Subject: Re: WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:45:29 -0500

WG Chairs:

The sense of the plenary room last night was not favorable to a 
January 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs share this view.

If January 2009 is not the right time to try this experiments, when 
is?  I'm wondering how people would react to a US or Canada venue in 
September 2009, which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and an 
IETF meeting in Japan.

Please respond promptly.  If we are going to hold a meeting in Malta 
in January 2009, there is a lot to do.

Russ

At 03:33 PM 10/16/2008, IETF Chair wrote:
>In our continuing effort to ensure that IETF WGs are getting enough
>meeting time to progress their work, we are conducting another experiment.
>   Many WGs have found interim meetings an effective way to tackle thorny
>technical issues, resolve contentious technical issues, accelerate
>standards development, and provide traction for new work.  As always, an
>interim WG meeting is not a substitute for a regular session at the
>traditional IETF meeting.  Since some WG Chairs and ADs have found the
>amount of time necessary to put together an interim meeting can be
>excessive, we are trying to reduce the effort necessary to conduct an
>interim meeting to determine whether reducing this burden will expedite
>IETF standards development.  To this end, the Secretariat will facilitate
>a large interim meeting from 20-22 January 2009 in Malta.  If you are
>interested in participating in this experiment, please contact your Area
>Director for approval.  All face-to-face interim meetings require AD
>approval, and this is no exception.  The IETF Secretariat is putting
>together a program with three full days and four tracks on each day.  Each
>WG interim meeting is expected to consume at least one full day on one of
>the tracks.
>
>ADs will schedule the sessions.  A URL for the schedule will be announced
>shortly.  Once it is available, if you detect a scheduling conflict,
>please raise the concern with your AD for resolution.  Session time is
>limited, and sessions will be allocated first come, first served.
>
>The Secretariat will provide registration, food and beverage, audio
>visual facilities, and on site registration support.  VeriLAN will provide
>network and audio streaming support.  It is expected that the meeting fee
>will be $375 for early registration and $475 for late registration.
>
>The Internet Society is looking for meeting sponsors for this event.
>Anyone interested please contact Drew Dvorshak <[email-masked]>.
>
>Russ

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:07:27 -0500

Russ - January 2009 seems to me to be an especially bad time for this  
experiment.  I know that I have economic travel restrictions in place  
that would absolutely preclude my attendance, and I imagine many  
others are in the same situation.

Looking ahead, those travel restrictions may be in place long enough  
to interfere with my travel to SF, Stockholm and Hiroshima.

Can we use the current economic environment as a stimulus to try a  
very different sort of experiment: can we arrange virtual interim  
meetings in which we use the best available tele-collaboration tools  
to achieve as much as we would through face-to-face meetings while  
avoiding travel?

- Ralph

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:07:47 -0600

ok - I'll preface this with the fact that my WG (TSV) was not 
planning on having a session). That said, there is at least 2 
sessions I was interested in attending as an individual.

With that said, my boss (Barb Fraser, former IPsec chair) said NFW to 
the idea of me going to Malta given this financial climate.  She 
didn't as much have a problem with a more accessible European 
destination - but certainly not one with such a limited access.  Had 
this been scheduled in a more core city (London, Paris, Frankfurt, 
etc) that reachable in a single hop (which means there are connecting 
flights that don't cost as much).

I think the destination was and remains the problem.  I'm not saying 
US/Canada was ever necessary -- although using full disclosure -- my 
boss would have clearly and quickly approved that type of destination.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:10:12 -0500

>  January 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs share this

I do not believe a meeting in Malta is correct "at this time". The reason is
pretty simple. Its not that it is in Malta, per se, but the general economic
situation is making it nearly impossible for many to travel in to any venue.
In fact many of us had to practically beg to get to Minneapolis.

>  September 2009, which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and an

If we see the DOW at 6000 we'll be lucky to get anyone to show up in SF. I
think we need to be very sensitive to the constraints many of our employers
are now under. IMHO the timing is not good for any general interim meeting
in 2009.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:12:12 -0500

>  to achieve as much as we would through face-to-face meetings while

I wholeheartedly endorse this suggestion.

---

From: "Seely, Ted A [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:20:26 -0600

Hi Russ,

I would echo what Richard Shockey said.  I think that pretty much captures it.

Thanks

Ted

________________________________
From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:45:29 -0600
To: Working Group Chairs <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009

WG Chairs:

Russ

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:24:10 -0600

> to achieve as much as we would through face-to-face meetings while  

This would fit with the discussion that happened re the interim in  
behave this morning. Behave plans to have a meeting and I plan to do a  
cameo, but I am in the minority. There were a number of people who  
indicated that the would attend remotely if a remote option was  
available.

The next question is: what would "the best telecommunication tools  
available" constitute? Obvious options include Skype (just say no, the  
IAOC tried it and it didn't work well for a call of ten-or-so people  
who all had plenty of bandwidth), Marratech (works pretty well but we  
haven't tested it on this volume), or WebEx (which I would be willing  
to suggest that Cisco donate if folks want to try it). WebEx has a  
VoIP component, but I have never tried it - Cisco generally uses our  
VoIP phones for that.

One might ask about http://www.voip-sol.com/top-5-webex-alternatives/  
or http://www.voip-sol.com/top-web-conference-services-for-mac-os-x/.  
The latter is an article about alternatives that work on a variety of  
platforms in addition to those from the Great Wet North.

In general, WebEx and its equivalents seem "OK" to me; they let you  
put a web page up that "shares" an application like powerpoint or such  
and may include a VoIP service. I personally find the video kind of  
pointless - I believe that everyone has a head even if they don't show  
it to me talking. The value of "being there" is the conversations that  
happen in the hall, the ability to take someone or a small group and  
work through an issue, etc.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:29:02 -0000

>  January 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs share this

I think a number of things combined to make this suboptimal.
Feedback I heard coming from a number of people considering attending an 
MPLS-TP meeting included:
- it takes too many flights to get there
- it costs too much to get there
- why do we have to pay the IETF so much to attend?

Time of year didn't appear to be an issue.

Find a location near a hub.
Keep the price right down.

Adrian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:50:29 -0500

> The sense of the plenary room last night was not favorable to a January 2009
> meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs share this view.
>
> If January 2009 is not the right time to try this experiments, when is?  I'm
> wondering how people would react to a US or Canada venue in September 2009,
> which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and an IETF meeting in Japan.

I am very strongly against having this sort of meeting at any time.  We don't 
need a fourth (or fifth!) IETF meeting, putting yet more of a travel burden on 
attendees and our companies.  Rather, as Ralph suggests, we should move toward 
doing more work with online conferencing that will add bandwidth to our 
mailing-list participation without making people travel, taking up entire days in 
transit and spending a lot of money in the process.

As Margaret said in the open mic session on Wednesday, the locally arranged 
interim meetings are successful largely because they are very inexpensive for the 
attendees... and they provide an easy way for interested companies to give some 
financial support without blowing budgets or involving fiscal branches of their 
organizations that will give too much resistance.

So, repeating:
We should not do this in January 2009, not just because of the financial times.
We should not do this in Malta, not just because of the choice of location.
We should not do this AT ALL, because it starts an unwise trend of having more 
face-to-face meetings, at a time when we're clearly getting *less* face-to-face 
participation.
We should take advantage of the technology that we develop, and remove the 
procedural barriers to having more teleconferences and online meetings.

Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair

--
Barry Leiba, Senior Technical Staff  ([email-masked])
Internet Messaging Technology, IBM Research
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:51:36 +0100

Russ,

> The sense of the plenary room last night was not favorable to a January 
> 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs share this view.

First, IPPM is not going to meet in Malta as nobody seemed to be
interested in going there.

> I'm wondering how people would react to a US or Canada venue in 
> September 2009, which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and an IETF 
> meeting in Japan.

Besides the economic issues...  I've noticed over the years that very
little happens in the IETF between roughly the summer meeting and sometime
in September, due to vacations.  So, I don't think that there is much to
discuss in September that we cannot discuss at the summer meeting.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam  (Cato & Henk)

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:54:08 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 20 November 2008 22:29
> To: 'Russ Housley'
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'; [email-masked]
> > January 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs 
> share this  
> > view.
> 
> 
> 
> Feedback I heard coming from a number of people considering 
> attending an MPLS-TP meeting included:

Define "near a hub" and "too much"? As in Minneapolis? I know people who
have taken 3 legs to get here. 
For what's it worth Malta is generally reachable by 2 via Frankfurt and
London.

The "where" is a red herring other than it being anywhere that is 1 x
2-3hr hop via a scheduled flight from a hub like Frankfurt, Washington,
London, etc

My 2c.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:55:28 -0600

> 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs share this view.

I am personally reluctant to go to the interim, but I think I will be
able to get permission in the event the meeting goes ahead.  

I was hoping that we would be able to find some volunteers from the
DNS community to go, so that I would not have to.  So far, I have had
no luck, even though we have participants who are much closer than I
am.  This suggests to me that travel budgets have been clipped
everywhere, and people just can't volunteer.  That said, I don't have
specific evidence one way or the other, because dnsext was not
planning an interim meeting.

I will say that I'm a little troubled we need four meetings a year to
get the work done.  How come we can't get more work done
asynchronously?  The Montreal meeting on v4/v6 did seem to get a lot
done, so I get why the interim seems like a good idea.  But it bugs me
that we can't be more effective with the time we are already spending
at meetings.

Since I live near Toronto, obviously, a location in central Canada
would be easier for me.  So if that's on the table, I'm happy to
support it for selfish reasons.  But I recognize that, just as Malta
is far away for me, Toronto is far away for others.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Peter Schoenmaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:55:33 -0600

On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> January 2009
>> is?  I'm
> I am very strongly against having this sort of meeting at any time.   
> We don't need a fourth (or fifth!) IETF meeting, putting yet more of  
> a travel burden on attendees and our companies.  Rather, as Ralph  
> suggests, we should move toward doing more work with online  
> conferencing that will add bandwidth to our mailing-list  
> participation without making people travel, taking up entire days in  
> As Margaret said in the open mic session on Wednesday, the locally  
> arranged interim meetings are successful largely because they are  
> very inexpensive for the attendees... and they provide an easy way  
> for interested companies to give some financial support without  
> blowing budgets or involving fiscal branches of their organizations  
> that will give too much resistance.
>
> So, repeating:
> We should not do this AT ALL, because it starts an unwise trend of  
> having more face-to-face meetings, at a time when we're clearly  
> getting *less* face-to-face participation.
> We should take advantage of the technology that we develop, and  
> remove the procedural barriers to having more teleconferences and  
> online meetings.

I agree with this position too.

peter

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:58:29 -0500

In line...

>  who all had plenty of bandwidth), 

DITTO on that .. Skype has scalability issue beyond 4-6 participants.

Marratech (works pretty well but we
>  VoIP component, but I have never tried it - Cisco generally uses our

Well as a test, if Cisco would be so kind, any of us are running design
teams ( I'm DRINKS co-chair) on a near constant basis. Max 12 participants .
We could at least test the WebEx interface out and report to the WG chairs
list on how we like it and take it from there. Frankly I've never used WebEX
. Could other design teams try it out?

Thanks Fred...

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:58:35 -0600

We can't have a generic opinion about this. The question is if a 
specific meeting is warranted, by:

- amount of work already going on in the list and drafts
- importance of the effort for the community behind it
- need for f2f time to resolve tough issues

For instance, I still believe that a BEHAVE+SOFTWIRE interim is 
justified based on these grounds. I understand that the various WGs who 
are planning an interim are asking their meeting participants about how 
many would show up. Lets take the results of that and make a decision. 
 From what I understand, the numbers are fairly small on the on-site 
side, and very large on the remote participation side. But lets wait 
until the polls are complete.

I'll also note that we don't have full visibility even with this poll. 
In the Montreal interim we had 15 people signed up three weeks before 
the meeting, and eventually 60 + 30 showed up.

Jari

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:01:13 +0100

Great, wonderful.

I get the feeling that I have to end up subsidising everyone who is US
based in the IETF. I have to spend a fortune getting to Minneapolis
because it is back to back with another meeting I've had in China. San
Francisco is also likely to be expensive on airfare. The exchange rate
is working against me and is expected to work against me in next year.

I have to put up with all the moaning in July because we had a meeting
in Europe.

SIP has things it can discuss in an interim. We were prepared to meet.
There was sufficient interest in the meeting to have that discussion.

Don't anyone expect me to travel to the US for yet another US based
interim.

regards

Keith

PS and just to note, the Secretariat has not helped on this one by
choosing Malta, and leaving it so late to release any details. And I was
a little disappointed last night to see that there is effectively a 20%
surcharge on top of the meeting fee to go into the general running
expenses of the IETF from such an interim.

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ HousleyGreat
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:45 PM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Cc: [email-masked]
> The sense of the plenary room last night was not favorable to 
> a January 2009 meeting in Malta.  I need to know if WG Chairs 
> share this view.
> 
> If January 2009 is not the right time to try this 
> experiments, when is?  I'm wondering how people would react 
> to a US or Canada venue in September 2009, which is between 
> an IETF meeting in Sweden and an IETF meeting in Japan.
> 
> Please respond promptly.  If we are going to hold a meeting 
> in Malta in January 2009, there is a lot to do.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> >   Many WGs have found interim meetings an effective way to tackle 
> >thorny technical issues, resolve contentious technical issues, 
> >accelerate standards development, and provide traction for 
> new work.  
> >As always, an interim WG meeting is not a substitute for a regular 
> >session at the traditional IETF meeting.  Since some WG 
> Chairs and ADs 
> >have found the amount of time necessary to put together an interim 
> >meeting can be excessive, we are trying to reduce the effort 
> necessary 
> >to conduct an interim meeting to determine whether reducing 
> this burden 
> >will expedite IETF standards development.  To this end, the 
> Secretariat 
> >will facilitate a large interim meeting from 20-22 January 2009 in 
> >Malta.  If you are interested in participating in this experiment, 
> >please contact your Area Director for approval.  All face-to-face 
> >interim meetings require AD approval, and this is no exception.  The 
> >IETF Secretariat is putting together a program with three 
> full days and 
> >four tracks on each day.  Each WG interim meeting is expected to 
> >consume at least one full day on one of the tracks.
> >
> >ADs will schedule the sessions.  A URL for the schedule will be 
> >announced shortly.  Once it is available, if you detect a scheduling 
> >conflict, please raise the concern with your AD for resolution.  
> >Session time is limited, and sessions will be allocated 
> first come, first served.
> >
> >visual facilities, and on site registration support.  VeriLAN will 
> >provide network and audio streaming support.  It is expected 
> that the 
> >meeting fee will be $375 for early registration and $475 for 
> late registration.
> >

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:01:19 -0600

The positive spin on the loud list of negative responses is that there is now much greater interest in formal-esque interim meeting online with (hopefully) better tools.

I'm all for that. ipsecme could really use some between-meeting juice, but certainly didn't need a f2f meeting at high cost to the participants.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:05:59 +0100

All,

> If January 2009 is not the right time to try this experiments, when is?  

I think January 2009 is the right time to experiment, but not with a
f2f meeting.  In other environments, I've had very positive
experiences with the Marratech software (audio, video, plus a whiteboard
to share slides and other material).

I'm happy to set up an IPPM meeting on Marratech somewhere in January,
then report back if this worked.

Any formal restrictions or is this just a matter of "just do it"?

Henk

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:07:15 -0600

On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> Well as a test, if Cisco would be so kind, any of us are running  
> design teams ( I'm DRINKS co-chair) on a near constant basis. Max 12  
> participants. We could at least test the WebEx interface out and  
> report to the WG chairs list on how we like it and take it from  
> there. Frankly I've never used WebEX. Could other design teams try  
> it out?

For such a thing, go to http://www.webex.com, click on "free trial",  
and do what it says. You get
  	• Unlimited meetings for 14 days
	• Up to 25 people in a meeting
	• Training and support

You probably also get a follow-up email from a sales droid.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:16:14 -0600

> Any formal restrictions or is this just a matter of "just do it"?

For a design team meeting, just do it. For interim working group  
meetings, you might find the following useful:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
2418 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures. S. Bradner.
      September 1998. (Format: TXT=62857 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1603)
      (Updated by RFC3934) (Also BCP0025) (Status: BEST CURRENT  
PRACTICE)

    All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
    participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of  
its
    business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
    periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
    resolve specific issues and to direct future activities.  IETF
    Plenary meetings are the primary venue for these face-to-face  
working
    group sessions, and it is common (though not required) that active
    "interim" face-to-face meetings, telephone conferences, or video
    conferences may also be held.  Interim meetings are subject to the
    same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,
    and process, which apply to other working group meetings.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4677.txt
4677 The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering
      Task Force. P. Hoffman, S. Harris. September 2006. (Format:
      TXT=127383 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC3160) (Also FYI0017) (Status:
      INFORMATIONAL)

    Working Groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs.
    Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, however -- a
    group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location they're not fond
    of and meet in Cancun (or even someplace mundane) three weeks later,
    for example.  Interim meetings require AD approval and need to be
    announced at least one month in advance.  Location and timing need  
to
    allow fair access for all participants.  Like regular IETF meetings,
    someone needs to take notes and send them to
    mailto:[email-masked], and the group needs to take attendance.
    Decisions tentatively made during an interim WG meeting still must  
be
    ratified on the mailing list.

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:23:08 -0600

I have had *precisely the opposite experience* Henk.

Marratech has consistently failed to deliver what I feel I need in  
remote participation, has failed in-service, and I say that as the  
head-end, and a connecting end instance. I have experienced both, and  
in fact did so at this IETF, and at others. the cycle of "can you hear  
me" going on in a meeting is just unacceptable.

We have a body of standards work which provides video, voice and  
shared drawing space, it was used extensively in the early 1990s. Its  
the MBONE.

It worked as well as, if not better than Marratech, and was  
demonstrably as stable, and reliable.

I am very sorry if I disagree with people here, but I see next to no  
advancement of the state of the art in the systems like Marratech,  
dimdim, which occupy this space. We appear to have learned nothing.  
NOTHING.

