Hi Dan Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for the detailed review - responses inline. > On 13 Jun 2024, at 11:01, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I propose to change … 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. to … deferring to the IESG if there is any concern that the core objective from RFC 8718 of 'why we meet’ might not be met.. > 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. RFC 8719, which is being amended here, does not use BCP 14 capitalised keywords and so I propose to change these to uncapitalised "IASA is expected to". There is an earlier capitalised MAY that will be uncapitalised. > > 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? Yes, those two points are better written as * For those IETF participants (and staff) that normally stay in the IETF hotel, there is a strong sense of community. * For those IETF participants (and staff) that normally stay in the IETF hotel, the sense of community is diminished. > 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. In some ways it could be considered more severe, but it’s how we should do our job and I don’t think we should aim to deliver anything less. > 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 Will expand. > > 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. Thanks, but I prefer the current wording. thanks again. Jay > > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
