mtgvenue
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8718 Cisco Systems
Intended status:
BCP: 226 February 2020
Category: Best Current Practice June 14, 2018
Expires: December 16, 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721
IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16
Abstract
The IASA has responsibility IETF Administration Support Activity (IASA) is responsible for
arranging the selection and operation of the IETF plenary meeting Venue
selection and operation.
venue. This memo specifies IETF community requirements for meeting
venues, including hotels and meeting room space. It also directs the IASA
to make available additional process documents that describe the
current meeting selection process.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 16, 2018.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Venue Selection Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Core Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Venue Selection Non-Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Non-objectives
3. Meeting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Mandatory Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Important Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Other Consideraitons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Considerations
4. Documentation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2.
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Internet IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) has
responsibility [RFC8711] is
responsible for arranging the selection and operation of the IETF
plenary meeting venue selection and
operation. venue. The purpose of this document is to guide the
IASA in their selection of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels.
The IASA
applies should apply this guidance at different points in the
process in an attempt to faithfully meet the requirements of the IETF
community. We specify a set of general criteria for venue selection
and several requirements for transparency and community consultation.
It remains the responsibility of the IASA to apply their best
judgment. The IASA accepts input and feedback both during the
consultation process and later (for instance instance, when there are changes
in the situation at a chosen location). Any appeals remain subject
to the provisions of BCP101 [RFC4071]. As always, the The community is encouraged
to provide direct feedback about the IASA's performance to the IETF
Administration LLC, the Nominations Committee (NOMCOM), or the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
regarding the discharge (IESG). Any reviews of IASA
decisions remain subject to the IASA's performance.
Four provisions of Section 4.7 of
[RFC8711] (BCP 101).
The following four terms describe the places for which the IETF
contracts services:
Venue:
This is an
An umbrella term for the city, meeting resources resources, and guest room
resources.
Facility:
The building that houses meeting rooms and associated resources.
It may also house an IETF Hotel.
IETF Hotels:
One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
IETF guest room block allocations are negotiated and where network
services managed by the IASA (e.g., the "IETF" SSID) are in use.
Overflow Hotels:
One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility,
where the IETF has negotiated a group room rate for the purposes
of the meeting. Of particular note is that Overflow Hotels usually are
not usually connected to the IETF network and do not use network
services managed by the IASA.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Venue Selection Objectives
2.1. Core Values
Some IETF values pervade the selection process. These often are often
applicable to multiple requirements listed in this document. They
are not limited to At a
minimum, they include the following, but at minimum include: following:
Why we meet? meet:
We meet to pursue the IETF's mission [RFC3935], [RFC3935]. This is partly
done by advancing the development of Internet-Drafts and RFCs. We
also seek to facilitate attendee participation in multiple topics
and to enable cross-pollination of ideas and technologies.
Inclusiveness:
We would like to facilitate the onsite on-site or remote participation of
anyone who wants to be involved. Widespread participation
contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
working sessions sessions.
Every country has limits on who it will permit within its borders.
However
However, the IETF seeks to:
1. Minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations
inhibit, discourage, or prevent participants from attending
meetings, or
meetings; failing that to distribute that, meeting locations are to be
distributed such that onerous entry regulations are not always
experienced by the same attendees; and
2. Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, or gender
identity.
Where we meet:
We meet in different locations globally, global locations, in order to spread the
difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
travel time and expense across the regions in which participants
are based. based in various
regions. Our regional location policy is articulated in
[I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy].
[RFC8719].
Internet Access:
As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and
we use it heavily. Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to
the general Internet and their corporate networks. "Unfiltered
access"
access", in this case case, means that all forms of communication are
allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, access to
corporate networks via encrypted VPNs from the meeting Facility
and Hotels, including Overflow Hotels. We also need open network
access available at high enough data rates, at the meeting
Facility, to support our work, including the which includes support of remote
participation. Beyond this, we are the first users of our own
technology. Any filtering may cause a problem with that
technology development. In some cases, local laws may require
some filtering. We seek to avoid such locales without reducing
the pool of cities to an unacceptable level by stating a number of
criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
the case where local laws may require filtering in some
circumstances.
