Internet DRAFT - draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements
draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Daley, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Turner
Updates: 8718 8719 (if approved) IETF Administration LLC
Intended status: Best Current Practice 29 February 2024
Expires: 1 September 2024
IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review
draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-02
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".
Editorial Note
Discussion of this draft takes place on the mtgvenue mailing list,
which has its home page at <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
mtgvenue>.
The source code and an issues list for this draft can be found at
<https://github.com/JayDaley/draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-
requirements>.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 September 2024.
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary of changes to RFC8718 and RFC8719: . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Meeting (Rotation) Policy and Exploratory Meetings . . . 3
3.1. Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Resolution: Replacement of the process for an exploratory
meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Hotels and Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. The “One Roof” Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation . . . . . 7
4.2. Number of rooms reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718 . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Overflow Hotels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation . . . . . 9
4.4. Ad-hoc Space Including the Lounge and Terminal Room . . . 9
4.4.1. Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718 . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
1. Introduction
IETF meeting venues are researched, negotiated, booked and managed in
accordance with [RFC8718] “IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
Process” and [RFC8719] "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of
the IETF". While these RFCs were published in 2020, the substantive
work was completed in 2018 and since then there have been a number of
developments that have affected the efficacy of our current model for
IETF meetings.
The IASA has reviewed the venue selection in light of these
developments, primarily informed by the staff who work on venue
selection, and has identified a number of issues to be addressed by a
combination of updates to those RFCs and clarifications of
interpretation.
2. Summary of changes to [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]:
1. Updates the Meeting (Rotation) Policy of [RFC8719] with a new
process for the selection of exploratory meetings.
2. Clarifies the interpretation of "close proximity" as used in
[RFC8718].
3. Updates the room block requirement of [RFC8718] from “one-third
of the projected attendees” to a more flexible “sufficient rooms
to meet the expected demand”.
4. Clarifies that the IASA should interpret any reference to
Overflow Hotels in [RFC8718] as an entirely optional feature that
the IASA can choose to provide at its own discretion.
5. Updates various parts of [RFC8718] that specify ad-hoc space to
better match the community requirements as expressed in post-
meeting surveys.
3. The Meeting (Rotation) Policy and Exploratory Meetings
3.1. Current Policy
The current meeting rotation policy is set as the "1-1-1-*" policy in
[RFC8719]:
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
| [...] the meeting policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is
| that meetings should rotate between North America, Europe, and
| Asia. 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
| "*").
and
| [...] 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
| "*").
Section 4 of [RFC8719] further sets out the process for agreeing on
an exploratory meeting, which includes the requirement for a
participant to nominate the city, the community to discuss it and the
IETF Chair to determine if there is consensus for the city to be
considered suitable.
3.2. Discussion
Community consensus is a very high bar, much higher than is required
for a meeting in Asia, Europe or North America. For those ordinary
meetings, the IASA considers community feedback but is ultimately the
decision maker and can choose to go ahead with a meeting in a
particular city even if there is no community consensus on the
suitability of that city for an IETF meeting. Furthermore, it has
been demonstrated by the low attendance at some exploratory meetings
that community consensus is orthogonal to the viability of meeting in
a particular city.
3.3. Resolution: Replacement of the process for an exploratory meeting
This document replaces Section 4 of [RFC8719] and sets the new
process as follows:
Exploratory meetings MAY be scheduled by the IASA following its
normal processes, including those for assessing the suitability of a
particular city, consulting with the IETF community and deferring to
the IESG if there is any concern that the likely number or makeup of
onsite participants is insufficient for a viable IETF meeting.
The IASA MUST ensure that the frequency of exploratory meetings is
such that it does not redefine the concept of 'exploratory' and it
MUST ensure that the distribution of exploratory meetings does not
disproportionately impact meetings in the 1-1-1 regions.
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
4. Hotels and Facility
4.1. The “One Roof” Preference
4.1.1. Current Policy
[RFC8718] defines “IETF Hotels” as:
| 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.
It also provides the following important criteria (only listing those
directly relevant):
| * The IETF Hotels are within close proximity to each other and
| the Facility.
Additionally, [RFC8718] contains this preference:
| * 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.
4.1.2. Discussion
What happens in practice is that the IASA books a venue that conforms
to one of two separate configurations:
1. A "one roof" venue of a hotel with the meeting space in the hotel
or directly attached.
The advantages of this configuration are:
* With a large enough room block, the meeting space is generally
free.
* For a core group of IETF participants (and staff) that
normally stay in the IETF hotel, there is a strong sense of
community.
* It is usually easier and more flexible to work with a single
point of contact instead of several (convention centers with
separate contacts for AV, F&B, and space).
* It can be much cheaper for the IASA than working with a
separate convention center.
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
* Group discussions can more naturally move from the facility to
the hotel.
* It is easier to negotiate network changes to the hotel as part
of an overall network package.
* Someone can walk from their room to the meeting space in a few
minutes, staying indoors the whole time.
The disadvantages are:
* There are a limited number of hotels (and therefore cities)
with large enough meeting space and sufficient rooms to
accommodate us.
* The room rates at conference hotels are often on the high side
and it can be more expensive for IETF participants.
2. A meeting space not co-located with a hotel, normally a
convention center, but where there are hotels within a short
walk.
The advantages of this configuration are:
* It makes many more cities available as potential venues.
* It provides more options for local hotels.
* Convention centers generally have a range of nearby hotels
enabling the IASA to negotiate a lower room rate than
otherwise.
The disadvantages are:
* Convention centers are much more difficult to negotiate with
and less flexible.
