[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08                                    
Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                            VPN Consortium
Intended status: Informational                           August 16, 2012
Expires: February 17, 2013

      Requirements for Remote Participation Services for the IETF


   The IETF has provided some tools for remote participation in its
   activities for many years, and some IETF participants have also used
   their own tools when they felt the need arise.  The IETF now wishes
   to support enhanced remote participation that is as seamless as
   possible, improving the experience for the remote attendee at the
   IETF regular meetings and interim meetings without degrading the
   experience for the people that are physically present.  Before
   deploying the new tools and services needed for this enhanced remote
   participation, the requirements for such tools and services, and the
   impacts they will make on the current procedures and infrastructure,
   must be defined.  This document is meant to be that definition.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Goals for an Improved RPS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  About This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Requirements for Supporting Remote Participation in
       Regular IETF Meetings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Registration for Remote Participation  . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.2.  Instant Messaging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.3.  Audio  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.3.1.  Audio to Remote Attendees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.3.2.  IM-to-Mic Relay of Comments from Remote Attendees  . . 10
       2.3.3.  Audio for Presentations from Remote Attendees  . . . . 11
       2.3.4.  Audio from Remote Attendees to the Room for
               Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.4.  Video  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.4.1.  Video from the Room to Remote Attendees  . . . . . . . 13
       2.4.2.  Video from Remote Attendees to the Room  . . . . . . . 14
     2.5.  Slide Presentations and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     2.6.  Shared Text Document Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     2.7.  Archiving  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.8.  Polling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.9.  Plenaries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     2.10. Use by IETF Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     2.11. Preparation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       2.11.1. Preparation for WG Chairs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       2.11.2. Preparation for Remote Attendees . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   3.  Requirements for Supporting Remote Participation in
       Interim Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Appendix A.  Background on IETF Remote Participation . . . . . . . 21
     A.1.  How the IETF Meets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     A.2.  Technologies Currently Used at Regular IETF Meetings . . . 23
     A.3.  Locating the Meeting Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       A.3.1.  Audio  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       A.3.2.  Instant Messaging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       A.3.3.  Slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     A.4.  Remote Participation at IETF Meetings  . . . . . . . . . . 25
       A.4.1.  Remotely Speaking at the Mic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       A.4.2.  Remotely Presenting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       A.4.3.  Floor Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     A.5.  Remote Participation at IETF Interim WG Meetings . . . . . 29
       A.5.1.  Face-to-Face Interim Meetings  . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       A.5.2.  Virtual Interim Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

1.  Introduction

   There are two types of participants at the three-times-a-year IETF
   meetings: the people who are physically at the meeting ("local
   attendees") and people that are not physically at the meeting but are
   following the meeting online ("remote attendees").  For more than a
   decade, the IETF has tried to make it easier for remote attendees to
   participate in its face-to-face meetings in a meaningful fashion by
   employing various tools.

   At the same time, many IETF Working Groups (WGs) have started to have
   interim meetings that are scheduled between the regular IETF
   meetings; these are briefly described in [RFC2418].  Some of these
   interim meetings are face-to-face meetings with remote attendees,
   while other interim meetings only take place over the Internet or on
   the phone; the latter type of meeting is often called a "virtual
   interim".  There are also interim meetings that do not support remote

   The IETF's current remote participation system ("RPS") for the
   official three-times-a-year meetings ("regular IETF meetings")
   consists of a real-time audio stream carried to remote attendees over
   HTTP, textual instant messaging (IM) carried over Jabber, and slides
   distributed on the IETF web site.  Two tools that are experimentally
   supported, WebEx and Meetecho, are used to sync the audio and slides
   during the meeting, and also replay them in the proceedings.  Some
   WGs also employ ad-hoc tools such as Skype.  For interim WG meetings,
   the IETF provides access to WebEx.  The IETF's leadership regularly
   uses telephone, Jabber, and WebEx for the many meetings that happen
   between the IETF meetings.  Many meetings use a mixture of tools,
   with each tool providing only part of the overall desired
   functionality.  A more detailed description of the current IETF RPS
   can be found in Appendix A.

1.1.  Goals for an Improved RPS

   The IETF wants to improve the tools provided in the RPS for many

   o  A better RPS would allow current remote IETF attendees to
      participate in regular IETF meetings more effectively, and would
      also allow more people to become remote IETF attendees.  This in
      turn would hopefully lead to better WG outcomes.  There are many
      people who are active in many WGs who rarely or never come to IETF
      meetings; good RPS tools could allow some of these people to
      contribute better during meetings.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   o  The improved RPS tools would also be used outside IETF meetings.
      They would be available to WGs for interim meetings, both to allow
      remote participation in face-to-face interims as well as to
      facilitate virtual interims where none of the attendees are in the
      same location.

   o  The plenary sessions of IETF meetings currently only allow remote
      attendees to hear the speakers and read a real-time transcript.
      Improved RPS tools would allow remote attendees to see the
      speakers, to see the slides synchronized with the audio, and be
      able to comment at the mics like people in the room.

   o  The IETF leadership (the IAB, IESG, IAOC, and probably others)
      could use the new tools to help make their own meetings more

   o  There is a desire to better capture the contributions to the IETF
      (as defined in [BCP78]) of remote attendees in the official record
      of regular IETF and interim meetings.

   The are many IETF-related activities that can be aided by remote
   participation tools.  The scenarios in which the RPS described in
   this document is expected to be used are WG sessions at regular IETF
   meetings, plenaries at regular IETF meetings, AD-sponsored lunch
   meetings at regular IETF meetings, face-to-face interim WG meetings,
   and IETF leadership meetings.

1.2.  About This Document

   The purpose of this document is to develop the requirements for the
   IETF's RPS that enables enhanced remote participation in meeting
   sessions.  The RPS described in this document might augment and/or
   replace the current set of IETF RPS tools.  The intention is to
   improve as much as possible of the experience of remote attendees in
   meetings while not having a significant negative effect on the
   experiences of local attendees and WG chairs.

   This document specifies a set of requirements based on the community
   desires at the time that this document is written.  It is expected
   that the desires of the community will shift after the RPS described
   here is deployed and as remote participation tools evolve.  The
   requirements here are for the RPS to be deployed in the near term;
   later, as the requirements change, additions and changes will
   certainly be made to the RPS.  This document is definitely not meant
   to limit experimentation with participation ideas after deployment of
   the RPS described here.

