Subject: UPDATE - mp3 audio streaming...

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:04:43 -0800 (PST)

The plenary should be available on channel-1 starting when it begins at 
19:30 CST, 01:30 GMT. Most of the other channels will be shut-off for the 
evening at that point.

Stats wise, on Monday 187 unique ip's joined 1487 streams over the course 
of the day. On Tuesday 136 ip addresses joined 835 streams over the course 
of the day.

More information, access to the raw archived streams, and the next three 
days of scheduled programming are at:

http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/

joelja

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked] 
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:23:07 -0500

Kudos for the mp3 streams!

So far, the mp3 streams have been quite a success. From the feedback 
I've heard, the audio quality has been mostly excellent. When combined 
with the xmpp/jabber rooms, we have a two way communication path, and 
several meetings I've been in have used this combination quite effectively.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Stats wise, on Monday 187 unique ip's joined 1487 streams over the 
> course of the day. On Tuesday 136 ip addresses joined 835 streams over 
> the course of the day.

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:33:09 -0600

> several meetings I've been in have used this combination quite 

In krb-wg this morning, I've heard reports of people being unable to 
join the jabber chat rooms, including at least one person listed as 
being in the chat room but report (by email) unable to send anything.  
(Haven't heard of problems with audio though.)

Ken

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:09:07 +0100

>several meetings I've been in have used this combination quite effectively.

The quality indeed was quit good and following the conversation was very
doable, having a backpath eg over jabber to the room would be great and
would indeed allow almost complete participation. It would be good to
have the slides of the speakers then too of course so one can also see
the slides. Add a couple of webcams and full internet conferencing ;)

It would be nice btw for the few people who have multicast available to
also make these streams available over multicast, even if it was just to
make the point that it works.

Maybe a silly idea, but what about having a meeting completely online?
Presenters pass url's to their slides, discuss in the jabber group.
Would need a +voice method, like on irc, to be able to let one person to
talk at the same time, otherwise it could turn into quite a mess ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:50:51 -0800 (PST)

> make the point that it works.

It was sorta in queue since it's relativly easy for us to do on the box 
that the streams are being reflected off, just didn't happen.

> talk at the same time, otherwise it could turn into quite a mess ;)

In other contexts we've done this for years using an mcu and appliances 
using h.323. it was done at the ietf for some time with multicast 
applications. it could concieveably be done with sip.

In our draft you'll see that we're pretty explicit in that our goal is to 
build a service that is light-weight enough that it can be provided at a 
very low cost, and across all the meetings. nothwithstanding any other 
infusions of funding or volunteer energy, staying focused on keeping it 
light is paramount.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:17:29 -0600

> infusions of funding or volunteer energy, staying focused on keeping it

I (seeing this as recommendation to my successors) also think that having a 
light, basic service that we know we can afford to provide is a good 
starting point for building more extensive services - figure out if they're 
worth building, figure out how much they will cost, figure out how to pay 
for them and staff them, then build them.
<[email-masked]> is a good place to discuss what the next steps 
should be.

I think Joel's done a stellar job of providing this service this time - 
thanks a lot, Joel!

                   Harald

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:49:56 -0500

At 12:17 PM 3/10/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>I (seeing this as recommendation to my successors) also think that having 
>a light, basic service that we know we can afford to provide is a good 
>starting point for building more extensive services - figure out if 
>they're worth building, figure out how much they will cost, figure out how 
>to pay for them and staff them, then build them.
><[email-masked]> is a good place to discuss what the next 
>steps should be.
>

As someone who's been beating the drum for remote attendance for some time, 
I have to say the audio setup this time was outstanding. I was only able to 
listen in on a limited number of sessions, but that was enough for me to 
hear the discussion on a draft I'm working on. Video would not have added 
anything of value in reality.

Kudos to all involved in setting up this service. Even if other services 
are added later, this sets a baseline service level for broadcasting from 
the meetings that provides a meaningful way to participate for folks unable 
to make it to the meetings.

Dan

P.S. Yes, there's some work to do on providing a way for remote folks to 
have their response comments heard. Jabber is fine for that, provided 
someone in the WG meeting speaks up to express what's being said on the 
channel.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:10:12 -0500

I think that a short BCP or the equivalent for jabber scribing
would make sense, as not everyone is familiar with the technology.

As a frequent scribe, I suspect that scribing and jabber could be
combined for open meetings (and might improve the scribing), but
1 minute after the start of the meeting is not the time to start
investigating it.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Mar 10, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:

>> --On 10. mars 2005 07:50 -0800 Joel Jaeggli 
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> I (seeing this as recommendation to my successors) also think that 
>> having a light, basic service that we know we can afford to provide 
>> is a good starting point for building more extensive services - 
>> figure out if they're worth building, figure out how much they will 
>> cost, figure out how to pay for them and staff them, then build them.
>> I think Joel's done a stellar job of providing this service this time 
>> - thanks a lot, Joel!
>
> As someone who's been beating the drum for remote attendance for some 
> time, I have to say the audio setup this time was outstanding. I was 
> only able to listen in on a limited number of sessions, but that was 
> enough for me to hear the discussion on a draft I'm working on. Video 
> would not have added anything of value in reality.
>
> Kudos to all involved in setting up this service. Even if other 
> services are added later, this sets a baseline service level for 
> broadcasting from the meetings that provides a meaningful way to 
> participate for folks unable to make it to the meetings.
>
> Dan
>
> P.S. Yes, there's some work to do on providing a way for remote folks 
> to have their response comments heard. Jabber is fine for that, 
> provided someone in the WG meeting speaks up to express what's being 
> said on the channel.
>
>
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:22:38 -0500

> would not have added anything of value in reality.

on the other hand, if someone can figure out a way to transmit the 
images that are being fed into the video projectors, that might be 
useful.  video streaming might be the easiest way, and unlike a video 
camera, it wouldn't need an operator.

