Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:07:09 -0800

[+mtgvenue, just in case there are folks there not looking at the IETF 
list]

Hi SM,

Thanks for the review. Do note that you submitted it after the Last Call 
period expired, but it is appreciated nonetheless.

On 2 Feb 2018, at 12:24, Moonesamy wrote:

> In Section 1, there is the following: "As always, the community is 
> encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Nominations Committee 
> (NOMCOM), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB 
> regarding the discharge of the IETF Administrative Oversight 
> Committee's performance".  Is the IESG and IAB the supervising bodies 
> of the IAOC?

It is written that way because the IESG and IAB select some of the IAOC 
members. They do not directly supervise.

> In Section 2.1, which is about "IETF values", there is the following: 
> "We meet in different locations globally, in order to spread the 
> difficulty and cost of travel among active participants".  From what I 
> recall, venue selection used to be based on attendance [1] as there 
> weren't any statistics about participation.  Using "attendees" and 
> "participants" interchangeably may mislead the reader.

The WG's intent, as I understand it, is "participants", not "attendees", 
in the section. That is, whether or not we are currently able to measure 
"participation", that is the desired metric.

> I looked up the word "globally" and its meaning was as follows: "in a 
> way that relates to the whole world".  According to the information 
> published by the IETF, 99% of IETF meetings were held in the Northern 
> Hemisphere.  Is "globally" used in that sentence to promote a cause or 
> a point of view?

It's use has no such intention. It is meant to be the same as 
"internationally".

> Under "Economics", there is the following: "Meeting attendees 
> participate as individuals".  Most of the RFCs has the author listed 
> as being from a company.  Most of the IPR disclosures are from 
> companies.  Does attendee participation as individuals mean that the 
> IPR disclosed during that participation "belongs" to the individual 
> instead of the employer?

I think that's out of scope of this document.

> Section 3.2 states that "criteria in this subsection are not 
> mandatory".  Is the "MUST" in that subsection mandatory?

Yes, the "MUST notify" is mandatory, but that is not one of the 
"criteria in this subsection".

> As a nit, there is a typo for "Considerations" in Section 3.3.

Thanks.

> In Section 4.1, there is the following: "Participants have a 
> responsibility to express their views about venues early and often, by 
> responding to surveys ..."  Why should a remote participant be 
> concerned about venue selection?  Based on my experience, the time 
> difference was sometimes inconvenient.

Other than timezone, another reason for remote participants to fill out 
the survey is to discover whether particular locations have caused 
people who normally attend not to do so. Other comments might also be 
useful.

> In Section 4.2, there is the following: "This means that the IESG sets 
> high level policies related to, among other things, meeting venues.  
> The IETF Chair, among other things, relays these IESG-determined 
> policies to the IAOC".  Why isn't this draft updating RFC 4071 given 
> that it changes the "grant of authority"?  Why is the IESG using this 
> intended BCP to specify that it sets high level policies?

This one I'll let my AD answer. I believe 4.2 documents the current 
state of affairs.

> How are "interested members of the community" chosen (Section 4.7)?

At the discretion of the IAOC. I think it says that, doesn't it?

> What is the definition of regions (Section 5.1 (a))?  Who defines the 
> regions?

This document does not define regions and is agnostic on the issue. The 
-meeting-policy document does define regions as part of its policy.

> In Section 5.4, there is the following: "At this time, the 
> announcement MUST include any notable economic, health, or safety 
> risks or references thereto".  The latest announcement [2] does not 
> contain any information about notable risks.  I did a quick search and 
> found a travel advisory stating that "there is some risk to your 
> security".  It does not make sense to have a "MUST" if IASA cannot 
> comply with it.

Perhaps IASA felt that the risks were not "notable". Either way, I'm not 
convinced that it is a demonstration of inability to comply.

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides
> 2. 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg17400.html

Thanks again.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:40:15 -0500

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> In Section 4.2, there is the following: "This means that the IESG sets high level policies related to, among other things, meeting venues.  The IETF Chair, among other things, relays these IESG-determined policies to the IAOC".  Why isn't this draft updating RFC 4071 given that it changes the "grant of authority"?  Why is the IESG using this intended BCP to specify that it sets high level policies?
> 
> This one I'll let my AD answer. I believe 4.2 documents the current state of affairs.

Correct. I don’t see anything in this document that is inconsistent with RFC 4071 or RFC 3710.

Alissa

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:15:56 -0800

Hi Pete,
At 07:07 PM 2/5/2018, Pete Resnick wrote:
>Thanks for the review. Do note that you submitted it after the Last 
>Call period expired, but it is appreciated nonetheless.

Thanks for the response.  I'll comment inline.

>It is written that way because the IESG and IAB select some of the 
>IAOC members. They do not directly supervise.

Ok.

>The WG's intent, as I understand it, is "participants", not 
>"attendees", in the section. That is, whether or not we are 
>currently able to measure "participation", that is the desired metric.

Ok.

>It's use has no such intention. It is meant to be the same as 

I'll skip the discussion about this one.

>>participate as individuals".  Most of the RFCs has the author 
>>listed as being from a company.  Most of the IPR disclosures are 
>>from companies.  Does attendee participation as individuals mean 
>>that the IPR disclosed during that participation "belongs" to the 
>>individual instead of the employer?
>

The same argument could be made for Section 4.2 which discusses about 
"high-level" policies.

>Other than timezone, another reason for remote participants to fill 
>out the survey is to discover whether particular locations have 
>caused people who normally attend not to do so. Other comments might 
>also be useful.

Ok.

>At the discretion of the IAOC. I think it says that, doesn't it?

Is this draft updating RFC 4071 given that there isn't any mention of 
the committee in RFC 4071?

>This document does not define regions and is agnostic on the issue. 
>The -meeting-policy document does define regions as part of its policy.

This document does not reference the meeting-policy document.  As 
such, it is not possible to understand what the regions are.

>Perhaps IASA felt that the risks were not "notable". Either way, I'm 
>not convinced that it is a demonstration of inability to comply.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:05:53 -0800

Hi Alissa, Pete,
At 05:40 AM 2/6/2018, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Correct. I don't see anything in this document that is inconsistent 
>with RFC 4071 or RFC 3710.

RFC 4071 make a distinction between administrative work and the 
IETF's technical functions.  What is described as "high-level 
policies" can also be construed as part of the administrative work of the IAOC.

As there isn't anything in the draft about RFC 3710, I gather that I 
don't have to read that RFC to understand this draft.  I don't recall 
ever seeing the IESG publishing its IESG-determined policies.  Are 
there references to those policies or are they "unpublished"?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:37:22 +1300

> Correct. I don’t see anything in this document that is inconsistent with RFC 4071 or RFC 3710.

+1

The IASA is the servant of the IETF and it's the IESG that declares consensus on IETF requirements and policies. So I don't see any change to the chain of authority here.

   Brian

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:39:40 -0500

Hi SM,

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:05 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa, Pete,
>> Correct. I don't see anything in this document that is inconsistent with RFC 4071 or RFC 3710.
> 
> RFC 4071 make a distinction between administrative work and the IETF's technical functions.  What is described as "high-level policies" can also be construed as part of the administrative work of the IAOC.
> 
> As there isn't anything in the draft about RFC 3710, I gather that I don't have to read that RFC to understand this draft.  I don't recall ever seeing the IESG publishing its IESG-determined policies.  Are there references to those policies or are they "unpublished”?

I’m losing the thread of what your criticism is of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. Perhaps if you have a specific edit to suggest to the text, that would make it more clear. Personally I see no problem with adding a reference to RFC 3710 if there is consensus to do that. (Although, as noted in my AD eval, my personal preference would be to drop Section 4 altogether, but that was not where the WG landed.)

Thanks,
Alissa

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 08:16:03 -0800

Hi Alissa,
At 06:39 PM 2/6/2018, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>I'm losing the thread of what your criticism is of 
>draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. Perhaps if you 
>have a specific edit to suggest to the text, that would make it more 
>clear. Personally I see no problem with adding a reference to RFC 
>3710 if there is consensus to do that. (Although, as noted in my AD 
>eval, my personal preference would be to drop Section 4 altogether, 
>but that was not where the WG landed.)

I am okay with your personal preference to drop Section 4.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy