RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt
Brian, This seems to me to be somewhere on the continuum from no brainer to rocket science - with a high likelihood of not being too near the rocket science end. It would be good to caution the IETF Secretariat and meeting sponsors to consider the potential for difficulty in getting into and out of a specific meeting venue. It is also a good idea for would-be IETF meeting attendees to take time in advance of meetings to discover for themselves whether there has been in the past - or is likely to be in the future - any difficulty in getting into or leaving some specific meeting location. This applies to a lot of different considerations, including political, medical and physical issues with entry into and exit from any location. Many companies (and other organizations) maintain travel advisory status on a number of places. And sponsor organizations are most likely aware of the potential for embarrassment if the meeting location they sponsor causes a lot of grief for many of the wanna-be attendees (roughly equivalent to not having thought to offer T-shirts). There are plenty of reasons why people who might wish to - or even need to - attend a meeting are unable to do so, and we have been able to deal with it in the past. That's one reason why there is redundancy in the AD and WG Chair positions. About the only thing that really ought to be done is to add a caution to the web page under each IETF meeting, that would be where people could look to find out about any known issues relating to the meeting venue. Worst case scenarios are the ones where someone gets to a venue and finds out about serious problems that require them to immediately leave, or is turned around en-route because of - for example - border entry issues. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:01 AM -- To: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: I-D -- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt -- -- Joe Abley wrote: -- -- On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: -- -- Well said Barry! -- -- From: Barry Leiba -- -- My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of -- Participation -- and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that -- I'm not sure -- how realistic they are. Without getting overly into -- politics (let's -- please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view -- of some of -- the political realities. Specifically... -- -- Meetings should not be held in countries where some -- attendees could -- be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not -- guaranteed for -- all participants. -- -- -- Indeed. Applied with vigour, this restriction implies -- that no country -- is suitable to meet in. That leaves us with parts of -- Antarctica, a -- floating venue located in international waters, or zero-g -- bar BOFs in -- outer space. I favour the latter. -- -- A slightly more realistic approach might be to hold -- meetings regularly -- in different countries with (ideally) divergent security/ -- immigration -- policies, in the hope that successive meetings might at -- least exclude -- different sets of people. -- -- This is a very important issue as we consider visiting -- countries we've never -- visited before and as visa regulations change in countries -- we have been -- to often. It would be very useful to know how more people -- feel we should -- tune these criteria. -- -- Brian -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Joe Abley wrote: On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Well said Barry! From: Barry Leiba My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view of some of the political realities. Specifically... Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. Indeed. Applied with vigour, this restriction implies that no country is suitable to meet in. That leaves us with parts of Antarctica, a floating venue located in international waters, or zero-g bar BOFs in outer space. I favour the latter. A slightly more realistic approach might be to hold meetings regularly in different countries with (ideally) divergent security/ immigration policies, in the hope that successive meetings might at least exclude different sets of people. This is a very important issue as we consider visiting countries we've never visited before and as visa regulations change in countries we have been to often. It would be very useful to know how more people feel we should tune these criteria. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
While I applaud the sentiment, I believe as written this is an unfortunate and undesirable constraint. Something along the lines of: The IETF should endevour to choose venues where all participants who choose to can attend the meeting would seem to capture the goal as a goal. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 04:01 AM 1/22/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. This is a very important issue as we consider visiting countries we've never visited before and as visa regulations change in countries we have been to often. It would be very useful to know how more people feel we should tune these criteria. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt
Agree, this is my view. What I think is *against* the regular IETF process is to have exceptions to anything being published as RFC. I see a lot of admin documents (and as such this can be considered somehow), which are RFCs, so as said there should be no difference. Regards, Jordi De: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:16:34 -0500 Para: 'Marshall Eubanks' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt Marshall, RFCs are living documents as well, though the process for change is somewhat cumbersome. There are examples of RFCs that have been updated many times in the last few years. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks -- Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:27 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: I-D -- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt -- -- Speaking just for myself : -- -- I think that there is a strong benefit to having an agreed -- upon set -- of parameters -- for new meeting locations. -- -- Having said that, this may not be appropriate for an RFC. Maybe it -- should be a living document on a web page -- or wiki, as is being done / considered for mailing list anti-SPAM -- suggestions. Maybe a new class of -- IETF document publication is needed. -- -- Regards -- Marshall Eubanks -- -- On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: -- -- Hi Paul, -- -- I guess we can question ourselves the same way in many other -- documents ... -- -- The importance of having documents is part of the IETF working -- mode. Is -- our way to say, here there is a consensus on this specific topic. -- -- I guess is not my final decision if it will become and -- RFC or not, -- but it -- will not be fair not following the same path for this -- document as -- for many -- others. -- -- That said, the original idea has been, since I was -- pointed out for -- editing -- this document, to follow exactly the same process as with -- many other -- documents, technical and administrative. -- -- Regards, -- Jordi -- -- -- -- -- De: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800 -- Para: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF list -- ietf@ietf.org -- Asunto: Re: FW: I-D -- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt -- -- At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: -- It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for -- process over -- substance. -- -- Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? -- -- --Paul Hoffman, Director -- --VPN Consortium -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- -- -- -- ** -- The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org -- -- Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit -- Slides available at: -- http://www.ipv6-es.com -- -- This electronic message contains information which may be -- privileged or confidential. The information is intended -- to be for -- the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the -- intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, -- distribution or use of the contents of this information, -- including -- attached files, is prohibited. -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi Barry, Thanks a lot for your inputs. I think this point is extremely important and we really need a clear multi-national position on that, not just from a lot of participants of a few countries, unless we want to restrict the participation of only nationals from those countries. See my reply, below-in line. Regards, Jordi De: Barry Leiba [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Fecha: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:30:34 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt So, could people please review it for errors and omissions? My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view of some of the political realities. Specifically... Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. The United States certainly cannot be assumed to allow ALL attendees entry. It's well known that we have lists of people we won't allow in, and lest we think that's limited to the sort of nasty folk who wouldn't be attending the IETF anyway, I'll point out that a plane carrying Yusuf Islam -- the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens -- was landed in Maine so that the singer could be removed and sent home before the plane continued to New York. Individuals do get on these lists unreasonably, or by mistake. It think is fine, of course, don't having as mandatory for a country to allow to come for an IETF meeting somebody that did something which is against the law (being a criminal, terrorist or whatever), but not just because he/she has this or that way of thinking or is national for this or that country (not to name political, religious, sexual or any kind opinions). IETF is an open institution, which don't care about good or bad political decisions of countries or institutions; we just care about the way we want the world to do technology to be interoperable for all. Consequently, if a country don't allow some of us, some contributors or people willing to contribute, to attend our meetings, that country is against our goals, and is not good for IETF and is then not good for hosting an IETF meeting. I also understand, and that's the complete feeling behind the document, that we may have no other alternative that hosting the meeting in such country, but that may be the consequence of not having a better venue, or having venues which are even more restrictive for a bigger group of contributors or possible contributors. The consequence for the IAD from the reading of this document in this regards, should be like making sure that if better opportunities are available, are actually used. If the result is that less meetings are being hosted in certain countries, that's perfectly fair, because the overall participation will be wider. If some contributors don't wish to go to other countries, that's a personal decision and could show a political view from their side, instead of a real non-political interest in contributing to the work. And as such that is against IETF goals of a wider participation; such type of pressure for the IAD to move back to certain countries must never be accepted. Ignoring the issue of individuals, whole groups may have difficulty. The US has a list of restricted countries, which includes Iran and North Korea, and a longer list of countries to which exports of software or technology are controlled (this list includes Russia and China, for example). There's certainly no guarantee at any time that attendees from these countries won't have a difficult time getting visas, or might not be able to get them at all. I'm not saying either that the meetings should be held on those countries either, if they don't respect in a reciprocal way, that anyone can attend the meeting. There are lot's of other options, and if that means including a dozen of countries in the world, even if they are big countries, what is the problem ? As said, anyway, this is only in case we have no other better choices. I think the difference is that I'm not saying MUST not be held. I'm using a should. As to freedom of speech: We could argue about the reality of that for a while, but even apart from that, our government has made it clear that it considers those constitutional rights to apply to US citizens only, and not to foreign nationals who may be visiting. Well, I didn't knew that, and I'm very sorry and sad to heard it, clearly is a terrible statement coming for a government, and that's very negative, in my *very personal* opinion, for the government and the citizens that accept that, and becomes then evident for me that this country is not a good one
