Session Date/Time: 17 Jun 2026 21:00
Suresh Krishnan: Hey, Paul.
Paul Keller: Hello. Hello. Hello.
Suresh Krishnan: Morning.
Titusz Pan: Hey Titusz, hey.
Suresh Krishnan: So Mark let me know, he's sick, and he won't be able to make it today. So I'll just make sure I talk to him after the meeting based on whatever progress we make today. But yeah, so he sends his regrets.
I think we are at time. So I'll just go ahead and get started and catch people up as they join. So this is the AIPREF purely virtual interim meeting. We just wanted to get like probably a head start on the Vienna meeting, see if we can kind of try to knock down some issues, or look at the new text that Paul and Martin put together in version 06. So there is people who committed to working on it, and recently we've had some discussions on the mailing list, a couple of active threads going on, just make sure that we try to see if we can make some progress today. If not, we still have the upcoming meeting in Vienna and also another interim coming up soon in August, and also the mailing list. So like, we kind of—I'm really happy to see a lot of discussion going on on the mailing list, but there's not like too much convergence yet. But maybe we can use this as a mechanism to force some convergence and see how people can look at other people's viewpoints as well. So thank you.
And so just going on the group status, like the biggest thing is we had the interim in Toronto and then we had, I would say, some forward progress on the training and the search issues and the vocabulary. So, and we did—Paul and Martin published a new version of the draft, that's 06. So thank you, Paul. And so there is some text that's new in there, and we also added like, disclaimers to each section saying none of this text has consensus. So let's see if we can kind of make some discussion and take some of those labels off, but if not, we can still go on and at least try to file new issues if needed. So let's go for that. And if somebody can take like, high-level minutes, just like, any specific points of discussion or any decisions that we take, if people are willing to take notes for that, the note-taking tool is—if you look at the top right of the Meetecho, you can see the tool, you can put it in. If not, I do know that like, a lot of people have complained this takes them away from actively participating, so if you can take notes, please do in the Hedgedoc. If not, like what Mark and I have done is like, gone through the transcripts afterwards to create the minutes after. It's a lot of work, but if we can at least put some pointers in, that'll be very helpful for us. Thank you.
So, with no further ado, we can just go on to the version 6 of the draft, the vocab draft, and Paul, like, did you want to kind of like, lead through the changes you made? I just put the sections in, which are like kind of recently done. So if you want to lead through it, that's fine, or if you want me to share, I can do it too. Let me know what works better for you.
Paul Keller: I can give it a try. Like, I was honestly expecting Martin to be here, who would have normally done this, but I think the main changes that are reflected in the draft, in addition to the language that we've added that this doesn't reflect consensus, right? Like, there is a statement at the very top, in, in sort of above all the other sections, as note to readers. And then the things that have been under active discussion, we have, mainly the vocabulary definition, but also Section 3. We have explicitly stated that this does not reflect consensus at the moment. That being said, is that the main two sort of substantive forward changes that we have made in the text are the updating of the two categories that we had extensively discussed in Toronto, which reflects sort of the, the outcome of the discussions in Toronto with some smallish sort of like edits, but not substantial changes for both the search category and the AI model training category. The AI model training category obviously is relatively easy to grasp because it's one sentence. The search category is this somewhat more complex construct that we have arrived through very extensive discussion in Toronto. My impression is that sort of like both of them have had relatively little comments after we published this. Like, I think I saw one comment earlier today on the mailing list, which pointed out that the, the model training category is too broad, but like generally, like there's been not much controversy. So yeah, they reflect the status quo that we had after Toronto. The other changes, obviously, like there is downstream changes where for example, the used category labels and some other thing has updates in the further down, but like they are technically downstream from changing the names and some of the structure of these categories. Section 3.2 that is in there, which was the other thing that received quite substantial discussion in Toronto, is that, well, it is the, the text that we deemed to have been sort of like not explicitly sort of criticized or ruled out of scope by, by larger groups of people. But like, I think this is mainly sort of, if we're honest, and also if we're looking at the discussion that was on the mailing list today, to some degree placeholder text because there is still sort of quite substantial disagreement about the overall approach that this section should take. We had a group of people who had volunteered to come up with sort of like new language for this to try to reconcile some of the sort of different perspectives that we had encountered in Toronto. It is my understanding that they have not managed to sort of like come up with something that's presentable. I don't know if anyone—like I think both Timid Robot and Lila are here, if you want to, want to speak to that briefly? One of you? Go ahead, Lila. Go ahead.
Lila Bailey: Hi, everyone. Um, yeah, we have—the group that volunteered, I would say our challenges that we all violently agree with each other, and I think don't have a someone who is willing to work with us to come to a compromise. Um, so you know, we are—we are working to figure out what would be an acceptable compromise position, but based on the, you know, the back and forth over the last couple of days, there are clearly still some people who don't want this at all, and some people for whom, and I—I myself feel that if this isn't in here, I—I don't think there's any way I could, you know, kind of move towards getting this out of the working group. So—so the challenge is the—I think the—the small group that's sort of gone—gone away to—to try to work on something is like, "Well, we liked all the stuff we already said." Um, and we're trying to figure out how to accommodate what others have said, um, but most of what others have said boils down to "We don't want this at all." And we don't know how to come up with a compromise position between "We like what we had" and "We don't want this at all." So, that has been the challenge. Um, we are still working on it, and um, thanks to all of the folks who have offered, um, sort of some more maybe slightly in-between those two positions in the last couple of days. Um, but if anybody here, uh, who is representing maybe sort of publishers or—or web, uh, you know, the—the web publisher people wants to hop on a call with us, um, and—and see if there's any any, uh, yeah, any progress we can make before August, uh, we would—we would welcome that outreach. So, you can contact me uh, on the list or lila@archive.org. Um, and—and I—I think it would be more effective if—if we had, uh, more viewpoints um, in that, in that small group.
Suresh Krishnan: So, thanks Lila. Michael, like, if you're not following right, like one of the thing is like, if—if you're going to enumerate the practices that are like, you know, kind of social exceptions kind of thing is like one thing that kind of came up. It's happening—there's like a big discussion happening on the mailing list as well. So Lila, if I look at it, right, I think like Glenn probably might be a good discussion partner and, and probably Matt as well. And I don't know, Max, you're on the call, Chris, you're on the call, if you're interested if like, you know, if you can kind of be a discussion partner on this to, at least like, show up with the other point of view, right, like that Lila—like Lila said, is if like, only people who want this things enumerated are there, it's not going to end up in a good situation. So, would you be willing to volunteer, either Chris or Max, since you're on the call, I'm picking on you?
Chris Needham: Um, so, I—I must apologize. I was not aware—I didn't really see anything on the mailing list regarding the formation of this subgroup, so I was not aware that there were actually people kind of actively doing anything. So, please forgive me in that—in that sense. Um.
Suresh Krishnan: So this was a—not in—so this was like a subgroup kind of self-formed at the interim to kind of propose some changes to 3.2, right? Like, so it was something that happened at the interim, not on the mailing list, but anything that's going to come out is going to come out on the mailing list, for sure.
Chris Needham: Oh, I see. Okay, so that's—yeah, having not been at the interim, that—that kind of passed me by then. Okay. Yeah, no worries, yeah.
Suresh Krishnan: So Chris, would you be interested or?
Chris Needham: I think so, yeah. I—I think we need to come to a conclusion on this, somehow. And I am— Yeah, let's—let's—let's try to figure this out, yeah.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Thank you very much. So Lila, there's like at least two people who, um, new to you, so it's going to be, um, Nate and Chris, like just reach out to them if you can. And Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: I was just going to say if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know.
Suresh Krishnan: Thank you. Thanks. Kevin, go for it.
Kevin Kelley: So, sorry, are we trying to keep it to, uh, minutes right now or is it okay to talk about that issue?
Suresh Krishnan: Oh, talk about the issue. That's good.
Kevin Kelley: Yeah, um. This is a strawman. Um. I was thinking about the email that Nate sent earlier today. Like, we've done similar things in a lot of other areas, right? Nodding at the fact that something is true or is a concern or should be considered, without trying to be enumerative of all the ways in which it is true or should be considered. And, I mean, I—I read but have obviously not had time to deeply consider a lot of the mailing list traffic, but part of me wonders if a similar approach here might not be reasonable. Curious what everybody else thinks, though.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, I—I think the—the difficulty, Kevin, right, is to—is to hit—hit the right point. Uh, whether something becomes too general or not, right? Like, so I think one approach we tried was to just like, say this general class of things exist, and would that be sufficient? And then there's people who say, "Oh, that's too—too general," right? I think we are not able to find this line where we are general enough without like, enumerating a bunch of things that, uh, kind of people agree on. I think that would be the—the highest-order bit that we are looking at. Right, like, Paul, did you want to say something there? Paul, if you want to talk, you're muted.
Paul Keller: Sorry, I think directionally this insight seems to be correct, right? Like that, the—the more things we enumerate, the more difficult this will be. And like, I think I've seen people on the mailing list, I also don't have a full capture of this, basically even people from who are very, very strongly in favor of this section say like that, uh, extensive enumeration is not the way to go here. So, I—I think that points us in a certain direction, but like as you said, like, I think without any examples or without any sort of like indication what type of things we talk about, like this will be difficult to—to parse in a meaningful way as well.
Kevin Kelley: Can we lean on sort of the, what I understand is sort of the typical IETF trick and give a few examples that are not intended to be exhaustive in non-normative language? Or does even that upset people?
Suresh Krishnan: I—I thought that was like a good way to go until some people—and Alissa, yeah, I agree with you, right, like so, I don't think we had a conclusion at the interim. I think we kind of ran out of time at some point, but yeah, go ahead and make your point and, um, we can talk further on that.
Alissa Cooper: Um, that was—that was what Lila's original text did. The original, original text. It was like a list of examples. But I'm guessing something happened in Toronto that made people throw that out. So, maybe that, that's the problem. Yeah.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, no, but I—I think like there's some people who felt even that was excessive, right? I think that is kind of where like, you know, I'm lost as well. So I think that would be good if people go and work, um, in a setting so, we can do this like in a more—more iterations of this rather than at the meetings, right? Like because that's kind of where the stuff happens. So if people can go offline, have this discussion, and come back with like a proposal that tries to find like a line, whatever line that is, right? And I'm with Paul, that like, you know, just being, um, like showing no examples, that doesn't help, right? Because I—I think a lot of the time people say, "Hey, that's fine with me," right? You know, like, you know, let's say, assistive technologies or things like that. And—and even that, some people say, "Oh, like, how do you draw the line between, I don't know, some translation for like, assistive purposes versus like, translation for commercial purposes," right? That's—that was the kind of thing, wall we hit in Toronto, uh, if I remember correctly. Right, so, um, like, I think like, there's some text changes needed here. It's—it's unclear like, what would get consensus in here. Paul, I don't know, that's how I see it. Is that how you see it as well?
Paul Keller: Yes, I—I think so, and I think like ultimately we will need to have some, some proposal on like, like some text to, to anchor the discussion on. The, sort of like—but I echo what Alissa said, like to me also Lila's original attempt to do this felt sort of like most within the extremes that we've been like, most in the middle between the extremes that we've been exploring, where the extremes would be like, some people arguing for the deletion of this section completely and we've seen proposals for like a, a much more extensive enumerative approach. So, I think that was a pretty good basis, but like I think we've lost maybe a little bit sight of, of the original approach and, uh, I think if we can hand it over to that smaller group with this and hope that they can really explore some, like like deliver something that we get at least two weeks before the August meeting so, people can, can weigh it, uh, ahead of the meeting, that might be a good basis for discussion.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. And—and if people have not been following, right, like, let me just like pull up the, um, version 5 of the draft, like where this thing did exist so, you can look at it like to see what kind of things were— So these are the examples that were given, right? Like, one of them is like, accessibility, so there is, um, other thing is like, you know, um, archiving things like for historical purposes, and, um, some kind of educational research exemptions and stuff like that, right? Like, so that's the kind of things that were listed. So those were the four high-level categories that were listed. Um. I don't know if like, anybody wants to speak up on like, why that's either excessive or like, too little. Jo? Jo, go ahead and speak. Nate, I posted a link, uh, to the last version. Can you type into the chat, uh, Jo? Anyone else wants to speak up on this? Okay, so, uh, Jo, if I understand you correctly, there's like probably more things in there, yeah. Farz, can you come off mute and talk?
Farzaneh: Uh, yes. Hi, everybody.
Suresh Krishnan: Hi, Farz.
Farzaneh: Uh, I hope you can hear me.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah.
Farzaneh: So, so this kind of, I, I just, I'm just not convinced by this approach of coming up with a list of exceptions and especially calling them public interest exceptions, because we can't predict everything and anything. And there can be more creative ways for the end user that wants to, uh, develop, uh, AI products or they want to, uh, even like use AI, uh, products. So, I am very uncomfortable and, and I, and I might be wrong, uh, but I think that this is very, very similar to text and data mining exceptions, an exemption for, uh, non-commercial, um, activities that kind of was not that effective according to, uh, some papers in, in Europe in order to make, uh, libraries and universities comfortable with, uh, uh, like scraping and like accessing, uh, inform-information. So I think that, uh, whatever and I, I don't want to, uh, uh, I don't want to create like impediments and barriers, but I prefer that as you can, uh, work on the list, but I think that we need to work on, uh, refining the definitions and, uh, resolve our, uh, conflicts, uh, with the definitions because that's also what—I'm not a, uh, AI developer or, or open-source developer, but what they will look at is the, these definitions, and I don't know how we are going to—if this is like some kind of signaling that if you are doing this for this purpose, it's okay, you can ignore this, uh, ignore the, uh, preference. I don't know how we can communicate that to them, how we are going to communicate them, is it going to be machine-readable? I think that what they are going to rely on, uh, the developers and the end users in general, they are going to rely on these, uh, signals, uh, as we define them, and, uh, I don't think the list is going to be effective. But I am, uh, ready to be convinced otherwise, I also ready to, uh, talk about, uh, talk about how we can refine the, uh, definitions to come up with, uh, something that, uh, can, uh, also consider the end user, uh, interest, can, it can be commercial or non-commercial and smaller actors and stuff like that. Thank you.
Suresh Krishnan: Thanks, Farz. Um, Farz, like, um, just to keep you there, like, uh, did you see Alissa's suggestion? Alissa said like, "Hey, this is like a illustrative list, rather than exhaustive." So which means that we're just talking about kinds of things that are like, uh, usable past like, the preferences, but the—it doesn't constrain it to only those things. So, I'm not sure, uh, if like—
Farzaneh: It's just not enough. We can't predict everything, and illustrative, like yes, uh, and it depends on the interpretation of the person who is using this. And, uh, I just don't think it's enough. Uh, I think that when you don't have like, the definition that is clear, it's going to, um, it's going to prevent, uh, many of, uh, the end users in, uh, like hamper their access, but also, uh, their operations.
Suresh Krishnan: Right, like, but it's like, um, but I'm trying to still understand, are you—do you want nothing listed or do you want more things listed?
Farzaneh: No, absolutely, I didn't say that. I said that work on this, but this is not enough. We need to work on the definitions to get them clear and, uh, consider the—how the end user, uh, reacts and perceives these, uh, definitions.
Suresh Krishnan: Okay, okay. Thank you, thanks. Lila?
Paul Keller: Can I just ask a question of clarification, first?
Suresh Krishnan: Oh, yeah, yeah. Go ahead, Paul. Go ahead, Paul, yeah.
Paul Keller: Um, when you say work on the definitions, which definitions are, are you referring to?
Farzaneh: So, I'm, I'm talking about like, the AI model training, and, uh, other stuff, like so— Yes.
Paul Keller: So you mean the categor—like what we call like the technical language of the draft calls categories. Okay, then I understand. Thanks.
Farzaneh: Thank you. Thanks.
Suresh Krishnan: Lila, go ahead.
Lila Bailey: Um. I wonder if, in terms of like an order of operations—I've, I've two things. So, this is sort of order of operations, which is, uh, referring to what Farzaneh was just talking about. Like, in some ways, if we had the—the set of definitions, and there was actually agreement on what the scope of those definitions are, it might be easier to understand what kind of public interest safeguards are necessary. So, I'm wondering if getting to agreement on just the pure technical like, "This means this," and then considering the question of like, "Okay, well, these are the potential unintended consequences of these being—of these definitions having this scope, and so now we need to do some careful," you know, kind of not line edits—and I really don't want to call these exceptions, or carve-outs, or anything. I am thinking of them as just safeguards for people who—like the public who are not represented by, you know, the—the—the sort of big corporate interests that are battling this out both here and in, um, policy and in regulatory, uh, uh, arenas right now, and in courts, frankly. Um. So, order of operations, that's my proposal. Um, the other issue that we just keep talking past each other on the mailing list about is the appropriateness of of—of how—of even thinking about the public interest in this context. Some people have argued, um, the IETF is not the right place for this. Um, those of us who think this is the right place have said, "If we're—if we're defining the scope of definitions, and the scope of what this standard applies to, it's absolutely appropriate for it to be discussed and decided here." Um, and I will just say problematically, there are—there are people, and I don't know that they are in this room or even in this working group, but I've heard reports that in the EU context, and in other policy contexts, people are pointing to "Look, the IETF is having this conversation, um, that's where this conversation should be happening, not here in this policy context." So, I am concerned that it's the sort of Spider-Man meme of everybody pointing to somebody else to be thinking about this. Um, and I will say that like, given that we have uh, not to make my own argument, I would like it if there is anybody who has the authority from the perspective of IETF to like, deem this either in or out. That might help move things along because if the IETF says, "Yes, indeed, this is out of scope," or "Yes, indeed, this is in scope," then at least those kinds of arguments go away, and—and we have to then really come to the substance of it, as opposed to making like, procedural arguments. Um. So, I don't know if that's something Suresh, you and Mark could do, or—or Mike Bishop, or—or the area direct—like, I—I don't know if there's anybody who's able to kind of call that ball and strike, but that might be where what we need, um, to move forward.
Suresh Krishnan: So, part of it is that, the—the only people who can call this is like, like Mark and I can can do that, right? But the issue is like, we're not sure we'll be able to find consensus in the draft if we strike it out, right? Like, let's say we say this is out of scope and we send the draft as is, um, without improvements, um, I don't think this is going to pass a working group last call, right? Like the—the text that's there currently, right? Like, you know, if you look at it, like, we kind of have this scare text for each section, and the scare text needs to go away. And—and and Farz, to your point, right, we need better definitions, like, this like— AI model training definition is this long, right? This is kind of, uh, where we ended up at, right? I don't know how to nuance this further without like, adding way more text and potentially like, hitting other roadblocks, right? So, I personally, like, no chair hat on, but I think the 3.2 is the section to like, do any kind of explanatory text, rather than 4.01, which seems like, on better ground because we haven't seen any change proposals to that, Paul, right? Like, um, Paul, can you confirm that, that's right? People said that hey, they—they might want changes, but we haven't seen anything, right? There's no PRs or anything on 4.01.
