[07:27:37] --- mt has joined
[07:50:59] --- ks has joined
[07:52:26] --- scribe has joined
[07:53:02] <scribe> v6ops session IETF 61
[07:54:23] --- brabson has joined
[07:54:27] --- FP has joined
[07:54:27] --- mike has joined
[07:55:00] --- struk has joined
[07:59:01] --- nov has joined
[07:59:06] --- bruce has joined
[07:59:07] <scribe> OK, we're starting
[07:59:40] <scribe> Reviewing document status before the Enterprise analysis and then proposals for moving forward in v6ops
[08:00:17] <scribe> Agenda agreed
[08:00:48] --- torus has joined
[08:01:09] --- Yoshifumi Atarashi has joined
[08:01:29] --- ggm has joined
[08:01:37] <scribe> now on Enterprise Analysis Discussion, 15 mins, Bound - draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt
[08:03:11] --- Suresh Krishnan has joined
[08:03:16] <scribe> 1st input was questions about the matrix
[08:04:39] <scribe> dual-stack on the whole path is known
[08:04:49] --- brabson has left: Disconnected
[08:05:14] <scribe> will clarify ipv6 dominant to state it is ipv6 preferred but ipv4 present
[08:05:25] <scribe> no ipv6 only in matrix
[08:05:42] <scribe> not trying to address case 3 years out, we're looking 1-3 years
[08:06:00] <scribe> all dual stack, we're looking at manipulation of dual-stack
[08:06:27] <scribe> analysis only looking at layer 3, except basics like dns
[08:06:56] --- brabson has joined
[08:07:53] <scribe> clearing up v6 preferred case, and parallel v6 infrastructure case
[08:08:45] <scribe> authors are actually deploying hands-on
[08:09:19] <scribe> one thing being heard is 6to4 not being used in enterprise
[08:09:50] <bruce> query: is that politics or lack of technical clue?
[08:09:52] <scribe> can use vlans to carry v6 in an enterprise in a parallel v6 routed infrastructure
[08:10:10] <scribe> [answer: reality]
[08:10:22] <scribe> [my answer :)]
[08:10:32] <scribe> [want me to ask at mike?]
[08:10:52] <scribe> minor i-d edits being applied
[08:10:58] --- tskj has joined
[08:11:03] <scribe> filling out the sections
[08:11:13] <scribe> if no text, we'll drop the sections
[08:11:15] <bruce> if he doesn't provide a rationale for it otherwise, please.
[08:12:07] <scribe> [ok, my view is that 6to4 is not reliable for enterprise connectivity, sites will use manual tunnels, native or brokered above 6to4. Also means a renumbering down the line is required]
[08:12:13] --- vlevigneron has joined
[08:12:27] --- peterd has joined
[08:12:43] <scribe> Teredo, ISATAP and DSTM are being deployed in some cases
[08:13:17] <scribe> 3GPP is recommending ISATAP
[08:13:29] <scribe> So ISATAP almost becoming defacto
[08:13:59] <scribe> Will have non-normative references to solutions that solve certain problems
[08:14:12] <scribe> Seeing a lot of tunnel broker usage
[08:14:39] <scribe> [though I don't think within the enterprise...]
[08:15:16] <struk> chown (as bruce): why is 6to4 not being used?
[08:15:41] <scribe> [6to4 answer: bcause sites can get real prefixes]
[08:15:48] <struk> carpenter: i will be delighted if we didn't have 6to4 because it would mean ipv6 is being used
[08:15:54] --- dthaler has joined
[08:15:55] <scribe> Carpenter: won't object if not being included
[08:16:53] <scribe> Dave: will need ALGs for v6-v4 communication
[08:17:32] --- suz has joined
[08:17:42] <scribe> Durand: seeing any example of v4 sip to v6 sip?
[08:18:09] <scribe> Green: no
[08:18:56] <scribe> Dupres: v6 cannot talk to v4 without nat-pt
[08:19:07] <scribe> Pekka: scenario not discussed in WG
[08:19:24] <scribe> Pekka: out of scope, in my view, until understood better
[08:19:24] <bruce> [pity IP didn't have variable-length from the start ;)]
[08:19:48] <scribe> Bound: not projecting that far
[08:19:59] <scribe> Dupres: agree host should be dual stack
[08:20:28] <scribe> Tuy: proposed DSTM for this
[08:20:50] <scribe> Carpenter: some apps have performance issues so ALGs not practical, like iSCSI target
[08:21:41] <scribe> Carpenter: document needs to read less like an appendix
[08:22:07] <scribe> Bound: we were under time pressure, so we rushed the content and filled gaps, looks messy at the moment
[08:23:21] <scribe> Chown: any tools missing?
[08:24:02] <scribe> Bound: a lot of things Enterprise needs will be non-normative references, e.g. need for tunnel end points to be dicovered, Teredo, ISATAP, DSTM...
[08:24:22] <scribe> Jonne: will discuss in later agenda item, thanks JIm
[08:24:39] <scribe> Next up: discussion of way forward
[08:24:49] <scribe> - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/way-forward.pdf - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/v6ops-dow.txt - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/v6tc-charter.txt - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/v6tc-justification.txt - GOAL: discuss the scope of v6ops WG work; gain consensus on the way forward
[08:25:38] --- rdroms has joined
[08:26:02] <scribe> ent analysis has progressed, so we should talk about the next steps
[08:26:10] <scribe> [Jonne presenting]
[08:26:24] --- rdroms has left
[08:26:35] <scribe> Proposal is for two thrusts:
[08:26:47] <scribe> one is a new ipv6 tunnel configuration protocol WG
[08:26:57] <scribe> the other is a rechartered v6ops
[08:27:28] --- rdroms has joined
[08:27:29] <scribe> the v6tc WG would look at requirements that have emerged, and look at TEP discovery and TSP issues
[08:27:36] <scribe> that would be a new wg
[08:27:55] <scribe> v6ops would recharter to operational issues only, and feedback to other wgs
[08:28:14] <scribe> new v6ops would look at security concerns, and deployment scenarios
[08:28:31] <scribe> also v4 in v6 tunneling, looking further out
[08:28:40] <scribe> and mobility transition scenarios
[08:28:51] <scribe> and a forum for v6 operational issues
[08:28:58] --- dinakar has joined
[08:29:26] --- xd has joined
[08:29:28] <scribe> Individual submissions to IESG would be possible, like Teredo has done
[08:30:24] <scribe> Kessens (AD): important thing is about ops charter that we are in currently, protocol work should happen in internet area
[08:30:45] <scribe> Kessens: we want quick progress, and get something rolling asap
[08:31:10] <scribe> Soliman: on new wg, mobility part is going under operational issues?
[08:31:38] <scribe> Soininen: still some mobility scenario analysis to be done
[08:31:56] <scribe> Soliman: i don't see it as an operational issue
[08:32:41] <scribe> Savola: new WG proposed to be focused
[08:33:06] <scribe> Savola: mobility transition could be clarified when we look at the charter
[08:34:24] <scribe> Kurtis: new v6ops charter is vague - is it some nanog thing?
[08:34:41] <scribe> Kurtis - no deliverables, so why have a v6ops at all?
[08:34:57] --- sra has joined
[08:35:13] <scribe> Durand: could new v6ops be a nursery for new WGs?
[08:36:35] <scribe> durand: documenting experiences, like campus transition example, what was tried and worked and didn't work
[08:36:46] <scribe> Durand: no strong preference
[08:38:13] <scribe> Kniveton: for nemo we need to optimally do transition scenarios, hoping to bring some of that here, but so far mobility work has been split into separate wg in which theres no email messages? if this is one solutionfor all scenarios, then how ill everything be merged ? how will that deal with needs of other wgs?
[08:38:43] <scribe> Soininen: v6ops would not do new protocols, would be elsewhere
[08:39:23] <scribe> Bound: work in hope to continue to work on mechanisms, was fine, done that, and now we dropped the continuing to work on transition mechanisms? Is that right?
[08:39:41] <scribe> Soininen: we now know what we need and mechanism requirements
[08:39:54] <scribe> Savola: we have consensus on one kind of mechanism we need
[08:40:07] <scribe> Soininen: Teredo going standards track as individual
[08:40:21] <scribe> Soininen: 6PE going in routing area somewhere
[08:41:24] <scribe> Soininen: not trying to clamp down on real protocol work, trying to kcik it off, but not in v6ops
[08:42:07] <scribe> Bound: no way to do new protocol work here, tried it in ngtrans. dishnonourable again.
[08:42:27] <scribe> Bound: so will happen externally to IETF, in other bodies
[08:42:43] <scribe> Bound: so will see 3GPP and ISATAP example again
[08:43:05] <scribe> Kessens: have situations with no agreement
[08:43:20] <scribe> Kessens: conclude milestones reached and move on
[08:43:34] <scribe> Kessens: in new wg for identified work
[08:43:47] --- ggm has left
[08:44:03] <scribe> Bound: some vendor agendas have won, some people on technical front have been dishonoured twice doing the best thing
[08:44:18] <scribe> Kessens: You can do an individual submission
[08:44:50] <scribe> Soininen: we're syaing to work in focused WGs, not in v6ops in analysis
[08:45:16] <scribe> Soininen: we have jumped through hoops and can now do real stuff, aim is to work on real solutions
[08:45:25] <scribe> Bound: will try, but three times, well...
[08:46:39] <scribe> Huitema: Understand Jim's angle, v6ops experment was started as a way to slow down transition, and now transition development no longer led by IETF, so IESG has to recognise the lesson that process must not be used to slow development, not a good thing to do
[08:46:59] <scribe> Huitema: IESG has created resentment and should be recognised
[08:47:16] <scribe> Soininen: some people not working here any more
[08:47:37] <scribe> Huiitema: nice if IESG statement admitted the mistake
[08:47:54] <scribe> Huitema: cannot turn clock back
[08:48:29] <scribe> Hain: will new WG proposals get a fair hearing?
[08:49:00] <scribe> Kessens: problem is protocol work is internet area
[08:49:40] <scribe> [Wasserman just arrived]
[08:50:08] <scribe> Hain: is this another stalling tactic?
[08:50:59] <scribe> Wasserman: whole point is to spawn appropriate work to new WGs in appropriate areas
[08:51:25] <scribe> Wasserman: avoid BoF for tunneling WG
[08:51:47] <scribe> Savola: one thing is rough proposed charter for v6ops
[08:52:21] <scribe> Savola: need to tweak proposed charter for v6ops
[08:53:11] --- ggm has joined
[08:54:00] <xd>
[08:54:04] <scribe> Savola: removing item 7 from current charter
[08:54:46] <scribe> Savola: for the new WG, I added some milestones/documents
[08:55:16] <scribe> - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/v6ops-dow.txt
[08:55:24] <scribe> contains the proposal
[08:55:51] <scribe> Security overview is important
[08:56:58] <scribe> At least 5 good topics to work on
[08:57:20] --- becarpenter has joined
[08:57:39] <struk>
[08:58:18] <scribe> Dupres: difference between looking at needs and solutions. some things may be outsourced, but should look at solutions
[08:59:38] <scribe> Chown: multicast is important in transition
[09:00:03] <scribe> Wasserman: generally support the v6ops idea as proposed moving on from analysis and do operational work
[09:00:57] <scribe> Wasserman: need some more in apps advice area, not sure to remove it. i'm not AD here, but i don't like hard "not work on foo" rules. is that necessary? should not be intent of group to standardise things, but shouldn't mandate it could never happen
[09:01:16] <scribe> Wasserman: might update standards?
[09:01:49] <scribe> Wasserman: group should do "how do i deploy" work
[09:01:53] --- dthaler has left: Disconnected
[09:02:35] <scribe> Thaler: confused by title of 1st charter item, so maybe "use of ipsec by tunneling protocols" would be better, so dont make it sound like a protocol
[09:03:33] <scribe> Thaler: for process, this is a mini BoF for v6tc wg. on Hain issue of new WGs spinning out, will this BoF-skipping be a precident, same process or is this a one off?
[09:03:42] <scribe> Wasserman: BoF not required anyway
[09:04:12] <scribe> Wasserman: v6tc people represented well here, multicast people not
[09:04:28] <scribe> Soininen: is this a gatekeeper WG?
[09:06:31] <struk> hain: little problem with trimmed-down charter; but "why does this wg have 'v6' in the title at all" - shouldn't v6 pervade all wgs?
