[02:09:24] Don Hoffman joins the room [02:10:07] Don Hoffman leaves the room [06:06:25] lmwangi joins the room [06:18:26] lmwangi leaves the room [07:30:42] mc joins the room [14:17:46] lmwangi joins the room [14:42:40] cbyrne joins the room [14:51:18] jmohacsi@gmail.com joins the room [14:52:09] jmohacsi@gmail.com leaves the room [15:11:06] lmwangi leaves the room [15:44:10] Mark Townsley joins the room [15:51:49] jlaganie joins the room [15:55:05] lebb joins the room [15:55:16] donley.chris joins the room [15:58:26] kbransom@gmail.com joins the room [15:58:47] suz joins the room [15:58:56] suz leaves the room [16:00:07] Atarashi Yoshifumi joins the room [16:00:29] Barbara joins the room [16:00:31] Wes joins the room [16:00:55] shinmiyakawa joins the room [16:02:14] Donald Hoffman joins the room [16:03:01] jha joins the room [16:03:39] Ole Troan joins the room [16:04:30] suz joins the room [16:06:14] tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo joins the room [16:06:56] jha leaves the room [16:07:31] tetsuya.innami joins the room [16:07:33] I can't seem to hear the audio feed [16:07:38] same here. [16:07:55] same here [16:07:57] Neither can I -- I tried videolab.uoregon and limestone.uoregon [16:07:59] I'm listen through Ole's skype, but the quality stinks. [16:08:16] does anyone know how to report this? [16:08:22] Akira Nakagawa joins the room [16:08:33] I just said something [16:08:40] Thank you. [16:08:44] Would be nice to listen. [16:08:44] mellon joins the room [16:09:10] becarpenter joins the room [16:09:15] narten joins the room [16:09:15] multiple interfaces in huntington is working [16:09:22] I'll try to transcribe some [16:09:26] kurtis joins the room [16:09:28] woodyat talking about his draft [16:09:34] scenario overview slide [16:09:42] firewall isa managed security barrier [16:09:42] pellepolis@gmail.com joins the room [16:09:52] Ron went to find someone that can look at the audio [16:09:53] these come out of the box in factory config, with minimal changes to initial config [16:09:54] unmanaged [16:10:04] would be good to know what the default is, because we know it won't be changed [16:10:16] similariies w/ ipv4/nat [16:10:27] ietfdbh joins the room [16:10:59] all of the things that you're used to doing with ipv4 nat are still necessary for filtering [16:11:17] desirable for hole-punching protos that don't currently exist [16:11:22] arifumi joins the room [16:11:30] upnp /igd ipv4 only [16:11:41] nm joins the room [16:12:04] Colman Ho joins the room [16:12:50] hole punching protos for passive listeners that know they're getting info from outside, but not exactly from where [16:12:54] special ipv6 considerations slide [16:13:19] fujisaki.tomohiro joins the room [16:13:35] teredo blocked because you're an IPv6 gateway, and it makes sense to phase that out [16:13:42] recent updates slide [16:13:52] -10 revision he's working on [16:14:02] mostly editorial changes from 09 to 10 [16:14:13] hartmans@mit.edu/barnowl joins the room [16:14:14] removed default allow for VPN protos [16:14:16] mohsen joins the room [16:14:34] open issues slide [16:14:41] getting ready to open for q&A [16:14:49] I didn't catch why you'd remove the default allow for VPN protocols? [16:14:57] he didn't really explain [16:15:18] Wow, it's getting worse then. [16:15:36] (to Sam about removing even more default allow functionality) [16:15:39] I can ask a question about it if you type here [16:15:41] It's a very depressing topic. [16:15:56] There is not need to be depressed. No need to be silent. [16:16:28] jweil@jabber.org joins the room [16:16:38] dave thaler at mic [16:16:41] I'm in the room [16:16:52] It's depressing because it's probably necessary to do something like this because hosts aren't secure. [16:16:55] satoru.matsushima joins the room [16:17:00] audio is up [16:17:04] observe that you made 2 statements - problem that was not solved re stun and turn [16:17:08] agree [16:17:13] IPv6 hosts are all shipped with their own IPv6 firewalls. [16:17:22] IPv6 hosts generally have IPv6 firewalls ... they are not legacy [16:17:24] And, what evidence do you have that IPv6 hosts are not secure? [16:17:24] Joel is working on the audio in the back [16:17:30] Wes Beebee joins the room [16:17:31] audio working for me. [16:17:32] Sure, Windows 95 isn't, but that's not IPv6 enabled. [16:17:51] issues with teredo blocked by default to not block/bypass simple sec [16:18:05] ie things aren't allowed to punch holes because that would break security [16:18:08] please clarify [16:18:19] woodyat - teredo specifies that it should be sunset [16:18:33] so he made an exception to encourage sunsetting when native v6 is available [16:18:58] But what if the guy I'm talking to is running Teredo [16:19:08] thaler: point is simple security is providing v6, then it's ok to block teredo, but it doesn't necessarily have implications of security [16:19:15] Bob joins the room [16:19:28] Imposing transition selection policy with a firewall. [16:20:09] sorry, I missed daves' second point regarding teredo host mode [16:20:26] he was talking about teredo relay [16:20:28] fdupont joins the room [16:20:51] Dave Dugal joins the room [16:20:53] if you're blocking teredo, maybe it's a good idea to put in a teredo relay at the gw if you're ipv6 [16:21:26] jha joins the room [16:21:32] dave's point was that teredo relay provided by a host inside the network would be blocked, according to this recommendation. [16:21:39] weperhaps remove recommendation to remove teredo because it's not really a security considering [16:22:13] sam - block teredo = block 3524, not IPv6 packets destined to a teredo address [16:22:27] sorry 3544 [16:22:36] jha leaves the room [16:23:16] i would argue that security is hard enough, we should focus on what we actually need to get security, and if we want to make other recommendations about transition those should be in their own doc [16:23:28] fred - let's distinguish between security and wishlists [16:23:40] That said, Thaler has an entire document on IP Tunnels and Security. [16:23:47] Perhaps that needs to be referenced at the very least. [16:23:49] any objection to removing this from his draft? [16:23:57] the recomm to block teredo that is [16:24:05] consensus among speakers agree [16:24:22] I also think this document would be more useful if it addresses v6 security not v4 security... [16:24:34] brian carpenter - I'm Mark Townsley (no I'm brian carpenter) - request for transparency [16:24:53] normnative preamble to the doc - 2 alternatives [16:25:07] if you want simple security, you should implement recommendations 1-n in this doc [16:25:19] if you don't want that, and want your cpe to be transparent, then don't implement [16:25:38] woodyat - what do we recommend as the default config? [16:25:44] brian - we don't [16:26:20] would you support the draft if i edit to say that IETF doesn't recommend a default, instead of "on"? [16:26:21] I think Brian's recommendation is good. Don't make any recommendation. [16:26:38] solve the debate between the two approcaches by not recommending one or the other [16:27:13] lorenzo colitti - operational issues - blocking teredo might make things suddenly stop working [16:27:15] Right. Simple-security is just "IF you want to do this thing described in 4864, here is the recommended way to do it." [16:27:28] lebb leaves the room [16:28:16] #2 -security attacks over the last 5 years all use different attack vectors - affected hosts often behind the nat [16:28:33] #3 - have we been in contact with operations people deploying IPv6 asked them if they see increase in attacks [16:28:54] are they eagerly awaiting a draft or are they happy with default allow [16:29:01] today, there's no filtering and we're happy with that [16:29:07] And number 9... [16:29:08] Lorenzo - this is the beginning of modern IPv6 threat analysis that we need before making any recommendations. Thank you. [16:29:10] lebb joins the room [16:29:11] Oh, and number 13... [16:29:21] jinmei joins the room [16:29:22] IPv6 threats != IPv4 threats [16:29:36] because IPv6 devices != IPv4 devices [16:29:37] app threats = app threats [16:29:40] today [16:29:57] #4 we are countering old threats and making ipv6 less capable on day one because to make it secure by using protocols that don't exist [16:30:12] remi despres - millions of customers have used IPv6, no report /complain of security problems [16:30:15] Agree that app threats == app threats, which is why any serious firewall needs to be run at L4+ anyway [16:30:44] no problem thanks to apple, ms and others, there are protection in the host [16:30:54] he's making mark's earlier point. [16:31:05] security recommendations helpful for hosts [16:31:18] it's a good point, happy for anyone to make it. [16:31:43] some people want the nat-like protection and they are free to have it, but the default must be as it is today - transparency [16:31:58] Suzanne joins the room [16:32:03] lee howard - opposite - default deny is good [16:32:09] i lvoe my users but don't trust htem [16:32:20] hosts not actually ready to provide that level of security yet [16:32:26] ole troan [16:33:03] referenced this doc as tool in toolbox but nothinga bout on by default [16:33:07] up to the operator [16:33:27] bbf is not planning that this be turned on [16:33:32] bob hinden [16:33:47] attackers using ipv4 and primarily attack windows [16:33:54] they're going to move to IPv6 as it becomes availab [16:34:05] ewould be naiive to assume that because they'r enot there now, they won't be later [16:34:16] we need to not wait until attacks start to deal with this [16:34:17] doug otis [16:34:33] been analysing attack code to predict where they're going - starting todeploy ipv6 libraries [16:34:41] haven't seen it hit in a big way yet, but it's coming [16:34:57] erik kline - but does default deny change any of that? [16:35:11] lebb leaves the room [16:35:27] IPv6 is not IPv4, just like your Windows machine is not a MAC machine. [16:35:36] lorenzo - who are we trying to work for, isps ,users, or someone else [16:35:43] isps have a hammer they can filter whatever they want [16:35:48] The theats, the benefits, etc are all different. [16:36:15] the usersare the ones that do not have a voice in this forum and we should try to find out their interest [16:36:19] You'd be insane to run unpatched Windows XP without a virus scanner, because the evidence shows us that. [16:36:28] lee howard [16:36:29] We run our Apple machines without a scanner all the time. [16:36:41] I never use a virus scanner. [16:36:46] isps can block in their networlk, but doesn't scale, too much state to maintain, privacy issues - users don't want isps to track state [16:37:00] kurtis - next steps? [16:37:17] personal preference without company hat: 1st option: transparency, 2nd option: state 2 alternatives [16:37:32] the problem is that this whole security model is flawed - attackers will attack the attack vector that's most open, and that's _always_ the end user. [16:38:06] woodyat - this doc is trying to define what applications developers can expect is in place in the average end network [16:38:16] Ole's laptop skype connection is breaking up, I've lost audio. [16:38:20] Anyone else get the feed? [16:38:31] baker -we want a doc that describes default deny, a doc that describes more open [16:38:35] Reflective session state firewalls (as mentioned in RFC 4864) will be implemented. The choice for the IETF is whether to describe *how* to do this, or not. [16:38:38] NOMADE2-VL joins the room [16:38:46] Mark, supposedly the audio feed is working now. [16:38:49] mark: this works now: http://limestone.uoregon.edu:8001/ietf773.mp3 [16:38:53] Ole Troan leaves the room [16:38:56] Wow, Ole's laptop sounded better than the audio feed. [16:38:58] tweak recommendation 41 that says default should be on, by deleting default should be on, make changes to the overview [16:39:03] shtsuchi joins the room [16:39:10] ok so people are hearing the feed again? [16:39:16] Ole Troan joins the room [16:39:24] Default is irrelevant. The key is to describe how to do a reflective session state firewall. [16:39:30] going to last call after -10 changed to reflect this discussion [16:39:38] NOMADE2-VL leaves the room [16:39:38] Audio feed is great. [16:39:42] ok good [16:39:46] I'll stop typing so much [16:39:58] we're on advanced-ipv6-security [16:40:00] Thanks for hanging in there until now wes [16:40:06] :) You've been doing a great job, Wes. [16:40:06] Much appreciated. [16:40:16] Wish I could be there! [16:40:35] Fenghua joins the room [16:40:52] Vincent (AFNIC) joins the room [16:40:56] Please > Mark :-) Still you can come here before next session on Friday [16:41:36] trond joins the room [16:42:00] overview slide [16:42:10] why important to v6 slide [16:42:24] Thanks for the invite, Shin, but these little girls get the prioirity this time: [16:42:25] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3744435&id=552692665 [16:42:34] -00 at IETF76 [16:42:35] Fenghua leaves the room [16:42:41] Shane Amante joins the room [16:43:27] I'd rather see advanced security fleshed out before I figure out what recommendations we make on simple security [16:43:36] Ole Troan leaves the room [16:43:46] advanced security seems like a recipe for heisenbugs. [16:44:18] @hartmans: but the DOCSIS and broadband people are designing products already [16:44:22] +1 Sam. Both need a good IPv6 threat anlysis. [16:45:03] after ietf77 slide [16:45:04] One thing about advanced-sec is that since it focuses more on L4+, and is very adaptable in general, it's a bit easier I think to move forward without the data I would like to see on v6 [16:45:07] questions? [16:45:15] bob hinden at mic [16:45:25] Ole Troan joins the room [16:46:53] It has to be better than simple-security though. [16:47:04] when you don't even have a reputation. [16:48:01] These things always worry me because it's so easy to wind up with an IP address that has a bad reputation. [16:48:34] Lee: That's sort of why it might need to be a standard defined in the IETF, so that you don't have to rely on one reputation database. [16:48:35] cdlilj joins the room [16:50:27] Janos Mohacsi joins the room [16:50:32] Janos Mohacsi leaves the room [16:50:56] ooh, really good point from the guy at the mic. [16:51:48] Yes, this is always an arms race. But, at least this gives you a weapon in the game. [16:54:34] when your roof is leaking, a gun will not help you to stay dry. [16:55:40] tunnel security concerns draft now [16:55:50] Ted, I'd be happy to throw both of them out. But, once we crossed the line into solving this in the IETF, I felt like we needed to take a look at all the possiblity of solutions rather than "simply" copying IPv4. That's why the advanced document exists. [16:55:52] security devices/software slide [16:56:20] yeah, I understand, and I think if I had to choose one or the other I'd choose yours. [16:56:42] Scott Brim joins the room [16:57:01] however, I really wish there were people as smart as the people at the IETF working on solving the usability problems that are creating these requirements. [16:57:04] brian.bnsmith joins the room [16:57:10] dealing with security devices [16:57:41] kurtis leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [16:57:42] kurtis joins the room [16:59:25] yes [16:59:58] shane, can you channel me in this session, if necessary? [17:00:23] That would be really interesting to watch... [17:00:32] Mellon: For advanced security, the idea is for the usability to be simple for the user. Often, for something to be simple to a user, it requires a lot of back-end complexity (insert your favorite iPhone analogy here). With advanced security, you have your management tether back "home" to keep your security in check. A least that is the idea. [17:00:54] I will [17:01:42] managed security is definitely better than unmanaged when you are running perforated operating systems. [17:05:49] can we get page numbers on the 3G presentation? [17:06:07] these slides don't have page numbers. [17:06:49] hmmm well the numebr that microsoft uses in Power point? [17:07:24] he's currently on the slie titled Access Point Name concept cont'd. [17:07:28] slide [17:07:33] thanks [17:08:02] That would be slide 8 [17:08:15] Now on Address Management slide. [17:08:31] jpc joins the room [17:09:37] Now slide 10 [17:14:35] tetsuya.innami leaves the room [17:16:03] hp joins the room [17:16:45] sureshk joins the room [17:18:17] Cameron joins the room [17:22:01] valuable to 3GPP as well :-) [17:23:09] Dave Thaler joins the room [17:24:35] outline slide IPv6 mobile [17:24:51] 3gpp 4g/3g arch [17:24:55] The speaker is overdriving the mic. [17:24:58] rjnh joins the room [17:25:35] is it making it unintelligible, or is it ok? [17:26:09] It's distorted at some times. If he can pull the mic away from his mouth a bit, it would be MUCH better [17:26:19] As a sometime audio engineer, I always want to run up and throttle the speaker when he or she holds a lapel mic in front of his or her face. [17:26:31] yeah, I'm with you there [17:27:33] What slide? [17:27:46] address exhaustion [17:28:02] tetsuya.innami joins the room [17:28:21] jpc leaves the room [17:28:40] stupid gsm phones [17:28:58] he is wearing the mic now, better? [17:29:06] Comment for the floor - there are smart phones out there now that are already modeling always-on (i.e. the iphone) in 3g networks. [17:29:07] he pinned it to his shirt, yes. [17:29:11] thank you. [17:29:21] rjnh is now known as rjncgh [17:29:31] ok I'll take that to the mic [17:29:39] rjncgh leaves the room [17:29:44] thx [17:30:03] thrasher joins the room [17:30:12] zaitsu joins the room [17:30:55] Just as FYI. T-Mobile USA has a working IPv6-only friendly user trial in progress. It was demo'd at the 3GPP-IETF meeting in SF. Using a nokia phone that only has IPv6, i have not yet found any user experience issues. All apps work correctly that i have tried. NAT64/DNS64 in the network to translate IPv4/v6. The point being, IPv6-only to mobile devices is viable path forward in light of IPv4 exhaustion. [17:30:56] ryuji joins the room [17:31:02] now on nat placement in mobile network slide [17:31:06] Thank's wes. [17:33:04] Vincent (AFNIC) leaves the room: Replaced by new connection. [17:33:08] Vincent (AFNIC) joins the room [17:33:39] thrasher leaves the room [17:33:44] Is there a way to join the t-mobile USA trial? [17:34:00] Yes, contact me off-list [17:34:27] ipv6 transition points slides [17:36:18] ipv6-only deployments slide [17:38:07] Patrik Wallström joins the room [17:39:55] input from ML slide [17:41:31] philip joins the room [17:41:54] other input slide [17:42:21] Thank's for the scribing work, wes. [17:43:00] sure. I don't remember them actually asking for j scribes, at least not in the room [17:43:14] summary [17:44:23] Scott Brim leaves the room [17:44:38] cbyrne leaves the room: offline [17:45:09] Suzanne leaves the room [17:45:15] Donald Hoffman leaves the room [17:45:27] tina zhou at mic [17:45:33] sorry tsou [17:45:36] arifumi leaves the room [17:46:24] Patrik Wallström leaves the room [17:46:30] Patrik Wallström joins the room [17:48:14] sri gundavelli at mic [17:48:34] Thank's for jumping in then, wes. [17:48:52] chris morrow [17:49:06] jlaganie leaves the room [17:49:30] Vincent (AFNIC) leaves the room: Replaced by new connection. [17:49:30] Vincent (AFNIC) joins the room [17:50:51] yu kyung joins the room [17:51:10] yu kyung leaves the room [17:51:39] yu kyung joins the room [17:52:31] satoru.matsushima leaves the room [17:52:43] Donald Hoffman joins the room [17:53:46] ok so Jonne finally ansewred Brian's question by saying the audience for this one is operators [17:54:24] backround slide [17:54:57] behcet.sarikaya joins the room [17:56:03] ryuji leaves the room [17:56:05] zaitsu leaves the room [17:56:22] Shane Amante leaves the room [17:56:46] observation anda question [17:57:09] Melinda joins the room [17:58:07] Shane Amante joins the room [17:58:34] kbransom@gmail.com leaves the room [17:58:50] alternatives to ipv4 address in delegated prefix construction [17:59:41] Shane Amante leaves the room [18:00:24] stateless pd addressing proposal [18:01:37] cdlilj leaves the room [18:01:45] Shane Amante joins the room [18:01:50] cdlilj joins the room [18:03:21] divyameenu joins the room [18:03:39] divyameenu leaves the room [18:04:09] possible benefits [18:04:32] Dave Dugal leaves the room [18:06:17] possible issues [18:06:27] ryuji joins the room [18:07:52] next steps [18:08:00] tony hain [18:10:34] arifumi joins the room [18:12:19] divyameenu joins the room [18:12:50] alain durand [18:14:02] divyameenu leaves the room [18:14:22] Not sure that's where that discussion belongs... [18:14:46] on "the problem" slide [18:15:09] current proposed solutions [18:15:10] It looks like the IPv6 portion of 1 and the IPv6 portion of 2 is identical... [18:16:15] Teemu S.: The stateless PD is indeed related to 6RD, but its not really about softwires.. [18:16:16] ietfdbh leaves the room [18:17:11] vipergeek joins the room [18:18:10] narten leaves the room [18:18:44] stfnruffini joins the room [18:18:57] future work [18:19:15] dave thaler [18:20:11] simple solution to this problem. don't run ISATAP routers or 6to4 relays. [18:20:54] jpc joins the room [18:20:57] ole that's not really a solution [18:21:25] until those are deprecated or abandoned, I'd rather have control over where 6to4 traffic goes (to my network) vs not [18:21:40] 6to4 is designed for you to not have any control... [18:21:45] stfnruffini leaves the room [18:22:55] I can control whether or not it goes to a