IETF
sacm@jabber.ietf.org
Thursday, November 5, 2015< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[00:02:25] Kaoru Maeda joins the room
[00:03:34] Kathleen Moriarty joins the room
[00:04:02] <Adam Montville> meetecho: some people cannot join; receiving a message about being "too late"
[00:04:28] <Meetecho> fixing that right away
[00:04:41] sftcd joins the room
[00:05:04] <Meetecho> done, sorry about that!
[00:05:19] <Kathleen Moriarty> Thank you
[00:05:31] <Adam Montville> Thanks
[00:05:34] Kathleen Moriarty_1299 joins the room
[00:05:37] David Waltermire joins the room
[00:05:52] <Kathleen Moriarty> I'm in meetecho now
[00:06:14] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations presentation started.  Slide 3 now
[00:08:07] Yuji Suga joins the room
[00:09:09] Chris Inacio joins the room
[00:09:29] jimsch joins the room
[00:09:31] Simon Romano joins the room
[00:09:56] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 4.
[00:10:12] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> Is the video feed dead?
[00:10:41] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> never mind - likely me.
[00:11:27] <Adam Montville> meetecho - some people are still not able to join
[00:11:31] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 5.
[00:12:01] <Adam Montville> I just tried this link: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf94/sacm
[00:12:02] <Meetecho> Adam Montville: just tried and it should work, www.meetecho.com/ietf94/sacm_II
[00:12:08] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 6.
[00:12:10] <Yuji Suga> It seems that the URL is wrong in the agenda page https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/94/ http://www.meetecho.com/ietf94/sacm_II is correct described in https://www.ietf.org/meeting/94/remote-participation.html
[00:12:11] <Meetecho> note the additional _II
[00:12:14] Chris Inacio leaves the room
[00:12:16] <Adam Montville> that's not the link on the tools-style agenda
[00:12:27] <Meetecho> the link on our agenda is correct
[00:12:34] <Meetecho> http://ietf94.conf.meetecho.com
[00:12:34] <Adam Montville> http://www.meetecho.com/ietf94/sacm_II
[00:12:58] <Adam Montville> That works, thank hou.
[00:12:59] <Adam Montville> you
[00:13:20] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay joins the room
[00:13:26] <Kathleen Moriarty> I got in no problem once the isue was resolved
[00:13:33] Chris Inacio joins the room
[00:13:40] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> that link worked, Kathleen, thanks!
[00:15:48] <Kathleen Moriarty> The link was from meetecho and Adam, and the one on the meetecho page :-)
[00:16:09] Kathleen Moriarty leaves the room
[00:16:16] Kathleen Moriarty joins the room
[00:16:29] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Thanks to Adam, then. The one on the agenda page continues to say "too late"
[00:17:03] cinacio@swissjabber.eu leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[00:17:09] Deb Cooley joins the room
[00:17:34] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[00:17:46] cinacio@swissjabber.eu joins the room
[00:23:09] <Kathleen Moriarty> DId IETF publication result in any additional implementations above what was done with TCG members?
[00:23:11] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> mic: Juniper and strongSwan both use NEA protocols
[00:23:24] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> :)
[00:23:34] <Kathleen Moriarty> Mic: my question as well please
[00:24:07] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> okay
[00:24:23] <Kathleen Moriarty> Good points Leif!
[00:24:28] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> mic: NEA was written to enable comply-to-connect scenarios. We propose using PT-TLS to collect data from network connected devices
[00:24:58] <Kathleen Moriarty> So no to my question?
[00:25:37] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @kathleen - who would answer it?
[00:25:47] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> I can re-ask if I knew?
[00:25:53] <Adam Montville> Did Jess' response not provide some level of answer?
[00:26:09] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> stongswan isn't a vendor company, so isn't a "TCG member"
[00:26:10] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 7.
[00:26:23] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Andreas Steffans is an invited expert to TCG, not sure if that matters to you
[00:26:37] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> it's an open source project
[00:27:16] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> aren't there a bunch of variations of strongswan from whatever the original project was?
[00:27:23] <Kathleen Moriarty> OK, so one implementation is not from a TCG member of NEA.  I thought there were 7-9 NEA implementations, are there only 2?