* The IASA has to pay for the meeting space.
* The sense of community for a core group of IETF participants
is diminished.
* Choice of a main hotel and negotiation of the network for that
hotel are more complicated.
While a "one-roof" venue is preferred, there are a limited number of
hotels (and therefore cities) with large enough meeting space and
sufficient rooms to accommodate us. To meet in cities that do not
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
have suitable "one-roof" venues, the IASA needs to work with
convention centers. If it did not take this approach then many
cities and potentially some countries would be practically excluded
as meeting venues.
It should also be noted that a "one-roof" venue shifts the costs of
the meeting more onto participants than a convention center, where
the costs are shifted more towards the IASA.
Despite "one-roof" being expressed as a preference in [RFC8718] there
are some in the community who consider it as the only way to meet the
requirement for "close proximity".
4.1.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation
To address this concern, the IASA should interpret the "close
proximity" requirement of [RFC8718] as follows:
Where the meeting space is a convention center or other facility
without a directly attached hotel, the “close proximity” requirement
for the IETF Hotels should be taken to mean that the time it takes
to walk from the IETF Hotels to the meeting space should be no
longer than ten minutes, and a safe walk, including early in the
morning and late at night.
It should be noted that Section 3.2.2 of [RFC8718] already uses a
walkability test of 5-10 minutes for a similar purpose.
4.2. Number of rooms reserved
4.2.1. Current Policy
[RFC8718] includes the following requirement as an important
criterion:
| * The guest rooms at the IETF Hotels are sufficient in number to
| house one-third or more of the projected meeting attendees.
4.2.2. Discussion
COVID-driven cancellations and lockdowns have badly affected the
hospitality industry overall. Hotels and convention centers are now
much more cautious about the terms of their bookings and much less
willing to invest to secure a booking, as they aim to protect
themselves from any similar sudden loss of income. For example, many
hotels are now requiring payment in full in advance for guest room
blocks from conference organizers.
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
Where the IASA can get a large room block, it is finding that hotels
are less willing to provide good discounts and so room pricing is not
always on a par with other nearby hotels, with a smaller number of
available rooms.
Then there is the impact of the now ubiquitous offering of short-term
apartment rental sites. These sites are significant competitors to
hotels for traveler accommodation both in price and availability.
The net result is that the IASA is reserving more hotel rooms than
are being used, which exposes it to unnecessary risk as they are
required to financially guarantee certain levels of occupancy, and
leads to wasted effort.
4.2.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718
To address this, this document updates Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] to
replace the requirement for the total room block in the IETF Hotels
from “one-third of the projected attendees” to a more flexible
“sufficient rooms to meet the expected demand”.
4.3. Overflow Hotels
4.3.1. Current Policy
Section 1 of [RFC8718] defines "Overflow Hotels" as follows:
| One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility,
| where the IASA has negotiated a group room rate for the purposes
| of the meeting.
The concept is further expanded in [RFC8718], Section 3.2.4:
| Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient
| travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest
| room rates
4.3.2. Discussion
The IASA has historically contracted with overflow hotels including
those at other price points from the IETF Hotels. They were very
underutilized by attendees, reflecting the general under-utilization
of IETF contracted room blocks, exposing the IASA to financial risk
and with little benefit to participants. As a result, the use of
overflow hotels has reduced and they are rarely contracted. However,
due to the way they are incorporated into [RFC8718] there are still
many who believe these are, or should be, a normal feature of IETF
meetings.
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
4.3.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation
To address this, the IASA should interpret any reference to Overflow
Hotels as an entirely optional feature that the IASA can choose to
provide at its own discretion.
4.4. Ad-hoc Space Including the Lounge and Terminal Room
4.4.1. Current Policy
Section 3.2.2 of [RFC8718] and 3.2.4 include the following
requirements as important criteria:
| * 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).
|
| * 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.
While not a formal requirement, a Terminal Room, described as a
dedicated room with extended opening hours beyond the normal hours of
IETF meetings, Ethernet connectivity, a printer and a staffed
helpdesk, has been a long-standing feature of IETF meetings.
4.4.2. Discussion
Both the Lounge and the Terminal Room are regularly but lightly used,
far below capacity. The reason for this is explained in the feedback
to post-meeting surveys: most participants want an immediately
accessible ad-hoc meeting space, which is best provided by plenty of
hallway seating. The IASA has responded to this feedback by adopting
a new practice of hiring in hallway seating whenever that provided by
the venue is insufficient.
Dedicated rooms, such as the Lounge or Terminal Room, or external
facilities "within walking distance (5-10 minutes)" are unsuitable
for the majority of participant needs, though there remains a need
for quiet places to work between sessions.
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
4.4.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718
To address this, is updated as follows: [RFC8718]
1. Section 3.2.2 is updated so that the bullet on ad-hoc meeting
space now reads:
There are sufficient, easily accessible places within the
Facility for people to hold ad hoc conversations and group
discussions.
2. Section 3.2.4 is updated so that the bullet on the lounge now
reads:
There are sufficient places within the Facility suitable for
people to work online on their own devices.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
This document should not affect the security of the Internet.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
Contributors
Thanks to all of the contributors: Laura Nugent, Stephanie McCammon,
Alexa Morris, Greg Wood, Lars Eggert and Jason Livingood.
Authors' Addresses
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review February 2024
Jay Daley (editor)
IETF Administration LLC
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
Wilimington, DE 19801
United States of America
Email: jay@staff.ietf.org
Sean Turner
IETF Administration LLC
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
Wilimington, DE 19801
United States of America
Email: sean@sn3rd.com
Daley & Turner Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 11]