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi, Jordi developed this document largely at my request and with frequent interaction with the IAD. Clearly, it's intended to be of use to IASA in the selection of future meeting sites, and equally of use to potential hosts in understanding the requirements. Self-evidently, it is not intended to be a binding document - this is quite clear in the text. But I guarantee that it will be a very useful document; in fact it's already been of use in discussion with potential hosts. I appreciate Jordi's volunteer time spent on this document; he didn't have to do it. My expectation is that it will exist as a living document for some time to come; we don't have the running code experience to consider freezing it as an RFC yet. So, could people please review it for errors and omissions? Brian JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Richard, Thanks for your comments. See my response below, in-line. Regards, Jordi De: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:28:38 -0500 Para: IETF list ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi, Here is the original announcement and the IETF URL. Comments please ! I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat. My personal view is that this should be an Informational document, as a guideline of the selection criteria, as I already tried to describe in the document. There should be no difference between this and any other IETF document, in that sense. My opinion is that the binding is not related to the document type, but to how we want to manage the meetings the next years. The point here is simple: We really need a criteria. I've proposed several venues since 2001, specially Madrid (but also Barcelona and others in Latin America and Caribbean), and it was successfully evaluated by a secretariat on-site visit. However, afterwards there was no formal rejection of the venue and just a comment that isn't located downtown. However, less than one year after that, we had a meeting in San Diego, not in down town, and I can ensure you with much much much much worst conditions that the Madrid venue :-( (more distance to downtown, no public transport, more expensive, etc., etc.). Clearly, the old document that we have in the IETF site is insufficient and the decision is so *subjective* (not accusing to anyone, just a fact), that the situation is not fair neither acceptable. I've complained during years, and I guess that was the reason Brian Carpenter pointed to me suggesting that I should write the document (not stating that Madrid should be the right venue), and I decided to take the risk. It hasn't been an easy document, I will say even more difficult than a technical spec, but I'm glad with the result. I think is a fair document, that demonstrates also that the IETF is evolving, maturing and we are going to have meetings in new places and be fair with all the contributors, and that will also facilitate newcomers to actually start and keep contributing. I'm also very glad because I've received tens of comments, many more than what I can see, average, in the majority of other drafts. I tried to accommodate my perception on the consensus of all those that contributed, and the document evolved significantly from the first release (11th July 2005), and I hope having achieved it. I've also put completely aside, during this time, my own target to get a meeting organized in Madrid or other locations that I've been proposing for years, and even may be my own proposed venues will not match the criteria now, but I don't care, that's being fair and objective and that's really a must for this, if we want to get it working in an objective way. In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document should be considered formally binding on the IAOC or the Secretariat and that it only represents useful suggestions. I think that's precisely against the original target of the document. As said is only a guideline, but it must be followed in an objective way. You can read in the document: Generally, this document does not present a strict list of MUST items. Instead, it lists what needs to be evaluated, various alternative solutions, or combinations thereof, that may apply. This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is directly within their oversight and charter. My understanding is that the IAOC is not engaged in the day-to-day work, and that's the reason to have the IASA, the secretariat and the IAD. But they need community driven guidelines to be able to follow as much as possible an objective criteria. You can read in the document: In the end, the IAD will make the final decision and will be accountable for it, and therefore he is responsible for applying the criteria defined in this document according
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt
Marshall, RFCs are living documents as well, though the process for change is somewhat cumbersome. There are examples of RFCs that have been updated many times in the last few years. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks -- Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:27 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: I-D -- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt -- -- Speaking just for myself : -- -- I think that there is a strong benefit to having an agreed -- upon set -- of parameters -- for new meeting locations. -- -- Having said that, this may not be appropriate for an RFC. Maybe it -- should be a living document on a web page -- or wiki, as is being done / considered for mailing list anti-SPAM -- suggestions. Maybe a new class of -- IETF document publication is needed. -- -- Regards -- Marshall Eubanks -- -- On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: -- -- Hi Paul, -- -- I guess we can question ourselves the same way in many other -- documents ... -- -- The importance of having documents is part of the IETF working -- mode. Is -- our way to say, here there is a consensus on this specific topic. -- -- I guess is not my final decision if it will become and -- RFC or not, -- but it -- will not be fair not following the same path for this -- document as -- for many -- others. -- -- That said, the original idea has been, since I was -- pointed out for -- editing -- this document, to follow exactly the same process as with -- many other -- documents, technical and administrative. -- -- Regards, -- Jordi -- -- -- -- -- De: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800 -- Para: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF list -- ietf@ietf.org -- Asunto: Re: FW: I-D -- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt -- -- At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: -- It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for -- process over -- substance. -- -- Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? -- -- --Paul Hoffman, Director -- --VPN Consortium -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- -- -- -- ** -- The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org -- -- Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit -- Slides available at: -- http://www.ipv6-es.com -- -- This electronic message contains information which may be -- privileged or confidential. The information is intended -- to be for -- the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the -- intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, -- distribution or use of the contents of this information, -- including -- attached files, is prohibited. -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
