Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details

joel jaeggli <> Thu, 31 March 2016 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FF912D526 for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wdrMYY9fCHb4 for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3575012D560 for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-2.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u2VNKVJb046252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:20:43 GMT (envelope-from
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
To: John C Klensin <>, Melinda Shore <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:20:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Br0Ru74fPmvEH3cDLCRDFHRqk2IfG3R5r"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:20:50 -0000

On 3/31/16 11:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> A registration requirement for remote participants is a major
> policy change and one for people who merely want to passively
> observe is something I believe the community has several times
> concluded is inappropriate given privacy, etc., concerns.  So,
> who made this decision and how?  Unless the answer involves a
> community discussion and Last Call or equivalent process that I
> missed (and apparently Melinda did too), if the answer to "who
> decided" involves anyone in the IETF Leadership, would they
> please offer to resign?

I think you are accusing the community selected committee members of
malfeasance. At least now we are clear on where we stand.

We have advanced No BCP or standards track document to describe
requirements or procedures for the operation of remote participation nor
should we IMHO unless:

We view it as a core function of the IETF activiity.

It is mature enough that the thing we describe is neither obsoleted or
overtaken by events or at least is not focused on the technology and
method of delivery before the document is published.