Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Keith Moore]

> This is a great idea! I think I've attended about fifteen IETF's now
> and at each one I've been to many multicast sessions but I've never,
> NEVER heard a live question from a multicast viewer.

I have, though not very often.  I've also heard multicast viewers 
try to ask questions and be ignored.

I have mixed feelings about multicast at IETF meetings.  

On one hand I find the microphone discipline that is necessary for multicast 
extremely disruptive to having an effective discussion - at least for small
to medium sized groups - say less than 100 people.  (I don't know of any way 
to have an effective discussion for a larger group anyway).  And my strong
impression is that the multicast setup that we've been using for many years
is a very expensive tool for serving a very small number of people.

On the other hand I think our meetings are getting more and more expensive 
(both in meeting fees and travel expenses) and we are thereby excluding 
more and more people who should be participating.

So I think we need to continue to work on remote participation, but we
need to try something different than what we've been using.  Unicast 
video transmission, and real-time comment submission using instant 
messaging or email, seem like worthwhile things to try.  Provided of course
that we use standard protocols and data formats with tools that are readily 
available on all platforms.

Keith

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Colin Perkins]

--> Aaron Falk writes:
>On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>>
>> The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time
>> aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it
>> turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get
>> more camera operators in more rooms, that would be a win for more WGs.
>
>This is a great idea! I think I've attended about fifteen IETF's now
>and at each one I've been to many multicast sessions but I've never,
>NEVER heard a live question from a multicast viewer. Now, perhaps
>viewers have been posting questions to their repective mail lists
>(I've never seen that, either). But, it seems to me that history
>indicates the record is much more valuable than the live interaction.

It's not common, but I have seen questions passed from remote participants
to the meeting floor by the Mbone session operators, and I have had people
email me questions to be asked whilst I've been chairing a session (which
brings us back to the utility of wireless access in meeting rooms...)

But, I agree that having a recording of the session is often more useful
than the live multicast.

Cheers,
Colin

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Aaron Falk]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>
> The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time
> aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it
> turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get
> more camera operators in more rooms, that would be a win for more WGs.
>

This is a great idea! I think I've attended about fifteen IETF's now
and at each one I've been to many multicast sessions but I've never,
NEVER heard a live question from a multicast viewer. Now, perhaps
viewers have been posting questions to their repective mail lists
(I've never seen that, either). But, it seems to me that history
indicates the record is much more valuable than the live interaction.

--aaron

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > In your previous mail you wrote:
   >
   >   >Including the people showing slides; at least
   >   >with printed acetate technology you don't have people stopping to
   >   >answer their Instant Messages.
   
   Francis got the quoting above wrong.  I didn't say the above. 
   No doubt just a typo... 
   
=> this was a quote inside a quote (I apologize: I've made this a bit
confusing because the lack of time).

Thanks

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Daniel Senie]

At 02:23 PM 10/23/01, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>Going back to the original question about more multicast sessions:
>
>The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time aspect 
>for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it turns out that 
>switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get more camera operators 
>in more rooms, that would be a win for more WGs.

I have offered on more than one occasion at the Plenary, to pay a "remote 
attendance" fee. This would be used to:

  - fund camera setups in all rooms
  - fund Real or other non-multicast-dependent access
  - provide for email or IRC feedback channel(s) to each room

I have to wonder if the real time aspect appears never to be used because 
it's not usable.
-
Daniel Senie[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amaranth Networks Inc.http://www.amaranth.com

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Touch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Although there are irony points for holding an off-line networking 
> meeting :-))
> 

It is humerous in 2001, to see people sitting in a meeting, all with
their lap-tops in front of them, and all saying, "let me check the net",
or, "let me send you that via the net". It is sad, when the meetings are
de-railed by people not on-line and not connected. Those people are
living in a time-warp. Some may only read e-mail once a month. They
are out-of-date before they arrive, and never catch up.

Face-to-face meetings of course are used to perform the subtle act
of "economic discrimination". Those with the money can attend and
those who can not afford to attend are excluded. The handicapped
are also excluded. Deaf people love it when people send them e-mails
saying, "Call me, let's discuss thisyet IRC, ICQ and other tools are
not considered...".

It is not surprising that the IETF does not use the Internet. The ICANN
leaders and the ICANN Board of Directors also do not use it. Their
focus is also on face-to-face meetings. In their case, it can be better
understood because lawyers run their show. Lawyers do not like to
use the Internet for meetings because people can hold them to what
they have said. They have been trained to deal in the face-to-face world
of the courtrooms, where they can say almost anything and their goal
is to convince a judge to rule in their favor. Many of their lawyer tricks
do not work on the Internet. The Internet distills the world into truth.

