Re: [sidr] remote participation experience today

"Murphy, Sandra" <> Thu, 29 March 2012 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0403F21F8611 for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.468
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rGy4sCeE9bN4 for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074BE21F8608 for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2TNj4Xs009955; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:45:04 -0500
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2TNj4Ux029609; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:45:04 -0500
Received: from ([2002:9db9:506b::9db9:506b]) by ([2002:9db9:506b::9db9:506b]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:45:04 -0400
From: "Murphy, Sandra" <>
To: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] remote participation experience today
Thread-Index: Ac0M5//f0srobMRMSzy2GLfZeuNaQQA28EKAAA/gNzE=
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:45:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sidr] remote participation experience today
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:45:07 -0000

I agree with the point of putting slide numbers on slides and with making that a requirement got future presentations.  

As for webex.   There are features of webex that might be useful in remote participation - letting a remote participant manage the slides, some control over remote participants asking questions, and so forth. The telecon is a good feature for those who want to participate orally (as long as there's a good way to get audio into the room).   I am not an expert, so I do not know that the benefit is worth the setup cost on both ends.

There is a BOF on Friday afternoon's last session "Remote Participation System Requirements BOF" that is trying to form some ideas in this regard.  Providing input to that (or just listening for ideas) would be good.

From: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) []
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:51 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Subject: Re: [sidr] remote participation experience today


I attend the meeting remotely on both Monday and Wednesday. I did not feel the need for Webex as the audio streaming + jabber worked just fine.

My only comment is to re-emphasize what was mentioned by Wes on the jabber room, please request including page numbers on presentation decks to facilitate the remote experience.


On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:

> The webex session on Monday failed completely, due to laptop wireless incapability to maintain a connection (20-50-80-100% packet loss).
> The webex session on Wednesday (this morning) seemed to work (alternate networking arranged).
> But being the presentation laptop for webex, I was unable to see who (if any) the participants were.
> If you joined the webex session today, PLEASE do comment on the list of what you found worked or did not work for that experience.  (Was your view of slides keeping up?  were you listenting to webex telecon or to ietf audio stream?  could you follow the discussion amongst those in the room?  audio quality?  etc.)
> It would help in figuring out the future virtual meetings.
> --Sandy
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list