Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16

[Based on the 24 February 2012 template of the Document Shepherd Write-Up.]

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

BCP, as listed on the title page - This document defines an administrative
policy for the IETF. It is intended to be the product of IETF consensus.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

   The purpose of this document is to guide the IASA in their selection
   of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels when arranging IETF
   plenary meeting venue selection.  The IASA applies this guidance at
   different points in the process in an attempt to faithfully meet the
   requirements of the IETF community. We specify a set of general
   criteria for venue selection and several requirements for
   transparency and community consultation.

Working Group Summary

   Two things of note: 1) There was a good deal of disagreement about
   the general format of the document and its purpose at the time the
   current chairs were appointed. In particular, it was difficult to
   figure out what different people meant by "mandatory" and
   "important". In the end, rough consensus seemed to be that
   "mandatory" items were those that could not be disregarded by IASA
   without coming back to the community and get a new consensus on the
   failure to meet the criteria, while "important" items were those that
   IASA could exercise it's judgment, and simply report to the community
   if any were not met. In the end, only three items were considered
   "mandatory". 2) Several people made direct and significant textual
   contributions to the document. They are now noted in the
   "Contributors" section, as per current procedure. However, this is
   obviously not ideal, since those people are not included in the
   citation index or on the cover page of the document. On the other
   hand, having all of those people on the front page is unwieldy, and
   having them all responsible to reply to the AUTH48 is undesirable.
   This is something that the IESG should work out.

Document Quality

   The secretariat (and in particular, the meeting arranger) did a
   solicited review of the document, and all comments were addressed in
   the document. The secretariat also did a review of how previous
   meetings would or would not have conformed to the criteria in the
   document, and the WG found the results to be satisfactory.

Personnel

  Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> is the shepherd.
  Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The shepherd has thoroughly read each version of the document, including
the current one, and has read all commentary on the WG mailing list to
ensure that all issues were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns. In particular, see Document Quality above.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

See Document Quality above. No other specialist reviews required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No major concerns. A couple of nits to be addressed in the post-Last Call
or post-IESG review version of the document: 

   In 2.1: The "Why we meet" and "Where we meet" should end with ":",
   not "?". To be even more consistent with the rest of the list,
   perhaps change them to "Purpose" and "Location".

   In 3.1: In the third bullet, s/Meeting Venue/Facility and IETF Hotels

   In 3.2: s/preferable than another/preferable to another

   In 3.2.4: The 5th bullet (disabilities) should mirror the 3rd bullet
   in 3.2.2.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Since this is a non-technical document, no IPR should be applicable.
If the AD truly wants the question asked of anyone beyond the editor,
the shepherd will dutifully comply.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

None filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?   

There appears to be WG-wide agreement on the document, notwithstanding
the rough consensus noted in  "Working Group Summary" above.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

No appeals anticipated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Nits tool only made two comments (see 14 below); no real nits found by
the tool or the shepherd.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No required formal reviews outside of normal IETF process requirements.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Check.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is a normative reference to the IAOC's "Network Requirements"
web page. The shepherd believes that is appropriate.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure. 

None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

None noted, but the IESG might want to consider whether this is
included in BCP 101.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA allocations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No IANA allocations.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None needed.
Back