that.
So
I'm
concerned
that
people
go
oh
yeah,
the
ietf.
Well,
I
already
knew
it
was
a
bunch
of
old,
middle-aged
white
guys
sitting
around
designing
low-level
protocols
so
up.
X
You
know
another
sign
of
that,
and
I
know
that
that
argument
will
rub
many
people's
feathers,
the
wrong
way
within
the
itf
just
cause
they
look
badly
on
us
for
not
doing
it.
That
doesn't
mean
we're
not
right
related
to
that.
The
argument
that
oh,
it's
already
evolving,
so
we
don't
have
to
do
anything.
It's
a
solved
problem
yeah.
Maybe
it's
a
solved
problem.
The
way
ipv6
is
a
solved
problem
for
ipv4,
but
we
still
try
to
push
things
forward.
X
We
should
we
are
not
independent
of
the
outside
world
and
all
of
us
live
in
it
to
some
extent
or
another,
and
the
itf
has
published
statements
and
documents
that
say
things
like
the
internet
is
for
the
users.
I
totally
agree
with
what
colin
was
saying
most
recently
just
said
about.
You
know
it's
probably
maybe
it's
the
tip
of
the
iceberg,
or
maybe
it's
a
shoal
on
which
we're
getting
ourselves
beached,
but
the
larger
problem
of
inclusive
inclusivity
and
diversity.
X
Growth
is
a
concern
for
the
itf
or
it
should
be.
I
used
to
see
jari
try
to
get
really
hard
to
get
new
work
to
come
in.
I've
been
involved
with
the
newcomers
program
for
a
long
time
and
it's
the
same
kind
of
problems.
So
there
are
social
norms
that
we
are
evolving
we're
getting
better
at
this,
I
think,
may
be
part
of
it
I'd
be
concerned.
If
we
didn't
do
anything,
I'd
also
be
concerned.
X
If
it
were
just
sent
to
an
area
director
a.d
sponsored,
it
should
really
be
some
kind
of
statement
from
the
organization,
and
so
in
terms
of
dispatch,
I'm
going
to
actually
recommend
that
we
encourage
the
iab
to
start
up
an
inclusive
inclusivity,
diversity
and
growth
program,
and
these
drafts
go
there.
Thank
you.
Q
Hi,
so
back
to
sort
of
the
question
of
inclusivity.
Specifically
one
has
to
be
a
little
bit
careful
about
what
human
inclusivity
excludes,
because
it
is
assumed
that
when
we
encourage
people
to
use
more
inclusive
language,
that
every
way
in
which
we
do
that
doesn't
then
necessarily
discourage
others.
Q
And
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
that
the
kind
of
ways
in
which
we
structure
the
discussion
around
what
is
an
isn't
appropriate
language
doesn't
then
push
away
people
who
hold
different
political
priorities
and
are
then
ostracized
at
the
itf
for
holding
those
different
political
views
or
doesn't,
let's
say,
ostracize
people
who,
for
one
reason
or
another,
you
know,
maybe
have
some.
You
know
in
this
industry,
not
atypical,
you
know
some
mildly
spectrum-y
sort
of
issues,
and
maybe
some
of
us
aren't
as
socially
capable
as
others.
Q
And
yet
we
don't.
We
don't
necessarily
want
to
exclude
broad
swathes
of
idf
contributors,
for
whom,
in
fact,
direct
policing
and
direct
enforcement
of
language
norms
would
in
fact
become
a
barrier
to
participation
and
yet
much
softer
touches
without
explicit
lists
and
with
consensus
and
with
organic
evolution
of
language
would
present
a
much
lower
barrier
and
a
lot
less
friction.
Because
if
we
start
having
official
guides
and
official
lists,
they
will
be
sources
of
endless
debate
and
friction,
whereas
if
we
leave
it
to
people
to
just
feel
in
their
own
skin,
you
know.
Q
Am
I
really
comfortable
saying
that
for
me
without
being
told?