Conference bridges run by TELCO are sometimes workable, but it varies  
by economy.

Professionally operated breakout centres, which is what the  
collaborative GRID is in practice, work very well. but, they have  
gigabits of HD dedicated bandwidth, and a full operations team, and  
merely bridge the pond be it the pacific, atlantic: you still incur  
the cost of travel to a regional center.

However, if investing in an approach like this, I suggest either we  
use MBONE, or we use the GRID. with regional meetings. or H320  
services, or other sealed solutions.

Marratech is simply not viable for me.

You are the third RIPE-NCC person to suggest it, and while I honour  
your organizational commitment to the product, I beg you to ask around  
about how its use has affected other people. -as a receiver of  
participations, its been fraught.

please, don't 'just do it'

-George

On 20/11/2008, at 4:05 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

>> is?

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:35:29 -0600

At Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:50:29 -0500,
> I am very strongly against having this sort of meeting at any time.

[...]

I need to agree with Barry here.

What makes lightweight individual interims work is that it's possible
to get a high enough level of WG buyin that a f2f meeting is
productive--otherwise the meeting doesn't happen--and the location and
time can be tuned to the core group.  What makes a big meeting like
the 3x a year meeting work is that there's enough critical mass of
meetings that people feel they need to go, even if the time and
location are inconvenient, which they necessarily are to many people
since this is a worldwide organization.

This interim represents the worst of both worlds: it's a forced time
and location and so is inconvenient for many (though this particularly
time and location seem particularly inconvenient), but it's too small
to make it a mandatory meeting.  Based on the comments and surveys
I've seen run here, the WGs I participate in fall into two categories:
those which don't seem to think it's worth meeting in Malta and those
which do, but where the group of attendees (and therefore the choice
of topics) is severely restricted. Neither seems optimal. TLS, 
for instance, is likely to hold a virtual interim.

Obviously, it's a difficult choice to make whether to cancel the
Malta meeting at this time, since people have already made plans
based on it. However, on balance I think it's probably the best
move.

-Ekr

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:34:47 +0100

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:16 AM
> To: Henk Uijterwaal
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]; Russ Housley
> Subject: Re: Experiments (was Re: WG Interim Meeting 
> Opportunity in January2009)
> 
> 
> For a design team meeting, just do it. For interim working 
> group meetings, you might find the following useful:
> 
> 
>     participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct 
> much of its
>     Plenary meetings are the primary venue for these 
> face-to-face working
>     announced at least one month in advance.  Location and 
> timing need to
>     Decisions tentatively made during an interim WG meeting 
> still must be

Yes, and also http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt

Dan

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:37:06 -0600

Hi,

> We should not do this AT ALL, because it starts an unwise trend of having
> more face-to-face meetings, at a time when we're clearly getting *less*
> face-to-face participation.
> We should take advantage of the technology that we develop, and remove
> the procedural barriers to having more teleconferences and online
> meetings.

Big +1 on what Barry said.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:38:04 -0600

On Nov 20, 2008, at 15:24 , Fred Baker wrote:

> Marratech (works pretty well but we haven't tested it on this volume),

The IESG tried this on a call and it was, uh, lacking. It did not work  
for people that needed  http proxies, it did not work for people where  
the firewall blocked UDP (like my employer), the echo cancelation was  
so bad that the obvious preferred mode was to "push to talk" like a  
walkie talkie. Latency was not good.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:38:13 -0800

+1. 

I also believe that the Malta meeting is probably not a good idea at this point. 

> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:35:29 -0600
> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:39:22 +0200

Currently, no security area WGs are considering having a face-to-face
interim meetings, in Malta or elsewhere.

However, I and Tim have been concerned that many WGs in our area did
not get much work done between Dublin and Minneapolis (and the work
that got done often happened only just before the deadlines).

One idea we have considered is recommending to our WGs that they
should have a "virtual interim meeting" between Minneapolis and San
Francisco. This could be something like a two-hour session with at
least voice and chat room (maybe real-time slide sharing and video as
well), and could come with deadlines for updating the drafts before
the meeting. The tool could be WebEx, PSTN conference bridge + Jabber, 
or something else -- I'd be interested in hearing experiences about
which tools work well.

This could be something that would help the WGs make better progress
between the normal meetings, but I don't consider it as competing
with real interim meetings (like Malta or the Montreal IPv4/6
meeting) -- if the topic requires multiple days of high bandwidth
time, a two-hour conference call just won't do it.

Any opinions on whether this would be useful? Anyone volunteering
their WG to try this? :)

Best regards,
Pasi

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Fred Baker
> Sent: 20 November, 2008 23:24
> To: Ralph Droms
> One might ask about 
> http://www.voip-sol.com/top-5-webex-alternatives/  
> or 
> http://www.voip-sol.com/top-web-conference-services-for-mac-os-x/.

---

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:41:55 -0800

Russ,

<chair>
CAPWAP WG work for the current charter is almost done - barring the two  MIB drafts that are about to get into WGLC.
Hence it has more reasons for more active list-time than any need for an interim face-face. Hence, CAPWAP does not plan
to meet in Malta.
</chair>

<!chair>
I wholeheartedly support the idea of virtual interim using tele-collaboration tool proposed by BarryL and Ralph (and echoed
by numerous others) and strongly recommend we consider this as the basis for future interims of this nature.

Other interims - who need critical face-face time for reasons of temporal deadlines or sheer contextual (contentiousness, intricacies)
exigencies should consider the existing guidelines referenced by FredB.

Perhaps we could start formalizing this virtual meeting option by an update to the guideline drafts referenced by FredB on
design-team and interim f2f's.

Of course, there are timezone downsides to the virtual meetings vs. f2f (trades off time-skews with jet-lag).

I also propose that we augment the Jan09 interim with webconferencing to enable those who can't make it f2f to dial into
WG sessions of key interest).

</!chair>

-mani

From: Russ Housley
Sent: Thu 11/20/2008 12:45 PM
To: Working Group Chairs
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009 

WG Chairs:

Russ

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:49:22 -0500

> or something else -- I'd be interested in hearing experiences about
...
> Any opinions on whether this would be useful? Anyone volunteering

Pasi, when Russ was still our AD, DKIM did something like this.  We were in a 
time when details of a couple of documents were sufficiently controversial that 
the mailing list was very high in volume and very high, also, in thrashing about. 
We held several Jabber meetings, after getting IESG approval to do so.

They worked wonderfully.  It was a bit challenging to manage the meetings (people 
"talking" while the previous person wasn't finished, and whatnot), but we were 
able to get agreement among the people who were primarily at odds, and that kept 
us on schedule.  Technology that didn't limit us to text would have done even 
better.

Barry

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:50:28 -0600

We can provide a facility for VoIP calls using a configured asterisk
server with some scripts, where each wg would have a dedicated
conference room. BTW, that facility would support both IPv4 and IPv6
VoIP calls... ;-)

My only main limitation is to have a server on a good Internet bandwidth
link. If there is interest in this kind of facility, we can set it up
and provide a trial facility and if successful, we would be looking a
network to host it (while we can babysitting it).

Marc.

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:55:01 -0800

I understand that sometimes, extra face-to-face time may actually be needed to progress work, but, I really dislike promoting the notion of interims.  I echo Scott Bradner's comment from the plenary and Barry's comments here in that we must not be using face-to-face times for things that can be accomplished just as well over the mailing list.  

Several of the WGs I attend nowadays seem to have become meeting oriented - drafts seem to get updated once a meeting cycle, close to the deadline; people want tutorials on the drafts in the WG meetings, and expect presentation slots without any discussion on mailing lists.  It is a sad state.  Interim meetings such as this one are only going to encourage that attitude.  

I think we need to raise the bar for presentation slots in face-to-face meetings - and then, we'll probably find that we can raise the productivity levels without interim meetings. 

Vidya 

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:45 PM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:57:41 -0800

> network to host it (while we can babysitting it).

Yes, there is interest.  If such thing were available, it *would* be used
(probably more than might be expected).   I would rather spend effort
using our own technology to handle "virtual meetings" than on arranging
interim meetings that will stretch (increasingly diminishing) travel budgets.

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:50:51 +0100

> I also propose that we augment the Jan09 interim with webconferencing
to enable those who can't make it f2f to dial into
> WG sessions of key interest).
 
This is a really good idea and a senseful experiment !!

Cheers,
Mehmet 

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Mani, Mahalingam
(Mani)
	Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:42 PM
	To: Russ Housley; Working Group Chairs
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009 

	Russ,
	 
	<chair>
	CAPWAP WG work for the current charter is almost done - barring
the two  MIB drafts that are about to get into WGLC.
	Hence it has more reasons for more active list-time than any
need for an interim face-face. Hence, CAPWAP does not plan
	to meet in Malta.
	</chair>
	 
	<!chair>
	I wholeheartedly support the idea of virtual interim using
tele-collaboration tool proposed by BarryL and Ralph (and echoed
	by numerous others) and strongly recommend we consider this as
the basis for future interims of this nature.
	 
