Date from

Date to

We received 353 responses, 258 onsite, and 92 remote. With 1515 registered participants, this gives the survey a maximum margin of error of +/- 4.57%.

As with previous analyses, comparisons are drawn both to the immediately preceding meeting (IETF 124 in Montreal) and to the most recent meeting held in Asia (IETF 122 in Bangkok), 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.

New questions & options added:

• A new question about the impact of network authentication requirements on respondents' participation was added.
• The "Main social event on Tuesday evening" was added as a new option in the satisfaction for onsite experience question.
• In the source of the funding question, a new option for “A funded group” was added.
• A new satisfaction metric for “The room size and layout” was added to the side meeting satisfaction question.
• A new option of “Travel disruption from the conflict in the Middle East” was added as a reason to participate remotely.
• The wording for the sector participation question was updated from "What sectors do you work in?" to "What sectors do/did you work in?"

Options removed from questions:

• The option for the “Booking process” was dropped from the side meeting satisfaction question.
• The option for “Pecha Kucha” was removed from the list of agenda satisfaction items.

Based on feedback from the previous meeting, several changes were implemented for IETF 125 to improve the overall participant experience:

• Introduced a new tool for booking side meetings, aimed at simplifying scheduling and coordination
• Added monitor speakers in larger Working Group session rooms to improve in-room audio, particularly for session chairs
• Conducted pre-meeting testing to assess and reduce noise bleed between rooms, including during HotRFC and the Welcome Reception
• Adjusted the daily schedule to begin at 09:00 (previously 09:30), enabling a dedicated mid-day lunch break at 12:30
• Provided individually packaged gluten-free meal boxes for all registered participants with dietary requirements

These changes reflect a continued effort to respond directly to participant feedback and enhance both onsite logistics and overall meeting flow.

Overall satisfaction is 4.39, a good result. With some key exceptions, the satisfaction scores remain high.

The table below shows the satisfaction scores for the last six meetings, along with colour coded indicators for the five point scale above: excellent (🔵), good (🟢), acceptable (🟡), poor (🔴), very poor (⚫️)

The overall satisfaction score for this meeting was good, and fairly consistent with scores of past IETF meetings of 2025. However, there was a notable gap based on the mode of participation - Onsite (4.69) & Remote (3.50). Survey results continue to indicate that venue selection has a significant impact on satisfaction, along with the improvements we make to each meeting.

The Shenzhen venue, the Futian Shangri-La, received the highest satisfaction scores of the past three meetings. participants particularly noted the excellent value-to-cost ratio, reflected in a significant jump in satisfaction scores for room costs compared to previous venues. The hotel’s central location and close proximity to amenities were also highly rated.

The meeting agenda continues to receive high satisfaction ratings from our participants, with HotRFC sessions emerging as a particular highlight. Satisfaction for these lightning talks increased substantially (4.60), marking a strong recovery from the lower scores recorded in the last meeting at Montreal(3.83). This rebound indicates that our team's targeted efforts- specifically the introduction of monitor speakers for presenters and proactive testing to mitigate noise bleed significantly enhanced the experience for both speakers and the audience.

Participation in side meetings saw a significant increase in Shenzhen, with the number of participants participating in more than five sessions nearly tripling (14.74%, 46) compared to our recent meetings in from Montreal (5.02%, 11) & in Bangkok (4.59%, 10). Overall satisfaction for these sessions moved into the "Good" range (above 4.0, 4.13), indicating that our proactive approach to reaching out to organizers beforehand and scheduling adjustments are yielding positive results. However, while satisfaction increased across all side meeting attributes, agenda conflicts remain the most significant challenge. Feedback suggests that side meetings frequently overlapped with Working Group sessions, and participants noted some remaining inconsistencies in room sizing and agenda visibility. In particular they mentioned that room sizes were insufficient to meet demand for participation and reported difficulty in finding information about the side meetings from the main meeting agenda.

The Tuesday evening social event was very popular. As a sponsored activity, it achieved an exceptional satisfaction score of 4.84, making it one of the most appreciated experiences of the week.

Social events play an important role in fostering informal collaboration and community engagement during the meeting. These events are made possible through the support of meeting hosts. Future hosts interested in sponsoring a social event are encouraged to reach out to discuss opportunities.

The Welcome & Farewell reception also received a high satisfaction rating.

The number of first-time participants increased significantly to 134 in Shenzhen, up from 85 in Montreal and 67 in Bangkok. Engagement among this group was high, with two out of three new participants reporting they successfully achieved their goals for the meeting. Highlights for this group included the New Participant Quick Connections and our session-focused blog posts, both of which achieved exceptional mean scores in the 4.8 range. Feedback suggests that new participants would like more networking opportunities and more onboarding support/training.

A total of 730 participants participated remotely, with 92 responding to the survey. Among respondents, overall satisfaction with the remote experience decreased to 3.50, compared to 4.10 in Montreal and 4.02 in Bangkok.

Feedback indicates that this decline was driven by several factors, including:

• Audio and video quality from onsite sessions due to network disruptions
• Challenges with remote support
• Agenda conflicts, particularly with side meetings
• Technical difficulties related to Meetecho

Improving the remote experience remains a priority. In preparation for future meetings, efforts are underway to strengthen network reliability and better simulate real-world usage ahead of the event.

Thank you everyone who responded to this survey, your feedback is much appreciated.