In my opinion, the sooner the world moves more to the Internet, the
sooner they will discover the truth about what is really going on. There
are many people who want to censor the truth. It is a shame the IETF
has apparently been infiltrated by those people. Fortunately, in a couple
of days, the world will be able to move on, deeper into cyberspace
where the air is more pure and where people respect the value of the truth.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Paul Hoffman / IMC]

Going back to the original question about more multicast sessions:

The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time 
aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it 
turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get 
more camera operators in more rooms, that would be a win for more WGs.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[john heasley]

so long as those folks arent interrupting the meeting (cell phones
ringing, talking about unrelated topics, ...), perhaps you all
should worry about what _you_ are doing.  is it too far fetched to
believe that some folks can answer mail and listen at the same time.
there are some who attend the meetings, but arent really allowed the
luxury of a week off from regular duties.

Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 09:49:13AM -0400, RJ Atkinson:
> At 07:45 23/10/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> >I think remote participation in live WG meets isn't a worthwhile goal,
> >given cost and difficulties of interactive networking (never mind
> >timezones); encouraging it when more than half the people in a WG
> >meeting have their faces buried in a laptop and are tapping away at
> >wireless access anyway is merely ironic.
> >
> >If you really want to increase participation, start by turning off
> >wireless networking entirely and telling everyone who is actually
> >there to pay attention. Including the people showing slides; at least
> >with printed acetate technology you don't have people stopping to
> >answer their Instant Messages.
> 
> While I disagree with the first sentence above, I agree that
> on Tuesdays and Thursdays I think it actually be productive to dispense 
> with the wireless LAN coverage in meeting rooms.  
> 
> Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively 
> participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit down.
> Not uncommonly this is because of folks who are clearly playing video games or 
>otherwise doing sundry other laptop computing -- rather than
> paying attention to the meeting they are sitting in.
> 
> The challenge is that some folks clearly do use the wireless
> LAN to download I-Ds to review precise text during the meeting 
> discussing that particular I-D (in lieu of carrying paper around, 
> I suppose), or for other good purposes.  Legislating either way
> on this seems unconstructive.
> 
> So maybe I'll settle for a general plea to folks attending 
> IETF meetings.  If one isn't going to actively participate in a given
> meeting, then please move out of that meeting room into the hallway 
> or some other venue so that folks interested in that particular 
> meeting have an unencumbered ability to participate.
> 
> Ran
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Joe Touch]

Kastenholz, Frank wrote:

> At 09:49 AM 10/23/01 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> 
>>   The challenge is that some folks clearly do use the wireless
>>LAN to download I-Ds to review precise text during the meeting 
>>discussing that particular I-D (in lieu of carrying paper around, 
>>I suppose), or for other good purposes.  Legislating either way
>>on this seems unconstructive.
>>
> 
> People could just keep all the IDs on their laptops
> at all times.


I've been to too many WGs that say "the latest version of the ID, 
tweaked last night, is at the following website..." A tarball of
the ID directory is somewhat less useful for those :-)

There is often also supporting material which is determined only at the 
meeting, such as references, slides, etc. - chasing these down at the 
meetings has proved useful in the past.

Although there are irony points for holding an off-line networking 
meeting :-))

Joe

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[RJ Atkinson]

At 11:06 23/10/01, Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>   >Including the people showing slides; at least
>   >with printed acetate technology you don't have people stopping to
>   >answer their Instant Messages.

Francis got the quoting above wrong.  I didn't say the above. 
No doubt just a typo... 

Ran

Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the meetings ?....Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Jim Fleming]

Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the IETF meetings ?
The Next Generation IPv8 Internet has that. Why is the IPv4 Internet
stuck in the stone ages ?

All of the technology is in place and Address Space is FREE.