	Other interims - who need critical face-face time for reasons of
temporal deadlines or sheer contextual (contentiousness, intricacies)
	exigencies should consider the existing guidelines referenced by
FredB.
	 
	Perhaps we could start formalizing this virtual meeting option
by an update to the guideline drafts referenced by FredB on
	design-team and interim f2f's.
	 
	Of course, there are timezone downsides to the virtual meetings
vs. f2f (trades off time-skews with jet-lag).
	 
	I also propose that we augment the Jan09 interim with
webconferencing to enable those who can't make it f2f to dial into
	WG sessions of key interest).
	 
	</!chair>
	
	-mani

	From: Russ Housley

	WG Chairs:

	If January 2009 is not the right time to try this experiments,
when 
	is?  I'm wondering how people would react to a US or Canada
venue in 
	September 2009, which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and
an 
	IETF meeting in Japan.
	
	Please respond promptly.  If we are going to hold a meeting in
Malta 
	in January 2009, there is a lot to do.
	
	Russ

	>ADs will schedule the sessions.  A URL for the schedule will be
announced

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:06:01 -0600

My experience is that conferencing outside the telco boundary is never  
as good as conference bridges embedded inside the telco.

remember, you incur 2x rtt to get to the CPE, do the bridge, and back  
out.

I have used asterix, I have used ser, I have used slipper, I have  
used ..

(as a participant) and they are all, basically, <1 QDU in terms of end- 
to-end voice quality.

the conference bridge head NEVER SEES THIS.

I've used this with head-end in SF. In Brazil. in London. Its the  
same: its just better, when the telco terminates all the calls, and  
does bridge inside the telco.

this is my pragmatic experience.

VOIP .. don't get me started.

if you go there, then you require extensive chair training to manage  
time to speak, and pass token because the end-to-end echo cancel never  
covers for it. formalized calls for input off the bridge can work.

cheers

-George

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:12:45 -0600

FYI:

The IAOC is having open office hours 17:20-17:40. Not sure where that  
was announced, but it's true.

On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]  
> On Behalf Of ext Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)
> CAPWAP WG work for the current charter is almost done - barring the  
> two  MIB drafts that are about to get into WGLC.
> Hence it has more reasons for more active list-time than any need  
> for an interim face-face. Hence, CAPWAP does not plan
> to meet in Malta.
> </chair>
>
> <!chair>
> I wholeheartedly support the idea of virtual interim using tele- 
> collaboration tool proposed by BarryL and Ralph (and echoed
> by numerous others) and strongly recommend we consider this as the  
> basis for future interims of this nature.
>
> Perhaps we could start formalizing this virtual meeting option by an  
> update to the guideline drafts referenced by FredB on
> Of course, there are timezone downsides to the virtual meetings vs.  
> f2f (trades off time-skews with jet-lag).
>
> thorny
> provide

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:17:28 -0600

> as good as conference bridges embedded inside the telco.

I have various experiences in both cases, but I might agree that
overall, circuit based conference bridges on a non-shared network are
usually more reliable than packet-based conference bridges on a shared
network.

but I don't think we need to start a thread on PSTN vs VoIP...

However, I was just offering this because this is I can offer mostly
"free" to the community. it is an opt-in service. ;-)

Marc.

> 
> remember, you incur 2x rtt to get to the CPE, do the bridge, and back out.
> 
> I have used asterix, I have used ser, I have used slipper, I have used ..
> 
> (as a participant) and they are all, basically, <1 QDU in terms of
> end-to-end voice quality.
> 
> I've used this with head-end in SF. In Brazil. in London. Its the same:
> its just better, when the telco terminates all the calls, and does
> bridge inside the telco.
> 

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server: http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:26:13 -0600

> to achieve as much as we would through face-to-face meetings while  

While the idea sounds good, the reality usually turns into "long  
conference call with crappy audio, people who have no mic discipline,  
and bad cell phone connections."

What's worse, over the past few years I've been having more and more  
trouble hearing on the phone, and even with the best stereo  
Plantronics headset sometimes don't understand even native speakers on  
a one-to-one call. Oddly, they too can't hear me, and I have no impact  
on the calls at all. Consequently I've pretty much given up on  
conference calls as a total waste of time.

On the other hand, I had no funding for Malta, so what difference does  
it make?

--
Dean

---

From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:30:00 -0500

Having an IETF concall bridge server would definitely be useful. I'm not
sure that NEA WG will use it or need it but it would be great to have it
as an option, either for design team meetings or for interim meetings
(following all the necessary rules, of course).
 
Based on my experience in other standards groups, the most important
elements for a successful virtual meeting are a decent phone bridge,
motivated participants, and drafts and agenda distributed at least a
week in advance. Videoconferencing and screen sharing are not necessary,
at least for technical meetings. In fact, they can be a distraction from
the work at hand. Face-to-face meetings are still needed to build mutual
respect, encourage communication between WGs, and handle some especially
difficult issues. But they don't need to happen too often.
 
Thanks,
 
Steve

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
	Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:58 PM
	To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Cc: [email-masked]; Russ Housley
	Subject: RE: WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009

	> network to host it (while we can babysitting it).
	
	Yes, there is interest.  If such thing were available, it
*would* be used
	(probably more than might be expected).   I would rather spend
effort
	using our own technology to handle "virtual meetings" than on
arranging
	interim meetings that will stretch (increasingly diminishing)
travel budgets.

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:56:59 +0200

The WG I co-chair, and the ones in which I actively participate, have already opted out of the interim.
I feel that three regularly scheduled meetings a year should provide a sufficient dosage of face time.

I think the whole idea of a large multi-WG interim is a sly way of increasing the number of yearly meetings,
thereby increasing the cost (both monetary and in lost time) to participants.
Even the present load is excessive for many.

If a specific WG needs to kickoff a new task
or to overcome a hurdle that it could not surmount during the regular meetings
then the optimal strategy is to set up a design team consisting of a
small number of motivated people.
This design team can decide to use conference calls, physical meetings,
or whatever works best for it.

If this still doesn't work then the WG chairs should carefully consider their options.
As a last resort they may indeed decide to hold an interim.
However, the probability of a large number of WGs simultaneously needing
an interim should be vanishlingly small.

Y(J)S

WG Chairs:

Russ

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:35:06 -0500

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 03:24:10PM -0600, Fred Baker wrote:
> available" constitute? Obvious options include Skype (just say no, the IAOC 
> tried it and it didn't work well for a call of ten-or-so people who all had 
> plenty of bandwidth),

...

At the risk of exposing myself as "one of them", the voice chat servers
I and my friends have used while playing World of Warcraft have regularly
scaled for 40-60 people within a single virtual chat room.  The server
had accomodated up to 80 people at one point but I'm not directly aware
of the specific factors affecting scaling of that particular service.

The service in particular is the Ventrilo voice chat software.  There
are clients for Windows and MacOS.  This does require some sort of
microphone and the typical outfit for the majority of our users is a USB
headset with built-in microphone.

The service in specific is not well setup for standard conference
calling behavior - poor muting behavior as an example.

The majority of our users were based in the U.S. but we had some users
in Australia, France and Germany.  Latency is the single biggest issue
with the service and requires good user protocol in order to not step on
people speaking.

I would honestly hope that commercial services would be more stable and
scalable than a game service that costs < $20US a month to run on a
shared server.  However, if price and deployability is a consideration
it might be worth someone's pocket change to determine if it's a good
fit for our purposes.

> In general, WebEx and its equivalents seem "OK" to me; they let you put a 
> web page up that "shares" an application like powerpoint or such and may 
> include a VoIP service.

The webex style service provided by Global Crossing has been one of the
most useable that I've seen for both PC and Mac.  I have no comment on
Global Crossing's VOIP conferencing services.

-- Jeff

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:36:38 -0600

Nothing is stopping you from holding a sponsored (ALU?) interim in  
Europe. Mediactrl is still thinking of meeting somewhere in Europe,  
possibly in January.

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:36:47 -0600

> that we can't be more effective with the time we are already
spending

Some of the most effective interims I have attended were held on the
Fri-Sat (and possibly Sun) weekend following an IETF meeting, in the
same location. During the week, we discussed the background of the
open issues. In the interim, we actually work to achieve solutions to
the issues, with the smaller number of very-interested people who
choose to stay for the interim.

The most effective interims also have white boards, and tables and
sesating organized to encourage interaction rather than class-style
with one person (at a time) presenting powerpoint slides to an
audience of many. This reminds me of the earlier days when we used
transparencies and markers to get real work done at the IETF; we seem
to have lost some of that ability to have interactive discussions with
just-in-time pictures to illustrate discussion points.

Much time is spent providing powerpoint status reports to casual
attendees. If we keep the status presentations in the first part of
the week, companies only interested in monitoring what is happening in
WGs, rather than contributing to the solutions could schedule shorter
travel times, and the end of the week could focus on interim-like
solution sessions.

If we want to aggregate interims and minimize additional travel, it
would make sense to allow interims directly after the IETF week. 

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:37:43 -0600

One thing Glenn and I did in lemonade and Spencer and I are thinking  
of doing in mediactrl is to *threaten* an interim. Get documents done  
3 weeks before date and we just have an audio conference. Worked at  
least once :-)

On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:39 PM, <[email-masked]> <[email-masked] 
 > wrote:

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:39:36 -0600

It's not a VoIP vs. CS issue. It is, as George points out at first,  
the physics of transiting all the pipes to the CPE and back out again.  
With a network-based conference bridge, of either an IP or CS flavor,  
the connections traverse the network once, and you only need a single  
stream's worth of connectivity to the CPE.

On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:

>> same:

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:41:11 +0100

> Behalf Of David Harrington

> If we want to aggregate interims and minimize additional 
> travel, it would make sense to allow interims directly after 
> the IETF week. 
> 

Did anybody ask for an interim meeting immediately after the IETF week
and the request was rejected? Not in OPS, not recently AFAIK. 

Dan

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:43:51 +0000

[email-masked] wrote:
> same location.

I suspect that's because by that time, the ADs had collapsed from exhaustion
and so the WGs could make progress in peace :-)

Seriously though, I already find it difficult to do serious technical work
on Friday of the IETF week, and I expect that going longer would simply not
be productive. Also, don't forget that many folks already arrive Friday
before the meeting due to pre-meetings, and an interim at the end would turn
the IETF into a two-week event.

Lars

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:57:38 -0600

Eric, Keith,

> Mediactrl is still thinking of meeting somewhere in Europe, possibly 
> in January.

>> There was sufficient interest in the meeting to have that discussion.
And SOFTWIRE just asked the room about a "small interim" if Malta is 
cancelled, and got 20 or so hands up.

So I think there is some need from a number of working groups to meet. 
OTOH, there's even more interest for remote participation.  For 
instance, SOFTWIRE+BEHAVE response has been slightly under 20 people 
on-site for Malta  and ~70 for remote participation.

Folks, I think we need to separate our opposition to the large interim 
idea. Is it because (a) the location is wrong (b) joint interim is a bad 
idea (c) remote participation is a better idea (d) fear that this might 
lead to 4xIETF per year or (e) something else. And we will have 100+ WGs 
that for sure don't need more f2f time. The question is whether we have 
some that do.

Jari

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:00:41 -0600

My colleague Simon set up the server with a conf room for each wg.
again, only voip. If any chair want to try it out starting now, send me
an email offline and I'll provide you the information. if useful to the
community, then we will enhance it with some wrapping and better
connectivity (already received an offer for a host on a good network)

Marc.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:14:29 -0500

On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Eric, Keith,
>
>> Mediactrl is still thinking of meeting somewhere in Europe,  
>> possibly in January.
>
> So I think there is some need from a number of working groups to  
> meet. OTOH, there's even more interest for remote participation.   
> For instance, SOFTWIRE+BEHAVE response has been slightly under 20  
> people on-site for Malta  and ~70 for remote participation.
>
> Folks, I think we need to separate our opposition to the large  
> interim idea. Is it because (a) the location is wrong (b) joint  
> interim is a bad idea (c) remote participation is a better idea (d)  
> fear that this might lead to 4xIETF per year or (e) something else.  
> And we will have 100+ WGs that for sure don't need more f2f time.  
> The question is whether we have some that do.
>
> Jari
>

There is another possibility here. We have at least 3 companies with  
IETF participants, Cisco, Polycom and Tandberg
(in alphabetical order) that have global networks of Telepresence units.

I think that the IAOC should ask all 3 of these companies if they  
would be willing to support interim meetings by contributing  
telepresence support at their existing facilities. Assuming that there  
is a positive response, the
set of available locations could then be distributed for WG  
consideration.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:20:18 -0500

In SPEERMINT, we're made up mostly of operators that are feeling a lot
of pain in the current financial situation.  For North American
operators in particular, suggesting to one's boss that they fly off to
Malta just a few weeks after a big staff reduction could well be a
career limiting move.  ;-)  

In any case, this is a great opportunity to exercise all the great
Internet-based collaboration tools our work has collectively made
possible.  In my WG for example, we plan to have some audio and video
conferences in between.  (I'd humbly suggest that we could catch up with
the times a bit in these sorts of areas.)  We may also entertain a
one-day face to face but even that is TBD at this point - and quite
frankly if we can get it all done online then there is no point.

Jason 

> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:45 PM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:36:41 -0600

As a practical matter, I think it would be highly irresponsible to issue 
a statement like the one at the bottom of this message (using terms like 
"...the Secretariat *will* facilitate..." and "The Secretariat *will* 
provide registration...") and then retract it after more than a month 
has elapsed.

I, for one, will be out $1,365.93 of non-refundable airfare. Yes, I 
might be able to get my employer to cover the loss -- but I don't see 
how that's much better than asking me to absorb it.

Now, if the *Secretariat* offers to reimburse me and everyone else who 
relied on this information to make non-reversible decisions, then I 
could probably be persuaded to let the interim be canceled with no 
serious objection. (In fact, there is civil remedy that may make the 
Secretariat liable for such costs even if they don't make this offer; 
ask your legal team for an overview of the principle of "promissory 
estoppel".)

/a

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:25:56 -0600

We are all missing the point, I think.

Let me relate the situation in another engineering society, the IEEE.  
Many people think of the IEEE as a membership organization, advancing  
it's membership's interests in engineering. Many people in the IETF  
think of the IEEE as a standards body. Most people in academia see the  
IEEE as a publishing venue.

Consider the numbers: the IEEE makes a tenth of its profit from  
standards, a third from publications, and half from conferences. It  
loses a chunk of money on members. Guess what gets funded and attention.

Now, look at the funding model of the IETF.  A quarter of our revenue  
comes from ISOC (THANK YOU CORPORATIONS and donors), slightly less  
than 20% comes from direct meeting sponsorship (THANK YOU CORPORATIONS  
- I guess "This Space for Sale" has been our mantra for a while), and  
HALF OF IETF'S REVENUE COMES FROM CONFERENCE REGISTRATION.  [Come on!   
Anyone who has read the IETF list, typically after every plenary,  
knows this.  This is NOT news.]

Unless you can figure out an alternative funding model (ISOC IS ALL  
EARS!), we should not be surprised if the first response to either  
getting work done or addressing revenue shortfalls is to have a  
conference (I mean interim/plenary). Channeling Rich here, "The Answer  
is Money - What is the Question?" In our case here, the answer always  
is, "Have a full, Secretariat-managed Conference that we can charge  
for." It is, in fact, the rational thing to do if everything except  
for a conference looks like an expense.

One may be tempted to object, "But having more conferences that we  
cannot afford to attend will drive down participation. Is not having  
more conferences detrimental to the IETF revenue model?"  I would  
offer that on the one hand, this is very true.  Microeconomics works.   
Have too few conferences or charge too little and we leave money on  
the table.  Have too many conferences or charge too much and we reduce  
participation and we get less money.  On the other hand, no one knows  
the price elasticity of IETF meeting consumers.  Microeconomics  
assumes you know all of the variables, and we do not.

On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>> And SOFTWIRE just asked the room about a "small interim" if Malta  
>> is cancelled, and got 20 or so hands up.
>>
> telepresence support at their existing facilities. Assuming that  
> there is a positive response, the

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:02:27 +0900

My experience in other standards groups (W3C, to be specific) is very
similar, except that something like irc/jabber is very important as
a secondary channel for scribing, keeping track of a list of people
who 'want the mike', and so on.

The W3C has a teleconference facility with over 100 ports that can
be divided up for various groups of different sizes. There are also
various bots on the irc channel that help associate irc channels with
teleconf channels, allow to find out which line is noisy, mute someone,
and so on. It's an elaborate and mostly 'hand-made' system that developped
over the years. I don't think the IETF would need such an elaborate system,
after all, many W3C WGs have weekly (or even sometimes bi-weekly)
teleconferences, whereas the IETF doesn't.

Another issue to consider with teleconferences is timezones.
It is very difficult to find a timezone that works well for
all participants. Many people just give up if the teleconference
is during a time when their brain is normally asleep. At four or
five in the morning, I you (at least me) feel more like a zombie
than like a productive human. Face-to-face meetings are also
very tough if you travel over many timezones, but the daylight,
the fact that it's for a week rather than a few hours, and the
presence of actual people around you also help.

Just a few thoughts, hope this helps. The LTRU WG, which I co-chair,
hasn't had any regular meetings at all, and has almost completed
its current charter, so we don't need an interim meeting. We had
a teleconference call once to sort out a single issue for which
we were unable to make any progress anymore on the mailing list.

Regards,    Martin.

At 08:30 08/11/21, Stephen Hanna wrote:
>Based on my experience in other standards groups, the most important elements for a successful virtual meeting are a decent phone bridge, motivated participants, and drafts and agenda distributed at least a week in advance. Videoconferencing and screen sharing are not necessary, at least for technical meetings. In fact, they can be a distraction from the work at hand. Face-to-face meetings are still needed to build mutual respect, encourage communication between WGs, and handle some especially difficult issues. But they don't need to happen too often.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:12:25 -0500

I think that, with the current funding model, we will shortly have to  
address the issue
of collecting some sort of registration or fee from remote participants.

