eai - Tuesday, 26 July 2011

eai

eai@jabber.ietf.org

Tuesday, 26 July 2011< ^ >

stpeter has set the subject to: EAI @ IETF 80

Room Configuration

GMT+0
[12:50:46] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) joins the room
[12:55:58] yone joins the room
[12:57:45] josephyee joins the room
[13:00:57] naptee joins the room
[13:01:10] naptee leaves the room
[13:02:06] <josephyee> hi all, for channel, please put word "mic" in front
[13:02:27] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[13:02:45] naptee joins the room
[13:03:51] <Andrew Sullivan> Hi
[13:03:56] <Andrew Sullivan> I'll scribe here
[13:04:05] <Andrew Sullivan> Agenda slide. New drafts.
[13:04:30] john.levine joins the room
[13:04:30] naptee leaves the room
[13:04:30] naptee joins the room
[13:04:44] <Andrew Sullivan> No bashing of agenda, moving on
[13:05:04] <Andrew Sullivan> 5336-bis. report from floor mic
[13:05:07] <josephyee> draft 5336bis
[13:05:20] <josephyee> recent comments from Chris Newman
[13:05:37] <josephyee> Yao: in review, also replied to mailing list
[13:05:55] <josephyee> yao: this version is almost ready for last call
[13:05:57] <Andrew Sullivan> looks like it's about ready for LC
[13:06:20] naptee leaves the room
[13:06:22] <Andrew Sullivan> Someone not at mic waving hand about planning to send comments to ML
[13:06:26] naptee joins the room
[13:07:17] <Andrew Sullivan> 5335bis
[13:07:31] <Andrew Sullivan> (I'm assuming people can see the slides)
[13:07:32] Jim Galvin joins the room
[13:07:35] <Andrew Sullivan> skipping and coming back
[13:07:39] <Andrew Sullivan> 5337bis
[13:07:39] fujiwara joins the room
[13:08:22] <Andrew Sullivan> Only change was to ABNF. No other changes. Comments please
[13:08:33] <Andrew Sullivan> Apparently finished
[13:09:22] <Andrew Sullivan> WGLC within 2 weeks
[13:09:23] Ned Freed joins the room
[13:09:57] tony.l.hansen joins the room
[13:10:06] Chris Newman joins the room
[13:10:18] Bjoern joins the room
[13:10:28] <Andrew Sullivan> back to 5335bis
[13:10:54] <Andrew Sullivan> Chair does overview because Ned is elsewhere.
[13:11:02] <Andrew Sullivan> Ned: can you hear jck?
[13:11:21] <Ned Freed> Yes, I can hear.
[13:11:47] <Andrew Sullivan> new version, please read, feedback incorporated, much shorter
[13:11:54] <Ned Freed> Maybe I spoke too soon - it just cut out.
[13:12:04] <Andrew Sullivan> old discussion was pulled out: what to do with this?
[13:12:10] Ned Freed leaves the room
[13:12:16] <Andrew Sullivan> Ned: ok, I'm trying to summarize
[13:12:19] stainlesskim joins the room
[13:13:20] <Andrew Sullivan> if nobody has opinion on what to do with the commentary, chairs, ADs, Ned will make a decision
[13:13:24] Ned Freed joins the room
[13:13:25] <Andrew Sullivan> John Levine at mic
[13:13:35] <Ned Freed> Back again.
[13:13:41] <Andrew Sullivan> asking about a possible mistake in the definition. Deep message inspection?
[13:13:58] <Andrew Sullivan> Ned: only thing you missed was "if nobody has opinion on what to do with the commentary, chairs, ADs, Ned will make a decision"
[13:14:44] <Andrew Sullivan> Levine: also going to resolve Message-ID issue?
[13:15:29] <Andrew Sullivan> Inclination is not to treat specially, but put in a note about what happens if you refer to this in an ASCII message, &c.
[13:15:44] <Andrew Sullivan> Suggestion to let them go — don't add a wart.
[13:15:51] Klensin joins the room
[13:15:58] <Andrew Sullivan> Harald Alvestrand
[13:16:01] stainlesskim is now known as Kim, Dowon
[13:16:01] Kim, Dowon is now known as stainlesskim
[13:16:01] stainlesskim is now known as Kim, Dowon
[13:16:03] <Ned Freed> Audio is cutting in and out.
[13:16:21] <Andrew Sullivan> did not read the draft. Chances of sending all-ascii message refers to a UTF-8 message are 0.
[13:16:39] <Ned Freed> I have no strong opinion about either all-ASCII message/global or allowing utf-8 in message-ids.
[13:16:49] <Andrew Sullivan> Ned: for the mic?
[13:16:55] microai76 joins the room
[13:17:10] <Ned Freed> No need.
[13:17:12] <Andrew Sullivan> ok
[13:17:32] Kim, Dowon is now known as Dowon Kim
[13:17:32] Dowon Kim is now known as stainlesskim
[13:17:32] stainlesskim is now known as Dowon Kim
[13:17:32] Dowon Kim is now known as Kim, Dowon
[13:18:15] Kim, Dowon is now known as Dowon Kim
[13:18:16] Dowon Kim is now known as stainlesskim
[13:18:16] stainlesskim is now known as Kim, Dowon
[13:18:28] Kim, Dowon is now known as Dowon Kim
[13:18:28] Dowon Kim is now known as stainlesskim
[13:18:28] stainlesskim is now known as Kim, Dowon
[13:18:50] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris: three issues, therefore just allow UTF-8 everywhere
[13:18:58] <Andrew Sullivan> Dave Crocker: ditto.
[13:19:02] <Andrew Sullivan> Then says some other stuff
[13:19:35] Kim, Dowon is now known as Dowon Kim
[13:19:36] Dowon Kim is now known as stainlesskim
[13:19:36] stainlesskim is now known as Kim, Dowon
[13:19:52] <Ned Freed> utf-8 everywhere works fine for me. Makes the ABNF considerably simpler.
[13:20:25] Kim, Dowon leaves the room
[13:20:31] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete Resnick, who didn't say his name: WG didn't make a decision to have a pure UTF-8 environment. Feeling that the principle is shared, but it is not an architectural decision (at least yet)
[13:21:00] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker back. Convinced WG has in fact made such decision. Doesn't care about way of calling it, though
[13:21:00] Dowon Kim joins the room
[13:21:50] <Andrew Sullivan> Colleages, please note that I will not echo your comments to the mic unless they're prefaced with mic:
[13:22:31] <Andrew Sullivan> Alexey: was privately against change, but persuaded
[13:23:15] <Andrew Sullivan> klensin speaking privately: once you're into the situation that legacy software needs to deal with UTF-8 in the headers, marginal risk from any particular header is no greater
[13:23:50] resnick joins the room
[13:23:59] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris Newman again: everyone I've talked to on issue says "need a decision", but nobody seems to feel strongly one way or the other
[13:24:06] Chris Newman leaves the room
[13:24:17] Ned Freed leaves the room
[13:24:28] Ned Freed joins the room
[13:25:52] barryleiba joins the room
[13:25:58] <Andrew Sullivan> straw poll: utf-8, ascii, indifferent
[13:26:11] <Andrew Sullivan> utf8: 9ish
[13:26:15] <Andrew Sullivan> ascii: nobody
[13:26:23] <Andrew Sullivan> 2-3
[13:26:26] <Andrew Sullivan> actually
[13:26:32] <Andrew Sullivan> indifferent: some
[13:26:41] <Andrew Sullivan> decision tentatively to go to utf-8
[13:27:23] <Andrew Sullivan> if you have strong objection, raise it now on list
[13:28:16] Chris Newman joins the room
[13:28:17] <Andrew Sullivan> Further comment on encoded word issue?
[13:29:01] behnam joins the room
[13:29:04] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker: "not user friendly is key, is it in the document? it's a guiding pple"
[13:29:13] <Andrew Sullivan> klensin: might be in material that was taken out
[13:30:06] <Andrew Sullivan> anyone who has not read this & intends to do so & comment?
[13:30:26] <Andrew Sullivan> relatively new document! Going to need readers & reviewers
[13:30:42] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry noted as reviewer. Others?
