resolution of IESG comments for draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15

[Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here are the edits that I have tallied, based on IESG comments.  Barring objections, I will issue a new draft in a day or so.

From Spencer:

Move reference to end; slight grammatical cleanup to match:

OLD:

      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks -- including
      a specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF" [RFC6771]
      - or in side meetings.  Environments that are noisy or distracting
      prevent that or reduce its effectiveness, and are therefore less
      desirable as a meeting Facility.

NEW:

      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks, a specific
      type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF", or in side meetings.
      Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent that or reduce
      its effectiveness, and are therefore less desirable as a meeting
      Facility.[RFC6771]

From Ben Kaduk:

Section 3.3, sentence fix:

OLD:

   o  It is desirable for Overflow Hotels provide reasonable, reliable,
      unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
      this service is included in the cost of the room.

NEW:

   o  It is desirable for Overflow Hotels to  provide reasonable, reliable,
      unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms,
      and that this service be included in the cost of the room.

Section 4:

Section 4

   Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
   current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
   meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
   fulfill the requirements of the community.

Are the first two (roles and responsibilities)
qualitatively different from the process used, in terms of
visibility requirements?  It may make sense to just list all three
together, without an "as well as".

I propose no change, for fear of it becoming substantial, and the text is not that bad.

Section 7

   The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
   limited protections that attendees can apply.

This reads oddly to me -- we provide for limited
privacy protections that attendees can choose to apply but are not
universally applied without explicit action?  What are they?
The text would read more naturally to me as "to provide for some
limited protections that apply to attendees", though that does of
course have a different meaning.

I propose the following:

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
   The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
   limited protections. 

Adam's comments:

Abstract:

I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. It seems to make sense if you remove "around".

Indeed.

§2.1:

    criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
    the case where local laws may require filtering in some
    circumstances.[MeetingNet]

It's not clear what "[MeetingNet]" is doing here. Perhaps some explanatory text about what the reader can expect to find at that reference would be useful.

I propose to remove this reference, as we do not require it to be maintained in any way, and Jim warned us that it was out of date.

Ben Campbell's comments:

§3.2.3 and §3.3: The first section says that the cost of "open and unfiltered
internet" in public spaces and guest rooms in "typically" included in the room
price. But the latter simply says they are included.  Is that the intenti? It
seems odd for the overflow hotels to be held to a higher standard than the
meeting hotel.

I propose the following edit in accordance with the previous (note this is a slightly stronger statement, but not out of line with existing practice):

OLD:

   o  The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
      the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and
      unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
      this service is typically included in the cost of the room.

NEW:

   o  The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
      the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and
      unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms,
      and that this service be included in the cost of the room.

§1, 2nd paragraph: " the IASA to apply their " - Plural disagreement. (It looks
like a mix of the US English tendency to treat organizations as singular
entities and the British English tendency to treat them as plural collectives ).

Corrected to "its".

§7: The last sentence seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; I
suggest a separate paragraph.

Ok.

Martin's comment:

please forgive me for raising the following point, especially because I haven't
participated in nor followed the discussions on that draft, but I would much
prefer if "ethnicity" was used instead of "race".

Term "ethnicity" added.

Alexey's comment:

I am wondering what is the relationship between the section "2.1.  Core Values"
and Section 3? I don't think all of core values are expressed as requirements.
Is section 2 (and 2.1) Informative?

The document already uses appropriate normative language.

Alvaro's comments:

Regarding "participants", s/IETF participants/participants/.  More than that seems more than editorial.

Correction of "?" to ":"

Regarding the grouping of the BCP, I leave that to the IESG.

Eliot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature