ARMWARE RFC Archive <- BCP Index (201..300)

BCP 226

(also RFC 8718, RFC 8719, RFC 9137)


[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      E. Lear, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8718                                 Cisco Systems
BCP: 226                                                   February 2020
Category: Best Current Practice                                         
ISSN: 2070-1721

              IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process

Abstract

   The IETF Administration Support Activity (IASA) is responsible for
   arranging the selection and operation of the IETF plenary meeting
   venue.  This memo specifies IETF community requirements for meeting
   venues, including hotels and meeting space.  It also directs the IASA
   to make available additional process documents that describe the
   current meeting selection process.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Venue Selection Objectives
     2.1.  Core Values
     2.2.  Venue Selection Non-objectives
   3.  Meeting Criteria
     3.1.  Mandatory Criteria
     3.2.  Important Criteria
     3.3.  Other Considerations
   4.  Documentation Requirements
   5.  IANA Considerations
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  Privacy Considerations
   8.  Normative References
   9.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

   The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC8711] is
   responsible for arranging the selection and operation of the IETF
   plenary meeting venue.  The purpose of this document is to guide the
   IASA in their selection of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels.
   The IASA should apply this guidance at different points in the
   process in an attempt to faithfully meet the requirements of the IETF
   community.  We specify a set of general criteria for venue selection
   and several requirements for transparency and community consultation.

   It remains the responsibility of the IASA to apply their best
   judgment.  The IASA accepts input and feedback during the
   consultation process and later (for instance, when there are changes
   in the situation at a chosen location).  The community is encouraged
   to provide direct feedback about the IASA's performance to the IETF
   Administration LLC, the Nominations Committee (NOMCOM), or the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Any reviews of IASA
   decisions remain subject to the provisions of Section 4.7 of
   [RFC8711] (BCP 101).

   The following four terms describe the places for which the IETF
   contracts services:

   Venue:
      An umbrella term for the city, meeting resources, and guest room
      resources.

   Facility:
      The building that houses meeting rooms and associated resources.
      It may also house an IETF Hotel.

   IETF Hotels:
      One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
      IETF guest room block allocations are negotiated and where network
      services managed by the IASA (e.g., the "IETF" SSID) are in use.

   Overflow Hotels:
      One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility,
      where the IETF has negotiated a group room rate for the purposes
      of the meeting.  Of particular note is that Overflow Hotels are
      not usually connected to the IETF network and do not use network
      services managed by the IASA.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Venue Selection Objectives

2.1.  Core Values

   Some IETF values pervade the selection process.  These are often
   applicable to multiple requirements listed in this document.  At a
   minimum, they include the following:

   Why we meet:
      We meet to pursue the IETF's mission [RFC3935].  This is partly
      done by advancing the development of Internet-Drafts and RFCs.  We
      also seek to facilitate attendee participation in multiple topics
      and to enable cross-pollination of ideas and technologies.

   Inclusiveness:
      We would like to facilitate the on-site or remote participation of
      anyone who wants to be involved.  Widespread participation
      contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
      working sessions.

      Every country has limits on who it will permit within its borders.
      However, the IETF seeks to:

      1.  Minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations
          inhibit, discourage, or prevent participants from attending
          meetings; failing that, meeting locations are to be
          distributed such that onerous entry regulations are not always
          experienced by the same attendees; and

      2.  Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
          people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender,
          sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, or gender
          identity.

   Where we meet:
      We meet in different global locations, in order to spread the
      difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
      travel time and expense across participants based in various
      regions.  Our regional location policy is articulated in
      [RFC8719].

   Internet Access:
      As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and
      we use it heavily.  Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to
      the general Internet and their corporate networks.  "Unfiltered
      access", in this case, means that all forms of communication are
      allowed.  This includes, but is not limited to, access to
      corporate networks via encrypted VPNs from the meeting Facility
      and Hotels, including Overflow Hotels.  We also need open network
      access available at high enough data rates, at the meeting
      Facility, to support our work, which includes support of remote
      participation.  Beyond this, we are the first users of our own
      technology.  Any filtering may cause a problem with that
      technology development.  In some cases, local laws may require
      some filtering.  We seek to avoid such locales without reducing
      the pool of cities to an unacceptable level by stating a number of
      criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
      the case where local laws may require filtering in some
      circumstances.

   Focus:
      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, through a
      specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF", or in side
      meetings.  Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent or
      reduce the effectiveness of these sessions and are therefore less
      desirable as a meeting Facility [RFC6771].

   Economics:
      Meeting attendees participate as individuals.  While many are
      underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded.  In
      order to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we
      therefore seek locations that provide convenient budget
      alternatives for food and lodging, and that minimize travel
      segments from major airports to the Venue.  Within reason, one's
      budget should not be a barrier to accommodation.

   Least Astonishment and Openness:
      Regular participants should not be surprised by meeting Venue
      selections, particularly when it comes to locales.  To avoid
      surprise, the venue selection process, as with all other IETF
      processes, should be as open as practicable.  It should be
      possible for the community to engage in discussion early to
      express its views on prospective selections, so that the community
      and the IASA can exchange views as to appropriateness long before
      a venue contract is considered.

2.2.  Venue Selection Non-objectives

   IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
   purposes of:

   Politics:
      Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
      laws, regulations, or policies.

   Maximal attendance:
      While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible, both online
      and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
      a goal.  It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
      contributors with differing points of view did not have the
      opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full the
      rooms.

   Tourism:
      Variety in site-seeing experiences.

3.  Meeting Criteria

   This section contains the criteria for IETF meetings.  It is broken
   down into three subsections: mandatory criteria (Section 3.1),
   important criteria (Section 3.2), and other considerations
   (Section 3.3), each as explained below.

3.1.  Mandatory Criteria

   If criteria in this subsection cannot be met, a particular location
   is unacceptable for selection, and the IASA MUST NOT enter into a
   contract.  Should the IASA learn that a location can no longer meet a
   mandatory requirement after having entered into a contract, it will
   inform the community and address the matter on a case-by-case basis.

   *  The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
      layout to accommodate the number of participants, leadership, and
      support staff expected to attend that meeting.

   *  The Facility and IETF Hotels MUST provide wheelchair access to
      accommodate the number of people who are anticipated to require
      it.

   *  It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility
      and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize
      the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs;
      in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for
      remote attendees.  Provisions include, but are not limited to,
      native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global
      reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would
      materially impact their Internet use.  To ensure availability, it
      MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.

3.2.  Important Criteria

   The criteria in this subsection are not mandatory, but they are still
   highly significant.  It may be necessary to trade-off one or more of
   these criteria against others.  A Venue that meets more of these
   criteria is, on the whole, preferable to another that meets fewer of
   these criteria.  Requirements classed as Important can also be
   balanced across Venue selections for multiple meetings.  When a
   particular requirement in this section cannot be met but the Venue is
   selected anyway, the IASA MUST notify the community at the time of
   the venue announcement.  Furthermore, it may be appropriate for the
   IASA to assist those who, as a result, have been inconvenienced in
   some way.

3.2.1.  Venue City Criteria

   The following requirements relate to the Venue city.

   *  Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden
      for participants traveling from multiple regions.  It is
      anticipated that the burden borne will generally be shared over
      the course of multiple years.

   *  The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and
      sponsors.  That is, the Meeting is in a location in which it is
      possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.

   *  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
      to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
      to do so can attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read
      broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
      can be had.

   *  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
      acceptable.

   *  The selection of the venue comports with the practices described
      in [RFC8719].

3.2.2.  Basic Venue Criteria

   The following requirements relate to the Venue and Facilities.

   The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.
   Facilities selected for IETF meetings SHALL have provided written
   assurance that they are in compliance with local health, safety, and
   accessibility laws and regulations, and that they will remain in
   compliance throughout our stay.

   In addition:

   *  There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars,
      meeting rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc
      conversations and group discussions in the combination of spaces
      offered by the facilities, hotels, and bars/restaurants in the
      surrounding area, within walking distance (5-10 minutes).

   *  The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
      is affordable, within the norms of business travel.

   *  The Facility is accessible, or reasonable accommodations can be
      made to allow access, by people with disabilities.

3.2.3.  Technical Meeting Needs

   The following criteria relate to technical meeting needs.

   *  The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
      audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
      at the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add such
      infrastructure, or these support technologies and services might
      be provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an acceptable --
      cost to the IETF.

   *  The IETF Hotels 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 to be included in the cost of the room.

3.2.4.  Hotel Needs

   The following criteria relate to IETF Hotels.

   *  The IETF Hotels are within close proximity to each other and the
      Facility.

   *  The guest rooms at the IETF Hotels are sufficient in number to
      house one-third or more of projected meeting attendees.

   *  Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient
      travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest
      room rates.

   *  The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
      travel time, cost, and effort.

   *  The IETF Hotels are accessible by people with disabilities.  While
      we mandate wheelchair accessibility, other forms are important and
      should be provided for to the extent possible based on anticipated
      needs of the community.

   *  At least one IETF Hotel or the Facility has a space for use as a
      lounge, conducive to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as
      well as a space for working online.  There are tables with
      seating, convenient for small meetings with laptops.  These can be
      at an open bar or casual restaurant.  Preferably the lounge area
      is centrally located, permitting easy access to participants.

3.2.5.  Food and Beverage

   The following criteria relate to food and beverage.

   *  The Facility environs, which include both on-site as well as areas
      within a reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by
      a short taxi ride or by local public transportation, have
      convenient and inexpensive choices for meals that can accommodate
      a wide range of dietary requirements.

   *  A range of attendees' health-related and religion-related dietary
      requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible on-site
      service or through access to an adequate grocery store.

   *  The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
      accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
      reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by a short
      taxi, bus, or subway ride from the Facility and IETF Hotels.

3.3.  Other Considerations

   The following considerations are desirable, but they are not as
   important as the preceding requirements and thus should not be
   traded-off for them.

   *  We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
      "One Roof"; that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
      available in the same facility.

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

   *  It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contract with the
      Facility and IETF Hotels or associated hotel chains in case such a
      contract will reduce administrative costs, reduce direct attendee
      costs, or both.

   *  When we are considering a city for the first time, it is
      particularly desirable to have someone familiar with both the
      locale and the IETF participate in the site visit.  Such a person
      can provide guidance regarding safety, location of local services,
      the best ways to get to and from the Venue, and local customs, as
      well as how our requirements are met.

4.  Documentation Requirements

   The IETF Community works best when it is well informed.  This memo
   does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
   our requirements for meetings.  Nevertheless, both of these aspects
   are important.  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.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

6.  Security Considerations

   This note proposes no protocols and therefore introduces no new
   protocol insecurities.

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
   The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
   limited protections.  As meetings are announced, the IASA SHALL
   inform the IETF of any limitations to privacy they have become aware
   of in their investigations.  For example, participants would be
   informed of any regulatory authentication or logging requirements.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8719]  Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
              of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.

9.  Informative References

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

   [RFC6771]  Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a
              Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6771, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6771>.

   [RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
              the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
              BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

Acknowledgements

   Contributions came from Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa Cooper,
   Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and other
   participants in the MTGVENUE Working Group.  Those listed in this
   section or as contributors may or may not agree with the content of
   this memo.

Contributors

   The following people provided substantial text contributions to this
   memo.  Specifically, Fred Baker originated this work.

   Fred Baker

   Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com

   Ray Pelletier

   Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com

   Laura Nugent
   Association Management Solutions

   Email: lnugent@amsl.com

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Ole Jacobsen
   The Internet Protocol Journal

   Email: olejacobsen@me.com

   Jim Martin
   INOC

   Email: jim@inoc.com

Author's Address

   Eliot Lear (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Richtistrasse 7
   CH-CH-8304 Wallisellen
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 878 9200
   Email: lear@cisco.com

=========================================================================

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       S. Krishnan
Request for Comments: 8719                                        Kaloom
BCP: 226                                                   February 2020
Category: Best Current Practice                                         
ISSN: 2070-1721

         High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF

Abstract

   This document describes a meeting location policy for the IETF and
   the various stakeholders required to realize this policy.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  The 1-1-1-* Meeting Policy
   3.  Implementation of the Policy
   4.  Procedure for Initiating Proposals for Exploratory Meetings
   5.  Re-evaluation and Changes to This Policy
   6.  References
     6.1.  Normative References
     6.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

   The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on working group (WG)
   mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high-
   bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues.  The IETF
   currently strives to have a 1-1-1 meeting policy where the goal is to
   distribute the meetings equally between North America, Europe, and
   Asia (see "Meeting Location Distribution" (slides 14 and 15) of
   [IETFMEET] for details).  These are the locations from which most of
   the IETF participants have come in the recent past.  This meeting
   rotation is mainly aimed at distributing the travel effort for the
   existing IETF participants who physically attend meetings and for
   distributing the timezone difficulty for those who participate
   remotely.  This policy has been neither defined precisely nor
   documented in an IETF consensus document until now.  This BCP RFC is
   meant to serve as a consensus-backed statement of this policy.

2.  The 1-1-1-* Meeting Policy

   Given that the majority of the current meeting participants come from
   North America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that
   the meetings should primarily be held in those regions.  That is, the
   meeting policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings
   should rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia.  Note that the
   boundaries between those regions have been purposefully left
   undefined.  It is important to note that such rotation and any
   effects to distributing travel pain should be considered from a long-
   term perspective.  While a potential cycle in an IETF year may be a
   meeting in North America in March, a meeting in Europe in July, and a
   meeting in Asia on November, the 1-1-1 policy does not imply such a
   cycle, as long as the distribution to these regions over multiple
   years is roughly equal.  There are many reasons why meetings might be
   distributed differently in a given year.  Meeting locations in
   subsequent years should seek to rebalance the distribution, if
   possible.

   While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
   participants, it is important to recognize that due to the dynamic
   and evolving nature of participation, there may be significant
   changes to the regions that provide a major share of participants in
   the future.  Therefore, the 1-1-1-* meeting policy is a slightly
   modified version of the aforementioned 1-1-1 meeting policy that
   allows for additional flexibility in the form of an exploratory
   meeting (denoted with an "*").  Exploratory meetings can be used to
   experiment with exceptional meetings without extensively impacting
   the regular meetings.  For example, these exploratory meetings can
   include meetings in other geographical regions, virtual meetings, and
   additional meetings beyond the three regular meetings in a calendar
   year.

   The timing and frequency of future exploratory meetings will be based
   on IETF consensus as determined by the IETF chair.  Once a meeting
   proposal is initiated, the IESG will make a decision in consultation
   with the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC8711] to
   ensure that the proposal can be realistically implemented.  The final
   decision will be communicated back to the community to ensure that
   there is adequate opportunity to comment.

      |  NOTE: There have not been a large number of meetings that would
      |  qualify as exploratory meetings under the 1-1-1 policy (with
      |  IETF 95 in Buenos Aires and IETF 47 in Adelaide being the
      |  exceptional instances).  IETF 27 (Amsterdam) and IETF 54
      |  (Yokohama) were earlier examples of exploratory meetings that
      |  pioneered Europe and Asia as regular IETF destinations.

3.  Implementation of the Policy

   IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the
   aspiration of the IETF community.  Similarly, any exploratory meeting
   decisions will also be communicated to the IASA to be implemented.
   The actual selection of the venue would be performed by the IASA
   following the process described in [RFC8718].

   As mentioned in [RFC8718], the IASA will also be responsible for the
   following:

   *  assisting the community in the development of detailed meeting
      criteria that are feasible and implementable, and

   *  providing sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning
      planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and
      acted upon.

   Given that the geographical location of the venue has a significant
   influence on the venue selection process, it needs to be considered
   at the same level as the other Important Criteria specified in
   Section 3.2 of [RFC8718] (including potentially trading-off the
   geographical region to meet other criteria and notifying the
   community if the geographical region requirement cannot be met).

4.  Procedure for Initiating Proposals for Exploratory Meetings

   Someone who is interested in pursuing an exploratory venue proposes
   it on the IETF discussion list or on a future discussion list
   expressly set up and announced for this purpose.  The community gets
   to comment on the venue and offer their opinions.  If the IETF chair
   determines that there is community consensus to pursue the venue
   further, the venue will be put up for discussion on the venue-
   selection mailing list <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/venue-
   selection>.  This would allow the interested party(ies) to refine
   their proposal based on insightful feedback regarding the logistics
   of the venue from those tasked with evaluating it.  Once the venue
   selection process takes place, the final decision will be
   communicated back to the community to ensure that there is adequate
   opportunity to comment.

5.  Re-evaluation and Changes to This Policy

   Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it
   is expected that this policy will need to be periodically evaluated
   and revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met.  The
   criteria that are to be met need to be agreed upon by the community
   prior to initiating a revision of this document (e.g., try to mirror
   draft author distribution over the preceding five years).

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
              the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
              BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [CONT-DIST]
              IETF, "Number of attendees per continent across meetings",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/continent/>.

   [IETFMEET] Hinden, B. and R. Pelletier, "IAOC Report IETF79",
              November 2010,
              <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/plenaryw-
              3.pdf>.

   [RFC8718]  Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
              Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718>.

Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alia Atlas, Fred Baker,
   Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins,
   Stephen Farrell, Tobias Gondrom, Eric Gray, Bob Hinden, Ole Jacobsen,
   Olaf Kolkman, Eliot Lear, Andrew Malis, Yoav Nir, Ray Pelletier,
   Melinda Shore, John Klensin, Charles Eckel, Russ Housley, Andrew
   Sullivan, Eric Rescorla, Richard Barnes, Cullen Jennings, Ted Lemon,
   Lou Berger, John Levine, Adam Roach, Mark Nottingham, Tom Petch,
   Randy Bush, Roni Even, Julien Meuric, Lloyd Wood, Alvaro Retana, and
   Martin Vigoureux for their ideas and comments to improve this
   document.

Author's Address

   Suresh Krishnan
   Kaloom

   Email: suresh@kaloom.com

=========================================================================

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           M. Duke
Request for Comments: 9137                             F5 Networks, Inc.
BCP: 226                                                    October 2021
Category: Best Current Practice                                         
ISSN: 2070-1721

            Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings

Abstract

   The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to
   discuss issues and advance the Internet.  However, various events can
   make a planned in-person meeting infeasible.  This document provides
   criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the Chair of the Internet
   Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to relocate, virtualize,
   postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9137.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions
   3.  Decision Criteria and Roles
     3.1.  IETF LLC
     3.2.  The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF
   4.  Remedies
     4.1.  Relocation
     4.2.  Virtualization
     4.3.  Postponement
     4.4.  Cancellation
   5.  Refunds
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  Normative References
   Acknowledgments
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

   Among the highlights of the IETF calendar are in-person general
   meetings, which happen three times a year at various locations around
   the world.

   Various major events may affect the suitability of a scheduled in-
   person IETF meeting, though this may not be immediately obvious for
   some events.  Examples of such events include the following:

   *  A meeting venue itself may unexpectedly close or otherwise be
      unable to meet IETF meeting requirements due to a health issue,
      legal violation, or other localized problem.

   *  A natural disaster could degrade the travel and meeting
      infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to
      further burden that infrastructure with a meeting.

   *  War, civil unrest, or a public health crisis could make a meeting
      unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel
      bans.

   *  An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for
      travel, resulting in lower expected attendance.

   *  Changes in visa policies or other unexpected governmental
      restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous
      attendees.

   This document provides criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC
   (IETF LLC), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the
   Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to
   relocate, virtualize, postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that
   houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s), as defined in
   [RFC8718].

3.  Decision Criteria and Roles

   The IETF LLC assesses whether an in-person meeting is logistically
   and financially viable in light of events and assembles information
   about various travel restrictions that might impact attendance.  The
   IESG and the Chair of the IRTF assess if the projected attendance is
   sufficient for a viable in-person meeting.

3.1.  IETF LLC

   The IETF LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue
   for an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in
   response to a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt.
   If such an event occurs more than fourteen weeks before the start of
   the scheduled meeting, it is deemed a non-emergency situation.  Later
   events, up to and including the week of a meeting itself, are deemed
   emergency situations.

   In non-emergency situations, if the IETF LLC determines the scheduled
   meeting clearly cannot proceed (e.g., the venue has permanently
   closed), then it MUST share the reason(s) with the community and MUST
   consult on its proposed remedy.  In less clear cases, the IETF LLC
   SHOULD conduct a formal reassessment process that includes:

   *  Consulting with the community on the timetable of the decision
      process.

   *  Consulting with the community on criteria to assess the impact of
      new developments.

   *  Publishing an assessment report and recommended remedy.

   *  Seeking approval of the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF for the
      recommendation.

   In emergency situations, which lack the time for a consultation
   process, this document provides criteria that have IETF consensus and
   that the IETF LLC MUST apply in its assessment.

   The IETF LLC will collect information about the likely impact to in-
   person attendance of national travel advisories, national and
   corporate travel bans, availability of transportation, quarantine
   requirements, etc., and report the results to the IESG and the Chair
   of the IRTF.

   These criteria, some of which are derived from Section 3 of
   [RFC8718], apply to venues that are re-evaluated due to an emergency:

   *  Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a
      meeting with the expected number of participants and staff.

   *  It is possible to provision Internet access to the venue that
      allows those attending in person to utilize the Internet for all
      their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; in addition, there
      must be sufficient bandwidth and access for remote attendees.
      Provisions include, but are not limited to, native and unmodified
      IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity and global reachability; there may be
      no additional limitation that would materially impact their
      Internet use.  To ensure availability, it MUST be possible to
      provision redundant paths to the Internet.

   *  A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and
      available within walking distance to provide for the expected
      number of participants and staff.

   *  Local health and public safety infrastructure expects to have
      adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the
      meeting week.

   Finally, the IETF LLC MUST assess the impact on its own operations,
   including:

   *  The number of critical support staff, contractors, and volunteers
      who can be at the venue.

   *  The financial impact of continuing a meeting or implementing any
      of the possible remedies.

   The IETF LLC SHOULD cancel an in-person meeting and explore potential
   remedies if it judges a meeting to be logistically impossible or
   inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibilities.

   In the event of considerations this document does not foresee, the
   IETF LLC should protect the health and safety of attendees and staff,
   as well as the fiscal health of the organization, with approval from
   the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF.  The IESG should pursue a later
   update of this document.

3.2.  The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF

   If the IETF LLC assesses there are no fundamental logistical or
   financial obstacles to holding a meeting in an emergency situation,
   the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF assess if projected attendance is
   high enough to achieve the benefit of an in-person meeting.  The IESG
   and the Chair of the IRTF SHOULD cancel the in-person meeting if that
   benefit is insufficient.

   The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF are discouraged from relying on a
   simple head count of expected meeting attendance.  Even dramatically
   smaller meetings with large remote participation may be successful.
   In addition to the IETF LLC's estimate, the IESG and the Chair of the
   IRTF might consider:

   *  Are many working groups and research groups largely unaffected by
      the restrictions, so that they can operate effectively?

   *  Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group
      meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if
      many participants are remote?

4.  Remedies

   If a meeting cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF
   LLC, IESG, and Chair of the IRTF have several options.  The remedies
   in this section should be considered in light of four principles
   (presented in no particular order):

   *  Hold the scheduled sessions of a meeting in some format.

   *  Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible.

   *  Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last-minute
      flight changes, etc.

   *  Ensure sufficient time and resources to adequately prepare an
      alternative.

   The following remedies are listed in approximate declining order of
   preference.

4.1.  Relocation

   For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting
   week but move it to a more-accessible venue.  To the maximum extent
   possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue.
   In particular, the IETF LLC SHOULD meet the criteria in [RFC8718] and
   [RFC8719].

   Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees
   SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the
   meeting.

4.2.  Virtualization

   The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue
   availability, is to make a meeting fully online.  This requires
   different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside
   the scope of this document.

4.3.  Postponement

   Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the
   next best option is to delay a meeting until a specific date, at the
   same venue, at which conditions are expected to improve.  The new end
   date of a meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of
   the following IETF meeting, and a meeting MUST begin no earlier than
   30 days after the postponement announcement.

   Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be
   feasible.  However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover
   at least some of their travel expenses than other options.

   Note that it is possible to both postpone and relocate a meeting,
   though this has the disadvantages of both.

4.4.  Cancellation

   The IETF LLC, IESG, and Chair of the IRTF may cancel a meeting
   entirely in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult for
   attendees to even attend online.  Not holding a meeting at all can
   have wide implications, such as effects on the nomination process and
   seating of new officers.

   Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when
   emergencies occur immediately before or during a meeting, so that
   there is no opportunity to make other arrangements.

5.  Refunds

   The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable
   travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc.).

   However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of
   registration fees are appropriate:

   *  Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants.
      It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed
      without incident.

   *  Upon postponement, the IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered
      attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled
      time.  Attendees can opt out of receiving a refund.

   *  When a meeting is virtualized, the IETF LLC MUST offer to refund
      registered attendees the difference between their paid
      registration fee and the equivalent fee for an online meeting.
      The IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered attendees who do
      not wish to attend an online meeting.

   *  The IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to attendees whose government
      forbids, or has issued a safety advisory against, visits to the
      host venue, even if the in-person meeting will continue.  It
      SHOULD NOT refund cancellations due to employer policy or personal
      risk assessments.

   These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its
   participants.  However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency
   of the organization, the IETF LLC may suspend them.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new concerns for the security of Internet
   protocols.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8718]  Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
              Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718>.

   [RFC8719]  Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
              of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.

Acknowledgments

   Jay Daley provided extensive input to make this document more usable
   by the IETF LLC.  Many members of the IESG and the SHMOO Working
   Group also provided useful comments.

Author's Address

   Martin Duke
   F5 Networks, Inc.

   Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com