[09:06:57] <struk> savola: attempts to push work to other wg has succeeded in part (e.g. to dnsop)
[09:07:22] <struk> savola: if wgs already exist and have the issues in their charter then "of course"
[09:07:49] <struk> chown: risk of repetition of work - e.g. 6 or 7 different tunnelling approaches to tunnelling
[09:08:31] --- torus has left
[09:09:04] <scribe> Kurtis: feeling (as devils advocate) we have v6 supporters in one room and rest of world in another - we should hand things over, eg tunnel_ipsec to ipsec wg?
[09:09:23] <scribe> Savola: here we specify requirement, ipsec wg would do a solution not describe work?
[09:09:47] <scribe> Kurtis: avoid keeping the division
[09:10:01] <scribe> Kurtis also other wgs may not care or want to do the work
[09:10:10] <scribe> Savola: so do you have a proposal?
[09:10:17] <scribe> Kurtis: talk to other WGs
[09:10:52] <scribe> Kessens: I agree with Kurtis - go through the list
[09:11:20] <scribe> Kessens: should be focused, not do other wg work
[09:12:28] <scribe> Palet: move as much to other wgs as possible, but we have security issues that may not be adopted by security wg... what then?
[09:12:53] <scribe> Savola: depends on reason - time or technical... maybe force it bya BoF?
[09:13:20] <scribe> Savola: now look at tunneling WG charter
[09:14:35] <scribe> milestones are optimistic yet realistic
[09:14:45] <scribe> see - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/v6tc-charter.txt
[09:14:55] <scribe> and - http://netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/61/v6tc-justification.txt
[09:16:06] <scribe> Savola: in answer to Neilsen, we will select one solution
[09:16:24] <scribe> Neilsen: but what to do with full set of requirements for zct?
[09:16:50] <scribe> Carpenter: paragraph 1 is clumsy, make it clear this is based on input document list
[09:16:59] <scribe> Savola: will wordsmith
[09:18:17] <scribe> Soinine: questions!
[09:18:41] <scribe> Is this clear enough?
[09:18:47] --- arifumi has joined
[09:19:04] <scribe> Lots of hands yes, very few no
[09:19:24] <scribe> Bound: evolutionary ability to add things... not clear how to do that
[09:19:38] <scribe> Bound: must justify via a process - what is that?
[09:19:54] <scribe> Bound: you answered it, write it down
[09:20:06] <scribe> Kessens: room to change/add to this draft charter
[09:20:31] <scribe> Savola: were some conerns on mobility
[09:20:56] <scribe> Mumbled name: share the concern on lack of how to do the mobility+transition stuff
[09:21:16] <scribe> Soininen: mobility+transition Bof?
[09:21:38] <scribe> Wasserman: we have ways to start new wg, so we dont want v6ops to be a mechanism for that. you do a bof or you talk to that wg
[09:21:52] <scribe> [to start new wor, that is]
[09:22:31] <ggm> [ --> O <--]
[09:22:40] <ggm> that was a picture of my navel. please gaze at it.
[09:22:47] <ggm> (sigh)
[09:23:17] <scribe> Dupres: i'm not clear
[09:23:33] <scribe> wasserman: need show of hands on whether we have new wg
[09:24:33] <scribe> Durand: keep the two issues seoarate (new wg, v6ops scope)
[09:25:13] <scribe> Vote:
[09:25:22] <scribe> many hands for, 2 against
[09:25:42] <scribe> for new wg to be taken forward (via ADs, whatever)
[09:26:00] <scribe> Palet: IF wg can be set up quickly
[09:26:28] <scribe> Huitema: issue of trust between iesg and v6ops, hence jordi's question
[09:27:23] <scribe> Huitema: new wg would help rebuild trust. also, some beaurocratic failure may make situation worse
[09:27:49] <scribe> Wasserman: we're all boxed in in some way
[09:28:38] <scribe> Wasserman: community wants to do tunneling work, need to check aggressive dates in charter, look at chairs, etc, but cant say "we'll not restrict v6ops until new WG forms"
[09:29:30] <scribe> Metzger: this is amazing. an hour on this is well beyond scope of metatriviality!
[09:30:28] <scribe> Durand: on trust, in spring 2002, when i was chair, we put a ban in place due to iesg decree, today is opportunity to lift the ban and create a new wg with work.
[09:30:40] <scribe> Kessens: there is no ban
[09:30:43] <ggm> I'm interested how you 'join' the IETF. can I have an application form from Perry maybe?