   This document differentiates between requirements that have higher

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   and lower priorities.  Higher-priority requirements are intended to
   be delivered as soon as possible, but lower-priority requirements
   might be delivered later.  For example, a high-priority requirement
   might be "remote attendees must be able to know which slide is being
   discussed" and a related, lower-priority requirement might be "remote
   attendees must be able to see the speaker pointing to the slide with
   a laser pointer".  The eventual tools will be rolled out based on the
   priorities, making it likely that the community will learn more about
   additional requirements for lower priority items before they are

   Note that some of the requirements in this document for particular
   functionality may not be desired by all WG chairs.  Different WG
   chairs prefer to use different tools, and that will be true when the
   additional tools described in this document are deployed.  The use of
   some tools is currently required by the IETF procedures, such as the
   audio recordings that are put in the proceedings.  This document does
   not mandate the use of any particular tool by a WG, but such a
   requirement might be made by others, such as an Area Director
   requiring the use of a particular tool by one or more WGs in their

   This document is being produced at the request of the IAOC.  The
   request for proposals that led to this document can be found at
   [RPS-RFP].  This document does not specify specific technologies or
   instantiations of tools.  Instead, it is meant to be used as a guide
   for the IAOC to later contract the development and deployment of the
   tools described here.  It is expected that the IAOC will consider
   changes and additions to the RPS periodically after the RPS described
   here is deployed.

   Requirements in this document are numbered, such as "**Requirement

   The requirements covered in this document apply almost exclusively to
   tools and services that are used for remote participation in real-
   time meetings.  The document does not cover the many other tools used
   by WGs for non-real-time communication such as mailing lists, issue
   trackers, document flow control systems, and so on.  Many of the non-
   real-time tools are also being improved over time, but they are not
   the subject of this document.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   This document is being discussed on the vmeet@ietf.org mailing list.
   See <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet> for more

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012


2.  Requirements for Supporting Remote Participation in Regular IETF

   This section covers the requirements for effective remote
   participation in meetings where most members are in regular IETF
   face-to-face meetings.  Some of the requirements in this section
   overlap with those in Section 3, but many are unique to meetings that
   have a large number of attendees physically present.

   **Requirement 06-01**: The specifications in the RPS SHOULD rely upon
   IETF and other open standards for all communications and interactions
   wherever possible.  The RPS might not rely on IETF or other open
   standards if there is an identified gap that cannot be met by those

   **Requirement 06-02**: All tools in the RPS MUST be able to use both
   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses natively.

   **Requirement 06-03**: All tools in the RPS SHOULD be able to be run
   on the widest possible array of computers.  The tools may be stand-
   alone applications, may be run from a modern web browser, or from the
   command line.  The highest priority is that the tool need to be
   available on all of (at least) MacOS version 10.6 or later, Windows 7
   or later, and any common Linux distribution produced in 2010 or
   later.  A lower priority is that the tools be able to run on IOS and
   Android platforms.  The tools MUST NOT rely on Adobe Flash to work

   **Requirement 06-04**: Audio, video, instant messaging, and slide
   streams going to and from remote attendees SHOULD be delivered in as
   close to real-time as is practically possible.  The system MUST
   minimize internal latency, should avoid unnecessary architectural
   latency, and be designed with a goal of having less than 200
   milliseconds of delay to registered remote attendees who are on fast
   Internet connections.  A common complaint with the current RPS is
   that the streaming audio can take more than 10 seconds (and sometimes
   as much as 30 seconds) to reach the remote attendee.  This causes
   many of the problems listed in Appendix A.4.1.

   **Requirement 06-05**: The outgoing audio, video, and slide streams
   MUST by synchronized so the remote attendee does not get confused
   during slide presentations.

   **Requirement 06-06**: Many attendees will be in places with limited
   bandwidth.  Remote attendees on 56Kbps Internet connections SHOULD be

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   able to receive useable versions of streaming information.  The
   system SHOULD take advantage of higher bandwidth audio and video
   encodings for participants on higher bandwidth connections.  The
   system MUST NOT architecturally prevent other users from selecting
   higher bandwidth encodings.

   **Requirement 06-07**: Both local and remote attendees SHOULD be able
   to easily contact a single entity who is available throughout the
   meeting if they find problems with any of the RPS tools, and to get
   fairly rapid response.  This entity needs to be able to handle as RPS
   tool problems in the meeting rooms, or be able to quickly contact
   someone who can address those problems.

   **Requirement 06-08**: Any tools that are used by remote attendees
   MUST also be available to local attendees as well.  At many IETF
   meetings, some local attendees act as remote attendees in WG meetings
   that they are not sitting in, so they can attend two WGs at once.

   **Requirement 06-09**: The deployment of the tools here MUST take
   into account making the tools accessible to as many IETF attendees as
   possible.  Such deployment is likely to include technical
   accommodations for those with visual and hearing disabilities.

2.1.  Registration for Remote Participation

   Remote attendees who make contributions to the IETF (as defined in
   [BCP78]) are bound by the "Note Well" text.  By allowing registration
   before participating remotely, remote attendees can be better alerted
   to, and thus bound to, the requirements of contributors.  This is
   particularly important because it is easy in the IETF process to
   change from being an observer to being a contributor.  For example,
   many people who say things in a WG's IM room do not realize that they
   are bound by the "Note Well" text.

   **Requirement 06-10**: All remote attendees at regular IETF meetings
   and interim meetings who make contributions MUST register with the
   IETF Secretariat before contributing using any of the RPS tools.

   **Requirement 06-11**: Remote attendees who will only be listening
   and/or watching, but not making contributions, MUST NOT be required
   to register.

   **Requirement 06-12**: The RPS MUST be able to tell which
   participants are registered and which are not.  This is to allow
   different levels of service to registered users.

   **Requirement 06-13**: Registration for remote attendees SHOULD be no
   more onerous than joining a WG mail list.  Basically, the registrant

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   should acknowledge the Note Well, prove that they are at the given
   email address, and receive confirmation that they are registered.
   The confirmation will also include any passwords needed for the RPS

   **Requirement 06-14**: The RPS tools (particularly the registration
   tool) MUST gracefully handle multiple attendees who have the same

   Note that some unregistered remote attendees might expect to be able
   to participate but be prevented from doing so by the RPS.  The IETF
   page for each meeting (particularly the agenda pages) can make this
   clearer to help remote attendees plan better for participation.

   The cost for remote attendees to register, if any, is not covered in
   this document but will instead be determined by the IETF at a later
   time.  There are many ideas on the subject (tiered costs for
   different services, no cost at all for the first year, and others),
   but the effects of different cost structures is beyond the scope of
   this document.

2.2.  Instant Messaging

   Instant messaging (IM) is used both as a remote participation tool
   and as a communication tool for local attendees at a regular meeting.
   Although the current tool's Jabber room is a good way to get
   questions to the mic, it also becomes a second communications channel
   that only a few people in the room are participating in.  The instant
   messaging system is also useful for remote users to ask about the
   status of the room ("is anyone there?").

