Subject: [TICTOC] interim meeting / conference calls

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:48:16 +0200

Hi all, 
 
At the meeting Mark suggested that due to the aggressive schedule we
have been given, 
that we hold an interim meeting before Dublin.
 
I am willing to look into putting together a meeting in Tel Aviv
sometime in May or June.
Is that of interest to any of you ?
 
Alternatively, we could look into conference calls.
In fact, we could look into SIP or Skype conferencing.
 
I know of several SDOs who successfully use conference calls,
although I have been warned that past experience in the IETF has not
been great.
 
Any opinions ?
 
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:27:45 +0100

I'd be happy to provide facilities in Paris as an EU option, and I 
suspect we should have a N.A. option from someone as well. Yaakov, I 
recommend coming up with a few locations/dates and providing a doodle 
poll for people to respond to:

http://www.doodle.ch/main.html

Also, for guidance on scheduling, etc:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt  
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/interim.html

Of course, if a physical meeting is unworkable, conf calls can be 
scheduled. My personal experience when starting up a new WG with an 
aggressive set of deliverables is that physical interim meetings help to 
get folks up to speed rapidly and drive consensus. I confess that I 
haven't been part of a lot of IETF WG interim conference calls, though 
perhaps they can be successful as well.

Regardless of location, a rough agenda should be circulated soon for 
folks to consider what the outcome of the meeting should be. I would 
suggest that some time be given for use-case presentation, but that by 
the end of the meeting a common architecture and taxonomy be well 
developed so that we can work towards delivering on that vs. revisiting 
the dozens of different use-cases we have for this technology. This 
architecture, as well as a good start on a proposal of what kind of work 
we need to do to NTP and PTP should be fairly well understood by the 
participants by the end of the meeting.

Thanks,

- Mark

Yaakov Stein wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "FERRANT JEAN-LOUP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:35:17 +0100

Marc,

I support your view that a face-to-face meeting is much better to start an ctivity; conf calls are OK to monitor the progress of a group when all the issues have been identified but is not so efficient when everything has to be defined in order to have a good start.

EU is a good option

Regards

Jean-Loup 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Mark Townsley
Envoyé : lundi 17 mars 2008 11:28
À : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [TICTOC] interim meeting / conference calls

I'd be happy to provide facilities in Paris as an EU option, and I suspect we should have a N.A. option from someone as well. Yaakov, I recommend coming up with a few locations/dates and providing a doodle poll for people to respond to:

Of course, if a physical meeting is unworkable, conf calls can be scheduled. My personal experience when starting up a new WG with an aggressive set of deliverables is that physical interim meetings help to get folks up to speed rapidly and drive consensus. I confess that I haven't been part of a lot of IETF WG interim conference calls, though perhaps they can be successful as well.

Regardless of location, a rough agenda should be circulated soon for folks to consider what the outcome of the meeting should be. I would suggest that some time be given for use-case presentation, but that by the end of the meeting a common architecture and taxonomy be well developed so that we can work towards delivering on that vs. revisiting the dozens of different use-cases we have for this technology. This architecture, as well as a good start on a proposal of what kind of work we need to do to NTP and PTP should be fairly well understood by the participants by the end of the meeting.

Thanks,

- Mark

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:51:57 -0600

On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:27 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
> folks to consider what the outcome of the meeting should be.

I agree, this should be first on the list, and materials to
be presented should be made available so that folks
considering attending can qualify as such either way.

-danny

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:28:36 -0400

On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:35 AM, FERRANT JEAN-LOUP wrote:

> Marc,
>
> I support your view that a face-to-face meeting is much better to  
> start an ctivity; conf calls are OK to monitor the progress of a  
> group when all the issues have been identified but is not so  
> efficient when everything has to be defined in order to have a good  
> start.

I wonder, if we could find a sponsor who could provide time with  
Telepresence units, whether or not people would be interested
in this as an option.

Regards
Marshall

> suspect we should have a N.A. option from someone as well. Yaakov,  
> I recommend coming up with a few locations/dates and providing a  
> doodle poll for people to respond to:
>
> aggressive set of deliverables is that physical interim meetings  
> help to get folks up to speed rapidly and drive consensus. I  
> confess that I haven't been part of a lot of IETF WG interim  
> conference calls, though perhaps they can be successful as well.
>
> Regardless of location, a rough agenda should be circulated soon  
> for folks to consider what the outcome of the meeting should be. I  
> would suggest that some time be given for use-case presentation,  
> but that by the end of the meeting a common architecture and  
> taxonomy be well developed so that we can work towards delivering  
> on that vs. revisiting the dozens of different use-cases we have  
> for this technology. This architecture, as well as a good start on  
> a proposal of what kind of work we need to do to NTP and PTP should  
> be fairly well understood by the participants by the end of the  
> meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Mark
>
> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:20:08 +0000

> that we hold an interim meeting before Dublin.

I would like to request that we only consider early June. I have a 
number of personal reasons why I cannot to from 11th May to end of May.
> Is that of interest to any of you ?
I would prefer a good hub in Western Europe or Eastern US, since I 
suspect that this will be closer to the geographical center of mass. 
What do other think?
> In fact, we could look into SIP or Skype conferencing.
I think we need a higher level of interaction.
> although I have been warned that past experience in the IETF has not 
However first we need to put together an agenda.

Stewart

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:01:39 -0400

Demetrios Matsakis is offering to host this meeting, if the group is  
interested in Washington DC and if
the time chosen matches availability there. (This also has to go  
through the formal USNO approval process but based on my time
there that shouldn't be a problem.

He asks

"I'd need to know how many people would realistically expect to come,  
and from what countries."

This would of course expose the group to the expertise at the USNO  
Directorate of Time, and vice versa.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:46:50 +0100

On 17 mar 2008, at 11.27, Mark Townsley wrote:

> suspect we should have a N.A. option from someone as well.

I tend to agree with Mark. The interims works best when a larger pool  
of people can attend. I would suggest the US East coast or maybe  
Europe as the best "middle ground" optimising attendance. I think that  
between me, Peter and Marshall we can also offer the D.C area.

> help to

Conference calls has the drawback that you start loosing attention  
after 1-1.5hs which means that you will need to schedule a set of  
them, which makes scheduling hard and normally progress slow.

> participants by the end of the meeting.

My personal hope for an interim would be to agree on the requirements  
for the protocol work resulting from TICTOC and a sense of direction  
for the work. This does not exclude use cases, but the use case  
presentations needs to  target requirements and not network  
architecture.

- kurtis -

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:14:02 +0100

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> presentations needs to  target requirements and not network architecture.
Agree wholeheartedly. Use cases are only to understand the landscape in 
order to drive requirements and architecture.

- Mark

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:25:05 +0100

> Telepresence units, whether or not people would be interested
Depends on how many people and locations you are talking about. The TP 
rooms I have been in have 6 real seats and 6 virtual seats situated in a 
round-table fashion (there may be bigger ones, but that's all I have 
personally ever used). So, the ideal setup here is point-2-point, 6 
people or less in each location. Multipoint works reasonably well to, 
but of course not as well as point-2-point as the screens toggle 
depending on who is speaking to force more than 12 people in 12 total 
real and virtual seats. The interaction with TP can be very, very, 
good... Only drawback is that whiteboarding is still not up to snuff 
with being in there in person. Not sure if we will need that in our 
meeting, but its a possibility.

So, if we have just a handful of contributors, we might be able to pull 
this off and I would be happy to try and organize it. I have a feeling 
that it might be more (particularly if people don't have to travel to be 
there).

I have never really looked into the current limitations of TP with 
"large" meetings or more than 3 locations. I could ask around though.

- Mark
>> aggressive set of deliverables is that physical interim meetings help 
>> to get folks up to speed rapidly and drive consensus. I confess that 
>> I haven't been part of a lot of IETF WG interim conference calls, 
>> though perhaps they can be successful as well.
>>
>> suggest that some time be given for use-case presentation, but that 
>> by the end of the meeting a common architecture and taxonomy be well 
>> developed so that we can work towards delivering on that vs. 
>> revisiting the dozens of different use-cases we have for this 
>> technology. This architecture, as well as a good start on a proposal 
>> of what kind of work we need to do to NTP and PTP should be fairly 
>> well understood by the participants by the end of the meeting.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:29:19 -0400

On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:

>>> efficient when everything has to be defined in order to have a  
>>> good start.
>>
> Depends on how many people and locations you are talking about. The  
> TP rooms I have been in have 6 real seats and 6 virtual seats  
> situated in a round-table fashion (there may be bigger ones, but  
> that's all I have personally ever used). So, the ideal setup here  
> is point-2-point, 6 people or less in each location. Multipoint  
> works reasonably well to, but of course not as well as point-2- 
> point as the screens toggle depending on who is speaking to force  
> more than 12 people in 12 total real and virtual seats.

Dear Mark;

You are describing, of course, Cisco Telepresence. The Polycom RPX  
will seat up to 20 per room and does not rely on voice activated  
screen switching for multipoint.

FECFRAME did a design team meeting with Cisco Telepresence (San Jose  
and RTP, North Carolina) and it worked pretty well.

The real question is, of course, could we find sponsor(s) with rooms  
in suitable locations for a suitable period of time, regardless of  
the technology in use.

> The interaction with TP can be very, very, good... Only drawback is  
> that whiteboarding is still not up to snuff with being in there in  
> person. Not sure if we will need that in our meeting, but its a  
> possibility.
>

Smart sells some cool digital whiteboards but IMHO none of the  
vendors have properly integrated this technology yet.

> So, if we have just a handful of contributors, we might be able to  
> pull this off and I would be happy to try and organize it. I have a  
> feeling that it might be more (particularly if people don't have to  
> travel to be there).

Maybe the IESG or the IAB could get try and get a pool of  
telepresence time & rooms donated to the IETF to further its mission.  
It may be premature to consider it for this
meeting.

Regards
Marshall

>>> I'd be happy to provide facilities in Paris as an EU option, and  
>>> I suspect we should have a N.A. option from someone as well.  
>>> Yaakov, I recommend coming up with a few locations/dates and  
>>> providing a doodle poll for people to respond to:
>>>
>>> scheduled. My personal experience when starting up a new WG with  
>>> an aggressive set of deliverables is that physical interim  
>>> meetings help to get folks up to speed rapidly and drive  
>>> consensus. I confess that I haven't been part of a lot of IETF WG  
>>> interim conference calls, though perhaps they can be successful  
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> for folks to consider what the outcome of the meeting should be.  
>>> I would suggest that some time be given for use-case  
>>> presentation, but that by the end of the meeting a common  
>>> architecture and taxonomy be well developed so that we can work  
>>> towards delivering on that vs. revisiting the dozens of different  
>>> use-cases we have for this technology. This architecture, as well  
>>> as a good start on a proposal of what kind of work we need to do  
>>> to NTP and PTP should be fairly well understood by the

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:42:22 +0100

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> that's all I have personally ever used). So, the ideal setup here is 
>> point-2-point, 6 people or less in each location. Multipoint works 
>> reasonably well to, but of course not as well as point-2-point as the 
>> screens toggle depending on who is speaking to force more than 12 
>> people in 12 total real and virtual seats.
>
> Dear Mark;
>
> You are describing, of course, Cisco Telepresence. 
Right, that's all I've ever used and the only that I would be able to 
offer up :-)
> The Polycom RPX will seat up to 20 per room and does not rely on voice 
> activated screen switching for multipoint.
Hmm... If you have more than 20 people in a "room" with only 20 "seats" 
then how can you not switch (or make people smaller than life-size, 
which by definition wouldn't be a 20 seat limitation).