[00:27:44] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 13.
[00:27:55] <Kathleen Moriarty> Chat room is fine to answer my question if Jessica & others know
[00:28:00] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> I thought Cisco had one (fairly certain) but since I don't work for Cisco, take that with a grain of salt
[00:28:33] <Kathleen Moriarty> They had a competing proposal and they joined TCG, we'd have to ask Nancy if they ever implemented it
[00:28:43] <Kathleen Moriarty> it being NEA
[00:28:44] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Cisco helped author it, I don't believe they implemented it
[00:29:06] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> There are several companies that created collectors/verifiers to integrate with the NEA protocol stack
[00:29:11] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> triumphant, for one
[00:29:24] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> a couple of SCAP vendors
[00:30:15] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 14.
[00:31:17] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> the pointer is at the end of the endpoint compliance internet draft as well
[00:32:02] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> (figuring that David covered your comment Jessica)
[00:32:08] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> yup, thanks :)
[00:34:17] <rdanyliw> ECP Recommendations: Now on slide 13.
[00:35:16] <Kathleen Moriarty> mic: None of the proposals have been submitted yet and we are still waiting to see if that will happen, correct?  <wait for answer>  Then: OVAL should be soon, but we don't know about this one.  I'm happy to assist if the WG would like to see this come in and I can help with questions, etc.
[00:36:26] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> we have requested the tcg board release the specs. They are favorable to that, and we're working with them to jump through the hoops to bring the listed specs over
[00:36:55] <Kathleen Moriarty> Thanks, Karen!
[00:36:58] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> these should be soon as well, thank you for your offer of help, Kathleen
[00:37:11] <Kathleen Moriarty> NP!
[00:38:10] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> it has been deployed
[00:38:19] <Kathleen Moriarty> mic: Will bringing this in matter to participants who are not TCG members?
[00:38:50] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> in line
[00:39:05] <Kathleen Moriarty> And mic: If this is a data model, will we be choosing between OVAL and this data model?
[00:40:15] <Kathleen Moriarty> are both really needed?
[00:40:27] <Kathleen Moriarty> OVAL is pretty complicated already
[00:40:45] <Kathleen Moriarty> Is that well deployed?
[00:40:54] <jimsch> which that?
[00:41:44] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> SCAP and OVAL do not provide transport
[00:41:56] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> nevermind, Dave has this under control :)
[00:42:06] <Kathleen Moriarty> So is this a data model or a transport?  Danny said it was a data model.
[00:42:15] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> PA-TNC is a data model
[00:42:20] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> PT-TLS is a transport
[00:42:37] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> mic this?
[00:42:50] <Kathleen Moriarty> Maybe Adam will cover it
[00:43:39] <Adam Montville> Did that answer your question Kathleen?
[00:43:39] <Kathleen Moriarty> OK, thanks
[00:43:46] <Kathleen Moriarty> yes
[00:43:49] <Adam Montville> It wasn't made very clear, I agree.
[00:43:49] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @meetecho, we are having someone get an Unhandled IETF meeting session
[00:44:09] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 2.
[00:44:21] <rdanyliw> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-sacm-4.pdf
[00:44:39] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[00:44:46] <Kathleen Moriarty> Thanks, Adam.  I thought it was the case that it was both, but kept hearing it said that it was a data model and wanted to make sure the WG deciding on what to do were clear.
[00:44:55] <Meetecho> cinacio@swissjabber.eu: just tried and it works here
[00:45:02] <Adam Montville> @kathleen: totally
[00:45:14] <Meetecho> they should make sure they're using the right link: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf94/sacm_II
[00:45:21] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[00:45:45] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 3.
[00:46:44] Nancy winget joins the room
[00:47:32] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 4.
[00:48:33] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 5.
[00:48:58] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @meetecho the link you sent worked, thanks
[00:49:05] <Meetecho> (y)
[00:49:40] <Adam Montville> @meetecho: It seems that the link off the agenda page isn't correct - might validate some of the others
[00:49:56] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 6.
[00:50:01] <Meetecho> it's probably a mistake in the autogeneration of the links on the tools page
[00:50:04] <Meetecho> we're not handling that
[00:50:05] David Somers-Harris joins the room
[00:50:09] <Meetecho> we'll talk to the tools people
[00:50:14] <Adam Montville> cool
[00:50:20] <Adam Montville> ty
[00:51:30] Yuji Suga leaves the room
[00:51:50] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 7.
[00:52:41] Deb Cooley leaves the room
[00:53:59] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 8.
[00:54:05] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 9.
[00:54:23] <rdanyliw> Vulnerability Assessment Scenario: Now on Slide 10.
[00:59:27] Deb Cooley joins the room
[01:02:19] <rdanyliw> OVAL: Now on Slide 2.
[01:02:27] <rdanyliw> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-sacm-6.pdf
[01:06:36] <Kathleen Moriarty> How much can the WG take on?
[01:06:47] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> mic it?
[01:07:10] <Kathleen Moriarty> If they are complimentary, do they get adopted in parallel?
[01:07:17] <Kathleen Moriarty> if Dave is still up
[01:07:46] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> this is one of the reasons we were proposing focusing on the vulnerability management usage scenario. We can work through that use cases, and pick the data models and protocols required to meet that use case
[01:09:53] <Kathleen Moriarty> Mic: what data model would that be for vuln?
[01:11:14] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @kathleen - sorry :)
[01:11:49] <Kathleen Moriarty> So different data models than what we are talking about today
[01:12:03] <Kathleen Moriarty> Have any been submitted already?  Are they possible to work with?
[01:12:47] <jimsch> I would have no idea if they are using these or different DMs
[01:12:59] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I can't speak to the OVAL data model, but the endpoint compliance internet draft is entirely focused on the data model and protocols necessary to know what software is running on the endpoints
[01:13:05] <Kathleen Moriarty> Didn't Kent submit one?
[01:13:13] <Kathleen Moriarty> that was a NIST document
[01:13:21] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Harold Booth had submitted one
[01:13:45] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> it has expired, but could certainly be revived (I assume?)
[01:13:58] <Kathleen Moriarty> WHich one did Harold submit?  I think it was a competing proposal (which isn't a bad thing) to the existing vuln ones
[01:14:56] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-booth-sacm-vuln-model-01
[01:15:39] <Adam Montville> Thanks Jess
[01:15:50] <Adam Montville> There was also an asset id submission
[01:15:55] <Adam Montville> (I did that one)
[01:17:01] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> NSA's Active Cyber Defense team is also committed to integrating SACM-standardized vulnerability assessment products in their test labs. The same is also true of the Army research lab
[01:17:10] <Kathleen Moriarty> Thanks, Juan!  (no need to mic that, someone can just tell him if he's not on here)
[01:17:25] <Adam Montville> Chris just did :-)
[01:17:33] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @jessica mic that?
[01:17:34] <Kathleen Moriarty> :-)
[01:17:47] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> yes please
[01:18:08] <Kathleen Moriarty> A poll to the list soon would help I think
[01:18:10] <Kathleen Moriarty> mic:
[01:18:40] <Kathleen Moriarty> to Dan's point on priority
[01:19:06] Yuji Suga joins the room
[01:19:08] <Kathleen Moriarty> I think my poll request was misunderstood - It was for the chairs on prioritizing and not to Danny
[01:19:22] <Kathleen Moriarty> Adam should be on here - just ack, no need to mic
[01:19:25] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @adam will get that
[01:19:27] <Adam Montville> I got that.
[01:19:28] <Adam Montville> :)
[01:19:50] <Kathleen Moriarty> Too many data models and it would be hard to figure out how to focus the group
[01:19:53] <Kathleen Moriarty> without that
[01:20:00] <Adam Montville> AGree
[01:20:17] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 1.
[01:20:23] <rdanyliw> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-sacm-7.pdf
[01:20:57] <David Waltermire> The document that Kent submitted was on identifiers (CCE, CVE, and CPE) based on NIST SP 800-51
[01:21:03] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 2.
[01:22:44] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 3.
