RE: RPS Accessibility
I would think any kind of multiple non-fixed microphone setup (maybe even fixed microphones) would need to be tested pretty thoroughly before use, as feedback problems can ruin a discussion. That would include laptop microphones. One way to alleviate this would be to require the use of near-field microphones, mics that only pick up sounds generated close to the mic. They are pretty cheap. Of course, this wouldn't apply to remote participants :) -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:30 AM To: Michael Richardson Cc: iaoc-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: RPS Accessibility Could be an app that put you in the queue and used your laptop/tablet/smartphone microphone to get the audio. On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, Michael Richardson wrote: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net javascript:; wrote: An entirely different approach would be to have all speakers make a 'reservation' into a single meetecho (or whatever) online queue, and then get called in order, whether local or remote and independent of what microphone they are at. This gets accurate identification into the online system, with the entry task distributed. +1. And move the microphones to the people, rather than the other way around. We can easily have three or four microphones that can play leap-frog around the room. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca javascript:; , Sandelman Software Works
RE: Time zones in IETF agenda
Only for half the year. New Zealand has daylight savings time, while Hawaii does not. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:42 AM To: Peter Saint-Andre Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Time zones in IETF agenda I've said it before: just go back and forth between Iceland and Hawaii. Oh, and maybe Minneapolis for old-time's sake. ;-) New Zealand, please, in easy to remember UTC+12 Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Compliance to a protocol description? (wasRE: I'm struggling with 2219 language again)
Maybe part of the job of a working group should be to both/either produce or approve a reference implementation and/or a test for interoperability? I always thought a spec should include an acceptance test. Contracts often do. If a company submits code that becomes reference code for interoperability tests, that code is automatically interoperable and certified. That might mean more companies would spend money to produce working code. It might mean that more working code gets submitted earlier, as the earliest approved code would tend to become the reference. By code, I don't mean source, necessarily. Then there would be a more objective test for compliance and less dependence on capitalization and the description. Meh. I know the IETF has a thing about these terms, and insofar as they can lead to the use of and/or overreliance on compliance testing rather than interoperability testing, I agree with that sentiment. OTOH, when it comes to actually, you know, writing code, this entire attitude is IMNSHO more than a little precious. Maybe I've missed them, but in my experience our avoidance of these terms has not resulted in the magical creation of a widely available perfect reference implementation that allows me to check interoperability. In fact in a lot of cases when I write code I have absolutely nothing to test against - and this is often true even when I'm implementing a standard that's been around for many years. Ned
RE: Proposed Update to Note Well
I'd like to comment a bit on patent ownership/control/etc. Patents are assigned by the (US) patent office, usually, these days, to the company for whom the inventor works. Ownership is not a term used. Control can be problematic, if the inventor changes employment. If you invent something for which a patent is issued and assigned to your company, then you change employment, then neither you nor the company you currently work for control that patent. But you should probably still disclose the patent. I'd vote for If you are aware that a contribution of yours is covered by patents, you need to disclose that fact. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:14 AM To: IETF Cc: Bob Hinden; IETF Announce Subject: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Russ, I like that it is shorter, but I think it might be a little too short. That is, I think it needs to be clearer what is a contribution and then mention patents. For example: If you write, say, or discuss anything in the IETF, formally or informally, that is considered a contribution to the IETF. If you believe this is covered by a patent or patent application you or your employer own, one of you must disclose that. Thanks, Bob On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:10 PM, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG has heard many complaints that the Note Well is too complex. After some discussion with counsel, we propose the following updated Note Well for your comment and review. The below summary would be followed with a pointer to or text of more details, which will depend upon whether it's a meeting slide, on the web site, on the registration page, or on a mailing-list greeting. On behalf of the IESG, Russ Housley IETF Chair -- NOTE WELL In summary: By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. If you write, say, or discuss anything in the IETF, formally or informally, (all of which we call a contribution) that you know is covered by a patent or patent application you or your employer own, one of you must disclose that. You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast. This would be followed with a pointer to or text of more details, which will depend upon whether it's a meeting slide, on the web site, on the registration page, or on a mailing-list greeting.
RE: Proposed Update to Note Well
Ownership is not a term used. Control can be problematic, if the inventor changes employment. If you invent something for which a patent is issued and assigned to your company, then you change employment, then neither you nor the company you currently work for control that patent. This is just not correct. If the patent is assigned to the company, and the inventor leaves the company, the company still owns and controls the patent. [RU] Your new (current) company does not own the patent and neither do you, if you have signed away your rights, which you are required to do for most companies in the US. But you should still disclose the patent.
