[05:25:22] Cary Bran joins the room [05:26:09] Cary Bran leaves the room [06:47:15] yone joins the room [06:50:42] stpeter joins the room [06:55:04] sm.resistor joins the room [06:55:21] sm.resistor is now known as sm [06:55:21] sm is now known as sm.resistor [06:55:21] sm.resistor is now known as sm [06:57:46] sm leaves the room [06:57:46] sm.resistor joins the room [06:57:55] sm.resistor is now known as sm [06:57:55] sm is now known as sm.resistor [06:58:23] sm.resistor leaves the room [06:58:38] Dürst joins the room [06:58:58] sm joins the room [07:00:59] swb joins the room [07:06:12] Jim Galvin joins the room [07:06:33] Julian joins the room [07:06:48] Andrew joins the room [07:07:00] Klensin joins the room [07:07:14] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [07:07:20] Cary Bran joins the room [07:07:32] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) joins the room [07:07:46] I'm channeling for the Jabber room. If you have a comment you want sent to the mic, please prefix your text with "mic: ". [07:07:57] hardie@jabber.psg.com joins the room [07:07:57] =JeffH joins the room [07:08:13] Simon Josefsson joins the room [07:08:16] Simon Josefsson leaves the room [07:08:18] jas joins the room [07:08:29] angelo.castellani joins the room [07:09:06] Linyi Tian joins the room [07:09:13] Atarashi Yoshifumi joins the room [07:09:19] <=JeffH> so there /is/ a "appsawg" chat room :) [07:09:34] <=JeffH> there's also a "appsarea" [07:09:35] Bert volunteered to be the scribe just now:) [07:09:38] naptee joins the room [07:09:45] resnick joins the room [07:09:45] <=JeffH> and there's this one "apparea" [07:09:57] so this the official one, right? [07:10:02] Correct [07:10:06] thanks [07:10:10] <=JeffH> dunno, but hardly anyone is in the other two [07:10:22] this is the one on the tools-style agenda: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/ [07:10:23] <=JeffH> so this one is the one by default I spose [07:10:31] Invite them here if you are in the other room. [07:10:33] <=JeffH> and by agenda :) [07:10:39] <=JeffH> k [07:10:54] marf is going to be closed, right? [07:11:01] :-) [07:11:11] what is the purpose for this split? [07:11:18] jhildebr@cisco.com is now known as hildjj [07:11:27] naptee leaves the room [07:11:29] naptee joins the room [07:11:49] Split: Each AD covers a particular WG. [07:12:07] Is the audio up? [07:12:12] It should be [07:12:18] i see [07:12:29] that is AD split [07:12:38] Is there anyone in here on audio? [07:12:40] lel joins the room [07:13:14] @sm: Are you in Prague or on audio? [07:13:21] audio, Pete [07:13:23] where can i get this split presentation? [07:13:47] Linyi: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html#wg-apparea [07:13:52] I'm on audio. [07:13:54] @sm: Can you not hear? [07:14:13] No, may be my system [07:14:23] thanks. [07:14:25] I was able to hear the ADs well, but now I can't hear anything much except noise [07:14:38] @pete: I've gone from "hearing is hard" to "almost no sound at all" [07:14:46] How about now? Paul is talking. [07:15:00] Carsten Bormann joins the room [07:15:15] Paul is now audible, but not nearly as clear as Peter was [07:15:43] stpeter: full screen button, please [07:15:57] thank [07:15:58] s [07:16:07] Word passed to Paul to speak louder. [07:16:58] sftcd joins the room [07:17:56] who is he? [07:18:01] he didn't mention his name:) [07:18:05] Ted Hardie now speaking,. [07:18:09] Sounds like Ted Hardie [07:18:14] yes, it's ted. [07:19:46] bkihara.l joins the room [07:20:21] bernie joins the room [07:21:58] lef.mutualauth joins the room [07:22:05] I don't understand why that's not MUST [07:22:11] dcrocker joins the room [07:22:15] EKR joins the room [07:22:15] EKR leaves the room [07:22:20] It seems silly to have a protocol of this type without the DNSSEC protection [07:22:31] q for chairs: is there a process for deciding if this goes into the appsawg? [07:22:44] e.g.: is there about to