►
From YouTube: IETF-CORE-20221123-1500
Description
CORE meeting session at IETF
2022/11/23 1500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
A
Okay,
just
for
my
welcome
everyone,
this
is
an
interim
meeting
of
the
co-working
group
and
Marco.
My
coaches
are
I'm
a
man
and
Kirsten
Borman
and,
of
course,
do
not
well
apply
I
guess
the
four
of
us
noted
them
very
well
so
far.
You
know
the
rules
not
only
iprs,
but
also
the
specially
code
of
conduct.
A
For
today
we
have
from
the
original
plan
to
documents.
Target
attribute
that
was
adopted
today.
We're
very
good
support.
I
would
say
and
looks
quite
clear
how
to
proceed,
but
we
wanted
to
to
touch
on
it
a
bit
today
and
then
we
have
href
mostly
about
outstanding
issue
and
the
just
creative
PR,
and
we
actually
have
yet
another
point
on
the
agenda
about
the
Arata
resolution
that
was
originally
planned
for
the
next
intern,
but
we
can
start
having
a
look
at
that
today.
A
And
for
information
more
on
the
bike
shedding
side,
we
plan
to
submit
soon
a
revision
of
the
core
Oscar
edoc
document,
one
defining
Target
attributes,
because,
as
we
agreed,
we
we
will
replace
the
underscore
with
the
dashes,
which
is
the
proper
way
to
name
Target
attributes
so
right
after
we
can
update
Target
after
accordingly.
But
that's
just
about
naming
and
I
believe
the
mic
shedding
will
continue,
because,
especially
about
those
Target
attributes
we
found
out.
B
B
Yeah,
so
one
check
that
I,
don't
think
we
actually
made,
but
I
think
that
that
should
be
no-brainer
is,
is
doing
this
within
our
Charter
and
well
I
think
it's
it's
essentially
maintenance
for
66.90
and
the
following
follow-on
documents.
Now
that
82
88
has
essentially
asked
us
to
do
this
so
I
think
it's
in
the
charter,
but
I
I
didn't
check
that.
B
So
what
people
of
course
could
always
be
doing
is
use
the
target
attribute
in
a
way
that
that
really
was
not
anticipated
by
by
the
original
registration,
so
kind
of
abusing
the
registration
and
yeah
I
don't
know
what
we
actually
can
do
against
that,
except,
of
course,
not
not
allowing
that
to
happen
in
one
of
our
standards.
But
if
SEO
eggs
goes
ahead
and
does
this
I
think
there's
there's
very
little,
we
can
do
about
that.
That's.
A
B
A
D
B
B
C
E
You
agree
with
Kirsten
that
and
also
I
think
tag
on
to
the
other
discussion
that
this
document
really
can't
encode
a
lot
of
policy.
We
have
to
deal
with
that
in
other
ways,
but
we
with
this
document.
We
only
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
correct.
You
know
in
terms
of
being
able
to
register
and
maintain
registrations
and
maybe
having
some
some
sort
of
good
templates,
and
we
have
a
lot
to
go
to
go
on.
The
existing
Ayana
registration
has
been,
you
know,
works
the
way.
E
Karsten
says
it
works
that
we
can
control
how
how
our
documents
look,
but
we
can't
we
can
only
infiltrate
other
orgs
and
and
sort
of
try
to
make
them
follow
best
practice.
We
were
moderately
successful
with
OCS,
not
so
much
with
Sigby,
but
you
know,
but
we'll
see,
but
I
agree
mostly
that
that
this
document
can
be
wrapped
up
pretty
quickly,
because
we
only
need
to
say
how
things
are
registered.
B
Yeah,
so
we
in
the
meeting
we
said
that
this
is
all
just
a
small
bit
of
editorial
work,
except
that
these
are
the
ones
that
are
really
splitting
the
brains
and
so
I
tried
generating
a
pull
request
for
for
the
first
one
of
the
open
issues,
and
one
thing:
I
don't
know:
can
you
can
someone
bring
it
up?
I'm
I'm,
always
a
bit
slow
doing
that
with
my
laptop
yeah.
You.
B
B
Very
nice.
Thank
you.
It's
interesting
that
you
you
for
some
reason
do
not
get
the
side
by
side
view,
which
is
exactly
what
you
want
in
a
conference
so
yeah
this.
This
is
the
first
change
which
is
just
motivated
by
the
fact
that
we
we
are
noting
that
the
leading
slash
case
may
not
have
a
leading
slash.
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
misnomer
and,
and
the
leading
slash
case
may
have
no
slash,
so
they
should
not
be
called
No.
B
B
So
a
rootless
path
requires
at
least
one
path
component,
so
you
cannot
have
a
rootless
path
without
the
path
component,
because
you
could
not
distinguish
it
in
the
URI
from
a
root
based
UI,
so
that
that's
essentially
the
the
part
that
does
the
work
and
then
further
down.
There
are
a
few
additional
things
that
needed
to
be
changed
to
make
sure
that
things
are
properly
explained.
