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

Pete Resnick <> Wed, 06 June 2018 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCD9130DEC; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:27:29 -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 (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XquYD595dMMt; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ED24130DE3; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1528324042; x=1559860042; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pLkEQ7FeL801lhr9SeMyYcXrt9T/qfKP7rjoZe+7Xe8=; b=GyziLzmKOth3vHBWAyVm3c1HoEFQQnSGsrgSE/T2iplegeD6AnxLIBjn u1NbMq5QL4smCFgBA3KPmgNjyjVXUWl3QF4vEihUq3F3Ua3/1xwb3af5M YbjBtpQ7ET04yhgegLMau2dwZc8mPdhQWYcnUp8Ft0Ktf6y3ICUlmSIvT o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,484,1520924400"; d="scan'208,217";a="4313987"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2018 15:27:21 -0700
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 06 Jun 2018 15:27:21 -0700
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:27:20 -0700
From: Pete Resnick <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
CC: The IESG <>,,,
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:27:18 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.2r5479)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_0D35E1CD-FB7F-4EF2-8831-0174B29F8170_="
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 22:27:30 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

On 6 Jun 2018, at 11:35, Alvaro Retana wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (1) The term "participant" is used in several places, sometimes with 
> different
> modifiers; for example: active, IETF and regular.  Some of the phrases 
> seem to
> want to differentiate between them, but that distinction is not clear 
> (for
> example): "in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among 
> active
> participants, balancing travel time and expense across the regions in 
> which
> IETF participants are based."  What is the difference between active 
> and IETF
> participants?
> Note that "attendee" is also used, in my interpretation, to also mean
> "participant".  Is that the intent, or is there a difference?
> Clarifying and being consistent would help.  I don't think that a 
> terminology
> section is needed -- I just want to probe whether the terms were 
> differentiated
> on purpose, and, if so, to understand what that differentiation may 
> be.

We'll give these a scrub to make sure they're consistent. My take is:

-  "IETF participants" is simply "participants" and, the "IETF" bit 
should simply be removed.

- The "where we meet" section mentions "active" participants because we 
want meetings near people who are currently contributing participants.

- The "least astonishment" section mentions "regular" participants 
because we want people who regularly follow or contribute to work to be 
able to easily discover information.

- "Attendees" are people who actually show up at a meeting. 
"Participants" are people who participate in the IETF (whether in person 
or electronically) who might want to show up at a meeting.

> (2) From §2.2 (Venue Selection Non-Objectives)
> Maximal attendance:
>      While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible both online
>      and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
>      a goal.  It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
>      contributors with differing points of view did not have the
>      opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full 
> the
>      rooms.
> Should maximal attendance by "active contributors" be listed as an 
> objective?
> Measuring what that means will not be easy...but that seems to be 
> corollary:
> the text above sounds like it says "it doesn't matter how many people 
> show up,
> as long as active contributors are there".

I believe that's captured in the "where we meet" section in 2.1.

> BTW, following up on my first point, what's the relationship between
> "contributor" and "participant"?  Is there a difference between an 
> "active
> contributor" and an "active participant"?

As I indicated above, I think "active contributor" == "active 

> (3) §3.2 (Important Criteria) says that "when a particular 
> requirement in this
> section cannot be may be appropriate for the IASA to assist 
> those who,
> as a result, have been inconvenienced in some way."
> What does the IASA providing assistance mean?  Looking at the 
> criteria, would
> (for example) a high cost be considered an inconvenience?  Knowing 
> that the
> intent is to spread the burden "over the course of multiple years", 
> who
> determines that inconvenience?  How could the IASA assist?  Maybe 
> there's some
> other purpose for that sentence for which I'm missing context.

For cost, the assistance could come in the form of identifying lower 
cost hotels. For visa issues, the assistance could be in the form of 
contacting local folks to attempt to expedite approval. IASA is expected 
to weigh the inconveniences and take them into account.

> (4) §3.2.5 (Food and Beverage)
>    It is said that an army travels on its stomach.  So too does the
>    IETF.  The following criteria relate to food and beverage.
> Personal opinion: unfortunate quote and comparison.

Taken under advisement. Certainly it was intended tongue-in-cheek.

(Interesting read: )

>    ...
>    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.

> (5) I think that the reference to rfc3935 should be a Normative 
> reference given
> that it defines why we meet (§2.1).

I don't think someone needs to read the mission statement to understand 
the process described here, nor do I think if there is an update to 3935 
it is likely to affect this document.

> (6) Is the intent for this document and 
> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy to
> be part of the same BCP?  I would think so, but I didn't see that 
> mentioned an
> the writeups.

Good point. That makes sense. I'll review existing BCPs to see if it 
fits in any of them, or just the two belong in one together.