be a hum or something? [07:22:49] so whether the server is willing to use secure channel will be configured in DNS? [07:23:12] You put a record in the DNS that says, "I offer a secure channel" [07:23:17] It's a bit of information. [07:23:40] Alissa Cooper joins the room [07:23:43] offer a secure channel is different with i prefer a secure channel, right? [07:24:00] how can we distinguish i support CSO and i prefer CSO [07:24:00] That's what Paul was asking, actually [07:24:05] Or I think is about to [07:24:14] tlyu joins the room [07:24:20] Linyi: the hope is that you can say "i *only* support secure" in a secure way. [07:25:02] @Andrew: not just DNSSEC protection, but protection all the way to the client. Protection to some intermediate point only seems particularly risky with this. [07:25:06] @Joe: No chairs in the room at this time, but I expect the best method is, if you think this is rubbish and for some reason shouldn't be taken on, you should come to the mic. [07:25:22] (In the room == in the jabber room) [07:25:49] i agree this is a problem we can try to investigate. [07:26:23] Ted Hardie speaking. [07:27:00] Eliot Lear [07:27:06] barryleiba joins the room [07:27:11] Chairs: remind folks to say their name? [07:27:24] Sorry. [07:27:38] sftcd leaves the room [07:27:51] sftcd joins the room [07:28:26] ekr bursts to 1.5ekr [07:28:56] sm leaves the room [07:29:38] frodek joins the room [07:30:25] EKR joins the room [07:31:16] mic: Tend to agree with EKR: having many different ways to specify essentially the same thing is going to be a problem by itself. Also, note that one needs not just DNSSEC deployment, but DNSSec all the way to the client, an idea that has fallen off some people's radar. And something keeps wispering "WKS" into my ear. [07:31:20] So, in order to connect to J. Random TLS server, I need to now do three separate DNS queries. [07:31:56] @jck: I'll mic you. [07:32:21] sm joins the room [07:32:22] You'll come after Andrew. [07:32:23] @pete: thanks [07:32:35] ekr, not only extra queries, but during the usual very slow adoption curve, you will not find the record for this very often. Very low probability of utility during the adoption transition is low adoption incentive. [07:32:37] pete, i can get it, if youwant. [07:32:49] The other thing I don't get is why someone would believe that there is a client which is DNSSEC-aware and simultaneously too stupid to do TLS. [07:32:53] @joe: I've got a mic [07:33:20] resnick: cool [07:33:47] After Leslie, I guess. [07:35:22] Carsten Bormann leaves the room [07:35:47] So, any context in which you have multiple queries tends to either inject a lot of latency or require you to do a bunch of resolver magic to avoid serializing the queries. [07:36:12] This is why, for instance, common SIP stacks use their own resolvers rather than the OS resolver. [07:36:15] @andrew: while "eventually" is lots faster than "never", my concern is about a security analysis of what happens in the interim. The claim of high security/ integrity protection when it actually doesn't exist is lots more dangerous than having a situation that everyone knows is dangerous [07:36:45] bkihara.l leaves the room [07:36:49] rlbob joins the room [07:36:54] bkihara.l joins the room [07:38:00] don't know enough yet [07:38:02] 2ish, 5ish, 0ish 30ish [07:38:12] fujiwara joins the room [07:38:19] Completely agree that there are issues with adding new tricks [07:38:35] goog to know our votes are only partially sq-ish-y [07:38:43] But I don't know that I agree that "everyone knows the situation is dangerous" [07:38:59] joseph.yee joins the room [07:39:37] swb leaves the room: Replaced by new connection. [07:39:38] wd [07:39:49] small number： don't do it small number: do in this group reasonable numer: do this in separate group a lot: unknown so far [07:39:53] @Andrew, as I said at the mic, I think the IETF has clearly started deciding to proceed on the (IMO dubious) assumption that DNSSEC will be widely deployed—including in the configuration JCK suggests—in the not too distant future [07:40:11] Just completely lost audio... can't even get to the server. [07:40:45] Anyone else lose audio? [07:40:45] Jeff Hodges asked from the floor "do you mean things like paywalls?" [07:41:04] swb joins the room [07:41:07] Anyone else still *have* audio? [07:41:13] which topic now/ [07:41:15] ? [07:41:17] I have audio still [07:41:19] this actually fucks up other things too. An example is that it confuses Chrome's site-specific search. [07:41:22] audio seems fine [07:41:28] 2c Mark Nottingham [07:41:43] http-portal? [07:41:44] ꈲ joins the room [07:41:46] Actually more distressing here is what these guys do to HTTPS [07:41:55] Which is just to MITM it. [07:42:10] no presentation? [07:42:18] no preso [07:42:44] Back now. [07:42:53] EKR leaves the room [07:44:38] Andrew leaves the room [07:44:46] 2d Murray now [07:45:02] mta-malformed [07:45:33] EKR joins the room [07:45:44] mic dropped off [07:46:10] That better Martin? [07:46:22] Andrew joins the room [07:46:27] audio is actually very clear now. [07:46:37] g.e.montenegro joins the room [07:46:48] may be local or connectivity issue [07:48:26] audio is back again, was local issue [07:49:12] this guidance maybe misleading [07:49:13] Mark Nottingham joins the room [07:49:30] it is better for the developers to do the right thing from the beginning. [07:49:37] Mark Nottingham warns that there is no more coffee in the foyer. Please exit the building in an orderly fashion. [07:50:28] Of course. But the point is that there are a lot of bugs out there, and this is talking about how to best handle them. [07:51:00] "There shouldn't be bugs" is correct, but unrealistic, especially given the history of Internet email. [07:51:21] This is something we struggle with in the DNS world a lot [07:51:38] Jim Galvin leaves the room [07:51:47] about 'do the right thing' it is always worth thinking of trying to organize some interoperability, to reduce the number or prevalence of such problems, but they can never be entirely eliminated. Apps breeds variable content. [07:51:54] There are a _lot_ of systems out there that do the wrong thing. But we're supposed to be about interoperability, and therefore "You must not have bugs widely deployed" is not really a position we can take. [07:52:16] mic: Of course, the Scenario 2 issue is a key part of the reason we resisted trying to sign mail headers for years -- need to specify a canonical form that is much more rigorous than 5322. So I think that part of this problem is a bit bogus. [07:53:32] Jim Galvin joins the room [07:54:04] will this be an informational draft for developers? [07:54:11] Yes. [07:54:17] Of course, verifying message syntax in the *MTA* generally gives me the creeps, although I would have significantly less heartburn if he had called the document *mda*-malformed. [07:54:25] then it should be ok. [07:54:29] Exactly. If having a problem requires both those extraneous spaces and a bad implementation of DKIM, then there is a qualitatively different problem. [07:54:52] @pete: yep. [07:55:38] frodek leaves the room [07:56:14] BTW, John: Nice of you to get up at this ungodly hour. [07:57:17] @pete: seemed useful. and practice for Tuesday [07:59:37] let's slip one hour now:) [07:59:47] @Linyi Tian: Still a problem because, with someone out there that essentially says "ignore the flexibilities of the standards and the robustness principle, adhere to this narrowly" will become an excuse to reject a lot of valid/ reasonable mail ... even if Informational. I think this is worth looking at, but it needs to be done _very_ carefully [08:00:06] Roy joins the room [08:00:09] yes, i agree with you. Lensin [08:01:24] it is better to refer to the correct implementation in each RFC for each feature. [08:01:34] it may avoid these issues in the future. [08:03:53] R.E. Sonneveld joins