[04:03:07] slblake joins the room
[11:58:30] jpgunn joins the room
[12:06:51] Toby M joins the room
[12:16:48] <jpgunn> volume is a little low
[12:17:27] <Toby M> i can't hear a thing!
[12:17:52] <jpgunn> better now
[12:20:09] <jpgunn> audio keeps dropping out
[12:20:23] <slblake> audio quality for me is quite good.
[12:21:13] jlcJohn joins the room
[12:22:35] velt joins the room
[12:23:42] <slblake> Is anyone here in the meeting room?
[12:24:17] <velt> yes, i am
[12:24:40] <jlcJohn> slide numbers would help...
[12:24:55] <velt> at 4 now
[12:25:01] <slblake> thanks
[12:32:53] <velt> Georgios K., slide 3 already
[12:33:02] <velt> 4 now
[12:35:18] <velt> slide 5
[12:36:44] <Toby M> Sounds a good idea to me...
[12:37:01] <velt> next presentation: signalling requirements
[12:37:17] <velt> slide Outline
[12:37:25] <velt> slide Issues
[12:37:50] <velt> next
[12:38:02] <slblake> which draft is 
[12:38:08] <slblake> Georgios discussing now?
[12:38:13] <Toby M> signalling requirements
[12:38:38] <Toby M> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/pcn-2.ppt
[12:38:40] <slblake> Ok.  For the record, I said that we would go to WGLC only after it was reviewed on the list.
[12:39:32] <velt> do you want me to say that at the mic?
[12:42:44] <velt> next slide
[12:42:45] <slblake> no, thanks
[12:46:23] <velt> oops, next slide
[12:47:20] <velt> next slide
[12:47:30] <velt> (issue 8)
[12:47:45] <velt> next slide
[12:48:09] <velt> next slide - issue 10
[12:48:26] <Toby M> we don't have an issue 10 on our slides!
[12:48:44] <Toby M> he seems to have inserted an issue somewhere
[12:49:37] <velt> it says "Removed completely section 3 and proposed new sections (proposed Section 3.3 is too abstract)
[12:49:57] <Toby M> ahh, we have that one, so it must have been an earlier one he inserted...
[12:54:18] <velt> next slide - next steps
[12:56:17] <velt> Bob Briscoe to present
[12:56:29] <velt> slide 1
[12:56:39] <velt> ahhh
[12:58:10] <velt> draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-04.txt
[12:59:54] <velt> Michael Menth
[13:01:09] <velt> Michael again
[13:03:45] <Toby M> To mic please: If we update 5696 then it will leave us with no standard for single marking...
[13:04:03] <Toby M> UNless we modify 3-in-1
[13:07:58] <Toby M> ik've got the token, will try and get it done inside a month
[13:08:56] <velt> Michael presenting
[13:08:58] <velt> slide 3
[13:10:18] <velt> slide 4
[13:11:47] <velt> slide 5
[13:12:29] <velt> draft-menth-pcn-marked-signaling-ac
[13:13:08] <velt> Georgios commenting
[13:15:56] <velt> Teco Boot: same question
[13:16:07] <velt> slide 6
[13:17:28] <velt> slide 7
[13:19:40] <velt> Georgios
[13:20:28] <velt> slide 8
[13:23:03] <Toby M> isn't the potential issue that the signal message may not be in the same logical path as the data?
[13:28:38] <slblake> you mean same physical path
[13:30:06] <Toby M> what michael just said confuses me. If a packet is marked for termination, but you then tear down another flow, how do you know that other flow went through the congested node?
[13:30:31] <Toby M> I think it sounds an interesting idea...
[13:31:21] <Toby M> OK, that makes sense now...
[13:37:59] <slblake> I concur
[13:39:34] <slblake> bye guys
[13:39:54] <Toby M> bye
[13:40:03] Toby M leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/.
[13:40:46] jpgunn leaves the room
[13:40:55] velt leaves the room
[13:41:28] slblake leaves the room
[14:11:51] nestor.tiglao joins the room
[14:11:55] nestor.tiglao leaves the room
[14:18:22] nestor.tiglao joins the room
[14:18:31] nestor.tiglao leaves the room
[15:50:20] jlcJohn leaves the room