Internet Engineering Task Force                            J. Daley, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 S. Turner
Updates: 8718 (if approved)                      IETF Administration LLC
Intended status: Informational                             10 March 2023
Expires: 11 September 2023


                 IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review
             draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-00

Abstract

   This document sets out a series of recommendations and proposals to
   the IETF Community from the IETF Administration LLC following a
   review of the IETF meeting venue requirements.

Editorial Note

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the gendispatch mailing list,
   which has its home page at <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
   gendispatch>.

   The source code and an issues list for this draft can be found at
   <https://github.com/JayDaley/draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-
   requirements>.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 September 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Summary of Recommendations and Proposals  . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Issues, Analysis, Recommendations and Proposals . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  The "IETF Hotels" / "One Roof" Model  . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.1.1.  Current Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.1.2.  Current Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.3.  Developments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.4.  Practical Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.5.  Recommendations and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  The Lounge, Terminal Room and Ad-hoc Space  . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.1.  Current Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.2.  Current Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.3.  Developments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.4.  Practical Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.5.  Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Internet Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.1.  Current Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.2.  Developments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.3.  Practical Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.4.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.4.  New Venues vs Known Good Venues . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Next Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   IETF meeting venues are researched, negotiated, booked and managed in
   accordance with RFC 8718 “IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
   Process” [RFC8718].  While this RFC was published in 2020, the
   substantive work was completed in 2018 and since then there have been
   a number of developments that have affected the efficacy of our
   current model for IETF meetings.



Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   The IETF Administration LLC has reviewed the venue selection in light
   of these developments, primarily informed by its close engagement
   with the Secretariat staff who work on venue selection, and has
   identified a number of problems and possible solutions, some of which
   it recommends to the community and some of which it proposes.

   Taken together, the changes strip back much of the detail around
   venue requirements and allow for a greater variety of venue models
   and thereby support a greater range of possible venues.

2.  Summary of Recommendations and Proposals

   1.  We recommend replacing the "close proximity" requirement with a
       "time to walk" requirement somewhere between 5-15 minutes.

   2.  We recommend replacing the "one-third" requirement for rooms in
       the IETF Hotels with a "sufficient to meet projected demand"
       requirement.

   3.  We propose to no longer provide a Terminal Room and direct people
       to the Lounge instead.

   4.  We recommend that the community reopen the discussion on Internet
       filtering at venues and provide us with better guidance by
       considering four key questions.

   We finish with a discussion on the merits of returning to the same
   venues that are known to work well vs maximizing the number of
   different venues, and therefore countries, that we visit.

3.  Issues, Analysis, Recommendations and Proposals

3.1.  The "IETF Hotels" / "One Roof" Model

3.1.1.  Current Policy

   [RFC8718] defines “IETF Hotels” as:

   |  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.

   These are distinct from the “overflow hotels”, which are arranged but
   not reserved, can be some distance from the meeting space, and do not
   receive the IETF network.

   [RFC8718] provides the following mandatory criteria:




Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   |  *  It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the
   |     Facility and IETF Hotels

   It also provides the following important criteria (only listing those
   directly relevant):

   |  *  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.
   |  
   |  *  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.

   Additionally, [RFC8718] contains this preference:

   |  *  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.

3.1.2.  Current Practice

   What happens in practice is that we book a single IETF Hotel (aka a
   main hotel), with enough rooms reserved for one third of projected
   attendees.  Most of the time this is under the same roof as the
   meeting space because hotels often tie their meeting space to the
   size of the guest bedroom block.  In other words, in order to be able
   to book sufficient meeting space in a “one roof” venue, we need to
   reserve a large room block.

   The IETF network is made available in the IETF Hotel, covering the
   guest bedrooms and the main common areas.  Even when we are not under
   one roof, we nearly always aim for a single hotel to fulfill the
   requirements of the IETF Hotels.  The IETF has only installed the
   IETF network into more than one hotel on a very small number of
   occasions.

   There are a number of advantages to having a single IETF Hotel:

   1.  It simplifies the negotiation and installation of the hotel
       network.  Very few hotels have any experience of a third party
       installing a network and so the negotiation is often as much work
       as the installation.




Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   2.  One large room block is more likely to result in a lower room
       price and hotel commissions paid to the IETF.

   3.  For the core group of IETF participants (and staff) that normally
       stay in the IETF hotel or close by, there is a strong sense of
       community.

   When this hotel is under the same roof as the facility then there are
   further advantages:

   4.  It is usually easier and more flexible to work with a single
       point of contact instead of several (convention centers with
       separate contacts for AV, F&B, and space).

   5.  It can be much cheaper than working with a separate convention
       center.

   6.  Group discussions can more naturally move from the facility to
       the hotel.

3.1.3.  Developments

   As noted earlier, there have been a number of developments that have
   affected the efficacy of our current model.

   The most recent of these developments was the COVID driven
   cancellations and lockdowns that badly affected the hospitality
   industry overall.  Hotels and convention centers are now much more
   cautious about the terms of their bookings and much less willing to
   invest in order to secure a booking, as they aim to protect
   themselves from any similar sudden loss of income.  For example, many
   hotels are now requiring payment in full in advance for guest room
   blocks from conference organizers.

   The current high global inflation and uncertain economic outlook adds
   to the risk averse stance of hotel and convention centers.

   Then there is the impact of the now ubiquitous offering of short-term
   apartment rental sites.  These sites are significant competitors to
   hotels for traveler accommodation both on price and availability.











Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   Taking a more long-term perspective, the nature of Internet access
   for travelers has changed significantly over the years and the
   trajectory is much the same.  In most of the countries that we visit,
   local SIM cards with a sufficient data limit are readily available at
   a reasonable price.  The VPN industry has exploded with many
   commercial offerings and many corporations providing a VPN for staff.
   In addition, IETF-developed protocols like DoH and MASQUE have made
   protecting DNS and web traffic quite easy.

3.1.3.1.  Hotel Internet Access

   When the NOC adds the IETF network to a hotel, the general approach
   is to bring in new external connectivity via one of a number of
   mechanisms and then work with the existing hotel infrastructure to
   configure a new SSID on the hotel APs that avoids as much of the
   hotel captive portal equipment as possible.

   Hotel WiFi has improved significantly, both in bandwidth and quality,
   and there appear to be fewer hotels doing silly things such as trying
   to intercept SSL connections.  However, the experience of the NOC in
   working with hotel networks, a broader experience than just working
   with the IETF hotels, is that there remain a large number of problems
   with hotel WiFi.  For example, the following issues have been
   encountered by the NOC:

   *  Access points installed inside elevators to provide a better
      experience in the elevators

   *  Access points configured to rotate their channel at a frequency of
      less than a minute.

   *  Captive portals that only allow for a small number of IPv6
      connections because anything more must be a mistake.

   *  Networks with plenty of external bandwidth but such a low-powered
      captive portal setup that effective bandwidth per user is below
      usable.

   In conclusion, while hotel WiFi has improved significantly, it
   remains entirely unpredictable as to how it will hold up when used by
   a large number of engineers with unusual traffic profiles.










Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


3.1.4.  Practical Concerns

   This model limits our choice of venue as it tends to exclude “one
   roof” venues that have sufficient meeting space but insufficient
   rooms, and to exclude those venues where there is a convention center
   that is suitable for us, with a choice of nearby hotels that in total
   have sufficient rooms to accommodate us, but none of the hotels
   individually is big enough to meet our requirements for a single IETF
   Hotel.  In both cases, it is not the policy that excludes them but
   the practicalities of implementing the policy.

   The large room block strategy is losing its appeal due a number of
   factors.

   As noted above, hotels are increasingly wary of reserving large
   blocks of rooms as they used to do, for a number of reasons.

   Where we can get a large room block, we are finding that hotels are
   less willing to provide us good discounts, which means the room
   pricing is not always on a par with other nearby hotels, with a
   smaller number of available rooms.

   We are reserving more hotel rooms than are being used and the
   anecdotal evidence is that this is down to more people making
   individual arrangements using short-term rental sites.  This is
   exposing us to unnecessary risk as we are required to financially
   guarantee certain levels of occupancy, and is leading to wasted
   effort.  It also means that we are not receiving the anticipated
   commission income from hotels, which would anyway be lower than pre-
   COVID due to the financial caution of hotels.

   Finally, despite the effort that goes into providing the network in
   the IETF Hotel, it should be noted that we understand very little
   about how it is used.

3.1.5.  Recommendations and Proposals

   We make the following recommendations:













Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   1.  To replace the "close proximity" requirement for the IETF Hotels
       with a "time to walk" requirement, that aims to limit the time it
       takes to walk from the hotel(s) to the meeting space and to each
       other.  We make no proposal as to the length of time other than
       to note it should not be any less than five minutes nor more than
       fifteen minutes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city
       for context and https://app.traveltime.com to generate a walking
       time polygon for your city of choice) and that Section 3.2.2 of
       [RFC8718] already uses a walkability test of 5-10 minutes for a
       similar purpose.

   2.  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".  Short-
       term apartment rental companies only operate in some countries,
       so the number of rooms booked will need to vary depending on our
       assessment of the availability of alternative forms of
       accommodation.  Note, this excludes the number of rooms reserved
       in the overflow hotels, which are not guaranteed and which do not
       benefit from the IETF network.

   We propose:

   3.  For the NOC to monitor the usage of the IETF network in the IETF
       Hotels in order to understand it better.  This would provide the
       data for a review of the hotel network and what, if any, changes
       are needed.  We leave the details of what monitoring takes place
       to the NOC and community to decide.

3.2.  The Lounge, Terminal Room and Ad-hoc Space

3.2.1.  Current Policy

   [RFC8718] includes the following requirements as important criteria:

   *  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).

   *  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.




Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   The only requirements for a Terminal Room are given in the The Tao of
   the IETF (https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/), which
   describes it as a dedicated room with extended opening hours beyond
   the normal hours of IETF meetings, Ethernet connectivity, a printer
   and a staffed helpdesk.

3.2.2.  Current Practice

   The Lounge is a feature of every IETF meeting.  It is regularly but
   lightly used, far below capacity.

   The Terminal Room is a feature of every IETF meeting.  It is
   regularly but lightly used, far below capacity.  It meets most of the
   requirements from the Tao (https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/
   tao/), but the decision was taken some years ago to move the helpdesk
   to the reception area.

3.2.3.  Developments

   Almost everybody at an IETF meeting now has a laptop, tablet, or
   smartphone (if not all of these) and WiFi in those devices is
   ubiquitous.  In the other places where people regularly work outside
   of the office (airport lounges, cafes, hotels, etc) cabled ethernet
   connections are a rarity.

   The need to print such things as travel documents, event tickets, and
   the like, has dropped to virtually zero as all of these things have
   been replaced with apps on mobile devices.

3.2.4.  Practical Concerns

   Those people that use the Terminal Room rarely use any of the
   facilities provided; they are largely after a quiet place to work
   between working group meetings they plan to attend.

   The demand for in-person technical support is low and almost all of
   the visits are for things that could be supported remotely via a
   support ticket.  The IETF NOC team already responds to support
   tickets throughout the meeting and we specifically monitor the
   perceptions of our support response in our post-meeting surveys.

   In practice, negotiating the requirements of the Terminal Room with
   the venues takes disproportionately long and its usage is too low to
   justify this work.

   In our last two post-meeting surveys, comments have been made about
   the lack of ad-hoc space in and around the facility, and the
   positioning of the Terminal Room and Code Lounge:



Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   *  "the rather limited number of chairs and lounge tables in front of
      the meeting rooms"

   *  "less space for social interaction and the terminal room/code
      lounge was far away from the meetings"

   *  "Terminal room: this should have been more readily accessible and
      not located on floor -3 in a room with no window"

   *  "Hard to find breakout rooms and have the side conversations that
      are so critical to IETF sessions"

   Increasing ad-hoc meeting space presents us with some challenges:

   1.  Most venues include "pre-function" space but we tend to use that
       for our registration desk and related desks (e.g.  IANA, RPC).

   2.  There are many venues that could not support such space and if it
       became a strong requirement that would significantly reduce our
       choice.

   3.  Of those venues that do have such space, our experience is that
       they often do not have the furniture and so we would need to rent
       it.  This is not an insurmountable problem but does mean
       increasing our costs at a time we want to be reducing them.

   4.  Fire restrictions often prevent us from using space that might
       appear to the observer to be otherwise free for us to use in this
       way.

   Given the under-utilization of the Lounge it might make sense to
   reconfigure the meeting space to make the Lounge easier to access so
   that it can more easily be used as ad-hoc meeting space, but where we
   have tried that it has meant having the meeting rooms further apart
   and participants have complained about that.

3.2.5.  Proposals

   As the Terminal Room is not a requirement from [RFC8718] , it is
   within scope for the LLC to propose the following changes:

   1.  To no longer have a Terminal Room.  Anyone that wishes to use the
       Terminal Room will be directed to the Code Lounge instead.

   2.  Drop the in-person helpdesk.  Technical support will still be
       available via the support email and we will introduce a new Zulip
       channel for live support.  On those rare occasions when in-person
       support is required, then an engineer will appear.



Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   3.  Drop the requirement for an IETF provided printer.  If people
       need to print then they will need to identify suitable facilities
       themselves.  The registration desk may be able to provide
       pointers, but we are no longer guaranteeing that print services
       will be available.

   Relatedly, the meeting planning team will be taking the following
   actions:

   1.  Where the opportunity arises for us to provide greater ad-hoc
       space through rental of furniture, then we will consider this.

   2.  We will experiment with the location of the Lounge and see what
       feedback we get from that.

   3.  We will improve the messaging and signage around the lounge,
       encouraging people to use it as ad-hoc meeting space.

3.3.  Internet Filtering

3.3.1.  Current Policy

   [RFC8718] has a lot to say about filtering:

   |  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.

   And








Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   |  It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility
   |  and IETF Hotels [...] 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.

3.3.2.  Developments

   The legal frameworks around filtering have grown more sophisticated
   and filtering technology has similarly developed.

   Additionally, as noted above, VPN technology and other privacy-
   enhancing technologies have also developed rapidly.

   Historically, the IETF has met in countries with significant Internet
   filtering and there is an expectation from the local communities in
   those countries that we revisit them.

3.3.3.  Practical Concerns

   In practice the requirements have proven difficult to interpret
   because they leave too many questions unanswered:

   1.  Is any filtering acceptable?  For example, some countries operate
       filters that are minimally invasive by redirecting and filtering
       traffic to a small number of high-risk sites and only for one
       specific illegal activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
       Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand and it is not clear if we
       could meet in a country with such restrictions.

   2.  If we can be reasonably sure that people can legally, technically
       and practically circumvent filtering through the use of VPNs (or
       VPNs + encrypted DNS, or MASQUE, or other) then does it matter
       what else is going on, on the local network?

   3.  We have historically met in venues where unfiltered access was
       provided to the meeting space and IETF Hotels but not to overflow
       hotels.  Is that acceptable going forward?

   4.  There is much text in [RFC8718] about the importance of people
       being able to work in bars, cafes etc yet this is not considered
       when filtering is discussed.  Should it be?

3.3.4.  Recommendations

   We recommend the community reopen the discussion on filtering and
   provide us better guidance on the key questions listed above.




Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


   It may be that these questions need to be answered on a case-by-case
   basis when we ask for community input on specific venues, but with
   better guidance we could provide better data for the community to
   consider and minimize wasted effort on venue research.

3.4.  New Venues vs Known Good Venues

   The factors that make a venue a good venue are numerous:

   *  Those in common to all participants:

      -  Size and layout of the meeting space

      -  Facilities in the area around the meeting space

      -  The weather

   *  Those with a more geographically varied impact on participants:

      -  Overall cost of travel and accommodation

      -  Visa availability and requirements

   *  Those primarily impacting staff and volunteers:

      -  Service provision from the meeting space

      -  Technical facilities and service provision

      -  Local sponsors / hosts

      -  Desirability for meeting hosts

   Revisiting known good venues has a number of advantages and
   disadvantages:

   *  Advantages:

      -  We know the space and the services work for us

      -  Participants gain familiarity with the space and can use it
         more efficiently

      -  The staff costs associated with researching, booking and
         managing the meeting are lower than negotiating from scratch

   *  Disadvantages:




Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


      -  The venue becomes much less competitive on price (as has
         happened with Prague)

      -  It restricts the number of local communities that we interact
         with

      -  Is it less appealing to Global Hosts to sponsor a meeting in
         the same venue.

   Visiting new venues also has a number of advantages and
   disadvantages, related to those above.  However, these are not all
   equally important.  In particular, there are two key issues - the
   availability and requirements for visas, which has a direct effect on
   the breadth of global participation, and the appeal to meeting hosts,
   which has a fundamental impact on the financial viability of IETF
   meetings.

   [RFC8719] is silent on the question of these advantages and
   disadvantages and so the IETF LLC aims to find a balance between the
   two approaches.  The community may wish us to take a different
   approach, or provide further guidance on how to balance these various
   factors.

4.  Next Steps

   Assuming that some changes are worth moving forward with, there are
   some options for how to progress those.

   The first option is a replacement for [RFC8718] with the same level
   of detail as the existing document.  That provides for clarity and
   certainty around the requirements and while it will inevitably need
   replacing as those requirements change, it is unlikely that this will
   be an obstacle to change.

   The second option is a stripped back replacement for [RFC8718] that
   sets the key principles for the venue and leaves the details to the
   IETF LLC to interpret.  This has the benefit of avoiding the
   importance of some meeting features being lost in the detail, as
   arguably has happened with the importance of ad-hoc meeting areas.
   However, this might not ensure sufficient community engagement and
   oversight of the interpretations of the principles.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.






Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review       March 2023


6.  Security Considerations

   This document should not affect the security of the Internet.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

Contributors

   Thanks to all of the contributors: Laura Nugent, Stephanie McCammon,
   Alexa Morris, Greg Wood, Lars Eggert and Jason Livingood

Authors' Addresses

   Jay Daley (editor)
   IETF Administration LLC
   1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
   Wilimington, DE 19801
   United States of America
   Email: jay@staff.ietf.org


   Sean Turner
   IETF Administration LLC
   1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
   Wilimington, DE 19801
   United States of America
   Email: sean@sn3rd.com














Daley & Turner          Expires 11 September 2023              [Page 15]