Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 17 April 2018 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0088112D95E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9sfiluWrtePu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 620A912783A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51184300687 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:44 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id osmynX6RDI1X for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.20.3.209] (unknown [65.216.167.67]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3132230025C; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <152295916074.25912.932711807710247299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:43 -0400
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B86A9648-9C63-481D-B4B8-9E981AB0FE73@vigilsec.com>
References: <152295916074.25912.932711807710247299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ALYjPCH-irCRxF_R0gIFGruzeQg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:47:49 -0000

Thanks for putting this document together.  I have two minor comments.

First, in Section 2 the document says:

   Please note that the boundaries between those regions has been
   purposefully left undefined per WG consensus.

As a BCP, I think it would be more valuable to simply say:

   The boundaries between regions is purposefully left ambiguous.


Second, at the end of Section 2, the document says:

   How often we intend to do such meetings in the future should also be
   an open topic for discussion within the community.

I think the document should nail down who makes this decision.  I suggest:

   The timing and frequency of such exploratory meetings in the future
   is left to the IETF Chair, after discussion with the IESG and the
   community.

Russ


> On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:12 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Meeting Venue WG (mtgvenue) to
> consider the following document: - 'High level guidance for the meeting
> policy of the IETF'
>  <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> as Best Current Practice
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-04-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>   This document describes a proposed meeting location policy for the
>   IETF and the various stakeholders for realizing such a policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
> 
>