IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 06 April 2017 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCABC129529 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=BGnZOtx4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=eQvD7iLp
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 XAj3O-ibH3lc for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8CEF129531 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7A6201FF; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:37:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:37:05 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; 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 :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=H17hiIOOAR8cOcUAjj1tZ3Q2yXyfHY5so7gQQEIz4 /k=; b=BGnZOtx4HB/I+7KBjpM/e97NlP7ksefvx5uuYPibIX1Kf6R0G/idjJbm+ 3ebub1gT2De8hzsrp462D03GicmuImYoW1+Wap5nduxVdNuUBV7o8nt/FyI0LXwh wHoak99eo7zCgP6XdFeLhSUMZFVWDwqLf1Lnz5ZalaDot1qy6a1rbYe4XdvOX3o7 JCW6KUSXHZ67uPkJhXZLMMzA1E3OolzAUUyz5Ur8/BM1yKsssRXaUKDGfDjn0dz1 t58dYOdI26l9l28tzQr7MFWcXC6yWvr5bAar2KcGF/TDAPA9r3T1M35bxWNLtd6I Fia4cxeVQwmBqV4K8CLvG5vHNJ8+w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; 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:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=H17hiIOOAR8cOcUAjj 1tZ3Q2yXyfHY5so7gQQEIz4/k=; b=eQvD7iLpObyCPbm434b9gc0bThlsmsnrJ2 p/wEjyACGCWX8rCHo/EWn/05BDLKjzAzhphmUrhH0Q2nNOMfm4sS7UO5jd3jwXM1 Vl5Wq3CgimtfyjOH3fLZMoncL4OYX5S7OQRd6nkWd7FoDp2uxU+RJXJXFhrodOID TmKCQuJnZ2bSGkvfOpJ4+sQOuI0awH8O8l3nn8mT/56KkXMA74wNcWM/XG7JR9Nm BE7gGJzLYiP8Azbq/g/O1SbLKh5NsljC0Ue/V50QNqBcP/LKU2lnFXsRT0Rnf5sZ WwvV0miCq91w/HHI+DahitmcPGyYkW+SIu8xth5/OI/a4PG4NAiQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:oWDmWDxjR7VIFOpwEYpl33YjDGoTHltYpUxtfHuQhgf-8qxcECulUw>
X-Sasl-enc: +GKEVM+huTdfa/dYcPHxWthUfDghKux24wEzakBJcFm4 1491493025
Received: from [10.150.9.170] (unknown [173.38.117.67]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F057E7E669; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:37:04 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3356471-675F-4D8B-8DDA-9110DCCF66C3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <37de22dc-04a4-f868-698e-cf03cd791957@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:37:06 -0400
Cc: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <5CF8C201-00C4-4E07-BAB6-8CC5A30B54F5@cooperw.in>
References: <37de22dc-04a4-f868-698e-cf03cd791957@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/oCsXKjXeXT3y3uyk6e3I7t9EjTc>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 15:37:20 -0000

Commenting as an individual below ...

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> As mentioned by the chair, I am downgrading requirements based on working group discussion, mostly from Mandatory to Important.  As a reminder, the words are intended to be used consistent with their plain meaning.  That is- just because something is now Important specifically does not mean that it is UNimportant.  
> From Mandatory to Important:
> The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit…
The full text of this one is:

The Facility directly provides, or permits and facilitates, the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF Network.

Personally I think this should be a mandatory criterion, i.e. we should not select a venue that cannot provide this. If this needs to reference the meeting network requirements document to provide the objective criteria by which it will be judged, that would be fine, I think. 

Alissa

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email