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

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

I have sent my suggestions to my co-authors for them to review.

On 11/16/23, 8:50 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi,


now that the IETF is behind us, could we finalize the AUTH48?


Thanks,
Lars




> On Nov 8, 2023, at 10:21, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 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] <mailto:[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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wUCyrvDg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wUCyrvDg$> 
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
>> title) for use on https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zm56cqag$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zm56cqag$> . -->
>> 
>> 
>> 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] <mailto:[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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zXrgriOA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zXrgriOA$> ).
>> 
>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>> your approval.
>> 
>> Planning your review 
>> ---------------------
>> 
>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>> 
>> * RFC Editor questions
>> 
>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>> follows:
>> 
>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>> 
>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>> 
>> * Changes submitted by coauthors 
>> 
>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>> 
>> * Content 
>> 
>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>> - contact information
>> - references
>> 
>> * Copyright notices and legends
>> 
>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>> (TLP – https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wrvG_8pQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wrvG_8pQ$> ).
>> 
>> * Semantic markup
>> 
>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of 
>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6z-JA_1yA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6z-JA_1yA$> >.
>> 
>> * Formatted output
>> 
>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>> 
>> 
>> Submitting changes
>> ------------------
>> 
>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
>> include:
>> 
>> * your coauthors
>> 
>> * [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> (the RPC team)
>> 
>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>> 
>> * [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival mailing list 
>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>> list:
>> 
>> * More info:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wkNXpWUw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wkNXpWUw$> 
>> 
>> * The archive itself:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zK0V4d7A$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zK0V4d7A$> 
>> 
>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> will be re-added to the CC list and 
>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
>> 
>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>> 
>> An update to the provided XML file
>> — OR —
>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>> 
>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>> 
>> OLD:
>> old text
>> 
>> NEW:
>> new text
>> 
>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>> 
>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in 
>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>> 
>> 
>> Approving for publication
>> --------------------------
>> 
>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>> 
>> 
>> Files 
>> -----
>> 
>> The files are available here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zdczMKJg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zdczMKJg$> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6z0YR-gJQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6z0YR-gJQ$> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.pdf__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6xbKFRHNA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.pdf__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6xbKFRHNA$> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.txt__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6xavNO5xw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.txt__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6xavNO5xw$> 
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-diff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6y1wvKOdg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-diff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6y1wvKOdg$> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-rfcdiff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wgEjVgFg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-rfcdiff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wgEjVgFg$> (side by side)
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-xmldiff1.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zRo_XGkw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-xmldiff1.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zRo_XGkw$> 
>> 
>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>> diff files of the XML. 
>> 
>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.original.v2v3.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6yeWj6_cg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.original.v2v3.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6yeWj6_cg$> 
>> 
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> only: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.form.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zlE63kwQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.form.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6zlE63kwQ$> 
>> 
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9501__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wBqLVoIA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9501__;!!GjvTz_vk!SGiwawzE-kOBPfXQF9x69lO0m7NVsQYc7OJ8nTQpx7zUErCou0gPPedgu6xjb1ihb6wBqLVoIA$> 
>> 
>> 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