Re: Change in IPR policies

John C Klensin <> Wed, 10 June 2020 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79C63A0B2E; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b0PFKIBtmNKQ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4023A0B28; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1jj3yg-00031o-B2; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:53:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:53:18 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: John Scudder <>, Jay Daley <>
cc: ietf <>
Subject: Re: Change in IPR policies
Message-ID: <B2D24D0B6769137D4238D2B3@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB> <> <030e01d63e9f$9fcf3f50$df6dbdf0$> <> <032e01d63ea7$534b4270$f9e1c750$> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:53:30 -0000

--On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:01 +0000 John Scudder
<> wrote:

> As the decision to drop the audio stream was based on a
> misunderstanding, would reinstating that as a
> non-authenticated service compensate for that?
> Yes I think it would.


> If I understand correctly, at that point we'd be close to
> the status quo ante, modulo use of authenticated WebEx for
> full remote participation (but listen-only audio would be
> available). That seems OK to me; essentially the minimal set
> of changes necessary to adapt to the circumstances.

Skipping "authenticated WebEx" (because our primary remote
participation and observation has been Meetecho for years),
status quo ante requires registration-free (and fee-free) audio
and video feeds as well as the setup intended for people who are
going to participate (not observe) remotely.  In practical
terms, the video provides two things that audio alone does not:
ability to look at people's faces and get other visual clues
from what is going on the the (physical or virtual) room and
ability to see slides.  One can reasonably question how
important the former is but, especially when either the speaker
doesn't speak slowly and carefully in English without a
discernable accent accent or the listener doesn't have English
as a first language, the slides are really important.  If we
wanted to go with only a choice between full participation (and
payment) and an audio stream, then the latter, when used to
purposes other than checking up later on what was said, then the
way to mitigate that would be for the IESG to get really,
really, insistent on slides and other meeting materials being
posted several days before the meeting begins.  AFAIK, we have
not heard from them about that and the "Important Dates" page
[1] does not even identify a target or cutoff date for slides
and other meeting materials, only agendas (and registration

And, again, waivers (whether there are enough applications to
get into a lottery or not) notwithstanding and with whatever the
effects are of asking people to apply for them in the current
model (like Mary, I'm self-funded, but won't apply), it seems to
me that what we are doing is making a choice between the
possibility of collecting a few extra registration fees against
diversity and range of perspectives represented.  I'm finding
the notion that "the IETF" would choose the former over the