   **Requirement 06-15**: The IM system MUST allow anyone to see all
   messages in the WG's or BoF's room.

   **Requirement 06-16**: The IM system MUST allow any registered user
   to post messages in the WG's or BoF's room.

   **Requirement 06-17**: The date and time that a message appears in an
   IM stream MUST be retained.  IM clients MUST be able to show an
   indication of the date and time for all messages.  Someone coming
   into a meeting late requires context for which messages in an instant
   messaging room are recent and which are old.

2.3.  Audio

   Audio from face-to-face meetings travels in two directions: from the
   room to remote attendees, and (potentially) from remote attendees to
   the room.  Comments on early drafts of this document indicated that

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   the latter may not really be a requirement for all attendees if IM-
   to-mic is made predictable.  Given this, reliable IM-to-mic relay for
   comments to speakers is highest priority, audio from remote attendees
   giving presentations is a second priority, and audio from remote
   attendees giving comments to the room is a third priority.

2.3.1.  Audio to Remote Attendees

   **Requirement 06-18**: Remote attendees MUST be able to hear what is
   said by local attendees and chairs at any mic in the meeting.

   **Requirement 06-19**: Remote attendees SHOULD be able to hear the
   audio stream over the PSTN.

2.3.2.  IM-to-Mic Relay of Comments from Remote Attendees

   As described in Appendix A.4.1, the current tools support an informal
   method for remote attendees to speak at the mic: in the Jabber room,
   they enter the string "mic:" before their comment and hope that the
   designated scribe or someone else goes to the mic to relay the
   comment.  This method works, but the current implementation has
   significant flaws described in that section.

   **Requirement 06-20**: The RPS MUST enable relay of messages from IM
   to the mic to be able to happen as quickly as if the remote attendee
   was local.

   **Requirement 06-21**: The person relaying from IM to the mic must be
   available throughout the WG meeting.  To date, this has been done by
   WG volunteers in the room.  In the future, it could be done the same
   way, or maybe could be facilitated by hiring people to attend
   meetings for the specific purpose of being IM-to-mic scribes, or
   maybe could be done with tools that allow copy-and-paste of text from
   IM to a speech synthesizer that reads it to the room.

   **Requirement 06-22**: If multiple remote attendees want to comment
   at the same time, the person relaying from IM to the mic MUST be able
   to relay for all of them.

   Note: during the development of this document, there have been many
   suggestions for how WG chairs can better manage the IM-to-mic
   relaying (for example, with planned pauses, better tracking of the IM
   room, and so on).  Because these are actually about improving WG
   chairs, not the RPS tools, they are out of scope for this document.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

2.3.3.  Audio for Presentations from Remote Attendees

   In order for a remote attendee to be a presenter, their voice needs
   to be heard in the meeting room.  This functionality is different
   than allowing remote attendees from giving comments (covered in
   Section 2.3.4) in that the the WG chair needs much less floor control
   for one speaker than for many.

   **Requirement 06-23**: A remote attendee giving a presentation MUST
   be able to have their speaking be heard by all local and remote

   **Requirement 06-24**: A WG chair MUST be able to control the sound
   coming from any particular remote attendee.  This control MUST allow
   reduction in volume, all the way to complete muting, of the remote

   **Requirement 06-25**: Audible echo in the audio stream MUST be
   damped and/or eliminated by the tools.  The RPS MUST recognize
   audible echo and automatically take measures to reduce it to a level
   which won't distract listeners.

   **Requirement 06-26**: The audio system used by the RPS MUST be able
   to integrate with systems commonly used in the venues used for IETF
   meetings.  These venue systems typically include line-level audio
   outputs from mixers that combine all the mic inputs into a single
   stream.  Some venue systems also allow for headphone level inputs
   from PCs to be mixed into the audio stream.

2.3.4.  Audio from Remote Attendees to the Room for Comments

   Note that the requirements here assume a very large change in the way
   that remote participation will happen.  Instead of a remote attendee
   typing something into the Jabber room that someone will repeat at a
   mic in the room, remote attendees will use their own mics to speak to
   the meeting.  Some of the requirements from Section 2.3.3 will apply
   here as well.

   Further note that, as per above, audio from remote attendees is a
   secondary priority.  That means that the "MUST" requirements in this
   section are for when the priority is being met, not for when the RPS
   is initially rolled out.

   **Requirement 06-27**: Remote attendees MUST be able to speak
   directly to a meeting without going through a local attendee, and
   have their speaking be heard by local attendees.  (Note that the
   ability to speak is controlled by the chair; see Section

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   **Requirement 06-28**: Local attendees MUST be able to determine
   which remote attendee is speaking.

   **Requirement 06-29**: When a remote attendee connects to the audio
   stream to the room, their mic SHOULD start off muted.  This will
   prevent problems such as those common with WebEx where a remote
   attendee doesn't realize that they can be heard.

   **Requirement 06-30**: A lower-priority requirement is for remote
   attendees to be able to speak to the room by originating from the
   PSTN.  Floor Control for Chairs for Audio from Remote Attendees

   It is not yet clear how the set of remote attendees would be treated
   for queueing.  Some tools have each remote attendee being considered
   separately, while others pool all remote attendees into one group.
   This affects the chair knowing and being able to act on the order
   that remote attendees ask to speak.

   Note that, if the remote video to room requirements from
   Section 2.4.2 need to be met, it is very likely that a related
   requirement to those below is that "the audio and video floor
   controls must be in the same tool".

   **Requirement 06-31**: Remote attendees MUST have an easy and
   standardized way of requesting the attention of the chair when the
   remote attendee wants to speak.  The remote attendee MUST also be
   able to easily cancel an attention request.

   **Requirement 06-32**: The RPS MUST allow a remote attendee's request
   for attention to include an optional short (20 characters or less)
   arbitrary text string.  A remote attendee might want to indicate that
   they are asking a question of the presenter, or answering a question
   that someone else asked at the mic, or want to bring up a new topic.
   It is not acceptable to simply rely on humans reading instant
   messages to allow remote participants to make the request for

   **Requirement 06-33**: The floor control portion of the RPS MUST give
   a remote attendee who is allowed to speak a clear signal when they
   should and should not speak.

   **Requirement 06-34**: The chair MUST be able to see all requests
   from remote attendees to speak at any time during the entire meeting
   (not just during presentations) in the floor control system.

   **Requirement 06-35**: The floor control system MUST allow a chair to

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   easily mute all remote attendees.

   **Requirement 06-36**: The floor control system MUST allow a chair to
   easily allow all remote attendees to speak without requesting
   permission; that is, the chair SHOULD be able to easily turn on all
   remote attendees mics at once.

   **Requirement 06-37**: The floor control system for the chair MUST be
   able to be run by at least two users at the same time.  It is common
   for a chair to leave the room, to have a side discussion with an AD,
   or to become a presenter.  They should be able to do so without
   having to do a handoff of the floor control capability.

