►
Description
A
A
A
This
song,
yeah,
okay,
richest
rich,
set
trends
in
his
he's.
Okay,
with
skipping
it
Susannah,
Te'o,
yeah,
I'm
thinking.
We
just
take
it
off
the
agenda
completely
as
if
it's
I
don't
know
that
it
adds
a
huge
amount
of
value
and
just
takes
up
more
time
and
when
we
don't,
when
we
have
a
packed
schedule,
doesn't
make
sense
and
otherwise.
So
it
seems
like
we're
in
agreement
with
that.
So
let's
try
doing
that
for
now.
I'm
just
gonna
remove
it
from
the
agenda
as
opposed
to
corrector.
So
we
can
move
on
to
tagged
issues.
A
A
Some
of
the
the
concern
was
that
you
know.
Maybe
if
we
had
all
the
working
groups,
you
know
wondered
one
or
two
minutes
per
working
group.
Would
you
know
not
give
them
a
lot
of
time
and
still
take
possibly
a
fair
amount
of
time?
If
we
give
a
longer
time,
it
could
end
up
taking
a
big
chunk
of
the
agenda,
so
what
I
suggested
is?
Maybe
we
put
on
a
time
and
rotate
the
working
groups
to
to
give
us?
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
I'm
not
hearing
objections,
I
see
in
the
chat,
a
fair
amount
of
plus
one.
So
let's
we
do
already
have
it.
I
get
hub
issue
which
is
discussing
that
that's
three
352,
you
know
so
I'd
say
it
and
I,
don't
think.
There's
been
too
much
objections
there.
So
I
basically
say
why
don't
we
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
next
time
and
we'll
start
to
see
how
it
goes?
A
A
I
know
it
was
rod
who
opened
it
and
rod
added
the
the
label.
I
think
the
main
point
of
discussion
here
is
the
you
know
how
long
we
go
for
the
signing
certificate.
It
sounds
like
we
have
an
option,
one
two
or
three
years,
Rob
suggesting
three
years
because
sounds
like
at
some
point
they're
going
to
change
it
so
that
you
actually
have
to
get
the
you
know
you
have
to
get
it.
A
A
A
Sounds
no
I
mean,
maybe
should
you
know
basically
can
people
who
are
here
chime
in
to
that
issue
here?
I
can
even
paste
it
into
the
thing
here,
just
to
basically
say
plus
one,
so
that
I
think
we
can
I,
don't
think
we
need
a
vote
or
anything.
But
it's
basically,
you
know,
make
sure
everybody's
comfortable
with
the
three
years
and
you
can
just
go
ahead
so
chime
in
there.
If
there
are
any
comments.
A
A
And
this
is
a
proposal
around
our
CBE
handling,
and
the
proposal
was
that
we
act
as
our
own
CNA
in
the
decision
that
the
issue
it
talks
about
the
pros
and
cons,
and
you
know.
Last
week
we
talked
a
bit
about
it
and
agreed
to
take
it
back
to
github
and
talk
about
it
again
this
week,
in
terms
of
you
know
discussing
if
there
were
concerns
over
the
extra
effort
that
it
would
take
and
so
forth,
so.
C
C
B
B
B
A
A
A
We
then
can
assign
those
T's
CVEs
ourselves,
and
you
know
once
we
assign
them
and
use
them.
We
need
to
complete
the
information
just
just
as
if
we
did
we're,
just
as
if
we
weren't
on
a
CV.
You
know
the
the
images
we
don't
go
to
them.
You
get
the
the
CBE,
we
already
have
them,
so
we
can
use
it
once
we
use
it,
though,
then
there's
a
there's,
a
form
they're,
also
working
on
adjacent
in
an
API
which
isn't
available
yet,
but
should
be
in
the
future.
A
We
then
publish
some
data
to
them
about
the
CBE,
which
is
what
goes
public.
So
basically,
what
already
go
publicly.
We
submit
that
that
information
is
relatively
light
and
generally
just
points
back
to
our
security
announcement
in
the
security
mailing
list
and
the
Google
Scream
mailing
list.
