Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

[Eliot Lear]

Hi Pete and thanks Dan for the review.  Please see below.


On 29.01.18 19:12, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Thanks so much for the thorough review. I'll try to get each of these
> into the issues list. Comments inline:
>
> On 24 Jan 2018, at 11:46, Dan Romascanu wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> .
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11
>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>> Review Date: 2018-01-24
>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-31
>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-08
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This is an important document for the IETF process, resulting from many
>> discussions in the IETF and the different associated groups and
>> committees. The
>> memo is well written and reflects these discussions. The comments
>> from the
>> Gen-ART perspective represent a review for clarity and consistency,
>> and not a
>> personal input on the content of the document.
>>
>> Major issues:
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> 1. in Section 1:
>>
>> '   IETF Hotels:
>>   One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
>>   IETF guest room allocations are negotiated and IETF SSIDs are in
>>   use.'
>>
>> a few comments here:
>> - taking into account the previous definition of Facility, it looks
>> better s/in
>> close proximity/within or in close proximity/
>
> That seems like a perfectly reasonable change. Unless I hear
> objections from others, let's do it.
>
>> - 'where the IETF guest room
>> allocations are negotiated' - do we mean to say 'where IETF guest
>> room rates
>> are applied'?
>
> It's not just the rates, but also the number of rooms reserved. This
> seems just editorial to me, though probably worth addressing. I'm glad
> to have you or Eliot suggest text to clarify.

How about "where IETF guest room block allocations are negotiated and
contracted"?

>
>> - 'and IETF SSIDs are in use' : do we really need to include this
>> in the definition of the IETF Hotels and if yes, this is the way to
>> say it?
>> SSID is somehow technology specific, and imposes a restriction on the
>> hotel
>> network (network name) that is not really critical. What is critical
>> is for the
>> participants to have the Internet Access mandatory requirements met
>> in their
>> hotel room, and even this needs not be part of the definition.
>
> Interesting. I suppose "SSID" could turn out to be anachronistic. I
> don't think there would be any objection to generalizing the text.
> Eliot, will you take a stab at this?

The point is that the IETF establishes its own network services at these
hotels.  How about- where "network services managed by the IASA (e.g.,
the "IETF" SSID) are available"?

>
>> 2. Also in Section 1:
>>
>> 'Of particular note is that overflow hotels usually are
>>   not connected to the IETF network '
>>
>> We did not ask the IETF Hotel either to be connected to the IETF
>> network - see
>> also the above
>
> I understand your point: We do not necessarily have "connecting to the
> IETF network" as a requirement for the IETF Hotel; rather, they must
> meet the Internet Access criteria. I think this one should be
> addressed to be consistent with the resolution of the previous issue.

Right.  I can invert the above.
>
>> 3. Section 2:
>>
>>   2.  Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
>>   people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
>>   orientation, national origin, or gender identity.
>>
>> The term 'national origin' has different connotations in different
>> cultures and
>> law systems. Some make a clear distinction between nationality and
>> citizenship.
>> I believe that the intention is to be inclusive, so I suggest:
>> s/national
>> origin, or gender identity./national origin, citizenship, or gender
>> identity./
>
> I think that's a reasonable change; I believe it matches the intent of
> the WG.
>
>> 4. Section 3.1 - the last bullet says nothing about remote access -
>> is this
>> intentional? It should say something also about global reachability from
>> outside for remote participants.
>
> Good catch. The bullet was written from the point of view of the local
> attendees, but I think it's reasonable to make note of remote
> attendees in this context. (It does say, "not limited to", but it
> makes sense to make this one explicit.)

The line in question is as follows:

  This includes,
  but is not limited to, native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6
  connectivity, global reachability, and no additional limitation
  that would materially impact their Internet use.

How about:

This includes,
  but is not limited to, native 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

[Dan Romascanu]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your answers and for addressing my concerns.

Here are a few answers to your returned questions:



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Pete Resnick 
wrote:

>
>
> - 'where the IETF guest room
>> allocations are negotiated' - do we mean to say 'where IETF guest room
>> rates
>> are applied'?
>>
>
> It's not just the rates, but also the number of rooms reserved. This seems
> just editorial to me, though probably worth addressing. I'm glad to have
> you or Eliot suggest text to clarify.
>

what about 'where a substantial number of rooms are allocated for the IETF
meeting participants at negotiated rates'?


>
> 5. Section 3.2.1:
>>
>> 'Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden for
>> participants traveling from multiple regions.'
>>
>> I am not sure what 'burden' means. I suggest drop 'burden' and just leave
>> 'cost
>> and time'.
>>
>
> "Cost" is often thought of as monetary cost. "Burden" is saying that if
> the travel requires that you row your own canoe 100km over to the island,
> or if getting a visa requires that you submit yourself at the embassy for
> exploratory surgery, that should probably disqualify a venue. ;-) Either
> way, it is left to the judgment of IASA to make sure that the burden is
> reasonable. Unless I hear others, I suggest we leave this one alone.
>

I am still unsure about the vagueness of 'burden'. Based on your
explanation, it may be appropriate to change: s/cost, time and burden/cost,
time and formalities/?


>
>
> 11. I am not sure that it is clear what is meant by 'travel risks' in 5.2
>> and
>> 5.4. In any case, wherever we are talking about sharing with the community
>> information about 'travel risks' we need also to mention if there are any
>> exceptions from the Important Criteria detailed in Section 3.2
>>
>
> I always read "travel risks" as identical with the "economic, health, and
> safety risks" mentioned in 3.2.1. Do you think we should change the text?
>

let us just say  "economic, health, and safety risks"  than.

Regards,

Dan
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

[Pete Resnick]

Dan,

Thanks so much for the thorough review. I'll try to get each of these 
into the issues list. Comments inline:


On 24 Jan 2018, at 11:46, Dan Romascanu wrote:


Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2018-01-24
IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-31
IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-08

Summary:

This is an important document for the IETF process, resulting from 
many
discussions in the IETF and the different associated groups and 
committees. The
memo is well written and reflects these discussions. The comments from 
the
Gen-ART perspective represent a review for clarity and consistency, 
and not a

personal input on the content of the document.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. in Section 1:

'   IETF Hotels:
  One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where 
the

  IETF guest room allocations are negotiated and IETF SSIDs are in
  use.'

a few comments here:
- taking into account the previous definition of Facility, it looks 
better s/in

close proximity/within or in close proximity/


That seems like a perfectly reasonable change. Unless I hear objections 
from others, let's do it.



- 'where the IETF guest room
allocations are negotiated' - do we mean to say 'where IETF guest room 
rates

are applied'?


It's not just the rates, but also the number of rooms reserved. This 
seems just editorial to me, though probably worth addressing. I'm glad 
to have you or Eliot suggest text to clarify.



- 'and IETF SSIDs are in use' : do we really need to include this
in the definition of the IETF Hotels and if yes, this is the way to 
say it?
SSID is somehow technology specific, and imposes a restriction on the 
hotel
network (network name) that is not really critical. What is critical 
is for the
participants to have the Internet Access mandatory requirements met in 
their

hotel room, and even this needs not be part of the definition.


Interesting. I suppose "SSID" could turn out to be anachronistic. I 
don't think there would be any objection to generalizing the text. 
Eliot, will you take a stab at this?



2. Also in Section 1:

'Of particular note is that overflow hotels usually are
  not connected to the IETF network '

We did not ask the IETF Hotel either to be connected to the IETF 
network - see

also the above


I understand your point: We do not necessarily have "connecting to the 
IETF network" as a requirement for the IETF Hotel; rather, they must 
meet the Internet Access criteria. I think this one should be addressed 
to be consistent with the resolution of the previous issue.



3. Section 2:

  2.  Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively 
exclude

  people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
  orientation, national origin, or gender identity.

The term 'national origin' has different connotations in different 
cultures and
law systems. Some make a clear distinction between nationality and 
citizenship.
I believe that the intention is to be inclusive, so I suggest: 
s/national
origin, or gender identity./national origin, citizenship, or gender 
identity./


I think that's a reasonable change; I believe it matches the intent of 
the WG.


4. Section 3.1 - the last bullet says nothing about remote access - is 
this
intentional? It should say something also about global reachability 
from

outside for remote participants.


Good catch. The bullet was written from the point of view of the local 
attendees, but I think it's reasonable to make note of remote attendees 
in this context. (It does say, "not limited to", but it makes sense to 
make this one explicit.)



5. Section 3.2.1:

'Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden for
participants traveling from multiple regions.'

I am not sure what 'burden' means. I suggest drop 'burden' and just 
leave 'cost

and time'.


"Cost" is often thought of as monetary cost. "Burden" is saying that if 
the travel requires that you row your own canoe 100km over to the 
island, or if getting a visa requires that you submit yourself at the 
embassy for exploratory surgery, that should probably disqualify a 
venue. ;-) Either way, it is left to the judgment of IASA to make sure 
that the burden is reasonable. Unless I hear others, I suggest we leave 
this one alone.


6. Section 3.2.2 - the last bullet (about accessibility) seems to be 
redundant
with the mentioning of accessibility in the first paragraph of the 
same section.


Conformance with local accessibility laws and regulations may not be 
identical with actual accessibility.