Re: Thinking laterally

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 28 February 2015 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0761A0019 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:35:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 J-AoUQSEKJRw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95EEB1A0040 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB3D2002A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:44:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A8BA863731; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89982636B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Thinking laterally
In-Reply-To: <7A2564FD-43D1-4CAD-AAAC-C5312B3C066D@nominum.com>
References: <CAMm+LwiLLG8B9vni8moVW3-zufiZdBsPym3vOHDnZ3msGwWyYQ@mail.gmail.com> <7A2564FD-43D1-4CAD-AAAC-C5312B3C066D@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:41 -0500
Message-ID: <10363.1425162941@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XIPcNiWandolGDXM7QfaR84sRiQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:35:45 -0000

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
    > What I would like to see here is a camera on every microphone, on the
    > presenter, on the chairs, and maybe one pointing back at the room, and
    > someone or something picking which camera to send to the feed at any
    > given time, plus a separate slide feed.  The feed in each meeting room

yes, this is the only part of meetecho that is missing: multiple cameras.
I suggest that while we might need the switcher (that's the technical term
for the person who picks the camera feeds...) in the short-term, I suggest
that in the long term, that we should send all feeds, and the end users
pick.   Perhaps one of our microphone/room management protocols (e.g UMPIRE),
could allow feedback from the remote people as to what the "best" feed is
at any time for the purpose of assembling a useful single-video feed.

    > This is eminently doable in principle, but I suspect not sufficiently
    > automatic at present for us to actually make it work.  I suspect the
    > meetecho people _could_ do this, but not at a cost that would make
    > sense for an IETF meeting (yet).

It would be good to know what the capital and incremental costs might be, and
if a voluntary remote participation fee could fund it.

For meetings that I can not attend due to pure funding reasons,  the
remote attendance fee might also be an issue.  For meetings that I can not
attend due to logistical reasons (lack of childcare, conflict with family
event on edge weekend, lack of visa), a voluntary remote attendance fee is
way less than the airfare...

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-