local relay vs one beyond my network [18:23:00] that's what I meant [18:23:06] nm leaves the room [18:23:06] suz leaves the room [18:23:24] doesn't make much difference for the looping problem... [18:23:25] donley.chris leaves the room [18:23:28] vipergeek leaves the room [18:23:37] pellepolis@gmail.com leaves the room [18:23:41] ryuji leaves the room [18:23:52] Donald Hoffman leaves the room [18:23:56] Barbara leaves the room [18:23:59] jweil@jabber.org leaves the room [18:24:04] text I was referring to in RFC 5214 is in section 8.4 [18:24:13] fujisaki.tomohiro leaves the room [18:24:18] Thank's again Wes [18:24:23] jinmei leaves the room [18:24:23] cdlilj leaves the room [18:24:24] fdupont leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [18:24:46] Wes leaves the room [18:24:49] tetsuya.innami leaves the room [18:25:01] Ole Troan leaves the room [18:25:02] shtsuchi leaves the room [18:25:15] shtsuchi joins the room [18:25:18] shtsuchi leaves the room [18:25:28] becarpenter leaves the room [18:25:31] arifumi leaves the room [18:25:31] Shane Amante leaves the room [18:25:35] Colman Ho leaves the room [18:25:41] mellon leaves the room [18:26:32] Wes Beebee leaves the room [18:26:36] trond leaves the room [18:26:41] yu kyung leaves the room [18:27:12] Akira Nakagawa leaves the room: Logged out [18:27:35] Vincent (AFNIC) leaves the room [18:27:49] Bob leaves the room [18:28:06] sureshk leaves the room [18:28:35] Patrik Wallström leaves the room [18:28:36] hp leaves the room [18:28:41] Patrik Wallström joins the room [18:29:50] yu kyung joins the room [18:30:06] tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo leaves the room [18:30:52] behcet.sarikaya leaves the room [18:31:37] brian.bnsmith leaves the room [18:31:40] jpc leaves the room [18:32:06] Melinda leaves the room [18:32:12] Atarashi Yoshifumi leaves the room [18:32:23] Hyong-Jong Paik joins the room [18:32:24] brian.bnsmith joins the room [18:33:23] Hyong-Jong Paik leaves the room [18:33:30] yu kyung leaves the room [18:34:09] kurtis leaves the room [18:34:41] mohsen leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [18:34:56] jinmei joins the room [18:40:45] kurtis joins the room [18:41:06] Dave Thaler leaves the room [18:41:19] jinmei leaves the room [18:45:53] ietfdbh joins the room [18:46:03] kurtis leaves the room [18:51:24] Hyong-Jong Paik joins the room [18:51:26] Hyong-Jong Paik leaves the room [18:54:06] shinmiyakawa leaves the room [18:58:11] jinmei joins the room [19:03:33] stelager joins the room [19:03:46] stelager leaves the room [19:09:26] Dave Thaler joins the room [19:11:26] jinmei leaves the room [19:22:22] Patrik Wallström leaves the room [19:28:23] jinmei joins the room [19:29:38] jinmei leaves the room [19:51:16] ietfdbh leaves the room [19:53:47] Cameron leaves the room [19:53:51] shtsuchi joins the room [19:53:59] shtsuchi leaves the room [19:57:44] Scott Brim joins the room [19:57:45] Scott Brim leaves the room [19:57:56] Dave Thaler leaves the room [19:59:53] Scott Brim joins the room [20:00:50] Scott Brim leaves the room [20:02:30] Scott Brim joins the room [20:02:39] mohsen joins the room [20:02:45] mohsen leaves the room [20:06:01] ietfdbh joins the room [20:06:41] ryuji joins the room [20:09:36] Scott Brim leaves the room [20:09:42] ryuji leaves the room [20:41:05] Chris Griffiths joins the room [20:41:11] Chris Griffiths leaves the room [20:48:29] jinmei joins the room [20:49:05] philip leaves the room [20:49:05] philip joins the room [20:55:50] Hyong-Jong Paik joins the room [20:55:51] Hyong-Jong Paik leaves the room [20:57:53] philip leaves the room [20:58:16] philip joins the room [21:01:10] Hyong-Jong Paik joins the room [21:01:39] Hyong-Jong Paik leaves the room [21:07:11] philip leaves the room [21:07:40] philip joins the room [21:14:57] philip leaves the room [21:15:00] philip joins the room [21:22:46] philip leaves the room [21:22:47] philip joins the room [21:41:07] philip leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [21:41:08] philip joins the room [21:55:37] jinmei leaves the room [21:57:26] philip leaves the room [22:03:00] ietfdbh leaves the room [22:06:24] mc leaves the room [22:23:27] ietfdbh joins the room [22:47:51] hartmans@mit.edu/barnowl leaves the room [23:02:37] ietfdbh leaves the room [23:39:17] ietfdbh joins the room