Hi,
Two IPR-motivated things inline:
On 5/10/17, 11:04, "ietf on behalf of Michael Richardson"
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of
mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
IETF Chair <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
> Title
> First / Given Name*
> Last / Family Name*
> Company / Organization
> ISO 3166 Country of Residence*
> Email*
> Gender
> Have you attended an IETF meeting in person before?
> Have you attended an IETF meeting remotely before?
> Upon registering, participants would be issued a registration ID, just
> as they are today.
Are we validating the email address in some way?
If we are not, I don't see the point of the *-required in any of those places.
I’m in favor of validating the address, for example by sending some form of
credential to it; without the credential, only listening/reading access is
granted. Doesn’t have to be bullet-proof, but using
example(_at_)example(_dot_)com shouldn’t work. This is obviously in order to
obtain one semi-traceable record of the participant.
> Remote participation registration data would be stored and secured by
> AMS and MeetEcho just as it is currently today. As is the case now, no
> registration or login would be required to access MeetEcho recordings,
> audio recordings, YouTube videos, or jabber rooms. And no changes are
> being proposed as to the handling of virtual blue sheets.
I suggest:
1) Add me to the attendeeXX list.
2) I think we have another list which is more announce and less discuss,
but I can't recall it, they should be added to it as well.
3) It would be nice if they they could be asked at registration time which
WG they will attend (no commitment!), and if this information could be
relayed to WG chairs.
4) ask them if we can collect anonymized performance data and
site/path/latency/jitter information.
And 5) click-through of the Note Well (unless that’s done in some other phase
of the remote participation, like when signing-in to meetecho). Again for--I
hope obvious--IPR related reasons.
Stephan
[...]