Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-02 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 2024-06-13 IETF LC End Date: 2024-06-27 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document proposes a number of updates to RFC 8718, clarifies how IASA should interpret some elements of RFC 8718, and proposes a replacement exploratory meeting process updating RFC 8719. It's almost Ready, but there are a few issues that seem to need clarification before approval. Major issues: 1. The document uses in Section 3.3 the term 'viable meeting'. I do not see it defined in RFC 8718 or RFC 8719. I believe that this term needs some explanation. What are the criteria for a passed or future meeting to be considered'viable' and who decides? 2. Section 3.3 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. Do we need to use capitalized key words? If yes, the document needs a paragraph referencing their use as per BCP 14. Minor issues: 1. Section 4.1: > * The sense of community for a core group of IETF participants is diminished. Does this really need to be mentioned as a disadvantage of meeting spaces not co-located with a hotel, normally a convention centers? Is this something that really resulted as rough consensus from the discussions? What is 'a core group'? Are there other groups that feel differently or do not care? 2.Section 4.2.3: > 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”. Is the new wording more flexible? I dislike the old "one-third" wording and I believe that it needs to be replaced, but "sufficient rooms" actually sounds a more severe requirement. Also I miss the clarification that we count only the on-site participants estimates here. 1. Nits/editorial comments: 1. Section 4.1.2: please explain what AV and F&B means 2. Section 4.1.3 I suggest, for clarity and grammar conformance: OLD: 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. NEW: 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 the walk be safe, including early in the morning and late at night. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
