Subject: [76attendees] RFID

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:59:40 +0900

I'm sure this will come up in the IAOC survey next week, but I'm  
curious to ask now about the RFID experiment now that we have had a  
day or so using it.

What do people think of it? Is it useful/interesting? If we were to  
make it more functional, such as enabling it to be read at the door  
obviating the blue sheet, would that be a good direction? I recognize  
that there are security concerns; what would be the best way to  
obviate them?

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:02:25 +0900

Fred Baker wrote:

> What do people think of it? Is it useful/interesting? If we were to make
> it more functional, such as enabling it to be read at the door obviating
> the blue sheet, would that be a good direction? I recognize that there
> are security concerns; what would be the best way to obviate them?

As a new attendee, I don't have much experience to draw on, but I think
passing the electronic bluesheet around the room is a good method; I
would prefer not to have it read at the door.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: [email-masked]
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:02:53 -0500

Fred Baker wrote:
> I'm sure this will come up in the IAOC survey next week, but I'm curious
> to ask now about the RFID experiment now that we have had a day or so
> using it.
> 

Yeah, I was thinking that having the "electronic blue sheet" at the door
would be better than passing it around.  It means I can just swipe in as
I enter the door and don't have to think about it.

> _______________________________________________
> 76attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees

-derek

-- 
Derek Atkins
Principal Software Engineer

PGP Corporation
4 Farragut Ave
Somerville, MA  02144

+1 617 623 3745 | [email-masked]

PGP Corporation -- Rest Secured.(TM)

PGP Fingerprint:
0FEE 5EA1 FF22 E0C9 4FFE
631A 9232 FF93 1C80 1DB7

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any
attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and
permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any
attachments thereto.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:07:23 +0900

> are security concerns; what would be the best way to obviate them?

imiho, the privacy issues is a flat show stopper

randy

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:09:14 -0800

> imiho, the privacy issues is a flat show stopper

What privacy issue are you worried about here Randy?  the blue sheet
signup does track your location fairly well I'd imagine.

/vijay

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:09:58 +0900

> signup does track your location fairly well I'd imagine.

if i sign it, which is quite optional

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:11:41 -0800

> if i sign it, which is quite optional

In that case, put the rfid blocker tab on your rfid and do not worry
about it further. The same people that are not going to be signing the
blue sheets aren't going to be rfid tagging, so the actual list of
attendees shouldn't change. And certainly it will make the ringmarole
with the blue sheets passing around much easier. Welcome to the
future.

/vijay

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:12:42 -0500 (EST)

> if i sign it, which is quite optional

==Randy.  Knowing that the paper sheets are being permanently 
retained, I've quit signing the blue sheets.

-- Sam

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:13:10 -0500

> imiho, the privacy issues is a flat show stopper

I see no issues, you are not stopped for not having a badge/RFID card, nor are you stopped for not signing the blue sheets.

While it may be expected, it's certainly not enforced as a requirement.  If you don't like it, you can always remove the chip/antenna.

I think that having readers at the doorway would be of value, perhaps with one that allows you to sign-out (eg: if you are going to another WG at same time).

I understand some folks don't like the privacy issues around this, unless there are the IETF police stationed at each door.

	- Jared

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:12:41 -0800 (PST)

What privacy issues? The fact that you can tell where #54657 went in 
the last hour?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Muhammad Yousaf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:13:46 -0800 (PST)

As a new attendee, I found RFID as a nice smooth experience. At least it is a good replacement of paper blue sheet.

Muhammad Yousaf,
http://corenet.jinnah.edu.pk/

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]> wrote:

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [76attendees] RFID
To: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:12 AM

-- Sam

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:12:08 +0900

> What do people think of it? Is it useful/interesting? If we were to

I'll go with "interesting".  As for "useful", so far IMO the rough  
edges make this particular implementation a net negative -- in several  
meetings I've been in, various RFID reader related gremlins have  
interrupted the flow of the meeting.  To get to "useful" the  
probability of needing to interrupt your train of thought and futz  
with the tech would have to be at least an order of magnitude less.  I  
don't mind, that's why it's an experiment.