RE: Is the IETF aging?
A recent perspctive on that: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2012/04/college_president_discu sses_wo.html -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:25 AM To: SM Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List Subject: Re: Is the IETF aging? On Apr 27, 2012, at 2:53 PM, SM wrote: Mary Barnes is the only participant who mentions the gender problem. As such, I gather that the IETF does not have a gender problem. :-) The rest of us are too busy struggling to succeed in this male-dominated regime to have time to read these threads. :-) Seriously, though... I don't think that the relatively low numbers of women in the IETF leadership are necessarily indicative of a problem, because I think they roughly match the low percentage of women among IETF attendees. I don't even know if the lack of female attendance at the IETF is a problem, because I don't know how our percentages map to the percentage of female networking engineers in the industry, or to the percentage of females who attend other major standards organizations, like the IEEE or the 3GPP. We are an engineering organization, so I wouldn't expect us to be half women, because there are a lot more male engineers than female ones. If IETF meetings are attended by a lower percentage of women than IEEE or 3GPP meetings, and/or if we feel that our attendance is not proportional to the number of women in our industry, then we might want to explore why that happens, and consider some changes in our culture to address the causes. We shouldn't try to fix this particular aspect of our organization if it isn't broken, though. Margaret
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
Here's another post out of left field. It seems to me that in order to solve the problem of remote participation in meetings, we need to decide what it means to participate in a meeting. It seems to me that the important characteristic of a meeting is that one person speaks at a time. In WG meetings, one person presents and then others que up at a mic for comments/questions. The issues I've seen only relate to the comment/question part. One group of comments deals with the difficulty of the current jabber setup to allow comments/questions to become the focus, the one person speaking. Perhaps this could be worked out with some kind of enforced protocol, such that mic speakers' questions/comments are interleaved with jabber questions/comments in some way. I think, though, it would be harder to follow threads of thought in this way, especially if there are many jabber questions/comments that come in on a specific topic while mic speakers start to follow a different issue. Some kind of policing where issues are discussed sequentially might help, but might be too restricting. Maybe it would be better to take thread discussions off the mic at some point and use some kind of forum software? A second problem is the use of jabber to discuss offline what speakers are discussing. It seems to me that this is a direct contradiction to what is supposed to occur in a meeting, where one person speaks at a time. I've never used Webex, so I can't comment on its applicability. It seems to me that jabber is not the right tool for remote meeting participation. It probably works fine for meeting monitoring along with the audio, but seems to fall short for remote meeting participation without some kind of enforced meeting protocol. Is what Melinda described enough? Should there be some kind of media Sargent-At-Arms enforcing Robert's 21st Century Rules? Jabber seems to be important for the scribe task. That's not something to be taken lightly. In fact, the whole issue of what the meeting record should be is taken too lightly, in my opinion. Should it be the audio with scribe comments, plus the Jabber record? If that's the case, a person looking up the meeting would need the audio and the scribe/jabber comments. Should it be the scribe notes, which can be undependable, even with the jabber comments? Should we be looking at voice-to-text more seriously? Seems to me that this is a universal problem that someone should have solved. If not, it's a great opportunity. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:49 AM To: SM Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities. The secretary is busy taking minutes. That doesn't mean that the secretary cannot draw attention if someone is asking a question on Jabber. The audio recording is a handy supplement when the speaker cannot be identified or to cross-check the details. In my experience that unfortunately happens about %10 of the time. We need some way for remote participants to virtually stand in the mic queue so they get called upon and allowed to not only ask a question, but to follow-up - especially if the presenter needs clarification on the question. As for remote participation, if you do not know anyone in the room you are going to be ignored. That's an IETF feature that also applies for people who attend meetings. There are little things that can help remote participants follow what is going on. Melinda Shore mentioned some of them. Most of the fixes are non-technical. Jabber/etc... are really bubblegum and bailing wire solutions. I have been forced to skip meetings in the past due to budget issues, and can tell you that relying on others to proxy for you just doesn't work. Despite knowing someone in the room, you are assuming they are not busy trying to work themselves either participating in the meeting, writing documents, or whatever. I've tried Skyping into meetings, jabber, whatever and it just doesn't work well because the people that ultimately must speak for you often can't. Also, you assume people know someone well enough to ask for them; which is asking a lot especially for new people. The best approach I've witnessed (and used many times) is WebEx where you can explicitly request to ask a question by virtually raising your hand, and then when the chair recognizes you, you can ask your own question. You can then interact with the presenter - and if the chairs are being sophisticated, they could project your face on a screen. You can also use this mechanism as a means when gauging consensus where the chair(s) ask for a
RE: Question about Prague
Some brief notes on Prague from a visit there 2 years ago in October: The GPS in the rental car (rented in Munich) did not have the street information for Prague. Freeway signs announced neighborhoods, not streets, so driving was confusing. Freeway construction further confused things, so have alternative routes. Or head for the City Center and navigate from there. Don't be in a rush, and don't arrive at night if driving. The last freeway rest stop in Germany on the way to Prague is interesting. Hotel recommendation: Hotel General. This is within walking distance of the Bridge, the River, and a major brewery. Don't be fooled by the look of the neighborhood. Also, don't bring a wide car. Once there, the drive will have been worth the effort. Also, breakfast is excellent! The beer in Prague is excellent and cheap. It's not your father's Budweiser. The beer in Munich was excellent, but relatively expensive. Prague itself is a beautiful, if dark, city. Check out the Czech glass ;) -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:57 AM To: Ray Pelletier Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about Prague Thanks On Dec 30, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: On Dec 30, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: Hi The Prague meeting is still nearly 3 months away, but I'm wondering why there's only a date yet. No hotel, no registration, no details. Some of us need to get the corporate wheels or authorization moving. Registration will open the beginning of next week with the usual hotel details, etc. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The island that would probably best address most of the concerns brought up recently is Oahu. Large hotels on the neighbor islands tend to be resorts, where the idea is to keep you in the one hotel while not sightseeing. While there are several large hotels on Oahu that have meeting facilities, there is also the Hawaii Convention Center (http://www.hawaiiconvention.com/). Honolulu International Airport (HNL) has extensive direct connections to North America and Asia. The hotels in Waikiki are an easy taxi/bus/shuttle/rental car ride away. There are many restaurants and bars (of various repute) an easy walk from the Convention Center, as well as a major shopping center. There are several large hotels within 10 minutes walk. Hotel and airline prices will depend on the season. Spring and Fall would probably be the least expensive. The main problem would probably be finding a sponsor. Robin Uyeshiro Inst. for Astronomy Univ. of Hawaii -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:21 PM To: Hadriel Kaplan Cc: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to.touh.. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF65 hotel location
Try this: http://maps.a9.com/?ypLoc=2015%20Market%20Center%20Blvd%2C%20Dallas%2C%2 0TX You can walk down the street and see things. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Kessens Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Pekka Savola; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF65 hotel location Dave, On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:57:08AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: This makes it inconvenient not only for getting to restaurants but also for attendees wanting to stay at cheaper hotels. There is a wide selection of cheaper hotels available around the meeting hotel that are all walking distance. Restaurants at walking distance are indeed problematic. However, the hotel has quite a few choices of it's own and there are quite a few very good restaurants a short cab ride away. We realize that this is not ideal. Site selection is a compromise. To give a bit of background: unfortunately, the hotel selection process started very late which limited the amount of available venues such that we didn't had the luxury to select a hotel that could satisfy all criteria as much as we would have liked. We as Nokia offered to host the meeting when we heard at a fairly late stage that IETF was still in need for a host and that Dallas was being considered by the secretariat (Our US headquarters are in Dallas). My personal hope is that the selection process will happen more in advance future now that we have Ray in place as our IAD. Frequently it even makes it difficult to just walk around. As everything in Dallas, this hotel is quite large. Just a walk around the premises will be quite a bit. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)
Would the IEEE 802 Plenaries have comparable geographical/logistical requirements to IETF meetings? Their next few plenaries are scheduled in San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Vancouver, New Orleans, San Diego, and Dallas. All but one are in the US, and all are in North America. I attended one plenary at Hilton Head, and talked to people about another held on Maui, both resort areas. This was before the crash, though, so perhaps money is tighter now. I'm not advocating doing the same thing; just thought another data point might be helpful. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/meeting/future_meetings.html -- Robin Uyeshiro P.S. Honolulu has a new convention center. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:59 AM To: Lars Eggert; Sam Hartman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IETF 62 --On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing for pleasant climate and good vacation spots. I come to the IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the other participants have the same goal. We should be somewhat careful of optimizing for enjoyable location. I'd rather see us optimize for who can attend and cost. If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between the enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF output, please post it. Lars, I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on experience with other organizations and meetings of similar technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is a nice place. Rather, it is the tendency of people who have to review and approve travel to look at a destination, pronounce the words probable boggle and then say no.And I've seen enough situations in which that has occurred to make that a real concern. It probably isn't enough of a concern to say we absolutely should, or should not, meet there, but it should be a significant consideration. On other observation on the US situation. In the few years, we have had a significant problem with participants from some countries getting to US meetings at all due to increasing scrutiny of visa applications and consequent difficulties in getting visas. Sometimes, those delays have been equivalent to visa denial, even when no formal denial occurs. Those restrictions are qualitatively different from, e.g., the fingerprint issue, since they prevent someone from even making the decision as to whether they are willing to put up with the marginal aggravation and intrusion to attend. Classes of IETF participants are excluded entirely depending on their nationality or normal residency, and that has a direct on IETF openness and global participation. That is, fwiw, I've been suggesting that we reduce the focus on meetings in the US for a few years now. As others have pointed out, doing that isn't quite as easy as would appear to be the case at first glance but, IMO, we should keep trying. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: 10/100 pcmcia card
This is not the case. Here in Adelaide at the 47th IETF, there were problems with the wireless LAN early on, so several people were looking for PCMCIA network cards. I spent two hours going through several computer stores, some of which had sold out of network cards, and finally found a card. It turns out I didn't need the card. I thought someone else might, and actually got a couple of responses from people here in Adelaide. I apologize for the spam, but feel I must respond when someone accuses me in the reflector. -Original Message- From: Sonny Ghosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:01 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 10/100 pcmcia card It appears that you are using a professional, technical community mailing list as a flea market to peddle your extra stuff. Please be advised to refrain from this kind of obnoxious behavior, as you are wasting the time of too many people and denigrating the importance of this mailing list. -Original Message- From: Robin Uyeshiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 10/100 pcmcia card I bought a 10/100 ethernet PCMCIA card in Adelaide that, it turns out, I don't need. If anyone would like to take it off my hands, make me an offer. I bought it for Australian $149.
10/100 pcmcia card
I bought a 10/100 ethernet PCMCIA card in Adelaide that, it turns out, I don't need. If anyone would like to take it off my hands, make me an offer. I bought it for Australian $149.
FW: Email messages: How large is too large?
Comment from a rookie: Perhaps the IETF, eminent body that it is, could put out somethng that RECOMMENDs that email software vendors display the size of email attachments and maybe the time it would take to download on an analog modem? Then at least the information is there to see. Otherwise a user has no clue that a problem might exist. I can't see that a software vendor would have any motivation to provide that information unless someone asked/told them to. -Original Message- From: Michael H. Warfield [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 12:21 PM To: J. Noel Chiappa Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Email messages: How large is too large? On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 04:30:25PM -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Jon Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] sending an email with a large Word attachment to all 15000 users on campus isn't a good idea as our mail servers will melt. ... especially from non-academic departments who are used to doing paper based mass mailings to students. ... depite us offering to put the Word document on a web page and then send a small email pointing at it This is an important distinction to make, between sending a large item to one person who know's it's coming (which I view as an acceptable way to transfer something from one person to another - but more on this below), and sending it to an entire mailing list, most of whom won't be interested in the item. Resources are far better used here by putting the item up for retrieval, so that only those who are interested in it expend the resources to get a copy. The only problem with that is that the inDUHviduals who are at the heart of the problem are the very ones who will have no clue about what that distinction is. Most of the time, they don't even realize they are sending a monsterous bloated blob. One person I have in mind knocked her manager off mail by sending a monster to her entire department and his download then started timing out. She later asked me "well, just how am I suppose to tell how big it is in the first place?" One person told me that they didn't understand why they needed to learn how to something like "zip". It wasn't important to their jobs so why should they have to learn it. These are the people we are going to try and tell "you can send it to one person if they are expecting it but don't send it to a list" (what's a list - remember aliases) "and they're not". That's only going to trade one brand of confusion for another. [...] Noel -- Michael H. Warfield| (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 331-2437 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471| possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
