[00:39:12] fujiwara joins the room [00:39:21] Exodus joins the room [00:39:34] Exodus leaves the room [00:39:42] yone joins the room [00:41:02] ogud: Olafur Gudmundsson joins the room [00:42:15] raj joins the room [00:44:07] dan.hoopyfrood joins the room [00:44:37] (testing) [00:44:52] Dowon Kim leaves the room [00:44:53] Suz joins the room [00:45:08] Andrew Sullivan joins the room [00:45:16] Agenda bashing [00:45:24] (Sorry, the scribe was late) [00:46:01] Goals slide [00:46:13] today: evaluate where we are [00:47:52] So, assess distance from consensus on present docs [00:48:03] klensin joins the room [00:48:15] consider transition issues [00:48:22] consider alternative, IDNAv2 [00:49:17] slide: IDNA2008 design goals [00:49:57] Dowon Kim joins the room [00:51:15] Goals continued [00:53:29] Stuart Cheshire at mic previously: not an actual DNS problem [00:53:41] Harald Alvestrand: different memory [00:53:44] jaeyounkim joins the room [00:56:14] Jaap Akkerhuis was previously [00:56:22] hta joins the room [00:56:28] then Patrik Faltstrom (sorry, my keyboard doesn't do it right) [00:57:07] Patrik Fãltstrõm :-) [00:57:27] sorry - Patrik Fältström. Can't read the squiggles on my own keyboard! [00:58:14] Ted Hardie at the mic [00:59:30] (are the design goals in any of the WG drafts?) [01:00:06] farias joins the room [01:00:19] Probably -rationale is the closest you'll get [01:00:51] Lisa Dusseault joins the room [01:00:52] dan.hoopyfrood goes huninting to turn -rationale into a full URI... [01:01:10] see the tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis pages [01:01:18] tx [01:01:54] Dan, yes. And in the charter for the WG. Also note that the one that was not mentioned (again going back to the original version) is that, while the DNS does not require ASCII, many application protocols (like HTTP and SMTP) do. And the intent was, in part, to avoid having to change all of those servers. [01:02:39] That's Mark Davis at the mic, right? [01:02:41] is anybody maintaining an IDNAbis test suite? [01:02:44] (I'm way in the back) [01:03:25] markkao joins the room [01:03:57] found it... March 9... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-09 [01:05:26] We're now on slide 9, BTW, in case that isn't clear [01:05:59] mohsen joins the room [01:07:17] Ted Hardie joins the room [01:07:34] (fyi, I'm working on breaking out the URL stuff from HTML 5; it includes IDNA stuff. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Mar/0011.html . I'm sorta wondering whether it's worthwhile to take the mic and say so) [01:08:22] Probably not, since you noted it here. But probably we should talk about, e.g., whether I can help [01:09:45] Chartering/rechartering slide [01:10:03] (searching for IDNA test materials yields something from 2005. http://www.gnu.org/software/libidn/draft-josefsson-idn-test-vectors.html ) [01:10:14] (oops; rather: from 2003) [01:10:58] There is lots of stuff for the 2003 version... and some issues about what "test suite" means. Can supply later -- too distracting to try to do while following the discussion [01:12:07] Basics for idna2003/2008 slide [01:13:24] ok [01:13:37] basics cont'd [01:14:15] franck.martin@jabber.org joins the room [01:15:11] (I see various perl/python library test materials, including, from Feb 2008, http://testers.cpan.org/show/IDNA-Punycode.html ) [01:16:24] I think it's Mark Davis at the mic giving some details about esszett [01:17:03] (Remember to say your name when you go to the mic, all. Every time. I can't touch type, I'm ashamed to admit.) [01:17:19] Yes, it is Mark Davis [01:18:30] Paul Hoffman @ mic [01:18:33] (that was) [01:19:22] slide 17 [01:20:16] There's a typo on the slide: s/ty/by/ [01:20:31] slide 18 [01:20:40] Mark Davis at mic again [01:25:31] Vint Cerf's use of "abusive" here tacks uncomfortably close to policy, to me. [01:25:36] [01:25:45] John Klensin at mic [01:26:30] Paul Hoffman at mic [01:27:12] resnick joins the room [01:27:56] Mark Davis at mic again. [01:28:04] ogud: Olafur Gudmundsson leaves the room [01:29:28] Peter Koch [01:29:42] (I'm struggling to appreciate the aversion to policy issues in this design space. the security/policy issues seem, to me, to dominate. If policy is Somebody Else's Problem, is it clear who Somebody Else is?) [01:29:55] Dan: yes [01:30:00] the zone operator(s) [01:30:03] and maybe ICANN [01:30:44] Eric Brunner Williams at mic [01:30:54] remind me who the .com and .cn zone operators are? (if you have bandwidth) [01:31:19] .com's zone operator is Verisign, and .cn's is CNNIC [01:31:19] The real effect of the protocol is the same if the word "abusive" is deleted from this slide. [01:31:35] thanks [01:31:41] and the zone operator of crankycanuck.ca is me [01:32:12] (Note that lower-level zones are also important in this dicsussion -- important not to ignore that) [01:32:31] John Klensin at mic [01:32:45] so it's up to verisign whether to allow pypal.com to be registered. I guess that makes sense. [01:33:30] that's the idea, yes [01:34:45] slide 19 [01:35:13] given that idea, it makes more sense, to me, to leave any judgement of "too problematic" to zone operators. [01:36:45] slide 20 [01:37:15] (a quick check of -rationale confirms that this is discussed there; e.g. "... zone administrators..." in 3.1.2.1. Contextual Restrictions in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-09 ) [01:37:34] Stuart Cheshire going to mic [01:38:18] indeed, that is counter-intuitive that Bucher != bucher (where the u's have umlauts) [01:39:09] this is *exactly* the sort of question that test suites are ideal for. I wish I could get the IETF to do more test suites. (I tried to convince CALSIFY to do a test suite, without success, a few years ago) [01:39:19] Dan, most of those judgment are. This is about whether a small number of fairly nasty cases should be left to them as well. If the answer is "no, there are some bad cases that should be prohhibited outright", then the question is how far to gol [01:39:46] Keep in mind, again, that "registry" refers to every zone in the DNS [01:40:56] ok, well, as to how far to go, I'd say: not very far at all. [01:42:34] (there's a special place in heaven for people who have to do tech support for the case Vint Cerf just described.) [01:43:47] MArk Davis at mic [01:44:01] Indeed. And the oddity is that both IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 provide such special places. Several of them are different. But, if you go very far down that path, you conclude that one really doesn't want i18n of the DNS. [01:46:38] Slide 23 [01:48:56] slide 25 [01:51:23] Mark Davis at mic [01:54:35] Slide 28 [01:54:51] the purpose of the restriction is to restrict ZWNJ and ZWJ to cases handled by people who understand the language in question, not to restrict all cases.... [01:55:20] And that is what Rationale says, of course [01:55:27] Slide 29 [01:57:52] Brian Carpenter at mic [01:58:07] John Klensin at mic [01:58:47] Mark Davis at mic [01:59:03] [discussion on relations with Unicode consortium] [01:59:07] franck.martin@jabber.org leaves the room [02:00:04] WHAT-IS-FUTURE joins the room [02:00:30] yangyguo joins the room [02:02:44] Sean [sp?] [last name not heard] at mic [02:03:45] Patrik Fältström [02:03:58] at mic [02:05:49] John Klensin at mic [02:07:28] Eric Brunner Williams at mic [02:07:41] claiming that he's stupid [02:08:37] Ted Hardie asking to get out of nuances and on to other agenda items [02:09:00] Mark Davis at mic offering to answer ebw's question out of the meeting [02:10:40] Lisa Dusseault (AD) at mic [02:10:56] noting lack of consensus call on lookup of UNASSIGNED [02:11:28] WHAT-IS-FUTURE leaves the room [02:11:49] Eric Brunner Williams at mic. No consensus call on arabic vs arabic-indic digit issue? Anyway, issue here that's not settled. [02:11:57] Harald Alvestrand at mic [02:12:41] Asking for alternative formulations. [02:13:25] yao joins the room [02:13:36] I *think* we have a very solid consensus that having 2 labels that map to the same displayed string should not be permitted. [02:13:49] yangyguo leaves the room [02:14:04] (just repeating what I said at the mike) [02:14:29] I have not seen a proposal that allows AN/EN mixing and still disallows those strings. [02:15:26] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/idnabis-4.pdf [02:15:26] farias leaves the room [02:15:52] slide 2 [02:16:05] Hmm. The slides are clearer as ppt [02:16:13] I guess the pdf export lost some detail [02:16:17] Ted Hardie leaves the room [02:16:42] slide 3 [02:18:57] slide 5 [02:19:00] err, 4 [02:19:02] yao leaves the room [02:19:36] yao joins the room [02:20:15] slide 5. For real, this time [02:20:43] Suz leaves the room [02:20:45] {who?] at mic [02:21:15] James Seng [02:21:17] clarification about the table. [02:21:28] thanks [02:21:52] slide 6 [02:22:34] Eric Brunner Williams asking about slide 2 [02:22:56] actually, slide 3 [02:23:35] question is about label separators [02:24:17] Ted Hardie, I think. Asking about moving mapping into applications [02:24:28] yes, it's Ted [02:25:11] James Seng [02:25:33] clarifying: will new characters show up later, and will mapping ever change? [02:25:41] Ted says his question is the former [02:26:13] James again. [02:27:25] Some discussion of whether this is needed in the application or not -- could this be at the registry? [02:27:45] Applications will have to. Also, registries will have to. [02:27:55] Harald Alvestrand [02:29:03] Raising a concern about interoperation of these different mappings and the context rules. [02:29:14] Maybe the context rules are wrong? [02:29:36] Mark Davis [02:30:10] Draws a different conclusion. Not to be culturally sensitive, but to maintain compatibility to IDNA2003. Therefore more nervous about "no mapping" approach [02:31:25] Argument that no mapping on registration is ok, but mapping needs to be added on lookup side to be compatible w/ IDNA2003 [02:32:06] That was Vint Cerf on the mic, asking about the implications [02:33:57] does this mapping at lookup proposal break the ZWJ/ZWNJ addition? I don't understand how they work well enough to know. [02:33:59] [02:34:30] James Seng at mic [02:35:07] Question: why not do 1st example with bundling instead? [02:36:55] All 3 examples could be accommodated in IDNA2008 if some characters became PVALID, because then could all be bundled [02:37:20] Although the dot-problem isn't so simple. [02:38:37] Queue at mic closed [02:38:40] John Klensin [02:39:44] response to Mark's idea: more important to preserve prohib. on mappings at registration than on lookup. But loss of functionality: trade-off between IDNA2003 compat and symmetry of in and out [02:40:08] Also, there will certainly be some incompatibilities [02:40:15] no matter what [02:40:34] with lookup mappings, we discard u-label a-label symmetry [02:40:45] loss of comparison of URIs, &c. [02:40:52] there's a significant trade-off. [02:41:00] Mark Davis [02:41:16] John is correct that it's important to examine implications [02:41:48] Worried about expanding PVALID list. [02:42:09] Suggests a new ideal, M-label, which is the mapped thing [02:42:14] These are additional [02:43:15] Chair closes the session [02:43:22] jaeyounkim leaves the room [02:43:22] Remember to sign the blue sheet [02:43:27] resnick leaves the room [02:43:30] hta leaves the room [02:43:37] Lisa Dusseault leaves the room [02:43:40] markkao leaves the room [02:43:49] fujiwara leaves the room [02:44:02] raj leaves the room [02:45:14] dan.hoopyfrood leaves the room [02:47:09] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room [02:47:24] Dowon Kim leaves the room [02:48:26] yone leaves the room [02:52:47] mohsen leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [03:00:55] klensin leaves the room [05:43:02] yao leaves the room [09:53:50] Simon Josefsson joins the room [10:39:28] Simon Josefsson leaves the room [11:07:30] Simon Josefsson joins the room [13:11:46] yangyguo joins the room [13:12:00] yangyguo leaves the room [14:49:09] FMC722417F0 joins the room [14:49:14] FMC722417F0 leaves the room [14:49:54] fmcway joins the room [15:01:56] fmcway leaves the room [15:26:55] Jelte joins the room [15:27:02] Jelte leaves the room [15:28:14] yone joins the room [15:49:08] Jelte joins the room [15:50:01] Dowon Kim joins the room [15:52:52] markkao joins the room [15:55:20] someone physically present in the room that could say a quick 'test' into the mic? [15:56:13] thank you :) [15:56:17] Welcome! [15:59:05] sm joins the room [16:00:23] fujiwara joins the room [16:00:51] Andrew Sullivan joins the room [16:01:25] Dowon Kim leaves the room [16:02:19] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room [16:03:22] Andrew Sullivan joins the room [16:04:33] Suzanne joins the room [16:05:25] mikemlb joins the room [16:05:39] mohsen joins the room [16:06:35] I'll do some jabber scribing here, but I can't stay, so if nobody picks up I apologise [16:06:53] thanks [16:06:53] Paul Hoffman going through his slides. Now on Difference: what happens w/ future versions [16:07:23] Lisa joins the room [16:07:56] Mark Davis at the mic (I think -- again I'm in the back) [16:08:54] talking about what clients do [16:09:02] some clients indicate, some don't [16:09:17] Dowon Kim joins the room [16:09:23] restrictions will still rely on clients _and_ registries/zone operators [16:09:48] some signalling-to-user may not always be relevant (think of no human looking at output) [16:10:09] paf joins the room [16:10:15] That was Vint Cerf in the mic a moment ago [16:10:18] Mark back now [16:11:18] John Klensin at mic [16:11:26] noting what the meaning of "suspicious" is [16:13:43] slide: bits-on-the-wire [16:14:38] slide: when ICANN can move [16:15:15] Thomas Narten [16:15:30] can ICANN move quickly? Some doubts [16:17:42] Cary Karp: problem is that ICANN needs to enshrine a "standard" by reference [16:18:07] nobody prepared to agree to conformance with protocol not written [16:18:18] Harald Alvestrand: "No, there is no difference" [16:18:43] No practical difference between IDNA2003 or IDNA2008 for this [16:19:13] Eriv Brunner-Williams at mic [16:19:37] haven't heard from ICANN what the proposed characters are. It'd help to get them [16:19:48] Harald: do not believe that all the submissions have been made public [16:20:00] [no name] all the cc's who wanted to make public have done [16:20:05] may be some who did not want to [16:20:19] [Tina Dam at the mic] [16:20:47] so it is. (I need to learn to recognise the backs of people ;-) [16:21:11] or people need to just say their name when going to the mic ;) [16:21:41] Moving forward slide [16:22:17] End of presentation [16:22:52] Vint Cerf back up to discuss IDNAv2 implications [16:24:46] Paul Hoffman at mic, clarifying what needs to be updated in order to deal with stringprep/nameprep changes [16:24:58] John Klensin: procedural ambiguity [16:25:56] Harald Alvestrand: when do we talk about actual proposal vs. procedural effect [16:26:04] technical issues, not procedural. [16:26:11] Vint Cerf: please go ahead [16:26:23] Harald again: [16:26:24] pk joins the room [16:26:37] violent objections: [16:26:59] a. retains all characters that have been for some reason considered valid in IDNA2003 (e.g. snowman) [16:27:24] b. treatment of bidi [16:27:57] mixing of AN and EN is a serious mistake [16:28:18] other opinions, but these are main two [16:28:30] Mark Davis @ mic. Agrees 1/2 way [16:28:37] bidi way improved by 2008 [16:28:53] and if to adopt v2, it would profit from incorp. bidi [16:29:02] disagree about snowman: overblown [16:29:46] biggest problem is √.com [16:30:03] which is a Machead site (and I guess we think Mac fanboys lose?) [16:30:19] Paul Hoffman: agree [16:30:59] if can fix bidi w/o change of botw, that's fine [16:31:05] any change of botw not allowed [16:31:19] losing some dns registrations is ok to live with [16:31:42] Patrik Fältsröm: violent disagreement w/ v2 [16:32:23] problems: 1. still table based, not rules [16:32:52] similar to results from rules. So why not the rules-based thing? [16:33:05] end up having same discussions anyway [16:33:48] re: speed -- have spent maybe 4 days in last 2 years on tables document [16:34:00] mostly sitting around and waiting [16:34:14] no comment on tables for last 5 months [16:34:39] 2. [16:35:20] definition of a-labels and u-labels, but maybe has been added to v2. Problem with *prep -- no understanding of difference between the character that is mapped to something and then stored, so people have stored the pre-mapped character [16:36:11] mapping was big mistake in idna2003. New mapping suggestion for idna2008 is just a help to applications [16:36:17] Leslie Daigle [16:36:26] saying things that have been said [16:36:57] timliness is a red herring. IDNAv2 "and just pulling in 1 or 2 things" is a quick path to the same state we're in [16:37:18] worry only about where the right end state is, please [16:38:39] John