the room [08:06:06] @Linyi Tian: well, yes, but... Email works as well as it does today (some might say "works at all") because of very robust and tolerant servers. Changing the balance at this point would be quite hard in terms of deployment and transition [08:06:47] hildjj leaves the room: Disconnected. [08:07:05] EKR leaves the room [08:08:08] hardie@jabber.psg.com leaves the room [08:08:22] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [08:08:43] jhildebr@cisco.com leaves the room: Disconnected. [08:08:58] so this is more like a draft proposing a process under IANA. [08:09:07] Correct [08:09:27] is it possible to transfer this reponsibility to the committee rather than a single person [08:10:05] That's not how it has been done up to now. The term is maintainer [08:10:22] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [08:10:41] swb leaves the room [08:12:58] This is EKR after being asked to go a bit slower. :-) [08:13:12] Read the slides. [08:13:22] and ask questions here. [08:13:29] (i can answer many of them, i hope) [08:13:38] Atarashi Yoshifumi leaves the room [08:14:38] Which one the BOF is promoting? [08:14:46] WebToken or JSMS? [08:14:57] WOES [08:15:14] 3 solutions? [08:15:25] the WOES Bar-BoF is going to have all of us talking together, hopefully with the goal of bringing it all together into a single architecture. [08:15:55] try to consolidate WebToken and JSMS into one? [08:16:00] one approach would be to have a sign operation, an encrypt operation, and the token stuff is just a special case. [08:16:38] jones already split WebToken into two parts, one for signing, one for the format inside. [08:16:51] hardie joins the room [08:17:10] so all we need to do is agree on what the sign() and encrypt() operations are. [08:17:17] ("all". Heh.) [08:17:20] now we need JSON encoding rules for ASN.1... [08:17:28] tlyu that's one possible approach. [08:17:44] there are already XML encoding rules for ASN.1, so why not? [08:18:07] however, ASN.1 requires having the schema in order to syntax parse, which makes extensibility more difficult. [08:18:23] Klensin-1 would be pretty far away this week... long, wet, walk [08:19:03] Suz joins the room [08:19:04] jhildebr@cisco.com: ASN.1 doesn't require the schema to decode syntax unless you're using PER [08:19:52] BER/DER are fully self-delimiting [08:19:56] tlyu don't you need to know what the tags mean in BER/DER? [08:20:02] Labeling is Dis-labeling. [08:20:28] regardless, note the ASN.1 allergy from many that need to implement this stuff. [08:20:35] jhildebr@cisco.com: you don't need to know what the tags mean in order to find where encoding boundaries are [08:21:17] Thomas Roessler joins the room [08:21:54] we can do the translation for them so they don't have to look at the ASN.1 itself [08:23:08] The discussion about ASN.1 is causing me some PSTD flashes. Can we rule the topic out of scope? [08:23:09] Thomas Roessler leaves the room [08:23:18] dcrocker: w00t. nice move. [08:23:20] re scheduling of the WOES bar BOF, it's 30 min after the plenary and not in the bar. that seems to pose difficulties for getting food. [08:23:31] EKR joins the room [08:23:38] lel leaves the room [08:23:41] lellel joins the room [08:23:51] tlyu I'm planning on jetting from the plenary a few mins early and grabbing a sandwich [08:24:17] @joe: get beer too:-) [08:24:35] has ENUM WG concluded that this work should be done somewhere? [08:24:36] sftcd: encouraged. [08:25:58] mic: We are hanging more and more bags on the side of the bags hung on the ENUM kludge. Why not specify this in a more general way (i.e., something that can be attached to any DNS leaf node) and then permit it to be associated with ENUM-related nodes? [08:26:03] Thomas Roessler joins the room [08:27:23] frodek joins the room [08:27:38] lellel leaves the room [08:27:58] in general, you have to just ask Cyrus. [08:28:03] (for calendaring stuff) [08:29:05] At least in