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

Alissa Cooper <> Mon, 14 May 2018 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6231012E8CC; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=GwwUFcpq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=A6hDDdmG
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DH0alEgWjeIw; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1C0512E8E7; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00092253C; Mon, 14 May 2018 16:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 14 May 2018 16:01:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=aA48AggVRocl0Ly1nyTZ4kmfdEW4NonYi0E7Acjxk2k=; b=GwwUFcpq liWoEUAReGxNDVHKG3nZB59OgJUnEZrxiTy7J3zoecyi2ntAnhMjK2QdNBe/XkEj R3BsHqUkGuA/ebKk6R6URGooa3lPrlYsYL5irSnf1T00ext3up3oIJc2kHJC/aca 7+5ddKDGV/xgByFplL95Xu9mbrcgH0mvUvlGhZ+MnI/zzUs0KczcldaMj7VCRukk IzyarSSWrFkKqP/Bkw0tAUQle+8ygDtS7VZ8TlOVQj5nIMspATZu9IgJ38MJuQ1Q WmDpTAzGp+tuoQ6JTq8hPdOok/XCy++3xfsVy46ZC5GrUXJbojNTvm9ZRz5X9JJV Q+W3T8tL4uRP/A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=aA48AggVRocl0Ly1nyTZ4kmfdEW4N onYi0E7Acjxk2k=; b=A6hDDdmGnftN7Z8P/w6Tv3yCxmWjOerECH0xFnVJsdrd3 TwhtmgtPe+f+IIPqsyWHXVceuireJk1Tr7xO2awY/18VZR98/MRHRNdnXWnOc8zV TIw7ASP3EVHp1RA8buc4Rou+SAM9KDtWmtBbNCuUqr7WjDjQ/PW9KmynN4xeRyT2 aO03iLwfRS/8pUZmKtS37LJ8WFwcolwTCY+3aXFF7Oq9D0KwxCS/avmK2gBt11gU 01DKbWn/2mVG6NKzBertp9q7k/8kH+TcgRdgHXcojZROY8zrNZtdWHvh62BYwifE MpnFsWRPU1XWnq593llfDQlTxM7QJaBktYuN3dNtg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Buv5Wm9HoHBoqWq8_ErWITyuSsN62n_qeKdSlBwj-iLdBJnmnXKBTg>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BD80E10261; Mon, 14 May 2018 16:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A6279ED-8688-4216-B55D-62E9E7A5DB54"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:01:08 -0400
Cc: IETF-Announce <>, Charles Eckel <>,,,
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:01:29 -0000

Suresh has posted a revised version of this document based on the last call comments: <>

In response to the last call comments, this version makes it clear that the policy being documented is aspirational, which seems to be the rough consensus view of the IETF community. The new text in Section 3 clarifies that the geographic location of a venue should be considered at the same level as Important Criteria specified in draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. 

Please take a look at the changes.


> On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:12 PM, The IESG <> 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
> mailing lists by 2018-04-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to 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
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.