   **Requirement 06-38**: The RPS MUST authenticate users who can use
   the floor control system in a particular meeting using simple
   passwords; other forms of authentication may be used as well.

   **Requirement 06-39**: The IETF Secretariat MUST be able to easily
   set up the individuals allowed to use the floor control system for a
   particular meeting and to change the settings at any time, including
   during the meeting.

   **Requirement 06-40**: The chair SHOULD be able to monitor the sound
   levels of the audio being delivered to remote attendees to be sure
   that they can hear what is going on in the room.

2.4.  Video

   The IETF has experimented with one-way and two-way video at some
   meetings in the past few years.  Remote attendees have said that
   seeing people in the meetings gave them a better understanding of the
   meeting; at a recent meeting, a remote presenter was able to see the
   people in line at the mic and was better able to interact with them.
   The requirements for video from remote attendees to meeting rooms
   parallel the requirements for audio from remote attendees to meeting
   rooms.  The IETF video may need to integrate with the video systems
   at some meeting venues.

2.4.1.  Video from the Room to Remote Attendees

   **Requirement 06-41**: Remote attendees MUST be able to see the
   presenter at a meeting.  A lower-priority requirement is that remote
   attendees SHOULD be able to see who is speaking at the mics in the

   **Requirement 06-42**: Remote attendees MUST be able to see local
   attendees at any mic in the meeting.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

2.4.2.  Video from Remote Attendees to the Room

   Note that the requirements in this section have the same priorities
   as for audio for remote presentations (Section 2.3.3) and audio from
   remote attendees to the room for comments (Section 2.3.4).

   **Requirement 06-43**: When video is allowed for remote attendees to
   give presentations (as described in Section 2.3.3), the audience in
   the room SHOULD be able to see the presenter speaking.

   **Requirement 06-44**: When video is allowed for remote attendees for
   comments, the floor management tool for audio (as described in
   Section MUST also control video as well.

   **Requirement 06-45**: The RPS MUST have the capability of showing
   video of the remote attendee who is speaking over the audio to the
   local attendees.

   **Requirement 06-46**: A remote attendee who is speaking MUST be able
   to choose what is shown to local attendees: video of them speaking, a
   still picture of their face or avatar, or just their name.

   **Requirement 06-47**: The RPS MUST give a remote attendee a clear
   indication when their video image or selected image is being shown to
   the local attendees.

2.5.  Slide Presentations and Distribution

   This section discusses slide presentations, which are the primary
   form of presentations made in WG meetings.  It should be noted that
   are occasionally other types of presentations, such as videos; these
   are not dealt with in the tools proposed below.

   **Requirement 06-48**: The RPS MUST be able to handle both PDF and
   PowerPoint formats (".ppt" and ".pptx") for distributed slides.

   **Requirement 06-49**: The RPS MUST automatically convert PowerPoint
   presentations to PDF and make both available for distribution at the
   same time.

   **Requirement 06-50**: Presenters MUST be able to update their slides
   on the IETF site up to just before their presentation, if such update
   is allowed by the WG chairs.

   **Requirement 06-51**: Chairs MUST be able to approve or disapprove
   of any slide submission or updates, with the default being that all
   submissions are allowed.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   In many current remote participation systems, slide presentations and
   the video coming from in-meeting cameras are sent as two separate
   streams (called the "slide stream" and the "camera stream").  The
   slide stream is usually much lower bandwidth than the camera stream,
   so remote attendees with limited bandwidth can choose to watch just
   the slide stream.  Separating the streams allows remote attendees to
   see the slide stream and the camera streams in separate windows that
   can be independently sized.

   **Requirement 06-52**: The RPS MUST transmit the slide stream
   separately from the camera stream.

   **Requirement 06-53**: The slide stream MUST represent the slides as
   they are projected in the room, allowing the presenter to go back and
   forth, as well as to edit slides in real time.  This makes it clear
   to the remote attendees which set of slides, and which slide number,
   is being currently shown.

   **Requirement 06-54**: When remote presentations are supported (see
   Section 2.3.3), the remote presenter SHOULD be able to control the
   slides.  This is a lower-priority requirement because this could be
   easily done by a local attendee listening to the remote presenter.

2.6.  Shared Text Document Editing

   In some WG meetings, there is an attempt to edit a text document with
   input from the local attendees.  This is typically done for proposed
   charter changes, but sometimes happens on a WG document or the
   meeting's agenda.  This is usually unsuccessful, given the amount of
   text and the size of what can be displayed on the screen.  In recent
   meetings, shared text document editing has been used for editing
   charters and for taking minutes of meetings.

   An RPS tool for shared text document editing would be equally useful
   for local and remote attendees watching the edits happen in real-
   time.  There is a good chance that this tool would be watched by
   local attendees on their laptops instead of being projected on the
   screen because of the small size of the the text.  This, in turn,
   means that local attendees who aren't using their laptops at the
   moment would not be able to participate by watching.

   **Requirement 06-55**: Shared real-time editing of text documents
   MUST be supported.  This system must allow at least three people to
   have write access and hundreds of people to have read access to any
   particular document.

   **Requirement 06-56**: It MUST be easy to start a new text shared
   document and to import existing text into a shared document.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   **Requirement 06-57**: Remote attendees MUST be able to be either the
   writers or the readers of shared documents.

   **Requirement 06-58**: Those with read access MUST be able to see the
   edits made by those with write access within less that five seconds
   after each edit.

   **Requirement 06-59**: It MUST be easy to change the permissions for
   who gets write access to a document during an editing session.

   **Requirement 06-60**: A much-lower priority requirement is the
   ability for group-editing of graphics.

2.7.  Archiving

   Archived recordings of the events of the meetings are valuable for
   remote attendees who are not able to hear everything in real time.

   **Requirement 06-61**: The RPS MUST support storage and distribution
   of recordings of the audio, video, and slide presentations for all WG

   **Requirement 06-62**: Transcripts of the instant messaging for all
   meetings MUST be kept for distribution after IETF meetings.

   **Requirement 06-63**: The recordings and transcripts SHOULD be made
   available during the meetings, within a day of them being made.

   **Requirement 06-64**: Users MUST be able to easily find the archives
   of the recordings and instant messaging transcripts of a particular
   WG or BoF session at a particular meeting.

   **Requirement 06-65**: The RPS SHOULD support indexing of archived
   audio and video for particular events in meetings such as when
   speakers change.

   **Requirement 06-66**: The RPS MUST support recording and storage of
   recordings of the audio, video, and slide presentations of interim
   meetings as well as regular IETF meetings.

   **Requirement 06-67**: Given that interim meetings are often run
   without the help of the IETF Secretariat, making these recordings
   MUST be easy for WG chairs.