So
it
has
a
little
bit
information
points
back
to
there
for
details,
and
the
only
additional
thing
is
that
well,
two
additional
things
quarterly
there's
some
sort
of
reporting
requirements
which
it
doesn't
sound
like
there
would
be
very
much
to
report.
A
You
know
it's
basically
I
think
you
know
how
many
CDs
there
were,
and
you
know
the
the
document
doesn't
outline
the
the
reporting
requirements
in
detail,
but
I
think
going
through
it
once
or
twice
we
to
understand
what
they
are,
and
you
know
Dan
it.
It
might
have
served
me.
It
was
not
very
much
the
other
thing
that
could
happen.
That
would
require
some.
A
You
know
work
on
our
site
that
if
somebody
raises
a
CBE
and
they
choose
not
to
submit
it
through
our
reporting
process
but
goes
to
mitre,
they
would
actually
redirect
them
to
us
as
the
CNA,
and
we
would
be
able
to
look
at
it
and
say:
do
we
believe
this
is
a
note
CBE
or
not
like?
Do
we
believe
it's
a
vulnerability
if
it's,
if
it's
like
it,
as
designed
we'll
have
the
ability
to
say
sorry,
you
know
this.
A
D
A
D
I
mean,
like
all
of
that,
makes
pretty
much
sense
to
me
and
all
I,
like
I,
didn't
mean
like
that
I.
The
problem
is
that
I
don't
understand
like
what
it
was
later
in
the
issue.
I
mean
thank
you
for
explaining
it
this.
This
was
helpful.
Cuz
I
have
like
a
short
recap
of
everything.
Yeah,
but
like
the
thing
is
like
I,
don't
know
like
how
many
of
us
do
actually
like
watch
what
CBS
get
issues
for
something
or
have
a
feeling
farted
like
what
potential
downsides
would
be,
or
you
know
it's.
A
D
A
A
I
think
it's
worth
trying
out,
because
it
does
give
us
a
little
bit
more
of
the
the
flow
control
and
I,
don't
think
it's
gonna
be
too
much
work,
but
yeah.
Okay,
I,
take
your
point
that,
yes,
it's
not
something
that
many
people
are
sort
of
involved
in
the
in
the
loop
date
and
be
able
to
sort
of
know.
What's
going
know
what
to
think
there?
A
Okay,
so
I
guess
you
know
if
the
idea
is
so,
why
don't
I
say
that
I'm
gonna
post
that
into
the
issue?
That
basically
says
you
know
unless
there's
any
objections
here,
we
can
say
that
you
know
there
weren't
any
objections,
and
you
know
we'll
go
forward
with
this.
Unless
somebody,
you
know
post
some
objections
and
the
issues
in
the
next
week,
or
so,
it
seemed
like
a
reasonable
way
to
go
forward.
Yeah.
E
A
B
A
A
Right
so
I
guess
yeah
I.
Can
you
know
rich
did
a
nice
summary
actually
just
three
minutes
ago
on
the
update.
So
we
have
a
number
of
people
voted
and
we
still
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven
eight
people
to
vote
and
I
guess
rich
I
don't
see.
Do
we
need
a
certain
number
of
people
to
vote
or
abstain
to
push
us
over
the
over
the
the
threshold
for
closing
the
vote?
Yes,.
A
A
F
B
E
E
A
Last
I
saw
I
think
there
was
sort
of
just
the
nail
outline
of
you
know
some
session
like
not
sessions,
but
time
flow,
yeah
and
some
discussion
of
like
some
suggestions
of
potential
topics,
but
they're
also
the
suggestion
we
kind
of
leave
it
as
an
unconference
where
we
schedule
it
when
we're
there.
Yes,.
E
A
A
E
E
A
I'm,
just
thinking
like,
even
if
you'll
put
it
in
the
summit
that
doesn't
necessarily
get
that
yeah,
maybe
open
an
issue
to
discuss
how
to
pull
together.
This
you
know
doing
things
like
then
posting
an
issue
in
each
of
the
working
groups
that
we
want
somebody
to
come
and
talk
would
be
good
to
get
at
least
get
somebody
to
stand
up
and
say:
yeah,
hey,
I'm
gonna!
Do
that.