Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

[Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx>]

Glenn,

On 21.04.18 16:55, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:

Commenting on Brian’s response to my comments and to Eliot’s response to Brian.

On Apr 21, 2018, at 1:30 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

IMHO the way to read Section 3.3 is precisely to list aspirational requirements.  That having been said, a reality check: my guess is that AMSL and others will have a hard enough time evaluating against the previous sections.  3.3 probably needs to be viewed in two lights:

• A bonus.  You get it when you get it, but you don't cry when you don't.
• Something the Secretariat should track.

IMHO I disagree, what currently is in 3.3 is not aspiration, the items are obtainable in many venues we already use.  The items are in 3.3 not because they are not obtainable, they are there because the WG did not find consensus to make either critical (3.1) or important (3.2).

You're right and I was unclear: my point was really that if we are going to list any aspirational requirements they have to go into Section 3.3 lest we have no hotels from which to select, and that for those that gain WG consensus there is still value of listing them there.  As I wrote in the bullets, these are requirements that are likely to be gotten when you can get them, and they certainly are gotten from time to time.   Also, the word "aspirational" isn't really good.  Many of the requirements being discussed could certainly be met in some venues. Whether those are otherwise acceptable to the IETF is an entirely different matter.

Eliot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature