Re: [72attendees] New mailing list to discuss IETF Food requirements

"Mary Barnes" <> Tue, 26 August 2008 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EF528C106; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C0A3A6BE3 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.925
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.185, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9sDRSsDGYkgU for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB9528C227 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m7QJGKD21718; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:16:20 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:13:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [72attendees] New mailing list to discuss IETF Food requirements
thread-index: AckHq4hSN4Y6UZrKRsmb139NuIiKKAAAeGsg
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Mary Barnes" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: [72attendees] New mailing list to discuss IETF Food requirements
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Actually, in the U.S., celiac, for example (and I believe diabetes) is
covered by the American Disabilities Act (section 504), since it
substantially limits the "major life activity" of eating.  So, while
IETF no longer receives government funding as far as I'm aware, it was
my understanding the organization in general follows the spirit of the

I also think it's important that folks are aware that at least for the
medical restrictions, we are talking about a "need" and not a "want".
Since cookies are considered a requirement per the IETF Tao, it's
important to consider that for some of us it's not that we "want"
gluten-free or sugar-free cookies, but if we were to eat cookies, we
would "need" gluten-free or sugar-free ones.  

My personal opinion is that when we stay at full service hotels, then we
should expect full service (i.e., we're at a Hilton and not a Hampton
Inn). And, per the law in the U.S. hotels are required to support the
ADA act:


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave CROCKER [] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Subject: Re: [72attendees] New mailing list to discuss IETF Food


Given the diversity of IETF participation, we can be assured that there
are representatives for almost any point of view.  So, yes, I'm sure
that some folks have no empathy or sympathy for the plight of others
with culinary constraints. 
  But I think it is clear that that is not a dominant, or even
significant, constituency within the IETF.

Rather, I believe the issue is merely one of practicality.  Some needs
are easily accommodated.  Some are not.

Where more information is needed, the kind of discussion you are
planning could be quite helpful.

But there are practical limits.  Limited resources and priorities to

That's why I ended by noting the considerable strategic benefit that
accrues from placing the IETF somewhere with rich local resources:  It
can offload the IETF machinery from some considerable burdens.

No matter how accommodating a hotel's staff might wish to be it, too,
has resource constraints.


Mary Barnes wrote:
> I have no doubt that if everyone was impacted in such a way (i.e., no 
> suitable meal for over 12 hours during the day) that folks would 
> expect
> I do realize that for folks that don't have these limitations, the 
> whole idea that this requires ANY discussion seems quite trite and 
> whiny, but
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave CROCKER []
 > So, striking a reasonable balance between the two is the interesting
> challenge.
> d/
> ps. Having meetings placed in resource-rich venues, within walking 
> distance of those resources, is an important way to accommodate 
> diverse requirements...


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
72attendees mailing list