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

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements and RFC 9712, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot comment]
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 ?

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

There was no appropriate working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

See above.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

N/A

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Based on community feedback, it is ready for review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

BCP.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

N/A

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

N/A

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes.  This document will update prior BCPs on venue selection.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

N/A

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-27. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Following a review of the IETF meeting venue requirements, this
  document proposes updates to RFC 8718 “IETF Plenary Meeting Venue
  Selection Process”, clarifies how the IETF Administration Support
  Activity (IASA) should interpret some elements of RFC 8718, and
  proposes a replacement exploratory meeting process, thereby updating
  RFC 8719 "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF".




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.