IETF 126 brought the community to Vienna, Austria, from 18–24 July 2026. Now that we’ve had a chance to dig into the post-meeting survey results, we’re sharing a closer look at what worked well, where we saw challenges, and what we can carry forward to future meetings.

A summary of the results is below, with more detailed data available in the public report. Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond. Your feedback gives us a clearer picture of the meeting experience and helps guide where we focus our efforts next.

We received 406 responses, 329 onsite, and 72 remote. With 1779 registered participants, this gives the survey a maximum margin of error of +/- 4.27%.

As with previous analyses, comparisons are drawn both to the immediately preceding meeting (IETF 125 in Shenzhen) and to the most recent meeting held in Europe (IETF 123 in Madrid), to provide regional context.

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. Please note that a small number of questions are on a four point scale.

Questions & options removed:

• The question regarding network authentication requirements was removed from the onsite experience section and the same option was removed from the remote section as these were specific to the previous meeting in Shenzhen, China, due to local internet policies.
• The Tuesday evening social event option was removed from the onsite experience satisfaction question, as no social event was held at IETF 126.

Questions & options reworded:

• In the new participants section, the Guide Program question was rephrased from "Did you have the assistance of an IETF Guide?" to "Were you assigned a personal IETF Guide through the official IETF Guide Program?".

Feedback from previous meetings continues to shape what we do next. For IETF 126, we:

• Added individually packaged gluten-free meal options for participants with specific dietary needs.
• Introduced build-your-own lunch stations for WG Chairs and Host Speaker Series lunches, helping reduce food and packaging waste.

These may be relatively small changes individually, but they’re part of our ongoing effort to make each meeting better, more accessible, and more sustainable.

Overall, IETF 126 received strong marks. 94% of respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the meeting, resulting in an overall satisfaction score of 4.34 out of 5.

The table below shows satisfaction scores across the last six meetings, using our five-point scale: excellent (🔵), good (🟢), acceptable (🟡), poor (🔴), and very poor (⚫️).

Vienna itself received some of the highest scores in the survey. The area surrounding the venue scored 4.63, while proximity to restaurants, supermarkets, pharmacies, and other amenities scored 4.62. Overall venue satisfaction was also strong, scoring 4.27 in the excellent range.

Space, however, was a challenge. Hallway seating and breakout spaces scored 3.32, with comments frequently mentioning crowding, limited workspace, and the size of the Hackathon space. IETF 126 had higher onsite attendance than anticipated when the venue was selected, and the limited space meant we were unable to add our typical supplemental hallway seating. Increasing informal seating and workspace will remain a priority for future meetings and venue selection.

Hotel room cost was another area that stood out, receiving a score of 3.08 in the poor range. Affordability continues to be an important consideration in our hotel negotiations and venue selection.

Over the past several meetings, we’ve made adjustments to the structure of the meeting week based directly on participant feedback. At IETF 126, those changes continued to receive strong support.

Starting sessions at 09:00 scored 4.40, while the 12:30 lunch break scored 4.35. Participants were positive about the 30/90 minute break structure, which received a 4.47, and the 60/90/120 minute session lengths, which scored 4.43.

Overall satisfaction with the structure of the meeting was 4.32.

The 17:30 Friday finish received a somewhat lower, though still positive, score of 4.00. We’ll continue to monitor feedback on the meeting schedule as we balance the amount of work that needs to fit into the week with the overall length and pace of each meeting day.

One of the most encouraging results from IETF 126 was the improvement in the remote participant experience. After falling to 3.50 in Shenzhen due to multiple technical issues, the overall satisfaction among remote respondents increased to 4.23 in Vienna, much closer to onsite satisfaction at 4.36.

Individual aspects of the remote experience were also rated highly, including audio and video quality (4.33), remote participation tools (4.29), and overall support for remote participation (4.31).

This is a meaningful improvement following feedback from IETF 125, which highlighted audio and video quality, remote support, and other technical challenges. There are still concerns on side meetings as a whole, particularly around remote participation in side meetings.

Overall satisfaction with the side meetings was in the acceptable range, with a score of 3.68. The average usefulness ratings were 3.84 for participants themselves and 3.85 for the broader IETF. A separate side meeting satisfaction survey was also conducted after IETF 126 and was sent to all IETF 126 side meeting organizers. Out of 42 recipients, 14 responded. Feedback from this survey closely mirrored the key concerns identified in the main post-meeting survey. In addition, respondents expressed appreciation for the IETF’s support for organizing the side meetings, they also rated the side meeting room layout and the room size in “good” range.

Scheduling remains the clearest challenge, with timing conflicts between side meetings and the main agenda receiving the lowest score at 3.08. Open-ended feedback echoed this concern, particularly around the growing number of side meetings, conflicts with Working Group and Research Group sessions, and available meeting space.

This feedback has been passed on to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) as the body responsible for these meetings.

Approximately 18% of survey respondents were participating in their first IETF meeting, and their feedback was particularly encouraging. Of all new participants, 99% of new participants said they were either successful or partially successful in achieving their participation goals. 86% said they plan to participate in another IETF meeting, with zero respondents selecting “No.”

The New Participant Program received an overall satisfaction score in the good range at 4.40, with particularly strong ratings for the session blog posts (4.53), Social Hour (4.48), and full-day training (4.44). More than 90% of those who attended the full-day training found it helpful or very helpful.

There are still opportunities to improve. 36% of new participants said they were not aware of the IETF Guide Program, and participants asked for more pre-meeting guidance, help navigating sessions and Working Groups, and additional networking opportunities.

We’ll use this feedback to continue improving how we welcome and support new participants.

We also asked remote participants what kept them from attending onsite. Travel costs (24%) and accommodation costs (18%) were the most common reasons, followed by difficulty taking a full week away from home or work (14%).

Remote participation remains essential to keeping IETF meetings globally accessible, but survey results suggest it is not the preferred format for most participants, with only 9% selecting remote attendance as their preference. Cost, time, visas, travel requirements, and other barriers all influence how participants are able to take part.

Understanding those barriers helps us to make more informed decisions about meeting locations, hotel costs, financial assistance, and how we continue investing in the remote experience.

Several elements of the onsite experience received strong ratings, including the IETF network (4.38), Farewell Reception (4.20), signage (4.19), Board Game Night (4.16), and Welcome Reception (4.06).

Food and drinks scored within the acceptable range at 3.77, with participants asking for greater variety, and additional options for those with dietary restrictions. For IETF 126, we introduced separately packaged takeaway options for registered gluten-free and vegan participants, but the feedback shows there is still room to improve the overall food and beverage experience.

We’ll continue using this feedback in our planning with venues and vendors for future meetings.

The post-meeting survey helps us identify where changes can have the greatest impact on the participant experience.:

• Space and meeting flow: Providing sufficient space for the Hackathon, informal collaboration, hallway conversations, and individual work.
• Side meetings: Continuing to address scheduling conflicts, room availability, and communication.
• Remote participation: Building on the improvements seen in Vienna.
• New participants: Improving awareness of the Guide Program and continuing to strengthen onboarding and networking opportunities.
• Food and beverage: Working with venues to improve variety, dietary options, and availability throughout breaks.
• Affordability: Continuing to consider hotel and travel costs as part of meeting and venue planning.

There’s always more we can do to improve, and your feedback helps us understand where to focus next. Thank you to everyone who took the time to share their experience with us. We take your feedback seriously, and it plays a real role in how we plan and improve future IETF meetings.