[13:31:17] Ned Freed leaves the room
[13:31:23] Ned Freed joins the room
[13:31:27] <Andrew Sullivan> going to need to show that WG participants actually participated. Please review
[13:32:02] <Andrew Sullivan> just lose it? appendix? move into framework?
[13:32:15] <Andrew Sullivan> Alexey at mic: do what's easiest & think is right
[13:32:24] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry: appendix
[13:32:36] <Andrew Sullivan> John: wanted to discourage to put in appendix
[13:32:39] <Andrew Sullivan> put it somewhere else
[13:32:58] <Andrew Sullivan> that was JohnL, by the way
[13:33:07] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry: appendix & label as informational
[13:33:16] <Andrew Sullivan> JohnL: promises not to appeal if in appx
[13:33:58] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry: useful to have background about what happened & so on
[13:34:11] john.levine leaves the room
[13:35:14] <Andrew Sullivan> 3 way: 1 throw away 2 appendix 3 re-open framework
[13:35:21] <Andrew Sullivan> 1: 0
[13:35:29] <Andrew Sullivan> 2: many
[13:35:36] john.levine joins the room
[13:35:36] <Andrew Sullivan> 3: 1
[13:36:16] <Andrew Sullivan> 5721bis
[13:36:47] <Andrew Sullivan> Jiankang Yao to mic
[13:37:37] <Andrew Sullivan> believes there are no outstanding issues
[13:37:40] <Andrew Sullivan> maybe nobody's read it
[13:37:44] <Andrew Sullivan> Joseph has issues
[13:37:55] <Andrew Sullivan> nto showstoppers
[13:37:59] <Andrew Sullivan> not, even
[13:38:10] <Andrew Sullivan> john asking about three docs:
[13:38:20] <Andrew Sullivan> given that without 3 docs (pop & imap), don't have spec
[13:38:23] <Andrew Sullivan> who cares?
[13:38:36] <Andrew Sullivan> everyone needs to read these
[13:39:11] <Andrew Sullivan> people are having their pictures taken as volunteers
[13:39:27] <Andrew Sullivan> no later than mid-Sept: jck wants to see reviews
[13:39:41] <Andrew Sullivan> JohnL: makes pop state machine considerably more complicated, but looks ok to him
[13:39:45] <Andrew Sullivan> implementation experience?
[13:39:57] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete Resnick: process point:
[13:40:35] <Andrew Sullivan> 1st: directly solicit people for reviews. If you're doing reviews: AD is stuck doing review & trying to figure out what other ADs will be annoyed about.
[13:41:20] <Andrew Sullivan> other things on 5721 now?
[13:41:27] <Andrew Sullivan> 5738bis
[13:42:08] <Andrew Sullivan> Sean Shen providing update
[13:42:55] <Andrew Sullivan> recent readers? Not many hands
[13:43:04] <resnick> JL quietly says, "Same concern about the state machine"
[13:43:13] <Andrew Sullivan> jck asks JL to post comment to list about state machines
[13:43:22] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: does editor think finished? Yes
[13:44:11] <Andrew Sullivan> next: presentation on pop imap downgrade
[13:44:30] <Andrew Sullivan> Kazunori Fujiwara presenting
[13:44:53] <Andrew Sullivan> -00/01 two problems slide
[13:45:04] <Andrew Sullivan> [I'll number that 1]
[13:45:26] <Andrew Sullivan> slide 2
[13:46:32] <Andrew Sullivan> slide 3
[13:47:11] <Andrew Sullivan> slide 4
[13:47:40] <Andrew Sullivan> (Now Nodes from Beijing meeting from Chairs (3))
[13:47:59] <Andrew Sullivan> [sorry about the numbering — I can't see the number on the slides]
[13:48:12] <Andrew Sullivan> Changes in -02
[13:48:58] <Andrew Sullivan> Issue 1 (Nested group syntax)
[13:49:12] <Andrew Sullivan> jck interrupts
[13:51:47] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[13:52:00] <Andrew Sullivan> note: everything talked about so far discussed in Beijing, went to mailing list, no comments. Nothing since Prague either. Target now to make sure document reflects agreements.