Paul Keller: No.
Suresh Krishnan: Right?
Paul Keller: No.
Suresh Krishnan: So, I—I think this is the text we have. So, um, if somebody wants to make some proposal to change this text, that would address the concerns of people, like you, Lila, right? Like, you know, I—I don't know, like, just putting you on the spot for a second, right? Like, do you think there's any text that can go in here that would alleviate your concerns? Like, I don't personally believe so, but is—is that something you think can happen?
Lila Bailey: You mean in the 4.1, in the definition?
Suresh Krishnan: Correct.
Lila Bailey: That—that is a very good—it's a very good question. I have not thought of the definitions in that way, to be honest. So, I—like, let me— let me think about it as to whether there is a way. And Farzaneh has been saying like, "Actually, we need to work on the definition," so maybe she could come up with—with some proposals and—and and we can try, again, sort of try to work on this a bit, um, uh, more in between, uh, now and August. Um. I—I am not sure the thing that would make me comfortable would get consensus, is the—is the point, right? So, it's either we're going to have kind of a lengthy definition that, that isn't maybe super easy for people to understand, which I—I personally, I think for the good of the whole wide world, that—that the—the definition should be really parseable by regular people and who don't need a lawyer to interpret what these definitions are, right? Like, I—you know, I think that's really important. That's—that's why I think for me, structurally, it belongs in another section that's more about interpretation, uh, not interpretation, uh, what is it, conformance, or compliance, whatever, I can't remember what— Applicability, yeah. Applicability, yeah. The applicability, yes, um, yeah, so I—that's kind of just where I personally come—come down on, on it, um, for the—for the benefit of having a, of a very clear definition, which I think is also a—a competing public interest, frankly.
Suresh Krishnan: Thanks. Paul, go ahead.
Paul Keller: I—I also think it completely breaks—would completely break the editorial logic that we've been following so far, like, I think it is, as Lila explains, we want crisp definitions and then keep in mind that that—that these things that we care about, like play out very differently according to the underlying sort of, mostly copyright, but whatever you have in your jurisdiction to deal with. And I think incorporating that into the definitions will—will make it a mess, it also will make it very hard to, like, I think harder to update. I think it runs sort of like, it almost breaks the overall structure that we have been working with for a long time. Like, maybe the overall structure is wrong, but like, I'd be very careful before we sort of explore a completely different approach to this. So, like, I think I agree with like, what—what—what Lila said at the end. For me, it also comes down: we have crisp definitions in one place, and then we say a couple of things that are more, that are of a different register in a different place.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Thank you. So, like, yeah, we are circling back to 3.2, right Paul, like I was suggesting before? Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Uh, Timid Robot, go ahead.
Timid Robot: Thank you, Timid Robot. Um, I just wanted to ask that anyone uh, that is going to be submitting proposals for 4.1 uh, do their best to internalize previous discussion, that the—when it was more specific, it was found to be factively incorrect. That the specificity was a fiction that was debunked. Um, so um, you know, I—I just—just trying to prevent us from having the same conversation in London that we just had in Montreal. Thank you.
Suresh Krishnan: Thank you. Thanks, Timid Robot. Okay, so—so looks like we'll, uh, continue. Lila, like, you're going to reach out to the people who volunteered today, and Alissa, can I lean on you to at least take a review of the thing that comes out of it, see if we can like, elucidate it a bit?
Alissa Cooper: Yeah, sure. I'm like writing two sentences right now, in case that might be useful. I don't—I don't actually think it's that far from—like, if you take the section that you have and the text that Lila wrote previously and just like condense it down a little bit, might not be that far.
Suresh Krishnan: That'll be awesome. Thank you very much. That—that'll be perfect. Thank you.
Thanks. Um, and the other two things I had was like, the 4.01, the model training, we haven't seen anything, right, Paul? And if somebody has some comments while looking at it, feel free to get in line. And same for 4.02. So these are all like, new text that we arrived at after the, um, the Toronto interim. So, the idea is that search is like very—there's a lot of effort that went into it and a lot of compromising and a lot of people working together to do it. So, I think like every word here exists like there for a reason, so, um, if you have comments, like, please feel free to bring them up, file issues, send emails, or like, send PRs. All of them work, but preferably, start on the mailing list or file an issue. I think those would be the best ways forward to help out the editors on this. And any quick comments on this? I don't think there's like, been much discussion about this, um, about the specific texts itself. Okay. Thank you. So Paul, is there anything else you wanted on—on the draft? These are the three main sections you wanted to look at the—for the current draft itself, right?
Paul Keller: Yeah, I think this reflects the outcome of what we had, what we tried to draft, and like I think for us, it was encouraging that sort of, to some degree, that there was relatively little feedback on, on the 4.1 and 4.2. And the—the fact that 3.3 was more of a placeholder is sort of like, that—that is acknowledged by the discussion that we've seen today and in the previous days and flare up once in a while. So, I think that gives us the feeling that sort of, compared to drafts that we circulated after previous meetings, this seems to have relatively—held up relatively well. Um. And so, from our perspective, I think—and I think that's also the outcome that we—that we had at the end of the Toronto meeting, that we identified two big sort of areas of unresol—like structurally unresolved areas, one being 3.2, which we just talked about, and the other thing was that, um, we sort of like—there's a relatively large number of participants who've pointed to the need for a—what we called inference time category, which to some degree motivated my proposal for a—what's now called grounding category that would be, that would then likely be, like if we follow this logic, become a, a new Section 4.3.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, thank you, Paul. Erin, thank you very much. Like, the— like, yeah, I do remember that you wanted to have some changes. Like, do you have some idea of like, what—what kind of things they would be, if you can speak to it a little bit, if not, we can talk about it later.
Erin Simon: Yeah, just that, I—I think this category is really, really limited, and I'm still trying to find kind of the boundaries where those, you know, things can only be used for this and it's very specific about what "this" means, where we need more flexibility to actually be able to like, operate a product that does those things. Um, so I'm—that's why I haven't submitted any text yet because I'm still kind of thinking it through, especially in light of the, you know, um, CMA order that people have been discussing on the mailing list, and the changes that we've made. Just trying to figure out how to harmonize everything, and I—I'm not quite ready for that yet.
Suresh Krishnan: Okay, sounds good. Um, yeah, please, um, make a proposal in and thank you. Okay, um. So, I haven't seen any comments on 4.01. Can you please come off, um, off mute and talk about what comments you saw on 4.01? J. Gimbel?
J. Gimbel: Hi, hopefully you can hear me. Sorry, I'm on my way to retrieve children. Uh, um. Let me go back. I am, uh, I'm ill-prepared to speak on this moment, but I thought that there were some comments. I'll tell you that I've been thinking about this. Of course, Chris, um, who is also at Microsoft, we've been talking about it. So, I was under the impression that someone posted something, but maybe I'm incorrect on that. Um. Uh, but I will kind of, uh, leave just a—a placeholder that we will kind of, uh, provide our comments soon.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, either send a mail to the list or open an issue, either way is good, correct. Yeah, we'll open an issue, like we've done in the past. Thank you, thank you. Okay, uh, so let me switch back to the slides and— Okay, so, um, so there's like three threads that've taken a bunch of time, right? Like, so on the mailing list, so why we need the inference option, so let's park it for a second, and the second thread is like, something that Paul started, like the CMA publisher contract requirement on Google, right? Like, so, um, Paul, is there something you want to mention, as a high-level summary of this? There's quite a bit of stuff that happened on the list, and any thoughts—any have you had any, um, interesting learnings from the thread? Something we haven't discussed before.
Paul Keller: Yeah, I think like, the thread is still sort of people weighing in, like I think it's difficult to call a judgment there. Maybe there's—there's more discussion here, like by way of background, like obviously like, being responsible for this document, we were very curious when that landed to see like, okay, does this contain something that is compatible with what we have currently in the draft or not? And so, this led to a bit of my own analysis. Like, I checked it with Martin at some point. Uh, in how far, um, we understand sort of like some of the use cases that are sort of contained in the various documents that the CMA has published in, in how far they relate to the categories of 4.1 and 4.2 that we have, and as I outlined in that post, like it seems like that there's three use cases which are covered by our two because we don't distinguish between like, our training category is broad, like it doesn't really matter what the model is deployed for, so that falls—two of them into one. And then, the—the obvious thing is that we don't currently, like the vocabulary doesn't have anything which corresponds with the fourth thing that the CMA has used in, in these documents, which is what they call grounding. And sort of like based on that, uh, I thought it might be useful to just simply like throw something up and say, what could something that is modeled along how I understood the grounding category look like, and that's, uh, what is on the mailing list and what's potentially, uh, addition to this thing. I think there is overlap with the "Why we need the inference option" because it is a, essentially like an inference time category. It approaches it slightly different. Like, I think Martin did a very good job this morning in, in trying to break it down into its three sort of like operative components, and, uh, yeah, I—I don't think probably like, it's so recent that probably not everybody will have had a chance to, to provide a reasoned opinion on that, but, uh, it's one possible way forward.
Suresh Krishnan: Thank you. Thanks. Chris, you had some opinions on this, right, like?
Chris Needham: On the, um, on the the UK CMA development you mean?
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, correct.
Chris Needham: Um. Yeah, just that, um, you know, that—that the decision really is, you know, about Google, clearly, and the thing that I think we need is a standardized solution that works interoperably across all sort of websites and, and AI systems. So, I—I think, you know, what—what we're kind of looking for is not, um, you know, is is something with that sort of more general applicability. And I think, um, if we can come up with a definition like of a grounding category that we think is compatible with, um, the decision, then, you know, we, then that sort of leads to, um, you know, a—as a mechanism for implementing, you know, that, um, but it's—it's really that, that broader definition, because it's, you know, there are—there are numerous, you know, AI systems out there. And so, so I—I think, you know, it's something that, um, you know, we would want to, to look at that, you know, that applies a—across a much broader range than, than, you know, than a single company.
Suresh Krishnan: Cool. Thank you. Thanks. Kevin?
Kevin Kelley: Um, yeah, I think Martin's mind is going in the same direction that Chris's is. Um. And it reminds me of all of the other times we've opened cans of worms in the time we've been working together. Um. There's figuring out wording that we all can kind of live with, there's also making sure we're talking about the same thing. So, I guess I'm curious if we are all talking about the same thing when we say grounding. What, what does grounding mean to people?
Suresh Krishnan: Um, we'll get to it in a second. I do have like, the issue discussion, I think like, 172, right, Paul? Like, uh, let's get to it in a second, but, um, we can go to that in detail, Kevin. Yes, that is part of the issue. Thank you. Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that. I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together. I'll reach out to Chris. I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the—the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose—a lot of the times we expose like, the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like, from the wider community. So, I think like, if we just make progress at the interims, it's not good, so we might like to kind of at least show like, the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will—we will do our best to—to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at—went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, um, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the—one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192? Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to get us back to rag, grounding, inference, etc., but I'm happy to hold that until you're ready.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good, yeah. Hold in line. Um. I think Erin, like, you're the one who brought up 197, right? Let me try to pull up the issue. Okay, no it's not. It's— So Erin, I was thinking of 196. Is there something you made progress on on this?
Erin Simon: This is actually what I mentioned that I was trying to figure out how to improve the current operating search category. It's kind of trying to meld some of this back into it, and in light of the, you know, um, CMA order that people have been discussing on the mailing list, and the changes that we've made, just trying to figure out how to harmonize everything, and I—I'm not quite ready for that yet.
Suresh Krishnan: Okay, so, it might be related to this one, too. So, take—take a look at it, too, right? Like, so I think the issue was like, you know, there's like people on, um, you know, one side or the other, like, and we're kind of at this point because, um, we couldn't make further progress on it. So, um, maybe if you have something, also, um, take a look at 208 as well, right, like, just to, um, make sure that— I—I think the point was like, look at the people who expressed the opposite preference, like, from you, right? Like, you know, either to be like, more strict or more liberal in—in allowing things, um, when you make the proposal, uh, but I think you got that, like, already in mind, so, but just like, just look at 208 as well and update it as well if you can.
Thanks.
Okay, so, um, going to 172. Chris, like, you, um, started this, so you want to kick us off? Um, like, I think your point was like, without this, this vocabulary is not useful. Like, am—am I summarizing you correctly?
Chris Needham: Yeah, like, so—so this is something that I remember I raised at the—at the initial workshop, like before we created this working group. Um. You know, we were, you know, we were, my—our analysis at the time was like, it is is that yes, training is important, but how content is used in conjunction with trained models is just as important, like, from our point of view. So, that's something that we've, you know, sort of been looking for, you know, from this group. And—and so, you know, from the outset, I should say. Um. In terms of the—so, yeah, so we'd like to, yeah, so we've very much, you know, want to see, um, a definition. And—and I do note, and Leonard is kind of pointing to this in the chat, that there are other preference signals out there that perhaps include, um, such definitions already, and he's kind of indicating that, you know, some of these kind of have usage already. Um. So, you know, so there is—there is—there is a need, um, for this. Um. There's been a number of proposals put forward. Like, I don't feel necessarily that I can talk you through all of them. Um. I—I've discussed, um, with Nate a little bit, like, his definition, um, as as kind of post-training usage, which as as some of things that's, you know, that's kind of like— usage that goes into the training phase, and then there's usage that goes, um, as as post-training usage as a—as a sort of broad definition. Um. Yeah, Nate will be able to probably explain that in better than I can. Um. Paul's definition, I—I think looked—it looked okay, but it has this sort of, I think, problematic part, which is, um, the "provided directly by the user." I—I don't know if I'm quoting it exactly right, but I think that's—that's, um, a part of this which which, certainly, I would find, um, problematic. Um. And then there was also one from Laurent who put forward, I think, three potential categories. Um. Which I don't recall the details of, so I don't feel confident like, describing that in— I just put them up on the screen, Chris, right? Okay, fine. So, those are the three things Laurent proposed.
Chris Needham: The thing that I like about Laurent's document here, his—he's captured use cases. So, we have a use case wiki, and I think these would be a good set of use cases to like, uh, to include over there. So, perhaps as a follow-up action, I might just go and do that. Um. I don't know to what extent like, others in the group are actually looking to that wiki or the—the, you know, that set of collected use cases. You know, but in the past, or previous meetings, we talked about those as being something that we can test definitions against. So, I think um, yeah, so I think that it'll be useful just to collect those in, in into that wiki. Um. I'll—I'll perhaps queue back if I've got comments on the specifics of this, um, and let others go. So, I see others of queued up on this subject.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, so there is like active discussion on the issue at least until last month. So like, you know, if you have something to add, Chris, like please go ahead and update the issue. Paul, did you want to step in as editor before I go back to the queue? You're muted, Paul.
Go back to the queue. I'm in the queue. Like I'm.
Suresh Krishnan: Okay, sounds good. Uh Kevin, go.
Kevin Kelley: Um, yeah, I think my mind is going in the same direction that Chris's is. Um, and it reminds me of all of the other times we've opened cans of worms in the time we've been working together. Um, there's figuring out wording that we all can kind of live with. There's also making sure we're talking about the same thing. So I guess I'm curious if we are all talking about the same thing when we say grounding. What, what does grounding mean to people?
Suresh Krishnan: Um, we'll get to it in a second. I do have like, the issue discussion, I think like 172, right, Paul? Like, let's get to it in a second, but we can go to that in detail, Kevin. Yes, that is part of the issue. Thank you. Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that, I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the—the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose—a lot of the times we expose like, the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like, from the wider community. So, I think like, if we just make progress at the interims, it's not good, so we might like to kind of at least show like, the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will—we will do our best to—to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at—went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, um, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the—one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192? Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that, I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at—went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, um, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the—one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192? Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that, I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at—went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like explain new things that have been added on there, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the issue text in there. But, does anybody want to talk about the—one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192? Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to get us back to rag, grounding, inference, etc., but I'm happy to hold that until you're ready.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good, yeah. Hold in line. Um. I think Erin, like, you're the one who brought up 197, right? Let me try to pull up the issue. Okay, no it's not. It's— So Erin, I was thinking of 196. Is there something you made progress on on this?
Erin Simon: This is actually what I mentioned that I was trying to figure out how to improve the current operating search category. It's kind of trying to meld some of this back into it, and in light of the, you know, um, CMA order that people have been discussing on the mailing list, and the changes that we've made, just trying to figure out how to harmonize everything, and I—I'm not quite ready for that yet.
Suresh Krishnan: Okay, so, it might be related to this one, too. So, take—take a look at it, too, right? Like, so I think the issue was like, you know, there's like people on, um, you know, one side or the other, like, and we're kind of at this point because, um, we couldn't make further progress on it. So, um, maybe if you have something, also, um, take a look at 208 as well, right, like, just to, um, make sure that— I—I think the point was like, look at the people who expressed the opposite preference, like, from you, right? Like, you know, either to be like, more strict or more liberal in—in allowing things, um, when you make the proposal, uh, but I think you got that, like, already in mind, so, but just like, just look at 208 as well and update it as well if you can.
Thanks.
Okay, so, um, going to 172. Paul, like, you, um, started this, so you want to kick us off? Um, like, I think your point was like, without this, this vocabulary is not useful. Like, am—am I summarizing you correctly?
Paul Keller: I think what I want to say is on a slightly different register, like, I think we need to, to have some method of, of structuring our approach to this, and like, I think the first one is the— maybe the very first basic question is, similar to what Lila, I think, asked much earlier about the 3.2 section, like, do we see a path to consensus without a, sort of like, inference time side category? And it seems to me, listening to the multitude of people who've expressed their desire to have something on this side, that, that is probably relatively easy to answer. And, but—but maybe that's something we should answer first, and then move towards the next stuff and say like, okay, what—what does the scope of that need to be? And that probably means methodology that, that allows us to work through, sort of, the Swiss cheese question. I, I suspect there will be people who have different opinions on that, that holes in Swiss cheese are actually an added benefit because they allow some, I don't know what they do, some breathing space, right? And there's other people who don't like any, any, any holes in that, but like, that's probably like, the next deci- discussion we need to have. And depending on where we end from that, we, we can then probably scope what the category or categories can be. But we're, we're jumping a little bit between the general desirability of expressing something on this side versus very specific use cases, and I think we need to work our way up from, from the basic question to the more specific ones.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, make sense, Paul, and—and I think like, it's getting clearer that we do need something in this space. What is not clear to me is like, can we have consensus text in this space, right? Because that's where we fell on our face last time. Right? Like, so I think, um, that's probably something we need to spend quite a bit of time on, so we can try to spend some time on it in, um, on the list, like, to get prepped for a meeting before we take a higher bandwidth discussion of people who do it because I think it's going to be not trivial to come up with some kind of text that can get consensus on this.
Paul, Martin, anything else you want to add? I think that was really the last issue I wanted to bring up for today's meeting, so— Timid Robot?