[01:23:05] <David Somers-Harris> never heard of motherhood and apple pie before. New Americanism form me ^^
[01:23:32] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> :)
[01:23:57] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @david those are all things that are unarguably good  (surely you'll start an argument about that…)
[01:24:00] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 4.
[01:25:25] <David Somers-Harris> @cinacio ah, thanks. hehe possibly...
[01:26:31] <Adam Montville> my wife hates apple pie
[01:26:55] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> there's always that one…  that bad apple ruining it for the rest of us!  :)
[01:27:02] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> (and whoever says motherhood is inarguably good clearly never gave birth)
[01:27:11] <Adam Montville> pun intended chris?
[01:27:46] <Kathleen Moriarty> Jessica, not something your AD wants to hear right now ;-)
[01:27:48] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> you bet.  :)  My son doesn't like apple pie.  As a good parent, I tell him he's weird.
[01:28:35] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> no worries, Kathleen, it gets much better afterwards. They bring you buckets of candy to keep you company on late night calls every October 31st, for instance! :)
[01:28:45] <Kathleen Moriarty> lol
[01:28:56] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 5.
[01:29:12] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @jessica wait till they're teenagers…
[01:29:27] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> you mean. . . the candy stops?!?!?!?!
[01:29:37] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> noooooooooo
[01:30:36] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> they get more crafty - they only give you the stuff they don't like…
[01:30:49] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> before you even know its in the house!
[01:32:04] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 6.
[01:35:59] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 7.
[01:38:25] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 8.
[01:42:19] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 7.
[01:46:32] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 4.
[01:50:35] <rdanyliw> Proposed SACM Information Model: Now on slide 8.
[01:53:41] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> audio wonky for anyone else?
[01:53:52] <Kathleen Moriarty> not me
[01:56:32] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay leaves the room
[01:56:35] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay joins the room
[01:57:40] Yuji Suga leaves the room
[01:59:51] <rdanyliw> Reference to Information Model Update presentation. Slide 5. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-sacm-3.pdf
[02:01:13] <Adam Montville> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6880
[02:01:28] rdanyliw leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[02:01:33] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> RFC 6880 is the Kerberos Info Model
[02:01:34] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> RFC 6880 is the Kerberos Info Model
[02:01:36] rdd joins the room
[02:02:59] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay leaves the room
[02:03:46] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay joins the room
[02:04:14] <rdd> Chair slides.  Now on slide 8.
[02:04:16] <rdd> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-sacm-1.pdf
[02:07:05] <Kathleen Moriarty> mic: Wasn't the previous request on this in case there would be changes to the architecture after solution work starts?  I thought that is why this was raised by Lisa as opposed to Nancy's schedule.  I'm fine with whatever option.
[02:09:56] <Kathleen Moriarty> Mic: It sounds like no one in the room wants to park them - maybe a hum/hands
[02:10:51] <Kathleen Moriarty> or if Adam just sees my last comment, that would take care of it
[02:12:25] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> mic: I think if the group is okay with it, we should work on a SACM architecture example that focuses on the vulnerability management use case. I think that will help clarify the sacm components and roles situation, and will help incorporate the role of the endpoint as a provider of information
[02:12:45] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> non-mic: will Jim share his wine? someone in the room find out!
[02:13:00] <Kathleen Moriarty> he does sell it - August Cellars
[02:14:20] <cinacio@swissjabber.eu> @kathleen ack
[02:14:20] <Kathleen Moriarty> What was the result of the poll?
[02:14:32] <Kathleen Moriarty> Jessica posted her opinion in the jabber room
[02:14:35] <jimsch> www.augustcellars.com <http://www.augustcellars.com>
[02:15:31] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> that was the statement :)
[02:15:35] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> you got it
[02:15:55] Deb Cooley leaves the room
[02:16:02] <Kathleen Moriarty> The result was to continue to publish, right?
[02:16:28] <Chris Inacio> I don't know if it's clear yet, really.  But I think roughly, keep working onit.
[02:16:42] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> me!
[02:16:44] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> hummmmm
[02:17:15] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> me :)
[02:17:37] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> it is about to expire
[02:17:41] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> what do I do about that?
[02:18:11] <Chris Inacio> I raised my hand for you - because I didn't read it.  
[02:18:29] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> not sure if I should thank you for that or not. . . .;)
[02:19:18] <Chris Inacio> yeah - there wasn't the correct smiley for the blush.  :)
[02:19:39] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> you've got a long flight home, Chris. . .
[02:19:59] <Chris Inacio> too long
[02:20:14] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> ask the chairs what I should do about it being about to expire please
[02:20:15] <Kathleen Moriarty> yes, let's not slow down… this has been slow enough
[02:20:20] <Chris Inacio> maybe if you write a few more…  :D  (now I'm just getting cheeky)
[02:21:12] <Kathleen Moriarty> Mic: Will the requirements go through WGLC soon and over to me before the holidays?
[02:21:16] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> yup, thanks!
[02:21:48] <Chris Inacio> easter is when?
[02:21:53] <Kathleen Moriarty> It would be good to get that to me by the end of the first week in Dec
[02:22:07] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> me
[02:22:40] <Kathleen Moriarty> How about a two week period for that?
[02:22:41] <Chris Inacio> my hand again for jessica.  
[02:23:12] <Kathleen Moriarty> yes
[02:23:13] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> another one to read on the way home, Chris! :)
[02:24:10] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> @jim. . . .I like pinot noir, recommend me something
[02:24:23] <Chris Inacio> I stopped reading them when I couldn't figure out how everything fits together anymore.  I get the architecture, but I don't know how we're moving forward on IM & DM.
[02:24:47] <Kathleen Moriarty> Chris - maybe that should go to the list as well
[02:24:58] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> ah, then you will really enjoy the vulnerability assessment draft
[02:25:12] sftcd leaves the room
[02:25:30] <Chris Inacio> @jessica I'm holding you to that!  (I have no idea how…)
[02:25:31] <Kathleen Moriarty> If the vuln assesssment draft leads to more confusion, is that helping or hurting, I'd say hurting
[02:25:35] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> one of the reasons we wrote it is that the group seemed a little lost in its scope
[02:25:41] jimsch leaves the room
[02:25:46] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> it will not lead to confusion
[02:25:50] <Kathleen Moriarty> ok
[02:26:05] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I am confident it will lead to clarity!
[02:26:12] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[02:26:14] Kaoru Maeda leaves the room
[02:26:15] <Kathleen Moriarty> I hope so
[02:26:23] <Chris Inacio> I'm taking your candy, otherwise
[02:26:31] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> too late. I ate it. . . .
[02:26:36] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I am filled with chocolate and shame
[02:26:45] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> and confidence in my internet draft!
[02:26:46] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> :)
[02:26:59] <Kathleen Moriarty> good
[02:27:01] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> night, all!
[02:27:12] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay leaves the room
[02:27:40] David Somers-Harris leaves the room
[02:28:21] Adam Montville leaves the room
[02:28:30] Nancy winget leaves the room
[02:29:26] Simon Romano leaves the room
[02:29:27] Meetecho leaves the room
[02:29:47] <Chris Inacio> night
[02:29:54] cinacio@swissjabber.eu leaves the room
[02:29:55] Chris Inacio leaves the room
[02:29:57] <Kathleen Moriarty> good night
[02:30:01] <Kathleen Moriarty> and thank you!
[02:30:25] David Waltermire leaves the room
[02:30:26] Kathleen Moriarty_1299 leaves the room
[02:33:42] jimsch1 joins the room
[02:44:58] rdd leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[02:48:44] Kathleen Moriarty leaves the room
[03:47:07] jimsch1 leaves the room
[03:54:19] Kaoru Maeda joins the room
[03:54:51] Kaoru Maeda leaves the room
[03:55:09] jimsch1 joins the room
[03:55:35] jimsch1 leaves the room
[03:59:19] rdd joins the room
[04:00:08] davidkazuhiro joins the room
[04:05:48] rdd joins the room
[04:11:56] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[04:12:29] davidkazuhiro leaves the room
[04:22:24] rdd leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[04:46:57] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[06:24:13] rdd joins the room
[06:32:42] rdd leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[06:47:04] rdd joins the room
[07:04:02] rdd leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[07:19:48] rdd leaves the room: Disconnected: closed