Regards
Marshall

On Nov 21, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> Let me relate the situation in another engineering society, the  
> IEEE. Many people think of the IEEE as a membership organization,  
> advancing it's membership's interests in engineering. Many people in  
> the IETF think of the IEEE as a standards body. Most people in  
> academia see the IEEE as a publishing venue.
>
> Now, look at the funding model of the IETF.  A quarter of our  
> revenue comes from ISOC (THANK YOU CORPORATIONS and donors),  
> slightly less than 20% comes from direct meeting sponsorship (THANK  
> YOU CORPORATIONS - I guess "This Space for Sale" has been our mantra  
> for a while), and HALF OF IETF'S REVENUE COMES FROM CONFERENCE  
> REGISTRATION.  [Come on!  Anyone who has read the IETF list,  
> typically after every plenary, knows this.  This is NOT news.]
>
> conference (I mean interim/plenary). Channeling Rich here, "The  
> Answer is Money - What is the Question?" In our case here, the  
> answer always is, "Have a full, Secretariat-managed Conference that  
> we can charge for." It is, in fact, the rational thing to do if  
> everything except for a conference looks like an expense.
>
> offer that on the one hand, this is very true.  Microeconomics  
> works.  Have too few conferences or charge too little and we leave  
> money on the table.  Have too many conferences or charge too much  
> and we reduce participation and we get less money.  On the other  
> hand, no one knows the price elasticity of IETF meeting consumers.   
> Microeconomics assumes you know all of the variables, and we do not.
>
>>> interim is a bad idea (c) remote participation is a better idea  
>>> (d) fear that this might lead to 4xIETF per year or (e) something  
>>> else. And we will have 100+ WGs that for sure don't need more f2f  
>>> time. The question is whether we have some that do.
>>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>
>> There is another possibility here. We have at least 3 companies  
>> with IETF participants, Cisco, Polycom and Tandberg

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:36:42 -0600

How is this for a thought on why everyone has a visceral response to  
the proposal of charging remote participants:

The IETF is an open source community, with many people participating  
purely for the intellectual challenge and minor accolades that come  
forth. For example, why would I have ever been the expert reviewer for  
widex, or why am I still involved in lemonade given it has been 3  
years since I was remotely associated with messaging and 8 years since  
I was really associated with messaging?

Companies who benefit from Internet technologies reap a  
disproportionate benefit from the work of the IETF. Many of those  
companies, out of the kindness of their hearts, or at least to sooth  
their consciousness, give money to ISOC to fund the IETF.  It would be  
great if we could either charge corporations in proportion to their  
Internet-related profits.  One mechanism to charge corporations in  
proportion to their Internet-related profits would be for us to  
license Internet technologies.  However, I think we all would agree  
that would be the end of the open, interoperable Internet as companies  
would have an incentive to use non-IETF protocols.  As it is, we  
somewhat charge corporations in proportion to their participation, by  
charging a per-participant fee at IETF rather than per-company (as is  
done in the W3C).

Our system works because we allow anyone to participate (open source),  
allow anyone to contribute (open source), and allow anyone to gain the  
profits (open and free source).

Charging for remote participants totally breaks the model. By far the  
largest percentage of remote participants are individual contributors  
or from very small companies who can least afford to pay for travel,  
no less participation.  I would offer if we charged for remote  
participation, we should be honest with ourselves and admit we want to  
abandon the open source model, and we go directly to the W3C corporate  
model, shutting out all individual contributors.

I, for one, would be more than disappointed: I would be one of those  
locked-out. In fact, it would knock out two AD's and three IAB  
members.  I truly hope this is NOT the intention of charging for  
remote participation, but it could quite likely be an unintended  
consequence.

I realize that while I am strongly against charging for remote  
participation, I do not, as of yet, have a clear idea as to how to  
close the gap.

An interesting take-away from our financials is that while we raise  
$2.5MM from conference fees and another $0.8MM from sponsorships, we  
spend (I'm guessing 2/3rd of the Secretariat relates to the meetings)  
$2.0MM on the conferences themselves.  If we do away with the  
conferences, we only need to find an additional $1.3MM to fund all of  
our other activities.  While this clearly is not THE answer, maybe  
there is a kernel of a direction to the solution hidden here.

On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> I think that, with the current funding model, we will shortly have  
> to address the issue
>> advancing it's membership's interests in engineering. Many people  
>> in the IETF think of the IEEE as a standards body. Most people in  
>> YOU CORPORATIONS - I guess "This Space for Sale" has been our  
>> mantra for a while), and HALF OF IETF'S REVENUE COMES FROM  
>> CONFERENCE REGISTRATION.  [Come on!  Anyone who has read the IETF  
>> list, typically after every plenary, knows this.  This is NOT news.]
>>
>> cannot afford to attend will drive down participation. Is not  
>> having more conferences detrimental to the IETF revenue model?"  I  
>> would offer that on the one hand, this is very true.   
>> Microeconomics works.  Have too few conferences or charge too  
>> little and we leave money on the table.  Have too many conferences  
>> or charge too much and we reduce participation and we get less  
>> money.  On the other hand, no one knows the price elasticity of  
>> IETF meeting consumers.  Microeconomics assumes you know all of the  
>> variables, and we do not.
>>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:53:12 -0500

On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> forth. For example, why would I have ever been the expert reviewer  
> for widex, or why am I still involved in lemonade given it has been  
> 3 years since I was remotely associated with messaging and 8 years  
> since I was really associated with messaging?
>
> their consciousness, give money to ISOC to fund the IETF.  It would  
> be great if we could either charge corporations in proportion to  
> their Internet-related profits.  One mechanism to charge  
> corporations in proportion to their Internet-related profits would  
> be for us to license Internet technologies.  However, I think we all  
> would agree that would be the end of the open, interoperable  
> Internet as companies would have an incentive to use non-IETF  
> protocols.  As it is, we somewhat charge corporations in proportion  
> to their participation, by charging a per-participant fee at IETF  
> rather than per-company (as is done in the W3C).
>
> Our system works because we allow anyone to participate (open  
> source), allow anyone to contribute (open source), and allow anyone  
> to gain the profits (open and free source).
>
> Charging for remote participants totally breaks the model. By far  
> the largest percentage of remote participants are individual  
> contributors or from very small companies who can least afford to  
> pay for travel, no less participation.  I would offer if we charged  
> for remote participation, we should be honest with ourselves and  
> admit we want to abandon the open source model, and we go directly  
> to the W3C corporate model, shutting out all individual contributors.

First, I said "address," which is not the same as "do". I think the  
matter needs to be considered; maybe the
result of that consideration will be to decide not to do it. Note that  
there are costs associated with any remote participation. The MP3  
streaming we enjoy and use is definitely not free, for example, and  
that is paid for by the on-site participants. (Of course, this cost  
per person is a lot less than the on-site cost per person.) Noting  
that, my personal feeling is that if there are fees for remote  
participants, they should be a lot less (reflecting the lower costs),  
maybe at the $ 50 USD per week level.

I would like to raise another point here : If the IETF drastically  
lowered its registration fees, would that
substantially increase participation ? I am worried we may be on the  
slide of the slope where increased fees decrease registration leading  
to increased fees which decrease registration, etc. I am not sure how  
to find this out short of actually lowering the fees for a meeting.

Regards
Marshall

> spend (I'm guessing 2/3rd of the Secretariat relates to the  
> meetings) $2.0MM on the conferences themselves.  If we do away with  
> the conferences, we only need to find an additional $1.3MM to fund  
> all of our other activities.  While this clearly is not THE answer,  
> maybe there is a kernel of a direction to the solution hidden here.
>
>
>>> standards, a third from publications, and half from conferences.  
>>> It loses a chunk of money on members. Guess what gets funded and  
>>> attention.
>>>
>>> slightly less than 20% comes from direct meeting sponsorship  
>>> (THANK YOU CORPORATIONS - I guess "This Space for Sale" has been  
>>> our mantra for a while), and HALF OF IETF'S REVENUE COMES FROM  
>>> Unless you can figure out an alternative funding model (ISOC IS  
>>> ALL EARS!), we should not be surprised if the first response to  
>>> either getting work done or addressing revenue shortfalls is to  
>>> have a conference (I mean interim/plenary). Channeling Rich here,  
>>> "The Answer is Money - What is the Question?" In our case here,  
>>> the answer always is, "Have a full, Secretariat-managed Conference  
>>> that we can charge for." It is, in fact, the rational thing to do  
>>> if everything except for a conference looks like an expense.
>>>
>>> IETF meeting consumers.  Microeconomics assumes you know all of  
>>> the variables, and we do not.
>>>
>>>>> And SOFTWIRE just asked the room about a "small interim" if  
>>>>> Malta is cancelled, and got 20 or so hands up.
>>>>>
>>>>> meet. OTOH, there's even more interest for remote  
>>>>> participation.  For instance, SOFTWIRE+BEHAVE response has been  
>>>>> slightly under 20 people on-site for Malta  and ~70 for remote  
>>>>> participation.
>>>>>
>>>>> (d) fear that this might lead to 4xIETF per year or (e)  
>>>>> something else. And we will have 100+ WGs that for sure don't  
>>>>> need more f2f time. The question is whether we have some that do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jari
>>>>>
>>>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:24:02 -0500

Adam:

Let's be clear here.  The Secretariat is not responsible for any of 
these decisions.  The IESG discussed the Large Interim Meeting 
experiment at great length, and the timing and continent were 
selected by the IESG.  RAI was already working toward a January 2009 
interim meeting when this discussion began.