Timid Robot: Thank you. Timid Robot. Um, I just wanted to ask that anyone, uh, that is going to be submitting proposals for 4.1, uh, do their best to internalize previous discussion, that the—when it was more specific, it was found to be factually incorrect. That the specificity was a fiction that was debunked. Um, so, um, you know, I—I just—just trying to prevent us from having the same conversation in London that we just had in Montreal. Thank you.
Suresh Krishnan: Thank you, thanks Timid Robot. Okay, so, uh, so looks like we'll continue. Lila, like, you're going to reach out to the people who volunteered today, and Alissa, can I lean on you to at least take a review of the thing that comes out of it, see if we can like, elucidate it a bit?
Alissa Cooper: Yeah, sure. I'm like writing two sentences right now, in case that might be useful. I don't—I don't actually think it's that far from—like, if you take the section that you have and the text that Lila wrote previously and just like condense it down a little bit, might not be that far.
Suresh Krishnan: That'll be awesome. Thank you very much, that—that'll be perfect. Thank you.
Thanks, um, and the other two things I had was like, the 4.01, the model training, we haven't seen anything, right, Paul? And if somebody has some comments while looking at it, feel free to get in line. And same for 4.02. So these are all like, new text that we arrived at after the, um, the Toronto interim. So, the idea is that search is like very—there's a lot of effort that went into it and a lot of compromising and a lot of people working together to do it. So, I think like every word here exists like there for a reason, so, um, if you have comments, like, please feel free to bring them up, file issues, send emails, or like, send PRs. All of them work, but preferably, start on the mailing list or file an issue. I think those would be the best ways forward to help out the editors on this. And any quick comments on this? I don't think there's like, been much discussion about this, um, about the specific texts itself. Okay. Thank you. So Paul, is there anything else you wanted on—on the draft? These are the three main sections you wanted to look at the—for the current draft itself, right?
Paul Keller: Yeah, I think this reflects the outcome of what we had, what we tried to draft, and like I think for us, it was encouraging that sort of, to some degree, that there was relatively little feedback on, on the 4.1 and 4.2. And the—the fact that 3.3 was more of a placeholder is sort of like, that—that is acknowledged by the discussion that we've seen today and in the previous days and flare up once in a while. So, I think that gives us the feeling that sort of, compared to drafts that we circulated after previous meetings, this seems to have relatively—held up relatively well. Um. And so, from our perspective, I think—and I think that's also the outcome that we—that we had at the end of the Toronto meeting, that we identified two big sort of areas of unresol—like structurally unresolved areas, one being 3.2, which we just talked about, and the other thing was that, um, we sort of like—there's a relatively large number of participants who've pointed to the need for a—what we called inference time category, which to some degree motivated my proposal for a—what's now called grounding category that would be, that would then likely be, like if we follow this logic, become a, a new Section 4.3.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, thank you, Paul. Erin, thank you very much, like, the— like, yeah, I do remember that you wanted to have some changes, like, do you have some idea of like, what—what kind of things they would be, if you can speak to it a little bit, if not, we can talk about it later.
Erin Simon: Yeah, just that, I—I think this category is really, really limited, and I'm still trying to find kind of the boundaries where those, you know, things can only be used for this and it's very specific about what "this" means, where we need more flexibility to actually be able to like, operate a product that does those things. Um, so I'm—that's why I haven't submitted any text yet because I'm still kind of thinking it through, especially in light of the, you know, um, CMA order that people have been discussing on the mailing list, and the changes that we've made. Just trying to figure out how to harmonize everything, and I—I'm not quite ready for that yet.
Suresh Krishnan: Okay, so, it might be related to this one, too. So, take—take a look at it, too, right? Like, so I think the issue was like, you know, there's like people on, um, you know, one side or the other, like, and we're kind of at this point because, um, we couldn't make further progress on it. So, um, maybe if you have something, also, um, take a look at 208 as well, right, like, just to, um, make sure that— I—I think the point was like, look at the people who expressed the opposite preference, like, from you, right? Like, you know, either to be like, more strict or more liberal in—in allowing things, um, when you make the proposal, uh, but I think you got that, like, already in mind, so, but just like, just look at 208 as well and update it as well if you can.
Thanks.
Okay, so, um, going to 172. J. Gimbel?
J. Gimbel: Hopefully you can hear me. Sorry, I'm on my way to retrieve children. Uh, um. Let me go back. I am, uh, I'm ill-prepared to speak on this moment, but I thought that there were some comments. I'll tell you that I've been thinking about this. Of course, Chris, um, who is also at Microsoft, we've been talking about it. So, I was under the impression that someone posted something, but maybe I'm incorrect on that. Um. Uh, but I will kind of, uh, leave just a—a placeholder that we will kind of, uh, provide our comments soon.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, either send a mail to the list or open an issue, either way is good, correct. Yeah, we'll open an issue. Thank you.
Okay, uh, so let me switch back to the slides and— Okay, so, um, so there's like three threads that've taken a bunch of time, right, like, so on the mailing list, so why we need the inference option, so let's park it for a second, and the second thread is like, something that Paul started, like the CMA publisher contract requirement on Google, right, like, so, um, Paul, is there something you want to mention, as a high-level summary of this? There's quite a bit of stuff that happened on the list, and any thoughts—any have you had any, um, interesting learnings from the thread? Something we haven't discussed before.
Paul Keller: Yeah, I think like, the thread is still sort of people weighing in, like I think it's difficult to call a judgment there. Maybe there's—there's more discussion here, like by way of background, like obviously like, being responsible for this document, we were very curious when that landed to see like, okay, does this contain something that is compatible with what we have currently in the draft or not? And so, this led to a bit of my own analysis. Like, I checked it with Martin at some point. Uh, in how far, um, we understand sort of like some of the use cases that are sort of contained in the various documents that the CMA has published in, in how far they relate to the categories of 4.1 and 4.2 that we have, and as I outlined in that post, like it seems like that there's three use cases which are covered by our two because we don't distinguish between like, our training category is broad, like it doesn't really matter what the model is deployed for, so that falls—two of them into one. And then, the—the obvious thing is that we don't currently, like the vocabulary doesn't have anything which corresponds with the fourth thing that the CMA has used in, in these documents, which is what they call grounding. And sort of like based on that, uh, I thought it might be useful to just simply like throw something up and say, what could something that is modeled along how I understood the grounding category look like, and that's, uh, what is on the mailing list and what's potentially, uh, addition to this thing. I think there is overlap with the "Why we need the inference option" because it is a, essentially like an inference time category. It approaches it slightly different. Like, I think Martin did a very good job this morning in, in trying to break it down into its three sort of like operative components, and, uh, yeah, I—I don't think probably like, it's so recent that probably not everybody will have had a chance to, to provide a reasoned opinion on that, but, uh, it's one possible way forward.