No,
you
can't
use
it,
and
then
I
have
to
resist
and
argue
about
it,
because
now
now
my
feathers
are
ruffled
and
I'm
now
inclined
to
defend
my
right
to
say
it
because
somebody's
saying
you
can't
there
can
be
negative
consequences
to
pushing
these
buttons
too
hard,
both
in
terms
of
exclusion
and
both
in
terms
of
actually
promoting
the
use
of
the
very
things
we're
trying
to
forbid
by
bringing
them
front
and
center.
Q
The
softest
possible
touch.
Barring
evidence
compelling
evidence
of
a
deep
and
structural
problem
is
wise.
We
don't
want
to
exacerbate
and
open
these
wounds,
and
we
want
to
have
a
demonstrable
case
of
are
these
actually
causing
real
and
and
substantive
and
and
also
quantitatively
real
problems?
I
can't
say
we
can't
prove
zero.
We
need
to
demonstrate
that
these
problems
rise
to
the
level
where
we
need
to
care.
Y
Thank
you
pete.
I
I
want
to
disagree
with
the
subtext
while
agreeing
with
one
part
of
what
has
been
said
a
couple
of
times
so
I'll
start
with
the
agreement.
I
I
would
hope
we
can
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
say
people
should
avoid
this
kind
of
thing,
embrace
that
kind
of
thing
and
not
have
a
police
structure
that
tries
to
enforce
that
trying
to
enforce
proper
word
usage
is
probably
a
nightmare.
Y
At
the
same
time,
I
actually
think
having
some
word
lists
is
helpful.
I
have
run
into
several
different
cases
on
different
ends
of
the
extreme
one
case
where
a
word
might
be
objectionable,
but
I
think
the
right
conclusion
is
to
say
it's
not,
but
we
could
write
it
down
and
another
case
where
somebody
pointed
out
a
word
which
I
myself
used
and
when
they
pointed
it
out,
I
went
oh
my
gosh
I
shouldn't
have.
I
shouldn't
ever
be
using
that
word
and
it's
like.
None
of
us
are
perfect
in
this.
Y
Y
I
hate
those
on
how
to
get
get
the
itf
more
inclusive,
or
maybe
we
decide,
we
don't
need
it,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
charter
a
working
group,
because
I
can't
imagine
what
a
charter
would
be,
whereas
with
a
buff
at
least
whoever
sponsors,
it
can
write
down
a
charter
and
say:
look:
let's
give
this
a
try.
If
it's
wrong,
we
can
update
it
and
with
that
I'll,
go
back
to
mute.
B
Someone
suggested
saying,
oh,
is
elliot,
who
suggested
you
know
the
apps
area
and
alexi
in
particular,
use
these
quick
spin
up
spin
down
working
groups
where
you
formed
a
working
group
quickly.
It
was
a
very
targeted
discussion
and
he
had
mentioned.
Maybe
just
have
a
few
interims.
Is
there
any
practical
distinction
for
you
between
that
and
a
few
bops
that
are
loosely
chartered.
Y
B
J
J
It
doesn't
specify
inclusion
and
diversity
as
a
purpose.
The
purpose
of
the
ietf
is
to
produce
high
quality
documents,
that
document
the
internet
and
improve
the
internet,
and
so
all
of
these
things
either
should
be
with
the
goal
of
doing
that.
So
we
don't
want
to
include
the
whole
world
because
there's
no
way
you
can
produce
a
high
quality
document
by
consensus
with
thousands
of
people.
Oh
thanks,
niels.
J
If
I
missed
something
that
has
update
that,
I
will
definitely
go
read
that
spread
after
I
finish
talking
so
yeah
anything
anything
in
this
effort
that
we
say
we
want
to
do
these
things.
We
should
possibly
look
at
adding
that
to
the
mission
of
the
iatf
so
that
we
have
that
as
our
guide,
rather
than
doing
it
without
it
being
a
mission.
I
S
S
It's
just
that.
I
know
that,
as
these
words
are
promoted
around
the
world
as
discouraging
people,
that
it
becomes
a
self-fulfilling
prophecy.