Klenisn: idnav2 actually slower [16:39:24] also, basically different philosophies. One is rule-based, and other is depending on tables (which have been problem), and is exclusion-based rather than inclusion-based [16:39:41] Mark Davis [16:40:30] mikemlb leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [16:40:51] process for how context rules change a concern, lack of mappings a problem [16:41:00] arguing for mapping for lookup only [16:41:34] likes the part of v2 that's attractive: compatibility w/ idna2003 [16:41:43] may alter mapping to allow for exceptional characters [16:42:33] Vint Cerf asks that we come back to mapping discussion [16:42:48] Patrik back on mapping [16:43:20] If mapping is important, please do something about it [16:43:25] not important for WG [16:44:40] mark davis @ mic again: specifically told not welcome. some misunderstanding? [16:45:32] jaeyounkim joins the room [16:45:34] paf leaves the room [16:45:42] Other observation: anxious not to assume silence on tables doc implies agreement [16:46:10] wants implementations of context rules -- not ready yet, want to see interoperating implementations [16:46:59] Vint Cerf: moving on. Jamos should be permitted under v2. Paul Hoffman: irrelevant under 2003 because they're mapped. [16:47:48] in non-mapping protocol, must get rid of. Not true in mapping protocol [16:47:58] paf joins the room [16:48:21] [misunderstood] from Korea. Strongly recommended Jamo not allowed under 2008 [16:48:47] Dowon Kim at mic [16:48:51] Thanks [16:49:08] Is goal to exclude or map? [16:49:52] Mark Davis disagrees with Paul: mapped in syllables, but can have leading Jamo followed by syllable w/ which can't be combined. Paul: only for ancient syllables. [16:50:09] klensin joins the room [16:50:09] Vint Cerf: wants to avoid getting tangled again [16:50:20] mohsen leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [16:50:20] Mark Davis: 3 poss [16:50:24] 2003 model [16:50:36] tonyhansen joins the room [16:50:37] not in favour of v2 model [16:50:45] for Korean issue, v2 issue left to clients and registries [16:51:33] [I don't think I got 3 possibilies there. Anyone understand the 3?] [16:52:12] Vint Cerf discussing separator character [16:52:41] Proposing some questions [16:54:15] mohsen joins the room [16:54:20] Simon Josefsson joins the room [16:54:42] Glenn Parsons joins the room [16:55:00] have to go to dns64 discussion [16:56:53] swshin92 joins the room [16:57:11] My mention is that Korean Internet community doesn't want Jamo to allow under IDNAv2 [16:59:44] mikemlb joins the room [17:03:02] sm leaves the room [17:05:49] sm joins the room [17:11:48] fujiwara leaves the room [17:12:14] fujiwara joins the room [17:12:36] farias joins the room [17:15:01] swshin92 leaves the room [17:23:35] Ted Hardie joins the room [17:24:26] Ted Hardie leaves the room [17:29:04] resnick joins the room [17:31:22] Ted joins the room [17:35:12] paf leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [17:35:13] paf joins the room [17:50:25] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room [17:53:30] Andrew Sullivan joins the room [17:54:57] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room [17:55:03] Andrew Sullivan joins the room [18:02:29] Simon Josefsson leaves the room [18:07:05] Vint: slide, Assessment of Options [18:08:25] Mark Davis trying to refine canonicalization rule [18:09:20] s/rule/definition [18:09:22] Identify canonical [18:09:39] form [18:10:06] if we agree on that, what should we do to inject these into existing 2003 environment [18:10:12] one answer: some things break [18:10:37] If not acceptable, is something else acceptable? [18:11:27] Also, anyone want to pursue (2008 & v2) or just v2? [18:11:47] Erik van der Poel at mic [18:12:01] strongly opposed to WG not being allowed to pick from features of both [18:12:17] opposed to idea of shipping 2008 as it stands [18:13:03] if web community goes off & does standardized mapping, could be bad [18:13:37] Vint asks for not discussion of specific chars [18:13:39] Mark Davis [18:13:53] what Erik says is important: of have to choose between two right now, hard [18:14:04] interplay that could be examined [18:14:22] yone leaves the room [18:15:37] is there agreement