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

Tobias Gondrom <> Fri, 01 April 2016 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA02712D0C5 for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 02:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.059
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UxqoGZsn_na3 for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 02:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 486DE12D09D for <>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 02:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10FFD62F35; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:22:52 +0200 (CEST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; b=sSFAdae+Ai9V/9+S7LvRiHRKALRtWjfKgT1p/UEFio4nY+1hROARWcYguVehYrR6lwJNVKNfYJAvZqzzHjrG+iGMcSC2F2Rz2WayhuYYahhNTbXznlnH+U7CiFicX22xV8dT6gmAscPUES6ZVCf5pK2YaeC1m9yEptNsmozwwc0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:22:51 +0200
From: Tobias Gondrom <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010801070105030902060009"
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: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:23:00 -0000

On 01/04/16 09:25, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:29:15PM -0400, 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 strongly concur.  Nobody should have to surrender *any* form
> of personal identification merely to passively observe.
> ---rsk

Dear rsk and John,

please excuse my brevity, as I am currently in transit to BA with only 
very limited Internet. So I will need to answer in more detail later.

At first to the question who is responsible: as the chair of the IAOC, 
in the end I am responsible for the actions of the IAOC which includes 
the implementation of the registration for Meetecho (all other remote 
participation tools do not require registration). But I hope you will 
allow for some conversations before you call for my head.

As you know over the last few years, we have made great strides in 
enhancing the remote participation capability to give remote attendees a 
full mirror of local attendees, to a level where you can have full 
active attendance through meetecho, incl. remote presentations, 
comments, questions and so on. With the goal to allow full active remote 
participation capabilities mirroring what we have now for the people who 
attend in person. Is it perfect yet, no, but we are moving towards that 

The registration of _active_ remote participants has been discussed 
within the IAOC for operational purposes and also to mirror the existing 
IETF process for remote contributions. However, it was not clear when 
this would be feasible from a technical standpoint.
I admit that the current implementation is not as as intended and in 
fact while voicing the intent we did not know when in the timeframe of 
2016 - 2018 it would be possible. And it would have been good to consult 
the community beforehand we execute this step. In some ways our 
operations team did move on the intent a bit faster than expected for 
Meetecho, which can also be considered my fault as I did not explicitly 
halt them and require and spell out the process to do before we take 
this step and did not push for explicitly mandate strong testing of the 
interface before it goes live.

Once I arrive in Buenos Aires, I will review the situation with our IAD 
and the Meetecho team about what they implemented the last few days.

To rsk's comment: please understand that the registration intent is for 
active remote participants. All standalone audio streams are still 
available during sessions. I understand that the current implementation 
for the Meetecho registration may deviate from the intent to sign-up the 
active remote participants. I will need to talk with the Meetecho and 
operations team to understand the scope.

I shall come back to you on all the details as soon as I arrive in 
Buenos Aires and get a chance to discuss with our tech teams.

I apologies for any inconveniences and will be looking forward to seeing 
you all in BA.

Best regards, Tobias (IAOC chair)