Session Date/Time: 17 Jun 2026 14:00
Ines Robles: Can you see?
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Um, no I can't. Uh wait. So this is screen sharing. Um, let me just... maybe I can just share my screen instead. If I do that... share. Okay, so so this does work, right? You can see my screen? A Google search box? You can see my screen, right?
Michael Richardson: Yes, I can see you many times.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's an infinite thing. Yes! Okay, so I'm stopping that. In "Share Slides" though, if you click there, confirm your selection, here you are. For me it works. So can you see the slides now? It should be okay.
Ines Robles: Yeah, great. Thank you very much, Aris.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: I'm I'm quite surprised that it didn't work for you.
Ines Robles: I um... I just upload a new version. Can you please close the deck? Let's see if I can do it.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Uh, yes. I just stopped it. Yes.
Ines Robles: Okay, yes. Now I can. Okay, here. Yes. Let me see one thing. Oh, yes. There are the new...
Michael Richardson: So, so far it's just the three of us?
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah, that's not not great. Oh...
Michael Richardson: Uh, no, it's a... well, yeah. It's not not It's It's No only not great, but it's actually completely useless because we all know what the issue is and um so there's not really any other feedback to get as a result.
Ines Robles: Yeah, unfortunately, Georgios uh cannot attend for a personal issue, but yeah, um...
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Uh, so do we...?
Ines Robles: No, we can present what we have and discuss between us because we have other...
Michael Richardson: No, uh, okay. All right. I mean, the question is is um... the question was whether or not, with the addition of the lollipop counter, um the text is correct that says only the root can change the thing. That was what I said in March and nobody answered me, right? So if you don't know and if Remous doesn't know, and sorry, what do I call you, Hari? Hari?
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah, yeah. Hari is fine. Don't worry. Don't don't...
Michael Richardson: Okay. Um anyway, the point is that either we have an opinion or we don't, right? So like, that's all I really needed was someone to say that this was actually correct or not correct.
Ines Robles: Mm. Uh, okay, I think that since we are here, we Yes, I understand. But we can go through uh the issues that we have open and that one we can...
Michael Richardson: All right. Well, why not just share the GitHub then?
Ines Robles: Uh, okay, but let's start with the meeting officially for the Note Well, and...
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Okay.
Ines Robles: Okay, just let's go through the slides because we need to mention the Note Well and okay, so. Uh welcome to the meeting. Um I hope more people read it after the recording is published and can reach to us with comments. So please, that this meeting is allied with the Note Well, we will not read it but uh we need to uh take into account these important uh measures. We need to conduct with respect to each other and uh if we notice that we are not well treated, we just can inform to the IETF, the Ombuds team. Uh well, the material uh please, if you can take notes of what we say into the notes link, that will be great. For a minute taker. Thank you very much, if Aris, you can. Thank you.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah, I will take some notes, yeah.
Ines Robles: Thank you. Well, our agenda is um uh well, we give the introduction that is this, uh then we discuss the issues of the enrollment priority, then we mention the status of uh this modification then NSA extension. Uh okay, about this draft status, just for uh let you know, we have like uh three RFCs new. Two from October and one from April. All the RPL, NSF, and DAO projection. Then, uh enrollment priority is in working group last call, this modification NSA extension is in progress, and uh since we have not received any feedback, I mean, to continue the working MoPs and capabilities, we have deferred for future work and removed from milestones. And in this way, well, these are the current milestones, we hope to for July to submit enrollment priority, then October this modifications, November NSA extension, and in December we recharter or close. And as we have stated before, we have removed capabilities and MoPs. Okay, Michael, do you want to... Well, it's only for us, but I just put the tickets that you have open. I think all these tickets that you have open are well-managed, right? They are already...
Michael Richardson: Uh well, so many of them are managed, but I mean I got to the the the meatier ones and that's where I had problems, yeah.
Ines Robles: Uh which one? Uh okay, number... This one uh which number? We can go through each one.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah, yeah, maybe we can go through them.
Michael Richardson: I don't know, I don't know, as you're going quickly, I don't know which one is which, but yes, go ahead.
Ines Robles: Okay, sorry. Well, here, number 37 is that these two references um are normative.
Michael Richardson: Yeah, I fixed them. I'm sure I fixed them. I'm sure that's fine. Yeah.
Ines Robles: Okay, so go to informative. Okay? Then this IANA request is just to put more information uh like the uh right registry link and ask formally how to request um the new number.
Michael Richardson: Right, that's easy.
Ines Robles: Then, about the privacy considerations, mm. Well, I think it's doesn't hurt to have this section, but I I don't know if you delete the section and you can mention in the security section there is no privacy privacy-related considerations for this draft. I don't know, what do you think?
Michael Richardson: I deleted it. It's fine. Yep.
Ines Robles: Ah, okay. And then operational considerations, I think it's more information is requested, uh how to how the operators should uh treat uh this draft, right? More operational considerations information is needed. I think. Right?
Michael Richardson: Well, but so we don't have any standard management mechanisms, right? I- I- If you're introducing more new nodes to the... the goal here is to be able to introduce new nodes to a uh a mesh network without having to uh plug in cables and configure them all, right? That's the point. So if if I tell someone, "Do the following, turn the following things on or off so they're non-default state," well, that's not zero-touch. That's just like just go configure your network. Like, you don't need any of this stuff. You know what I'm saying?
Ines Robles: Yeah. But I think maybe uh the Gethan thought like uh provide more information, like, for example, why 40 is the default value, and what happen if I can...
Michael Richardson: Well, that's not an operational consideration, that's a default value for the protocol. Why is it 40? Because that's the halfway point. 64, you know. That's because it's the halfway point.
Ines Robles: Yes, yes.
Michael Richardson: So it can't be worse than, you know. And there were already text that explained to it. So I don't, anyway, I didn't understand what the issue I don't understand what the uh I would do nothing, right? Um, anyway, um... So it's like it's like this 40 is uh operator configurable? I think he is asking this. Um. Well, this is it's not. It's not operator-configurable. It's we're not we're trying specifically not to create things that the operator has to adjust. Right? That's the whole point here. If if if we're creating things the operator has to adjust, the operator can just do everything. If they have to plug the cable in to adjust it,
Ines Robles: Yeah, yeah.
Michael Richardson: then they're done. We don't need the rest of it, right? Configure everything.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah, you can, yeah.
Ines Robles: So, so, will be will be nice to put into the document that operational considerations are not included because blah blah. To explain why is...?
Michael Richardson: No, no, but that's not the same question, okay? That's not the same question. He's saying, "Why doesn't the operator configure this value?" Hm. Yeah. Yeah, that's not... If you're going to assume this if you're going to configure this assumed value, then you've because you plug a then either you have a management protocol, which we don't, or B, you're going to plug a cable in. Um. So there's no way to configure that value other than having a management protocol or by plugging a cable in. Both if we have a management protocol, well, that's we don't have one, so great. If you had that, you could configure it. But, um... so you're plugging a cable in. Which case we don't need which case you don't need this proto- which case you don't need this protocol at all.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: It defeats the purpose, yeah.
Michael Richardson: Yeah.
Ines Robles: Okay. So, do you did you reply that?
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Is there is there a chance that it's just a misunderstanding on his part?
Michael Richardson: Yeah, it's a misunderstanding on his part about the whole point of the protocol, right? You know? Yeah. Because he's thinking, "Oh, I have a uh," you know, I don't know what he's thinking, right? So, but he's not thinking, "Oh, I have a thousand of these devices, I can't plug a cable in, uh, or I need a management protocol," which we don't have. Okay, so...
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: So, yeah, here, maybe the idea is to just clarify, I don't know. It will uh add a bit of noise to to the draft if you have to clarify why a specific value was chosen. But I don't know. Maybe...
Michael Richardson: I I It's actually in the document why that value is chosen. It's not what he's asking. He's asking why is if it's configurable.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Ah, okay.
Ines Robles: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry.
Michael Richardson: Okay? And it's like, well, no, we picked a default value that was sane. If you want to configure it, call your vendor and tell them put a new default value in for all 1000, you know, units that you bought.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah.
Michael Richardson: At which point they can also configure everything else for you, right?
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Maybe a short phrase somewhere in the document that says uh "constants used in this draft are not supposed to be configurable to aid in the whole objective."
Michael Richardson: Yeah, okay. I mean, I'll do that, okay? But anyway... It's it's not perfect, I agree. But uh... I I I mean, I I haven't tweaked tweaked the little bits of text because I had like, well, the bigger question of bigger questions of what's going on. I I I anyway, uh, I have a bunch of up a bunch of changes anyway for many of these many of these issues. It's not it's not a problem of dealing with them, it's a question of, okay, what next, right? What's the bigger picture? So go ahead, next slide. Uh, we'll get...
Ines Robles: Okay, and sorry, the second part is about the terminology, if you can add the meaning, because some terms are similar, and maybe confusing for the reader that is not familiar, uh so maybe uh explain...
Michael Richardson: Okay, yeah. Okay, thank you.
Ines Robles: Change upwards, deployment considerations, um... Isn't this first sentence about backward compatibility compatibility? Perhaps these deployment considerations? Um... Well, I think more clarification, but in then in the major about the telemetry, uh maybe we can change that word for some uh sent information, instead of say telemetry. I think the first part, the minor, is like more clarifications about this upward compatibility. And then in the second part, just I think delete the telemetry word to change for some information that is sent.
Michael Richardson: Sorry, I'm just trying to find this text uh in my copy. Um, just give me a second. Yeah, so like, most of these I've already dealt with. Right, so I've already changed this text.
Ines Robles: Okay.
Michael Richardson: It now says deployment considerations instead of upwards compatibility.
Ines Robles: Ah, okay.
Michael Richardson: Okay, so this is already addressed in a in a PR.
Ines Robles: Ah, okay, great.
Michael Richardson: In March.
Ines Robles: Okay, and the telemetry word we can as well change it or delete it and change it for...
Michael Richardson: Yeah, fixed, changed that, yeah. Great, thank you. Uh, I don't know what sorry, what does he like about telemetry? Uh, no, that uh, "What it means by telemetry?" Telemetry is when people tell you things. Okay, so, but maybe you can change it for something more... But that's the right word. But that's the right technical word. Like, that really is the right technical word. Um... And I believe we use that word in the else where. Um... I mean, for me, telemetry is pretty clear. Radio signals or other data transmitted automatically at a distance. Like, it's so normal, normal, all three, actually, dictionary, all three definitions work. It's the normal word, and I know we've used it in the IETF before. Yes, yes, yes. So, I'm not sure. I I understand. I don't I would not want to change the word to something else because I think that's the correct word. I will just say that, that is the correct word. Yeah, okay. Yes, we can keep it. But, in brackets, you can say what it means by, for example... No. No? No. No, I could put a reference to dictionary.com if you like, but... No, I'm sorry. No, because... No, I'm sorry. Yeah, like, like, really, it's the right word, it's commonly used, and and I don't think I need to explain it. I just don't think I need to explain it. Okay, well, for me... Okay. We just can reply him with... I mean, okay, look. RFC 9232, okay? Uh, you know, that's in the literally in the title of this document, "Network Telemetry Framework". Uh, like, anyway, I'm sorry. It's really is all over the word all over the IETF. Yes, yes, yes, I I agree. And I'm not I'm not, like, I'll just answer his thing and say, "No, actually, this is all this is the word. This is the correct word. It's all over, we've used it all over the place. It's the normal word, normal meaning, look in dictionary, right?" Okay, so, okay, you reply Gethan with that, uh, okay. So, uh, okay, the secure part, um, basically further clarification what secure word is there. Yeah, it's easy. Ah, yeah. So, I think... Enrollment bits on board is... Yeah, I think I I think I dealt with this. This is number 42. Yes. Yeah, I dealt with that already. I just removed the word secure, I think. I mean, I mean, it's it's about it's it's anyway, whatever, okay? Yeah, yeah. Because because part of it is about secure enrollment, right? Yeah. And we have secure enrollment protocols. One of which has the word secure in it. Um, and we have actually two of which have the word secure in them already, so that's why it's about that. But I removed it from the title already, yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. 43, um... I haven't done anything with 43 yet. I see not, but anyway, yeah. It's editorial, yes. Okay, we can continue. I will fix the abstract at the end. Okay. 44, introduction, add more reasons summary for reference documents. Um... Yeah, is editorial, this one. So, yeah, more information. Okay. Okay, I haven't done anything with that one. Thank you. Oh, I have done that, I've closed that one already. Yeah, that's already done. Typos, one is easy. 46 is already done, already done. Okay. 47 as well, terminology moved to section 1. What do you think? No, I don't know, doesn't matter, whatever. Um, uh, uh, I, it's common for terminology to be section 2, but whatever. Okay. And then 48 is like three three instead of four, right? In the... Oh, I I I believe I've dealt with this already. ...of place. Sorry. I have an operational considerations, I have moved text into it. Yes. Okay, but the length is three, not four, right? Yeah, I'm sure I'm sure I fixed that, yeah. Okay. Thank. Okay. Uh, I'll make sure, but I'm pretty sure I fixed it. Yeah. Then, well, this is easy, add reference to trickle and the RP RPL. And, okay, RPL capabilities, this part should be removed, I think, because the work is not going to be we are not going to work on that for a while. Future work. But, yeah, well, it's future work, so maybe it can stay? Uh, I I don't know. I mean, I don't think we're doing that work, so I'm happy to remove it, but, you know, that's what you normally say if you're anticipating someone else, you know, in the future this might be easier, but it's not right now. Yeah. So I don't I'm happy to remove it, whatever. Okay, I think you should remove it, yeah. Yeah. And manage the T bit, um, I think should be a must or should be a should? Um, T bit causes the trickle reset. If it's considered important, then you should also set the T bit. Mhm. I don't know. I mean, uh if blah blah blah, then should do this. Yeah, if implies. Yeah, if if there's an if statement, then you use should. If you say, "If you do want to X, then you must do Y," that's almost the same thing. A must with an if is the same as a should where you say, "This is the case. If it's not important, then don't set it." So, I don't care, whatever whatever it says, you can we can just remove the word should uh should and must. I I would transform the should to a must, and uh if you want to keep the ambiguity, it's basically on the if condition. I'll change I'll change it to must. I don't care, this is a it's a it's the same exactly the same thing. Okay, so I think those are the issues that I have it open in GitHub, but it seems that about this lollipop is not I didn't found it into the GitHub open issues. So maybe we have to create one, so I can comment on that. Uh well, okay. Um, I I mean, I came I'm editing the text, and I came across this this thing while fixing some other text, and said, "Okay, that can't be right." So that's what I really that was the really the question, right? To begin with. Do do you want to switch to my shares, my slides? I have I have the...
Ines Robles: Yes, please. Thank you. Ah, Pascal. Hi, Pascal.
Pascal Thubert: Hello.
Ines Robles: And Paul.
Paul Duffy: Hello.
Ines Robles: Thank you for joining us.
Paul Duffy: Glad to hear you.
Michael Richardson: How are you?
Paul Duffy: All good, don't worry.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Okay.
Ines Robles: Yes, we can see the slides, Michael, if you want to present or...
