Subject: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info

From: Nick Kukich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:00:30 +0200

Greetings,

For those interested in monitoring sessions or participating remotely the
following information may prove useful.

For general remote participation including Meetecho support see:

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html

-Audio Streaming-

All 8 parallel tracks at the IETF 87 meeting will be broadcast starting
with the commencement of working group sessions on Monday, July 29, 2013
at 0900 CEST (UTC+2) and continue until the close of sessions on Friday,
August 2nd.

Because we have been asked several times in the past, note that if you
wish to use the rooms that are being recorded for impromptu meeting
during unscheduled sessions or lunch breaks that you can invite remote
participants to tune in to the appropriate stream. Recording cannot be
guaranteed for unscheduled sessions. Conversely, it should never be
assumed that recording or observation is not occurring on open
microphones, they are after all connected to the Internet.

The links for streaming sources and the schedule are best retrieved from
the IETF tools agenda, which as per standard operating procedure will be
located here:

http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/ 
-Jabber/XMPP-

For information on IETF Jabber participation see:

http://www.ietf.org/jabber/index.html

or click on the Jabber links in the tools team agenda once you have a
properly configured jabber/xmpp messaging client.

-Webex-

Webex screen sharing participation is possible for a limited number of
sessions. Consult with your working-group chair or the secretariat for
more information.

-Ticketing-

For prompt access to the meeting trouble desk, the email address is:

[email-masked]

For streaming related issues please send email to [email-masked]  with info including the current time and affected streaming channel.

Nick Kukich
Senior Network Engineer
Verilan, Inc.
503.710.5115

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:32:17 -0400

Hi.

For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
afternoon tutorials and introductions.  Many of them are (or
should be) of as much interest to remote participants as to f2f
attendees.   Until and unless a newcomer's tutorial can be
prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that
session should be of interest.

For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:

	Newcomers' Orientation       
	Tools for Creating I-Ds and RFCs         
	IAOC Overview Session     
	Multipath TCP         
	Applying IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) to Network
Measurement and Management

So...

(1) The note below strongly implies that none of those sessions
are being audiocast.    Why not and can that be fixed?

(2) There is no hint on the agenda or tools agenda about
availability of presentation and related materials (slides,
etc.) for those sessions.  Do those materials not exist?  I
know, but a newcomer or remote participant might not, that I can
find some tutorials by going to the IETF main page and going to
"Tutorial" under "Resources", but I have no idea which of those
links actually reflects what will be presented on Sunday.
Assuming the presentation materials do exist for at least
several of the sessions, finding them is much like the situation
with subscribing to the 87all list.  It should no involve a
treasure hunt at which only very experienced IETF participants
can be expected to succeed.  

Specific suggestions:

(i) Let's get these open Sunday sessions audiocast and/or
available over Meetecho or WebEx.  If that is impossible for
IETF 87, it should be a priority for IETF 88 and later.

(ii) If there are presentation materials available, links from
the tools agenda and an announcement to IETF-Announce as to
where to find them would be desirable.

(iii) If presentation materials are not available, why not?
And, more important, can this be made a requirement for IETF 88
and beyond?

thanks,
    john

--On Friday, July 26, 2013 12:00 +0200 Nick Kukich
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> For those interested in monitoring sessions or participating
> remotely the following information may prove useful.
>...
> All 8 parallel tracks at the IETF 87 meeting will be broadcast
> starting with the commencement of working group sessions on
> Monday, July 29, 2013 at 0900 CEST (UTC+2) and continue until
> the close of sessions on Friday, August 2nd.
>...

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:29:07 -0700

Hello,
>to at least some remote participants:

[snip]

>can be expected to succeed.

It would be helpful to new people if everything in the IETF was not a 
treasure hunt or required an email broadcast for a person to find information.

The consensus of the IETF is that:

   "newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
    observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
    interfere with the ongoing process of the group"

It was also mentioned that:

  "Working group meetings are not intended for the education of
   individuals"

The first quote might discourage newcomers from participating.  I 
suggest discussing about the two quotes during the orientation as 
they could be misunderstood.

>IETF 87, it should be a priority for IETF 88 and later.

Yes.

POSH has not published a session agenda.  However, the BoF is listed 
on the meeting agenda.  Is the BoF cancelled or will this be one of 
those willful violations of IETF Best Current Practices?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:33:46 +1200

> are being audiocast.    Why not and can that be fixed?

I think that would mean that the crew (partly volunteers) would
need to mobilise 24 hours earlier. Not impossible, I suppose,
but not free of costs either.

> etc.) for those sessions.  Do those materials not exist? 

At the moment the various EDU tutorials usually get posted after
the event, and I agree that isn't ideal.

It would be useful for all these ancillary sessions to be included
in the "meeting materials" page and all agenda tools (official and
volunteer). Again, not impossible, in fact very desirable IMHO,
but not free.

    Brian
> I

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:38:55 +1200

And there is a "Training" section in the meeting materials page.
It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it there.
All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:48:39 -0400

--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> POSH has not published a session agenda.  However, the BoF is
> listed on the meeting agenda.  Is the BoF cancelled or will
> this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current
> Practices?

On a similar note, according to its agenda, the core of the 
DNS-SD Extensions BOF (dnssdext) is apparently
draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements-01.  The link from the agenda
page [1] yields a 404 error and attempts to look up either
"draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements" or the author name "lynn" in
the I-D search engine yield nothing.

If one thinks to go to the I-D search engine and enter just
"draft-lynn", draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements-02 shows up which
I'm guessing is the relevant draft.  

FWIW, I also note that the posted agenda is heavily dependent on
the Chairs and mentions an "agreed charter".   The Chairs are
not identified, preventing interested participants from
contacting them for information (and others from contacting them
about errors like the one above) and there is no link or other
pointer to the proposed "agreed charter".  So I am wondering why
this BOF was approved, which AD is watching the BOF agenda, and
why it is still on the meeting agenda? 

I am mentioning this on the IETF list only because it is another
example of the point that I (and probably SM and others) are
trying to make:  If we are interested in newcomers, remote
participants without years of IETF experience, and/or increased
diversity, we should not allow these kinds of issues to become
requirements for "treasure hunts" or other sorts of obstacles in
people's paths.