part, you are not getting comments offline because, as soon as you say "this is an ENUM feature", some significant fraction of the community --including, but not limited to those who think ENUM should be a transitional mechanism, not permanent infrastructure-- tunes out. [08:29:53] mic: Not totally new. Just thinking about generalizing this before we add even more new features, etc., to it. [08:30:45] @klensin: Joe is in the queue for you. [08:31:00] Thomas Roessler leaves the room [08:31:28] and, if we view this as a calendaring issue, not as an ENUM one, it gets the right attention from the right people. [08:33:37] Thomas Roessler joins the room [08:36:06] Sven Huster joins the room [08:36:55] Sven Huster leaves the room [08:38:20] this case could be useful. [08:38:46] multiple alternates maybe complex. [08:39:33] Regarding ARCPT, why not implemented as extension to the RCPT TO? Then you can have an alternative recipient for each (SMTP) recipient of the message. [08:40:10] That's what it's doing. [08:40:11] did Alexey sneak an exploit in his slide deck? [08:40:29] ARCPT is a parameter to RCPT TO [08:41:36] Excuse me. Please ignore my question. [08:41:41] ;) [08:41:53] Linus Nordberg joins the room [08:45:38] jhildebr@cisco.com leaves the room [08:45:59] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [08:47:12] mic: I think this is fascinating work, but I have friends who do dance notation. What value do you see the IETF being able to add to this work? And what is the status of your negotiations with Unicode? [08:49:45] @Barry: yes, exactly. We also don't have lots of expertise in the area. [08:50:26] so far it doesn't look like protocol, but like content tyep. It also appears to have some properties of solution looking for a problem. [08:51:09] Jim Galvin leaves the room [08:51:39] Cary Bran leaves the room: Disconnected. [08:51:46] we need to better understand what ietf can do in this area in terms of protocol. [08:51:57] lellel joins the room [08:52:17] <ꈲ> Nominate slides for worst color scheme of the week [08:52:51] this slide is securely filtered. [08:52:53] It's early days yet. If you want to have that competition, I'm sure we can beat them! [08:53:34] Jim Galvin joins the room [08:53:52] @tlr: might also be good to have someone go back and look at the old work (60?) on graphical description languages that was very active before everyone gave up and just sent raster images around. This isn't a particular case, but there was a lot of theory there... before folks decided (not necessarily correctly) that it was a dead end. [08:54:25] jhildebr@cisco.com leaves the room: Replaced by new connection. [08:54:27] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [08:54:48] lef.mutualauth leaves the room [08:55:36] Linus Nordberg leaves the room [08:55:53] @(10:33:06 AM) Klensin: The ENUM stuff is trivial, one the Calendaring questions behind are clear [08:56:08] what's a self-certifying key? dkim just puts bare keys in DNS [08:56:50] that certifies them! :) [08:57:39] Alissa Cooper leaves the room [08:59:25] Excuse me for this newbie question: what do I need to do to see the slides? [08:59:45] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html [08:59:49] go to find the "Meeting Materials" Tab after you click prague. [09:00:05] the above link is better:) [09:00:09] dcrocker leaves the room [09:00:11] lef.mutualauth joins the room [09:00:27] Thanks! [09:00:38] @Bernie: that is part of my point. You just haven't made the case for binding more of this to ENUM rather than doing it as, e.g., DNS (or, more specifically, NAPTR) extensions for calendaring and then, as needed, permitting having such records at ENUM-related nodes (hard to stop, actually). Doing it more generally so has a major implication wrt what Dave is talking about now, which is whether a DNS node represents an individual (connon with ENUM) or an organization (common with everything else). But that difference isn't inherent in anything -- per-individual (not just per-host) DNS notes were anticipated in the very first versions of the DNS design. [09:01:18] @(10:31:31 AM) Klensin: I am all for a general mechanism. rfc-5333-bis is only updating RFC 5333, that - the more I dig into the calendaring issues, the more I think, it did not not get sufficient calendaring review, when it was published. (Note: I stepped in as author during AUTH48, while Rohan (original author) was already in Africa serving for the peace corps. I basically only tried to clean up the mess I took over... [09:01:48] Cary Bran joins the room [09:02:29] @ekr: Nope. The certification comes from saying "DNSSEC" three times while sprinkling pixie dust. [09:03:37] It would be more secure if we said it 7 times [09:04:15] What would the world be without leaps of faith [09:04:18] Absolutely. And made sure we sprinkled the pixie dust precisely on compass points. [09:05:06] leaps of faith (ideally small ones) are required to bootstrap any relationship [09:05:27] In this case there is no problem we want to solve? [09:05:36] Yes, but we always extend them beyond what they were intended for [09:06:21] You know, it's been so long since S/MIME was done that I can't even remember why things aren't in the headers. [09:06:28] Dependency of "owner of domain name" yielding "very strong end-to-end assurance" requires either a high-quality mechanism for assuring that lusers will never be tricked by spoofing, a guarantee that all registrars do high-integrity varification of registrants, or, probably, both/ [09:07:14] resnick leaves the room [09:07:37] http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/03/25/comodo-certificate-issue-follow-up/ [09:07:43] I am pretty worried about the theory of operation implicit in "owner of domain name" in these cases [09:08:20] EKR leaves the room [09:08:22] EKR joins the room [09:08:24] resnick joins the room [09:09:57] jhildebr@cisco.com leaves the room: Disconnected. [09:10:04] Everything that's old is new again: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2660 [09:10:48] YES! [09:19:31] actually, in many/most parts of Asia, too, if you have a reasonable amount of ASCII markup [09:19:43] Klaas Wierenga joins the room [09:19:48] @sm: if you think you can't trust CAs becasue there are too many of them and a few are unreliable (or worse), please assess the situation with DNS registrars (who, in some quarters are described generically as "scum"). [09:20:40] @klensin: but some registries are solving that problem by taking DS records directly and cutting out the middle registrar [09:20:54] one of those registry companies is called "Verisign" [09:21:09] ꈲ leaves the room [09:21:24] (That said, "Yes.") [09:22:25] John, DNS registrars can have their issues as well. Either we trust someone or we spend our life on a remote island away from everything :-) [09:23:01] trust locally [09:23:27] @andrew: "that problem" isn't solved in DS records. It is due to the fact that the unintended consequence of ICANN policies is to require that people be able to lie to registrars about their idenities and intentions. [09:23:29] But verify globally? [09:23:41] verify globally and redundantly [09:24:15] Tom, I'm not sure what you mean. [09:24:20] something perspectives-y? [09:24:33] @klensin: Why? In many cases, I don't care who someone is; I just want to know it's the same someone every time. [09:25:19] I'm not sure which "I" you are talking about [09:25:42] EKR: verification of an identity using only a single path is not robust. using multiple (mostly) independent paths can help, but there are obvious complexity tradeoffs. [09:25:44] Of course it's possible that someone can be a fraud artist &c. But that's no different than meeting people on the street, and _pace_ US TSA, nobody thinks we can solve that problem of not being sure who someone is. [09:25:52] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [09:25:57] OMA-TP-2011-0038R02-INP_OMA_WID_0220_VirtualExp_presentation_for_information [09:26:05] the draft work item i mentioned is OMA-TP-2011-0038R02-INP_OMA_WID_0220_VirtualExp_presentation_for_information [09:26:09] Tom, my question was what you actually had in mind [09:26:48] in terms of the kind of local trust, or the kind of global/redundant verification? [09:26:49] EKR leaves the room [09:27:32] angelo.castellani leaves the room [09:28:02] barryleiba leaves the room [09:28:36] @andrew: if your interest is to establish a trust relationship based on knowing who the party is, then you do care. And, unless one can effective eliminate malicious spoofing (arguably another registrar issue). the DNS issues rapidly reduce to a variation on the old theme of "hey luser, this cert if unknown and contains probably -bogus fields, .. jargon... jargon... jargon... now click 'pk'" [09:30:01] don't pigeonhole unnecessarily. where does it need to be to get the right people looking at it? [09:31:54] hardie leaves the room [09:32:13] tlyu leaves the room [09:32:18] @klensin: sure. If you need to be sure who you're talking to, you need lots of evidence or you might get fooled. How is that any different from the real world? You can get into all sorts of "official personnel only" places by carrying a clipboard with you. That's just evidence that people need to be more careful. [09:32:31] Mark Nottingham leaves the room [09:32:59] Andrew leaves the room [09:33:03] Jim Galvin leaves the room [09:33:09] lellel leaves the room [09:33:14] g.e.montenegro leaves the room [09:33:16] Suz leaves the room [09:33:31] =JeffH leaves the room: Logged out [09:33:32] Cary Bran leaves the room: Disconnected. [09:33:38] Julian leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [09:33:39] frodek leaves the room [09:33:42] bkihara.l leaves the room [09:33:44] Andrew, it all depends on the value it carries [09:33:51] lef.mutualauth leaves the room [09:33:57] bernie leaves the room [09:34:02] jhildebr@cisco.com leaves the room: Disconnected. [09:34:05] @andrew: sure. But this is where analogies to spending a lot of resources on high-security doors and locks while leaving the windows open come in. [09:34:21] naptee leaves the room [09:34:41] resnick leaves the room [09:35:07] Klensin leaves the room [09:35:10] R.E. Sonneveld leaves the room [09:35:29] yone leaves the room [09:35:58] sm leaves the room [09:35:59] Linyi Tian leaves the room [09:36:09] rlbob leaves the room [09:37:20] stpeter leaves the room: Disconnected: connection closed [09:40:09] sftcd leaves the room [09:45:40] joseph.yee leaves the room [09:45:43] Klaas Wierenga leaves the room [09:45:54] Roy leaves the room [09:48:09] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) leaves the room [09:49:08] jas leaves the room [09:59:12] bernie joins the room [10:06:19] bernie leaves the room [10:07:27] frodek joins the room [10:07:44] Linyi Tian joins the room [10:13:00] Mark Nottingham joins the room [10:17:09] Dürst leaves the room [10:28:34] lef.mutualauth joins the room [10:31:35] jhildebr@cisco.com joins the room [10:34:10] Thomas Roessler leaves the room [10:34:30] lef.mutualauth leaves the room [10:35:41] lef.mutualauth joins the room [10:38:11] Alissa Cooper joins the room [10:39:34] fujiwara leaves the room [10:40:23] jhildebr@cisco.com leaves the room [10:45:40] Alissa Cooper leaves the room [10:47:35] Alissa Cooper joins the room [10:48:52] ꈲ joins the room [10:50:33] Mark Nottingham leaves the room [10:53:19] bkihara.l joins the room [10:57:54] Linyi Tian leaves the room [10:58:13] rlbob joins the room [10:58:20] Mark Nottingham joins the room [10:58:22] bkihara.l leaves the room [10:58:33] EKR joins the room [10:58:51] jabber-wile joins the room [10:59:05] jabber-wile leaves the room [10:59:10] Alissa Cooper leaves the room [10:59:54] rlbob leaves the room [10:59:54] =JeffH joins the room [11:01:07] Mark Nottingham leaves the room [11:07:45] Cary Bran joins the room [11:11:29] Cary Bran leaves the room [11:12:35] naptee joins the room [11:13:50] naptee leaves the room [11:16:33] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) joins the room [11:16:45] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) leaves the room [11:30:34] Julian joins the room [11:31:10] Julian leaves the room [11:45:18] bernie joins the room [12:21:06] Alissa Cooper joins the room [12:21:57] =JeffH leaves the room [12:22:40] bernie leaves the room [12:25:50] Alissa Cooper leaves the room [12:26:38] bernie joins the room [12:32:18] EKR leaves the room [12:38:54] EKR joins the room [12:44:57] lef.mutualauth leaves the room [12:56:00] EKR leaves the room [12:56:04] bernie leaves the room [12:58:24] EKR joins the room [13:00:02] EKR leaves the room [13:03:11] ꈲ leaves the room [13:07:39] Klaas Wierenga joins the room [13:11:45] =JeffH joins the room [13:14:56] EKR joins the room [13:16:08] bernie joins the room [13:18:39] ꈲ joins the room [13:18:55] Klaas Wierenga leaves the room [13:19:12] ꈲ leaves the room [13:28:56] ꈲ joins the room [13:34:24] bernie leaves the room [13:34:46] bernie joins the room [13:42:26] bernie leaves the room [13:43:43] bernie joins the room [13:48:23] Klaas Wierenga joins the room [13:48:36] Klaas Wierenga leaves the room [13:50:29] EKR leaves the room [13:51:27] Klaas Wierenga joins the room [13:51:41] EKR joins the room [13:52:43] EKR leaves the room [13:54:42] ꈲ leaves the room [13:55:55] EKR joins the room [13:56:44] EKR leaves the room [13:59:21] ꈲ joins the room [14:03:12] ꈲ leaves the room [14:03:37] frodek leaves the room [14:08:31] ꈲ joins the room [14:12:12] ꈲ leaves the room [14:13:28] =JeffH leaves the room [14:16:01] bernie leaves the room [14:18:39] Klaas Wierenga leaves the room [14:24:53] Mark Nottingham joins the room [14:25:12] Mark Nottingham leaves the room [14:27:50] ꈲ joins the room [14:27:51] Atarashi Yoshifumi joins the room [14:33:06] Atarashi Yoshifumi leaves the room [14:35:53] mjbarnes joins the room [14:36:45] mjbarnes leaves the room [14:37:42] ꈲ leaves the room [14:43:43] EKR joins the room [14:43:52] bernie joins the room [15:02:00] Klaas Wierenga joins the room [15:19:40] Klaas Wierenga leaves the room [15:19:55] ꈲ joins the room [15:26:29] koduck joins the room [15:26:53] koduck leaves the room [15:55:13] ꈲ leaves the room [15:57:58] ꈲ joins the room [16:02:44] ꈲ leaves the room [16:04:42] ꈲ joins the room [16:12:13] ꈲ leaves the room [16:12:36] ꈲ joins the room [16:16:13] =JeffH joins the room [16:22:43] ꈲ leaves the room [16:32:01] ꈲ joins the room [16:42:57] EKR leaves the room [16:46:08] EKR joins the room [16:53:43] ꈲ leaves the room [16:54:27] ꈲ joins the room [17:03:54] =JeffH leaves the room: Logged out [17:05:44] ꈲ leaves the room [17:11:05] EKR leaves the room [17:11:07] EKR joins the room [17:14:49] EKR leaves the room [17:17:26] EKR joins the room [17:18:06] EKR leaves the room [17:20:43] EKR joins the room [17:21:00] EKR leaves the room [17:21:39] EKR joins the room [17:30:04] EKR leaves the room [17:39:39] bernie leaves the room [18:07:40] =JeffH joins the room [18:17:37] ꈲ joins the room [18:20:15] ꈲ leaves the room [18:22:21] EKR joins the room [18:28:34] EKR leaves the room [18:29:21] =JeffH leaves the room [18:37:39] EKR joins the room [18:39:05] EKR leaves the room [18:46:57] EKR joins the room [18:52:59] EKR leaves the room [18:57:22] EKR joins the room [19:05:24] EKR leaves the room [19:06:13] EKR joins the room [19:10:31] EKR leaves the room [19:10:33] EKR joins the room [19:17:32] Klaas Wierenga joins the room [19:17:46] Klaas Wierenga leaves the room [19:30:30] EKR leaves the room [20:02:04] ꈲ joins the room [20:06:46] ꈲ leaves the room [20:07:32] ꈲ joins the room [20:47:56] Ned Freed joins the room [22:02:55] Ned Freed leaves the room [22:45:07] EKR joins the room [22:51:44] Ned Freed joins the room [22:55:09] EKR leaves the room