[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Lear, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8718 Cisco Systems
BCP: 226 February 2020
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
Abstract
The IETF Administration Support Activity (IASA) is responsible for
arranging the selection and operation of the IETF plenary meeting
venue. This memo specifies IETF community requirements for meeting
venues, including hotels and meeting space. It also directs the IASA
to make available additional process documents that describe the
current meeting selection process.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Venue Selection Objectives
2.1. Core Values
2.2. Venue Selection Non-objectives
3. Meeting Criteria
3.1. Mandatory Criteria
3.2. Important Criteria
3.3. Other Considerations
4. Documentation Requirements
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. Privacy Considerations
8. Normative References
9. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Author's Address
1. Introduction
The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC8711] is
responsible for arranging the selection and operation of the IETF
plenary meeting venue. The purpose of this document is to guide the
IASA in their selection of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels.
The IASA should apply this guidance at different points in the
process in an attempt to faithfully meet the requirements of the IETF
community. We specify a set of general criteria for venue selection
and several requirements for transparency and community consultation.
It remains the responsibility of the IASA to apply their best
judgment. The IASA accepts input and feedback during the
consultation process and later (for instance, when there are changes
in the situation at a chosen location). The community is encouraged
to provide direct feedback about the IASA's performance to the IETF
Administration LLC, the Nominations Committee (NOMCOM), or the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Any reviews of IASA
decisions remain subject to the provisions of Section 4.7 of
[RFC8711] (BCP 101).
The following four terms describe the places for which the IETF
contracts services:
Venue:
An umbrella term for the city, meeting resources, and guest room
resources.
Facility:
The building that houses meeting rooms and associated resources.
It may also house an IETF Hotel.
IETF Hotels:
One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
IETF guest room block allocations are negotiated and where network
services managed by the IASA (e.g., the "IETF" SSID) are in use.
Overflow Hotels:
One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility,
where the IETF has negotiated a group room rate for the purposes
of the meeting. Of particular note is that Overflow Hotels are
not usually connected to the IETF network and do not use network
services managed by the IASA.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Venue Selection Objectives
2.1. Core Values
Some IETF values pervade the selection process. These are often
applicable to multiple requirements listed in this document. At a
minimum, they include the following:
Why we meet:
We meet to pursue the IETF's mission [RFC3935]. This is partly
done by advancing the development of Internet-Drafts and RFCs. We
also seek to facilitate attendee participation in multiple topics
and to enable cross-pollination of ideas and technologies.
Inclusiveness:
We would like to facilitate the on-site or remote participation of
anyone who wants to be involved. Widespread participation
contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
working sessions.
Every country has limits on who it will permit within its borders.
However, the IETF seeks to:
1. Minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations
inhibit, discourage, or prevent participants from attending
meetings; failing that, meeting locations are to be
distributed such that onerous entry regulations are not always
experienced by the same attendees; and
2. Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, or gender
identity.
Where we meet:
We meet in different global locations, in order to spread the
difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
travel time and expense across participants based in various
regions. Our regional location policy is articulated in
[RFC8719].
Internet Access:
As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and
we use it heavily. Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to
the general Internet and their corporate networks. "Unfiltered
access", in this case, means that all forms of communication are
allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, access to
corporate networks via encrypted VPNs from the meeting Facility
and Hotels, including Overflow Hotels. We also need open network
access available at high enough data rates, at the meeting
Facility, to support our work, which includes support of remote
participation. Beyond this, we are the first users of our own
technology. Any filtering may cause a problem with that
technology development. In some cases, local laws may require
some filtering. We seek to avoid such locales without reducing
the pool of cities to an unacceptable level by stating a number of
criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
the case where local laws may require filtering in some
circumstances.
Focus:
We meet to have focused technical discussions. These are not
limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
are important. They also happen over meals or drinks, through a
specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF", or in side
meetings. Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent or
reduce the effectiveness of these sessions and are therefore less
desirable as a meeting Facility [RFC6771].
Economics:
Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are
underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded. In
order to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we
therefore seek locations that provide convenient budget
alternatives for food and lodging, and that minimize travel
segments from major airports to the Venue. Within reason, one's
budget should not be a barrier to accommodation.
Least Astonishment and Openness:
Regular participants should not be surprised by meeting Venue
selections, particularly when it comes to locales. To avoid
surprise, the venue selection process, as with all other IETF
processes, should be as open as practicable. It should be
possible for the community to engage in discussion early to
express its views on prospective selections, so that the community
and the IASA can exchange views as to appropriateness long before
a venue contract is considered.
2.2. Venue Selection Non-objectives
IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
purposes of:
Politics:
Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
laws, regulations, or policies.
Maximal attendance:
While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible, both online
and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
a goal. It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
contributors with differing points of view did not have the
opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full the
rooms.
Tourism:
Variety in site-seeing experiences.
3. Meeting Criteria
This section contains the criteria for IETF meetings. It is broken
down into three subsections: mandatory criteria (Section 3.1),
important criteria (Section 3.2), and other considerations
(Section 3.3), each as explained below.
3.1. Mandatory Criteria
If criteria in this subsection cannot be met, a particular location
is unacceptable for selection, and the IASA MUST NOT enter into a
contract. Should the IASA learn that a location can no longer meet a
mandatory requirement after having entered into a contract, it will
inform the community and address the matter on a case-by-case basis.
* The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
layout to accommodate the number of participants, leadership, and
support staff expected to attend that meeting.
* The Facility and IETF Hotels MUST provide wheelchair access to
accommodate the number of people who are anticipated to require
it.
* It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility
and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize
the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs;
in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for
remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to,
native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global
reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would
materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it
MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.
3.2. Important Criteria
The criteria in this subsection are not mandatory, but they are still
highly significant. It may be necessary to trade-off one or more of
these criteria against others. A Venue that meets more of these
criteria is, on the whole, preferable to another that meets fewer of
these criteria. Requirements classed as Important can also be
balanced across Venue selections for multiple meetings. When a
particular requirement in this section cannot be met but the Venue is
selected anyway, the IASA MUST notify the community at the time of
the venue announcement. Furthermore, it may be appropriate for the
IASA to assist those who, as a result, have been inconvenienced in
some way.
3.2.1. Venue City Criteria
The following requirements relate to the Venue city.
* Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden
for participants traveling from multiple regions. It is
anticipated that the burden borne will generally be shared over
the course of multiple years.
* The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and
sponsors. That is, the Meeting is in a location in which it is
possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.
* Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
to do so can attend. The term "travel barriers" is to be read
broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
can be had.
* Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
acceptable.
* The selection of the venue comports with the practices described
in [RFC8719].
3.2.2. Basic Venue Criteria
The following requirements relate to the Venue and Facilities.
The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.
Facilities selected for IETF meetings SHALL have provided written
assurance that they are in compliance with local health, safety, and
accessibility laws and regulations, and that they will remain in
compliance throughout our stay.
In addition:
* There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars,
meeting rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc
conversations and group discussions in the combination of spaces
offered by the facilities, hotels, and bars/restaurants in the
surrounding area, within walking distance (5-10 minutes).
* The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
is affordable, within the norms of business travel.
* The Facility is accessible, or reasonable accommodations can be
made to allow access, by people with disabilities.
3.2.3. Technical Meeting Needs
The following criteria relate to technical meeting needs.
* The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
at the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add such
infrastructure, or these support technologies and services might
be provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an acceptable --
cost to the IETF.
* The IETF Hotels directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered, and
unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
this service is to be included in the cost of the room.
3.2.4. Hotel Needs
The following criteria relate to IETF Hotels.
* The IETF Hotels are within close proximity to each other and the
Facility.
* The guest rooms at the IETF Hotels are sufficient in number to
house one-third or more of projected meeting attendees.
* Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient
travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest
room rates.
* The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
travel time, cost, and effort.
* The IETF Hotels are accessible by people with disabilities. While
we mandate wheelchair accessibility, other forms are important and
should be provided for to the extent possible based on anticipated
needs of the community.
* At least one IETF Hotel or the Facility has a space for use as a
lounge, conducive to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as
well as a space for working online. There are tables with
seating, convenient for small meetings with laptops. These can be
at an open bar or casual restaurant. Preferably the lounge area
is centrally located, permitting easy access to participants.
3.2.5. Food and Beverage
The following criteria relate to food and beverage.
* The Facility environs, which include both on-site as well as areas
within a reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by
a short taxi ride or by local public transportation, have
convenient and inexpensive choices for meals that can accommodate
a wide range of dietary requirements.
* A range of attendees' health-related and religion-related dietary
requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible on-site
service or through access to an adequate grocery store.
* The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by a short
taxi, bus, or subway ride from the Facility and IETF Hotels.
3.3. Other Considerations
The following considerations are desirable, but they are not as
important as the preceding requirements and thus should not be
traded-off for them.
* We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
"One Roof"; that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
available in the same facility.
* It is desirable for Overflow Hotels to provide reasonable,
reliable, unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and
guest rooms, and for this service be included in the cost of the
room.
* It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contract with the
Facility and IETF Hotels or associated hotel chains in case such a
contract will reduce administrative costs, reduce direct attendee
costs, or both.
* When we are considering a city for the first time, it is
particularly desirable to have someone familiar with both the
locale and the IETF participate in the site visit. Such a person
can provide guidance regarding safety, location of local services,
the best ways to get to and from the Venue, and local customs, as
well as how our requirements are met.
4. Documentation Requirements
The IETF Community works best when it is well informed. This memo
does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
our requirements for meetings. Nevertheless, both of these aspects
are important. Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
fulfill the requirements of the community.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This note proposes no protocols and therefore introduces no new
protocol insecurities.
7. Privacy Considerations
Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
limited protections. As meetings are announced, the IASA SHALL
inform the IETF of any limitations to privacy they have become aware
of in their investigations. For example, participants would be
informed of any regulatory authentication or logging requirements.
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.
9. Informative References
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[RFC6771] Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a
Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6771, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6771>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
Acknowledgements
Contributions came from Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa Cooper,
Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and other
participants in the MTGVENUE Working Group. Those listed in this
section or as contributors may or may not agree with the content of
this memo.
Contributors
The following people provided substantial text contributions to this
memo. Specifically, Fred Baker originated this work.
Fred Baker
Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com
Ray Pelletier
Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com
Laura Nugent
Association Management Solutions
Email: lnugent@amsl.com
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Ole Jacobsen
The Internet Protocol Journal
Email: olejacobsen@me.com
Jim Martin
INOC
Email: jim@inoc.com
Author's Address
Eliot Lear (editor)
Cisco Systems
Richtistrasse 7
CH-CH-8304 Wallisellen
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
Email: lear@cisco.com
=========================================================================
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Krishnan
Request for Comments: 8719 Kaloom
BCP: 226 February 2020
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF
Abstract
This document describes a meeting location policy for the IETF and
the various stakeholders required to realize this policy.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The 1-1-1-* Meeting Policy
3. Implementation of the Policy
4. Procedure for Initiating Proposals for Exploratory Meetings
5. Re-evaluation and Changes to This Policy
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Author's Address
1. Introduction
The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on working group (WG)
mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high-
bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues. The IETF
currently strives to have a 1-1-1 meeting policy where the goal is to
distribute the meetings equally between North America, Europe, and
Asia (see "Meeting Location Distribution" (slides 14 and 15) of
[IETFMEET] for details). These are the locations from which most of
the IETF participants have come in the recent past. This meeting
rotation is mainly aimed at distributing the travel effort for the
existing IETF participants who physically attend meetings and for
distributing the timezone difficulty for those who participate
remotely. This policy has been neither defined precisely nor
documented in an IETF consensus document until now. This BCP RFC is
meant to serve as a consensus-backed statement of this policy.
2. The 1-1-1-* Meeting Policy
Given that the majority of the current meeting participants come from
North America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that
the meetings should primarily be held in those regions. That is, the
meeting policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings
should rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia. Note that the
boundaries between those regions have been purposefully left
undefined. It is important to note that such rotation and any
effects to distributing travel pain should be considered from a long-
term perspective. While a potential cycle in an IETF year may be a
meeting in North America in March, a meeting in Europe in July, and a
meeting in Asia on November, the 1-1-1 policy does not imply such a
cycle, as long as the distribution to these regions over multiple
years is roughly equal. There are many reasons why meetings might be
distributed differently in a given year. Meeting locations in
subsequent years should seek to rebalance the distribution, if
possible.
While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
participants, it is important to recognize that due to the dynamic
and evolving nature of participation, there may be significant
changes to the regions that provide a major share of participants in
the future. Therefore, the 1-1-1-* meeting policy is a slightly
modified version of the aforementioned 1-1-1 meeting policy that
allows for additional flexibility in the form of an exploratory
meeting (denoted with an "*"). Exploratory meetings can be used to
experiment with exceptional meetings without extensively impacting
the regular meetings. For example, these exploratory meetings can
include meetings in other geographical regions, virtual meetings, and
additional meetings beyond the three regular meetings in a calendar
year.
The timing and frequency of future exploratory meetings will be based
on IETF consensus as determined by the IETF chair. Once a meeting
proposal is initiated, the IESG will make a decision in consultation
with the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC8711] to
ensure that the proposal can be realistically implemented. The final
decision will be communicated back to the community to ensure that
there is adequate opportunity to comment.
| NOTE: There have not been a large number of meetings that would
| qualify as exploratory meetings under the 1-1-1 policy (with
| IETF 95 in Buenos Aires and IETF 47 in Adelaide being the
| exceptional instances). IETF 27 (Amsterdam) and IETF 54
| (Yokohama) were earlier examples of exploratory meetings that
| pioneered Europe and Asia as regular IETF destinations.
3. Implementation of the Policy
IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the
aspiration of the IETF community. Similarly, any exploratory meeting
decisions will also be communicated to the IASA to be implemented.
The actual selection of the venue would be performed by the IASA
following the process described in [RFC8718].
As mentioned in [RFC8718], the IASA will also be responsible for the
following:
* assisting the community in the development of detailed meeting
criteria that are feasible and implementable, and
* providing sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning
planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and
acted upon.
Given that the geographical location of the venue has a significant
influence on the venue selection process, it needs to be considered
at the same level as the other Important Criteria specified in
Section 3.2 of [RFC8718] (including potentially trading-off the
geographical region to meet other criteria and notifying the
community if the geographical region requirement cannot be met).
4. Procedure for Initiating Proposals for Exploratory Meetings
Someone who is interested in pursuing an exploratory venue proposes
it on the IETF discussion list or on a future discussion list
expressly set up and announced for this purpose. The community gets
to comment on the venue and offer their opinions. If the IETF chair
determines that there is community consensus to pursue the venue
further, the venue will be put up for discussion on the venue-
selection mailing list <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/venue-
selection>. This would allow the interested party(ies) to refine
their proposal based on insightful feedback regarding the logistics
of the venue from those tasked with evaluating it. Once the venue
selection process takes place, the final decision will be
communicated back to the community to ensure that there is adequate
opportunity to comment.
5. Re-evaluation and Changes to This Policy
Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it
is expected that this policy will need to be periodically evaluated
and revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met. The
criteria that are to be met need to be agreed upon by the community
prior to initiating a revision of this document (e.g., try to mirror
draft author distribution over the preceding five years).
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
6.2. Informative References
[CONT-DIST]
IETF, "Number of attendees per continent across meetings",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/continent/>.
[IETFMEET] Hinden, B. and R. Pelletier, "IAOC Report IETF79",
November 2010,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/plenaryw-
3.pdf>.
[RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718>.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alia Atlas, Fred Baker,
Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins,
Stephen Farrell, Tobias Gondrom, Eric Gray, Bob Hinden, Ole Jacobsen,
Olaf Kolkman, Eliot Lear, Andrew Malis, Yoav Nir, Ray Pelletier,
Melinda Shore, John Klensin, Charles Eckel, Russ Housley, Andrew
Sullivan, Eric Rescorla, Richard Barnes, Cullen Jennings, Ted Lemon,
Lou Berger, John Levine, Adam Roach, Mark Nottingham, Tom Petch,
Randy Bush, Roni Even, Julien Meuric, Lloyd Wood, Alvaro Retana, and
Martin Vigoureux for their ideas and comments to improve this
document.
Author's Address
Suresh Krishnan
Kaloom
Email: suresh@kaloom.com
=========================================================================
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Duke
Request for Comments: 9137 F5 Networks, Inc.
BCP: 226 October 2021
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings
Abstract
The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to
discuss issues and advance the Internet. However, various events can
make a planned in-person meeting infeasible. This document provides
criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the Chair of the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to relocate, virtualize,
postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9137.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Conventions
3. Decision Criteria and Roles
3.1. IETF LLC
3.2. The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF
4. Remedies
4.1. Relocation
4.2. Virtualization
4.3. Postponement
4.4. Cancellation
5. Refunds
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. Normative References
Acknowledgments
Author's Address
1. Introduction
Among the highlights of the IETF calendar are in-person general
meetings, which happen three times a year at various locations around
the world.
Various major events may affect the suitability of a scheduled in-
person IETF meeting, though this may not be immediately obvious for
some events. Examples of such events include the following:
* A meeting venue itself may unexpectedly close or otherwise be
unable to meet IETF meeting requirements due to a health issue,
legal violation, or other localized problem.
* A natural disaster could degrade the travel and meeting
infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to
further burden that infrastructure with a meeting.
* War, civil unrest, or a public health crisis could make a meeting
unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel
bans.
* An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for
travel, resulting in lower expected attendance.
* Changes in visa policies or other unexpected governmental
restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous
attendees.
This document provides criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC
(IETF LLC), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the
Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to
relocate, virtualize, postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that
houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s), as defined in
[RFC8718].
3. Decision Criteria and Roles
The IETF LLC assesses whether an in-person meeting is logistically
and financially viable in light of events and assembles information
about various travel restrictions that might impact attendance. The
IESG and the Chair of the IRTF assess if the projected attendance is
sufficient for a viable in-person meeting.
3.1. IETF LLC
The IETF LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue
for an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in
response to a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt.
If such an event occurs more than fourteen weeks before the start of
the scheduled meeting, it is deemed a non-emergency situation. Later
events, up to and including the week of a meeting itself, are deemed
emergency situations.
In non-emergency situations, if the IETF LLC determines the scheduled
meeting clearly cannot proceed (e.g., the venue has permanently
closed), then it MUST share the reason(s) with the community and MUST
consult on its proposed remedy. In less clear cases, the IETF LLC
SHOULD conduct a formal reassessment process that includes:
* Consulting with the community on the timetable of the decision
process.
* Consulting with the community on criteria to assess the impact of
new developments.
* Publishing an assessment report and recommended remedy.
* Seeking approval of the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF for the
recommendation.
In emergency situations, which lack the time for a consultation
process, this document provides criteria that have IETF consensus and
that the IETF LLC MUST apply in its assessment.
The IETF LLC will collect information about the likely impact to in-
person attendance of national travel advisories, national and
corporate travel bans, availability of transportation, quarantine
requirements, etc., and report the results to the IESG and the Chair
of the IRTF.
These criteria, some of which are derived from Section 3 of
[RFC8718], apply to venues that are re-evaluated due to an emergency:
* Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a
meeting with the expected number of participants and staff.
* It is possible to provision Internet access to the venue that
allows those attending in person to utilize the Internet for all
their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; in addition, there
must be sufficient bandwidth and access for remote attendees.
Provisions include, but are not limited to, native and unmodified
IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity and global reachability; there may be
no additional limitation that would materially impact their
Internet use. To ensure availability, it MUST be possible to
provision redundant paths to the Internet.
* A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and
available within walking distance to provide for the expected
number of participants and staff.
* Local health and public safety infrastructure expects to have
adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the
meeting week.
Finally, the IETF LLC MUST assess the impact on its own operations,
including:
* The number of critical support staff, contractors, and volunteers
who can be at the venue.
* The financial impact of continuing a meeting or implementing any
of the possible remedies.
The IETF LLC SHOULD cancel an in-person meeting and explore potential
remedies if it judges a meeting to be logistically impossible or
inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibilities.
In the event of considerations this document does not foresee, the
IETF LLC should protect the health and safety of attendees and staff,
as well as the fiscal health of the organization, with approval from
the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF. The IESG should pursue a later
update of this document.
3.2. The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF
If the IETF LLC assesses there are no fundamental logistical or
financial obstacles to holding a meeting in an emergency situation,
the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF assess if projected attendance is
high enough to achieve the benefit of an in-person meeting. The IESG
and the Chair of the IRTF SHOULD cancel the in-person meeting if that
benefit is insufficient.
The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF are discouraged from relying on a
simple head count of expected meeting attendance. Even dramatically
smaller meetings with large remote participation may be successful.
In addition to the IETF LLC's estimate, the IESG and the Chair of the
IRTF might consider:
* Are many working groups and research groups largely unaffected by
the restrictions, so that they can operate effectively?
* Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group
meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if
many participants are remote?
4. Remedies
If a meeting cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF
LLC, IESG, and Chair of the IRTF have several options. The remedies
in this section should be considered in light of four principles
(presented in no particular order):
* Hold the scheduled sessions of a meeting in some format.
* Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible.
* Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last-minute
flight changes, etc.
* Ensure sufficient time and resources to adequately prepare an
alternative.
The following remedies are listed in approximate declining order of
preference.
4.1. Relocation
For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting
week but move it to a more-accessible venue. To the maximum extent
possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue.
In particular, the IETF LLC SHOULD meet the criteria in [RFC8718] and
[RFC8719].
Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees
SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the
meeting.
4.2. Virtualization
The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue
availability, is to make a meeting fully online. This requires
different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside
the scope of this document.
4.3. Postponement
Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the
next best option is to delay a meeting until a specific date, at the
same venue, at which conditions are expected to improve. The new end
date of a meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of
the following IETF meeting, and a meeting MUST begin no earlier than
30 days after the postponement announcement.
Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be
feasible. However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover
at least some of their travel expenses than other options.
Note that it is possible to both postpone and relocate a meeting,
though this has the disadvantages of both.
4.4. Cancellation
The IETF LLC, IESG, and Chair of the IRTF may cancel a meeting
entirely in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult for
attendees to even attend online. Not holding a meeting at all can
have wide implications, such as effects on the nomination process and
seating of new officers.
Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when
emergencies occur immediately before or during a meeting, so that
there is no opportunity to make other arrangements.
5. Refunds
The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable
travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc.).
However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of
registration fees are appropriate:
* Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants.
It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed
without incident.
* Upon postponement, the IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered
attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled
time. Attendees can opt out of receiving a refund.
* When a meeting is virtualized, the IETF LLC MUST offer to refund
registered attendees the difference between their paid
registration fee and the equivalent fee for an online meeting.
The IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered attendees who do
not wish to attend an online meeting.
* The IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to attendees whose government
forbids, or has issued a safety advisory against, visits to the
host venue, even if the in-person meeting will continue. It
SHOULD NOT refund cancellations due to employer policy or personal
risk assessments.
These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its
participants. However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency
of the organization, the IETF LLC may suspend them.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new concerns for the security of Internet
protocols.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718>.
[RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.
Acknowledgments
Jay Daley provided extensive input to make this document more usable
by the IETF LLC. Many members of the IESG and the SHMOO Working
Group also provided useful comments.
Author's Address
Martin Duke
F5 Networks, Inc.
Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com