IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review
draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-03

Thanks for the work done on this document: our plenary meetings deserve a useful venue. Some comments nevertheless ;)

# Section 3.1

When published the "Current Policy" will look weird, what about "RFC 8719 Policy" ?

# Section 3.3

The last paragraph is rather qualitative but, while I would like to have a more quantitative text, I have no better suggestions... Perhaps, "one exploratory once every 2 years"? 

# Section 4.2.3

About `“sufficient rooms to meet the expected demand”` this is rather vague, I was about to DISCUSS is but I won't go against the IETF community consensus built on the IETF Last Call.

# Section 4.4.3 

The hallway ad-hoc spaces in Vancouver were indeed *very* convenient.

s/to work online on their own devices/to work online on their own devices with nearby electrical power/ or something similar ?

Process note: the shepherd write-up is missing the authors' IPR disclosure (12.).

I am sad that the lounge is not going to be a requirement anymore, although I understand (and have noticed myself) it was "lightly used". The hallway seating can indeed be a replacement in some cases, but personally many times we have had spontaneous meetings with a dozen people participating that did not find any other space than the lounge, with tables and enough space. Also some sort of "landing space" where to look for people without having to tour the whole venue. Anyway, not anything to block this document on, but I hope the IASA will consider this when deciding not to have a lounge.

This has come up before, so it might be worth considering here: Is this patch form better than just publishing amended versions of the two BCP 226 documents?