On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 07:10 06-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >> Not sure if I count as an "old boy" or not. Don't think I am as old as I >> feel. > > > You are not in that group. BTW, it's not age related. > > >> Yes. Please do not make *any* provisions for remote participation at side >> meetings. If the organisers want to arrange that sort of thing they can >> put >> their mobile phone on the bar! > > > :-) > >> It is also not a requirement and may be impractical on low b/w links. > > > I didn't see any discussion of low bandwidth access in the draft. Based on > a comment posted last year, it looks like it will not be part of RPS. > > >> Should I send a short video of me typing this email? > > > No. :-) > >> On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> You of all people should be aware of the utility of having discussions on >> one focused mailing list. :-) > > > Yes, like vip. :-) > > I forgot the following requirement: > > "The specifications shall rely solely upon IETF and other open > standards for all communications and interactions." > > The IETF uses Skype for remote presentations. It will turn a blind eye when > the above requirement is bypassed. > > > At 08:48 06-01-2012, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> >> I say email addresses should be required because > > > There are XMPP identities (JID). That unfortunately does not map to a > participant's email address as Jabber never reached "must have" status. > True. Acquiring data to make that mapping would be useful, but this might to too much to require. Marshall > Regards, > -sm > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf