Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
On 20 October 2011 10:27, John C Klensin wrote: [...} +1 Two "it's only me" observations: What some mobile broadband providers euphemistically sell as "ISDN"- speed in Germany and what Microsoft claims to be a "media player" is a major PIT* with whatever the IETF considers as "audio streaming". If there are good jabber scribes not assuming that "audio" remotely works or is related to their side of "real time" remote jabber participation can be fun. Even if jabber doesn't work very well there are often at least interesting jabber logs. -Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:49 +0200 Frank Ellermann wrote: > +1 > > Two "it's only me" observations: What some mobile > broadband providers euphemistically sell as "ISDN"- > speed in Germany and what Microsoft claims to be a > "media player" is a major PIT* with whatever the > IETF considers as "audio streaming". > > If there are good jabber scribes not assuming that > "audio" remotely works or is related to their side > of "real time" remote jabber participation can be > fun. Even if jabber doesn't work very well there > are often at least interesting jabber logs. And the time-lag differences among the IETF audio stream, other audio arrangements (WebEx, Skype, etc.), and the jabber activity can be seriously crazy-making. I didn't intend my examples to be comprehensive, only to illustrate that it is important to talk with users. Thanks, Frank, for adding to the list. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all proposed/requested features is not an explicitly stated requirement, even at this phase. It's not always as simple as "we'll make sure we make it IPv6 capable when we implement it..." with the sorts of solutions you're looking for here. Knowing that we require this at this phase would allow for some vendor self-selection or proper time to fix the gaps prior to formal proposals, so that we don't end up with lip service around IPv6 support. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
At 01:27 20-10-2011, John C Klensin wrote: Two omissions from this document illustrates why community input is important: (1) I don't know how much experience IAOC members have with trying to participate remotely, but, having done so, there are I'll rephrase that as "I don't know how much experience IAOC members have with trying to participate in a working group remotely". I hope that is clear in case an IAOC member would like to comment. insights into what is needed that one just cannot obtain by physically attending a meeting and observing how things work. If any RFP or subsequent contract does not provide for input from, and probably interviews of, selected people who have tried to participate remotely while carrying out various roles, then the odds are high that the resulting work will not be adequate in practice. Instead, this RFP appears to provide only for "observ[ing] group and plenary sessions" and then review of the initial specifications by groups that are unlikely to include the full range of remote participants. If the experience is based on usage of Meetecho, Adobe, Citrix and Webex, it does not cover my use case. These services may be good enough for some use cases but they have enough failure modes to make remote participation difficult. The RFP mentions bidirectional audio and video. As John has attempted to chair a working group remotely, he might be aware that real-time can mean more than 10 seconds between the time an event occurs and when it is registered at the remote end. In addition, while I don't believe members of the community should be required to read and study IAOC minutes to find out that particular RFPs are under development so that they can comment, I note that no IAOC minutes have been posted since those for an IAOC meeting held on 27 July during IETF 81. I noticed that too. I recommend that the RFP be withdrawn until modifications such as those suggested above can be discussed by the IAOC and further input on draft RFP provisions sought from the community. I also recommend that no further RFPs be issued until the relevant IAOC discussions and decisions be properly recorded in IAOC minutes and those minutes posted. I doubt that's going to happen. I would be grateful if Meetecho, Adobe, Citrix and Webex could be kept as experimental instead of being standardized. XMPP works fine. The current audio feed may not be sexy but it actually works in less than ideal environments. BTW, the audio feed for the plenary sessions could be published on the agenda web page as it is usually a hassle to find. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
i read the message from ray as an rfp for someone to write the rfp for remote services. aside from being a very amusing bureaucratic layer cake, this would not seem to need a lot of experience with remote access, but rather good ears and a taste for the bureaucracy and discord the ietf has become. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
One thing to consider is charging for this service I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location chosen. I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote attendance capability (video etc.) than get by on 'free'. This would be assuming that there would be some markup on the remote attendance cost to finance the secretariat etc. This is not something I would have suggested until recently because the broadband connectivity has not been up to it until very recently. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i read the message from ray as an rfp for someone to write the rfp for > remote services. aside from being a very amusing bureaucratic layer > cake, this would not seem to need a lot of experience with remote > access, but rather good ears and a taste for the bureaucracy and discord > the ietf has become. > > randy > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 15:21 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > One thing to consider is charging for this service > > I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get > better remote participation capability when I am unable to > travel to the location chosen. > > I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote > attendance capability (video etc.) than get by on 'free'. >... Hi. As others have pointed out, this is an RFP about writing a requirements spec. Please examine the announcement and RFP (I assume the latter is authoritative, but am not sure) to determine whether you think the RFP should require that a contractor include studying this issue as part of the task. Perhaps it is. If so, you should be objecting to the RFP itself. If not, this type of comment should probably be raised when the first draft I-D shows up. IMO, the question of "environments" to be examined is definitely insufficient in the RFP, not because it prohibits a contractor from doing or proposing anything else (as Bob points out, it doesn't) but because I believe a draft requirements specification would be completely inadequate unless some or all of those issues -- especially issues with meetings that do not conform to the paragraph starting "Each session..." in the "Background" part of the SOW in the RFP -- were addressed. Similarly, I don't think the RFP is adequate unless it insists on proposals in which applicants provide details about their plans for "conducting interviews" with the various listed parties. Some of those groups, especially those who have actually participated remotely in one or more meetings but normally attend in person and those who almost always participate remotely, are often underrepresented in IETF considerations and easily blown off, especially if the contractor expects all interviews to be completed in the IETF 82 timeframe. Without such a requirement, we could easily find ourselves in a situation in which a contractor said "we bid on the basis of resources to conduct interviews that week; if additional interviews are needed, you will need to adjust the terms". I cite those as examples of comments on the RFP in the hope of making the distinction between such comments and an attempt to pre-discuss the I-D that will presumably come out of this process. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
> One thing to consider is charging for this service i strongly agree. whoever is drafting the rfp should charge heavily for putting up with massive micromanagement. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
Requirements are one thing.
How about some discussion of "goals" to drive the requirements? For example,
is it a goal of the RFP to specify a tool set that would be so good that people
would pay to use it?
My reaction to the text in the announcement of the RFP is that the overall
objectives are ill-defined.
> to enhance remote participation at IETF meetings,
> interim and virtual working group meetings.
What does "to enhance" mean in this context?
If I was at all interested in bidding on this new piece of spec development
work, I would either ask for a lot more clarity on the desired goals of
"enhanced" remote participation, or I would propose that the first phase of the
project should be focused on developing some consensus on this.
+1 to John Klensin's view that if the RFP had been reviewed by the community
before publication, it would have been better.
Regards,
Ed J.
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin
Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:41:22
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker
Cc: ; ;
Subject: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re:
RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 15:21 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
wrote:
> One thing to consider is charging for this service
>
> I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get
> better remote participation capability when I am unable to
> travel to the location chosen.
>
> I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote
> attendance capability (video etc.) than get by on 'free'.
>...
Hi.
As others have pointed out, this is an RFP about writing a
requirements spec. Please examine the announcement and RFP (I
assume the latter is authoritative, but am not sure) to
determine whether you think the RFP should require that a
contractor include studying this issue as part of the task.
Perhaps it is. If so, you should be objecting to the RFP
itself. If not, this type of comment should probably be raised
when the first draft I-D shows up.
IMO, the question of "environments" to be examined is definitely
insufficient in the RFP, not because it prohibits a contractor
from doing or proposing anything else (as Bob points out, it
doesn't) but because I believe a draft requirements
specification would be completely inadequate unless some or all
of those issues -- especially issues with meetings that do not
conform to the paragraph starting "Each session..." in the
"Background" part of the SOW in the RFP -- were addressed.
Similarly, I don't think the RFP is adequate unless it insists
on proposals in which applicants provide details about their
plans for "conducting interviews" with the various listed
parties. Some of those groups, especially those who have
actually participated remotely in one or more meetings but
normally attend in person and those who almost always
participate remotely, are often underrepresented in IETF
considerations and easily blown off, especially if the
contractor expects all interviews to be completed in the IETF 82
timeframe. Without such a requirement, we could easily find
ourselves in a situation in which a contractor said "we bid on
the basis of resources to conduct interviews that week; if
additional interviews are needed, you will need to adjust the
terms".
I cite those as examples of comments on the RFP in the hope of
making the distinction between such comments and an attempt to
pre-discuss the I-D that will presumably come out of this
process.
best,
john
___
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: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)
On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: One thing to consider is charging for this service I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location chosen. I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote attendance capability (video etc.) than get by on 'free'. This would be assuming that there would be some markup on the remote attendance cost to finance the secretariat etc. I disagree. If the remote participation service is high quality, it should require the same registration fee structure as on-site participation. Thanks, Acee This is not something I would have suggested until recently because the broadband connectivity has not been up to it until very recently. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: i read the message from ray as an rfp for someone to write the rfp for remote services. aside from being a very amusing bureaucratic layer cake, this would not seem to need a lot of experience with remote access, but rather good ears and a taste for the bureaucracy and discord the ietf has become. randy -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