And, IMO, we should be especially careful about BOFs because
they provide newcomers (present at the meeting or remote) good
opportunities to get in at the beginning of new work items.

   john

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/agenda-87-dnssdext.html

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:48:07 +0100

> the I-D search engine yield nothing.

Hi John,

Apologies for this. The correct draft name, and the BoF chair contacts, are now in the agenda file at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/

> the Chairs and mentions an "agreed charter".   

That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is already agreed.

> requirements for "treasure hunts" or other sorts of obstacles in

True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked in the materials page, which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers as access to slides is rather important.  And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about.  The names were just missing from the agenda file itself.

Tim

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:10:32 -0400

--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 08:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> And there is a "Training" section in the meeting materials
> page. It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it
> there. All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it.

And to remember that link appears on  the main meeting page
because it isn't on either of the agenda pages.  I suggest again
that these little treasure hunts work better for very
experienced participants and regular participants who are very
patient about searching for information, but much less well for
newcomers, remote-only participants, and the diverse and curious
potential participants we'd supposedly like to encourage.

I still believe that the agenda pages should be one-step
shopping for these types of meeting program-specific bits of
information, whether it be remote participation bits (or at lest
a pointer to whether they can be found) and meeting material
pages (ditto).  It is slightly extraneous information but I note
that we have had a list of Areas and ADs on the agenda pages
ever since I can remember.  That information is much more easily
located than most of the things I've been commenting on and, if
one locates it (IETF Home Page -> IESG -> Members) one even gets
contact information as a bonus.  And the listing of AD names is
pretty useless without contact info.

More inline.

>...
>>> (1) The note below strongly implies that none of those
>>> sessions are being audiocast.    Why not and can that be
>>> fixed?
>> 
>> I think that would mean that the crew (partly volunteers)
>> would need to mobilise 24 hours earlier. Not impossible, I
>> suppose, but not free of costs either.

Brian, there are two reasons I'm pushing on this set of issues.
One is that there are folks like you and me (and, since he
dropping into a different part of the thread, SM) who are
reasonably experienced participants but who are not likely to
attend most or all f2f meetings in the future.  To the extent to
which it is in the IETF's interest to keep us active --and I
hope that it is-- then a lot of this stuff ought to work (even
though  we will know about and, given enough patience, be able
to find meeting materials lists, mechanisms to subscribe to
slightly-hidden mailing lists, the actual names and locations of
incorrect links to drafts, names of BOF Chairs and responsible
ADs, etc.  If we are desperately concerned about hearing a
particular tutorial, I imagine that, with a little planning,
either of us could find someone to sit in the room and do a
Skype or equivalent if there was a functional network or get
someone to sit in the room with a voice recorder and make
something that could be converted into an MP3 file for
transmission after the network comes up.

I assume that, were the question posed, there would be general
IETF consensus that I run out of patience a lot faster than you
do.  I'm willing to concede that and agree that anything that
doesn't irritate you too is my problem and I should live with
it.  I certainly would have a lot of difficulty arguing for
folks going to a lot of extra trouble or expense on my account
(or even on yours).

However, the IETF has been having a lot of discussions about
newcomers, diversity, and attracting new folks to participate
and get work done.  I think those populations will be better
served if it is possible for people a lot less experienced than
the two of us can participate actively and constructively
without attending every meeting.  I also think that, especially
for many people from developing countries, universities, small
companies, and far-away places, we will be far more successful
in recruiting if we can encourage remote participation as a
starting point with the expectation of getting people physically
to meetings only after the value to them and their organizations
of doing so has been demonstrated.  I'd personally even favor
making remote participation at a could of meeting be a
prerequisite for most applications for ISOC's IETF Fellows
program.

But the above picture isn't going to happen unless we are
serious and treat that seriousness as an integral part of our
strategies about newcomers and diversity.  Seriousness to me
says that we get more careful about how experienced one has to
be to find critical information, that we make sure remote
participation works, and that we make any session that would be
relevant to remote participants accessible to them (and with
materials available as much as possible in advance and from
easy-to-find places).  Seriousness implies that, if there are
extra costs, we figure out how to cover them (or how to cut
somewhere else).  

Or, if we are not serious, it would probably be to the benefit
of the community for us to face that and stop wasting energy and
resources on outreach efforts that are expensive in one or the
other (or both).

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:31:24 -0400

--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Apologies for this. The correct draft name, and the BoF chair
> contacts, are now in the agenda file at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/

Tim,

Many thanks.  Let me stress that I didn't set out to attack you
or your BOF.  You just lucked out and became the first example
that came in handy.  See below.

>> FWIW, I also note that the posted agenda is heavily dependent
>> on the Chairs and mentions an "agreed charter".   
> 
> That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft
> charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is
> already agreed.

If there is something to be bashed for those 40 minutes, I'd
expect a link to at least a skeleton first draft. I note that
draft charter does have a link from the meeting materials page,
just not from the agenda.   But, modulo the comment below, that
is a matter of taste to be working out between you, Ralph, and
the IESG.

>> I am mentioning this on the IETF list only because it is
>> another example of the point that I (and probably SM and
>> others) are trying to make:  If we are interested in
>> newcomers, remote participants without years of IETF
>> experience, and/or increased diversity, we should not allow
>> these kinds of issues to become requirements for "treasure
>> hunts" or other sorts of obstacles in people's paths.

> True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked in the
> materials page, which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers
> as access to slides is rather important.

As far as I know, the only "advertisement" is the link from the
"Agendas and Meeting Materials" section of the main meeting page
and the similar links from the Meetings entry on the IETF home
page.  Now I'd personally like to see the "New Attendees"
category on the main meeting page changed to "New Attendees and
Participantes" and then including a link to a page that would
give hints about where these things are and how to navigate
around them.  But that fairly clearly won't happen before Sunday
and YMMD. 

>  And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about.  

Yep.  I know about it and where to find it.  But, as I explained
in my note to Brian, I'm a lot more concerned about newcomers
and remote participants without years or experience than I am
about what I can find if I remember all of the reasonable places
where I might look.

Best wishes for a successful BOF.

   john

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:37:53 +0100

> is a matter of taste to be working out between you, Ralph, and

The draft charter was placed where they usually are, on the BoF wiki.  But I added a link to a specific draft charter file when I updated the agenda, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/.

The other "problem" for mdnsext is that the second BoF has been given a different name, for various reasons, but that does make it a bit harder to locate the mail list and draft. 