That
is
everybody
knows
this
has
been
said
about
these
words,
and
then
it
becomes
a
case
of
if
you
are
using
these
words.
While
knowing
that
this
is
the
perception
of
these
words,
then
that's
a
problem,
and
so
from
self-fulfilling
prophecy
perspective.
That
to
me,
is
why
we
really
need
a
list
of
these
words
so
that
people
are
not
unknowingly
using
them
if
it
if
they
would.
B
J
B
B
A
G
Great,
I
just
wanted
to
chime
in
with
a
couple
of
things
around
expectations
between
now
and
the
next
meeting.
So
I
don't
think
that
there
is
clarity
like
there
have
been
has
been
in
the
past
about
what
needs
to
change
with
meals
in
my
draft.
So
we're
not
going
to
make
any
changes
between
now
and
then,
and
I
would
just
like
to
ask
the
chairs
if
we
could
please
explicitly
put
alissa
and
others
on
the
agenda
to
talk
about
the
repository,
because
I
feel
like
that
didn't
feature
enough.
G
B
Z
B
D
You
know
there
will
be
a
a
call
for
comment
that
the
entire
community
will
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
on
the
last
call
mailing
list,
so
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
because
they're,
not
it's,
not
it's
not
like
it's,
it
doesn't
have
the
imprimatur
of
the
ietf
in
the
way
that
other
consensus
rfcs
does
it.
I
think
it
certainly
would,
if
that's,
if
that's
what
came
to
pass,
and
so
I
think
it
might
be
useful
for
as
the
next
follow-on
conversations
here
to
maybe
split
out
the
question
of
of.
D
You
know,
speaking
more
to
the
points
that
colin
made
and
others
about
other
things
that
could
be
done
and
and
the
broader
scope
of
diversity
issues
potentially,
although
there's
of
course,
a
lot
of
history
around
diversity
initiatives
in
the
itf
on
the
on
the
github
repo,
I'm
not
particularly
interested
in
speaking
about
it.
If
somebody
else
wants
to
speak
about
it
at
the
next
one,
that's
fine,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
be
me.
So.
B
B
And
yes,
it's
a
required
four
week
last
call,
but
there
is
nothing
that
prevents
the
ad
from
saying
we're
going
to
discuss
this
for
another
four
weeks
or
another,
eight
weeks
or
whatever
it
is,
and
whether
that
happens
on
the
last
call
list
or
a
new
mailing
list
is
made.
Those
are
all,
I
think,
legitimate
dispatch
questions.
As
far
as
what
do
we
want,
what
kind
do
we
want
to
document
or
not
and
what
sort
of
document
and
what
we
think
the
appropriate
venue
for
discussing?
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
and,
and
rich
did
make
that
comment
and
yeah.
There
were
a
couple
of
notes
of
support
in
the
jabber
room.
I
note
noted
that
joel
didn't
think
that
was
a
good
idea
and
maybe
others
are
of
the
same
opinion,
but
yes
definitely
get
that
in
the
in
the
minutes
as
well,
all
right
and
no,
by
the
way
alyssa.
B
I
I
think
there
was
the
impression
that
an
ad
sponsored
document
might
not
have
the
same
statuses
and-
and
I
think,
that's
spot-on-
that
they
can
so
all
right.
Well,
that's
where
we
are
for
now,
so
the
next
tasks
are
for
the
chairs
to
get
this
all
summarized
and
put
out
to
the
list
we'll
consult
with
alyssa,
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
she
agrees
with
us
on
what
what
we
have
heard
and
then
we
will
post
to
the
list.
B
We
can
have
some
discussion
on
the
list,
especially
if
we've
gotten
something
wrong
from
those
notes,
and
then
we
will
have
another
meeting
on
a
week
from
yesterday.
So
on
monday
this
coming
week-
and
you
are
all
welcome
to
join
again,
but
we
will
try
and
come
up
with
the
focus
of
that
agenda
in
the
next
day
or
two
so
that
we
have
something
specific
to
talk
about,
and
we
will
see
some
of
you
next
week.