IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard (was No Objection) Yes

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Comment (2018-06-06 for -15)
No email
send info
Thanks for this. Most of my comments are already covered, but here's a few:


§3.2.3 and §3.3: The first section says that the cost of "open and unfiltered internet" in public spaces and guest rooms in "typically" included in the room price. But the latter simply says they are included.  Is that the intenti? It seems odd for the overflow hotels to be held to a higher standard than the meeting hotel.

Editorial and Nits:

§1, 2nd paragraph: " the IASA to apply their " - Plural disagreement. (It looks like a mix of the US English tendency to treat organizations as singular entities and the British English tendency to treat them as plural collectives ).

§7: The last sentence seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; I suggest a separate paragraph.

Alissa Cooper Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2018-06-05 for -15)
No email
send info
I like where the exchange on Martin's comment has ended up.  Thanks for that.

Everything following my first comment is editorial (at most).

Given that we have an active effort to produce IASA 2.0, is 

   As always, the community is
   encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Nominations Committee
   (NOMCOM), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
   regarding the discharge of the IASA's performance.

going to age well?

I think 

      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks -- including
      a specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF" [RFC6771]
      - or in side meetings. 

should have the reference at the end of the sentence, as in 

      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks -- including
      a specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF" or side 
      meeting [RFC6771].

[RFC6771] uses both terms interchangeably.

Not asking for a text change on this, but I wonder when the last meeting was

  o  The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
      audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
      at the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add such
      infrastructure or these support technologies and services might be
      provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an acceptable --
      cost to the IETF.

where the Facility provided these things at no cost to the IETF ...

I wonder if "something of a preference for" is easy for ESL folk.

  o  We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
      "One Roof".  That is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
      available in the same facility.

I note that the following bullets are all "it is desirable".

This is a side question for the AD, but I note that we've started including long-lived URLs in RFCs, and I wonder if a URL could be selected to include in this text:

4.  Documentation Requirements

   The IETF Community works best when it is well informed.  This memo
   does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
   our requirements for meetings.  Nevertheless, both of these aspects
   are important.  Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
   current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
   meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
   fulfill the requirements of the community. 

ISTM that people would click on it more often if they didn't have to search for it ...

Suresh Krishnan Yes

Adam Roach Yes

Comment (2018-06-05 for -15)
No email
send info
Thanks to everyone who worked on this document.

I agree with Spencer's concern that this document is tightly tied to the current
IASA structure, which is under revision at the moment. I think it would be an
improvement to describe, in more general terms, the entity responsible for
selecting venues, with a single note early in the document that the entity
currently in that role is the IASA.

I also have a handful of editorial nits that the authors may wish to address.


Please expand "IASA" in the Abstract, assuming it remains in the Abstract.



>  It directs the IASA to make available additional process
>  documents around that describe the current meeting selection process.

I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. It seems to make sense if
you remove "around".



>     criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
>     the case where local laws may require filtering in some
>     circumstances.[MeetingNet]

It's not clear what "[MeetingNet]" is doing here. Perhaps some explanatory text
about what the reader can expect to find at that reference would be useful.

In any case, consider putting a space before the opening bracket.

Martin Vigoureux Yes

Comment (2018-06-05 for -15)
No email
send info

please forgive me for raising the following point, especially because I haven't participated in nor followed the discussions on that draft, but I would much prefer if "ethnicity" was used instead of "race".


Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-06-06 for -15)
No email
send info
I agree with Adam about removing "around".

All my comments after the first are purely editorial.

Section 2.1

      We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
      anyone who wants to be involved.

Snarkily, "trolls included?"  That is to say, (productive) participation is
not truly unlimited, in that we have mechanisms to restrict abusive and
harmful behavior.  But I do not have any suggestions for better text -- it's
unclear that "productive participation" is a good change to make, for example.

On "Inclusiveness", does the point (2) about laws want to have the
"or failing that" clause present in point (1)?

Section 3.3

   o  It is desirable for Overflow Hotels provide reasonable, reliable,
      unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
      this service is included in the cost of the room.

There seems to be a jarring mismatch of statement of
desire and statement of fact between the two clauses of this

Section 4

   Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
   current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
   meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
   fulfill the requirements of the community.

Are the first two (roles and responsibilities)
qualitatively different from the process used, in terms of
visibility requirements?  It may make sense to just list all three
together, without an "as well as".

Section 7

   The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
   limited protections that attendees can apply.

This reads oddly to me -- we provide for limited
privacy protections that attendees can choose to apply but are not
universally applied without explicit action?  What are they?
The text would read more naturally to me as "to provide for some
limited protections that apply to attendees", though that does of
course have a different meaning.

Warren Kumari No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2018-06-07 for -15)
No email
send info
Thank you for this document.

I am wondering what is the relationship between the section "2.1.  Core Values" and Section 3? I don't think all of core values are expressed as requirements. Is section 2 (and 2.1) Informative?

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2018-06-06 for -15)
No email
send info
(1) The term "participant" is used in several places, sometimes with different modifiers; for example: active, IETF and regular.  Some of the phrases seem to want to differentiate between them, but that distinction is not clear (for example): "in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time and expense across the regions in which IETF participants are based."  What is the difference between active and IETF participants?

Note that "attendee" is also used, in my interpretation, to also mean "participant".  Is that the intent, or is there a difference?  

Clarifying and being consistent would help.  I don't think that a terminology section is needed -- I just want to probe whether the terms were differentiated on purpose, and, if so, to understand what that differentiation may be.

(2) From §2.2 (Venue Selection Non-Objectives)

Maximal attendance:
     While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible both online
     and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
     a goal.  It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
     contributors with differing points of view did not have the
     opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full the

Should maximal attendance by "active contributors" be listed as an objective?  Measuring what that means will not be easy...but that seems to be corollary: the text above sounds like it says "it doesn't matter how many people show up, as long as active contributors are there".

BTW, following up on my first point, what's the relationship between "contributor" and "participant"?  Is there a difference between an "active contributor" and an "active participant"?

(3) §3.2 (Important Criteria) says that "when a particular requirement in this section cannot be may be appropriate for the IASA to assist those who, as a result, have been inconvenienced in some way."

What does the IASA providing assistance mean?  Looking at the criteria, would (for example) a high cost be considered an inconvenience?  Knowing that the intent is to spread the burden "over the course of multiple years", who determines that inconvenience?  How could the IASA assist?  Maybe there's some other purpose for that sentence for which I'm missing context.

(4) §3.2.5 (Food and Beverage)

   It is said that an army travels on its stomach.  So too does the
   IETF.  The following criteria relate to food and beverage.

Personal opinion: unfortunate quote and comparison.

   o  A range of attendee's health-related and religion-related dietary
      requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible onsite
      service or through access to an adequate grocery.

   o  The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
      accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
      reasonable walking distance, or conveniently accessible by a short
      taxi, bus, or subway ride, from the Facility and IETF Hotels.

These last two bullets sound almost the same: the difference seems to be in calling for "robust and flexible onsite service" in the first one.  Maybe they can be merged.

(5) I think that the reference to rfc3935 should be a Normative reference given that it defines why we meet (§2.1).

(6) Is the intent for this document and draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy to be part of the same BCP?  I would think so, but I didn't see that mentioned an the writeups.