Keith

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:50:38 -0500

Several of the WGs I'm in only use a jabber scribe, and it's worked 
well. If there's a network glitch, you have a few options: continue 
writing your notes locally and post the series to jabber once you 
reestablish connectivity, or play tag team with someone else who hasn't 
lost connectivity.

There was a web page posted, http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html, that 
goes into details on how to set up jabber and access the ietf jabber 
chat rooms from your machine.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:21:44 -0800 (PST)

> 1 minute after the start of the meeting is not the time to start

Scribing on jabber does produce a dependancy on reliable network 
transport. The audio encoders and the multicast sources before them live 
on their own subnet for a similar reason.

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:33:09 -0600 (CST)

I agree with others that the audio service added a new dimension to remote 
participation.  In some groups I'm involved with we've had folks regularly 
participating via text chat, and it seems to me that their interaction was 
higher-bandwidth because they could get the audio in more or less real 
time rather than depending on someone typing the words in.

My one plea would be for more microphones.  The whole point of a face to 
face meeting (other than the opportunity for snow in March for those of us 
who wouldn't otherwise see it) is rapid multi-way communication.  Waiting 
while the one portable mic is passed about really impedes the flow, it 
seems to me.  Two for the room (I'm thinking of the mid-size rooms where 
most of my sessions were, rather than the giant ballrooms with their fixed 
aisle mics) and one for the chair table would be sufficient, probably.

  - RL "Bob"

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:16:37 +0100

I may have contributed some of the IP addresses to the statistics but I am
afraid that is all.  As with 99.xx% of Internet users (but a much smaller
percentage of IETF participants:-), I cannot get 64kbit/s;-(  16 always, 32
sometimes, 64 never.  On this occasion, I got something over 16kbit/s but no
information.

Tom Petch

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:19:58 +0100 (CET)

> camera, it wouldn't need an operator.

The major problem with doing this, is the loss of detail that conversion
from VGA to video introduces.  We found this to be such a problem with the
video streaming for the RIPE meetings that we had to ask the presenters to
use larger fonts, and reduce the amount of detail on their slides.

Rather than streaming the VGA -> video output, it would be better for this
purpose to use one of the commercial VGA -> Image File devices, and
provide a web page with a suitable refresh period to see the slides in
their original resolution.

The comment about not needing an operator is slightly incorrect; you
always need someone on-hand (though not necessarily in the room) to apply
suitable percussive maintenance.

-- 
                             Bruce Campbell                            RIPE
                   Systems/Network Engineer                             NCC
                 www.ripe.net - PGP562C8B1B

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:38:46 -0500

Wouldn't it make more sense to post the powerpoint files directly
before the meetings
and let the interested parties download them.  Sending static files as
high frame rate video is a major waste of b/w.
If the superfluous graphics are omitted, the files will be small and
those of us with limited bandwidth could see the
the charts in all their detail.
This would mean setting up a directory in advance to which either
anyone (or possibly just WG chairs) could upload. It could be mirrored
on a server at the meeting site.

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Bruce
> Campbell
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 6:20 AM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: UPDATE - mp3 audio streaming...
>
>
>                              Bruce Campbell
>            RIPE
> This message was passed through
> [email-masked], which is a sublist of
> [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
> what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
> Administrator ([email-masked]).
>

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:29:45 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Steve Silverman wrote:

> and let the interested parties download them.

That assumes two things:

	a) That presenters have prepared their slides before the meetings.
and
	b) That presenters have sent the slides to the appropriate spot.

Quite frequently, when you walk into an IETF room and take your preferred
seat as defined by your reading ability, some of the presenters are still
making changes to their presentations, or someone is asked to provide some
slides to illustrate a particular point at the last minute.

Within this environment, you cannot really get people to consistently send
their slides to a central point before giving their presentation, nor do I
think that there be a mandate from the IETF to do so.  Hence, it is much
more consistent to capture the slides on their way from the laptop to the
projector.

> Sending static files as

I agree completely.  Sending slides as video is a waste of bandwidth and
results in hard-to-read images.  Hence the suggestion to capture
equal-resolution images as jpegs and push them (if changed) to the
appropriate web server.  Bandwidth incurred only when the slides change,
and none of this nonsense about various streaming formats being unusable
for certain people, or worse, people having to prepare their slides in a
particular format (eg, WonderPoint 3.2).

> the charts in all their detail.

I don't think that the IETF has a set of Guidelines for how to prepare
presentation slides, and I don't think that the IETF should have any,
apart from 'People must be able to read it, so use large fonts, and, like,
go easy on the amount of detail per slide'.

> on a server at the meeting site.

Having been involved in a similar system for the RIPE meetings, it is far
easier to have an automated system.  WG-Chairs, presentors have other
demands on their time.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:29:42 -0500

> before the meetings and let the interested parties download them.

it would make sense if the slides could be made available for download 
in a vendor-neutral format.

however it's been my experience that such slides are often updated at 
the last minute, sometimes during the presentation itself.

also, having the slides available before the meeting is not the same 
thing as being able to see what's on the screen while listening to 
meeting audio.

Keith