The IAOC got involved from a budget perspective.  The IAD got bids 
from many facilities all over Europe, and the IAOC selected the most 
attractive one.

The Secretariat has done a lot of legwork in support of both the IESG 
and the IAOC, but they have not set direction.  They have done a fine 
job executing the IESG and IAOC decisions.  No hostility should be 
directed toward the Secretariat for the current situation or the 
outcome of this discussion.

Russ

At 11:36 PM 11/20/2008, Adam Roach wrote:
>As a practical matter, I think it would be highly irresponsible to 
>issue a statement like the one at the bottom of this message (using 
>terms like "...the Secretariat *will* facilitate..." and "The 
>Secretariat *will* provide registration...") and then retract it 
>after more than a month has elapsed.
>
>might be able to get my employer to cover the loss -- but I don't 
>see how that's much better than asking me to absorb it.
>
>Now, if the *Secretariat* offers to reimburse me and everyone else 
>who relied on this information to make non-reversible decisions, 
>then I could probably be persuaded to let the interim be canceled 
>with no serious objection. (In fact, there is civil remedy that may 
>make the Secretariat liable for such costs even if they don't make 
>this offer; ask your legal team for an overview of the principle of 
>"promissory estoppel".)
>
>/a
>
>>is?  I'm wondering how people would react to a US or Canada venue 
>>in September 2009, which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and 
>>an IETF meeting in Japan.
>>
>>Malta in January 2009, there is a lot to do.
>>
>>Russ
>>
>>

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:56 -0500

> An interesting take-away from our financials is that while we 
> raise $2.5MM from conference fees and another $0.8MM from 
> sponsorships, we spend (I'm guessing 2/3rd of the Secretariat 
> relates to the meetings) $2.0MM on the conferences 
> themselves.  

Since we're all brainstorming here...  I'd encourage participants to
understand what membership to the ISOC means at different levels -- see
http://www.isoc.org/orgs/benefits.shtml.  Take a quick browse of
http://www.isoc.org/orgs/members.php?view=Membership%20Level after that.
How can we get more companies onto this list as new suppporters of ISOC
that are not on the list?  And how can we encourage companies listed
there to maybe move up one level?

Jason

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:50:40 -0600

Thanks for the clarification. Unless you spend significant time dealing 
with the various entities, it's easy to see the IETF  management bodies 
as a monolith -- and to address that monolith by the name of one of its 
constituent organs. But I was sloppy in selecting the IETF-related 
management entity in my earlier mail, and apologize for the inaccuracy.

/a

On 11/21/08 8:24 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> experiment at great length, and the timing and continent were selected 
> by the IESG.  RAI was already working toward a January 2009 interim 
> meeting when this discussion began.
>
>> who relied on this information to make non-reversible decisions, then 
>> I could probably be persuaded to let the interim be canceled with no

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:54:00 -0600

And, in response to Eric's implied "so where in blazes did the rest of  
the money go", recall that while we have meetings three weeks a year,  
we have secretariat, RFC, and IANA services the year around. ISOC  
Organizational membership, individual meeting fees, and business side  
effects of hotel arrangements all generate income; most of that money  
eventually becomes payroll and operational costs for our various  
support staffs. If you look at the budget (http://iaoc.ietf.org/budget.html 
) it's a zero sum game.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:13:00 -0600

On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Russ Housley wrote:

> .  RAI was already working toward a January 2009 interim meeting  
> when this discussion began.

And as a consequence of said discussion, RAI has apparently abandoned  
its plans for an interim. We most likely could have found a "free"  
venue (that is, fully-sponsored by a host) that would have made  
attendance easier (I could have gone, anyhow) but that wouldn't have  
helped the IETF's funding problem.

--
Dean

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:48:46 -0800

> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:45 PM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Cc: [email-masked]

I share that view.

Based on the show of hands in BEHAVE's Wednesday and Thursday
meetings, we would have only 6 (Wednesday) and 14 (Thursday).
There could be a few more hands raised on Friday, but I
expect it would only be single digits.

Dave Thaler also asked how many would attend remotely, to which
about 100 people responded positively.  Based on that, we may
do an online meeting using the 'Tubes.

> September 2009, which is between an IETF meeting in Sweden and an 

Issues from my perspective, in order of importance,

 1. Due to the economy, I would guess 80% of attendees are on
    tighter travel restrictions than in the past.  This is
    partially reflected in the year-over-year decrease in
    IETF attendence that you presented in the plenary.  
 2. The travel-to-meeting ratio is poor:  Most people only 
    need to attend one or two days, but more time can be
    spent travelling to another continent, jetlag, 
    and the costly espresso injections.
 3. To make (1) worse, Malta is difficult to get 
    to/from compared to traditional IETF meeting locations 
    (Paris, Vancouver, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or even
    Minneapolis).
 4. Lack of working group agendas for the large interim,
    in order to determine the usefulness of attending.

January does seem reasonable for everyone I talked with.  
I expect September would be alright, too.

Speaking for all skiers, Vancouver in January is a great
time to plan a meeting.  Whistler/Blackcomb is only 1.5
hours north.

-d

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:08:07 -0500

Actually, the implied statement was, "eliminating meetings will not  
balance the budget."

On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> And, in response to Eric's implied "so where in blazes did the rest  
> of the money go", recall that while we have meetings three weeks a  
> year, we have secretariat, RFC, and IANA services the year around.  
> ISOC Organizational membership, individual meeting fees, and  
> business side effects of hotel arrangements all generate income;  
> most of that money eventually becomes payroll and operational costs  
> for our various support staffs. If you look at the budget (http://iaoc.ietf.org/budget.html 
> ) it's a zero sum game.
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:50:51 -0600

> Actually, the implied statement was, "eliminating meetings will not  

It won't. Thinking hard about how we derive and spend money will help,  
though.

I actually think we should simply tells ourselves that we have a  
multiplicity of collaboration models. They include f2f, email,  
databases like the ID tracker and the Issue tracker, and various forms  
of real-time conferencing. They have different values. f2f has high  
bandwidth, enhances serendipitous intellectual cross-talk, and  
lubricates collaboration of other kinds that follow it. Email among  
people that know each other has value in that there is a record and  
operates in near real time - a one day delay is much better than a  
four month delay. Once an issue has been fleshed out to a point where  
it can be succinctly stated, trackers can record that and provide  
reminders. Real-time conferencing, including TP/H.323/Marratech/WebEx/ 
MeetingPlace across time zones gives you the bandwidth advantages of  
f2f but not the serendipity. Each has its place, and should be used in  
that place.

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:38:05 -0500

> of the specific factors affecting scaling of that particular service.

Jeff,

Having watched my kids participate in on-line gaming events, I also
wonder why the IETF can't conduct more of its business online. If the
people who run WoW Servers can maintain 60 people in a room slashing at
each other with magic swords, I don't see why we can't have the same 60
people sharing a whiteboard and a microphone.

                                     Ron

-- For The Hoard!

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:11:22 -0800

> people sharing a whiteboard and a microphone.

floor control is a bit unrully...

We has consistently run into the limition of the least common denomintor
being pstn inter-tie and do see any way around that from an
accessibility and openness standpoint. I don't think that's an
impediment but it should be a consideration for any bi-directional
conferencing solution.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:27:33 -0600

>people sharing a whiteboard and a microphone.

I think one of the issues is talking over each other, which isn't as 
apparent to folks on-line as it is at a mic line when f2f...  This is 
the biggest hurdle we'll have to overcome (i.e., how do chairs 
maintain control of a room and establish off-line communication while 
not interrupting someone that "has the mic".

clicking on the "putting my hand in the air" flag in Webex isn't an 
option. Letting only the most senior WG members (i.e., member 
favoritism) speak/be called upon isn't the answer either.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:55:05 -0500

On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:27 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> apparent to folks on-line as it is at a mic line when f2f...  This  
> is the biggest hurdle we'll have to overcome (i.e., how do chairs  
> maintain control of a room and establish off-line communication  
> while not interrupting someone that "has the mic".
>
> option.

Why not ? Most of the software mentioned has that option.

In any case, "putting your hand in the air" can certainly be done by  
IM, and I have chaired / participated
in phone calls where this was used and worked well.

Regards
Marshall

> Letting only the most senior WG members (i.e., member favoritism)  
> speak/be called upon isn't the answer either.
>
>
>>                                     Ron
>>
>> -- For The Hoard!
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:34:52 -0600

At 11:55 AM 11/25/2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>Why not ?

I think you're missing my point - which may be my fault -- because, 
as you claim correctly that "putting your hand in the air" is 
available, my point was and is that there is no limit to how many 
virtual hands can be put into the air, or in which order they were 
put into the air. This makes for a teleconference mess, and means 
they chairs cannot control those that want to talk over anyone else.

>Most of the software mentioned has that option.
>

this was likely in a more respected manner by more respecting folks. 
(I'm just guessing that) It's not likely in a situation similar to an 
IETF meeting - in which some people are expected to get their points 
across (by themselves, by their employers, by their customers, or by 
a combination of the 3).

We've learned over the years that even a line at the mic can be 
unruly and chairs have had to back some down who insist on talking out of turn.

I'm claiming that this will be exacerbated without a floor control 
procedure or protocol - which doesn't really exist in web 
conferencing systems today.

I could be wrong here, but I don't believe I am with today's systems 
we can chose from...

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:56:56 -0800

I would note that during IETF 73, Hannes utilized Skype in addition to
Jabber
to allow remote participants to raise points during the meeting.  It seemed
to work very well.  Not sure how many remote participants there were, but
the voice quality was high.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:05:32 -0500

> floor control is a bit unrully...

I believe I mentioned that in my original mail.  Large meetings held by
such services or indeed any service with sufficiently high latency
requires different protocol.  In particular, it requires the meeting
chair to act as a chair in the old fashioned sense: You recognize the
party who has a right to speak.  In the case of most of these services,
engaging in active mic control via global/selective mute isn't terribly
different than the line at the microphone we often have today.

As a different poster pointed out, the lack of a PSTN bridge doesn't
make this a perfect solution.  The lack of sufficient bandwidth may also
be a limiting factor.  However, this is a cheap and easy experiment to
carry out when the choice is no meeting (PSTN or not) at all.

-- Jeff

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:09:37 -0500

Folks,

If we decide to experiment with meetings in cyberspace, our first few
meetings will be awkward. We will probably be frustrated as we learn how
to interact with the new media.

But over time, we will develop an on-line etiquette that is well-suited
to the new venue. This will make the bean-counters who manage our travel
budgets very happy!

I would be happy to see a few WGs experiment with interim meetings held
in cyberspace. They could report back to the larger group when they have
some operational experience.

                                   Ron

---

From: "Mike McBride (mmcbride)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:25:18 -0800

In your experimentation you may want to talk to Joel and Gunter about
how they provided excellent remote access (including a remote presenter)
to the pimwg mtg last week. 

mike 

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:10 PM
> To: Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]; Russ Housley; Fred 
> Baker (fred)
> If we decide to experiment with meetings in cyberspace, our 
> first few meetings will be awkward. We will probably be 
> frustrated as we learn how to interact with the new media.
> 
> But over time, we will develop an on-line etiquette that is 
> well-suited to the new venue. This will make the 
> bean-counters who manage our travel budgets very happy!
> 
> I would be happy to see a few WGs experiment with interim 
> meetings held in cyberspace. They could report back to the 
> larger group when they have some operational experience.
> 
>                                    Ron
> 
> Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > I believe I mentioned that in my original mail.  Large 
> meetings held 
> > by such services or indeed any service with sufficiently 
> high latency 
> > party who has a right to speak.  In the case of most of these 
> > services, engaging in active mic control via global/selective mute 
> > isn't terribly different than the line at the microphone we 
> often have today.
> > 
> > make this a perfect solution.  The lack of sufficient bandwidth may 
> > also be a limiting factor.  However, this is a cheap and easy 
> > experiment to carry out when the choice is no meeting (PSTN 
> or not) at all.
> > 
> > -- Jeff
> > 
>

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:44:32 +0100

Well at least during ECRIT, apparently the SKYPE stream was not
providing adequate quality audio to the remote listener, we lost the
remote contributor at the point where he was given the floor to speak,
and then inadvertantly interrupted someone already at the mic when he
did get the system working.

And still there is no adequate floor control.

And in this case there was only one remote participate who was using it
to contribute to the discussion as far as I am aware, and ECRIT was one
of the smaller groups in the RAI area.

Keith

> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:57 PM
> To: 'Working Group Chairs'; 'Russ Housley'
> Subject: RE: voice call-in to IETF meetings
> 
> I would note that during IETF 73, Hannes utilized Skype in 
> addition to Jabber to allow remote participants to raise 
> points during the meeting.  It seemed to work very well.  Not 
> sure how many remote participants there were, but the voice 
> quality was high. 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:01:45 -0600

At 08:09 PM 11/25/2008, Ron Bonica wrote:
>But over time, we will develop an on-line etiquette

...and implement a floor control protocol...

>that is well-suited

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:36:40 +0100

We had a handful of remote participants in  DIME (Hannes should know
exactly how many). One of them was Hannes co-chair, he was pretty
active, and with a microphone channeling Skype into the meeting room all
functioned quite well. Quality may be an issue of scaling though, and
DIME is not a big WG, certainly far from the numbers that some of the
RAI WGs are gathering. However, I believe that in the current economic
situation WE HAVE NO CHOICE but to start testing and using different
remote meetings and collaboration techniques. After all many of us are
using them on current basis within our companies for years. 

Dan

> Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:57

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:50:39 -0800

I think we should compile a list of requirements for online software
to meet in order for it to be used for an interim meeting (as opposed
to a design team meeting), and then either find or create such software,
or else encourage existing software to add features to meet the requirements.

For example:

* MUST support at least N participants (N=100?)
* MUST support audio
* SHOULD support slides (could instead expect participants to follow along themselves until this is supported)
* MAY support video
* MAY support text (can instead use jabber if not)
* MUST support floor control for audio
* MUST support remote presenters for slides (if slides are supported)
* MUST work for clients that can only get access via HTTP proxies

(Yes I believe floor control is a MUST.)

-Dave

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> James M. Polk
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:02 AM
> To: Ron Bonica; Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]; Fred Baker
> Subject: Re: [IAB] WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009
>
> services,
> also

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:19:08 -0500

On Nov 26, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:

> * SHOULD support slides (could instead expect participants to follow  
> along themselves until this is supported)
> * MAY support video

I would agree. For any meeting with more than about 6 people, you need  
a floor controller (i.e., a Chair), and
at times they will have to enforce their authority.

Note that there is floor control, and admission control.

Most of the software I am familiar with has floor control but not  
admission control. This means that
the chair can control who speaks, but not who listens, which I think  
will be unacceptable for many of the committees of the IETF (the IESG,  
IAB and IAOC come to mind).
This can be done either by requiring authentication of some sort, or  
by permitting the chair to remove people from the call.  While a WG  
meeting does not need admission control, it would be nice to use the  
same software for all meetings if possible. (Note that a WG may want  
to have design team meetings, meetings to discuss
liaison statements, etc., for which admission control would also be  
useful.)

While admission control can be ignored for a while, I feel certain it  
will rear its ugly head sooner
or later and should also be a MUST.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:41:32 -0800

I'd suggest that the requirements for IAB/IESG/IAOC/nomcom uses are quite different
from those of meetings, at least for voice.  Today the former are quite heavy users
of conventional teleconference facilities, which do not support floor control.  I've
often wondered why those needs have not yet been met using VOIP, and what
savings would be possible if they were.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:28:33 +0200

Hi, 
Nice list, 
My view is that Slides presentations are a MUST.
As for the audio, the solution should allow PSTN participants to join but
should have as main connectivity IP. 
I would also suggest support for high quality audio codec for IP
participants, this provides better user experience in understanding what is
being said.

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Dave Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:51 PM
To: James M. Polk; Ron Bonica; Jeffrey Haas
Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]; Fred Baker
Subject: RE: [IAB] WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009

I think we should compile a list of requirements for online software
to meet in order for it to be used for an interim meeting (as opposed
to a design team meeting), and then either find or create such software,
or else encourage existing software to add features to meet the
requirements.

For example:

* MUST support at least N participants (N=100?)
* MUST support audio
* SHOULD support slides (could instead expect participants to follow along
themselves until this is supported)
* MAY support video
* MAY support text (can instead use jabber if not)
* MUST support floor control for audio
* MUST support remote presenters for slides (if slides are supported)
* MUST work for clients that can only get access via HTTP proxies

-Dave

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:59:28 -0500

Noting DaveT's list of requirements:
> themselves until this is supported) * MAY support video

I then wonder what happens when we have this, and we think about the existing 
face-to-face meetings and the audio stream:

1. Does the audio stream stay?
2. Do we offer this as well?  Or instead?
3. If we make this available in f-f meetings, it allows remote participants to 
present, and to have a generally richer interaction with the meeting.  This is 
good.
4. But will that mean that more people will "attend" remotely, and that we'll 
lose attendance at the f-f event?  There's lots of value to being there in 
person, but not every gets that value out of it, and certainly not everyone gets 
it to the same extent.
5. What will that do to the financials?......

Barry

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:41:43 +0200

IESG has recently started experimenting in this area; we've tried Marratech in one informal call, and will probably try some others early next year.
 
The savings will depend on what the VOIP solution will cost. Anything that supports 20+ participants and PSTN dial-in (preferably with dial-in numbers in more than one country) will not be free.
 
Best regards,
Pasi

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Bernard Aboba
	Sent: 27 November, 2008 23:42
	To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [IAB] WG Interim Meeting Opportunity in January 2009

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:46:27 -0500

>participants, this provides better user experience in understanding what is

+1, can make VoIP a plus instead of a handicap, 7 kHz will do.
Al