Re: [Mtgvenue] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: (with COMMENT)

Pete Resnick <> Thu, 07 June 2018 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8349130DF0; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N_vxH-t4UGcl; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA54B130DEC; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1528413020; x=1559949020; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+wETszzVbSVMDUu2VpHUOT6Iv1XZPR7WrViKYSNVGLc=; b=cubo4u4cg82UbpBagdNS2lBaBXviYsLrmj/1LknbXeHOSwoU1ckVikDF Y12n9R88oeU+O/wpBI8HfdoKWWmXw3IJIfB038hjdFxi9mJdsOyouC9XK /FWqHOtmwItRIx3xs3nrCZGwf3QUcrPVagrvfV5rMr6U/Q66o9wYuYieJ w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,488,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="439845236"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2018 16:10:18 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5900,7806,8917"; a="104035568"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 07 Jun 2018 16:10:18 -0700
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:10:17 -0700
From: Pete Resnick <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
CC: Alvaro Retana <>, mtgvenue <>,, The IESG <>,
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 18:10:15 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.2r5479)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 23:10:26 -0000

On 7 Jun 2018, at 10:58, Mary Barnes wrote:

>> > ...
>>  o A range of attendee's health-related and religion-related dietary
>>  requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible onsite
>>  service or through access to an adequate grocery.
>>  o The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
>>  accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
>>  reasonable walking distance, or conveniently accessible by a short
>>  taxi, bus, or subway ride, from the Facility and IETF Hotels.
>>  These last two bullets sound almost the same: the difference seems 
>> to be in
>>  calling for "robust and flexible onsite service" in the first one. 
>> Maybe they
>>  can be merged.
>> Reasonable point. We'll see if we can combine.
> Please don't.   I don't think we want to belabor the food issue yet 
> again.   The first bullet gives those that select venues an "out" in 
> terms of expecting the venue to accommodate the dietary 
> requirements.  Ideally, the venue should be able to support the 
> requirements.  If not, then we hope that those that select the venue 
> at least heed the requirements in the second bullet. 

Crap. You're exactly right Mary. That was the reasoning behind keeping 
the two bullets. Pete fail. Let's leave this as-is.

> Personally, I have an issue with that "out" and the general fact that 
> we actually don't consider having food to eat essential for some 
> attendees when selecting a venue. We have a mandatory requirement for 
> physical disabilities but none for invisible disabilities

Actually, that's not quite true: The only mandatory criteria regarding 
disabilities at all is for wheelchair access, and the only reason that 
one ended up in there was because the WG concluded that it was the one 
particular item that it knew the IASA couldn't even consider contracting 
if it wasn't there. With regard to disabilities generally, and food in 
particular, they are all handled in the important criteria section, 
meaning IASA was going to have to use judgement and make the community 
aware if those criteria cannot be met.

But either way, I agree that we should leave this section alone.