Wednesday, November 12, 2014< ^ >
Dave Thaler has set the subject to: Home Networking WG at IETF 90
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[02:52:08] ilari.liusvaara joins the room
[18:08:27] DanYork joins the room
[18:49:47] ilari.liusvaara leaves the room
[18:49:55] ilari.liusvaara joins the room
[18:52:45] Ted Lemon joins the room
[18:55:53] James Gould joins the room
[18:57:05] Meetecho RAV joins the room
[18:57:07] Markus Stenberg joins the room
[18:57:19] Markus Stenberg leaves the room
[18:57:47] Markus Stenberg joins the room
[18:58:08] Hosnieh Rafiee joins the room
[18:59:21] Steven Barth joins the room
[18:59:42] Meetecho joins the room
[18:59:45] DanYork leaves the room
[19:01:01] equinox joins the room
[19:01:38] ida leung joins the room
[19:01:43] safa almalki joins the room
[19:02:27] Dave Thaler joins the room
[19:02:31] Suzanne (jabber scribe) joins the room
[19:02:37] ida leung leaves the room
[19:02:42] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Hi all
[19:02:49] <Hosnieh Rafiee> Hi
[19:02:58] ida leung joins the room
[19:03:25] Hugo Kobayashi joins the room
[19:03:34] Jason Weil joins the room
[19:04:07] equinox is now known as David Lamparter
[19:04:38] Steven Barth leaves the room
[19:05:44] ida leung leaves the room
[19:05:56] Steven Barth joins the room
[19:05:59] doug.otis joins the room
[19:06:18] Ida Leung joins the room
[19:06:31] Steven Barth leaves the room
[19:06:43] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> chair slides #6
[19:06:53] Steven Barth joins the room
[19:07:00] Ole Troan joins the room
[19:07:06] Ray Atarashi joins the room
[19:07:17] DanYork joins the room
[19:07:30] DanYork has set the subject to: Home Networking WG at IETF 91
[19:07:31] safa almalki leaves the room
[19:07:35] safa almalki joins the room
[19:07:39] <Ole Troan> Hyperbole Network Control Protocol?
[19:08:11] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Dave Thaler at the mic
[19:08:29] safa almalki leaves the room
[19:08:42] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> any relay requests plz flag with "MIC" at the beginning
[19:08:48] safa almalki joins the room
[19:08:55] <Markus Stenberg> ok, thanks for relaying btw
[19:09:00] <Markus Stenberg> (chances are I will be using your services at some point *grin*)
[19:09:07] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> ;)
[19:09:12] <Steven Barth> same here probably
[19:09:19] Michael Richardson joins the room
[19:09:20] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Toerless Eckert
[19:09:38] <Michael Richardson> Distributed Consensus Protocol for Nodes (DCPN)
[19:09:49] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Mikael Abrahamson
[19:10:14] <Dave Thaler> @Michael: fine (or any other variation with similar meaning)
[19:10:15] <Michael Richardson> Consensus Protocol for Distributed Nodes (CPDN = pronounced, Copy-Down)
[19:10:17] <James Gould> How about just remove H from HNCP, so simply NCP for Net Control Protocol?  
[19:10:36] <Markus Stenberg> funny part is, original draft (non-published) was not H-specific :p
[19:11:17] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Brian Carpenter
[19:11:20] <Steven Barth> well distributed should probably be in there
[19:11:52] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Dave Thaler
[19:12:27] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Multicast Routing (
[19:12:31] <Dave Thaler> DNCP is RFC 1762.  NCP already has other expansions (with many early RFCs)
[19:12:48] <Markus Stenberg> finding non-used acronym may be challenging
[19:13:12] <Dave Thaler> agree (and we don't need to find it during the meeting :)
[19:13:25] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 2
[19:13:26] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 3
[19:14:00] <Steven Barth> at some point we need a registry for 4 letter acronyms ending with P
[19:14:20] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 4
[19:14:51] <Dave Thaler> @Steven: an incomplete list is at
[19:15:03] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 5
[19:15:22] <Dave Thaler> @Steven: I usually use that, plus a search in
[19:15:53] <Steven Barth> ah interesting, thanks
[19:16:04] wmt joins the room
[19:16:20] <Ted Lemon> The abbrev-expansion list is something every RFC author should know about.
[19:16:30] <Ted Lemon> That is to say, would benefit from.
[19:16:55] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 7 (oops)
[19:16:57] <wmt> If someone has a remote presentation advancing device (Toerless?) can the chairs borrow it? I know I hate saying "next slide, next slide" when I present.
[19:17:17] <wmt> (I left mine in Paris)
[19:18:06] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 8
[19:18:22] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> (sometimes we get remotes, sometimes we don't….largely a function of the hotel A/V setup IIUC)
[19:19:29] <wmt> (and I hate using a hand mic. makes me feel like i should break out into karaoke or something. no lapel mics here. if you are on the IAOC, consider that a request)
[19:19:39] <wmt> :-)
[19:19:47] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 9
[19:20:18] <Ted Lemon> We switched from lapel mics because people turn away from them and become inaudible for people with hearing difficulty and who are participating from offsite.
[19:20:47] <wmt> I have the same problem with the hand mic because I move my arms too much when talking.
[19:21:00] <Ted Lemon> And this is not under volitional control?   :)
[19:21:05] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 10
[19:21:41] <Ted Lemon> There are definitely problems with hand mics; the one that really bugs me is when people hold them too close.   Whether they are better or worse than lapel mics is a question.   The hand mic thing is an experiment, so it may or may not be kept.
[19:22:01] <Markus Stenberg> I managed to have similar issue with lapel mic in some meeting too though
[19:22:09] <Ted Lemon> Yup.
[19:22:17] <Markus Stenberg> but yes, people eating hand mikes is not helpful ;)
[19:22:32] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 11
[19:22:34] <Markus Stenberg> yesterday some meeting had some really loud people thanks to that (and somewhat breaking audio)
[19:23:07] <Ted Lemon> yeah, there were a couple of presenters in DNSOP, I think, who did that.
[19:23:17] <Ted Lemon> It was painful in the room.   At least you can turn down the volume!   :)
[19:23:27] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 12
[19:23:52] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[19:24:17] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 13
[19:25:26] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 14
[19:25:34] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> (ok, slide 15)
[19:26:44] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 16
[19:27:06] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 17
[19:28:06] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 18
[19:28:30] metricamerica joins the room
[19:28:43] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Dave Thaler at the mic
[19:28:47] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> back to slide 9
[19:29:23] metricamerica leaves the room
[19:30:04] Hosnieh Rafiee leaves the room
[19:31:58] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Barbara Stark
[19:32:04] Ted Lemon joins the room
[19:33:00] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[19:34:01] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Mark Townsley from the stage :)
[19:34:28] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Michael Richardson
[19:35:16] Hosnieh Rafiee joins the room
[19:36:20] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Mikael Abrahamson
[19:36:52] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Margaret Wasserman
[19:38:25] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Jim Gettys
[19:39:48] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Mark Townsley: who's read the documents? looks like a few, asks for review by more people
[19:39:49] <Markus Stenberg> how many people did raise hands anyway?
[19:40:19] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)>
[19:40:58] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> @Markus— I only saw a couple on the first question, but I'm only a third of the way back in the room and didn't survey all of it!
[19:41:23] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 2, "From IETF 89"
[19:42:09] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 3, "From IETF 90"
[19:43:10] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 4: no progress,
[19:43:45] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Lorenzo Colitti at the mic
[19:45:27] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Ted Lemon as AD
[19:49:09] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Jim Gettys
[19:49:09] Ruri Hiromi joins the room
[19:51:48] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Mikael Abrahamson
[19:52:58] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> (missed name, sorry— and I know I know you….)
[19:53:05] <Markus Stenberg> Toerless I think
[19:53:10] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> thanks @Markus
[19:53:13] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Barbara Stark
[19:53:58] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Ole Troan
[19:54:49] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> James Woodyatt
[19:54:51] Hosnieh Rafiee leaves the room
[19:57:00] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Margaret Wasserman
[19:57:02] <Dave Thaler> "D*CP" is unused as far as I know :)
[19:57:31] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> hey careful with those wildcards…. :)
[19:59:05] Hosnieh R. joins the room
[19:59:34] <Markus Stenberg> mic (if there is room): e.g. Cisco IOS can run OSPF + IS-IS at same time already, and bridge essentially between them. It is an option here too.
[20:00:01] <Markus Stenberg> => subset could run real protocols, the rest (or all) could do worse metric fallback (as example)
[20:00:09] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> can do
[20:00:16] Dan Wing joins the room
[20:02:19] g m joins the room
[20:02:39] Dan Wing leaves the room
[20:04:02] Phill joins the room
[20:05:37] <Markus Stenberg> thanks ;)
[20:06:32] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Lorenzo Colitti
[20:06:55] MOE HOHO joins the room
[20:09:11] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Ted Lemon
[20:10:03] MOE HOHO leaves the room
[20:13:11] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> James Woodyatt
[20:16:51] <David Lamparter> can someone summarise what point the routing protocol discussion is at, for those of us who couldn't catch the first hour of the session?
[20:17:04] <Markus Stenberg> currently, they are debating new option
[20:17:15] <Markus Stenberg> of having one MUST protocol, but allowing some (e.g. limited) nodes to be fallback-only too
[20:17:20] <David Lamparter> oh... just what we need, MORE choices?
[20:17:28] <David Lamparter> ah, that sounds reasonably interesting
[20:17:31] <Markus Stenberg> and then the ways of doing ugly sub-areas or whatever in the real RP <> fallback
[20:17:36] <Steven Barth> well its just fallback is MUST and one is elected as SHOULD
[20:17:53] <Markus Stenberg> well, depends on how it is worded
[20:18:07] <Markus Stenberg> there is also that no downgrade-attack caused by fallback n odes
[20:18:29] <David Lamparter> hm.
[20:18:35] <Markus Stenberg> sounds complex though
[20:18:39] <Steven Barth> well don't think there is consensus on whether you can do downgrade or do real integration using stub-areas etc.
[20:18:46] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Margaret Wasserman
[20:18:55] Hosnieh R. leaves the room
[20:19:00] <David Lamparter> this is really something that might be better to actually *try* instead of discuss ;)
[20:19:06] <Markus Stenberg> well, e.g. the Nest guy strongly wanted fallback-only, and I suspect people in general don't want that
[20:19:19] <Markus Stenberg> it is very straightforward in practise actually
[20:19:29] <Markus Stenberg> as long as you insert fallback routes with high metrics
[20:19:32] <Markus Stenberg> you can just insert them always
[20:19:40] <Markus Stenberg> and real RP takes precedence wherever route using it exists
[20:19:56] <Steven Barth> but this only works if we elect one protocol
[20:20:07] <Markus Stenberg> sure, you want only one active protocol
[20:20:13] <David Lamparter> this sounds to me like the real RP will run in the "homenet core", while fallback will connect leaves that are too "stupid" for RP
[20:20:22] <Markus Stenberg> yep, essentially so
[20:20:39] <Steven Barth> and then there is downstream PD for the even more stupid routers
[20:20:40] <Steven Barth> ;)
[20:20:48] <David Lamparter> ugh.
[20:21:00] <Markus Stenberg> sounds .. amusing .. :p
[20:21:09] <David Lamparter> ... *2* fallbacks for the stupid devices...
[20:21:12] <Markus Stenberg> 7084-ish router < hipnet router < fallback-hncp-router < hncp-rp-router
[20:21:15] <Markus Stenberg> this sounds so easy
[20:21:34] <Steven Barth> well 7084 and hipnjet would be same level here
[20:21:38] <David Lamparter> (Markus & Steven: thanks for the summary!)
[20:21:41] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> (sorry, there's a lot of back and forth and not all at mics)
[20:21:55] <Markus Stenberg> nods, it's mostly the same people anyway
[20:22:01] <Markus Stenberg> Margaret, Lorenzo, Ted, JamesW
[20:22:08] Joe  Crowe joins the room
[20:22:08] <Markus Stenberg> and occassional BarbaraS
[20:22:30] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Lorenzo Colitti
[20:23:30] <Markus Stenberg> scarily enough I agree with him for once
[20:23:43] <Markus Stenberg> the implementation interoperability for 1.5 sounds horrible
[20:24:08] <Markus Stenberg> Pierre Pfister
[20:25:03] <Markus Stenberg> Ole Troan
[20:25:12] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> :)
[20:25:40] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> John Brzozowski
[20:26:01] <Markus Stenberg> 1.5 would really imply people just doing fallback anyway
[20:26:11] <Markus Stenberg> in that way, I think Lorenzo et al are right
[20:26:34] <Dave Thaler> I agree.  Any option with HNCP fallback makes HNCP eventually evolve into a routing protocol.
[20:26:44] Ida Leung leaves the room
[20:26:57] <Markus Stenberg> big irony is that HNCP was started initially due to lack of convergence on RP
[20:26:59] joe crowe joins the room
[20:27:04] <Dave Thaler> right
[20:27:39] Hosnieh R. joins the room
[20:28:35] <David Lamparter> did anyone complain about HNCP not supporting a multicast topology yet?
[20:28:39] <Dave Thaler> option 1 and 1.5 both turn HNCP into a routing protocol (eventually)
[20:28:51] <Hosnieh R.> @meetecho: sadly today I had several disconnection
[20:29:04] joe crowe leaves the room
[20:29:08] <Hosnieh R.> I could not follow any single presentor or single slide
[20:29:12] <Hosnieh R.> it hangs
[20:29:12] <Markus Stenberg> David: Nah, as it is assumed multicast routing is separate anyway
[20:29:30] <David Lamparter> Markus: multicast routing needs a base unicast RIB to operate on
[20:29:42] <Markus Stenberg> sad part is, there may be no decision here even if this is spent hours on
[20:30:35] <Steven Barth> @David there is always a RIB even with Fallback
[20:30:38] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Ted Lemon on how to get to a decision
[20:30:47] <Steven Barth> sort of at least
[20:30:58] <David Lamparter> Steven: that's not sufficient
[20:31:07] <David Lamparter> you don't want to route multicast via wifi links
[20:31:17] <David Lamparter> while unicast is perfectly fine over wifi
[20:31:18] <Markus Stenberg> how many home networks actually even have loops
[20:31:26] <Markus Stenberg> I find whole wifi argument source of trolling
[20:31:44] <Markus Stenberg> number of parallel wired+non-wired paths that have routers on them would seem limited to me
[20:31:56] <Steven Barth> yeah
[20:32:00] <Steven Barth> @David what do you suggest then?
[20:32:05] <David Lamparter> there's shitloads of powerlan stuff coming up
[20:32:06] Hosnieh R. leaves the room
[20:32:24] <David Lamparter> IS-IS and OSPF have existing well-tested well-known MT support for separate URIB and MRIB
[20:32:37] ida leung joins the room
[20:32:50] <David Lamparter> so, this is an argument in the "one RP, and please make it IS-IS or OSPF" direction
[20:33:20] Hosnieh R. joins the room
[20:33:38] <Steven Barth> yeah but there is no workable open soiurce implementation that has autoconf + source-dest or is there?
[20:33:49] <David Lamparter> sure there is, for IS-IS
[20:33:57] <Steven Barth> the erlang stuff?
[20:34:03] <David Lamparter> yes
[20:34:16] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Tony Hain
[20:34:18] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Lorenzo at the mic again
[20:34:25] <Steven Barth> i don't think thats an option ressource wise, especially if you want to make stuff work with iot
[20:34:27] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Mikael Abrahamson
[20:34:51] <Markus Stenberg> erlang runtime size > amount of memory available for this on the Nest thingy
[20:34:58] <Steven Barth> yes
[20:35:04] <Markus Stenberg> obviously, nest thingy could provide just e.g. PD prefix
[20:35:09] <Markus Stenberg> and not participate in home routing
[20:35:15] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> James Woodyatt
[20:35:38] <Steven Barth> but if we want to open up to IOT, anima etc. i don't think anything based on a biggish VM is a good option
[20:35:58] <David Lamparter> well
[20:36:04] <David Lamparter> that problem is solvable in a few weeks
[20:36:21] <Steven Barth> how?
[20:36:23] <Dave Thaler> I believe (as Ole implied) that any hum for option 1.5 is essentially a hum for option 3.
[20:36:23] <David Lamparter> just tell Mikael he needs to fund a C IS-IS implementation ;)
[20:36:30] <Michael Richardson> I think that James/NEST is not a stub network; but rather a walled garden "uplink"
[20:36:43] <Steven Barth> @David ;)
[20:36:51] <Markus Stenberg> mcr: nods, that's what I was trying to explain.. however, bit different one, as you may not e.g. want default routes there, nor firewalls.
[20:37:24] <Markus Stenberg> perhaps use case for the infamous CER-ID draft!
[20:37:32] <David Lamparter> (and no that wasn't even a joke really...)
[20:37:33] <Michael Richardson> yeah...
[20:38:04] Olafur joins the room
[20:38:07] <Michael Richardson> I thought that NEST *just* had a tunnel to DC for NEST assigned /60, and wanted that part visible locally.  
[20:38:19] <Markus Stenberg> essentially
[20:38:24] <Markus Stenberg> the nest stuff would want connectivity from the homenet
[20:38:36] <Michael Richardson> I didn't imagine that the connectivity to the DC should go through the nest, not via the DFZ.
[20:38:37] <Markus Stenberg> and then provide the ULA prefix (or whatever) to homenet to access itself
[20:38:53] <Michael Richardson> but Lorenzo is right... it can still work.
[20:38:54] <David Lamparter> what medium is the NEST stuff on? wifi? 802.15.x?
[20:38:56] <Markus Stenberg> and it is actually nontrivial exercise, some sort of hybrid link
[20:39:04] <Markus Stenberg> zigbee I think
[20:39:13] <Markus Stenberg> the ULA runs on that, but not sure
[20:39:29] <David Lamparter> okay then they have a gateway device anyway - can't the gateway just run the real RP of choice?
[20:39:34] <Hosnieh R.> anybody else has problem with meetecho
[20:39:50] <Markus Stenberg> Hosnieh: it works for me, kind of, although chair-cam feed is really bad
[20:39:59] <Steven Barth> works fine for me
[20:40:08] <Hosnieh R.> I connected 4 times but after a while hung
[20:40:24] <Hosnieh R.> :(
[20:41:27] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[20:42:27] <Steven Barth> i think interaction of some protocol (be it IS-IS, OSPF, whatever) with fallback is the way to go
[20:42:51] <Steven Barth> then we don
[20:42:58] <Markus Stenberg> well.. I'd personally rather just take OSPFv3, stick in LSAs there, and call victory
[20:43:07] <Markus Stenberg> we haz RP, we haz 1 protocol, no need for HNCP
[20:43:12] <Markus Stenberg> of course, routing crowd would shoot us
[20:43:18] <Markus Stenberg> but there are benefits being remote participant
[20:43:20] <David Lamparter> why would the routing crowd shoot us?
[20:43:29] <Markus Stenberg> they're not that keen to stick N different types of LSAs there
[20:43:34] <David Lamparter> you mean everything as in prefix assignment and dns stuff too?
