►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-12-01
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Actually,
the
biggest
problem
is
that
my
wife
won't
has
realized
that
she
can't
eat
her
mother's
turkey
and
she
can't
eat
my
stepmother's
turkey,
because
both
of
them
and
fists
insist
on
cooking
it
at
too
low
temperature
and
leaving
the
stuffing
in
basically
the
stuffing
is
just
full
of
salmonella
and
and
she
gets
sick.
B
B
B
I
actually
just
never
liked
meat
as
a
child.
I
would
actually
have
a
tantrum
if
you
wanted
me
to
eat
it
and
about
three
or
four
years
ago,
a
friend
of
mine,
googled,
my
eating
conditions
and
discovered.
I
have
an
eating
disorder
that
is
actually
now
recognized,
and
now
that
I
know
that
I
found
all
the
all
the
other
people
on
facebook
like
me,
so
fascinating
yeah,
it's
fascinating!
Because,
up
to
this
point
you
know
people
were
just.
C
B
B
B
B
Yeah
yeah
like
it's,
steering
it
yep,
so,
okay
I'll.
I
will
just
ignore
the
fact
that
it
has
the
spinny
that
says
it's
still
connecting.
B
So
I
I
presume
they
still
haven't
fixed
the
bug
that
it
doesn't.
You
have
a
public
ip
address,
they've
broken
me:
webex
doesn't
work
on,
v6
doesn't
work
if
you're
not
added,
that's
funny.
Yeah
and
you
know
I
mean
we
had
an
hour-long
fest
about
meat.
Echo
and
yeah
webex
still
hasn't
fixed
this
bug
from
six
months
ago.
So.
B
Anyway,
so
I
hank
says
he's
been
through
with
thomas
who's.
Here
I
see
on
many
of
his
issues,
so
I
probably
should
delete
this
198
and
197
that
I
just
made
minutes
ago
and
I've
been
through
three
quarters
of
guys
feedback
and
guy
is
not
here.
So
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
had
a
chance
to
read
his
stuff
or
if
you
want
me
to
put
that
on
the
screen.
A
Just
the
ones
that
I've
generated
per
request
for-
and
I
saw
you
generate
a
request
for
one
two-
that
I
reviewed
so.
B
A
A
B
Stopped
hey.
I
had
to
specially
arrange
my
windows
so
that
I
could
copy
and
paste
you
know.
Click
click.
Next.
Click
click
click,
next,
okay,
right!
So
let's
just
start
with
this
low
hanging
fruit
and
tell
me
if
there's
some
things:
if
you've
been
through
his
minor
bits,
I
think
most
of
them
are
okay.
A
A
Referring
to
claims-
and
it's
is
now
referring
to
information-
and
it's
actually
more
correct-
talking
about
verifying
the
information
than
just
verifying
the
claim
says,
we'll
get
to
our
work
so
anyway,
I
yes,
I
agree
with
all
the
stuff
so
far,
there's
only
one
word
that
I
want
to
change
later
on.
B
Yeah,
so
this
one
I
found
difficult
to,
dare
you
like
it
either
yeah
okay,
suggested
change
in
the
organization
that
issued.
I
can
go
with
that
because
it
was
government
agency.
A
Yeah,
I
I
would
not
normally
think
of
a
you
know,
a
non-profit
or
a
former
employer
as
an
agency,
but
they
are
organizations
agency
to
me
conveys
you
know,
notions
of
government
and
since
before
there
was,
you
know
three
possibilities.
An
agency
was
one
of
the
three
I
didn't
want
to
yeah.
B
I'll
go
with
that.
I
I
that
was
one
of
the
places
where
I
was
like
that's
gonna
get
discussed.
I
think
that
this
is
he's
complained.
I
think
this
is
british
spelling-
and
this
is
america.
A
B
A
B
B
All
right,
so,
let's
merge
that
okay,
so
you
want
to
you
want
to
guide
us
to
something
that
you've
changed
to.
A
We
can
go
through
most
of
their
pull
requests.
The
easiest
ones
are
the
third
fourth,
and
maybe
fifth
so
like
they
remove
believable
address
for
the
five
minutes
and
fix
exact,
announce
example,
those
the
simplest
ones,
probably
in
that
order.
Okay,
this
one's
useful
to
go
and
click
on
the
issue
number.
First
to
see
what
this
one
is:
reporting.
A
A
E
Identifying
a
yet
introduced
term
we
have
to
somehow
this
is
using
evidence
without
defining
it.
So
that's
a
conundrum
and
information
about
itself
are
assertions.
They
are
not
evidence.
Therefore
it
would
be
recon
if
you,
if
you
remove
believable
you
just
talking
about
assertions,
then
evidence
is
wrong.
Here.
You
have
to
write
a
assertion
there.
E
I
found
my
mic,
I'm
directly
speaking
into
it.
Let's
make
it
hard
to
watch
the
screen,
unfortunately
so
yeah.
So
if
you
remove
believable,
it
produces
information
about
itself.
That
is
the
only
remaining
text.
That
is
not
evidence.
That
is
assertions.
A
D
E
I
I
yeah
verifiable
is
the
the
first
to
falsifiable
and
I
don't
know
what
that
adds
here.
To
be
honest,.
B
Okay,
so
let's
just
think
about
the
context
of
the
fact
that
this
is
the
first
sentence
of
the
first
paragraph,
and
so
we
can't
inundate
the
reader
with
all
of
the
minutia
of
all
of
the
stuff,
so
so
the
whether
the
word
believable
adds
to
it
or
subtracts
to
it
or
not,
is
not
that
important.
B
In
this
part,
I
actually
think
that
guy's
criticism
of
it
is
even
a
little
bit
extreme
as
well,
because
I
don't
think
we
need,
in
the
first
paragraph,
to
use
such
precise
text
that
we
haven't
yet
even
defined
it.
We
need
to.
B
I
I
personally
would
leave
it
the
way
it
was
with
believable,
because
I
don't
think
because
we
don't
define
that
word
later
on.
So
it's
in
fact
a
throwaway
right.
It's
it's
something
that
says
okay,
so
this
is
something
I
I'm
gonna
ask
you
to
believe
right
like
about
santa
claus
all
right,
and
I
may
have
evidence
for
it
later
and
I
may
not.
B
B
It
I'm
also
fine
with
removing
it.
Okay,
I'm
also
fine
with
switching
it
to
to
guy's
term,
but
I
understand
hank's
a
view
on
verifiable
as
more
technically
correct,
technically
false.
You
know
it's
easier
to
argue
against
it,
because
it
has
more
of
a
definition.
B
A
Yep,
I'm
I'm
fine
with
the
same
things,
you're
fun
with
hank.
I
don't.
I
do
not
feel
strongly
in
this
one
at
all.
E
E
F
Sometimes,
when
I
use
when
I,
when
I
read
that
information,
it
seems
like
it's
too
broad
and
sometimes
when
I
introduce
the
whole
idea
of
attestation,
I
talk
about
characterizing
the
system
in
some
way,
so
it's
really
producing
some
sort
of
characterization
of
the
system.
That's
going
to
be
used
as
evidence.
B
I,
like
that
word,
characterization
I'd
like
to
use
it,
but
I
don't
know
if
I
want
to
use
it
in
that
sentence
there.
So
I'd
love
to
use
that
word
word.
I
agree
with
that
word.
It's
a
good
word,
I'm
just
not
sure.
If
it
helps
in
this
I
mean
I
wouldn't
produce
characterizable
information
about
itself.
I
think
that
would
be
good.
G
G
A
A
G
A
I
think
guy's
issue,
I
understand
from
his
first
comment.
There
was
as
phrased
it's
implying
to
him
that
the
attester
creates
information,
that
the
tester
considers
believable
and
he's
thinking
no,
but
it's
up
to
the
verifier
to
decide
whether
it's
believable
or
not
not
up
to
the
tester,
decide
whether
it's
believable.
So
I
think
that
was
his
main
point.
A
Decide
whether
to
believe
it
or
not,
the
evidence
itself
is
believable.
I
think
is
your
point.
Michael
yeah.
B
A
All
right
go
to
another
pro
request.
B
Have
eric
here
so
yeah.
A
G
A
A
A
Speak
to
basically
go
ahead,
go
go
back
up
to
the
top
for
eric
to
speak,
because
you
want
to
see
the
current
text
because
that's
what
he's
commenting
on
the
current
yeah,
currently
reference
values
have
verifiers
appraisal,
intensity
of
evidence.
Yeah
there
you
go
and.
C
If
you're
getting
the
evidence
and
the
evidence
itself
is,
can
be
authentic,
based
on
the
signature
from
where
it's
coming
from
what
you're
actually
getting
is
providing
values
which
allow
you
to
see
if
the
acceptable
claims
are
being
recorded
by
the
attester,
because
what
we're
getting
is
authentic
evidence
if
the
evidence
is
coming
from
a
tester.
But
we
don't
know
if
it's
acceptable
without
reference
values.
A
The
two,
so
let's
scroll
down
and
talk
about
the
proposed
text,
maybe
we
can
come
up
with
something
other
variation
right,
so
the
proposed
text,
the
text
that
I
didn't
like
was
help
and
so
eric
your
point
is
really
about
my
reason.
Number
two.
My
reason
number
one
still
stands
right
and
so
yeah.
I
accept
your
your
response
on
issue
number
two
or
my
point
number
two.
A
The
reference
values
help
determine
if
only
known
and
acceptable
claims
have
been
recorded
by
the
tester.
So
point
number
one.
I
didn't
like
the
word
only
right,
because
reference
value
providers
have
nothing
to
do
with
that.
The
verifier
might
choose
to
say
these.
The
following
claims
are
the
ones
I'm
going
to
pay
attention
to
so,
for
example,
I'm
going
to
pay
attention
all
the
standard
ones
and
I
don't
care
if
he
sends
me
extra
vendor
specific
stuff.
I
don't
have
any
reference
values
for
those
I'm
just
going
to
ignore
them.
That's
perfectly
fine!
A
That's
up
to
the
appraisal
policy
and
the
reference
value
provider
if
they
don't
provide
reference
values
for
some
claims
and
the
verifier
chooses
to
ignore
them.
But
you
guys
send
this
policy,
that's
okay,
and
so
that's
why
I
didn't
like
the
word
only
well.
We
can
get
rid
of
only
and
then
I'm
good.
B
I
think
that
behind
here
is
a
view
or
a
concern
that
a
verifier
might
pass
unknown
claims
through
to
the
relying
party
and
the
relying
party
may
be
confused
as
to
whether
or
not
the
verifier
was
actually
had
actually
val.
A
A
That
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
reference
value
provider.
Eric
pointed
out
that
this
isn't
a
section
about
the
reference
value
provider.
Yes,
number
two,
I
think,
is
the
choice
to
copy
anything
into
the
attestation
results
as
part
of
the
verifier
policy.
I
agree
with
you
choose
to
do
that
by
policy.
That's
its
problem
right.
C
C
A
A
B
A
An
entity
I
I
would
say
that
the
old
text
is
not
incorrect.
It's
just
eric's
new
text
that
we've
just
talked
about
is
actually
more
precise.
B
So
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
where
I'm
starting,
that
the
I'm
just
gonna
paste
this
in
my
help,
appraisers
appraise
evidence
to
determine
if
acceptable
known
claims
have
been
recorded
by
the
thing.
B
C
A
A
There's
other
pro
requests
that
are
relatively
easy
to
do.
I
think
at
least
one
more
that's
easy
to
do,
and
other
ones
I
think,
are
still
doable,
but
so
we
can
look
at
actually
any
of
these
for
our
fines,
so
I
would
probably
pick
165
yeah.
It
doesn't
matter
what
order
so
yeah.
This
is
fine.
A
Okay,
so
you
can
see
here,
I
thought
a
reference
value
came
from
a
reference
value
provider,
and
so
this
was
a
text
that
predated
some
words
with
we
did
elsewhere,
and
so
I
you
can
see
here,
reference
values
might
come
in
the
appraisal,
policy
itself
or
via
a
separate
source.
It's
the
in
the
appraisal
policy
himself
itself.
He
thought
was
confusing
and
so
go
back
to
the
per
request.
Now,
so
you
can
see
what
I
did
with
it.
B
B
A
Whoever
authored
the
policy
either
made
up
the
value
themselves
or
got
it
from
somebody
else.
You
know
looked
up
on
a
website
or
a
table
or
something
and
then
put
it
into
the
policy
or
maybe
wrote
code
to
dynamically,
generate
the
policy
from
looking
up
reference
values
from
some
place,
whatever
it
is,.
A
There's
two
cases:
it
says
the
the
appraisal
policy
is,
the
term
is
verifier
owner
right.
So
it
comes
in
the
appraisal
where
you
can
put
reference
values
in
the
appraisal
policy.
If
either
the
verifier
owner
goes
and
gets
the
reference
values
from
whoever
is
the
reference
value
provider
and
then
puts
into
the
policy
and
puts
it
in
puts
the
policy
into
the
verifier
or
the
verifier
owner
and
the
reference
value
provider
is
the
same
organization
right.
Would.
B
A
A
In
the
diagram
they're
shown
as
three
separate
boxes
and
saying
you
can
either
collapse
the
two
boxes
or
they
could
be
two
different
boxes
with
the
verifier
owner
b,
in
the
middle,
in
between
the
reference
value
provider
and
the
verifier.
If
you
were
to
actually
show
the
convenience
protocols.
D
G
A
Yeah,
just
like
the
line
that
comes
from
an
endorser
to
a
verifier
in
a
conveyance
protocol
that
could
come
via
the
attester
who
then
relays
the
stuff
I
mean.
That's
not.
The
data
flow
diagram
is
just
data
flow,
it's
not
the
conveyance
protocol.
So
this
is
just
trying
to
explain
if
you
had
a
different
view
of
what
you
thought
the
convenience
protocols
were.
It
still
fits.
D
A
Yes,
okay,
it
would
also
be
part
of
if
somehow
it
could
be
in
theory,
it
could
even
be
part
of
the
second
bullet
if
you
happen
to
have
endorsements
that
get
encapsulated
inside.
You
know.
B
B
B
A
A
Okay,
so
here
he's
pointing
out
that
we
have
claim
in
the
terminology
and
evidence
in
the
terminology,
evidence
does
not
use
claim
in
the
definition
and
claim
does
not
use
the
word
evidence
in
the
definition.
So
what's
the
relationship
between
the
two
right,
and
so
that's
what
these
comments
are,
neither
of
them.
F
A
B
A
A
A
E
I
have
two
concerns
about
this.
The
first
of
one
is
evidence,
does
not
necessarily
has
to
be
signed,
as
other
sdos
use
evidence
using
a
secure
channel,
putting
the
offloading
the
duty.
D
A
Because
what
I
had
in
mind
here
was
that
it
wasn't
just
the
set
of
claims
right
if
it
was
just
a
set
of
claims,
then
the
whole,
because
that
the
point
of
verification
is
also
to
make
sure
that
the
that
the
signature
or
whatever,
that
the
signing
entity,
whether
it's
inside
the
evidence
or
whether
it's
in
the
channel
or
whatever,
is
the
is
an
entity
that
you
trust
right.
That's
part
of
the
verification
process,
so
the
evidence
I
would
consider
to
be
both
the
claims
and
the
context
of
those
claims.
A
In
other
words,
what's
the
identity
that
that
those
claims
come
in
the
context
of
and
whether
that
context
is
insider
implied
or
whatever
either
way.
But
I
wanted
to
keep
that
notion
somewhere,
because
a
set
of
information
I
claimed
set
of
information
was
both
claims
and
the
context
that
those
claims
came
in
the
security
context.
Those
claims
were
associated
with.
A
F
A
Say
a
set
of
claims
and
the
security
context
that
they
are
associated
with
or
if
you
have
a
better
phrasing
and
stuff.
But
I
don't
want
to
lose
that
that
context.
The
security.
E
D
H
A
It
well,
it
could,
but
I
probably
wouldn't
do
that.
Only
because
175
has
the
word
asserted
in
there.
A
And
usually
we
don't
talk
about
endorse.
I
agree
that
endorsements
can
be
asserted
so
that
you
have
to
say
do
a
tested
and
stuff.
So
I
anyway,
that's
why
I
wouldn't
do
that.
It
didn't
cause
confusion
yet
so
I
wouldn't
try
to
fix
endorsement,
but
you're
not
wrong,
but
right
now,
let's
try
to
fix
up
evidence
or
decide
to
not
fix
it,
which
is
the
other
problem.
A
We
don't
have
to
say
that
in
the
architecture
document
we
can
say
that
in
your
document-
although
I
agree
with
that
so
but
the
question
I
want
to
settle
on
for
this
pr
is:
what
word
do
we
want
to
use
in
188,
michael
suggested,
integral
which
I
can
live
with?
It's
not.
G
G
G
Had
before
dave,
which
one
find
you
had
an
explanation.
A
Nature
claims
about
an
attester
comma,
together
with
with
the
security
context,
comma.
A
F
F
Authenticatable,
but
they
they
can
be
made
haphazardly,
because
it's
really
at
the
verifier
function
to
evaluate
those
claims
and.