Michael Richardson: I'm sorry, I I muted myself.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yeah.
Michael Richardson: Sorry. Um, so the the story, you know, we added this stuff, we went through the process, uh we realized that if you're going to change the if you want the option of propagate, you have to reset the trickle timer. Um and so then we added a new lollipop counter to deal with the um the fact that that changes, and so the fact that if that if that lollipop counter increments, then the trickle counter gets reset and you have to send the new value. Okay. Um... But it's not clear that you should necessarily change the trickle counter, the timer, for that. To me, it's not always the case. Anyway, so I got to this text that said that the 6LR, the routers, must not change the option when propagating it. And I went, "Well, no, but the point is that we want them to change the option, that's why we put the lollipop counter in." And... so I think this text was wrong, but I don't think I wrote this text, so I'm not sure whether it addresses something else that I don't understand, or...
Pascal Thubert: Oh, Michael, I think the text means that it has to be propagated the way it was received, right? That's that's that's the intention of that text. I mean, it the the goal is that the whole DODAG has the same value for this bit.
Michael Richardson: But the point is that we want to change the min priority.
Pascal Thubert: I mean, what uh I don't understand your question. Bottom line is the root sets it and then everybody propagates it as is without a change. That's the intention.
Michael Richardson: Right. But that defeats the point of the whole... That's just a bit turn on or turn off, right? Either you accommodate joining or you turn off all joining, all enrollment. Every branch of the DODAG would have the exact same thing, right? So let's let's go to the example here. Like, I...
Pascal Thubert: I think this bit was for the root to to create a global on-off. There must be something else to locally dismiss joins, but this was kind of a global on-off for the whole DODAG, if I remember.
Michael Richardson: Right. So we said if you set it to 7F, which is that will be considered infinity because it's the highest number, 127, right? That they can't increment it anymore. And so if it's set to 127, then uh you should turn off all your join or enrollment functionality. So 7F is special. It's not just a large number, it's the largest number, and it means turn off. Infinity. And if the root sets 7F, nobody can make it lower. So everything is turned off. Agreed. So you can turn it off. If the root doesn't say 7F, then potentially something can join, right? So in this diagram we had um you know, 51, 52, and 25 that wanted to join, 53 as well, right? And um the idea was that they were hearing a different...
Pascal Thubert: Propagating is to other 6LRs, right? It's not what you expose to the leaves. Do we agree?
Michael Richardson: We agree. The the thing that says that has the antenna with the propagate, that would be like a 9032 announcement for a which is the enhanced beacon, right? Which is a six-ish thingy. We already defined that. Right? So we have these values: 72, 7F, 52, 22 um and we can do that right now. And the the the 6LRs can announce that, calculate that by whatever means they they like, and that's fine. But there's no way for any of the interior nodes or the root uh to influence those values right now. Fair? Okay. So, so this this sequence, so I'm just going to, you know, walk some of us through here, right? So the idea is that the root announces of something, with in this case 16 as the value. All right. I feel, you know, I don't know why it's not zero, I don't know, maybe there's some other reason it's not zero. And then the idea is that the number increments as you go down the rank, which means that as you as you see the announcements, the enhanced beacons that result from further down the further down the the DODAG, then you know you're getting higher values because you're getting further away from the root. You're going to be get you know, if you have a choice between 16 and 34, then you probably take 16, right? Because it's a better you're going to be closer to the root, everything will be better for you and and if the root's happy with you, then you're you're good. Um so that's the idea. At least that number has to increment uh by uh the by there. Did I go next slide? I didn't go next slide, there we go. Um so then maybe it goes up to 42, another increment as it goes down. It goes up again, uh 64. And and this can also be based upon the the um bandwidth of the avail- you know, the six-ish kind of like how much bandwidth, how much how busy, how congested are these links? Uh how good is my radio? Whatever the story is. And so this finally results in a 72 at the bottom