[09:30:55] <struk> :]
[09:31:08] <scribe> [heh]
[09:31:32] --- dthaler has joined
[09:31:49] <scribe> Palet: need to change way wg is managed. it's not fair, serialised work where parallel could have worked
[09:32:20] <scribe> Kessens: reason of this proposal is to do this, wg is too big, this will help focus it
[09:33:10] <scribe> Soininen: should we recharter v6ops?
[09:33:21] <scribe> by limiting scope
[09:33:57] <scribe> Dupres: restrict more than just by losing tunneling to a new wg?
[09:34:02] --- torus has joined
[09:34:32] <scribe> Carpenter: lets just vote
[09:34:36] <struk> * becarpenter applies a virtual guillotine
[09:34:51] <scribe> yes, lots, no, 2
[09:34:54] <scribe> consensus
[09:35:18] --- Koojana has joined
[09:35:34] <scribe> three tunneling requirments docs - where do they go?
[09:35:41] <scribe> Durand: obvious - to new WG
[09:36:17] <scribe> Wasserman: takes 2 weeks from IESG telechat, one of which is next week
[09:36:45] <scribe> Wasserman: make the list, do the work, wg will be there in a few weeks
[09:37:01] <scribe> durand: let's trust and move on from analysis paralysis
[09:37:13] <scribe> Soininen: onto agenda
[09:37:40] <scribe> Next item:
[09:37:41] <scribe> IPv6 Network Architecture Protection, 10 mins, Van de Velde - draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt
[09:38:06] --- brabson has left: Disconnected
[09:39:02] <scribe> Looking at how to give "functionality" of v4 nat with v6 with no NAT
[09:39:20] --- brabson has joined
[09:45:15] <scribe> Durand: unclear on topology hiding technique
[09:46:01] <scribe> Pascal T...: could use ULA in mobility so only home address visible from outside
[09:46:12] <scribe> Pascal: for the hiding
[09:47:55] <scribe> VdVelde: so we have gap analysis amd will work on this
[09:48:11] <struk> chown: thinks that this is a good example of v6ops 'new charter'
[09:48:22] --- Koojana has left
[09:48:27] <struk> chown: masking technique - could be a doc on its own, e.g. tying in with port-scanning draft
[09:48:47] <struk> savola; how many have read? (a fair few)
[09:49:09] <scribe> Savola: appropriate for WG?
[09:49:16] <scribe> vote: 15-20 yes, 0 no
[09:49:52] <scribe> not wg item (yet)
[09:49:55] <scribe> Next up:
[09:50:05] <scribe> Reason to Deprecate NAT-PT, 15 mins, Davies - draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt
[09:50:33] <Suresh Krishnan> exit
[09:50:41] --- Suresh Krishnan has left
[09:50:50] <scribe> Davies: looking at nat-pt and whether should be deprecated
[09:51:15] <scribe> specifically siit and dns-alg
[09:51:35] <scribe> NAT-PT is rfc2766
[09:51:48] <scribe> not clear if dns-alg is mandatory
[09:53:19] <scribe> list seems to think issues are tied down here
[09:54:15] --- sra has left
[09:54:44] <scribe> some scenarios identified
[09:54:52] <scribe> high peformance services
[09:55:10] <scribe> fronting legacy server
[09:55:32] <scribe> 3gpp ims
[09:55:51] <scribe> v6 only devices connected to v4 only devices, cited as "military" scenario
[09:57:36] <scribe> Savola: ims case unclear - ims wouldn't need this? would operator want to use one pdp context?
[09:57:48] <scribe> Davies: some vendors cannot do multiple pdp contexts
[09:58:06] <scribe> Soininen: rtp proxy or similar would do, doesnt need nat-pt, butneeds translation
[09:58:59] <scribe> So what next?
[09:59:16] <scribe> Deprecate? Turn into applicability document? Make Experimental?
[10:00:15] <scribe> Durand: deprecate nat-pt means 2766, not translation in general, make it clear in draft. Also 4th option is deprecate 2766, and look at replacement where needed
[10:00:23] --- dudi has joined
[10:00:38] <scribe> Avoids the can't deprecate while no replacement issue
[10:00:56] <scribe> Hain: lets have this as standalone doc to discuss 2766
[10:01:22] <scribe> Hain: lack of ietf agreed scenario does not mean we dont need to deal with it as vendors
[10:01:55] <scribe> Hain: how much standards work, how much reality, where is interoperability statement?