[13:52:01] <Andrew Sullivan> Don't want to re-open the discussion about whether this is the right thing to do. Been through the discussion, so unless it's a new point, don't re-open
[13:52:24] <Andrew Sullivan> Hrm. Just got a jabber error, so this is a repeat
[13:52:34] <Andrew Sullivan> Existing problem
[13:53:03] <Andrew Sullivan> now Klensin: part of what already decided. Question is, does the text in the draft reflect the agreement
[13:53:13] <Andrew Sullivan> and warn about what happens to legacy clients
[13:53:18] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete R to mic
[13:53:24] <Andrew Sullivan> no hat
[13:54:24] <Andrew Sullivan> started w/ premise that life may be beautiful from submission to delivery, and then you have a client that need upgrade
[13:54:35] <Andrew Sullivan> going assumption is that this is a local environment issue.
[13:55:51] <Andrew Sullivan> accept breakage & do the best. Won't work sometimes, but satisfied that this is not completely damaging
[13:56:00] <Andrew Sullivan> jck at floor mic, no hat
[13:56:49] <Andrew Sullivan> other piece: client software is under control of end user or someone close. This is different from other parts of the email system. Going to create unreplyable messages, and will create incentive for users to upgrade
[13:57:23] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker: why not put "upgrade" in document?
[13:57:29] john.levine leaves the room
[13:57:40] Randall Gellens joins the room
[13:57:50] <Andrew Sullivan> changing 5322 doesn't make sense: infrastructure change.
[13:58:17] <Andrew Sullivan> does not think this will work.
[13:58:47] john.levine joins the room
[13:58:50] <Andrew Sullivan> and the feature won't be that useful. jck: very close to re-opening fundamental question
[13:59:25] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker: not going to allow someone to reply. Might leave annotations for manual activity. If so, does not need automated support. changing 5322 for this kind of use doesn't make sense
[13:59:55] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete R: agree in principle, but as a practical matter people will want something
[14:00:45] <Andrew Sullivan> safest way to accomplish the task. useful side effect: people have complained about 5322 messages with fake From: addresses, and maybe this is wrong
[14:02:21] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris Newman:
[14:02:39] <Andrew Sullivan> (I'm having a hard time summarizing this)
[14:03:04] <Andrew Sullivan> Thinks it's a fine change to make.
[14:03:16] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker: willing to believe that this is a documentation issue
[14:05:35] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete R: that helped.
[14:06:20] <Andrew Sullivan> going to need a little bit of explanatory text to cover which problems are to be solved
[14:06:45] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker back at mic: wants to distinguish between downgrade and tunnelling
[14:07:18] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete: about tunnelling & not downgrade _per se_. Clarify purpose
[14:07:39] <Andrew Sullivan> dave again: some operations lost information: downgrade. If info is recoverable, then it's tunnelling
[14:07:56] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete: thinks should all be recoverable
[14:08:12] <Andrew Sullivan> Klensin: but this case recoverable by people, not software. Now hat off
[14:08:24] <Andrew Sullivan> agonizing over this for months.
[14:08:51] <Andrew Sullivan> answer would have been different 15 or 20 years ago; would have been rational for delivery system to bounce.
[14:09:19] <Andrew Sullivan> what has changed: expectations that bounce will be delivered.
[14:09:48] <Andrew Sullivan> therefore, bounce not useful, therefore either deliver somehow or effectively lose the mail
[14:10:08] <Andrew Sullivan> no longer have effective bounces
[14:10:14] <Andrew Sullivan> hat back on: question for Pete:
[14:10:40] <Andrew Sullivan> put 5322 updating-stuff into a separate document?
[14:10:56] <Andrew Sullivan> and if so, isn't it out of scope here?
[14:11:28] <Andrew Sullivan> jck does not want to have argument at last call
[14:11:49] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete R: part1: rest of IESG probably won't feel strongly enough unless there's a snit during LC
[14:12:31] <Andrew Sullivan> Would like to hear usual suspects. Barry stands in line
[14:12:47] Ned Freed leaves the room
[14:13:25] <Andrew Sullivan> Assume we've made leap that the WG wants to use the mechanism. Should the mechanism be exported to someone else?
[14:13:40] Ned Freed joins the room
[14:14:08] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry: made the arguments in Beijing. Technical answer is sorted. Process for doing it, how is it not in the charter?