> around them.  But that fairly clearly won't happen before Sunday

Well, I would certainly agree that the meeting materials page/area needs to be well advertised, if it isn't already, but I don't know what additional information newcomers are pointed at, not being one.

> about what I can find if I remember all of the reasonable places

While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether they were aware of certain things, and what could be done better.

Tim

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:55:00 -0400

--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 00:37 +0100 Tim Chown
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be
> better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a
> couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether
> they were aware of certain things, and what could be done
> better.

I hope that the mentoring program and assorted "ask me" dots
will take care of any of these issues for anyone who is in
Berlin.  If those newcomers have problems finding these things,
I hope they will bug someone.  If they do and can't get answers
or don't bother asking, those I'm slightly different problems.

So, right now, I'm personally more concerned about people who
are trying to participate remotely (or understand the IETF
remotely) for the first several times.  Given that, in general,
we have no idea who those people are, surveying them would be a
little difficult.  If a side-effect of these discussions is that
we change things enough that we do know who they are (at least
those who are willing to tell us in exchange for a bit more
support, sympathy, and the ability to take
remote-participant-specific surveys if those are offered), I'd
personally consider that a good thing.

best,
   john

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 21:20:21 -0400

If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.

I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.

The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in
both the enterprise and the home network. The case for that discovery
mechanism responding to DNS queries in the local namespace is equally clear.

Thinking of this problem as how to clients configure their DNS entries is
completely the wrong way to go about it. Setting up a new network service
requires more than poking the DNS with a stick.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The draft charter was placed where they usually are, on the BoF wiki.  But
> I added a link to a specific draft charter file when I updated the agenda,
> see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/.
>
> The other "problem" for mdnsext is that the second BoF has been given a
> different name, for various reasons, but that does make it a bit harder to
> locate the mail list and draft.
>
> Well, I would certainly agree that the meeting materials page/area needs
> to be well advertised, if it isn't already, but I don't know what
> additional information newcomers are pointed at, not being one.
>
> While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be better to
> surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a couple of weeks and ask
> them about their experience, whether they were aware of certain things, and
> what could be done better.
>
> Tim
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:41:58 -0430

> IETF 87, it should be a priority for IETF 88 and later.

+1

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:02:54 +0200

>     interfere with the ongoing process of the group"

This is bad for IETF, why no interfer from new experience, does IETF
want to only be guided by longer-working people?

>   "Working group meetings are not intended for the education of

I think few ietf-WGs need to be educated or need mentoring, so
newcomers are recommended to help. I will add that it will be nice to
know the newcomers opinion about such consensus, and make an IETF
newcomer-WG consensus. The problem is that our IETF General Area (GA)
is still not covering all important issues and left to the IESG to
control thoes issues not the community. I requested before and still
want to do now, to suggest WGs in the GA, therefore, we avoid
discouraging reactions/decisions.

> they could be misunderstood.

Yes it does for me. I support your suggestion, because I don't think I
misunderstood, they seem clear to exclude newcomers and only include
groupings not individuals.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:27:37 +0200

Thanks, I agree with your points/suggestions. I want to add;

a) Work/Participation in IETF is remotely to run its daily business.

b) Newcomers (how many we have per meeting); are always welcomed, no
one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years, so some
how could we say participants are mostly all new (remotely+newBody).
It will be nice to have a presenter (one year ietf participant) in
session related to new comers so he/she can present their live
experience. IMHO, the IETF is always new not old, so we need newcomers
(let them speak and present in their session) to make IETF newer,
otherwise IETF will become old-oriented :-)

I define a new comer as one that have been participating for less than
5 years or never attended more than 2 meetings. It will be nice if all
newcomers with this definition gather together and discuss interested
issues.

c) Overall, all IETF participants including IESG members are mostly
serving IETF as Remote participants (new and old comers), but at
meeting days some are present at the venues and not remote. We need
both participation methods, and it is better to encourage both at all
times with equal access for diversity purposes.

AB

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:17:16 +0300

I agree with John that audio and other things would be useful, but Brian is also correct that they do involve some work. Let us see what we can do on audio for IETF-88. Past recordings of the tutorials are available at http://www.ietf.org/edu/process-oriented-tutorials.html#newcomers.

The meeting materials page does now have a training section now - added a couple of hours ago, thanks Alexa! - and some of the materials are there. We're working on putting the rest there. 

(The newcomer's orientation file would already be there too but we're struggling with some bug in the system in the upload.) 

As for:

> The first quote might discourage newcomers from participating.  I suggest discussing about the two quotes during the orientation as they could be misunderstood.

The second quote is valid in most cases, though we've had some sessions at times that were designed more as education than discussion. For instance, the IAB WCIT BOF last time.

But the first one is just plain wrong. Is this from RFC 3184? Many of the first time IETFers are here for a reason, are well-versed in the technology in question, and very much able to provide suggestions to the WG. Maybe RFC 3184 is in the need of an update. (It also says other things that may not be up to date, like that locating mailing list archives is hard. I don¨t think it has been hard ever since tools.ietf.org/wg/foo came about.)

Thanks for the feedback!

Jari

> POSH has not published a session agenda.  However, the BoF is listed on the meeting agenda.  Is the BoF cancelled or will this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current Practices?
> 
> Regards,
> -sm

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:21:40 +0100

On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
> 
> The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in both the enterprise and the home network. The case for that discovery mechanism responding to DNS queries in the local namespace is equally clear.
> 
> Thinking of this problem as how to clients configure their DNS entries is completely the wrong way to go about it. Setting up a new network service requires more than poking the DNS with a stick.

Phil, comments on draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements are very welcome.

There should be a jabber realy who can forward remote comments to the mic.

Tim

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:43:59 -0700

>prerequisite for most applications for ISOC's IETF Fellows

Discussions that do not translation into actions are, well, 
discussions.  What is the easiest to enable the person from the 
university participate in the IETF meeting; what is the easiest way 
to enable the person from the small company to participate in the 
IETF meeting?  It is:

   (a) an audio stream

   (b) a jabber service

   (c) a jabber scribe

(a) and (b) are already available.  (c) is doable.  Will there be any 
results from that?  No.  Why should the IETF do that then?  Because 
it is simple, it is cheap, and if it works, who knows, there may be results.

>extra costs, we figure out how to cover them (or how to cut

Making information available is a first-step in getting things to 
work.  Please note that I do not see that as publishing some random 
web page.  I see that as making the information readily available to 
the target audience.

I'll quote part of a message from Benoit Claise:

   'Let me explain what the targeted audience is for those posters.

    It's not intended for the people who know about a specific BoF and plan on
    participating. It's intended for people who have not prepared for 
a specific
    BoF, but just come to listen to it, and in the end, go to mic. to provide
    some useful feedback: "pay attention to this!", "similar work was 
done ...",
    "don't forget that ...", "don't forget OPS" ;-)'

It is a down-to-earth explanation about how to get people interested 
in a specific BoF.

Two years ago (minus one day) Brian Carpenter objected to the fact 
that the regular
audio streaming is not available for the plenaries.  The link for the 
technical plenary audio stream is not available in the (tools) agenda.

>resources on outreach efforts that are expensive in one or the

It is a waste of energy and money to pursue outreach efforts if the 
IETF is not serious about how to lower the barriers for newcomers and 
its strategy about diversity.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 03:02:32 -0700

At 23:17 26-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
>The second quote is valid in most cases, though we've had some 
>sessions at times that were designed more as education than 
>discussion. For instance, the IAB WCIT BOF last time.

The following will be discussed in the DMARC BoF:

   "a mechanism for protecting the <display-name> portion of the 
RFC5322.From field"

My guess is that it might be educational. :-)

I read the second quote as meaning that a WG session is not a how-to 
or a tutorial.  It might be help people understand if it is explained 
during the orientation session.

>But the first one is just plain wrong. Is this from RFC 3184? Many 
>of the first time IETFers are

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:23:18 +0100

...
...
> But the first one is just plain wrong. Is this from RFC 3184? Many of
> the first time IETFers are here for a reason, are well-versed in the
> technology in question, and very much able to provide suggestions to
> the WG.

It's not wrong.

It's badly worded, possibly bordering on rudeness.  It certainly lacks 
context.  And it probably doesn't apply to BOFs.  But it's not wrong.

WG face-to-face meetings are for resolving open issues.  Given 1-3 
hours, three times a year, these face to face meetings are not 
reasonable for any other purpose.  That's why doing the foundational 
work on the mailing list is essential.

We need to be /far/ more helpful to new folk who show up (on the mailing 
list or at the f2f) but having them take f2f time for education is 
simply not appropriate.  The time is too valuable.

If there really is an organizational shift towards making f2f wg 
meetings target education of new folk, then the meetings will cease to 
have /any/ utility for getting actual work done.  Really.

d/

ps. Small disclaimer: for ongoing work, it is often useful/necessary to 
start a status summary of the current situation.  Done well enough, 
these can look asymptotically similar to a tutorial.  But really, they 
are for the entire group, not (just) for new folk...

pps. and...
 > My guess is that it might be educational. :-)

    I'm involved with the DMARC effort.  I'm almost positive it won't be...

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:15:53 +0200

Hello Jary and all,

for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five tutorials on Sunday:

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho

We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC Overview Session. If you think this might be of interest, we can allow remotes to have access to the other tutorials as well. Just let us know, so we can advertise access URLs on the mentioned web page. As usual, we can provide a real-time, synchronized view of the sessions, involving audio, video and presentation slides.

Cheers,

Simon

>> POSH has not published a session agenda.  However, the BoF is listed on the meeting agenda.  Is the BoF cancelled or will this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current Practices?

                     					       _\\|//_
                           				      ( O-O )
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    				Simon Pietro Romano
             				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                		     Computer Engineering Department 
	             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: [email-masked]

		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli 
		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
               			                     oooO
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
					                 \ (            (   )
			                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:43:40 +0200

Simon,

> We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC Overview Session. If you think this might be of interest, we can allow remotes to have access to the other tutorials as…

I think it would be useful. Thank you.

Jari

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:14:21 +0200

> pretty useless without contact info.

As from my remote participant experience in IETF Routing Area (rtg), I
was very happy/encouraged to be able to speak directly (issue related
to MANET WG) to the AD of rtg at his open-office session at a previous
IETF meeting (even 2 minutes makes big differences). Giving a chance
to remote participants to speak to WG chairs or ADs is good to
encourage remote-participants/new-interested-people to start thinking
to join the meetings. I suggest that all ADs for other areas do the
same if available (I am not sure if they do that, but if they do, that
is great). Furthermore, if mentoring is available for remote
participants then the mentor may book a time if needed with WG chair
or AD, otherwise an agreed time communication can continue directly
between mentor and participant.

Booking a 2 minute remote speach at IETF-meetings from
remote-community to an IETF AD or WG-Chair can be a new opportunity
that IETF/IESG can think about to schedule in future.

AB

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:37:15 +1200

> context.  And it probably doesn't apply to BOFs.  But it's not wrong.

It reads rudely when taken out of context. But try reading the whole
paragraph in RFC 3184:

      IETF participants who attend Working Group meetings read the
      relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and e-mail archives beforehand, in
      order to familiarize themselves with the technology under
      discussion.  This may represent a challenge for newcomers, as e-
      mail archives can be difficult to locate and search, and it may
      not be easy to trace the history of longstanding Working Group
      debates.  With that in mind, newcomers who attend Working Group
      meetings are encouraged to observe and absorb whatever material
      they can, but should not interfere with the ongoing process of the
      group.  Working Group meetings run on a very limited time
      schedule, and are not intended for the education of individuals.
      The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and many
      questions would be better expressed on the list in the months that
      follow.

Exactly. My experience back when I was a newcomer was that it was
easy enough to ask beginner's questions after the meeting, and obviously
wrong to do so during the session. This remains true years later, if I
drop into a WG that I'm not familiar with.

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 23:01:44 +0200

(Dropping a few lists from the distribution.)

Brian, Dave,

> drop into a WG that I'm not familiar with.

Let me clarify why I thought it was wrong. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, actually. I do agree that asking beginner questions in a working group meeting would be inappropriate. And I agree that the meetings are not a place for education. And I agree that we should not become an organisation where the f2f time gets the primary role.

However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to observe the IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are embarking on. The colleague that has been implementing The Protocol for the last two years in the office, but is now coming to the IETF for the first time. The guy who has something to say about the operational experience of our results. The team who brought their idea to the IETF to be standardised. And so on.

