Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 14 April 2017 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9FB12949D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tez6ES6oK6Kr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2BE3126CF9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v3EGEAaF005524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:14:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1492186450; bh=Hw6dCkuJjKLKzG42VDB+CFFsXCsXeQalRgij7/Tq+F0=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AqddReRCWDaGadoKa2VLt+EjUUGTLB4MjGqiK4afFRPVPkMVEhAzYgbbidEnrAJHN cDQz9BXm/qCUBvhndUNGAJdxWYHUhtEy4Rwjx2o83gjjkmL6qytXKWGZyRpeu8y2GS eP+GHiQYrAL6h4wfO/Si9z27e9D1laPn+gMqiZYk=
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <9fee9874-1306-07a2-a84a-4e09381a5336@cisco.com> <E67FDB14-9895-48E0-A334-167172D322DB@nohats.ca> <20170403152624.GA11714@gsp.org> <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org> <003F08E0-D80E-40F7-AB15-6588B7B140CF@tzi.org> <20170410180555.GA20454@gsp.org> <AF3B5F0A-EEA7-402D-B61E-EDE6CE2AE16C@tzi.org> <8546635c-f838-e7f7-a5ec-3a855a14c0f9@dcrocker.net> <a7b74cca-be56-2e3f-6276-a459f28fa445@si6networks.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <e5b456ff-0234-1003-8d26-b3cdfee03c4e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:11:49 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a7b74cca-be56-2e3f-6276-a459f28fa445@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PdE25WiuBMuX62BwjlEQZhwB8Tc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:11:59 -0000

On 4/14/2017 9:04 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> FWIW, for the developing world, remote participation has possibly always
> been a necessity.


Indeed.  I hadn't understood how extensive this had become until seeing:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-hubs-00#section-3

However, there is a significant difference between their current mode of 
integration with the 'main' venue site, versus what we will need to have 
remote sites able to have nearly seamless participation in sessions.

Some of this is functional, such as a single queue for everyone wanting 
to speak, no matter where they are.  Some of this is much more robust 
performance and reliability (within obvious networking limitations.)

I suspect the easiest bit will be improved usability design, since the 
Meetecho folk tend to start with reasonable design and make improvements 
quickly, as experience is gained.  But yes, from some comments over the 
last two meetings, there's probably room for that improvement.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net