Suresh Krishnan: Thank you. Thanks. Chris, you had some opinions on this, right, like?
Chris Needham: On the, um, on the the UK CMA development you mean?
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, correct.
Chris Needham: Um. Yeah, just that, um, you know, that—that the decision really is, you know, about Google, clearly, and the thing that I think we need is a standardized solution that works interoperably across all sort of websites and, and AI systems. So, I—I think, you know, what—what we're kind of looking for is not, um, you know, is is something with that sort of more general applicability. And I think, um, if we can come up with a definition like of a grounding category that we think is compatible with, um, the decision, then, you know, we, then that sort of leads to, um, you know, a—as a mechanism for implementing, you know, that, um, but it's—it's really that, that broader definition, because it's, you know, there are—there are numerous, you know, AI systems out there. And so, so I—I think, you know, it's something that, um, you know, we would want to, to look at that, you know, that applies a—across a much broader range than, than, you know, than a single company.
Suresh Krishnan: Cool. Thank you. Thanks. Kevin?
Kevin Kelley: Um, yeah, I think Martin's mind is going in the same direction that Chris's is. Um. And it reminds me of all of the other times we've opened cans of worms in the time we've been working together. Um. There's figuring out wording that we all can kind of live with, there's also making sure we're talking about the same thing. So, I guess I'm curious if we are all talking about the same thing when we say grounding. What, what does grounding mean to people?
Suresh Krishnan: Um, we'll get to it in a second. I do have like, the issue discussion, I think like, 172, right, Paul? Like, uh, let's get to it in a second, but, um, we can go to that in detail, Kevin. Yes, that is part of the issue. Thank you. Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that, I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at—went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like explain new things that have been added on there, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the—one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192? Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that, I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at—went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like explain new things that have been added on there, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the—one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192? Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you, thank you.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right, because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had, so I think like Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the— I don't know, like, one instantiation of like, you know, what you would like to see and try to keep it like, small, like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, uh, short version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila, I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I—I have—I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's—it's going to be a that balancing, but—but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which—that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that, I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I—I will try—try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a—with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a—a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and—and see if we can get enough of the—the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then—and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll—we'll aim for that, we'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the—the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call too. So, like, we like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, I think if we just make progress at the interims, it's not good. So, we might like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that, and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so theseare all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Sorry, I missed the very last thing you said. I, I have, I have extracted Alissa's suggestion into my own notes, um, and agree that the doing this in the most succinct way while still acknowledging that there is a non-exhaustive list of of, you know, so it's, it's going to be a that balancing, but, but agreed, I think the illustrative examples thing seems to be like, not where people want to go, um, so I'm going to go back to the original language, which, that I suggested that had the examples, but also had a like, header part that had that— Anyway, I'm going to go back to that. I'm going to consider Farz's thing, I'm going to reach out to, actually, Nate and I are already on an email thread together, I'll reach out to Chris, I think Leonard maybe also said he's willing to help, so I, I will try, try to schedule with folks so that we can come together with a, with something that seems like it will work for, for at least that group of people, and put it on the list, uh, hopefully by no later than the end of July so we can, you know, have a, a mailing list conversation before, um, the meeting, the next interim meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: So, can I push you a little bit on that, Lila? Like, can we get it out a bit earlier? Like, let's say within a month or so, so we can, um, try to get some discussion on in the IETF meeting. So, we do have a slot in Vienna, and if we have at least something to, uh, discuss on this, like, we can make some forward progress. I think it should be the week of the, um, July 20th is the IETF meeting.
Lila Bailey: July 20th is IETF meeting in Vienna. Okay, I will do my best to herd cats, uh, and, and see if we can get enough of the, the sort of volunteer crew, um, together. I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to other's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised his hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much smaller community who turns up at our interim meetings, but this draft, after the working group last call, will need to go through IETF last call, too. So, like, we'd like to expose, a lot of the times we expose like the progress we made in the meetings and we do get comments, like from the wider community. So, like, we'd like to kind of at least show like the, um, direction we're going in so we don't get too locked up on that. So.
Lila Bailey: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And, uh, yeah, so hopefully all the folks who have raised their hands and who are on the call today, like, heard that and, and we will, we will do our best to, to do this in a timely, timely manner so that it can, uh, make its way to that, to that, um, Vienna meeting.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you.
Okay, um, so like I just looked at, went through the issue list, and I picked some stuff that might have, um, people on the call, like, who might want to talk about those issues, like, or like, explain new things that have been added on there, um, but I'm not sure if we'll make too much progress on it, other than probably talk a little bit about the rag and grounding issue. I can throw up the, uh, issue text in there, but, um, does anybody want to talk about the, one of the other three things, the 208, 197, or 192?
Leonard?
Leonard Rosenthol: Oh, I was going to respond to Kevin's, so I'll put my hand down until we get back to that conversation of exactly what we're looking for or mean.
Suresh Krishnan: Perfect. Thank you. Thanks.
And so, again, coming back, the other thing is like, so these are all kind of merging, right? Because if you look at some of the discussions in the CMA publisher contract stuff, there's also things about like, the exceptions and how somebody can ignore it. So, these are all like going to the same 3.2 discussion we had. So, I think like, Alissa, thanks for the text suggestion and, um, Lila, like, if you can kind of take it as like, the, I don't know, one instantiation of like, what you would like to see and try to keep it, like, small. Like, I think like, lesser the amount of text, the better it is, right? I think we did actually try to have something like this, Alissa, before, right? And then we expanded it. Maybe we should try again with like, a shorter version of the text without going into too much detail. So, maybe that is something you can try, Lila? I don't know.
Lila Bailey: Yeah, I think we need to have a synchronous call with everybody first to kind of like, come up with the, you know, and then, and then maybe we just work on some language asynchronously and hopefully we come up with something that, uh, by before July 20th, so we'll, we'll aim for that. We'll do our best.
Suresh Krishnan: Sounds good. Like, uh, I think the, the big difference between the plenary, IETF plenary meetings and the AIRPREF meetings is that, like, there's like a much