At 01:29 PM 10/15/2007, John Leslie wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf