RE: [LinkSec] Bridge Details
Dan -
That is not all we are arguing about. It has long been 802's practice not
to allow recording/broadcasting of 802 meetings - there are obvious
sensitivities in situations where the technology makes it possible for
anyone not in the room to use/abuse such material for their own purposes
(press releases, quoting out of context,...etc). There are also a number of
issues around voting rights, who pays, etc. etc.
This is NOT just a cost/technology issue.
Regards,
Tony
At 17:44 13/01/2003 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>I'm biting :-)
>
>FWIW, here is what IETF is doing - it enables remote participation to its
>meetings for almost ten years. IP multicast is used for this purpose,
>providing live video distribution over the Internet of what is going on in
>the meeting room. Lately, a chat-like technology is being used to allow
>easier contact and free off-line discussion of remote or even in-room
>participants - with one in-room participant acting as mediator between the
>chat and the room.
>
>On the minus side - this technology requires some Internet competency to
>use. IETF does not lack this, and the sponsoring organization takes
>usually care of networking the event. It also comes at a price. The IETF
>meeting registration fees are higher than the IEEE registration fees and
>enhanced connectivity capabilities may be part of the cost tag.
>
>However, it is my believe that 802 needs to change rules, and adapt to the
>current environment, characterized by travel restrictions and increased
>technological capability of remote participation. After all, probably
>nobody disputes the fact that in 20 or 50 years from now such meetings
>will be virtual, we are just arguing about the timeframe :-)
>
>Dan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dolors Sala [mailto:dolors@ieee.org]
> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:52 PM
> > To: stds-802-linksec@ieee.org; Russ Housley
> > Subject: Re: [LinkSec] Bridge Details
> >
> >
> >
> > Russ and all,
> >
> > This was an initiative decided last minute and we did not
> > have time to solve
> > all logistics to get a good quality set up. We need to see if
> > this is needed
> > in the future. Next meeting is a plenary meeting therefore it
> > should not be
> > needed.
> >
> > In addition to the logistics there are some procedures that need to be
> > addressed before this can be applied in a regular basis. The
> > IEEE802 rules
> > does not contemplate remote access to meetings. Therefore,
> > there is a need
> > to define rules for remote participation. 802 executive
> > members want these
> > issues to be addressed first. The main issue I heart is the
> > voting rights of
> > people calling in. There is also the opinion that meetings
> > are organized to
> > have face-to-face interaction. However, we have participants
> > from several
> > WGs and we do not collocate.
> >
> > It is quite an effort to make this available and hence I
> > would like to get
> > some feedback from the group on how useful this can be to increase
> > participation, and hear additional suggestions that may help too.
> >
> > Please comment,
> >
> > Dolors
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
> > To: <stds-802-linksec@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LinkSec] Bridge Details
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I called in. The speaker phone at the meeting is not very
> > effective. It
> > > cut in and out several time per second. As a result, I
> > could not catch a
> > > single word. I gave up....
> > >
> > > Russ
> > >
> > > At 06:20 PM 1/9/2003 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > >
> > > >On behalf of Dolors Sala:
> > > >
> > > >We will start the Link Security SG meeting in a few
> > minutes. For those
> > > >connecting remotely, the usual bridge details apply:
> > > >
> > > >1-877-237-7156 or +1-908-991-0191
> > > >
> > > >Participant code: 826435
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Regards,
Tony