[10:03:52] <scribe> Huitema: flip side of Hain, has many drawbacks, so make Experimental quickly, to avoid it being in procurement requests while its a "blessed" IETF RFC
[10:04:50] <scribe> Savola: support that... experimental, publish this doc, then consider
[10:05:15] <scribe> Anon: dns-alg is only issue
[10:05:31] <scribe> Savola: in specific scenarios, but also requested where it is neeeded, hence a problem
[10:07:55] <scribe> Vote: make it experimental?
[10:08:01] <scribe> yes lots, no 1
[10:08:05] <scribe> consensus
[10:08:51] <scribe> durand: look on watersprings.org for alternatives (nat64?)
[10:09:00] <scribe> Next up:
[10:09:38] <scribe> ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks, 15 mins, Popoviciu - draft-asadullah-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-01.txt
[10:10:35] <scribe> goal is informational doc from operational experience
[10:11:17] --- dthaler has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:11:21] --- dthaler has joined
[10:11:28] --- dthaler has left
[10:11:49] --- dthaler has joined
[10:16:08] <scribe> Vote: good work?
[10:16:13] <scribe> Some yes, no no
[10:16:18] <scribe> Next up:
[10:16:26] <scribe> IPv6 Fix: an activity to solve barriers to IPv6 transition, 7-10 mins, Tatuya - A new WIDE project to fix practical IPv6 deployment issues
[10:19:17] <scribe> see http://v6fix.net
[10:19:33] <scribe> note problems, workarounds, issues
[10:20:21] <scribe> Savola: very important
[10:20:29] <scribe> contact Jinmei
[10:21:09] <scribe> contact details will be added to that webpage!
[10:21:12] <struk> (once he has put contact details up on the page ;-)
[10:21:13] <scribe> Next up:
[10:21:15] <scribe> Discussion of Teredo IETF LC comments, 5 mins, Huitema - draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt
[10:23:03] <scribe> Huitema: 2 types of comments
[10:23:08] <scribe> small typos
[10:23:56] <scribe> general questions, like why uses udp
[10:24:14] <scribe> why no anycast to find teredo server?
[10:24:51] <scribe> iesg thought bad due to anycast src address problem
[10:26:13] <scribe> issue of multiple users in local net
[10:26:19] <scribe> - pick random port to start
[10:26:33] <scribe> was not prevented before, left to imagination of developers
[10:26:59] <scribe> open question of teredo sunset procedure
[10:27:12] --- becarpenter has left
[10:28:13] <scribe> should be published soon
[10:28:20] --- brabson has left
[10:28:21] --- Yoshifumi Atarashi has left
[10:28:32] <scribe> wg done, some agenda items dropped due to time
[10:28:34] --- suz has left
[10:28:35] --- tskj has left
[10:28:53] --- mike has left: Disconnected.
[10:29:09] --- scribe has left
[10:29:12] --- nov has left
[10:29:27] --- FP has left
[10:29:34] --- dudi has left
[10:29:44] --- ks has left
[10:29:51] --- torus has left
[10:30:15] --- dinakar has left
[10:31:04] --- mt has left: Logged out
[10:31:30] --- bruce has left
[10:32:50] --- rdroms has left: Disconnected
[10:33:35] --- struk has left
[10:33:52] --- dthaler has left: Disconnected
[10:37:21] --- xd has left: Disconnected.
[10:44:57] --- peterd has left
[10:47:53] --- arifumi has left: Logged out
[10:49:42] --- vlevigneron has left: Disconnected
[12:01:16] --- vlevigneron has joined
[12:07:16] --- struk has joined
[12:37:49] --- struk has left
[13:31:24] --- becarpenter has joined
[13:31:35] --- becarpenter has left
[14:15:50] --- ggm has left: Disconnected
[14:16:28] --- vlevigneron has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:16:29] --- vlevigneron has joined
[16:11:28] --- bozo-on-the-bus has joined
[16:11:35] --- bozo-on-the-bus has left
[16:25:27] --- vlevigneron has left