[20:43:40] <Markus Stenberg> (at last count, HNCP draft has 10+ different types of TLVs)
[20:43:41] <Markus Stenberg> yes
[20:43:48] Simon Romano joins the room
[20:43:51] <David Lamparter> they can't shoot us, they already have TLVs for "generic information"
[20:43:58] <Markus Stenberg> but from purely technical point of view, there is no point for two mandatory link state databases
[20:44:12] <Steven Barth> just saying one word "security" ;)
[20:44:21] <Markus Stenberg> don't be a hater, MD5-HMAC
[20:44:24] <Steven Barth> ;)
[20:44:44] Joe  Crowe leaves the room
[20:44:59] Simon Romano leaves the room
[20:46:39] <Markus Stenberg> I am not that concerned about specifying complex RP-HNCP-fallback interaction schemes or whatever
[20:46:47] <Markus Stenberg> however, having it implemented, sucks
[20:46:54] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Stuart Cheshire
[20:46:55] <Markus Stenberg> due to LCD implementors
[20:47:15] <Markus Stenberg> 'you know C? you can write our proprietary thing!'
[20:47:22] <David Lamparter> true.
[20:54:11] g g joins the room
[20:55:51] g g leaves the room
[20:57:50] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Dave Thaler
[21:00:08] <Steven Barth> so no fallback anymore?
[21:00:11] ida leung leaves the room
[21:00:15] <Markus Stenberg> perhaps not
[21:00:31] <Markus Stenberg> who knows, the consensus seems to be shifting
[21:00:39] <Andrew Sullivan> We will only be able to tell in retrospect whether it was a waste of time — if one protocol comes out and people implement them, then it will not have been a waste of time.
[21:00:50] <Andrew Sullivan> If the same discussion happens at IETF 93, it will have been a waste of time.
[21:01:09] <Markus Stenberg> well, I vaguely remember original presentation in IETF88, and we're still here
[21:01:12] <Markus Stenberg> or was it 89
[21:01:13] <Steven Barth> well we have a test setup with fallback and babel and both runs
[21:01:19] <Markus Stenberg> 89 had routing protocol election, yes
[21:01:21] <Andrew Sullivan> 89, I believe
[21:01:36] g m leaves the room
[21:01:41] <Andrew Sullivan> (That fact is what inspired me to make the observation.)
[21:01:43] <Ole Troan> And there are people who claim you'll miss something by being on holiday for 6 months… ;-)
[21:02:05] Olafur leaves the room
[21:02:08] Olafur joins the room
[21:02:13] <Markus Stenberg> nods, +2
[21:02:20] <Steven Barth> ;)
[21:02:25] <Markus Stenberg> the whole arch draft effort has been even more sad tho
[21:02:33] <Markus Stenberg> it was already 'fine' by the time I read it around 85 :p
[21:03:25] <Olafur> Coin toss ?
[21:06:30] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Margaret Wasserman
[21:06:43] <Dave Thaler> in my view, that other WG (softwires) is a different case than what we have here.  We *have* to choose one because it's unmanaged networks, softwires *chose* to pick one but didn't have to and that was the problem
[21:06:43] <Andrew Sullivan> I decided not to say this at the mic, but if we're really serious about the idea that the chairs can just pick one in the absence of fairly clear, if rough, consensus, then the chairs should just make up their minds now
[21:06:57] <Dave Thaler> so point being don't use softwires as a precedent here, treat our case on its own merits
[21:07:05] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> next agenda item?
[21:09:14] <Steven Barth> more like 90 minutes ;)
[21:09:24] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> agenda bash revisited :)
[21:09:47] <Dave Thaler> contentious dicussions are difficult to fit in 20 mins
[21:11:07] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)>
[21:11:40] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 4, they're going quickly by
[21:12:16] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 5
[21:12:35] <Ted Lemon> This sounds like it should be a dnssd presentaiton.
