From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from atl4mhob01.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob01.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DD1B3B2A4 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:27:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mymail.myregisteredsite.com (jax4wmnode3b.mymail.myregisteredsite.com [209.237.134.215]) by atl4mhob01.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id 3AG0Rf68006196 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:27:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 8116 invoked by uid 80); 16 Nov 2023 00:27:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (jack@3kitty.org@76.137.180.175) by 209.237.134.154 with ESMTPA; 16 Nov 2023 00:27:41 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------NYKTMcITGUP7MVxQYEKkj0Kp" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:27:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: "Livingood, Jason" , =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects?= =?UTF-8?Q?_heard_this_time!?= References: <96DDD887-4AC2-4F11-9B49-5ED6FC3F5FA2@gmx.de> <1F39BCDB-1AE0-45D4-B622-411478465119@gmx.de> <9B1B6C78-8200-4875-9F37-6688B3AE42B6@comcast.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jack Haverty Autocrypt: addr=jack@3kitty.org; keydata= xsDNBGCm2psBDADGOWO8n9wfkDW9ZUEo8o+SZ5MU9us2il+fS4EFM/RaZFIbQ+P72bExzSd3 WnJdPfqO1O7Q+dRnvVO9+G2/9oT/uRZVaE05+SothzKZBv32HcZoUkdNZOTqSkdo3EwNPjid LLxX+dMBxMpR3pBdvGN8Z7lnZe6fV4QO2xtd58y3B33AVZJp+RuNwucby9dY2meyy2BJVKrx mKhYXAucVyg0ALVIchHt9UknVW4aLvQF+oMfzXVvCWeguW+DvbyazVceWGO7FSgUJ8ED3Ii7 xAR5zZJ1LASoMhG1ixg07P9Uy4ohV6c+c0yV9SY4yqhZ3+zN2cm9h/aXpwjSuiVVAJbK7zzb FjI+h89dbnaVQrLx6GikV0OVYqC6TCeMfCFZQAJLs1icxQi3BLL7O1fbTGatEfTgLa5nqfKq K/D/HlOCUeFxqZI8hXvT5dG4e1m3ilpF2/ytcWKSVg3d699UFntPv3sEbAQwwfXsnuD4Hem6 0Ao0/z41n8x1aeZE80FdkpEAEQEAAc0eSmFjayBIYXZlcnR5IDxqYWNrQDNraXR0eS5vcmc+ wsEJBBMBCAAzFiEEZLvMn5vmvTAlFEILdGzDIkA7jlAFAmCm2pwCGwMFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsC BRYCAwEAAAoJEHRswyJAO45QuX0L/jOluv8fr/BmuEEQsWWGW6oARIbjDQrI93kXIJXuPnfp tGjkx/f1TMIzI2B9s/tejiYE7IZOhWbX1YvKF0UbkSJi50UyV9XtYRnLdD5TcksKB4luDF8S R+nj5WBm17Bp8qwriCMgA1jGL2wQ7J1KUw4Q/gsMcjhn/39PevswkriU2qqVplfCs9yTTMU5 SvtE2U9F3Y1ZINHn3kUysvxhRFd+Oh3PocWHmVE+hkII+qsra6z4eztDgoB+vqxmOJEdtvex GhT8OKu74DacguZVfu/AV+cwpX701sdjJrMyKjcv8uhFLM/E5gf6kSUAFxBVwe6pNDmAgmbS c0fAFrZjgXxNxxndpu/8OAUDVzKg+l5WJ0nWss9Q14BwA+FcoclO3lwzFu7jOiLvkm7jQkFB o+p8Owe4iAED1KK/aocIa/RiD4sZ3KXUJ92kkemZ1Qe2XpFVdzxaQDG0huNkc5Mie9rdt62O Ae+5cYdPeWmBVn+pFNs5H09kQQbVR5pUxe2Aps7AzQRgptqcAQwAzzougHNMFr/O/L8HnNJW 1YyOuX0PEVNUXQPwkxKuD8bAXsPr4Hv1a+840ByesiJSadhQgVSMruRqoQC5tTkbEWkqlfDW waNAdqCJOXl2T6gtK7RpcHNx7+/du/gCAhHOXqH1Qfs0Zi3YEbR/kQFRP3wD4GiCvHSny8zJ X9plIHqQGoE5DePNAtE2KimbFMsjguqJgq5x0tMf3qEaMNd0IGTStGpcC49iss71slotH091 Y1Yo9CpzL6rj8IP0BfssEujAvf3Gbf1oi92JRE3s2humFDfPvSlHmRIfWPQ4qFOw1zmlzsV1 eg83gErKbjaDdkbwQA85RTmMVKNVvonM80WB6jAg8tlJ5VlYlpbzASpJRNj+FL1LLBQxCbPU eFwrzqYgNvtdKR7j5nTgdndCxq+2aws/aAjdL10S8yeH7ZOpNPzjDJfMSt/L1O25zPUhXdQC 9AZNYsfyV7rf+POEgVpIEth1fT9WbmS0rZxRd/+y628n31GicbA+teN890vdABEBAAHCwPYE GAEIACAWIQRku8yfm+a9MCUUQgt0bMMiQDuOUAUCYKbanQIbDAAKCRB0bMMiQDuOUF1LC/4q 4pLtmDt6TIET2H7zGj5ie3ng7kC7YqtFPYwgLQzs9WeqQ/5WowEmHOPonBcqhGbtDj22GebQ 7w0RoUHb+aXsbC85I/C+nWgT1ZcfMBTHGlBcIQvOCNG18g87Ha9jgD0HnW4bRUkZmGMpP0Yd TLM+PBNu41AK6z82VPQrfTuPKqwAAS2FK/RpF2xB7rjpETzIPl9Dj9EAkRbviURIg0BQkmej l02FLzGmlTfBIDHBdEgzvD71Z5H9BP8DAbxBzonSTzx/KZyv7njSUzdVLW+5O/WzPgb4Qt4I jQd66LS9HWS1G7AcLjiSQAIf8v7JkX3NwtN+NGX5cmt2p0e9FOOKWXVgCIgPN3/712EEGAgq UUxuPEBD5DrRCgjZL40eHxQza2BAhoVoWopUCGZdCCZJP3iF7818wIph0U393DELG9NAGLJa qkoA8KBimXp9Rd2QvpA864JRy/REoEOEF9lm3clriLyEqaL/VMIQRhl/VSkUuez4Wr68eHus TFdwePg= In-Reply-To: <9B1B6C78-8200-4875-9F37-6688B3AE42B6@comcast.com> Subject: Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:27:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------NYKTMcITGUP7MVxQYEKkj0Kp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Interesting!   I noticed that participants are limited to receive-only, with only one able to speak at any time.  From the guide: "The general expectation is that participants will send audio or video /only/ when recognized by a session chair as part of the queue." That seems rather different from a virtual meeting in which hearty discussions, arguments, interruptions, whispered side-discussions, and such could approximate an in-person meeting.  It seems more like an audience watching a series of remote presentations than a forum for discussions and debates, hallway encounters, and such. If that's a "remote experience as good as possible", what are the limiting factor(s) preventing a richer form of interactions?    Is it IETF policy, unwritten software, inadequate network performance, or ??? Are there any measurements taken?   Do the remote participants feel that they can participate as well as if they were onsite?   Does the experience vary depending on how remote you are from the meeting venue?  How does the network bandwidth and delay behave during meetings? Jack Haverty On 11/14/23 12:52, Livingood, Jason wrote: > > > And IIRC during covid, didn't the IETF do online only meetings? > > Yes, we did! The IETF pivoted in March 2020 to fully virtual with 701 > remote attendees. That continued for 2 years until March 2022 when we > started having in-person again – and since that time they have been > hybrid (and will continue to be so). The IETF also invested quite a > lot in online meeting tools > > & supporting systems to try to make the remote experience as good as > possible. > > IETF 118 > > November 04-10, 2023, Prague, Czech Republic & Online > > 1067 onsite attendees > > 739 remote attendees > > IETF 117 > > July 22-28, 2023, San Francisco, California & Online > > 890 onsite attendees > > 544 remote attendees > > IETF 116 > > March 25-31, 2023, Yokohama, Japan & Online > > 993 onsite attendees > > 594 remote attendees > > IETF 115 > > November 5-11, 2022, London, UK & Online > > 849 onsite attendees > > 667 remote attendees > > IETF 114 > > July 23-29, 2022, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania & Online > > 618 onsite attendees > > 675 remote attendees > > IETF 113 > > March 19-25, 2022, Vienna, Austria & Online > > 314 onsite attendees > > 976 remote attendees > > IETF 112 > > November 08-12, 2021, Online > > 1177 remote attendees > > IETF 111 > > July 26-30, 2021, Online > > 1206 remote attendees > > IETF 110 > > March 8-12, 2021, Online > > 1177 remote attendees > > IETF 109 > > November 16-20, 2020, Online > > 1061 remote attendees > > IETF 108 > > July 27-31, 2020, Online > > 1102 remote attendees > > IETF 107 > > March 23-27, 2020, Virtual > > 701 remote attendees > > //end// > --------------NYKTMcITGUP7MVxQYEKkj0Kp Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Interesting!   I noticed that participants are limited to receive-only, with only one able to speak at any time.  From the guide:

"The general expectation is that participants will send audio or video only when recognized by a session chair as part of the queue."

That seems rather different from a virtual meeting in which hearty discussions, arguments, interruptions, whispered side-discussions, and such could approximate an in-person meeting.  It seems more like an audience watching a series of remote presentations than a forum for discussions and debates, hallway encounters, and such. 

If that's a "remote experience as good as possible", what are the limiting factor(s) preventing a richer form of interactions?    Is it IETF policy, unwritten software, inadequate network performance, or ???

Are there any measurements taken?   Do the remote participants feel that they can participate as well as if they were onsite?   Does the experience vary depending on how remote you are from the meeting venue?  How does the network bandwidth and delay behave during meetings?

Jack Haverty


On 11/14/23 12:52, Livingood, Jason wrote:

> And IIRC during covid, didn't the IETF do online only meetings?

Yes, we did! The IETF pivoted in March 2020 to fully virtual with 701 remote attendees. That continued for 2 years until March 2022 when we started having in-person again – and since that time they have been hybrid (and will continue to be so). The IETF also invested quite a lot in online meeting tools & supporting systems to try to make the remote experience as good as possible.  

 

IETF 118

November 04-10, 2023, Prague, Czech Republic & Online

1067 onsite attendees

739 remote attendees

 

IETF 117

July 22-28, 2023, San Francisco, California & Online

890 onsite attendees

544 remote attendees

 

IETF 116

March 25-31, 2023, Yokohama, Japan & Online

993 onsite attendees

594 remote attendees

 

IETF 115

November 5-11, 2022, London, UK & Online

849 onsite attendees

667 remote attendees

 

IETF 114

July 23-29, 2022, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania & Online

618 onsite attendees

675 remote attendees

 

IETF 113

March 19-25, 2022, Vienna, Austria & Online

314 onsite attendees

976 remote attendees

 

IETF 112

November 08-12, 2021, Online

1177 remote attendees

 

IETF 111

July 26-30, 2021, Online

1206 remote attendees

 

IETF 110

March 8-12, 2021, Online

1177 remote attendees

 

IETF 109

November 16-20, 2020, Online

1061 remote attendees

 

IETF 108

July 27-31, 2020, Online

1102 remote attendees

 

IETF 107

March 23-27, 2020, Virtual

701 remote attendees

 

//end//


--------------NYKTMcITGUP7MVxQYEKkj0Kp--