Marshall Eubanks
The closest to truly antipodal pair of places I know of in common use
are Hawaii to South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodes has lists of alternatives.
(Verify before use.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Communications and Networks
On 21/10/2011 16:54, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
I can state for sure that we have used Meetecho for remote presentations in
Hiroshima, in the mediactrl WG meeting: interaction happens in real-time.
Actually, this is true for all tools that I've seen, but it isn't perfect
yet and I wonder if it
Henk Uijterwaal henk.uijterw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/10/2011 16:54, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
I can state for sure that we have used Meetecho for remote
presentations in Hiroshima, in the mediactrl WG meeting: interaction
happens in real-time.
I don't have enough experience with
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, John Leslie wrote:
150 milliseconds is a real challenge to accomplish worldwide, though
it's quite achievable within one continent. I expect IETF folks could
learn to work with 250 milliseconds.
Are these numbers RTT or one-way? According to figures I've seen in other
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, John Leslie wrote:
150 milliseconds is a real challenge to accomplish worldwide, though it's
quite achievable within one continent. I expect IETF folks could learn to
work with 250 milliseconds.
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, John Leslie wrote:
150 milliseconds is a real challenge to accomplish worldwide, though
it's quite achievable within one continent. I expect IETF folks could
learn to work with 250 milliseconds.
Are these numbers RTT or
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, John Leslie wrote:
150 milliseconds is a real challenge to accomplish worldwide, though
it's quite achievable within one continent. I expect IETF folks could
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
300 to 400 milliseconds to the antipodes and back (i.e., RTT) is pretty
realistic (say, US to Australia*). To that has to be added codec delays
(each frame of 30 fps video represents ~30 msec);100+ msec one way video
codec delays are common. If you
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
suggesting.
Melinda,
I've changed the subject line because the point you
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
CROCKER
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:27 PM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF
community input)
So
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
...
Tough call. I completely understand the need and desire to be
productive without requiring meetings, for all the financial,
participation, and other reasons given. But I also am very
familiar with
On 20/10/2011 20:21, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote
participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location chosen.
I would much rather pay $200-$300 to
+1
On Oct 21, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/20/2011 12:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
I disagree. If the remote participation service is high quality,
it should require the same registration fee structure as on-site
participation.
It seems to me that any fees (and I've got
John,
On 10/20/2011 8:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
More important, I see nothing in BCP 101 that
says that the IAOC does not need to expose draft RFPs to
community review just because they do not, e.g., require code to
be written.
Please forgive my limited reading comprehension, but I could
John,
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the RFP that aren't part of
the RFP. Or perhaps you are reading between the lines. For example that the
RFP will only be sent to the IETF list, that we won't allow non-IETFers to bid,
that no discussion will occur between who ever does
Dear sm,
just for the sake of completeness, I have to say that the following
statement is not 100% correct:
The RFP mentions bidirectional audio and video. As John has
attempted to chair a working group remotely, he might be aware that
real-time can mean more than 10 seconds between the
Simon - Careful what you promse. I am sure someone will try to use the service
through two satelite hops and then complain about the latency. Unfortunately,
we cannot (yet) get of this speed of light thing :-)
On Oct 21, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
Dear sm,
just for the
On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote
participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location chosen.
I would much rather pay $200-$300
Hi Bob,
At 10:50 20-10-2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
The intent of this work is to develop a set of requirements for
community review. I don't see any significant value in asking the
community for input on an RFP that is for
I would be concerned if a Chair skipped the community step on the
On 10/20/2011 03:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote
participation capability when I am unable to travel to the
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Kevin P. Fleming kpflem...@digium.com wrote:
On 10/20/2011 03:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get
On 10/20/2011 12:02 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
I disagree. If the remote participation service is high quality,
it should require the same registration fee structure as on-site
participation.
It seems to me that any fees (and I've got some issues with that:
see below) should be tied to the
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:49 +0200 Frank Ellermann
hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkzt...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Two it's only me observations: What some mobile
broadband providers euphemistically sell as ISDN-
speed in Germany and what Microsoft claims to be a
media player is a major
I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all proposed/requested
features is not an explicitly stated requirement, even at this phase. It's not
always as simple as we'll make sure we make it IPv6 capable when we implement
it... with the sorts of solutions you're looking for here.
On 2011-10-20 08:41, George, Wes wrote:
I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all
proposed/requested features is not an explicitly stated requirement,
even at this phase.
And more generally, this should be considered an opportunity for
dogfooding the protocols we create.
On 10/20/11 02:49 , Frank Ellermann wrote:
On 20 October 2011 10:27, John C Klensin wrote:
[...}
+1
Two it's only me observations: What some mobile
broadband providers euphemistically sell as ISDN-
speed in Germany and what Microsoft claims to be a
media player is a major PIT* with
On Thu Oct 20 14:33:43 2011, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2011-10-20 08:41, George, Wes wrote:
I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all
proposed/requested features is not an explicitly stated
requirement,
even at this phase.
And more generally, this should be considered
i read the message from ray as an rfp for someone to write the rfp for
remote services. aside from being a very amusing bureaucratic layer
cake, this would not seem to need a lot of experience with remote
access, but rather good ears and a taste for the bureaucracy and discord
the ietf has
I don't see any significant value in asking the community for input on
an RFP that is for hiring someone to write a specification to generate
community input.
the problem may be that you may lack a sense of humor, an appreciation
of recursion, and a vision for just how twisted ietf process can
From: Simon Perreault [simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
On 2011-10-20 08:41, George, Wes wrote:
I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all
proposed/requested features is not an explicitly stated requirement,
even at this phase.
And more generally, this should be
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote
participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location chosen.
I would much rather pay $200-$300 to have good remote attendance capability
(video etc.) than
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:50 -0700 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
The RFP is not a solicitation to vendors of remote
participation services. It is to hire someone to write a
requirements document for remote participation services. It
is not to develop any code nor
On 10/20/2011 02:21 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better
remote participation capability when I am unable to travel to the
location chosen.
I would much rather pay $200-$300 to
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 15:21 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get
better remote participation capability when I am unable to
travel to the location
One thing to consider is charging for this service
i strongly agree. whoever is drafting the rfp should charge heavily for
putting up with massive micromanagement.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
.
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:41:22
To: Phillip Hallam-Bakerhal...@gmail.com
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re:
RFP
37 matches
Mail list logo