--John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:18:29 +1300

It's working pretty well after a couple of days shake-down.

Since my attendance at IETF sessions is and should be a matter
of record, I would be perfectly happy to swipe a reader at
the door.

BTW, our rules (RFC2418 section 3.1) state that the minutes
of each WG meeting should include a list of attendees. A great
advantage of the tags is that such a list can be generated
automatically. I'd like to see that.

I have no, zero, zilch privacy concerns about this. All of what
we do at the IETF is done in public and subject to the Note Well.
(The last sentence of the Note Well should perhaps be extended
slightly to cover "written, electronic, audio and video records".)

    Brian

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:20:22 -0800

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ==Randy.  Knowing that the paper sheets are being permanently retained, I've
> quit signing the blue sheets.

What particular concern does bring up - that "they" can track what WGs
you attended? As a matter of policy, via 2418 it says minutes include
list of attendees.

/vijay

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:21:23 +0900

> if i sign it, which is quite optional

I hope you're then also periodically randomizing the WLAN and Bluetooth MAC addresses on all the wireless devices you carry...

Lars

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:22:32 +0900

Very useful for those of us who volunteer to take minutes.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:26:43 +0200

Hi,

> you attended? As a matter of policy, via 2418 it says minutes include

Yes, signing blue sheets is not quite optional as such. One of the things of
being an open organization is the fact that there is a list of people that
attend the meetings. Of course, there is no blue sheet police, but it is
both good for the organization and for yourself to sign the blue sheets.

I'm also puzzled about the perceived privacy concerns. You have publically
registered to the IETF meeting, and everybody can see you at the individual
WG meetings. What are you concerned of?

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:28:42 +0900

On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> of each WG meeting should include a list of attendees.

Interesting.  Has this EVER been respected?  Looking at a few random  
WG minutes I see zero compliance, nor has anyone ever offered me as a  
WG chair so much as a scan of my blue sheets (I suppose I could  
photograph them myself before turning them in).

It would be interesting (though scary) to audit our rules (both this  
and other RFCs) and compare to our practice.  For other standards  
documents, we do try to move "standards" which are not observed to  
Historic.

--John

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:30:27 +0900

As a note taker I appreciated being able to people's names right.  As a
speaker I didn't care.  Some people might have privacy concerns but I
can't think of one for myself.  I would prefer that people know where I am.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:33:06 +0900

> It would be interesting (though scary) to audit our rules (both this and
> other RFCs) and compare to our practice.

as we do for udp checksums in ipv6?  netmasks for p2p links in ipv6?
...  (sorry, sitting in 6man)

when we say rough consensus and running code, we forgot to say that
there was any correspondence between the two.

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:34:16 +1300

Sam,

On 2009-11-10 14:12, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> ==Randy.  Knowing that the paper sheets are being permanently retained,
> I've quit signing the blue sheets.

So, your presence at an open meeting with specific IPR disclosure
requirements is not a matter of record? I find this very hard
to understand.

    Brian

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:35:26 +0100

> Very useful for those of us who volunteer to take minutes.

As well as to see the names of (relative) newcomers in WG's.  Most people
tend to say their name really quickly.  If the sensetivity of the device
could be improved a little such that one doesn't have to swipe it, it'd
even be better.

I don't quite understand the privacy concerns.  People go to a public
meeting, have their name on the list of attendees, have their names in
the minutes as soon as they speak up and walk around with a name tag.
If this causes concerns for you, then you shouldn't show but rather
listen remotely to the audio stream (from an internet cafe, of course,
wearing a brown bag on your head).

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
                                                                  H.L.Mencken

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:41:56 +0900

> Very useful for those of us who volunteer to take minutes.

