On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:03 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mary, > > At 10:36 25-02-2013, Mary Barnes wrote: >> >> have Ice Cream Thursdays unless someone sponsors it. Since I was >> highly disappointed at the Atlanta meeting, I was able to get Polycom >> to sponsor the event at IETF-86 ;) > > > This is ample motivation for me to support the draft. :-) > > >> At this stage, the feedback I would like related to this document is >> with regards it's readiness for publication as an RFC. One of the > > > It better to decide whether to publish now (Last Call) then to wait another > five years. > > In Section 4: > > "A wide range of research has shown that about 10% of the population > prefer to eat a healthy diet." > > Can I have some references for that? [MB] You can find quite a few articles that discuss how many people follow a healthy lifestyle - exercise, eat their veggies, don't smoke, etc. and that's about 10% if the population (there are US and European studies). In is extremely common for those who do one to do the other. The highest number I have found for the recommended amount of veggies is about 12%, for example. If you want I can add some of these references: - http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/hei/HEi89-90report.pdf (12% scored in the range classified as a healthy diet) - http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/8/213 (Study of Basque women) - http://www.ehfg.org/fileadmin/ehfg/Website/Archiv/2011/Presentations/W3/w3_1_chestnov_2.pdf (a Russian study) Or, I can change the "about" to "roughly". I think the number is likely a tad higher. My point was that it's not just too or three people but a fair percentage of the participants. [/MB] > > "Thus, it is estimated that at least 10 percent of the IETF > participants would take advantage of healthy food offerings." > > Based on the previous sentence, the above could be read as at least 10 > percent of IETF participants are educated. :-) [MB] I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt ;) [/MB] > > "There are laws in many countries and jurisdictions (e.g.,U.S., E.U.) > that make it illegal to mislabel foods that are Halal or Kosher. At > this time, food manufacturers in many jusisdictions (e.g.,U.S., U.K, > E.U.) must include all ingredients on the labels of any packaged food > product." > > The "must" was violated ( > http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/horse-meat-food-labelling-plan_en.htm > ). > > In Section 5: > > "For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant > information can be gathered from attendees that have previously > visited the city." > > There are recurrent discussions as nobody volunteered to gather that > information in one place. > > In Section 8: > > "One can never assume that everything has been taken care of by > someone else." > > I suggest moving that to the security considerations section. [MB] Ok. [/MB] > > I suggest having the draft make recommendations instead of setting > requirements. [MB] I don't know that the distinction particularly matters in this type of document. These are requirements to ensure that some of us have food that we can eat. If the some of requirements aren't satisfied, some of us do not have readily accessible food to eat. [/MB] > Some of the items in Section 7 "might" be things the IETF can > do; some of the items are for other parties. [MB] My opinion is that the folks that sign contracts and work with the venue staff are responsible for communicating those requirements and ensuring the venue can meet those requirements. [/MB] > It would be easier if the two > sets are kept separate. I suggest moving the History stuff to an appendix > (e.g. "The Cornucopia restaurant in Dublin [cornucopia] is a perfect example > of how this can be done in an extremely cost-effective efficient and > gastronomically appealing manner". [MB] I personally think it's really helpful to have a very specific, real-life example. But, I could change it to be more general and not reference the specific restaurant since we also had a great place like that in Quebec City. [/MB] >I suggest avoiding stuff like "American > Disabilities Act". It would be better to formulate the draft in terms of an > international audience. [MB] It is an example and it's the only one I'm familiar with although I assume other countries have similar laws. The last sentence referencing the ADA is a very important distinction in terms of who is required to obey the law, but perhaps it's not particular useful or relevant to this document, so I can remove that sentence. [/MB] > > Regards, > -sm >