Subject: [vmeet] Staying with available solutions

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:26:59 -0400

Folks,

The topic of remote participation is broad, complex, long-standing and often 
problematic.  That can produce a rather large difference between what might be, 
versus what is.

Since the goal of the current effort is to deliver and use workable capabilities 
in the (relatively) near-term, we need to find an easy way to stay focused on 
what is.

I suggest that any recommendations for TECHnologies or FRAMEworks also include 
at least one reference to an available package that supplies what is being 
suggested.  (If the package has not already been cited, then please also post a 
TOOL message about it.)

If there is no such package, then saying that fact will help us all be clear 
that the reference is to something we can't currently use.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:53:35 -0400

On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> If there is no such package, then saying that fact will help us all  
> be clear that the reference is to something we can't currently use.

Well, one of the reasons I've been so active on this list is that  
improving distributed meeting support is a primary focus of my day  
job.  In that capacity I've surveyed pretty widely, and feel safe  
asserting that most of the tools we really need don't exist yet,  
except in some embryonic forms.   One of the reasons for this is that  
the embryos are still at the useful-but-mutually-incompatible stage  
we've seen with so many other applications.  Moving us past that stage  
will require new standards work and is a likely job for the IETF,  
which is why I'd hate to see us focus exclusively on short-term things  
we could conceivably implement for the next meeting.

Perhaps we should be having both a short-term and a long-term  
discussion, well and clearly separated?   This would also have the  
advantage of clarifying how we think about proprietary technologies:  
we might pragmatically choose to use such technologies in the short  
term due to lack of alternative, but we'd probably find them much less  
acceptable in a longer-term discussion.  -- Nathaniel

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:58:42 -0400

Agree.

Most available tools don't work.  There are some prototypes/low volume
products which do/might.  I think separating long term and short term work
would be good.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Nathaniel Borenstein
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 1:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [vmeet] Staying with available solutions

Perhaps we should be having both a short-term and a long-term  
discussion, well and clearly separated?   This would also have the  
advantage of clarifying how we think about proprietary technologies:  
we might pragmatically choose to use such technologies in the short  
term due to lack of alternative, but we'd probably find them much less  
acceptable in a longer-term discussion.  -- Nathaniel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:05:20 -0400

Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
> In that capacity I've surveyed pretty widely, and feel safe asserting 
> that most of the tools we really need don't exist yet, except in some 
> embryonic forms.

Understood.  However, since this is an operations-and-use exercise, we can't go 
beyond what is available as products or near-products.  The admin-and-ops cost 
of relying on anything else takes us in exactly the wrong direction.

Noting what we wish existed might be useful for spawning I*R*TF discussions 
and/or non-IETF product development work, but other than noting the idea, wish, 
project, or the like, it has to be outside the scope of this effort.

Mind you, noting such things or prompting their creation, could well be Good 
Things, but we aren't tasked with doing that development.

> discussion, well and clearly separated? 

I suspect that what you have in mind belongs in the IRTF.  Yes, it could be 
helpful to have a separate discussion, there.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:38:12 -0700

On Apr 7, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Folks,
>
> The topic of remote participation is broad, complex, long-standing  
> and often problematic.  That can produce a rather large difference  
> between what might be, versus what is.
>
> Since the goal of the current effort is to deliver and use workable  
> capabilities in the (relatively) near-term, we need to find an easy  
> way to stay focused on what is.
>
> I suggest that any recommendations for TECHnologies or FRAMEworks  
> also include at least one reference to an available package that  
> supplies what is being suggested.  (If the package has not already  
> been cited, then please also post a TOOL message about it.)
>

The suggestion to use a net-box attached to the room's digital  
projector and audio-out as an attendee of the session is immediately  
usable with WebEx, as an example implementation (partially implemented  
in the last DKIM wg meeting).  WebEx offers the means to pass control  
to other participants, where the net-box and projector would simply  
convey  sessions to those in the room without a laptop.  The cost of  
this approach does not appear to be exorbitant, where it could  
establish a foundation for future schemes.  Of course the IEFT should  
roll their own, perhaps after seeing what a fully developed  
application offers. :^)

-Doug

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:48:19 -0400

Webex costs $$.  In low volume it's around $.45/participant/minute on an
ad-hoc basis, and $100/participant on a per month unlimited use basis.  Of
course, possibly Cisco could make us a deal we can't refuse.

I agree it's a very nice tool, and definitely suitable for our use for
remote viewing.

We might be able to use VNC well enough for remote viewing.  It's not as
good of a tool, but it is open source.

In both cases, the presenter has to have a laptop with WebEx/VNC running,
and that is what gets projected.  That's probably not a problem.

An option with WebEx is audio via Internet.  That may improve our audio, as
it is two way, and relatively low delay.  I don't think it works well in a
large room however.  

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Doug Otis
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [vmeet] Staying with available solutions

-Doug

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:24:21 -0700

On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> Webex costs $$.  In low volume it's around $.45/participant/minute  
> on an ad-hoc basis, and $100/participant on a per month unlimited  
> use basis.  Of course, possibly Cisco could make us a deal we can't  
> refuse.

There could be two types of remote participation:

  a) jabber and audio feeds (current offering)

  b) WebEx (perhaps jabber messages are forwarded to the WebEx session).

Remote participants wishing to use WebEx could register where a small  
fee covers the expenses related to the WebEx service.  In the future,  
the IETF should offer their version of this service. :^)

> I agree it's a very nice tool, and definitely suitable for our use  
> for remote viewing.
>
> We might be able to use VNC well enough for remote viewing.  It's  
> not as good of a tool, but it is open source.

VNC or RDP tunneled through SSH can control the net-box attached to  
the room's digital projector.  Support staff could use the remote  
access to join the net-box/projector to the WebEx session assigned to  
the specific meeting room.  These sessions would be analogous to  
streaming audio-feeds currently offered.

> In both cases, the presenter has to have a laptop with WebEx/VNC  
> running, and that is what gets projected.  That's probably not a  
> problem.
>
> An option with WebEx is audio via Internet.  That may improve our  
> audio, as it is two way, and relatively low delay.  I don't think it  
> works well in a large room however.

This works well for large meetings since control is passed to the  
presenter.  The room microphone could be feed into the net-box, where  
control can be passed to the net-box.  The audio output of the net-box  
would allow those in the meeting room without a laptop a means to hear  
remote presentations.  (Perhaps a manual switch or some type of  
automation could enable this output.)  For larger meetings, a video  
camera mounted on a tripod aimed at the speaker could also be feed  
through the net-box.

-Doug