2047 IPv8 Blocks have been FREEly allocated to IN-ADDR. managers.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

On October 25, 2001 Microsoft will launch Windows XP which supports IPv8
Addressing. Companies like New.Net are making it possible for people to
register
IN-ADDR. names. Companies like TuCows are helping to break down
the .COM monopoly with .INFO names.
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO

The .BIZ Community is growing. It is time to build a new Internet based on
fair IP allocations. The Proof-of-Concept work on the IPv4 Internet can
continue,
but true pioneers need to move on. The technology is now in place to route
around
the I* organizations, "It Seeks Overall Control".
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html

Do you use a 2002:: prefix ?
http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

- Original Message -
From: "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: participation in IETF meetings


> On 10/23/01 at 9:49 AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> >Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively
> >participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit
> >down.
>
> I'm sorry, but I really think this is a problem with the
> person/persons chairing the meeting. If you are the chair of a
> working group whose meeting room is too small, you've got some
> choices:
>
> 1. If this happened in the past, you need to ask for a bigger meeting
> room. However, I understand this is not always possible.
>
> 2. Before your WG meeting, ask on the mailing list (which all active
> participants should be reading anyway) for all people who are
> planning on attending the meeting and actively participating to send
> you a piece of e-mail. Count. When you get to the room at the
> meeting, count off that many seats in the front rows. Add 10 for
> useful IESG/IAB members. Add a bunch if you know your WG is going to
> have cross-area interest where some people will be attending who
> don't subscribe to the WG list. Cordon off the section with some
> paper signs which read "ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS ONLY". No, it won't stop
> everyone, but it will help things.
>
> 3. If people are blocking the door during the meeting, be a traffic
> cop. Go to the door and say, "If you are staying, move in to the
> opposite side of the room away from the door. Otherwise, leave." The
> area behind where the chair usually sits is a fine place to stick
> people. If it gets totally out of hand, you may have to conduct the
> meeting by standing in the door; people who are just loafing hate
> sitting right next to the chairperson anyway.
>
> 4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in
> your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present
> introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds
> of things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn.
> That's not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW
> INFORMATION presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to
> the topic has not been written up and posted to the list, discussion
> of that topic should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of
> a WG meeting should be without surprise.
>
> Personally, I think this is a fine idea for BOFs too: You're posting
> an agenda before the meeting anyway; make sure any needed information
> is written up and posted before the meeting and make sure that the
> agenda has URLs for that information. Now, I understand that BOFs are
> in a somewhat different position and sometimes there's going to have
> to be presentation of new material in BOF meetings, but that needn't
> always be the case. WGs, of course, have no excuse.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
>

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[John Stracke]

Lloyd Wood wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
>> The challenge is that some folks clearly do use the wireless
>> LAN to download I-Ds to review precise text during the meeting 
>> discussing that particular I-D (in lieu of carrying paper around, 
>> I suppose),
>
>they can't prepare beforehand by downloading the entire draft tarball 
>that is made available prior to travelling to the event?

The wireless LAN can be useful for checking the mailing list archive (if 
there is one) to check what the WG decided the last time a particular 
issue came up, and why.  It's sometimes possible to download an archive in 
advance (I did it once), but it's less practical than downloading all the 
I-Ds.

John Stracke
Principal Engineer
Incentive Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   >Including the people showing slides; at least
   >with printed acetate technology you don't have people stopping to
   >answer their Instant Messages.
   
=> I believe you are right for this point (banish power point! :-)
bit not for others.

   Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively 
   participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit down.
   Not uncommonly this is because of folks who are clearly playing
   video games or otherwise doing sundry other laptop computing -- rather
   than paying attention to the meeting they are sitting in.
   
=> very good argument Ran! (and many games don't need the network)

   The challenge is that some folks clearly do use the wireless
   LAN to download I-Ds to review precise text during the meeting 
   discussing that particular I-D (in lieu of carrying paper around, 
   I suppose), or for other good purposes.  Legislating either way
   on this seems unconstructive.
   
=> I agree: the weight of all likely interesting I-Ds is too large.
In my little old laptop, near the whole ordinary free room is filled
with IETF mailing list (discussion history), RFCs and drafts.
Another proof: the success of the special "all RFCs and I-Ds CD-ROM"
(cf http://www.normos.org).
 Another point: there are many communications between participants
in the same room. I believe we should encourage this because this is
better than to talk directly to a neighbor (noise reduction).

   So maybe I'll settle for a general plea to folks attending 
   IETF meetings.  If one isn't going to actively participate in a given
   meeting, then please move out of that meeting room into the hallway 
   or some other venue so that folks interested in that particular 
   meeting have an unencumbered ability to participate.
   
=> the critical resource seems to be power so if nice places (bars :-)
are well equiped I believe we'll get what you suggest.

Regards

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Kastenholz, Frank]

At 09:49 AM 10/23/01 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>The challenge is that some folks clearly do use the wireless
>LAN to download I-Ds to review precise text during the meeting 
>discussing that particular I-D (in lieu of carrying paper around, 
>I suppose), or for other good purposes.  Legislating either way
>on this seems unconstructive.

