At 01:29 PM 10/15/2007, John Leslie wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Whether your objective is to reduce carbon emissions because of
> global warming concerns or reduce dependence on fossil fuels that are
> increasingly in short supply, there is a real incentive to reduce
> energy use.
> If teleconferencing actually worked the need to hold face to face
> meetings would be reduced.
I am constantly surprised how little interest there is within IETF
for teleconferecing that works well.
Indeed. I raised this point over the years. Even offering to pay a
"remote attendance fee" if there were in fact the ability to see and
hear sessions, and participate. The IETF for many years crowed about
the Mbone connectivity as being innovative, but got stuck there, and
didn't progress when comercial solutions bypassed that flawed technology.
> By work I mean really work, not almost, not provided there is no NAT,
> not provided the firewall has pinhole router configuration.
These are all "security" issues, for which we could find end-runs.
The problem I see is that we just don't care. :^(
Indeed, we can all use various conferencing methods today, which all
work regardless of firewalls, whether incorporating NAT or not. But
of course those technologies were not born of the IETF. The
marketplace notwithstanding, those approaches are given less credence.
Perhaps if the IETF did have to consider its carbon footprint in its
meeting planning, those ideas would be given some credence.
I rarely get on airplanes any more, and so have not been to an IETF
meeting in some time. The "appearance of security" in place to harass
the public and make us feel safe as un-screened cargo is loaded into
cargo holds below your feet is not worth the aggrivation. My vote is
to cut my own carbon footprint by not flying.
Ietf mailing list