[14:17:53] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [14:22:24] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [14:28:34] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [14:40:40] Joseph joins the room [14:41:12] This show gets on the road in 15 mins correct? [14:51:23] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [14:51:54] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [14:54:49] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [15:02:53] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [15:20:44] Welcome to IPPM, we will start in about 15 minutes [15:34:33] paul.aitken joins the room [15:38:20] We are about to start... [15:42:11] Brian Trammell joins the room [15:42:24] Me [15:42:29] But I'm remote [15:42:32] Matt Zekauskas joins the room [15:42:37] +1 [15:46:54] swany joins the room [15:54:02] nestor.tiglao joins the room [16:25:12] on TWAMP value added octets [16:33:07] nestor.tiglao leaves the room [16:44:05] Who asked the question just now? [16:44:11] matt [16:44:13] me [16:44:14] Is that matt? [16:44:17] OK [16:44:29] the other ericcson guy is responding [16:47:59] Like has been stated three times now, the draft introduces a nice 'tool' of sorts to be able to work with trains in a way that can potentially be used to gather a range of metrics including capacity... [16:48:07] That's my take [16:48:21] so would you support working on it in absence of metrics that define them? [16:49:03] I understand what you're saying, but trying to understand why bother standardizing the mechanism when we are not standardizing what we're talking about [16:49:58] That's a valid question. When I read the draft, "How do I use this?" comes to mind. [16:52:06] I can also unfortunately see using this to gather metrics (or an ability to gather any metrics accurately) quickly falling under heavy IPR [16:52:47] because there is an IPR disclosure (which there is) or for some other reason? [16:53:26] I haven't followed the IPR on this draft and am not referring to it per say. [16:55:11] Rather that introducing an attempt to accurately measure something like capacity, may introduce additional IPR woes (if the thought was to include it into the current draft) [16:56:48] I don't think we should standardize any metrics in the TWAMP mods [16:57:06] Joe Touch had quite a discourse on "economy of ports" earlier today [16:57:29] swany: in what session? [16:58:09] paul.aitken leaves the room [16:58:31] TSVWG, but speaking partly from the perspective of his role in IANA [16:58:51] draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use [17:03:57] Or in other words Wireshark knows what the bits mean :) [17:14:42] I didn't understand that question: "why does it need to be intrusive?" [17:15:38] as in, you don't understand why they are asking why, or you don't understand the result [17:15:44] s/result/response/ [17:18:57] I'll save my questions till the end unless someone else interrupts [17:18:59] Xiansong is up, and has been up for a bit, in case Joe is sleeping [17:19:02] ah, there you are [17:19:04] no, that's fine [17:19:53] I have a list... what slide are we on? Did they change? [17:20:00] slide 5 [17:20:04] I don't believe the slides have changed [17:20:15] "The well-known reference model" [17:20:50] k thanks, I'm in sync [17:21:10] slide 6 [17:21:47] slide 7 [17:23:42] what? [17:24:03] this is steve B, asking about slide 7 pic [17:24:29] or stating. [17:24:31] ok, audio has some lag, my reaction was not to Steve [17:24:52] ok. if it's greater than a 20 sec, that might be an issue [17:24:54] slide 8 [17:25:17] slide 9 [17:26:39] slide 10 [17:27:58] ok. You're up if you wish [17:28:17] Ok, lag is more than 20 s [17:28:31] There's no clear understanding of what the issue is or where the confusion is exactly [17:28:52] We say that the draft does include the major points, and we don't see the confusion [17:30:12] I no longer think an errata is appropriate as the intent is clear ... .what Henk just said [17:30:17] s/I/We [17:30:48] If there are some new thoughts, or ways to measure these drafts then a new draft is appropriate [17:32:48] They were on the IPPM list [17:34:05] The thing is that everyone calls it "LINK Capacity", so, so did we [17:34:17] evidently not the ITU ;) [17:34:22] There is a link and then Link (L) [17:34:23] I'll try to relay some of this [17:34:27] HA! [17:34:33] ( L ) [17:35:22] Exactly! (Is that steve speaking) [17:35:27] Al [17:35:29] the loud one is steve [17:35:34] currently Al (after me) [17:36:19] Steve summarized the versatility [17:36:33] Mic: Steve summarized the versatility [17:37:04] And Al is also correct that there isn't much ambiguity at the critical points. [17:39:37] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [17:40:09] Make sure the bullets get published as an errata ? [17:41:07] Brian Trammell leaves the room [17:43:27] swany leaves the room [18:04:21] that sounds like a plan... [18:04:27] we'll see. [18:04:31] Matt Zekauskas leaves the room [18:13:55] Joseph leaves the room [18:27:23] nestor.tiglao joins the room [18:36:07] nestor.tiglao leaves the room [22:10:10] Brian Trammell joins the room [22:24:02] Brian Trammell leaves the room [22:28:13] Brian Trammell joins the room [23:21:55] Brian Trammell leaves the room