Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9501 <draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-09> for your review

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Greetings authors,

This is a friendly reminder that we have not yet heard from you regarding the questions below.  Please review and let us know how/if the questions can be resolved. 

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg


> On Nov 2, 2023, at 4:50 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] We have marked this as part of BCP 95 because it extends 
> RFC 3935, which is part of BCP 95.  Please review and let us know if this 
> is incorrect. 
> 
> RFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF 
> 
> A current list of BCPs is available here: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] May we simplify "by stating that there must be a free 
> option" to "by requiring a free option"?  May we also remove "over the 
> Internet", as it seems redundant with "online".  
> 
> Original: 
>   This document outlines a principle for open participation that
>   extends the open process principle defined in RFC3935 by stating that
>   there must be a free option for online participation to IETF meetings
>   and, if possible, related IETF-hosted events over the Internet.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   This document outlines a principle for open participation that
>   extends the open process principle defined in RFC 3935 by requiring
>   a free option for online participation in IETF meetings
>   and, if possible, related IETF-hosted events. 
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] "incorporate" is unclear here.  For clarity, please 
> consider whether the following update maintains the intended meaning. 
> 
> Original:
>   This document outlines the principle of open participation that the
>   IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) is expected to incorporate into
>   decisions about the registration fee structure for remote
>   participation.
> 
> Perhaps: 
>   This document outlines the principle of open participation that the
>   IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) is expected to consider when making
>   decisions about the registration fee structure for remote
>   participation.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] May we update this to indicate that the organizers or 
> related events are encouraged to follow the principle?  
> 
> Original: 
>   Related events
>   collocated with an IETF meeting are part of the IETF's open process
>   [RFC3935] and are encouraged to follow this principle as well, if
>   they offer remote participation at all.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   If remote participation is offered for related events that are 
>   collocated with an IETF meeting, organizers of the related events are 
>   encouraged to follow this principle as well as part of the IETF's open 
>   process [RFC9395]. 
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider whether the suggested 
> update conveys the intended meaning. 
> 
> Original: 
>   While RFC3935 explicitly notes that this principle includes a
>   requirement to open basically all our documents and material and to
>   make them accessible over the Internet, it was written with mainly
>   having email interactions in mind when talking about participation.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   While [RFC3935] explicitly notes that this principle requires
>   our documents and materials to be open and accessible over the Internet, 
>   it was primarily written with email interactions in mind when talking 
>   about participation.
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] This sentence seems repetitive (i.e., openness should be 
> seen as open). Please consider rephrasing it.
> 
> Original:
>   Particularly in this context, openness
>   should be seen as open and free.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the order of the sentences in 
> this paragraph so that the interjected note is in its own paragraph as 
> follows?
> 
> Original: 
>   This document does not stipulate that all IETF meetings or related
>   IETF events must have a remote participation option, because there
>   could be technical or other reasons why that might not always be
>   possible.  This document rather states that if remote participation
>   is provided, there should always be a free option to make the process
>   as open as possible.  This document does not specify the
>   implementation details of the free option and leaves this to the LLC.
>   At the time of publication an approach to request a fee waiver was
>   implemented.  Further, it is of course strongly anticipated that at
>   least all working group sessions as well as BoFs and the
>   administrative plenary of an IETF meeting provide an option for
>   remote participation.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   This document does not stipulate that all IETF meetings or related
>   IETF events must have a remote participation option, because there
>   could be technical or other reasons why that might not always be
>   possible.  However, if remote participation 
>   is provided, there should always be a free option to make the process
>   as open as possible.  At a minimum, working group sessions, BoFs, and 
>   the administrative plenary are expected to provide a remote
>   participation option.  
> 
>   Note that this document does not specify the
>   implementation details of the free option and leaves this to the LLC.
>   At the time of publication, this requirement was satisfied by allowing
>   participants to request a fee waiver.
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review this possibly contradictory text in Section 
> 3.  The text first says the intent "is not to make remote participation 
> free for everyone" and later says "[i]f unlimited free remote participation 
> is determined to adversely affect financial sustainability of the IETF", 
> which seems to imply that the LLC should initially consider universal free 
> remote participation.  Please let us know how/if this may be updated. 
> 
> Section 3, p1: 
>   Meeting fees are a way to distribute these and other operating costs
>   of the IETF among participants, even though they do not fully offset
>   the costs of either holding the meeting or operating the IETF.  As
>   such, the intention of this document and the principle stated herein
>   is not to make remote participation free for everyone, but to always
>   offer a free remote option that enables remote participation without
>   any barriers other than the application for free registration when
>   the registration fee itself is a barrier to participation.
> 
> Section 3, p3: 
>  If unlimited free remote participation is determined to adversely
>  affect financial sustainability of the IETF, e.g. if the number of
>  paying participants or the cost of free participation emerges to be a
>  significant factor, the LLC is expected to implement additional
>  measures to manage these costs.
> -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] In the last sentence, what does "decide to do this" refer 
> to?  The "implementation of additional measures to manage costs"?  
> 
> Original: 
>   If unlimited free remote participation is determined to adversely
>   affect financial sustainability of the IETF, e.g. if the number of
>   paying participants or the cost of free participation emerges to be a
>   significant factor, the LLC is expected to implement additional
>   measures to manage these costs.  This document does not and cannot
>   restrict the LLC in its financial responsibility and therefore does
>   not impose any limitation on the use of appropriate measures.  If the
>   LLC decides to do this, they should make their decision and rationale
>   known to the community and consider community consultation as
>   specified in Section 4.4 of RFC8711 in order "to obtain consensus-
>   based community input on key issues".
> 
> Perhaps:
>   If unlimited free remote participation is determined to adversely
>   affect financial sustainability of the IETF, e.g., if the number of
>   paying participants or the cost of free participation emerges as a
>   significant factor, the LLC is expected to implement additional
>   measures to manage these costs.  (This document does not and cannot
>   restrict the LLC in its financial responsibility and therefore does
>   not impose any limitation on the use of appropriate measures.)  If the
>   LLC decides to implement additional measures, they should share
>   their decision and rationale with the community and consider whether 
>   community consultation as specified in Section 4.4 of [RFC8711] is 
>   needed "to obtain consensus-based community input on key issues".
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!-- [rfced] "choices" reads awkwardly.  Please consider whether the 
> suggested update conveys the intended meaning. 
> 
> Original:
>   As such, this document
>   defines the principle of free participation but leaves room for
>   choices in the implementation by the LLC. 
> 
> Perhaps:
>   As such, this document
>   defines the principle of free participation but leaves implementation 
>   details to the LLC. 
> -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!-- [rfced] To simplify this statement, may we update the text as 
> follows?  
> 
> Original:
>   It is expected that participants who have financial support to use
>   the paid regular registration option will do so.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   Participants who have financial support are expected to use
>   the paid regular registration option. 
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!--[rfced] For clarity, please consider whether the update clarifies 
> the intended meaning.  The first sentence is included for context.  
> 
> Original:
>   Paying a
>   registration fee is a way for their sponsor to support the
>   sustainability of the IETF.  For example, a higher late payment
>   charge can be used to maximize this financial support.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   ... For example, a registrant may choose to pay the higher late 
>   registration fee to maximize financial support. 
> -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider whether "cross-finance" 
> should be "finance".
> 
> Original:
>   Such trends can impact the sustainability of the IETF due to its
>   dependency on meetings fees to cross-finance other costs, independent
>   of use of the free registrations.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 4:46 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/11/02
> 
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
> 
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> 
> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> 
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
> your approval.
> 
> Planning your review 
> ---------------------
> 
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
> 
> *  RFC Editor questions
> 
>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>   follows:
> 
>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> 
>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> 
> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
> 
>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> 
> *  Content 
> 
>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>   - contact information
>   - references
> 
> *  Copyright notices and legends
> 
>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> 
> *  Semantic markup
> 
>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> 
> *  Formatted output
> 
>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> 
> 
> Submitting changes
> ------------------
> 
> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
> include:
> 
>   *  your coauthors
> 
>   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> 
>   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> 
>   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>      list:
> 
>     *  More info:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> 
>     *  The archive itself:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> 
>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
> 
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> 
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
> 
> Section # (or indicate Global)
> 
> OLD:
> old text
> 
> NEW:
> new text
> 
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> 
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
> 
> 
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
> 
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> 
> 
> Files 
> -----
> 
> The files are available here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-xmldiff1.html
> 
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
> diff files of the XML.  
> 
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.original.v2v3.xml 
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> only: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9501
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9501 (draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-09)
> 
> Title            : Open Participation Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee
> Author(s)        : M. Kühlewind, J. Reed, R. Salz
> WG Chair(s)      : Suresh Krishnan, Mallory Knodel
> 
> Area Director(s) : Lars Eggert