Re: [Mtgvenue] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-01.txt

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benson,

> On 12/01/2024 14.59, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> RFC8719 does need an update as it does not align with IETF core values
> as expressed in RFC3935 - an internet for everybody.

I don't think anyone disputes that the Internet is for everybody, but 
that doesn't necessarily mean that we engineers who support it should 
meet everywhere.  Hence, I don't agree that RFC 8719 is in conflict with 
RFC 3935.

That having been so stated, there is a niggling aspect of 8719 that I 
think does deserve some consideration: IMHO there is an emerging 
tradeoff that does need to be considered:

  * Sharing the travel pain, as we do today;
  * Environmental impact of meeting at a particular locale;
  * Overall cost to both the IETF and individuals

As an example of a place I would not want to meet at: Las Vegas. The 
costs are exorbitant, and the environmental impact of Vegas is 
atrocious.  It's pretty much a trifecta.  But imagine a locale that 
takes the environment quite seriously, where power, for instance, is 
generated through solar, geothermal, etc, where the meeting costs are 
low, but getting there is a bit of a trick.  A good example might be 
Montevideo, UY.  Now of course any locale has to be able to provide 
appropriate meeting space and Internet connectivity and be safe, but 
then at least there should be a discussion.


> This is helpful. Non-financial barriers to travel such as visas are also
> important, as is travel time.

The issue of visas is already implicitly incorporated in requirements.  
If a large percentage of participants can't get to a venue because of 
likely visa problems, then we should not go there.

Mallory wrote:

>>   * Under 5, I am not convinced that we can just handwave about
>> filtering. Invariably there will be a lot of grey area and this proposed
>> revision makes things less clear than before. I strongly prefer the
>> original text. I have great aversion to the invocation of the acronym
>> CSAM in this document. The original text already has qualifications for
>> handling filtering due to local laws. Again, I do not think that this
>> text should be changed at all.

I largely agree, although given the LLC's interpretation of 8719, I 
would want to see expansion of personal security to include our 
devices.  My corporate security assesses the risk of a government 
actively trying to hack visitor devices, and in some locales requires or 
recommends burner devices.  Here's the problem: I have the advantage of 
that advice.  Others may not.  I could probably borrow a burner, 
although doing so would severely limit my ability to talk to my company 
while on travel.  Others may have to foot the bill themselves.  Simply 
put: I think such places should be disqualified.

Eliot