G
You
you
could
argue
for
minimalism
by
by
overloading
what
does
appraisal
mean?
We
use
the
word
appraised
and,
of
course,
appraised
has
all
the
baggage
that
we
said
we
didn't
like.
In
the
other
words,
and
so
I
think,
either
way,
there's
baggage,
it's
just
a
question
of
what
what
baggage
do
you
prefer?
You
know
what's
which
bag
is
more
preferable
than
the
other
baggage
yeah?
I.
A
F
E
Is
that's
fine,
but
so
we
don't
want
to
qualify
the
claims
like
they
are.
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
say
believable
but
I'll
come.
G
B
A
B
A
A
I
think
it's
that
one
is
not
a
change
from
the
old
text.
I
think
it's
close
enough.
Okay,
I
mean
we
used
about
before
nobody
complained.
So,
okay.
E
A
A
A
A
E
A
A
A
A
Okay,
this
one's
easier
to
change,
but
it
shows
by
looking
at
okay.
So
there's
two
changes
in
here:
look
at
the
bottom
one:
first,
the
bottom
one
look
at
where
the
ending
curly
brace
was,
and
the
ending
curly
brace
has
now
moved
down.
Because
the
point
is
the
third,
the
the
second
line
there
is
inside
the
message,
not
outside
the
message.
B
Can
I
I
just
want
to
make
a
suggestion
if
you
see
if
you're
happy
with
this
one,
two
three
four
five.
A
It's
the
message
that
gets
sent
yeah
there
you
go,
you
can
see
like
line
new
line.
1328
has
the
same
spacing,
which
is
why
I
put
at
that
level
and
so.
A
A
A
In
all,
and
so
we
have
three
three
main
examples
that
are
walkthrough
right:
there's
the
non-space
time
stamp
based
and
handle
based
each
of
the
other
ones
talks
about
the
differences
from
the
other
ones.
This
one
only
mentioned
an
advantage
and
didn't
mention
a
disadvantage,
and
so
this
one
was
anomalous
compared
to
the
other
ones.
So
this
starts
the
disadvantage,
which
now
actually
makes
it
match
the
other
two
sections.
A
I
mean
it
does
it
does
involve
more
time,
but
that's
not
the
point
right
now.
It
previously
read
as
well.
This
one
was
the
best
and
the
other
ones
say
well
the
problem
with
that
one
was,
and
so
now
it
doesn't
come
across
as
saying
it's
the
best.
It
says:
here's
the
trade-off
that
you're
making,
which
is
what
the
other
examples
did.
B
A
G
G
B
F
A
Yeah,
simon
frost,
is
on
the
is
on
the
call
here,
and
I
think
I
agree
with
hank's
point
that
this
one
actually
combines
multiple
proposals
into
the
same
pull
request.
It
would
be
easier
to
review
if
they
were
separate.
That's
true.
H
As
I
I
agree
will
be
easier
to
deal
with,
but
the
whole
point
of
this
is
that
you
read
it
as
one
thing:
okay,
so
before
I
and
I'm
quite
happy
to
take
it
away
and
and
bring
it
back
as
multiple
wallpapers,
especially
as
it
now
needs
a
month's
worth
of
mergers.
But
the
whole
point
of
this
was
you
have
to
read
it
as
one
thing.
So,
if
I
put
it
in
this
two
pr,
it
would
wouldn't
have
achieved
that
result.
A
Now
an
example
of
where
I
would
find
it
easier
to
review,
as
maybe
two
or
two
per
request,
one
that
would
depend
on
the
other
one
would
be.
Fine,
is
you'd
added
something
that
I
kind
of
liked
in
somewhere
down
in
the
bottom.
A
A
Up
right,
okay,
so
you
can
see
this
consumes
colon
and
produces
colon.
Those
are
changes
or
what
I
can't
tell
simon
from
this
request
is
whether
it's
a
whether
there's
any
changes
to
say
lines
to
it.
Sorry
keep
scrolling.
A
A
H
This
but
the
whole
point
was:
do
you
agree
with
the
the
big
change
which
is
the
layout
to
sort
of
slowly
introduce
the
you
know
the
rigor
on
the
definition.
A
H
A
H
A
So
for
everybody,
the
main
point
is
he's
proposing
to
move
the
terminology
after
the
use
cases.
That's
the
main
point
right
now.
Whether
people
think
that's
a
good
idea
or
a
bad
idea
is
the
main
point
of
what
we
should
discuss.
Okay,
so
I
can
see
simon
updated
all
the
use
cases
to
not
use
the
formal
definitions
they're.
Just
you
worried
and
layman's
speak
right.
H
With
the
the
background
and
what
they
found
was
there
was
there
was
too
too
much
too
soon
and
the
use
cases
when
they
were
reading
the
architecture
deck
section
it
was.
It
was
too
far
away
from
the
terminology
section,
which
is
one
thing
and
also
that
it
jumps
straight
into
terminology
without
use
cases.
H
H
The
other
thing
it
does
is
change
the
the
layout
of
the
terminology
from
alphabetical
to
be
forward.
A
Reference
only
sorry
backwards,
reference,
yeah
yeah,
you
actually
grew
it.
I
actually
like
the
fact
that
it
was
kind
of
grouped
by
roles
versus
messages.
I
don't
remember
what
the
labels
were,
but
that
that
was
the
main
change
you
made
in
the
terminal
in
the
terminology
organization
right.
E
A
A
B
Was
yeah
exactly
so
so
are
we
in
agreement
that
section
two
will
move
to
before
section
four.
A
G
A
H
B
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
forward
references
in
the
use
case
for
the
terminology,
I
don't
mind
that,
because
most
of
our
terminology
is
at
the
10
000
foot
level
kind
of
self-explanatory,
and
so
then
they
get
to
the
terms
and
they
get
tightened
up
and
that's,
okay.
I
think
that's
a
fine,
so
I
I
am
fine
with
simon's
answer.
G
F
G
A
Don't
hear
anything
from
hank,
so
I
think
offhand
my
feedback
would
be,
I
think,
is
fine
in
principle
whatever.
Of
course
it
needs
to
be.
You
know,
rebased
and
fix
up
the
missing
definition
and
so
on,
but
in
terms
of
the
direction,
I
think
I'm
fine
with
it.
B
It's
three
minutes
to
the
hour,
so
we
are
going
to.
I
made
this
pull
request
here
that
all
it
does
is
move
the
move,
the
location,
so
there's
no
changes
whatsoever,
except
for
that
white
space
to
it.
So
I'm
going
to
commit
that
and
then
I
want
to
rebase
simon's
stuff
on
top
of
this,
which,
if,
if
life
is
good,
we'll
just
we'll
just
reorder
the
right
place
and
the
right
thing
right,
yeah
life
is
never.
A
B
Yeah
well,
okay,
I'll,
try,
right
now
and
and
if,
if
so
I'll,
leave
it
open.
Okay
for
us
to
review
the
other
pieces
so
that
I
think
that
would
be
easier
for
us
to
see
that
change
and
on.
In
particular,
I
would
like
to
do
the
moving
of
the
terminology
in
the
right
order.
B
Okay,
okay,
okay
and
so
we're
meeting
again
next
week,
hank
says
that
he
and
thomas
have
more
work
to
do
this
week
on
his
review
comments,
and
so
I'm
hoping
we'll
have
text
to
to
deal
with
in
the
end.
Was
there
anything
else
you
wanted
to
highlight
in
the
list
of
issues
that
we
should
do
between
now
and
next
week?
Well,
gee,
I
just
I
like,
I
threw
them
in
almost
unread
right,
but
I
mean
obviously
I
was
reading
as
I
went.
B
So
if
you
go
back
to
his
document,
there's
some
of
them.
That
just
say
ignore
this
issue.
So
there
there's
one
that
I
responded.
B
B
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
I
I
I
my
one
response
was
that
this
was
a
review
from
a
very
tcg
point
of
view
and
that
maybe
some
of
the
point
is
that
we're
trying
to
address
wider
issues
than
the
tcg
reference
point
of
view.
B
Yeah
so
I'll
yeah
and
I
have
about
maybe
six
or
seven
more
of
his
issues
to
to
plunk
in
so
I'll.
Do
that
and
then
we
could
yeah
respond
any
email.
A
So
maybe,
if
there's
a
collection
of
them
that
we
go
through,
I
don't
know
if
we
just
want
to
have
a
label
or
something
like
that-
that's
yeah,
and
then,
if
we
have
a
set
of
these
once
we
go
through
all
of
this,
then
we
just
send
one
email
collectively
with
it
won't
fix
issues
in
them.
There
are
sentences
or
something
yeah.
A
B
A
Okay,
glad
that
eric
and
simon
were
both
on
the.