People could just keep all the IDs on their laptops
at all times. I've been keeping an archive since
late '96, moving from machine to machine, as needed.
It is less than 1GB of storage and about 18,300 files.
It has (more or less) all versions of all IDs. If I
wanted to get the current, complete, ID-set it would,
of course, be a lot smaller...

Every couple of days I run the following WGET command:
wget -k -nd -nH -r -np --glob=on -nc \
ftp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/*
which gets all new files from the ID directory.
(WGET is available from your local GNU repository
and includes instructions to make it work under Windows)

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Pete Resnick]

On 10/23/01 at 9:49 AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively 
>participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit 
>down.

I'm sorry, but I really think this is a problem with the 
person/persons chairing the meeting. If you are the chair of a 
working group whose meeting room is too small, you've got some 
choices:

1. If this happened in the past, you need to ask for a bigger meeting 
room. However, I understand this is not always possible.

2. Before your WG meeting, ask on the mailing list (which all active 
participants should be reading anyway) for all people who are 
planning on attending the meeting and actively participating to send 
you a piece of e-mail. Count. When you get to the room at the 
meeting, count off that many seats in the front rows. Add 10 for 
useful IESG/IAB members. Add a bunch if you know your WG is going to 
have cross-area interest where some people will be attending who 
don't subscribe to the WG list. Cordon off the section with some 
paper signs which read "ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS ONLY". No, it won't stop 
everyone, but it will help things.

3. If people are blocking the door during the meeting, be a traffic 
cop. Go to the door and say, "If you are staying, move in to the 
opposite side of the room away from the door. Otherwise, leave." The 
area behind where the chair usually sits is a fine place to stick 
people. If it gets totally out of hand, you may have to conduct the 
meeting by standing in the door; people who are just loafing hate 
sitting right next to the chairperson anyway.

4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in 
your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present 
introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds 
of things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn. 
That's not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW 
INFORMATION presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to 
the topic has not been written up and posted to the list, discussion 
of that topic should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of 
a WG meeting should be without surprise.

Personally, I think this is a fine idea for BOFs too: You're posting 
an agenda before the meeting anyway; make sure any needed information 
is written up and posted before the meeting and make sure that the 
agenda has URLs for that information. Now, I understand that BOFs are 
in a somewhat different position and sometimes there's going to have 
to be presentation of new material in BOF meetings, but that needn't 
always be the case. WGs, of course, have no excuse.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Melinda Shore]

At 09:49 AM 10/23/01 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>While I disagree with the first sentence above, I agree that
>on Tuesdays and Thursdays I think it actually be productive to dispense 
>with the wireless LAN coverage in meeting rooms.  

It's useful for people to be able to grab documents while the
meeting is in progress, I've found.  That said, I think it's
perfectly reasonable in a crowded meeting to demand the seat of
someone who's playing games or checking their stock portfolio,
or otherwise choosing to screw around with their laptop rather than
participate in what's going on in the room.

Melinda

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[RJ Atkinson]

At 07:45 23/10/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>I think remote participation in live WG meets isn't a worthwhile goal,
>given cost and difficulties of interactive networking (never mind
>timezones); encouraging it when more than half the people in a WG
>meeting have their faces buried in a laptop and are tapping away at
>wireless access anyway is merely ironic.
>
>If you really want to increase participation, start by turning off
>wireless networking entirely and telling everyone who is actually
>there to pay attention. Including the people showing slides; at least
>with printed acetate technology you don't have people stopping to
>answer their Instant Messages.

While I disagree with the first sentence above, I agree that
on Tuesdays and Thursdays I think it actually be productive to dispense 
with the wireless LAN coverage in meeting rooms.  

Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively 
participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit down.
Not uncommonly this is because of folks who are clearly playing video games or 
otherwise doing sundry other laptop computing -- rather than
paying attention to the meeting they are sitting in.

The challenge is that some folks clearly do use the wireless
LAN to download I-Ds to review precise text during the meeting 
discussing that particular I-D (in lieu of carrying paper around, 
I suppose), or for other good purposes.  Legislating either way
on this seems unconstructive.

So maybe I'll settle for a general plea to folks attending 
IETF meetings.  If one isn't going to actively participate in a given
meeting, then please move out of that meeting room into the hallway 
or some other venue so that folks interested in that particular 
meeting have an unencumbered ability to participate.

Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]