Focus:
We meet to have focused technical discussions. These are not
limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
are important. They also happen over meals or drinks, through a
specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF", or in side
meetings. Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent that or
reduce
its effectiveness, the effectiveness of these sessions and are therefore less
desirable as a meeting
Facility.[RFC6771] Facility [RFC6771].
Economics:
Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are
underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded. In
order to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we
therefore seek locations that provide convenient budget
alternatives for food and lodging, and which that minimize travel
segments from major airports to the Venue. Within reason, one's
budget should not be a barrier to accommodation.
Least Astonishment and Openness:
Regular participants should not be surprised by meeting Venue
selections, particularly when it comes to locales. To avoid
surprise, the venue selection process, as with all other IETF
processes, should be as open as practicable. It should be
possible for the community to engage in discussion early to
express its views on prospective selections, so that the community
and the IASA can exchange views as to appropriateness long before
a venue contract is considered.
2.2. Venue Selection Non-Objectives Non-objectives
IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
purposes of:
Politics:
Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
laws, regulations, or policies.
Maximal attendance:
While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible 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.
Tourism:
Variety in site-seeing experiences.
3. Meeting Criteria
This section contains the criteria for IETF meetings. It is broken
down into three subsections: mandatory criteria, criteria (Section 3.1),
important criteria, criteria (Section 3.2), and other considerations, considerations
(Section 3.3), each as explained below.
3.1. Mandatory Criteria
If criteria in this subsection cannot be met, a particular location
is unacceptable for selection, and the IASA MUST NOT enter into a
contract. Should the IASA learn that a location can no longer can meet a
mandatory requirement after having entered into a contract, it will
inform the community and address the matter on a case by case case-by-case basis.
o
* The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
layout to accommodate the expected number of participants, leadership, and
support staff expected to attend that meeting.
o
* The Facility and IETF Hotels MUST provide wheelchair access to
accommodate the number of people who are anticipated to require
it.
o
* It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility
and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize
the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day to day day-to-day needs;
as well as sufficient bandwidth
in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for
remote attendees.
This includes, Provisions include, but is are not limited to,
native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, global reachability, and global
reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would
materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it
MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.
3.2. Important Criteria
The criteria in this subsection are not mandatory, but they are still
highly significant. It may be necessary to trade trade-off one or more of
these criteria off against others. A Venue that meets more of these
criteria is is, on the whole whole, preferable than to another that meets fewer of
these criteria. Requirements classed as Important can also be
balanced across Venue selections for multiple meetings. When a
particular requirement in this section cannot be met, met but the Venue is
selected anyway, the IASA MUST notify the community at the time of
the venue announcement. Furthermore, it may be appropriate for the
IASA to assist those who, as a result, have been inconvenienced in
some way.
3.2.1. Venue City Criteria
o
The following requirements relate to the Venue city.
* Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden
for participants traveling from multiple regions. It is
anticipated that the burden borne will be generally be shared over
the course of multiple years.
o
* The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and
sponsors. That is, the Meeting is in a location that in which it is
possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.
o
* Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
to do so can attend. The term "travel barriers" is to be read
broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
can be had.
o
* Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
acceptable.
o
* The selection of the venue comports with
[I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy]. the practices described
in [RFC8719].
3.2.2. Basic Venue Criteria
The following requirements relate to the Venue and Facilities.
The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.
Facilities selected for IETF Meetings meetings SHALL have provided written
assurance that they are in compliance with local health, safety safety, and
accessibility laws and regulations, and that they will remain in
compliance throughout our stay.
In addition:
o
* There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars,
meeting rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc
conversations and group discussions in the combination of spaces
offered by the facilities, hotels hotels, and bars/restaurants in the
surrounding area, within walking distance (5-10 minutes).
o
* The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
is affordable, within the norms of business travel.
o
* The Facility is accessible accessible, or reasonable accommodations can be
made to allow access access, by people with disabilities.
3.2.3. Technical Meeting Needs
The following criteria relate to technical meeting needs.
o
* The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
at the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add such
infrastructure
infrastructure, or these support technologies and services might
be provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an acceptable --
cost to the IETF.
o
* The IETF Hotel(s) Hotels directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered unfiltered, and
unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms,
and that rooms;
this service is to be included in the cost of the room.
3.2.4. Hotel Needs
The following criteria relate to IETF Hotels.
o
* The IETF Hotel(s) Hotels are within close proximity to each other and the
Facility.
o
* The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) Hotels are sufficient in number to
house 1/3 one-third or more of projected meeting attendees.
o
* Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient
travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest
room rates.
o
* The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
travel time, cost, and effort.
o
* The IETF Hotel(s) Hotels are accessible by people with disabilities. While
we mandate wheelchair accessibility, other forms are
important, important and
should be provided for to the extent possible, possible based on anticipated
needs of the community.
o
* At least one IETF Hotel or the Facility has a space for use as a
lounge, conducive to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as
well as a space for working online. There are tables with
seating, convenient for small meetings with laptops. These can be
at an open bar or casual restaurant. Preferably the lounge area
is centrally located, permitting easy access to participants.
3.2.5. Food and Beverage
The following criteria relate to food and beverage.
o
* The Facility environs, which includes include both onsite, on-site as well as areas
within a reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by
a short taxi ride or by local public transportation, have
convenient and inexpensive choices for meals that can accommodate
a wide range of dietary requirements.
o
* A range of attendee's attendees' health-related and religion-related dietary
requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible onsite on-site
service or through access to an adequate grocery.
o grocery store.
* The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
reasonable walking distance, distance or conveniently accessible by a short
taxi, bus, or subway ride, ride from the Facility and IETF Hotels.
3.3. Other Consideraitons Considerations
The following considerations are desirable, but they are not as
important as the preceding requirements, requirements and thus should not be traded off
traded-off for them.
o
* We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
"One Roof". That Roof"; that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
available in the same facility.
o
* It is desirable for Overflow Hotels to provide reasonable,
reliable, unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and
guest rooms, and that for this service be included in the cost of the
room.
o
* It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contract with the
Facility and IETF Hotels or associated hotel chains in case such a
contract will either reduce administrative costs, reduce direct attendee
costs, or both.
o Particularly when
* When we are considering a city for the first time, it is
particularly desirable to have someone participate in the site visit who is familiar with both the
locale and the IETF. IETF participate in the site visit. Such a person
can provide guidance regarding safety, location of local services, and
understanding
the best ways to get to and from the Venue, and local customs, as
well as identify how our requirements are met.
4. Documentation Requirements
The IETF Community works best when it is well informed. This memo
does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
our requirements for meetings. Nevertheless, both of these aspects
are important. Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
fulfill the requirements of the community.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo asks the IANA for document has no new parameters.
[The RFC-Editor may remove this section prior to publicaiton.] IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This note proposes no protocols, protocols and therefore introduces no new
protocol insecurities.
7. Privacy Considerations
Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
limited protections. As meetings are announced, the IASA SHALL
inform the IETF of any limitations to privacy they have become aware
of in their investigations. For example, participants would be
informed of any regulatory authentication or logging requirements.
8. Contributors
The following people provided substantial text contributions to this
memo:
Fred Baker
Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com
Fred originated this work.
Ray Pelletier
Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com
Laura Nugent
Association Management Solutions
Email: lnugent@amsl.com
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Ole Jacobsen
The Internet Protocol Journal
EMail: olejacobsen@me.com
Jim Martin
INOC
Email: jim@inoc.com
9. Acknowledgements
Additional contributions came from Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa
Cooper, Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and
other participants in the mtgvenue working group. Those listed in
this section or as contributors may or may not agree with the content
of this memo.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy]
Krishnan, S., "High level guidance for the meeting policy
of the IETF", draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06 (work
in progress), May 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2.
[RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.
9. Informative References
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[RFC6771] Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a
Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6771, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6771>.
Appendix A. Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]
2016-01-12: Initial version
2016-01-21: Update to reflect https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
VenueSelectionCriteriaJan2016.pdf
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/VenueSelectionProcess11Jan16.pdf,
accessed from https://iaoc.ietf.org/private/privatemeetings.html.
2016-02-23: Reorganize and capture IAOC Meetings Committee
discussions.
2016-03-03: Final from Design Team.
2016-03-17: First update incorporating mtgvenue@ietf.org comments
2016-05-20 Updated in accordance with editing by Laura Nugent, Dave
Crocker, Lou Berger, Fred Baker, and others.
posting as working group draft August 2, 2016
Reorganized per Alissa Cooper outline Work in progress. In
addition, contributors were re-organized to be authors.
2016-10-28 Editor changeover. Further alignment with guidance by
Alissa Cooper, Andrew Sullivan and the mtgvenue working group.
Many various changes.
2016-11-16 Extensive editorial, format and polishing pass. A few
substance changes, including food section.
2016-11-30 Additions based on working group meeting and off-list
discussions; more editorial and format hacking.
2016-12-24 Various clarifying bits to provide some glue between the
high-level 'objectives' and the detailed criteria and roles, per
suggestions fronm Lear. Editorial changes, per 12/27 response to
Cooper. Refined uses of 'Facility' and 'Venue', per 12/4 response
to Carpenter; also added Carpenter 'lounge' text. Moved community
consultation to a separate criterion; removed 'acceptable to J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Community from the 2 entries that had it. Removed Post-
Seroul Revisions and Text Carried Forward.
2016-12-24 Address comments made on list by Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>. Minor text change in Section 5.
Replaced links in sections 5.3 and 5.5.
2017-03-12 Add openness comment as requested by Stephen Farrell.
Add statement about 4071 as proposed by Brian and modified by
Jari. Elaborated on what "unfiltered" means, based on discussion
between Eliot and Stephen. Preface to Section 5 as discussed
between Lou and Stephen. Slight editorial tweak to that by Eliot.
IETF operates internationally, as proposed by Brian.
2017-04-18 Add new introductory text. Sharpen mandatory definition.
Split first criteria into two, and reword them to be more
actionable. Remove net cash positive requirement. Change many
critera Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
Acknowledgements
Contributions came from Mandatory to Important. Remove consensus text.
Modify chapeau. Add some normative MUSTs in Section 5, Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa Cooper,
Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and
restructure Section 5.5. A bunch of other stuff as well. Use
diff.
2017-05-14 Happy Mother's Day. This version removes the tabular
format of requirements, moves mandatory requirements up front,
adds a desiderata section, adds a mandatory filtering requirement,
consolidates introductory text, moves procedural requirements into
Section 5, removes the definition of Headquarters Hotel, removes
the MUST
participants in late changes, and adds a desire for a local
participant the MTGVENUE Working Group. Those listed in site selection.
2017-09-12 These are last call edits. Big change is around Internet
requirements. Also, address Andrew Sullivan comments, as well this
section or as
SM comments. Brian Carpenter big scrub on IAOC to IASA.
2017-10-20 Final edits from WGLC based on Laura Nugent's review.
Most are editorial for clarity. Also, remove large table and link
to contributors may or may not agree with the live copy.
2018-01-10 Changes based on AD review.
2018-02-02 Changes based on genart review and IETF last call.
2018-05-07 Several versions of changes. Based on reorg content of meetings
committee, Section 4 and 5 moved out. Also, final LC comments
addressed. In particular: no smoking added. Reference to RFC8174
added. Reference
this memo.
Contributors
The following people provided substantial text contributions to meeting policy doc added.
2018-05-11 Remove no smoking. this
memo. Specifically, Fred Baker originated this work.
Fred Baker
Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com
Ray Pelletier
Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com
Laura Nugent
Association Management Solutions
Email: lnugent@amsl.com
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Ole Jacobsen
The Internet Protocol Journal
Email: olejacobsen@me.com
Jim Martin
INOC
Email: jim@inoc.com
Author's Address
Eliot Lear (editor)
Cisco Systems
Richtistrasse 7
CH-CH-8304 Wallisellen CH-8304
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
Email: lear@cisco.com