So, could people please review it for errors and omissions? My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view of some of the political realities. Specifically... Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. The United States certainly cannot be assumed to allow ALL attendees entry. It's well known that we have lists of people we won't allow in, and lest we think that's limited to the sort of nasty folk who wouldn't be attending the IETF anyway, I'll point out that a plane carrying Yusuf Islam -- the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens -- was landed in Maine so that the singer could be removed and sent home before the plane continued to New York. Individuals do get on these lists unreasonably, or by mistake. Ignoring the issue of individuals, whole groups may have difficulty. The US has a list of restricted countries, which includes Iran and North Korea, and a longer list of countries to which exports of software or technology are controlled (this list includes Russia and China, for example). There's certainly no guarantee at any time that attendees from these countries won't have a difficult time getting visas, or might not be able to get them at all. As to freedom of speech: We could argue about the reality of that for a while, but even apart from that, our government has made it clear that it considers those constitutional rights to apply to US citizens only, and not to foreign nationals who may be visiting. OK, all that said, I don't think the US is a bad country in which to have IETF meetings. Which is, really, my point: I think the text needs to be changed to better express the intent, which is that we want to avoid countries that are unduly restrictive, without trying to limit things to utopian -- and non-existent -- lands of complete freedom. -- Barry Leiba ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba http://www.research.ibm.com/spam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt
Well said Barry! Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 17:31 To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt So, could people please review it for errors and omissions? My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view of some of the political realities. Specifically... Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. The United States certainly cannot be assumed to allow ALL attendees entry. It's well known that we have lists of people we won't allow in, and lest we think that's limited to the sort of nasty folk who wouldn't be attending the IETF anyway, I'll point out that a plane carrying Yusuf Islam -- the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens -- was landed in Maine so that the singer could be removed and sent home before the plane continued to New York. Individuals do get on these lists unreasonably, or by mistake. Ignoring the issue of individuals, whole groups may have difficulty. The US has a list of restricted countries, which includes Iran and North Korea, and a longer list of countries to which exports of software or technology are controlled (this list includes Russia and China, for example). There's certainly no guarantee at any time that attendees from these countries won't have a difficult time getting visas, or might not be able to get them at all. As to freedom of speech: We could argue about the reality of that for a while, but even apart from that, our government has made it clear that it considers those constitutional rights to apply to US citizens only, and not to foreign nationals who may be visiting. OK, all that said, I don't think the US is a bad country in which to have IETF meetings. Which is, really, my point: I think the text needs to be changed to better express the intent, which is that we want to avoid countries that are unduly restrictive, without trying to limit things to utopian -- and non-existent -- lands of complete freedom. -- Barry Leiba ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba http://www.research.ibm.com/spam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
It is broken, anyone that has proposed to host an IETF meeting know it. What you can read in the actual web page about hosting a meeting is not correct in the reality, and can't be 100% subjective (yes there will be a decision at the end, and that imply certain degree of subjectivity, but a criteria helps to make it as much objective and fair as possible). Regards, Jordi having hosted an IETF, i'll make the comment that i -really- wanted a document like this as a handbook of things to expect. But that was back in the day... I wrote up some notes and passed them on to the next local host. a few mtgs later, Mark Prior ran into some of the same concerns when he hosted an IETF. and so a few of us who -had- hosted IETF mtgs got together and wrote up an ID on hosting requirements. That draft went 'round the IESG a couple times and then died a quiet death. And rightly so. Such a document is not w/in the IETF remit of defining Internet Protocols. So i really understand why you too, would like to see something like this be in the IETF archives but it is NOT in the remit of the IETF as I understand it. However, the IETF of today is clearly NOT the IETF i spent time with, so things could have changed. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Well said Barry! From: Barry Leiba My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's please not), I think they reflect a somewhat naïve view of some of the political realities. Specifically... Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. Indeed. Applied with vigour, this restriction implies that no country is suitable to meet in. That leaves us with parts of Antarctica, a floating venue located in international waters, or zero-g bar BOFs in outer space. I favour the latter. A slightly more realistic approach might be to hold meetings regularly in different countries with (ideally) divergent security/ immigration policies, in the hope that successive meetings might at least exclude different sets of people. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi Richard, Thanks for your comments. See my response below, in-line. Regards, Jordi De: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:28:38 -0500 Para: IETF list ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi, Here is the original announcement and the IETF URL. Comments please ! I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat. My personal view is that this should be an Informational document, as a guideline of the selection criteria, as I already tried to describe in the document. There should be no difference between this and any other IETF document, in that sense. My opinion is that the binding is not related to the document type, but to how we want to manage the meetings the next years. The point here is simple: We really need a criteria. I've proposed several venues since 2001, specially Madrid (but also Barcelona and others in Latin America and Caribbean), and it was successfully evaluated by a secretariat on-site visit. However, afterwards there was no formal rejection of the venue and just a comment that isn't located downtown. However, less than one year after that, we had a meeting in San Diego, not in down town, and I can ensure you with much much much much worst conditions that the Madrid venue :-( (more distance to downtown, no public transport, more expensive, etc., etc.). Clearly, the old document that we have in the IETF site is insufficient and the decision is so *subjective* (not accusing to anyone, just a fact), that the situation is not fair neither acceptable. I've complained during years, and I guess that was the reason Brian Carpenter pointed to me suggesting that I should write the document (not stating that Madrid should be the right venue), and I decided to take the risk. It hasn't been an easy document, I will say even more difficult than a technical spec, but I'm glad with the result. I think is a fair document, that demonstrates also that the IETF is evolving, maturing and we are going to have meetings in new places and be fair with all the contributors, and that will also facilitate newcomers to actually start and keep contributing. I'm also very glad because I've received tens of comments, many more than what I can see, average, in the majority of other drafts. I tried to accommodate my perception on the consensus of all those that contributed, and the document evolved significantly from the first release (11th July 2005), and I hope having achieved it. I've also put completely aside, during this time, my own target to get a meeting organized in Madrid or other locations that I've been proposing for years, and even may be my own proposed venues will not match the criteria now, but I don't care, that's being fair and objective and that's really a must for this, if we want to get it working in an objective way. In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document should be considered formally binding on the IAOC or the Secretariat and that it only represents useful suggestions. I think that's precisely against the original target of the document. As said is only a guideline, but it must be followed in an objective way. You can read in the document: Generally, this document does not present a strict list of MUST items. Instead, it lists what needs to be evaluated, various alternative solutions, or combinations thereof, that may apply. This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is directly within their oversight and charter. My understanding is that the IAOC is not engaged in the day-to-day work, and that's the reason to have the IASA, the secretariat and the IAD. But they need community driven guidelines to be able to follow as much as possible an objective criteria. You can read in the document: In the end, the IAD will make the final decision and will be accountable for it, and therefore he is responsible for applying the criteria defined in this document according to the hosting/sponsorship availability. What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC? The same as for any other document which is related to the IAD, IASA, and/or secretariat, nothing less, nothing more: The IAOC is responsible of providing appropriate direction, oversight and approval. But guess what, they also need some guidelines if we want an objective IAOC, right ? Frankly there is'nt much about this document I like. It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. I don't really agree on that. The document is plenty of juice and substance. I've organized a few meetings, not so big as IETF, but some times even for around 800-900 people and I can tell you that writing the document has been an interesting exercise that also discovered me issues that we
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi Paul, I guess we can question ourselves the same way in many other documents ... The importance of having documents is part of the IETF working mode. Is our way to say, here there is a consensus on this specific topic. I guess is not my final decision if it will become and RFC or not, but it will not be fair not following the same path for this document as for many others. That said, the original idea has been, since I was pointed out for editing this document, to follow exactly the same process as with many other documents, technical and administrative. Regards, Jordi De: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800 Para: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF list ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi Spencer, I don't expect we have changes on the way we select venues for a few years. Otherwise, the process for selecting them is not fair neither objective, because a venue need to be selected (logistic reasons) at least 18-24 months ahead. That means that lessons that we learn about what may be right or wrong in the document will take more than 2 years to get debugged. Right now we have already an experience of 20 years and we haven't changed too much lots of things. Moreover, we do changes in our documents, is not an issue if they are an RFC or not. And ... Being the document a guideline (may be BCP better than Informational), is IAD the one that will take decisions about the venue selection. I guess he will be smart enough to correctly apply the document to the process. I've no doubt on that. Regards, Jordi De: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:01:32 -0600 Para: IETF list ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? Well, backing up slightly ... How much of our process stuff (including existing BCPs) really needs to be published as an RFC? Some does, I suppose, but never changes doesn't seem like the model we should search for on venue selection (the venue selection model used for the first 10 IETF meetings probably wouldn't have even booked us into Minneapolis, much less Adelaide!). Having said this, I hope the IAOC does find this document useful input (because if they don't, people have sure been wasting zeros and ones on THIS list... Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Speaking just for myself : I think that there is a strong benefit to having an agreed upon set of parameters for new meeting locations. Having said that, this may not be appropriate for an RFC. Maybe it should be a living document on a web page or wiki, as is being done / considered for mailing list anti-SPAM suggestions. Maybe a new class of IETF document publication is needed. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Paul, I guess we can question ourselves the same way in many other documents ... The importance of having documents is part of the IETF working mode. Is our way to say, here there is a consensus on this specific topic. I guess is not my final decision if it will become and RFC or not, but it will not be fair not following the same path for this document as for many others. That said, the original idea has been, since I was pointed out for editing this document, to follow exactly the same process as with many other documents, technical and administrative. Regards, Jordi De: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800 Para: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF list ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Jordi, Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying issues that should be examined. There are several other parts of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation of a list of suggestions without prioritization lowers its utility considerably. On the other hand, I doubt that consensus even on the list of suggested principles is possible. Consensus about how they should be prioritized would be more difficult yet, and consensus among those with significant experience planning and running IETF meetings would certainly be no less difficult. The difficulty, it seems to me, is the combination between that problem with claiming consensus and what can and should be done with the document operationally. It is just my opinion, but I consider anything whose purpose is to tell the IAD, IAOC, or IESG (or the IETF or IASA more generally) how to behave procedurally or decide on things to be completely inappropriate for publication as an independent submission RFC. If others agree, then the only way to get this published as an RFC is via the IESG and some IETF consensus process. One possibility is to just leave it as an I-D, updating it periodically as needed, but keeping it out there as a perspective that the IAD might consider. That has certainly been done with some IETF and meeting operational documents in the past. Another would be to pass it to the IAOC (see note below) along with a suggestion that they establish a set of periodically-updated IETF operating procedure notes and put this (or a modified version of it) into that series. Otherwise... well, I just don't know, even independent of the aspects of it with which I disagree. I will try to find time to send you a list of particular topic areas about which we appear to disagree, but I don't consider a discussion of those specific topics to be appropriate or useful on the IETF list unless the IESG decides that this document should be an IETF topic (e.g., via a Last Call for BCP). john (note: in both the document and some of your comments in the last 24 hours, I think you've gotten the IAOC (the oversight committee/ IASA decision body) and IASA (the whole administrative operation in principle, but, in practice, just the conceptual realization of the IAOC, the IAD (whom they supervise), and the set of tasks and those who carry them out that are supervised by the IAD and/or IAOC directly).) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi John, I understand your points and somehow agree on some of them. I can try to establish a prioritization if that can help, and certainly I will be happy to keep updating the document if at the end the decision is to keep it in a web page, or just as a live I-D, or whatever else. Regards, Jordi De: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:00:10 -0500 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt Jordi, Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying issues that should be examined. There are several other parts of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation of a list of suggestions without prioritization lowers its utility considerably. On the other hand, I doubt that consensus even on the list of suggested principles is possible. Consensus about how they should be prioritized would be more difficult yet, and consensus among those with significant experience planning and running IETF meetings would certainly be no less difficult. The difficulty, it seems to me, is the combination between that problem with claiming consensus and what can and should be done with the document operationally. It is just my opinion, but I consider anything whose purpose is to tell the IAD, IAOC, or IESG (or the IETF or IASA more generally) how to behave procedurally or decide on things to be completely inappropriate for publication as an independent submission RFC. If others agree, then the only way to get this published as an RFC is via the IESG and some IETF consensus process. One possibility is to just leave it as an I-D, updating it periodically as needed, but keeping it out there as a perspective that the IAD might consider. That has certainly been done with some IETF and meeting operational documents in the past. Another would be to pass it to the IAOC (see note below) along with a suggestion that they establish a set of periodically-updated IETF operating procedure notes and put this (or a modified version of it) into that series. Otherwise... well, I just don't know, even independent of the aspects of it with which I disagree. I will try to find time to send you a list of particular topic areas about which we appear to disagree, but I don't consider a discussion of those specific topics to be appropriate or useful on the IETF list unless the IESG decides that this document should be an IETF topic (e.g., via a Last Call for BCP). john (note: in both the document and some of your comments in the last 24 hours, I think you've gotten the IAOC (the oversight committee/ IASA decision body) and IASA (the whole administrative operation in principle, but, in practice, just the conceptual realization of the IAOC, the IAD (whom they supervise), and the set of tasks and those who carry them out that are supervised by the IAD and/or IAOC directly).) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
