IETF Meeting Attendees' Frequently Asked (Travel) Questions
draft-george-travel-faq-05

[Ballot comment]
Section 3.  Helpful information

  There are a number of general categories of information listed below.
  Some of it, such as sections 3.1 and 3.3, is necessary for travel,
  the rest can be considered nice-to-have.


If you would change the Table of Content (TOC) to have the current 3.3 as 3.2, then you would have nice order in the TOC, sorting by importance/relevance ... which you could stress in the document.

  3.  Helpful information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
    3.1.  Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
      3.1.1.  Transit between the airport or train station and
              primary hotels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
        3.1.1.1.  Taxi information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
        3.1.1.2.  Mass Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
      3.1.2.  Getting around near the conference venue . . . . . . .  7
    3.2.  Regional/International considerations  . . . . . . . . . .
      3.2.1.  Health and Safety  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        3.2.1.1.  Water availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      3.3.2.  Money  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    3.3.  Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      3.3.1.  Restaurants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      3.3.2.  Other Food items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    3.4.  Communications and electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
    3.5.  Weather  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
    3.6.  Fitness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Ballot comment]
re Mass transit:

It would be good if there was an explicit note on safety
It would be good if there was a note as to whether the signs include place names in a western character set.

[Ballot comment]

You might note somewhere that meeting specific sites tend to go away,
as has happened with ietf75.se which is now something to do with poker
(or at least the advert offered there when I looked was).

(1) What type of RFC is being requested? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational RFC, as indicated by the title page header.  This
document does not recommend a protocol or process.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.

Technical Summary

  This document attempts to provide a list of the common Frequently
  Asked Questions (FAQs) that IETF meeting attendees often ask
  regarding travel logistics and local information.  It is intended to
  assist those who are willing to provide local information, so that if
  they wish to pre-populate answers to some or all of these questions
  either in the IETF Wiki or a meeting-specific site, they have a
  reasonably complete list of ideas to draw from.  It is not meant as a
  list of required information that the host or secretariat needs to
  provide, merely as a guideline.

Working Group Summary

  This document was an individual submission, not discussed or adopted
  in any WG. This is due to the fact that this is a document about IETF
  internal process and meeting attendance, and no WG is chartered to
  discuss such matters.

Document Quality

  Document was discussed and refined via ietf@ietf.org through several
  revisions prior to IETF LC. The following individuals contributed text
  or provided feedback: Dave Crocker, Simon Perreault, Joe Touch,
  Lee Howard, Jonathan Lennox, Tony Hansen, Vishnu Ram, Paul Kyzivat,
  Karen Seo, Randy Bush, Mary Barnes, John Klensin, Brian Carpenter,
  Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Yaacov Weingarten, L. David Baron,
  Samuel Weiler, SM, Ole Jacobsen, and David Black.

Personnel

  Responsible AD is the Russ Housley

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

See document quality section above.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of?

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

Multiple statements of support prior to and during IETF last call,
significant reviewer contributions. No significant opposition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

IDNITS finds 1 warning, no errors. Warning is complaining about
non-standard FQDN, but this is listed as an example with a reference
to the true FQDN listed in the informative references.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs?

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
Section...

N/A

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
Allocations...

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Draft passes IDNits, others N/A.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IETF meeting attendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IETF meeting attendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions'
  as an Informational RFC

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-06. 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


  This document attempts to provide a list of the common Frequently
  Asked Questions (FAQs) that IETF meeting attendees often ask
  regarding travel logistics and local information.  It is intended to
  assist those who are willing to provide local information, so that if
  they wish to pre-populate answers to some or all of these questions
  either in the IETF Wiki or a meeting-specific site, they have a
  reasonably complete list of ideas to draw from.  It is not meant as a
  list of required information that the host or secretariat needs to
  provide, merely as a guideline.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-george-travel-faq/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-george-travel-faq/


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