Yes indeed.   I haven't needed this yet, but I have had a huge problem identifying speakers in the past - having their name up in large friendly letters on a big screen in the corner is a huge win.

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:47:42 +0900

> that there are security concerns; what would be the best way to  

What's also quite useful is the ability to identify speakers at the
mike, it makes things easier for note takers in particular.

Lada
 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:48:36 +1300

>> other RFCs) and compare to our practice.

Been there, done that, got bloody nose.
(see http://tools.ietf.org/id/?doc=draft-carpenter-rfc2026)

> there was any correspondence between the two.

Which is actually more important than for RFC2026 and 2418.

   Brian

---

From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:49:06 -0600

I like the concept. I do not have privacy concerns, given that even if you could determine the link between the RFID and my account, for your trouble you are the proud owner of mostly useless information, a lot of which you probably already know. It's not like the system asks for any sort of personal info that could be used maliciously (nor should it).
I would argue that if you are actually that interested in me (or any other attendee) that there are much easier ways to get more useful information about me than to try to compromise a benign RFID system.

I echo John's comments - too many instances of reader issues, site login problems, incorrect room/reader associations leading to incorrect records for this to be quite ready for primetime as a replacement for the bluesheets, but a great idea, and one we should continue to refine.

I would recommend that if the folks undertaking this experiment are willing, we continue with the experiment for the next few meetings in order to work the kinks out and enhance the system (such as populating on Jabber/audio), perhaps with a dedicated mailing list for RFID issues/suggestions.

Thanks,
Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 8:12 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [76attendees] RFID

--John

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:54:08 +0900

George, Wes E [NTK] allegedly wrote on 11/10/2009 10:49 AM:
> I would recommend that if the folks undertaking this experiment are
> willing, we continue with the experiment for the next few meetings in
> order to work the kinks out and enhance the system (such as
> populating on Jabber/audio), perhaps with a dedicated mailing list
> for RFID issues/suggestions.

Keep your RFID tag for next meeting and get a discount, folks.

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:06:37 +0900

I find it very useful. Especially, to be able to get the names of speakers
at the mikes.

Privacy is not an issue here, I think. People already chose to post any
non-critical personal information at logging in onto the main page.
Attending an open meeting shouldn't be a privacy issue. If you're concerned,
you can just choose not to swipe the card against the reader.

Although it should be very convenient, automatic detection through the gates
is not a recommendable way. This then begins to touch on some privacy
concern, I think.

One more thing. More stable operation of the card reading would be
desirable.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm sure this will come up in the IAOC survey next week, but I'm curious to
> ask now about the RFID experiment now that we have had a day or so using it.
>
> What do people think of it? Is it useful/interesting? If we were to make it
> more functional, such as enabling it to be read at the door obviating the
> blue sheet, would that be a good direction? I recognize that there are
> security concerns; what would be the best way to obviate them?

-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:23:00 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dae Young KIM 
To: Fred Baker 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [76attendees] RFID

>I find it very useful. Especially, to be able to get the names of speakers at the mikes.

+1, an opportunity to know their name.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:02:17 -0500

I've seen two different interpretations of "having a card reader at the 
door": 1) a scanner that tracks everyone as they enter or exit the door, 
and 2) a reader sitting at the door that you can swipe your badge on as 
you enter as an alternative to the blue sheets. I would find the former 
troublesome, but not the latter.

Another alternative to the card reader at the door is something I saw at 
one of yesterday's sessions: a card reader passed along with the blue 
sheets. (Would that be an eBlueSheet (tm)? :-) ) However, there was only 
one of those and the *other* blue sheet clip board did not have its own 
card reader.

A couple further thoughts:

*) With the blue sheets, we have parallelism as multiple sheets are 
passed around the room. Swiping a reader that's being passed around 
would be faster, so this might not be much of an issue. If this were 
chosen as the working model, it might be better to have two of the readers.

*) A number of people, such as WG chairs, come early to a meeting to set 
up. And at the end of a meeting, the WG chairs will often hold up the 
blue sheets to get any one to sign up that missed signing in earlier. A 
eBlueSheet needs to be able to handle both of these cases, and 
differentiate signins between meetings.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Dae Young KIM wrote:
> 
> Although it should be very convenient, automatic detection through the 
> gates is not a recommendable way. This then begins to touch on some 
> privacy concern, I think.

---

From: "Shridhar Rao (shrirao)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:32:41 +0530

I am sure it is useful, but I am just worried about all the extra
plastic junk that we are creating... The world is full of trash already
and we will contribute more toxic waste whereas we could simply announce
our names to people ...
My 2 cents .
-shridhar-

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [76attendees] RFID

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:05:37 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:12:42 -0500 (EST), Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]> said:

SW> ==Randy.  Knowing that the paper sheets are being permanently
SW> retained, I've quit signing the blue sheets.

Knowing that the paper sheets are being permanently retained, I've
started signing all the blue sheets as "Samuel Weiler".
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:06:57 -0800

> troublesome, but not the latter.

Given the current readers, the former seems difficult.

They alleged range is 7cm, and typical is more like 2.

Joe

---

From: Rob Evans <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:08:43 +0000

> started signing all the blue sheets as "Samuel Weiler".

I'm SPARTA(cus)!

Rob

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:16:55 -0500 (EST)

> started signing all the blue sheets as "Samuel Weiler".

Wonderful.  The more noise you add to the blue sheets, the better off 
we all are.  :-)

On a more practical note, while the speaker name display is useful in 
the room (esp. for scribes), I've seen people tend away from 
announcing themselves verbally , which makes things trickier for those 
listening to the audio stream (or the audio archive).

-- Sam

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:17:39 +0900

> started signing all the blue sheets as "Samuel Weiler".

That's OK - I hear he signs his as "Randy Bush" ;-)

Ray

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:30:44 +0900

On 11/10/09 12:02 PM, Shridhar Rao (shrirao) wrote:
> plastic junk that we are creating... The world is full of trash
> already and we will contribute more toxic waste

We could instead use barcodes (which are already printed on the backs of 
the badges). I think this has worked fine, and has many advantages over 
written blue-sheets and announcing names, but I think barcodes probably 
solve the problem more simply and have less security concerns.

(I also agree that scanners for bluesheets belong at the door, not 
passed around.)

> whereas we could simply announce our names to people ...

Announcing names is problematic because people speak them too fast, and 
spellings are tricky. Scanning is better.

pr

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:37:55 +0900

I think this is a net-plus.  It is great seeing the names for speakers &
questioners on the screen. 

I have a UI request.  If someone asks a question and swipes their RFID
during a preso the presenters name gets pushed off and forces the them
to re-swipe to refresh.  I can think of a few ways to fix this but all
are probably overly complicated (e.g., a control screen for session
chairs, semantics associated with certain readers, etc).  There's
probably a much simpler way to handle this that someone else can come up
with.

Regarding privacy, since everyone seems to be commenting on it, I have
no concerns so long as use of the readers is 'requested but not
required'.  I.e., we should log our presence in wg sessions but we don't
police it.  The is my perception of the current policy and I don't see
why RFID technology should change that.  I also would resist using these
tags for any sort of 'access control' such as terminal room access or,
heaven forbid, cookie quotas.

--aaron

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:30:47 +0900

What Paul said. In addition, it's very helpful for chairs when we have a 
bunch of attendees that we don't know by sight. I have one new working 
group, but all three of the meetings I co-chaired on Monday had attendees I 
didn't recognize (I'm sure that's just because of the meeting location).

> Very useful for those of us who volunteer to take minutes.

I do wish it was more responsive (it seems like about half the mike speakers 
end up dorking with their badges before they finally see their information 
appear), but i'm assuming that just happens over time like every other 
technology.

Spencer

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:37:06 +0900

On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:30 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> What Paul said. In addition, it's very helpful for chairs when we  
> have a bunch of attendees that we don't know by sight. I have one  
> new working group, but all three of the meetings I co-chaired on  
> Monday had attendees I didn't recognize (I'm sure that's just  
> because of the meeting location).
>
>
> I do wish it was more responsive (it seems like about half the mike  
> speakers end up dorking with their badges before they finally see  
> their information appear), but i'm assuming that just happens over  
> time like every other technology.

I think that the RFID experiment has been helpful thus far. Yes, there  
has been a technical glitch or two, but that's to expect from a first  
trial like this in an IETF.

While we're at it, two more technical things would be good to see in  
the future:

	o	a Jabber robot echoing the speaker name to the Jabber room;

	o	(likely more complicated) a text-to-speech robot injecting the  
speaker name
		on the audio-stream.

I noticed that these would be handy when trying to be in one meeting  
and following with one ear the discussions in another concurrent  
session this afternoon.

All in all, however, I think that the initiative of the RFID team has  
been quite excellent.

Thomas

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:37:18 +0900

Spencer Dawkins allegedly wrote on 11/10/2009 9:30 PM:
> speakers end up dorking with their badges before they finally see their
> information appear), but i'm assuming that just happens over time like
> every other technology.

I consider it pilot error.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:38:49 +0900

Sam,

> On a more practical note, while the speaker name display is useful in the 
> room (esp. for scribes), I've seen people tend away from announcing 
> themselves verbally , which makes things trickier for those listening to 
> the audio stream (or the audio archive).

Your mileage may vary, but I can't remember a meeting where more than half 
the people consistently announced themselves at the mike - I used to stop 
people and ask (as chair) but decided that was just being obnoxious.

What would be helpful would be putting this information in Jabber when a tag 
is swiped - that's about half of what many jabber scribes do, and it's 
pretty close to being automated. Nice.

I should also mention that it's nice (as note-taker) to not have to crank my 
head around looking for faces when I don't recognize voices - I can keep my 
eyes forward where my laptop is.

Spencer

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:07:22 +0900

> I consider it pilot error.

Some blame the pilot, some the user interface.  I think people's main  
job at the mic is to make their point plainly, not to cajole the RFID  
reader into recognizing them.  Although it's best when it works  
straight off, from my POV the next best is for the speaker to give up  
without breaking stride, make his or her point, and move on.  YMMV of  
course.

--John

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:52:32 -0800

Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
...
> While we're at it, two more technical things would be good to see in the
> future:
> 
> o (likely more complicated) a text-to-speech robot injecting the speaker
> name
> on the audio-stream.

Well, this could be a lot simpler. E.g., the web page could accept an
upload of a recorded message, so the author could speak their own name
to be inserted.

That could be supported either by individual users or could be supported
at a "microphone stand" at the venue (e.g., near the RFID help desk).

Joe

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:05:59 -0600

I agree. However, I noticed few folks trying to make the RFID reader by
placing the card on the iPod instead of the reader, and getting
frustrated that it wasn't working. This shouldn't be the reader's fault.

Cheers,
Rajiv

> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of John G. Scudder
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:07 AM
> To: Scott Brim
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:21:13 +0200

> frustrated that it wasn't working. This shouldn't be the reader's fault.

Other problem people often have that they go back to the same reader
which has already read their card 10 minutes before and which has not
read any other card in between (the other rfid card was read on the
other reader). What happens there is that the reader notices that this
is same card than last time, and ignores the card.

For user this just looks like the card is not working. What they need
to do is to use the wipe card (or any other card) and read that in and
then reread their own card.

It would be nice if the reader could be made so it does not remember
the last read card forever, but would forget it after 60 seconds or
so. 

This same problem most often hit the chairs, as almost nobody else
uses their reader than them... 
-- 
[email-masked]