2.8.  Polling

   The common IETF method of assessing support is a straw poll,
   sometimes managed by audible humming, sometimes by raising hands.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   **Requirement 06-68**: A system for yes/no/abstain polling meeting
   attendees, including remote attendees at the same time, MUST be
   provided.  It MUST be easy to set up a simple poll, and it must be
   easy for all local and remote attendees to find the poll and
   participate.  Note that this would add a requirement that everyone in
   a meeting be using their computer to participate in the poll.

2.9.  Plenaries

   **Requirement 06-69**: Remote attendees SHOULD be able to make
   comments at the mic approximately as well as if they were local
   attendees.  This means that either remote audio to the plenary room
   speakers be available, or that IM-to-room relay be available.

   **Requirement 06-70**: Transmitting real-time transcription of
   plenary speakers to remote attendees MUST be supported.  The lag in
   transmission MUST be less than five seconds.

2.10.  Use by IETF Leadership

   The requirements for bodies like the IESG and IAB to use the RPS
   during regular IETF meetings are similar to those of most WGs.  The
   main difference is that they need a way to limit who can participate

   **Requirement 06-71**: The chair or meeting facilitator MUST be able
   to easily limit remote access of all tools (both for listening/
   observing and contributing) to meetings on a room-by-room basis.

   **Requirement 06-72**: The IETF Secretariat must be able to limit
   attendees in restricted meetings using a simple authentication

   Note that the IETF leadership will also heavily use the remote
   participation tools between IETF meetings in a manner that is very
   similar to virtual interim meetings.

2.11.  Preparation

   Both WG chairs and attendees need to be able to prepare for an IETF
   meeting and individual WG meetings.  The more tools that might be
   used in a meeting, the more important it is that the chairs and
   attendees be able to prepare easily.

2.11.1.  Preparation for WG Chairs

   **Requirement 06-73**: Sessions MUST NOT be associated with physical
   rooms until just before session starts.  This allows a previous

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   session to run over its time into the break period without
   inconveniencing remote users or the archives.

   **Requirement 06-74**: The RPS MUST allow a session to be moved from
   one room to another during the session This is needed because the
   Secretariat sometimes need to swap the rooms for WGs when it becomes
   clear that one is too full and another room has excess space.

   **Requirement 06-75**: WG chairs MUST be able to test whether or not
   the tools for their session are working at least 30 minutes before
   the meeting begins (unless, of course, there is already another
   meeting occurring in the room during that time).  Session testing is
   done before session is associated with a physical room.

   **Requirement 06-76**: There MUST be written operational
   documentation for each RPS tool that is accessible at all times.
   This will help reduce problems where a WG chair is having problems
   during a meeting that is affecting the meeting as a whole.

   **Requirement 06-77**: There SHOULD be training materials for WG
   chairs in how to use the RPS tools.

   **Requirement 06-78**: There SHOULD be a tool that allows a WG chair
   to prepare each tool that will be used in their WG meeting.  Such a
   tool would let the WG chair specify which RPS tools they will use.

   **Requirement 06-79**: There SHOULD be a custom checklist for each WG
   that helps the chair prepare for their meeting.  The checklist would
   enumerate the steps needed before the meeting begins, to start the
   meeting, during the meeting, to close the meeting, and after a

2.11.2.  Preparation for Remote Attendees

   **Requirement 06-80**: Remote attendees MUST be able to easily find
   all the material they need to effectively participate, including
   links to audio, video, instant messaging, slides, and so on.  This
   material MUST be available well before the time of the meeting.  The
   page with the meeting material SHOULD allow the remote attendee to
   easily perform a time conversion to and from the local time at the
   IETF meeting.

   **Requirement 06-81**: There MUST be a constantly-running testing
   service that covers all interactive tools (audio, video, slide
   display, and so on) for at least a week before the meeting begins.
   Remote attendees need to be able to test the remote participation
   setup before a regular meeting, and even during the meeting.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   **Requirement 06-82**: The testing service MUST run throughout the
   meeting so that last-minute joiners can test their systems.

   **Requirement 06-83**: The testing service SHOULD allow remote
   attendees to also test whether their outgoing audio, video, and slide
   control works.

   **Requirement 06-84**: A remote attendee who starts using one or more
   tools after a meeting has begun MUST be able to tell what is
   happening in the meeting.  In specific, there MUST be an indication
   if the meeting has not started, if the meeting is happening (even if
   there is silence on the mics), and if the meeting is over.

3.  Requirements for Supporting Remote Participation in Interim Meetings

   One of the goals of this document is to increase the effectiveness of
   interim meetings.  Interim meetings are now uncommon, but might
   become more common (and more effective) if the remote participation
   becomes more useful.

   The requirements for meetings that are all remote (that is, with no
   local attendees) are mostly a subset of the requirements for remote
   participation in a regular IETF meetings and face-to-face interim

   **Requirement 06-85**: The RPS SHOULD have a central location where
   the specifics about how remote participation is supported for every
   WG interim meeting.  This will reduce the problems often seen where
   messages about how to participate in an interim meeting get buried in
   the WG mailing list.

   **Requirement 06-86**: There SHOULD be documentation and training for
   the RPS tools specifically targeted at WG chairs who will lead
   interim meetings.

   **Requirement 06-87**: The RPS tools MUST be at least partially
   usable at face-to-face meetings other than regular IETF meetings.
   The number of the tools that might be available will be different for
   different venues for the virtual interims, but at a minimum, the
   following MUST be supported for remote attendees:

   o  Registration

   o  Room audio

   o  Instant messaging

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   o  Slide distribution

   o  Slide presentation

   o  Shared document editing

4.  IANA Considerations

   None. [[ ...and thus this section can be removed before publication
   as an RFC... ]]

5.  Security Considerations

   People who participate remotely in face-to-face IETF meetings might
   expect the same level of privacy as they have when they participate
   directly in those meetings.  Some of the proposed tools might cause
   it to be easier to know which WGs a remote attendee was following.
   When RPS tools are deployed, the IETF should describe the privacy
   implications of using such a tool to the users so they can decide
   whether or not to use the tools.

   The eventual RPS tools will have some user authentication that will
   associate people with actions.  For example, a remote user might need
   to authenticate to the system in order to give a presentation or
   speak during a session.  The credentials needed for this
   authentication will need to be managed in a secure fashion, both by
   the system and by the people who are being identified.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Many of the ideas in this document were contributed by members of the
   IETF community based on their experiences during recent IETF
   meetings.  There are also many contributions from people on the
   vmeet@ietf.org mailing list, WG chairs, and attendees in the RPSREQS
   BoF at IETF 83 in Paris.

   Some of the text in this document originated in the request for
   proposals that was issued by the IAOC that led to this document.

7.  Informative References

   [BCP78]    Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide
              to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [RFC6120]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.

   [RFC6121]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
              RFC 6121, March 2011.

