Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

>> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements
>> that would drive a system choice? 

As I understand it, that -- exactly that -- drove the choice to work with Meetecho.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 13-Jun-20 11:14, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Larry,
> 
> The history of the relationship between the IETF and “The Meetecho Guys” goes back a decade or more. They have been working closely with the NOC and others to tailor the system to our needs.
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cell: [phone]
> T-Mobile: [phone]
> Docomo: [phone]‬
> http://protocoljournal.org
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 12 Jun 2020, at 16:09, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> "I believe IETF chose for good reason" doesn't sound open or transparent.
>>
>> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements
>> that would drive a system choice?  Are they listed in the
>> conference-tech-lab's
>> list of things to consider?  Something that the system chosen uniquely
>> meets?  Those considerations are important to capture, and would
>> then become part of the RFP. Surely if they can run a conference
>> using any of the listed systems, they could run one using meetecho too.
>>
>> I'd think we'd want to contract with SOMEONE to actually manage
>> logistics, rather than roll our own, in a hurry.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:05 PM
>>> To: Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>rg>; 'Jay Daley' <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: 'IETF Rinse Repeat' <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Friday, June 12, 2020 13:37 -0700 Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> For moving IETF online, I'd suggest hiring some group that  does it
>>>> for a living
>>>>
>>>> https://www.diplomacy.edu/conference-tech-lab
>>>>
>>>> in consultation with IETF in an open transparent manner, of course.
>>>
>>> Larry, that path leads to a rathole-rich environment with very smart and
>>> well-fed rats. Among other things, I note that Diplo's list does not
>> include
>>> Meetecho, which I believe IETF chose for good reasons and with the
>>> limitations of other systems for our purposes in mind and then, more
>>> important, assorted people (including Ray and the Secretariat) worked
>>> closely with the developers to further adapt to our needs.
>>>
>>> Moreover, unless something has changed that you or Jay know about but I
>>> don't, prior experience with Meetecho strongly suggests that, if we
>> discover
>>> deficiencies that we would like to have corrected before IETF 108 and give
>>> them reasonable notice, the chances of getting those changes made are
>>> quite good.
>>> Having tried, in non-IETF contexts, to work with the providers of three or
>>> four of the systems Diplo lists to get bugs or unfortunate features fixed,
>> a
>>> year or two might be plausible, but not six weeks.... unless , of course,
>> one is
>>> a government making demands and/or threats.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that Jay has, to his credit even if he has not gotten it
>> right
>>> every time, been struggling to avoid such ratholes..  If nothing else, even
>> if
>>> Diplo were a perfect match, there almost certainly is not enough time to
>>> work out a contract with them, have them understand our needs, adjust fees
>>> as needed, and then go into a meeting that is now only six weeks away
>>> without creating unacceptable risk.
>>>
>>> So, at minimum, can we postpone that particular discussion until we get
>>> through IETF 108 and can start assessing what we learned and what to do
>>> next?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>   john
>>
>>