Re: IETF WG meetings and remote participation

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Sat, 15 February 2020 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF291200FA for <>; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:52:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CkXaIajknkEF for <>; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:52:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93821200B3 for <>; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:52:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48KkWH4M5gz1nvRd; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:52:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1581803563; bh=l1h1gU4TsZm2wewOhl2kShxyo21zHQ6qr/hYe5YmKIw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TqW9hFxDfVEd4EmsK6JVrVCM0l0KVioh0YDT+RkE03RI2WB+qxO/AvSuEqBUP6zdC LnMu8E57iJZvqqdOdnqcqq2aNKG7oT+YtFvZqsnWikNiQxFWrt4pPLTmH7WQPnI6XG Y6WjHtZXG5W8agM8TBHQobZIWjRgDIo4EwQmTCGU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48KkWG2n7Hz1nvR6; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IETF WG meetings and remote participation
To: Robert Raszuk <>, Keith Moore <>
Cc: IETF <>
References: <> <> <5CBB6602066BF4A674D4D092@PSB> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:52:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 21:52:45 -0000

Actually, all the slides can be (and should be) posted in the meeting 
materials section before the meeeting.  For the sessions I co-chair, we 
make sure to get the material posted before the meeting starts. 
Preferably enough before that people can look at them.

Having said that, I have to disagree with the claim that there is no 
need to present the material.  Reading slides is NOT the same as getting 
a decent presentation.  And more importantly, the slides help shape the 
discussion.  the remind people of context.  They frame the quesitons 
that need to be discussed.

I will admit that a significant part of the time the slides do not frame 
the discussion well.  But that is still the point.  Telling people 
"let's talk about draft foo" without framing is not useful.  And 
pretending a slide deck that was posted, but not presented, is actually 
framing the discussion is disingenuous.


On 2/15/2020 4:45 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Keith,
> 100%.
> While I always do slides to explain the idea IETF has no space to post 
> it before the meeting along with draft. Perhaps each draft should list 
> private URL with slides for those interested to look at them instead or 
> as add-on to the draft lecture itself ? Should we perhaps enhance IETF 
> submission a bit to optionally accommodate pdf slides with the draft and 
> augment IETF tools repo to provide link to those if present ?
> Sending it to chairs to be posted before the meeting is already too late.
> I agree slides are much lower bar then video and could be equally or 
> even more helpful.
> Best,
> R.
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:20 PM Keith Moore < 
> <>> wrote:
>     On 2/15/20 2:41 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>      > I think each draft should have a youtube video attached such that
>      > instead of wasting time to listen to one actor shows watch it before
>      > and then sped those 10-15 min to interactively discuss.
>     Videos are nearly always a huge waste of time, just as presentations in
>     meetings are nearly always a huge waste of time.   If the
>     internet-draft
>     is too dense to be read in a few minutes, post the slides in advance
>     (maybe with notes), expect people to read those, and spend the
>     "presentation" time on questions-and-answers.
>     Face-to-face meeting time should be devoted to *interaction*.
>     Keith