   [RPS-RFP]  IAOC, "Request for Proposals for Requirements Development
              for Remote Participation Services", 2011, <http://

Appendix A.  Background on IETF Remote Participation

   The IETF has a long history of using remote participation tools.
   This history causes many IETF participants to have strong opinions
   about what future tools should provide and who should benefit from
   those tools.  The purpose of this section is to describe many of the
   common perceptions of the current tools so that the reader
   understands what might be expected of future tools.

   Users' experience with the current IETF tools vary widely.  Some
   participants think the tools are fine and are grateful that they
   exist.  Other participants find them barely acceptable because they
   have used better tools in other environments.  Often, local attendees
   mostly forget that the remote attendees are participating until one
   gets gets reminded, such as by something said at the mic.  Local
   attendees don't have a feeling for how many remote attendees are just
   listening like most of the local attendees.

   The variety of current experiences can help inform the discussion of
   how to improve the tools.  The experiences described in this appendix
   are derived from the current tools.  It is important to note that
   people who attend IETF meetings often experience the tools quite
   differently than those who participate remotely.

   The IETF has years of experience with the three primary tools used at
   its regular meetings: prepared slides that are distributed before and
   during the meeting, Jabber for IM, and streaming audio.  This section
   discusses some of the reactions of users -- those in the meetings and
   those who have participated remotely -- to the current tools.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   Remote attendees typically participate by asking questions or making
   statements during or after presentations, and they also participate
   in discussions in the instant messaging channel.  Local attendees who
   are using the RPS typically don't participate "remotely": they are
   using the tools to be able to see what is happening in different
   rooms when they need to be two or more places at once.

A.1.  How the IETF Meets

   o  WG sessions at regular IETF meetings -- A typical regular IETF
      meeting has about 150 sessions lasting one to two and one half
      hours each, with up to 8 of those sessions happening at the same
      time.  A session might have between 20 and 200 local attendees in
      the room, and might have only a few or many dozens of remote
      attendees.  WG sessions typically have one to three co-chairs at
      the front of the room and a series of individuals who come to the
      front to present; some presentations are made by small panels.

   o  Plenaries at regular IETF meetings -- There are usually two
      plenaries at a regular IETF meeting, with on-site attendance of
      about 700 local attendees and dozens of remote attendees.  There
      are from 1 to 20 presenters; presentations may be made by multiple

   o  AD-sponsored lunch meetings at regular IETF meetings -- These
      meetings are scheduled by the IETF Secretariat.  Regular IETF
      meetings are more than just a group of WG meetings.  Remote
      attendees may want to participate in the other parts of a regular
      meeting as well.

   o  Face-to-face interim WG meetings -- Between regular IETF meetings,
      some WGs hold interim meetings where attendees get together at a
      site (often a company's meeting room, but sometimes a meeting room
      rented at a hotel).  At such meetings, there are between a handful
      and a few dozen local attendees and a similar number of remote
      attendees, if remote participation is supported.  Presentations
      are common.  There are typically fewer than 15 face-to-fact
      interim meetings a year.

   o  Virtual interim WG meetings -- Between regular IETF meetings, some
      WGs hold virtual interim meetings where there are no local
      attendees because there is no central meeting location.  There are
      between a handful and a few dozen attendees.  Presentations are
      common.  There are typically fewer than 25 face-to-fact interim
      meetings a year.

   o  IETF leadership meetings -- The IETF leadership (the IESG, IAOC,
      IAB, and probably others) have periodic virtual meetings, usually

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

      with presentations.  These groups also meet at the regular IETF
      meetings, and sometimes have remote attendees at those meetings
      (such as members who cannot attend the IETF meeting or presenters
      who are not part of the leadership group).

   The form of "presentations" changes from meeting to meeting, but
   almost always includes prepared static slides and audio of the
   speaker.  Presentations sometimes also includes non-static slides
   (usually animations within a slide) and sometimes video.

A.2.  Technologies Currently Used at Regular IETF Meetings

   There are three tools that are used by remote attendees for WG
   participation at regular IETF meetings: real-time audio, instant
   messaging, and slides.

   For the past few years, the IETF has used audio streamed over HTTP
   over TCP.  TCP is often buffered at many places between (and in) the
   origination in the IETF meeting venue and the users' computer.  At
   recent meetings, delays of around 30 seconds have been recorded, with
   minimum delays typically being five seconds.  This delay is caused by
   buffering at the hop-by-hop ISPs and in the remote attendee's
   computer.  At recent IETF meetings, remote attendance is almost
   always less than 10% of local attendance, and is often less than 5%.
   (There are more remote attendees when the IETF meeting is in the
   U.S.) Each stream is represented by an MP3 playlist (sometimes called
   an "m3u file").

   The IETF long ago standardized on Jabber / XMPP ([RFC6120],
   [RFC6121], and others) for instant messaging used within the IETF.
   Jabber rooms (formally called "multi-user conferences" or "MUCs")
   exist for every WG, and those rooms are live all the time, not just
   during regular IETF meetings.  BoFs have jabber rooms that are
   available during IETF meetings.  There are also stable Jabber rooms
   for the plenaries and certain other activities.  BoFs are usually
   assigned Jabber rooms before a regular meeting.

   Presentation slides normally are stored either as PDFs or in one of
   Microsoft's formats for PowerPoint.  They are projected on a local
   screen from someone's laptop computer.  Proceedings are currently
   stored as PDF of the slides, although they used to be stored as HTML.

   There has been experience at recent meetings with two tools, WebEx
   and Meetecho, which are supported experimentally by the IETF.  Each
   tool was used by a handful of WGs with mixed success.  The tools
   require remote attendees to use specific clients, and installation of
   those clients caused problems for some people.  On the other hand,
   the tools have much more robust meeting control features, and

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   attendees appreciated the real-time showing of slides during

A.3.  Locating the Meeting Information

   Finding information for the real-time audio, instant messaging, and
   slides for an upcoming or current regular meeting is complicated by
   that information being in many different locations on the IETF web
   site, and the fact that the relevant URLs can change before and even
   during the meeting.  Further, a WG chair might copy the latest
   information and send it to the WG mailing list, but there can be
   later changes.  Experienced remote attendees have gotten used to
   checking just before the meeting itself, but even that does not
   always guarantee the correct information.

   Currently, the meeting information appears in two different agendas:

   o  The official agenda on the IETF Datatracker includes links to
      venue maps, WG charters, agendas, and Internet-Drafts.  For
      example, see

   o  The unofficial "tools-style agenda" includes the same links as the
      official agenda plus links to the presentations, audio, minutes,
      Jabber room, and Jabber logs 9represnted as small icons).  For
      example, see <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/>.

A.3.1.  Audio

   The URL for the audio stream for a WG or BoF meeting is based on the
   room that the meeting is in.  The audio streams are announced on the
   general IETF mailing list (ietf@ietf.org) before each meeting.

   A common complaint is that when a WG meeting moves to a different
   room, remote users need to know about the move so that they can use
   the proper URL to hear the audio stream.  The room changes are often,
   but not always, announced on WG mailing lists; when they are not
   announced, there is no easy way for a remote attendee to find out
   which audio stream they should be listening to.  Sometimes, room
   changes happen just as a WG meeting is starting, making it nearly
   impossible for a remote attendee to know about the change in streams.

   IETF meetings happen in venues such as hotels and conference centers,
   most of which have their own audio setups.  The IETF Secretariat
   contracts with those venues for the use of some or all of their audio
   system.  Without such integration, audio from remote attendees might
   not be reliably heard by local attendees.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

A.3.2.  Instant Messaging

   The Jabber rooms used by WGs and BoFs do not change between IETF
   meetings, so finding the right Jabber room is relatively easy.  Some
   Jabber clients have odd interfaces for joining Jabber rooms, and this
   can cause some problems; even though attendees can test their Jabber
   clients before a meeting, there still seems to be some who need help
   just before a WG meeting.  There are sometimes problems with people
   joining Jabber rooms; in these cases, the attendee needs to find
   someone already in the Jabber room to invite them to the discussion.

A.3.3.  Slides

   Slides are presented in regular IETF meetings with projectors on a
   screen at the front of the room from the video output of one or more
   local attendees' computers.  The same slides are available online for
   remote attendees.

   Slides are available to local and remote attendees on the IETF
   servers before and during regular IETF meetings.  This service is
   useful to all attendees who want to be prepared for WG meetings.  The
   slides are not only used by remote attendees listening to the WG
   meeting; it is common for local attendees to download the slides and
   view them on their laptops during meetings instead of having to read
   them from the front of the room.

   Slides are available from the meeting materials page.  Many, but
   certainly not all, local and remote attendees know how to find the
   meeting materials page.

   It has become fairly common for presenters to not have their
   presentations available for distribution until just before the WG
   meeting.  Because materials are uploaded by the WG chairs, this often
   causes the beginning of WG meetings to be a dance involving
   presenters giving the chairs their slides, followed by chairs
   uploading the slides to the IETF site, followed by the chairs saying
   "the slides are there now".

A.4.  Remote Participation at IETF Meetings

A.4.1.  Remotely Speaking at the Mic

   Newcomers to regular IETF meetings often expect the floor control in
   WG meetings to be fairly straight-forward.  By Tuesday, they might be
   shaking their heads, wondering why some people cut into the mic
   lines, why some people get up to the mics after the chair has closed
   the line, why some people ignore presenters' requests to hold
   questions to the end, and so on.  Mixing remote attendees into this

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   social structure will be a daunting task, but one that has been dealt
   with in many remote participation systems.

   In order for a remote attendee to speak at the mic, a local attendee
   must say it for them.  In most WG and BoF meetings, this is done by
   the remote attendee typing into the Jabber room for the meeting, and
   some local attendee going to the mic and repeating what was typed
   into the Jabber room.  Remote attendees often precede what they want
   said at the mic with the string "mic:" to differentiate that from the
   rest of the discussion in the Jabber room.

   In some WGs, there have been experiments of getting remote attendees
   voices into the room either by hooking into the room's sound system
   or pointing a mic at the speaker of a laptop.  This sometimes works,
   but sometimes has bad feedback and delay issues that make the remote
   participation worse than having a person reading their comments at
   the mic.

   The "Jabber-to-mic" method of participation often works adequately,
   but there are many places where it fails.  It has issues similar to
   most proxy approaches where a human is in center of the loop.  The
   following is a compendium of stories from recent IETF meetings and
   interim face-to-face meetings where remotely speaking at the mic
   didn't work as well as it could have.  The list is given here to both
   point out what some WGs are willing to put up with currently, and to
   show what is needed if the eventual RPS uses Jabber-to-mic as part of
   the solution.  The attendees are Chris and Carl (WG co-chairs), Sam
   (volunteer Jabber scribe), Rachel and Robert (remote attendees), Pete
   (presenter), and Len and Lee (local attendees).

   o  Robert cannot understand what Pete is saying about slide 5, but
      Sam doesn't get Pete's attention until Pete is already on slide 7
      and Pete doesn't want to go back.

   o  Rachel wants to say something, but Sam's Jabber client has crashed
      and no one else in the Jabber room knows why Sam isn't going to
      the mic.

   o  Robert wants to say something, but Sam is already at the mic
      speaking for Rachel so Sam doesn't see Robert's message until he
      has gotten out of the mic line.

   o  Sam is speaking for Robert, and Rachel wants to comment on what
      Robert said.  Unless Sam reads the message as he is walking back
      to his seat, Rachel doesn't get to speak.

   o  Robert wants to say something at the mic, but Sam is having an
      important side discussion with the AD.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   o  Sam is also the minutes taker, and is too busy at the moment
      catching up with the lively debate at the mic to relay a question
      from Rachel.

   o  Chris thought Carl was watching the Jabber room, but Carl was
      reading the draft that is being discussed.

   o  Chris and Carl start the meeting by asking for volunteers to take
      minutes and be Jabber scribe.  They couldn't find a Jabber scribe,
      and it took a lot of begging to get someone to take minutes, so
      they figured that was the best they could do.

   o  Sam is also a presenter, and Robert has a question about Sam's
      presentation, but Sam is obviously not looking at the Jabber room
      at the time.

   o  Rachel asks a question through Sam, and Pete replies.  Len, who is
      next in line at the mic, starts talking before Sam has a chance to
      see whether or not Rachel has a follow-up question.

   o  Robert makes a point about one of Pete's slides, and Pete responds
      "I don't think you're looking at the right slide" and continues
      with his presentation.  Robert cannot reply in a timely fashion
      due to the lag in the audio channel.

   o  Pete starts his presentation by asking for questions to be held
      until the end.  Robert has a question about slide 5, and is
      waiting until the end of the presentation to post the question in
      the Jabber room.  After slide 7, Len jumps to the mic and
      vehemently disagrees with something that Pete said.  Then Lee gets
      up to respond to Len, and the three of them go at it for a while,
      with Lee getting up again after slide 10.  The presentation ends
      and is over time, so Carl says "we need to move on", so Robert
      never gets to ask his question.

   o  Chris asks "are there any more questions" while Rachel is typing
      furiously, but she doesn't finish before Chris says "I don't see
      anyone, thanks Pete, the next speaker is...".

   o  Rachel comments on Pete's presentation though Sam. Sam doesn't
      understand what Rachel is asking, and Len goes to the mic to
      explain.  However, Len gets his explanation of what Rachel said
      wrong and by the time Pete answers Len's interpretation, Rachel
      gives up.

   o  This is the first time Pete is presenting at an IETF meeting, and
      Robert has the first question, which is relayed through Sam. Pete
      stays silent, not responding the question.  Robert can't see

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

      Pete's face to know if Pete is just not understanding what he
      asked, is too afraid to answer, is just angry, or something else.

   o  Pete says something incorrect in his presentation, and Len asks
      the folks in the Jabber room about it.  Rachel figures out what
      Pete should have said, and others in the Jabber room agree.  No
      one goes to the mic because Pete has left the topic, but only the
      people watching Jabber know that the presentation was wrong.

   o  Pete says something that the AD sitting at the front of the room
      (not near a mic) doesn't like, and the AD says a few sentences but
      doesn't go to the mic.  The chairs try to repeat what the AD says,
      get it only approximately right, but the remote attendees do not
      hear what really was said and therefore cannot comment

   o  Sam only volunteered to be scribe because no one else would do it,
      and isn't sitting close to the mic, and gets tired of getting up
      and down all the time, and doesn't really agree with Robert on a
      particular issue, so Sam doesn't relay a request from Robert.

   o  Rachel cannot join the Jabber room due to a client or server
      software issue.  She finally finds someone else on Jabber who is
      also in the meeting, and gets them to invite her into the room.

A.4.2.  Remotely Presenting

   Some WGs have experimented with remote presentations at regular IETF
   meetings, with quite mixed results.  For some, it works fine: the
   remote presenter speaks, the chair moves the slides forward, and
   questions can be heard easily.  For others, it is a mess: the local
   attendees can't hear the presenter very well, the presenter can't
   hear questions or there is a long delay, and it was not clear when
   the presenter was waiting for input or there was a lag in the sound.

   At a recent meeting that had a remote presenter, a WG had a video
   camera set up at the chairs' desk pointed towards the audience so
   that the presenter could see who was at the mic; this was considered
   to be a great help and a lot friendlier because the presenter could
   address the people at the mic by name.  They also had the presenter's
   head projected on the screen in the room, which led to a lot of jokes
   and discussion of whether seeing the remote presenter caused people
   to pay more attention.

   Remote presenters have commented how difficult it is to set up their
   systems, particularly because they are not sure whether their setup
   is working until the moment they are supposed to be presenting.  Even
   then, the first few minutes of the presentation has a feeling of "is

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   this really working?".

A.4.3.  Floor Control

   Although Appendix A.4.1 may seem like it is a bit harsh on WG chairs,
   the current tools do not give them the kind of control over remote
   attendees that they have over local attendees.  The chairs can tell
   what is happening at the mics, but have much less view into what is
   happening on Jabber, even if they are watching the Jabber room.
   Without as much view, they cannot assist the flow of the conversation
   as well.

   o  Carl sees that the Jabber room has an active and useful back-
      channel discussion during Pete's provocative presentation.  Pete
      finishes and asks for questions.  Lee and Len rush to the mic
      line, and it takes Robert a few seconds to get his question into
      the Jabber room and for Sam to go to the mic.  Carl tries to
      prioritize Sam forward in the line, but Len gets upset when he

   o  Rachel asks a question, but Sam is not going to the mic to relay
      it.  In fact, Sam has pretty much stopped paying attention.  Chris
      cannot do something about the situation without making Sam look

   o  Pete has run over time, Robert asks what is supposed to be the
      last question, and Pete doesn't understand what Sam said.  Carl
      cannot tell whether to wait for Robert to rephrase the question or
      whether Robert even heard Pete's response.

   o  In a virtual interim where remote attendees all participate by
      voice, someone can be heard typing / eating / talking loudly to
      someone else.  Carl and Chris try to get that person's attention
      over the audio and Jabber, but to no avail.  The tool being used
      does not have the ability to mute individual attendees, so the
      meeting is disrupted until that person finally realizes that he or
      she is not muted.

   Some of these problems are alleviated by some of the proprietary
   solutions that have been experimented with.  For example, WebEx and
   other systems have a "raise hand" feature where a remote attendee can
   indicate in the application or through a web form that they want to

A.5.  Remote Participation at IETF Interim WG Meetings

   Face-to-face interim meetings have many things in common with regular
   IETF meetings, but there are also many significant differences.  For

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   most WGs, fewer people attend interim meetings than IETF meetings,
   although those who travel to a face-to-face interim meeting are often
   the more active WG participants.  There may be a larger demand for
   remote participation because people have a harder time justifying
   travel for a single WG meeting than for an IETF meeting, but there
   may also be less demand because people tend to think of interim WG
   meetings as less important than regular IETF meetings..

   Typically, the IETF Secretariat does not control the rooms in which
   face-to-face interims are held, so they have no control over whether
   outgoing audio will be supported, or supported well enough to
   guarantee that remote attendees can hear.

A.5.1.  Face-to-Face Interim Meetings

   Many interim meetings are held face-to-face in conference rooms
   supplied by companies active in the IETF (and, much less often, in
   commercial conference facilities such as hotels).  Because these
   facilities are not administered by the IETF Secretariat, the ability
   to include remote attendees varies widely.  Some facilities can
   distribute the in-room audio over the Internet just fine, while
   others have no or limited abilities to do so.

   For example, a recent face-to-face interim meeting was supposed to be
   open to remote attendees through WebEx, but the sound coming from the
   room was too soft to hear reliably.  Even if a face-to-face interim
   meeting has good facilities for audio and slide presenting, it will
   probably have an experience similar to regular IETF meetings.

A.5.2.  Virtual Interim Meetings

   Because few WGs have virtual interim meetings (those with no face-to-
   face attendees), there is less experience with the tools that are
   commonly used for them.  The IETF has had free use of WebEx for a few
   years, and some WGs have used different tools for audio
   participation.  For example, some virtual interims are held using
   Skype, others with TeamSpeak, and so on.

   So far, the experience with virtual interim meetings has been
   reasonably good, and some people say that it is better than for
   remote attendees at regular IETF meetings and face-to-face interims
   because everyone has the same problems with getting the group's
   attention.  Also, there are no problems getting the in-room audio
   into the RPS because all attendees are using their own computers for
   speaking to the group.

   One of the often-debated aspects of virtual interim meetings is what
   time to have them in order to make them available to all attendees.

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          Remote Participation Reqs            August 2012

   Such scheduling of virtual interim meetings is out of scope for this
   document.  However, it is noted that because many attendees will be
   attending at different times of day and night, no assumption can be
   made that attendees will be at an "office".  This debate also affects
   face-to-face interim meetings because the meeting hosts normally will
   schedule the meeting during business hours at the host company, but
   that might be terribly inconvenient for some WG members.

Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   VPN Consortium

   Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org

Hoffman                 Expires February 17, 2013              [Page 31]