B
So,
in
the
constraints
part,
this
is
set
again
and
that's
where
the
actual
example
lives
so
see
our
eyes
without
Authority
that
are
rootless
and
do
not
have
a
path
component
and
I
mean
this.
This
really
shows
how
how
weird
this
case
is.
These
cannot
be
supported.
The
constraints
say
you
shouldn't
have
them
or
you
cannot
have
them,
because
this
would
be
indistinguishable
from
its
root
based
equivalent,
as
both
would
have
the
UI
a
colon,
so
I
think
that
captures
all
we
we
have
discussed.
B
It
doesn't
capture
the
the
reason
for
going
with
this
variant
and
not
with
the
alternative
variant,
which
would
be
to
rule
out
root
based
your
eyes
that
don't
have
at
least
one
path
component.
So
it's
it's
kind
of
symmetric,
but
I
think
we
we
arrived
at
saying.
We
want
to
rule
out
the
a
true
case
and
not
the
anal
case.
B
B
A
B
C
B
B
But
it's
amazing
how
how
much
this
turns
into
a
brain
twister,
because
well
I
tried
this
and
and
I
couldn't
get
by
the
the
existing
names,
no
slash
and
and
reading
slash
and
so
I
had
to
fix
that
one
first
before
I
could
write
the
text
for
the
other
one,
which
is
now
trivial.
But
it's
amazing
how
complicated
this
this
can
become.
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
Right
then,
there
was
a
proposal
to
yeah
simply
extend
that
list
already
with
the
co-op
and
Corpus
Plus
other
schemes
just
to
treat
them
as
Usual
Suspects
just
as
well,
and
that
would
be
a
first
minimal
expected
list
beyond
that.
It
was
about
really
going
through
the
list
of
existing
registered
schemes
and
pick
up
those
that
really
make
sense
and
well
I'll
allocate
them
to
the
most
convenient
bucket.
B
Yeah
the
problem
we
have
here
is
that
there
are
several
ones
that
you
are
quite
likely
to
use
that
aren't
in
the
permanent
registry
at
the
moment,
and
these
all,
of
course,
should
be
permanent.
It's
permanently
registered
schemes
so
mqtt,
for
instance.
We
would
want
that
in
there
but
yeah.
That
might
actually
be
a
reason
to
actually
decouple
this
from
the
URI
scheme
registry
and
essentially
registering
the
UI
schemes
as
strings.
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
Well
again,
we
are
just
giving
a
string,
a
number
so
having
a
number
for
a
string
that
is
not
actually
in
use
just
uses
up
the
number
of
space.
So
it's
not
it's
not
a
disaster.
So
if
we
want
to
put
in
mqtt
do
they
today,
because
you
know
people
are
using
this
I
think
we
should
be
in
a
position
to
do
that.
C
A
C
A
B
C
C
A
A
C
A
B
Yeah
I
think
one
of
the
problems
with
this
Russia
report
is
that
it
actually
has
an
implication
on
the
Ayana
registry
and
I
I
have
since
done
about
half
a
dozen
documents
in
various
perspectives
that
had
additions
to
that
registry
and
and
each
time
the
RFC
editor
throughout
the
corrected
text
and
and
reverted
to
the
incorrect,
which
is
I,
mean
it's
consistent.
So
the
the
there
is
a
certain
advantage
to
that,
but
it's
also
a
little
retiring.
If
you
do
this
RC
after
RC.
F
F
F
B
B
B
Yes,
so
the
the
the
answer
to
one
of
the
router
reports
further
down
in
the
list
is
actually
that
this
is
extensively
discussed
in
the
airwig
co-op
document
which
which
is
in
limbo
and
probably
will
not
be
published
the
way
it
is.
But
we
could
take
text
out
of
that
Arabic
document
and
put
it
into
the
corrections
and
clarifications
document
and
and
address
this
router
report,
which
cannot
be
handled
as
a
Naruto
report,
because
it
really
requires
extensive
discussion
and
and
cannot
just
change.
The
intention
here.
A
Yeah
this
was
interesting,
I
double
checked,
I
I
think
this
is
correct,
so
I
think
you
should
be
approved
and
I
agree
with
Francesca
I
I
believe
it's
not
fine
to
just
go
for
that
notation
with
dots
and
probably
a
lot
of
text
has
to
be
repeated.
Unfortunately,
the
test
to
add
or
changes
interspersed.
C
A
A
B
C
A
A
B
B
B
F
A
A
A
B
F
B
C
A
A
Cool
so
let's
say
for
confirming
this
resolution
plan
in
two
weeks
about
core
clerkerson
I,
think
there's
also
a
Wiki
in
the
repo
for
that
document,
where
Christian,
I
and
other
people,
when
we
noticed
something
worthwhile
in
that
space,
we
just
added
an
entry.
So
maybe
we
can
have
entries
also
for
yeah
points
related
to
those
two
erratas
to
be
fixed
in
core
car.
Just
to
yeah,
keep
three
and
keep
keeping
track
of
that.