that unassigned chars MUST NOT be looked up? [18:16:05] Harald Alvestrand [18:16:53] Options: 2008 with appendix [18:17:05] 2008 with [something else?] [18:17:08] v2 [18:17:23] Nobody seems to want to change bidi, protocol, tables, &c [18:17:40] status of mapping in protocol is the sticking point [18:18:07] Vint: if pursue mapping & incorp. in 2008 structure, is that acceptable? [18:19:07] q1 How many people would object to moving ahead with 2008 as currently stands [18:19:19] q2 Use 2008 as basis, incorp. mapping [18:19:35] option 3 go ahead w/ v2 [18:19:40] Ted Hardie [18:20:08] difference between normative rule and optional appendix [18:20:26] Harald: current documents have an appendix [18:20:34] (It was Harald?) [18:20:46] q1: how many pple object? [18:20:58] small number [18:21:20] Suzanne leaves the room [18:21:21] how many people object to moving forward with IDNAv2 exclusively? [18:21:32] slightly larger number [18:22:00] Ok, now how to overcome limitations of IDNA2008 as it stands [18:22:09] Paul Hoffman: add a non-optional non-appendix [18:22:32] add something to tell people what to do with inputs [18:22:59] [missed name -- James Seng, I think?] could be a different document [18:23:14] Hoffman: BCP and "optional" seem to be the same thing. Bad [18:23:18] yes, that was James [18:23:47] yone joins the room [18:24:07] Patrik F.: not clear on nuances. Don't care whether it's a separate doc, an appendix, whatever, but do need some kind of mapping of users' input &c. in order to handle transition, &c [18:24:24] Likes idea that, if you want to transform, MUST do it this way [18:24:43] don't want text that says it's fluffy how mapping works [18:25:44] Vint: if proposal, mapping funciton during lookup phase, and not allowed during registration phase. [18:25:48] Mark Davis agreeing [18:25:57] except further: needs to be a requirement [18:25:59] in the lookup [18:26:21] say that SHOULD only store & communicate U-label form [18:26:37] someplace in 5.2-5.4 needs to be added [18:26:57] MUSt NOT map in reg'n [18:27:30] antoin joins the room [18:27:31] paf leaves the room [18:28:12] Vint Cerf: asking whether there is conensus for IDNA2008 and to try to include non-optional mapping ? [18:28:36] Mark Davis: and to include a SHOULD for storage? Vint: yes [18:28:48] John Klensin: permanent or transitional? [18:28:49] Ted leaves the room [18:29:08] Vint: transitional for purposes of backward compatibility [18:29:15] Paul Hoffman: need time [18:29:30] Vint Cerf: thinks there is consensus to proceed on this [18:29:37] Patrik: unhappy with mapping is a MUST [18:29:45] resnick leaves the room [18:30:04] markkao leaves the room [18:30:12] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room [18:30:14] klensin leaves the room [18:30:20] farias leaves the room [18:30:43] fujiwara leaves the room [18:30:54] sm leaves the room [18:32:17] Lisa leaves the room [18:33:54] paf joins the room [18:34:09] antoin leaves the room [18:34:28] mohsen leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [18:35:21] mikemlb leaves the room [18:35:34] tonyhansen leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [18:35:34] tonyhansen joins the room [18:35:36] Dowon Kim leaves the room [18:36:55] paf leaves the room [18:38:52] Jelte leaves the room [18:45:10] pk leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [18:45:12] pk joins the room [18:50:33] yone leaves the room [19:00:03] Georg_Ochsner joins the room [19:04:22] Georg_Ochsner leaves the room: offline [19:19:02] Glenn Parsons leaves the room [19:19:02] tonyhansen leaves the room [19:32:30] paf joins the room [19:33:51] paf leaves the room [19:52:54] paf joins the room [19:59:55] jaeyounkim leaves the room [20:01:16] paf leaves the room [20:04:39] mohsen joins the room [20:06:26] paf joins the room [20:08:15] paf leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [20:08:16] paf joins the room [20:08:36] paf leaves the room [20:17:54] pk leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [20:17:55] pk joins the room [20:19:11] pk leaves the room [20:40:31] Ted joins the room [20:41:13] Ted leaves the room [21:55:51] mohsen leaves the room [22:26:30] xiaodong.lee joins the room [23:27:29] xiaodong.lee leaves the room