Jari (the guy who is preparing for the possibility - no matter how  remote - that the cool kids might actually teach us a trick or two) :-)

---

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 17:38:26 -0400

I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.  This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may include implementers.  Can that be accommodated, maybe at a future meeting?  I am happy to help if I can.

Thank you!
Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jul 2013 22:00:36 -0000

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
>video overviews to help people understand the work.  This includes newcomers and
>also interested observers, who may include implementers.  Can that be
>accommodated, maybe at a future meeting?  I am happy to help if I can.

I gather you're active in the MILE group.  How about making a video
overview for it and let us know how it went?  If we make videos, we
can put it on the web and not take up time at WG meetings.

Having made my share of five minute videos, I've found that a PC with
a webcam and cheap video recording and editing software (to add a
title and splice together the pieces) is all you need technically, but
coming up with a script, getting the required people to agree that
it's OK, and recording it in a way that is watchable is a surprisingly
large amount of work.

R's,
John

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:22:41 -0800

On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
> include implementers.  Can that be accommodated, maybe at a future
> meeting?  I am happy to help if I can.

I'm sorry, but no, I am not comfortable with this.  If someone
wants to go off on their own and do something along these lines,
more power to them, but we have working group charters, we've
got framework documents, and presumably people can read.

I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
anything particular in mind.

I've participated remotely quite a bit and I do think that having
the newcomers session available to remote participants would be a
big win (and there's something that I think it would be helpful
to record on video and make available on Youtube or some such).

It may be the case over the longer term that we've got so many
newer participants who won't adapt to the IETF's working style
that the IETF will need to become more like other standards bodies
to accommodate them, but I don't think we're there yet and I
would be sorry to see working meetings turned into conferences.
People who attend should be participants, not audience.

Melinda

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:11:53 -0700

At 14:01 27-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
>Let me clarify why I thought it was wrong. I don't think I'm 
>disagreeing with you,

I'll reorder the end of the original message.

>Jari (the guy who is preparing for the possibility - no matter 
>how  remote - that the cool kids might actually teach us a trick or two) :-)

If there is a possibility, however remote, that someone, irrespective 
or age or any other attributes, can teach me something I believe that 
it is worthwhile to be open to that.  Yes, it may have been tried 
before.  And yes, there is a history of failure.

>However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to 
>observe the IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are 
>embarking on. The colleague that has been implementing The Protocol 
>for the last two years in the office, but is now coming to the IETF 
>for the first time. The guy who has something to say about the 
>operational experience of our results. The team who brought their 
>idea to the IETF to be standardised. And so on.

I do not equate new to the IETF with beginner.  The student may be 
someone writing code.  The person may know that for all its fancy 
words what's in the draft won't work as he or she tried that.  The 
operator knows that whatever the RFC says it is not possible to 
follow that due to operational constraints.

A guideline is not a good one if it will have a chilling effect 
(motivate people not to speak up).

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:52:53 +0100

> People who attend should be participants, not audience.

What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in your 
term that may confuse others on the list.  Will appreciate, if you can 
share bit more on it, behind the single term "conference" that you 
particularly don't like.

I agree with you that changing the working culture in WG meetings can be 
bad, and we shall not go out of the ways to accommodate anything under 
the name of "diversity".

Aaron

PS: things evolve, over the long term. it does not matter we like it or 
not. that is how it is.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:27:11 -0800

> share bit more on it, behind the single term "conference" that you

I love conferences but I'd hate to see IETF meetings turned into
them.  By "conference" I mean something in which people give papers
(or other talks) and most of the participants have an audience
role.  IETF meeting participation should be active.  It is almost
always the case, of course, that someone attending a meeting will
sit in on working groups in which they're not active, but it
should be unusual for someone who has no particular work in the
IETF and who's active in no working groups and active on no mailing
lists to come to a meeting.  IETF meetings are places to get work
done.

> bad, and we shall not go out of the ways to accommodate anything under

I actually do think we should go out of our way to accommodate
and encourage diversity, but again, that's in the interest of
getting work done (and getting our work correct).  But back to
the original question of how to bring newcomers in through
remote participation - I would start with the assumption that
they'd be participating, remotely or otherwise, because they
have some networking problem (and possibly solution) that needs
standardization.  I'd also assume that they've done a basic
literature search, etc.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to put together some material
(video or otherwise) that would help people decide whether or not
their problem belongs in the IETF.

Melinda

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:28:41 -0400

> anything particular in mind.

IETF meetings are trying to do two different things

1) Do work on working group documents and specifications

2) Foster understanding of work in other parts of the IETF and encourage
cross-working group interactions.

These are different objectives that require totally different approaches.
The first is best met by small one or two day meetings of people who are
concentrating on just that one spec. The second is best met by plenaries
and session talks designed to explain work to people outside the group.

As for tutorial sessions on tools for writing IDs... Isn't the need for
such a session proof that the tools and/or the formats are broken?

I got fed up with the hosted version of XML2RFC and found it impossible to
get the code running on my machine (it requires very specific python
package versions that would require me to down-version). Plus I find the
XML2RFC format obnoxious. The original expectation in 1999 was that XML
editors would soon be ubiquitous and good. Instead there are rather and
they all suck.

So I wrote my own. You can now write your RFC in HTML and the tool will
convert it into IETF caveman format, formatted HTML and/or XML2RFC. I will
be adding XML2RFC format sometime next week.

The code has only been tested on Windows so far but it is in CLI and so the
executable can run on any platform with a runtime (all of them). I want to
test on other platforms and test submitting drafts before making a release.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/html2rfc/?source=directory

The reason for adding xml2rfc format is that some folk may want to use it
just for the ability to manage references. Instead of having to mess about
with sticking entities in the front and citations in the middle and
references in the running text, just add a reference in the text, [~RFC822]
for informative, [!RFC822] for normative and the tool will work it all out.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 06:10:54 +0200

> This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may include
> implementers.

putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
a good thing for folk with spare time to do.  i am sure we could arrange
pointer space on the wg's web page.

> Can that be accommodated, maybe at a future meeting?

in meeting time?  great ghu, please no!

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 06:13:01 +0200

> anything particular in mind.

yup.  i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.

randy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:17:14 -0800

> yup.  i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the

Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."

Melinda

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 05:23:21 +0100

> something closer to conferences, 

with poster sessions!

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:26:23 -0800

>> something closer to conferences, 

Arrrr!

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:35:27 +0200

> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."

As would I.