here, right? It's pretty high but, you know, it's you can still join. Um so then, the other direction it's maybe it's worse, right? So it says I'm really don't have any any uh any bandwidth, I don't have any neighbor uh entries or don't have any routing table entries, and so I'm saying, "Look, I just can't I can't I don't I can't cope with anybody else. I'm done," right? So his announcement says 7F. Uh the other nodes can still synchronize, but don't don't try to join. So that's in the enhanced beacon, right? You're still transmitting the enhanced beacon in a six-ish environment because you still have to synchronize the other nodes, but you're saying, "No, no, don't take this as indication that you can join here, you can't." It's not joinable, right? So this other path, we get a better thing, we get a 52, and so node, oh that's funny, 52, node 52 sees that hex 52 is better than 7F, so it's going to join on node 43 rather than on 42. But that only works if we if we can change the value down the as we propagate. If if the root sets that value and it never changes, then there's no value. There's nothing It's just a number, right? Um and you can make one DODAG one DODAG could be preferable to another if you had uh you had environment where there was multiple LLNs, multiple DAGs, multiple DODAGs, I think I want to say, in the same visible to the same nodes and they've already joined. And they're picking between one or the other. We had a great big diagram years ago, you know, there with an impaired node, what does that do? Number 24, what is the impaired node? 24?
Pascal Thubert: Yes, that's that's the rational for this value 16, for instance, that you discussed earlier. Because not all DODAG must be globally less loaded and more preferable.
Michael Richardson: Mhm. You know, yeah, turn around and go the other direction, out of the other part of the thing. And then, and then this rest of this this thing is about what the thing about what if you have a node that does not support this option, so this is 24, does not support it, and so number 35 gets an implied uh 64, halfway value. And so it's going to emit some value. And we can't do anything about that link between 24 and 35 because 24 doesn't support this option, doesn't propagate it. So the worst-case scenario is we have no information. Right? And um so, some information from a different path would be if it's better would be better than this thing. But if it's worse than this thing, well, uh this thing this this branch will get some traffic uh regardless, right? And you could still have a preference between 45 and 46 or something like that. So that was it, that was the whole diagram from many years ago. Um, but if I can't change the value, then none of this makes any sense.
Pascal Thubert: I I agree. I try to remember when we wrote this text, but I... Maybe the structure of the option was different at the time or something. Because the idea...
Michael Richardson: Well, we didn't have a lollipop originally, right? We didn't put that... We didn't have a a specific lollipop counter um in the option and we added it. Maybe what you're saying is that I should go back and see when we added the lollipop and did we just forget to change that text, or did we add that text at the same time as we added the lollipop counter?
Pascal Thubert: It applied to something that was meant not to be changed down. Meaning, it cannot be the value that you're talking about. I mean, so maybe we changed from a flag to a value or something. Something has changed and this text was not changed accordingly. Updated. Because it makes no sense, it's just as you say. Maybe at the time, we had the bit for the global off by the root and there was another value that you...
Michael Richardson: No, I don't think so, don't think we had a bit for that ever. But um we did add the for instance, we added the DODAG size, which...
Pascal Thubert: Yeah, I think we had more room initially and and we compressed stuff because we decided to add more data. Uh.
Michael Richardson: Okay. I mean, the T bit um we had the T bit to explicitly reset the trickle counter um so that, um, you would immediately announce it, and I think the reason for that is usually...
Pascal Thubert: Or you want a rapid lock.
Michael Richardson: Yeah, the network is is is over-congested, there's attacks going on, "Please shut down everything, do it now," right? Um, and alternatively, the network is super stable and happy and, but I want to add some nodes, and I don't want to wait, uh, you know, trickle counter hours. So, we can only know if we go all the way down history of the document to the time where this text was added, and...
Michael Richardson: Yeah, I can backtrack that. That's pretty easy in Git, it's just I don't know what the I I'll I'll I'll go back and do that. see where we added it and what...