[21:13:12] <Olafur> @ted this is out of scope
[21:13:19] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 6
[21:13:23] <Ted Lemon> for dnssd or homenet?
[21:13:31] <Olafur> for homenet
[21:13:35] <Ted Lemon> right.
[21:14:23] sureshk joins the room
[21:14:32] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Ted Lemon: this is dnssd, out of scope here
[21:15:32] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 11
[21:15:36] <Markus Stenberg> this is still dnssd :p
[21:15:46] <Ted Lemon> I think this presentation is really interesting and support doing the work.   Just not here.
[21:17:26] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)>
[21:17:34] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> Stuart Cheshire
[21:19:17] <wmt> 1520-1620 HST
Thursday Afternoon Session II
[21:19:32] <wmt> opsec was cancelled this slot, so perhaps that room is available
[21:20:03] <wmt> I would like to invite us to discuss routing more during  this slot.
[21:20:18] <wmt> LWIG is the only other INT area meeting
[21:21:24] <Dave Thaler> I plan to be in lwig
[21:21:24] Hugo Kobayashi leaves the room
[21:21:40] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)>
[21:22:13] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 3
[21:22:38] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 4
[21:23:06] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> (That was me at the mic reminding people the .home draft is in charter for DNSOP and has already been flagged there, too)
[21:24:53] <wmt> Thaler: If we started at 1500 (break), could we at least get that brain dump from you that was suggested?
[21:25:29] <Dave Thaler> which brain dump?  what pcp did?
[21:25:59] <wmt> Yes.
[21:26:00] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 8 now
[21:26:04] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 9
[21:28:25] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> slide 12
[21:29:05] Olafur leaves the room
[21:29:24] DanYork leaves the room
[21:29:25] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> and FIN
[21:29:30] Ole Troan leaves the room
[21:29:33] <Suzanne (jabber scribe)> see you at the interim
[21:29:36] doug.otis leaves the room
[21:29:38] <Ted Lemon> RST!
[21:29:39] <Ted Lemon> :)
[21:29:50] Suzanne (jabber scribe) leaves the room
[21:30:08] wmt leaves the room
[21:30:12] <Steven Barth> get a meetecho / webex for that discussion ;)
[21:30:13] Ruri Hiromi leaves the room
[21:30:35] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[21:30:42] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[21:30:44] Markus Stenberg leaves the room
[21:30:56] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[21:31:07] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[21:31:20] Steven Barth leaves the room
[21:31:43] Phill leaves the room
[21:31:47] Ray Atarashi leaves the room
[21:31:58] Jason Weil leaves the room
[21:33:49] Michael Richardson leaves the room: Disconnected: connection closed
[21:33:56] Meetecho leaves the room
[21:34:44] James Gould leaves the room
[21:35:16] Jason Weil joins the room
[21:35:48] Jason Weil leaves the room
[21:47:35] Dave Thaler leaves the room
[21:52:56] ilari.liusvaara leaves the room: offline
[21:54:35] David Lamparter leaves the room
[21:59:53] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:02:16] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:07:06] sureshk leaves the room
[22:07:14] sureshk joins the room
[22:22:11] doug.otis joins the room
[22:45:36] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[22:49:55] Phill joins the room
[22:50:19] DanYork joins the room
[22:51:21] Phill leaves the room
[22:53:23] Olafur joins the room
[22:55:32] <DanYork> /?
[22:55:32] Meetecho RAV leaves the room
[22:55:32] safa almalki leaves the room
[22:55:32] Hosnieh R. leaves the room
[22:55:37] DanYork leaves the room
[22:56:36] Olafur leaves the room
[22:58:02] sureshk leaves the room
[22:58:25] Phill joins the room
[23:00:08] Ole Troan joins the room
[23:01:58] doug.otis leaves the room
[23:02:35] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[23:14:37] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:15:49] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:18:37] doug.otis joins the room
[23:30:06] wmt joins the room
[23:33:48] doug.otis leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!