Keith

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:58:36 +0200

Il giorno Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:43:40 +0200
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> ha scritto:

> > We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely
> > attend the IAOC Overview Session. If you think this might be of
> > interest, we can allow remotes to have access to the other
> > tutorials as well. Just let us know, so we can advertise access
> > URLs on the mentioned web page. As usual, we can provide a
> > real-time, synchronized view of the sessions, involving audio,
> > video and presentation slides.
> 

We just updated our agenda page to include links to attend the tutorial
sessions remotely:

	http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com/

not all are there yet but we'll add more later. The IAB Privacy
Tutorial link is already available, though and will become active in a
couple of minutes, as the session is about to start.

Lorenzo

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:09:13 +0000

>> something closer to conferences, 

And mandatory suit and tie (or women's equivalent business attire) for presenters and chairs.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:10:55 +0000

>> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."

Me too, as long as we get whiteboards or flip-charts in their stead.

But both the academic world and the business world have taught all of us to communicate through presentations. So, lost cause.

Yoav

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:33:01 +0200

> Me too, as long as we get whiteboards or flip-charts in their stead.

What about people at the back of the room who cannot see what you write on the
whiteboard or flip-charts? (at least slides can be downloaded on laptop/tablet
if too far from the projection screen)

What about people following remotely?

What about people who have difficulties understanding the speaker without some
sort of context?

What about being able to understand the problem that will be discussed before
the session, so to cut on the "thinking out loud" on the microphone?

Do you have a presentation during IETF 87? (I already checked that Randy,
Keith and Melinda do not).  I would be really interested to see how this could
work.

Thanks.

> 
> But both the academic world and the business world have taught all of us to
> communicate through presentations. So, lost cause.
> 
> Yoav
> 

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:47:59 +0000

On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 

There are some technological solutions, like electronic whiteboards, or cameras pointed at whiteboards/flipboards. Frame rate makes no difference.

Work is done through conversation. If we use a presentation, the conversation is scripted. I, the presenter, say stuff. You, the audience, can only reply. When we collaborate to develop something at work, we hardly ever do it with a presentation. Presentations work best for tutorial and for showing proposals.

> What about people who have difficulties understanding the speaker without some

With some speakers, context doesn't help. Slides help bad enunciation. They usually don't help missing context.

> the session, so to cut on the "thinking out loud" on the microphone?

That's what drafts are for.

> Keith and Melinda do not).  I would be really interested to see how this could

I have three. I don't get a flip-chart, so I do have slide-sets. There is one 5-minute thing that I'm going to do with hand-waving and no slides, but otherwise, I'm doing things the way that people expect them to be.

Yoav

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:14:08 +0200

On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>> 
>>>>>> yup.  i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove
>>>>>> the projectors and screens.
>>>>> 
>> What about people at the back of the room who cannot see what you write
>> on the whiteboard or flip-charts? (at least slides can be downloaded on 
>> laptop/tablet if too far from the projection screen)
>> 
> There are some technological solutions, like electronic whiteboards, or 
> cameras pointed at whiteboards/flipboards. Frame rate makes no difference.
> 
> Work is done through conversation. If we use a presentation, the
> conversation is scripted. I, the presenter, say stuff. You, the audience,
> can only reply. When we collaborate to develop something at work, we hardly
> ever do it with a presentation. Presentations work best for tutorial and
> for showing proposals.
> 
>> What about people who have difficulties understanding the speaker
>> without some sort of context?
> 
>> What about being able to understand the problem that will be discussed 
>> before the session, so to cut on the "thinking out loud" on the 
>> microphone?
> 
>>  Keith and Melinda do not).  I would be really interested to see how
>> this could work.
> 
> I have three. I don't get a flip-chart, so I do have slide-sets. There is
> one 5-minute thing that I'm going to do with hand-waving and no slides,
> but otherwise, I'm doing things the way that people expect them to be.

I can not find your presentations in the agendas.  Please tell me when they
are and I'll rent a flip-chart.

Thanks.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:25:09 +0000

> pointer space on the wg's web page.

Effective video presentations are _hard_.   Otherwise they're TL;DW.   So I'd definitely be in favor of tight, effective video presentations on a youtube stream or something, but would discourage random posting of videos that aren't going to be carefully refined for effectiveness.   My concern is that we may see many more of the latter than the former if we go down this path.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:25:42 +0000

> are and I'll rent a flip-chart.

There's one in IPsec.

The other two are chairs slides in httpauth and websec. The former are not yet up.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:17:50 -0700

As an off-topic note, thanks to Alexa, Alexey, Jari, Lorenzo and the 
Meetecho team.

At 16:52 27-07-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
>What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in 
>your term that may confuse others on the list.  Will appreciate, if 
>you can share bit more on it, behind the single term "conference" 
>that you particularly don't like.

I took a quick look at some session agendas.  The common format is:

    - Name of draft

    - Presenter

That looks like a conference to me.  There will be the usual 
Powerpoint presentations.  People can object to that on this mailing 
list but the fact is that these presentations will happen.

>PS: things evolve, over the long term. it does not matter we like it 
>or not. that is how it is.

Yes.

>What about people who have difficulties understanding the speaker without some

It helps to provide some context before discussing the issue.  I 
would not expect cross-area input if I do not provide 
context.  Sometimes it is difficult to understand the speaker.  The 
written form, for example slides, can help.

>the session, so to cut on the "thinking out loud" on the microphone?

That is where the agenda can help.  The name of the draft does not 
tell me about the issues that will be discussed.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:38:05 -0400

nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> concentrating on just that one spec. The second is best met by plenaries and
> session talks designed to explain work to people outside the group.
>
>
>
> As for tutorial sessions on tools for writing IDs... Isn't the need for such
> a session proof that the tools and/or the formats are broken?
>
> get the code running on my machine (it requires very specific python package
> versions that would require me to down-version). Plus I find the XML2RFC
> format obnoxious. The original expectation in 1999 was that XML editors
> would soon be ubiquitous and good. Instead there are rather and they all
> suck.
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:02:05 -0400

> nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
Only the topic of the conversation is how to get more people involved in
IETF, not how to make them run away screaming and crying.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:47:31 +0200

Even in context is rude. Even when doing it is because of practical
reasons and for the good use of the scarce meeting time, I think that is
one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers.

Regards,
as

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:56:30 +0200

I agree with Randy.

	Presentation material, documents, etc. should be available in advance
at least 1 or 2 weeks before the IETF (not 2 hours, not 2 days) and to
support the discussion (not to be presented). People in the meeting
should have read it (draft and slides) and be prepared to discuss the
draft, not to learn about it as we are doing now.

	F2F meetings should be about discussions, no presentations.

	We could try something like this:

A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130701022638-22330283-a-simple-rule-to-eliminate-useless-meetings

	(I have never done it, but it seems interesting).

Regards,
as

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:01:29 -0400

Why not put the presentations up on YouTube as podcasts. That way people
can watch them before starting off for the meeting.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:02:16 +0200

Why during the F2F IETF meeting?

	It seems that is not a good way to use the time of an AD during the F2F
IETF meeting. I think is a good idea to provide people remote-access to
ADs, but doing it during the F2F IETF meeting does not look like a good
use of resources.

/as

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:05:50 +0200

That may work as well.

	It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
available.

	The important is to have discussion-material available in advance. It
could be a presentation or a video (I would personally prefer a
presentation because I can quickly scan it for important things)

Regards,
as

On 7/28/13 3:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>             I agree with Randy.
>

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:20:05 +0200

> presentation because I can quickly scan it for important things)

Dear Arturo,

Emphasis should be to ensure equal status for remote participants.  For reasonable remote participation, presentation material should be made available in advance. It seems reasonable to allow minor edits within a day or even hours before the meeting starts.

To do this, video and audio control should be centralized within the meeting room and virtualized in the cloud when necessary.  A dual core Atom processor should be all that is needed.  Rather than using an audio bridge with multiple simultaneous  audio and video feeds, a strategy should be developed that suits those in the meeting venue as as well as those who are remote.   For this, there should be a minor level of automation available to facilitate selection of individuals permitted to speak.  This control should not need to be done at the meeting venue, but in the cloud as well.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:38:07 +0200

Douglas,

    Totally agree that a requirement is that F2F and remote are equals.
I even believe that a presentation-less format (as the described) is
better for remote participants.

    About the minor changes, perhaps. Not very convinced but it could be.

    In the same line, what about to have the presentation-material
attached to the last htmlized version of the draft?

    In that way people going to a wg meeting (local or remote) knows
where to find the last version of the presentation and if this were
submited in the same way than drafts, then WG chairs would have less work.

Regards,
as

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:10:35 +0000

> one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers.

There's a careful line that has to be drawn between being welcoming and failing because we are spending too much time being welcoming.   No matter where it is drawn, someone will be unhappy.

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 12:54:51 +0200

Hi Kathleen,

The Edu Team tried to achieve this by providing a high-level overview of 
all the IETF areas (including a short description of the various WGs, 
current discussions and hot topics etc.). The RAI people offered to do 
that for the first time in Orlando:

https://www.ietf.org/edu/process-oriented-tutorials.html#raiinfrastructure

and we're planning to repeat this session at the next meeting (it will 
then also be recorded).

Unfortunately we didn't get a lot of response from other areas. So, any 
help in that respect would be appreciated!

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
(Edu Team)

On 27/7/13 11:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:50:03 +0200

> But both the academic world and the business world have taught all of us to communicate through presentations. So, lost cause.

Regardless of what has been taught, people who can only communicate through presentations can't communicate effectively anyway.   Forcing effective communicators to filter their communications through presentations is a big part of the reason that IETF takes so long to get work done.

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:25:10 +0200

...
> However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to observe the IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are embarking on. The colleague that has been implementing The Protoco…

Jari (et al)

I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more 
interesting this year, than most previous ones.  So I think it's worth 
pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk 
better, as well as be clear about when and where and how such 
accommodation is /and is not/ appropriate.

Your reply to me, above, lists different types of new folk -- and of 
course the list is reasonable and might be useful -- but I didn't see 
the actual clarification of what you felt was wrong in the target text 
or how you agreed with me an others.  So, now you've got me curious for 
that detail...

And while I've got the floor I'll offer a thought I had after a brief 
conversation with Jari at last night's reception:

      Warning:  This calls for working groups to do a little more work.

The working group home page and the working group wiki have become 
excellent tools for assembling relevant documents.  For someone trying 
to get started in the wg, these are incredibly helpful.

      My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief summary 
about the current state of the working group, ideally listing the 
current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the current focus of 
effort -- and major open issues.

      I'll suggest that it be updated after every meeting.

Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without 
newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what 
progress they are and are not making.

An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending upon 
the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use.  In a supportive 
environment, the exercise is helpful.  In a hostile one, not so much.

Basically, if a wg is being diligent and candid in summarizing its 
problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be 
helpful.

d/

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:37:07 -0400

Hi Dave,
      I am not Jari, but I do have an opinion on your thoughts below...

> problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be

One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is send in a 
summary of their WG after each IETF meeting.  Those summaries generally 
give folks a good idea of the current state of each WG.  I post those 
summaries on the Internet Area wiki.  An alternative that would work as 
well is to have each WG post summaries to their own wikis.  Each WG has 
a wiki available via their Tools page (e.g., 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/wiki).

I like seeing the summaries from my chairs and I have gotten feedback 
from participants that they find them quite useful for keeping up with 
WGs that are tangential to their primary focus.  I would encourage every 
WG chair to periodically summarize the state of their WG/drafts.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:55:18 +0200

On 7/29/13 7:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending
> upon the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use.  In a supportive
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/IETF86summary

is the ops area's experiment with doing this.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:08:49 -0700

At 22:25 28-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>interesting this year, than most previous ones.  So I think it's 
>worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate 
>such folk better, as well as be clear about when and where and how 
>such accommodation is /and is not/ appropriate.

The keyword in the above is "actions".  Some actions do not require 
the agreement of the entire IETF.  In other words, an action does not 
require consensus if it is not mandatory.

>course the list is reasonable and might be useful -- but I didn't 
>see the actual clarification of what you felt was wrong in the 
>target text or how you agreed with me an others.  So, now you've got 
>me curious for that detail...

A public discussion can be started with:

  (a) I will be listening to your comment.

  (b) You must have read X, Y, and Z before you comment.

  (c) Be sure that you are not wasting my time when you comment.

I'll argue that (b) and (c) are trying to stop problems before they 
happen.  (b) looks like the type of thing which ought to be explained 
during the orientation.  (b) is not a problem caused by remote 
participants as it is possible to provide an explanation through the 
Jabber room.  (c) is intimidating.  I would choose (a).

>      My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief 
> summary about the current state of the working group, ideally 
> listing the current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the 
> current focus of effort -- and major open issues.
>
>newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of 
>what progress they are and are not making.

The simpler form might be to update the milestones so that anyone can 
read about the work the working group is planning to do and when it 
is planning to do it.  It also provides information about the work 
that the working group has completed.

On the topic of remote participation I'll mention that the current 
approach is to open a trouble ticket when there is a problem.  A 
status web page could provide some visibility about whether the 
services are running correctly, whether there is a known problem, 
etc.   Notifications could be sent to xmpp:[email-masked] so 
that people do not hit the reload button repeatedly.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:39:03 -0400

I will see what I can do and will share back the results.  It may not be something that would be useful to all working groups, but I think it could help mine and some others.

Thanks,
Kathleen
________________________________________
From: John Levine [[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio Streaming Info)

R's,
John

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:38:23 -0500

We did a lunchtime tutorial for the CLUE WG in Vancouver.  We had the
Meetecho guys record it:
http://ietf84.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#IETF84_CLUE_TUTORIAL

It worked quite well I think.  I believe these sorts of tutorials would be
extremely helpful for a number of WGs.  Having it during the f2f sessions
provides an opportunity to ask questions, but then it's available
afterwards for those that can't attend.   We put the link in the minutes in
the proceedings, but I'm realizing that it would be very useful to have
that on the WG wiki (which I've now done).

Mary.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I will see what I can do and will share back the results.  It may not be
> something that would be useful to all working groups, but I think it could
> help mine and some others.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:59:12 +0100

Dave

I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
IETF has found their working group.  This is not always easy.  Fine if
your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'witty' name seems to me less
than welcoming.  Think about it as a stranger to these parts.  What
comes to mind when you encounter; salud, straw drinks insipid lemonade -
behave, kitten vipr, cuss!

If we had some way of measuring the success of a working group, I would
use it to test my hypothesis that the closer the short-form name is to
the subject of a working group, then the more successful that working
group will be.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:25 AM

> > Let me clarify why I thought it was wrong. I don't think I'm
disagreeing with you, actually. I do agree that asking beginner
questions in a working group meeting would be inappropriate. And I agree
that the meetings are not a place for education. And I agree that we
should not become an organisation where the f2f time gets the primary
role.
observe the IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are
embarking on. The colleague that has been implementing The Protocol for
the last two years in the office, but is now coming to the IETF for the
first time. The guy who has something to say about the operational
experience of our results. The team who brought their idea to the IETF
to be standardised. And so on.
> An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending
upon

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:57:47 +0200

> behave, kitten vipr, cuss!

I was thinking this morning that clever short WG names are fine, but we shouldn't try too hard to make them acronyms - or at least, we shouldn't pretend that the acronyms suffice as descriptions for the WGs.   In lists of WGs, we should include brief descriptions of the WGs, not the acronym expansions.

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:18:10 -0400

--On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
> send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting.  Those
> summaries generally give folks a good idea of the current
> state of each WG.  I post those summaries on the Internet Area
> wiki.  An alternative that would work as well is to have each
> WG post summaries to their own wikis.  Each WG has a wiki
> available via their Tools page (e.g.,
> I like seeing the summaries from my chairs and I have gotten
> feedback from participants that they find them quite useful
> for keeping up with WGs that are tangential to their primary
> focus.  I would encourage every WG chair to periodically
> summarize the state of their WG/drafts.

Dave and a few other ancients will recall that there was a time
when there was a requirement for ADs to put together per-meeting
"Area Reports", which went into the minutes.  Unless ADs were
masochists who wanted to do all the work themselves, that pretty
much required that sort of status reports that he and Brian are
talking about.  It also ensured that ADs were aware of what was
going on in all of the WGs for which they were responsible and
that, if there were two ADs in an area, they were talking with
each other.  If those expectations were not met, someone
observing that would presumably have something very concrete to
tell the Nomcom.

In the context of the current discussion, a set of well-written
and frequently-updated area reports could also be a big help to
a newcomer trying to navigate WG names and acronyms.   I agree
that it would probably help to be more descriptive about WG
names rather than looking for things that will make cute
acronyms.  Whether we move in that direction or not, most
newcomers and isolated/remote participants are going to find it
easier to identify an Area of interest than a specific WG.  A
well-written Area Report that includes brief descriptions of the
main focus of each WG along with current status information
would be, IMO, a huge help in matching people and specific
interests.

I think a Wiki or equivalent would be a fine way to maintain
such pages but, given how well we do about keeping benchmarks
and similar information up to date and the advantages deadlines
seem to bring, I'd like to see at least snapshots or the
equivalent in meeting minutes.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:19:33 +1200

On 30/07/2013 06:18, John C Klensin wrote:
> "Area Reports", which went into the minutes.  

These were put together from WG Chair's session reports, which
were (and are) mandatory under RFC 2418 (BCP 25):

      Immediately after a session, the WG Chair MUST provide the Area
      Director with a very short report (approximately one paragraph,
      via email) on the session.

That's not quite the same as a WG status report, but makes a good start.

   Brian

Unless ADs were

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:50:18 +0200

Dave,

> I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more interesting this year, than most previous ones.  So I think it's worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk better, as well as be clear about when and where and how such accommodation is /and is not/ appropriate.
> 
> Your reply to me, above, lists different types of new folk -- and of course the list is reasonable and might be useful -- but I didn't see the actual clarification of what you felt was wrong in the target text or how you agreed with me an others.  So, now you've got me curious for that detail…

The wrong part in the text was suggesting that newcomers should never speak up in meetings. I believe they in many cases should, although beginner or tutorial questions should not be asked.

> And while I've got the floor I'll offer a thought I had after a brief conversation with Jari at last night's reception:
> 
> The working group home page and the working group wiki have become excellent tools for assembling relevant documents.  For someone trying to get started in the wg, these are incredibly helpful.
> 
>     My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief summary about the current state of the working group, ideally listing the current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the current focus of effort -- and major open issues.
> 
> Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what progress they are and are not making.
> 
> An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending upon the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use.  In a supportive environment, the exercise is helpful.  In a hostile one, not so much.
> 
> Basically, if a wg is being diligent and candid in summarizing its problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be helpful.

I like this.  

Jari