Anyway, I'm not a TP expert by any means. I'm only a user, and a novice 
one at that.
> and RTP, North Carolina) and it worked pretty well.
I was thinking that a DT meeting would be perfect, largely because the 
number of contributors is typically contained.
> in suitable locations for a suitable period of time, regardless of the 
> technology in use.
I can offer to try, but not until I know how many people we are talking 
about. If it is the same number of people I saw in the WG meeting last 
week, I don't think I could pull that off.
> Smart sells some cool digital whiteboards but IMHO none of the vendors 
> have properly integrated this technology yet.
>
>
> Maybe the IESG or the IAB could get try and get a pool of telepresence 
> time & rooms donated to the IETF to further its mission. It may be 
> premature to consider it for this
> meeting.
Not a bad idea, but you're right in that I don't think we'll manage that 
before this meeting.

- Mark

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:54:03 -0400

> between me, Peter and Marshall we can also offer the D.C area.

It would be helpful to have an idea of possible attendance.

We could set up a "doodle" poll.

Note : By

we would need to hold any meeting before the end of June.

NANOG is early June. That would probably be a bad overlap.

Regards
Marshall

>> revisiting

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:58:37 +0200

I don't think we need anything as fancy as Cisco Telepresence.

I have used 2 different conferencing packages that give audio + whiteboarding
and can handle dozens of participants over the Internet after simple installation on PCs.

You don't have video, but I am not sure why you would want it 
(most of us can understand what people are saying without watching their lips and hands).

MEF and MPLS-forum both used regular simple audio conference calls, 
and have progressed several IAs to completion on that basis. 
More relevantly for this group, IEEE 1588 held purely audio conferences as well. 
Typically on such calls you go over an numbered agenda and interested parties distribute documents 
ahead of time.
It works just fine for calls up to 2 hours, and in my experience a weekly
1-hour call is much easier to schedule than physical meetings.

I personally already have a conference in the third week of June,
so taking Stewart's constraints into account perhaps the first or last week of June could
work for a physical meeting. My preference (if not local) would be London or Paris - 
DC wastes me another day of travel in each direction.

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:29 PM
To: Mark Townsley
Cc: [email-masked]; FERRANT JEAN-LOUP
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] interim meeting / conference calls

On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:

>> Telepresence units, whether or not people would be interested in this 
>> as an option.
> rooms I have been in have 6 real seats and 6 virtual seats situated in 
> a round-table fashion (there may be bigger ones, but that's all I have 
> but of course not as well as point-2- point as the screens toggle 
> real and virtual seats.

Dear Mark;

You are describing, of course, Cisco Telepresence. The Polycom RPX will seat up to 20 per room and does not rely on voice activated screen switching for multipoint.

FECFRAME did a design team meeting with Cisco Telepresence (San Jose and RTP, North Carolina) and it worked pretty well.

The real question is, of course, could we find sponsor(s) with rooms in suitable locations for a suitable period of time, regardless of the technology in use.

> person. Not sure if we will need that in our meeting, but its a 

Smart sells some cool digital whiteboards but IMHO none of the vendors have properly integrated this technology yet.

> feeling that it might be more (particularly if people don't have to 

Maybe the IESG or the IAB could get try and get a pool of telepresence time & rooms donated to the IETF to further its mission.  
It may be premature to consider it for this meeting.

Regards
Marshall

>>> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la 
>>> part de Mark Townsley Envoyé : lundi 17 mars 2008 11:28 À : 
>>> [email-masked] Objet : Re: [TICTOC] interim meeting / conference 
>>> calls
>>>
>>>
>>> help to get folks up to speed rapidly and drive consensus. I confess 
>>> that I haven't been part of a lot of IETF WG interim conference 
>>> calls, though perhaps they can be successful as well.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that some time be given for use-case presentation, 
>>> taxonomy be well developed so that we can work towards delivering on 
>>> that vs. revisiting the dozens of different use-cases we have for 
>>> this technology. This architecture, as well as a good start on a 
>>> proposal of what kind of work we need to do to NTP and PTP should be 
>>> fairly well understood by the participants by the end of the 
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> At the meeting Mark suggested that due to the aggressive schedule 
>>>> we have been given, that we hold an interim meeting before Dublin.
>>>>
>>>> although I have been warned that past experience in the IETF has 
>>>> not been great.
>>>>
>>>> Any opinions ?
>>>>
>>>> Y(J)S