Pascal Thubert: But, but what you're saying makes sense, I mean, it cannot be incremented beyond the max value, but if it's not at the max value, it should be incremented if needed.
Michael Richardson: Yeah. Okay. Well, that was my question, really, and uh if you agree that that's possible um and it doesn't violate something of 6550 that in the end because we've added the additional counter...
Pascal Thubert: No, it's more it's more the rules for deciding which value you take if if two parents, as you said earlier, are exposed different values, then I guess you have to take the one of your preferred parent or something. Um.
Michael Richardson: Yes, you should take the one of your preferred parent, yeah. I think maybe that should be stated, maybe that's not stated. Um, so... Yeah. All right, I just add a note in there, I think it will I know where it goes. Um, all right.
Ines Robles: Okay.
Michael Richardson: All right, well, that was that was my major question, and thank you for confirming my understanding, Pascal.
Ines Robles: Great. Thank you very much, Pascal, Michael. Very useful conversation. Um okay, so, about the results, we will uh put into a GitHub ticket so we can track, and is in the notes too. So we continue with the next presentation. Um...
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: I'm sorry, I didn't note when we started discussing enrollment priority. I think it was really quickly after we started, maybe five minutes into the whole thing. Something like that.
Ines Robles: Okay. Thank you, yeah. Okay, about this modifications, um Georgios unfortunately cannot join, but he is working on this. So, we have a new version from May this year. This work is in progress. Uh the document went through security directory review, addressing ticket number 4, and routing directory review, addressing ticket number 5. So is um the authors are working on that. Uh so we need additional reviewers. Do we have volunteers to review this draft? Pascal?
Michael Richardson: Yeah, I'll I'll review it.
Ines Robles: Great. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Pascal. Um, and well, about the we are going to as well send an email to the mailing list is someone is volunteer to do the shepherd of the document. And I think once the reviews are addressed, we can proceed with the working group last call. Comments or questions? Okay. Aris?
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Yes.
Ines Robles: I...
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: So, yeah. Uh, just just switch slide, there's not a lot of uh advance on NSA, unfortunately, yeah. I didn't manage to to work on this, unfortunately, yet. I should get onto it uh to try to to finish it. We've updated the milestones for it, so there's two main issues that uh remain, effectively, the basic idea was to transform the work uh in a version that doesn't depend on the objective function used to make something uh more generic, that was the uh one of the ideas proposed by Pascal. I have advanced on it, but I didn't publish the new version. Um so I'll try to get on that.
Ines Robles: Okay. Thank you, Aris.
Pascal Thubert: Thank you, Aris.
Ines Robles: And then, well, next steps um we are addressing the issues, uh the shepherd to write the write-up and then issue a working group last call. And then based on the results, we can submit to the IESG. Any other comments? Okay. So, open floor. Okay, so I think uh we can finalize the meeting. Uh thank you, everyone, for joining, and uh we keep in contact with the mailing list. Yes, thank you.
Ines Robles: Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you.
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis: Bye-bye.
Ines Robles: Are you guys going to the IETF this July?
Ines Robles: Yes, I am to be there.
Michael Richardson: I I plan to be there, but I won't know if I'm allowed on an airplane till tomorrow. Hm, okay. Yeah. Hope you make it. Yeah, but I don't think so. Yeah. But I hope so. We'll see.
Pascal Thubert: I don't believe I will, sadly. I'm my own sponsor, so My sponsor is not rich. Okay, bye-bye.
Michael Richardson: Vienna is so lovely in July. You want to vacation there.
Pascal Thubert: Oh yeah, tell my wife I I bring her there and and I work all day. And she waits for me at the hotel. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no. No, no, no, no. Just bring your wife, you go you leave her with the working group. Okay. We need new blood. Yeah, that that would be helpful. Okay, see you there. Bye-bye. Bye. Have a nice night. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.