[14:14:21] <Andrew Sullivan> if this is necessary to solve that, then this is in-charter
[14:15:13] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris: within charter & should be done, because the WG has come to agreement that this is how to do it.
[14:16:19] <Andrew Sullivan> including as a separate document
[14:16:33] <Andrew Sullivan> dcrocker also thinks a separate document, & should have reasons why to use it
[14:17:36] <Andrew Sullivan> Joseph at floor mic: if update to 5322 done outside, still will need some update to allow UTF-8, which will still require work from EAI
[14:17:42] <Andrew Sullivan> Alexey: +1 to Chris
[14:18:04] <Andrew Sullivan> Tony Hansen: would rather see this in this WG
[14:18:11] <resnick> Does Ned have an opinion on this topic?
[14:20:14] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete at mic: IESG seems to have concluded that experimental document shouldn't update IANA registration procedure all by itself.
[14:21:00] <Andrew Sullivan> proposed standard with this registration mechanism will be reviewed by IESG too. So be aware.
[14:21:16] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: hold prayer sessions, or change document, or what?
[14:21:21] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete: dunno
[14:21:44] sm joins the room
[14:22:22] <Andrew Sullivan> Alexey: q1: technical reasons? Pete: didn't get that far
[14:22:49] <Andrew Sullivan> Alexey: purely administrative, can we just publish document, apologize & move on?
[14:23:22] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris: suggest to restrict [some protocols] from approach?
[14:23:46] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete: problem is that mechanism was attempting to deal with header fields, not sure what they're named, need mechanical way to downgrade
[14:23:57] <Andrew Sullivan> was go round of docs Downgraded: [original]
[14:24:17] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: adopted instead solution that has precedent "Resent-*"
[14:24:34] <Andrew Sullivan> principle was there, but population enumerated, no wildcard.
[14:24:53] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete lists some possible approaches
[14:25:30] behnam leaves the room
[14:25:33] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry at mic:
[14:25:49] <Andrew Sullivan> 1. For Pete: names are already reserved from experimental RFC. Why change?
[14:26:08] <Andrew Sullivan> 2. For Chris: don't like having header fields in different domains of mail & http. Please avoid
[14:26:28] <Andrew Sullivan> 3. Now that changed philo of downgrading, is the old approach still live?
[14:26:36] Jim Galvin joins the room
[14:26:37] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete: 1. Don't need to change
[14:26:45] <Andrew Sullivan> But should be undone?
[14:26:47] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[14:27:40] <Andrew Sullivan> 2. Answer is it's already done. Registry has Content-Type which is in common but needn't mean the same thing
[14:28:18] Randall Gellens leaves the room
[14:28:32] Randall Gellens joins the room
[14:28:36] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: I sure hope the IESG doesn't start undoing registry assignments
[14:28:37] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry: this is a reservation and not a registration
[14:29:33] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: not a problem for this WG anyway
[14:29:47] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[14:30:04] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[14:30:06] <Andrew Sullivan> Kazunori Fujiwara
[14:30:27] <Andrew Sullivan> need this
[14:31:18] <Andrew Sullivan> [sorry, network drop here]
[14:31:48] <Andrew Sullivan> Barry: asking about why to UTF-8-ify message-id in the first place
[14:32:05] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: re-open debate about message id?
[14:32:18] <Andrew Sullivan> Pete: already decided mechanism is tunnelling.
[14:33:00] <Andrew Sullivan> Given that, anything knowing it got a downgrade will be able to handle it. Anything that's just a legacy app, just for display
[14:33:10] sm leaves the room
[14:34:18] <Andrew Sullivan> jck outlines a complicated and perverse broken case
[14:34:58] Ned Freed leaves the room
[14:35:12] john.levine leaves the room
[14:35:20] john.levine joins the room
[14:35:37] <Andrew Sullivan> ya
[14:36:17] <Andrew Sullivan> Yao: makes observations about UTF-8 message-id.
[14:36:28] <Andrew Sullivan> For him, user-friendliness not helpful.
[14:37:24] <Andrew Sullivan> user might use non-UTF-8 encoding; just one encoding could still be a problem
[14:37:43] sm joins the room
[14:37:50] Jim Galvin joins the room
[14:39:40] <Andrew Sullivan> therefore better to use ascii only
[14:39:55] <Andrew Sullivan> [I was at mic and made some noise about John's example]
[14:40:14] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: alternative: safe and irreversable appeoach
[14:40:16] <Andrew Sullivan> approach
[14:40:48] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris Newman: not concerned about losing Message-Id on downgrade. Not really that useful anyway
[14:40:56] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: threading not going to work anyway
[14:42:27] <Andrew Sullivan> so "if it has to be downgraded, you've shot yourself in your foot"
[14:42:38] <Andrew Sullivan> Joseph no hat: can it be normative?
[14:42:41] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: yes
[14:43:28] <Andrew Sullivan> trying to make text, "Just discard Message-Id in these complicated cases, here's why", will send it to the list
[14:44:23] kfantonio joins the room
[14:44:23] <Andrew Sullivan> Also might be good to suggest sending systems still stick with Message-ID
[14:44:34] <Andrew Sullivan> AOB
[14:44:47] <Andrew Sullivan> Praise from ISOC Quebec chapter president
[14:46:01] <Andrew Sullivan> Offering some remarks about culture & internationalized environment
[14:46:25] hta joins the room
[14:46:26] hta leaves the room
[14:46:26] hta joins the room
[14:47:02] <Andrew Sullivan> jck: some context about "sale" vs "salé"
[14:50:35] <Andrew Sullivan> Chris also notes that nobody thinks removing an accent is appropriate. Downgrade turns things in to a mess, not a no-accent string
[14:51:55] sm leaves the room
[14:52:25] barryleiba leaves the room
[14:52:32] john.levine leaves the room
[14:53:45] hta leaves the room
[14:53:48] resnick leaves the room
[14:53:54] <Andrew Sullivan> adjourned
[14:53:57] yone leaves the room
[14:54:04] kfantonio leaves the room
[14:54:37] Chris Newman leaves the room
[14:55:48] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[14:58:10] Dowon Kim leaves the room
[15:00:36] microai76 leaves the room
[15:04:25] Chris Newman joins the room
[15:04:35] Klensin leaves the room
[15:06:27] hta joins the room
[15:12:02] hta leaves the room
[15:12:21] Chris Newman leaves the room
[15:12:30] Chris Newman joins the room
[15:12:38] Chris Newman leaves the room
[15:13:19] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[15:15:48] Randall Gellens leaves the room
[15:19:25] Randall Gellens joins the room
[15:21:49] Randall Gellens leaves the room
[15:22:04] Randall Gellens joins the room
[15:31:18] Randall Gellens leaves the room
[15:36:18] naptee leaves the room
[15:42:23] josephyee leaves the room
[15:45:18] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) leaves the room
[15:52:04] Bjoern leaves the room
[16:45:58] naptee joins the room
[16:52:30] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) joins the room
[16:58:01] naptee leaves the room
[17:00:32] Randall Gellens joins the room
[17:04:43] Jacky Yao11 (Health Yao) leaves the room
[17:05:20] fujiwara leaves the room
[17:13:21] KIM Kyongsok joins the room
[17:13:52] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[17:13:55] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[17:14:15] KIM Kyongsok has set the subject to: EAI @ IETF 81
[17:16:02] Randall Gellens leaves the room
[17:16:47] KIM Kyongsok leaves the room
[17:18:03] KIM Kyongsok joins the room
[17:18:29] KIM Kyongsok leaves the room
[17:24:05] KIM Kyongsok joins the room
[17:24:22] KIM Kyongsok leaves the room
[17:24:30] KIM Kyongsok joins the room
[17:24:43] KIM Kyongsok leaves the room
[17:36:12] KIM Kyongsok joins the room
[17:36:15] KIM Kyongsok leaves the room
[17:37:11] KIM Kyongsok joins the room
[17:37:13] KIM Kyongsok leaves the room
[17:53:55] behnam joins the room
[17:57:56] behnam leaves the room
[18:03:02] tony.l.hansen leaves the room
[18:44:23] john.levine joins the room
[18:44:47] john.levine leaves the room
[18:51:38] john.levine joins the room
[18:51:42] john.levine leaves the room