Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 07 February 2018 02:28 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F8F12421A; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:28:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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=qNB33kCH; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=QL6tnwJi
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 9_BfAVMSUdf4; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:28:28 -0800 (PST)
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 D26C11204DA; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1701D20CCD; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:28:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Feb 2018 21:28:27 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=0SfPp7v3syFMEiN0TW2yljkB3F5bn xUNpRwftP87HV0=; b=qNB33kCHq8GW4Y8NqVHlqWYYQVMKic8pfQEruBVuA7SuZ f6XBXNm60dErhU45gPnH8Ps7ktCC6wVxzwtbkSjcNIFFrwr3/OI/vJHgNh8HcfPz CagGa9KDGGCk0F3PZ8TPI9Ik++wMni4TBrH9lktzgjTMe5vfaSHtf5Z7d+Cn4wF9 ZpcmV/oB8h1rDhRVv//6pRkGXZ/sVBit4i7SD0f0MC6JMEm/khZ8xC+/i2y021GE UVuaF+3PnqkaWNSc55seCOE9qf0fYXdzUtLRqLTzRMmpkkdYNK/n0wdV9ih/fsBl cnRXuuXT9q4tYZOGW0AaKMTnSNBGdMtODZ1xXgr1g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=0SfPp7 v3syFMEiN0TW2yljkB3F5bnxUNpRwftP87HV0=; b=QL6tnwJiAejM7mXeAmcn9M /QJfZ3RjWLLTtxecTl5Wd+nBuyQ7l8itfVVj7eF6+CPhJwU8lDEI/Gcw6L9awM08 w0WpqpdumQBVPC/JzKf7HRofZpH3LgoLucYIM7gZNEQdJ5URhwoDsbByOqWeTK+U DJwCrVuT+9+VCfiPre/HEBLYJRSVTagKB8xDNh7OfVykeQ2pJiUhdqCi78FDH11n c9C3A8WYHLkQB121y+Uze+NEDh4zrgauAPRt1FzUQOLEhYi4DTYI062qDZAUsMCw nYboaJ0WWn0a6kJUWGyzl9/PNbBe+EO67+NyH4DZ4dUREn/icZ9JmOBpcLo5CnhQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:S2R6WjGt18JtboljuE8FHGb4Z4ggCYW9AnDpxZGL8syH0zMlCm_CIg>
Received: from [10.19.234.244] (unknown [128.107.241.162]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DD897240DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:28:25 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <D123E3DB3501C61987793A7E@PSB>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 21:28:27 -0500
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <43330500-D40C-405B-B14C-818EDFAD420E@cooperw.in>
References: <151782868264.5731.15496399706573021777@ietfa.amsl.com> <15F0E669-0195-4315-AAA5-AED71CD6C5B3@qti.qualcomm.com> <ce5c3e3b-fb8a-0a29-3569-ab61f5de7da0@gmail.com> <D123E3DB3501C61987793A7E@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/ZgV7iuoo6et15QHKdAA-EscrjEI>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 02:28:30 -0000
Hi John, I agree with you that there is a relationship between the two documents, although it’s not clear that it’s a normative one. I’ve pulled draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process from this week’s IESG telechat to provide time to process draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy and make some of the other changes to venue-selection-process that have surfaced in the recent threads. Best, Alissa > On Feb 5, 2018, at 4:46 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > Because this thread seems to be where the action is, a brief > summary of comments on another thread [1] that seems to bear on > this Last Call and review and that seems to me to be > complementary to some of the "location" comments on this thread. > > (1) Policy and process issues both covered in this document with > sections 2 and at least part of 3 stating/ explaining policies > and 4 and 5 being about process. That would be ok except > insofar as draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy is supposed to > cover the policy issues but is, in practice, a specification and > explanation of what it calls 1-1-1*. If > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process is intended to > operate within the constraints imposed by > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy, that is a normative > dependency, not something that can be ignored as irrelevant to > the process outlined in this document. Conversely, if it can be > ignored in the process of considering and evaluating venues, > then draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy is either irrelevant > (and should be discarded) or is an orthogonal explanatory > document that should be Informational, not a BCP. FWIW, I > question whether the material cited as "{MeetingNet]" is really > informative rather than a normative part of the "Internet > Access" Core Value. > > (2) I note that, independent of how it comes out, the recent > discussion of interaction between remote participants and > meeting locations is ultimately a discussion about large-area > geographical policies that are not covered by 1-1-1*. If the > topic is properly discussed in the context of the current > document, the boundary between it and > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy is even less clear than > discussed above. > > (3) The criterion of proximity to a significant number of actual > participants appears to have been dropped completely and without > comment. Perhaps the vaguely-worded "familiar with both the > locale and the IETF" statement in Section 3.3 is intended to be > a substitute, but it is not clear to me what it means or, more > specifically, how "familiar" is to be gauged. I would have > happy leaving that to the IAOC if they were open and transparent > about what they have done in each case, who is making key > decisions or being relied on for advice, etc. But that level of > transparency has basically existed; probably if it was more > common, we really wouldn't need a document like this one. > > (4) My main conclusion from the above is that the IESG final > review and voting on this document should be postponed and the > evaluation period left open until > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy is ready for evaluation so > that they can be evaluated together and the community identify > any policy or procedural topics that slip through the cracks > between the two and the community believes are worth mentioning, > even as "non-objectives" or relatively unimportant criteria. I > hope the WG will recommend that to the IESG and/or that the IESG > will make that decision on its own rather than forcing us to > descend into a procedural discussion of whether separating > evaluation of the two is appropriate. > > best, > john > > [1] See the thread with Subject "Re: Bangkok and IETF (was: Last > Call draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11)". I > am assuming that I do not need to repeat the arguments made on > that thread in detail here. > > > _______________________________________________ > Mtgvenue mailing list > Mtgvenue@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mt… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Eliot Lear
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Eliot Lear
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Pete Resnick
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… John C Klensin
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Pete Resnick
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Pete Resnick
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Eliot Lear
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Matthew Ford
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-iet… Eliot Lear
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review o… John C Klensin