J I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat. My personal view is that this should be an Informational document, as a guideline of the selection criteria, as I already tried to describe in the document. There should be no difference between this and any other IETF document, in that sense. But there are differences Informational is just that Informational and as such not binding on the parties as would be the Charter of the IAB IAOC, NOMCOM etc. My opinion is that the binding is not related to the document type, but to how we want to manage the meetings the next years. Clearly, the old document that we have in the IETF site is insufficient and the decision is so *subjective* (not accusing to anyone, just a fact), that the situation is not fair neither acceptable. My position is this A. if it an'nt broke dont fix it and I do not see what is currently broken. B is is irrelevant whether the selection is subjective or not. All selections of this type are ultimately subjective. This class of IETF policy is the IMHO business of those to whom the NOMCOM has appointed to oversee such activity in this case the IAOC. If the IAOC wishes to develop a criterion for site selections and then seek community support for such criterion then fine , that is the IETF way as I have come to understand it. We appoint leadership for a reason ..to lead and make decisions. I dont like binding leadership with rules unless they serve a specific defined purpose necessary to the critical functioning of the organization. This is one of those decisions best left to those to whom we duly appoint to make such decisions. In shorter words I believe in the concept of Management. The business of IETF Management is to Manage so we can get on with our business which is Internet Standards. I've complained during years, and I guess that was the reason Brian Carpenter pointed to me suggesting that I should write the document (not stating that Madrid should be the right venue), and I decided to take the risk. Well Madrid indeed anywhere in Spain is the right venue for _anything_ :-) IMHO!!! I personally would not have any objection to having all future IETF meetings in Spain. Well maybe alternate the fall meetings in Portugal .. Oporto Lisbon come to mind. Now I can see some objections to Ibiza. That might be a stretch...but at least once??? IMHO Brian Carpenter was seriously wrong in suggesting that an individual member of the community attempt to create such a policy document especially since we have just gone through a brutal process to set up a brand new management oversight committee to ultimately preform such functions, the IAOC. Please dont get my wrong. You have obviously put much work into this and we should all be grateful for such contributions to the community. I just dont think it was necessary right now and even if there was a general consensus that it was necessary this is the proper task of the IAOC. Brian should have known better. In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document should be considered formally binding on the IAOC or the Secretariat and that it only represents useful suggestions. I think that's precisely against the original target of the document. As said is only a guideline, but it must be followed in an objective way. NO on that I do disagree. That is why if this document is to become a RFC and I believe that it should not, it must be Informational. My understanding is that the IAOC is not engaged in the day-to-day work, and that's the reason to have the IASA, the secretariat and the IAD. But they need community driven guidelines to be able to follow as much as possible an objective criteria. The current set up is very new. I think it is a very very bad idea to impose policy criterion on these bodies until the dust settles. It has been a long hard struggle to get where we are at right now. Again if the IAOC wishes to consider such criterion then your draft is better edited there then presented to the community. Now, all that said, I don't recall having heard comments from your side on the document during all the process in any of the previous versions. It will be very helpful that you provide them now, but please, try to be constructive by commenting what exactly you dislike and even propose specific text. I'm sure everyone will be happy to consider all the inputs. I have commented on the document. I dont think it should exist and certainly not as a BCP or Standards Track RFC. 1. Venue Selection Criterion is best left to the IAOC to determine policy. 2. Even if there was a need for community input the current IETF administrative structure is very new and some what fragile and we should not for the time being impose unwanted solutions on them they did not solicit support for. -- Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Hi Richard, Just a short answer to avoid a long discussion on each of your replies ... It is broken, anyone that has proposed to host an IETF meeting know it. What you can read in the actual web page about hosting a meeting is not correct in the reality, and can't be 100% subjective (yes there will be a decision at the end, and that imply certain degree of subjectivity, but a criteria helps to make it as much objective and fair as possible). Remember my example, a real one: Venue A is proposed and is rejected because reason X. Some months later another venue B is hosting the IETF with same problem X and even with a higher degree on the X problem compared with venue A. I don't thin you can still say isn't broken ! There are many other examples and lot of people willing to host that has no starting point to know if they can actually be a candidate venue or not. Regards, Jordi De: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:36:21 -0500 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt J I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat. My personal view is that this should be an Informational document, as a guideline of the selection criteria, as I already tried to describe in the document. There should be no difference between this and any other IETF document, in that sense. But there are differences Informational is just that Informational and as such not binding on the parties as would be the Charter of the IAB IAOC, NOMCOM etc. My opinion is that the binding is not related to the document type, but to how we want to manage the meetings the next years. Clearly, the old document that we have in the IETF site is insufficient and the decision is so *subjective* (not accusing to anyone, just a fact), that the situation is not fair neither acceptable. My position is this A. if it an'nt broke dont fix it and I do not see what is currently broken. B is is irrelevant whether the selection is subjective or not. All selections of this type are ultimately subjective. This class of IETF policy is the IMHO business of those to whom the NOMCOM has appointed to oversee such activity in this case the IAOC. If the IAOC wishes to develop a criterion for site selections and then seek community support for such criterion then fine , that is the IETF way as I have come to understand it. We appoint leadership for a reason ..to lead and make decisions. I dont like binding leadership with rules unless they serve a specific defined purpose necessary to the critical functioning of the organization. This is one of those decisions best left to those to whom we duly appoint to make such decisions. In shorter words I believe in the concept of Management. The business of IETF Management is to Manage so we can get on with our business which is Internet Standards. I've complained during years, and I guess that was the reason Brian Carpenter pointed to me suggesting that I should write the document (not stating that Madrid should be the right venue), and I decided to take the risk. Well Madrid indeed anywhere in Spain is the right venue for _anything_ :-) IMHO!!! I personally would not have any objection to having all future IETF meetings in Spain. Well maybe alternate the fall meetings in Portugal .. Oporto Lisbon come to mind. Now I can see some objections to Ibiza. That might be a stretch...but at least once??? IMHO Brian Carpenter was seriously wrong in suggesting that an individual member of the community attempt to create such a policy document especially since we have just gone through a brutal process to set up a brand new management oversight committee to ultimately preform such functions, the IAOC. Please dont get my wrong. You have obviously put much work into this and we should all be grateful for such contributions to the community. I just dont think it was necessary right now and even if there was a general consensus that it was necessary this is the proper task of the IAOC. Brian should have known better. In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document should be considered formally binding on the IAOC or the Secretariat and that it only represents useful suggestions. I think that's precisely against the original target of the document. As said is only a guideline, but it must be followed in an objective way. NO on that I do disagree. That is why if this document is to become a RFC and I believe that it should not, it must be Informational. My understanding is that the IAOC is not engaged in the day-to-day work, and that's the reason to have the IASA, the secretariat and the IAD. But they need community driven guidelines to be able to follow as much as possible an objective
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
John C Klensin wrote: Jordi, Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying issues that should be examined. There are several other parts of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation of a list of suggestions without prioritization lowers its utility considerably. On the other hand, I doubt that consensus even on the list of suggested principles is possible. Consensus about how they should be prioritized would be more difficult yet, and consensus among those with significant experience planning and running IETF meetings would certainly be no less difficult. Thank you John. As usual you have summarized many of my own feelings better than I have done. The difficulty, it seems to me, is the combination between that problem with claiming consensus and what can and should be done with the document operationally. It is just my opinion, but I consider anything whose purpose is to tell the IAD, IAOC, or IESG (or the IETF or IASA more generally) how to behave procedurally or decide on things to be completely inappropriate for publication as an independent submission RFC. My point exactly, again many thanks for your clarity. One possibility is to just leave it as an I-D, updating it periodically as needed, but keeping it out there as a perspective that the IAD might consider. as Informational only. -- Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683 Fax: +1 815.333.1237 mailto:richard(at)shockey.us or mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz http://www.neustar.biz ; http://www.enum.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
--On Friday, 20 January, 2006 04:30 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, I understand your points and somehow agree on some of them. I can try to establish a prioritization if that can help, and certainly I will be happy to keep updating the document if at the end the decision is to keep it in a web page, or just as a live I-D, or whatever else. Just as long as you understand that it is going to be hard or impossible to make it binding, or even strongly suggestive, on the IAD via an IETF process without getting consensus that... (1) It is not clear that, with the IASA in place and specifically assigned the meeting site selection task, the IESG has the authority to ask for and evaluate... unless you propose, and succeed, in modifying BCP 101. (2) It seems unlikely to me that you would get that consensus if it were asked for, at least without many months of nit-picking. Let me give one example on-list and then I'm going to drop back out of the discussion. At the end of the first paragraph of section 2.2, you say The IETF desires to meet in countries with significant actual or potential participation. The potential part of that criterion has never been agreed upon. We have tended to go for actual participation, rather than trying to create a presence where there are potential participants in the hope of luring them in. I can think of many reasons to not change that. You obviously either think we should or you misunderstand the criteria that have been used for years. I suspect we could have a very long, and ultimately inconclusive, discussion on this subject. Indeed, I believe that once a few people started enumerating what they saw as pros and cons, we would discover that a very large portion of the IETF community would have an opinion on the subject. Interesting, but just not very likely to be productive. And, while that assertion sort of leapt out at me, there are many others like it in the document. I'd personally prefer to delegate this problem and discussion to the IAOC, as BCP 101 appears to do, and let them sort it out without an extended and detailed debate on the IETF list. Just my opinion, of course. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
