Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey

[Mike McBride <[e-mail]>]

Feel free to use [e-mail] for questions unless you want to
use one of your own emails.

thanks, its looking good.

mike

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:42 AM Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some points picked up on below, the rest I’ll wait for consensus...
>
> On 18 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> The survey looks really good!  Thanks for helping with this; much appreciated :-)
>
> Please see inline for some responses….
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2019, at 09:44, Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 5:41 AM Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies for the delay in setting this up.  I have launched a (draft) survey at:
> https://jisc.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/survey-on-implementations-and-deployment-of-igmpv3-and-mld
>
> I have set a password of ietfpim for now.  I used an IETF logo rather than the Jisc one.
>
> I have tried to add some logic to allow vendors and/or operators to use the same questionnaire.
>
> Please test vigorously and check it captures the spirit of the draft correctly.
>
> Some questions for you -
>
> - which questions should be compulsory?
>
>
> I’m not sure we need to make any questions compulsory.  Hopefully folks will answer most/all the questions.
>
>
> - should the anonymous question come before we ask names etc?
>
>
> Yes, I think that the question about anonymity should come before asking for the name/contact info.  I do think we should still ask for the name/contact info, even if they indicate they want to complete it anonymously, as supplying this personal info will probably make people feel a bit more accountable and so will likely give their replies a bit more consideration.  I think we should clarify what we mean by “anonymously” by changing the question to:
> “Do you wish to complete the survey anonymously (in which case you will not be identified in the report)?"
>
>
> - should the issues with fallback be a y/n answer (as is) or a “What issues have you had with…” free text?
>
>
> I think the free text idea is better.
>
>
> - I added a final “any other comments” type question.  Is that ok?
>
>
> Yep, good idea.
>
>
> Also, some other thoughts…...
>
> I think we should change:
> Would you like to complete the part of the survey targeted at vendors and host implementors?
> + Yes
> + No
> to
> Which part of the survey would you like to complete?  The part targeted at
> + Vendor and host implementors?
> + Network operators?
>
>
> The problem with that is the some people might want to do both, but also that the survey tool doesn’t support such a flow; if you choose the implementor one when you get to the end of that you hit the operator section, so I need to ask twice, whichever way it’s done anyway.
>
> In case they find our list insufficient, should we add a box in which they can write in “Any other feature” after the list we provide for the “Which IGMPv3 and MLDv2 features do you use?” question?
>
> Will numbering the questions help processing the results etc?
>
>
> They are numbered, I just don’t have that turned on.  I could do so.
>
> Also, should we put a contact email address at the start in case people have questions?  Perhaps the WG chairs?  Or your own?
>
>
> We can do that - if so let me know whose details to add.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Thanks,
> Femi
>
>
>
> While you consider those, I’ll find out why each question has a pointless “More info” box next to it.
>
> Bes6t wishes,
> Tim
>
>
>