Skip to main content
  • QUIC working group looks to bring more security to Internet traffic

    Lucas Pardue serves as co-chair of the IETF QUIC Working Group, which focuses on a standards-track specification for a UDP-based, stream-multiplexing, encrypted transport protocol. The IETF blog recently asked Pardue about the QUIC standards project.

    • Grant GrossIETF Blog Reporter
    14 Jun 2021
  • Q&A with our new Director of Development

    Lee-Berkeley Shaw joins the IETF Administration LLC today as Director of Development. She will focus on designing and delivering the strategy to achieve the IETF’s goals for financial sustainability, with a focus on growing the IETF Endowment. We asked her questions about her plans for the IETF and her background.

    • Grant GrossIETF Blog Reporter
    7 Jun 2021
  • A new era in Internet transport

    The IETF’s Transport and Services (TSV) area is developing several potentially transformative technologies while it continues to maintain many of the foundational protocols of the Internet.

    • Martin DukeTransport Area Director
    • Zaheduzzaman SarkerTransport Area Director
    • Magnus Westerlund
    3 Jun 2021
  • Innovative New Technology for Sending Data Over the Internet Published as Open Standard

    Already broadly deployed and used, QUIC provides lower delay, improved security, and more robust delivery of data.

      3 Jun 2021
    • QUIC in the Internet industry

      QUIC, a new Internet transport technology that improves web application performance, security and privacy, was reviewed, redesigned and improved in the IETF, incorporating a broad range of input from across the industry.

        3 Jun 2021

      Filter by topic and date

      Filter by topic and date

      IETF 110 post-meeting survey

      • Jay DaleyIETF Executive Director

      25 Mar 2021

      The result from our IETF 110 post-meeting survey are now available.

      The survey results for the IETF 110 post-meeting survey are now available on a web-based interactive dashboard.  We are always very grateful for the detailed feedback that we have received and will continue to process over the next few months.  The commentary below highlights a couple of areas where changes we have made based on feedback have been a success, and areas we still need to work on.  

      Analysis

      In total 299 responses were received.  Of those 287 participated in IETF 110 from a population of 1196 giving a margin of error of +/- 5.05%.

      The results for satisfaction questions include a mean and standard deviation using a five point scale scoring system of Very satisfied = 5, Satisfied = 4, Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied = 3, Dissatisfied = 2, Very dissatisfied = 1.  While there’s no hard and fast rule, a mean of above 4.50 is sometimes considered excellent, 4.00 to 4.49 is good, 3.50 to 3.99 is acceptable and below 3.50 is either poor or very poor if below 3.00. The satisfaction score tables also include a top box, the total of satisfied and very satisfied, and a bottom box, the total of dissatisfied and very dissatisfied, both in percentages.

      In this commentary a comparison is made with the IETF 109 Meeting Survey results using a comparison of means that assumes the two samples are independent even though they’re not but neither are they fully dependent.  A dependent means calculation may give a different result. A few comparisons are also made using a comparison of proportions.   

      Overall satisfaction 

      The mean satisfaction score for IETF 110 (Q12) was 4.21 with 89% either ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’.  This is a statistically significant improvement from the 3.84 mean satisfaction score for IETF 109.  

      Preparedness

      This time only 1.45% were definitely under-prepared (Q10), down from 5% for IETF 109. We should in a future survey, unpick the various components of preparation, including reading drafts, learning the technology, etc.

      Satisfaction with the agenda

      All of the IETF 110 scores (Q13) were up on IETF 109 and most of those improvements were statistically significant. Many of the scores tipped into the >4.00 range, indicating a good level of satisfaction, though still not excellent. The highest was 'Sessions for existing working groups' at 4.18, up from 3.97, and the lowest was 'Opportunities for social interaction' at 3.11 up from 2.8. Overall agenda satisfaction was 4.04, up from 3.86 and another statistically significant improvement.

      Satisfaction with the meeting structure

      Satisfaction with most parts of the IEF 110 agenda (Q15), including the local timezone and the timezone policy, were up on IETF 109. The notable standout, where satisfaction dropped though not in a statistically significant way, was the switch from 8 parallel tracks to 9 parallel tracks. Given that satisfaction was up on almost every other measure, we can probably read this as meaningful reaction to this switch.

      Sessions

      35% experienced no session conflicts (Q20) in IETF 110, the same as for IETF 109 and satisfaction with conflict avoidance (Q22) at 3.73 was down from 3.81 for IETF 109, statistically significant drop. We will need to look harder at conflict avoidance for IETF 111.

      38% of people reported sessions running out of time (Q23), only slightly down from 39% for IETF 109 with similar reasons given in the comments, again indicating that we need to look at this harder.

      Participation mechanisms

      With all of the effort to improve this area of the IETF 110 meeting experience, it was good to see satisfaction with Meetecho (Q24) jump to 4.30 from 3.73 for IETF 109. All of the other scores rose too. This time round we separated out the Matrix trial from the Zulip trial with Zulip ahead and even slightly higher than jabber but not significantly.

      Problem reporting

      This is another area that had a lot of effort put into it before and during the meeting and satisfaction with the response to problem reports (Q29) jumped from 3.63 to 4.31.

      Final feedback

      The final open-ended question again included some very useful feedback such as multiple people wishing for a return to face-to-face meetings, and some areas that require further investigation including one very concerning one about sexist behaviour that I've quoted here in full:

      There were a couple of uncomfortable comments in the plenary session chat. Someone commented that "women at the IETF don't often serve in leadership roles because they know better than to stick their heads up out of their foxholes," and someone responded (I assume sarcastically) "yeah, because the problem with women at the IETF is foxes and holes..." It seemed kind of rude and sexist for a professional meeting.

      Thanks to our sponsors!

      Finally, a big thanks to our sponsors:

      • Google our Meeting Host
      • Comcast as a Bronze Sponsor of Diversity & Inclusivity
      • ICANN as a Bronze Sponsor of Diversity & Inclusivity and Running Code
      • Cisco and Juniper, our equipment sponsors
      • and our critically important Global Hosts: Comcast, Ericsson, Huawei, Juniper, NBC Universal, Nokia

      Share this page