Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment

Jay Daley <> Wed, 03 February 2021 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF2B3A09F5; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:02:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2hDmGLvd56uj; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1E393A09EF; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:02:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E0EE2CC9-59E4-4CF4-A71C-CE6AD4AA7539"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 12:02:28 +1300
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 23:02:34 -0000

Hi Eliot

> On 3/02/2021, at 9:47 AM, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Jay,
> I am uncomfortable with what I am reading.  The criteria you have listed don’t seem to me to be well correlated to RFC 8718.

Each of the criteria is taken directly from RFC 8718, though with simplified language, and is marked as to whether that is a mandatory or important criteria in RFC 8718.  If the language simplification is a problem then please let me know.

>  Is it your intent to update 8718?

No.  The intent is that RFC 8718 contains such requirements as that for "Internet Access", which we need to turn into an objective, fair and repeatable assessment process.  This is attempting to do that.  If you think we have misinterpreted the criteria then please let me know.

>  The goal is to have a successful meeting.  We have done so at two venues that your assessment criteria would reject, and conceivably do so in India and Mexico, which your criteria would also reject.

In order to address any issue here I need detail - can you please specify why you think India and Mexico would be rejected using this assessment and how that indicates failings in the assessment?


> Eliot

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director