Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await your replies to the questions listed in the thread below.
Also, please note that my email address has changed from ‘kmo...@amsl.com’ to ‘kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org’. Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On Dec 23, 2024, at 6:13 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] This document will be assigned a new BCP number. Please > let us know if this is not correct (i.e., it should be part of > an existing BCP). > > See the complete list of BCPs here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI: The "sortRefs" and "symRefs" elements > were absent in the submitted XML file, so we have > added them accordingly. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] The short title that spans the top of the PDF file was > absent. We were able to fit the full title, so we included it. If > any further updates are desired, please let us know. > > Current (in PDF file): > IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Is this document "proposing" or "providing" updates to > RFCs 8718 and 8719? May we update the Abstract's lead-in sentence > from "this document proposes updates" to "this document was > developed to update" as shown below for clarity? > > Original: > Following a review of the IETF meeting venue requirements, this > document proposes updates to RFC 8718 "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue > Selection Process", clarifies how the IETF Administration Support > Activity (IASA) should interpret some elements of RFC 8718, and > proposes a replacement exploratory meeting process, thereby updating > RFC 8719 "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF". > > Perhaps: > Following a review of the IETF meeting venue requirements, this > document was developed to update "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue > Selection Process" (RFC 8718), clarify how the IETF Administration > Support Activity (IASA) should interpret some elements of RFC 8718, > and specify a replacement exploratory meeting process, thereby > updating "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF" > (RFC 8719). > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Is "informed" the intended word here or would > "communicated" be clearer? > > Original: > The IASA has reviewed the venue selection in light of these > developments, primarily informed by the staff who work on venue > selection, and has identified a number of issues to be addressed > by a combination of updates to those RFCs and clarifications of > interpretation. > > Perhaps: > The IASA has reviewed the venue selection in light of these > developments, which were primarily communicated by the staff who > work on venue selection, and has identified a number of issues > to be addressed by a combination of updates to those RFCs and > clarifications of interpretation. > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] The text in Section 2 works off of the section title. To > avoid this and the use of a colon in the section title, may > we insert a lead-in sentence as shown below? > > Original: > 2. Summary of changes to [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]: > > 1. Updates the Meeting (Rotation) Policy of [RFC8719] with > a new process for the selection of exploratory meetings... > > Perhaps: > 2. Summary of Changes to RFCs 8718 and 8719 > > This document makes the following changes to [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]: > > 1. Updates the Meeting (Rotation) Policy specified in [RFC8719] with > a new process for the selection of exploratory meetings... > --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the quoted text from RFC 8718 to exactly > match (i.e., we updated "one-third of the projected attendees" to > "one-third or more of projected meeting attendees") as shown > below. > > Original: > 3. Updates the room block requirement of [RFC8718] from "one-third of the > projected attendees" to a more flexible "sufficient rooms to meet the > expected demand". > > Current: > 3. Updates the room block requirement specified in [RFC8718] from > "one-third or more of projected meeting attendees" to a more > flexible "sufficient rooms to meet the expected demand". > --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We removed repeated text that appeared to be a typo (the > text was the same as what appears in the next <blockquote> after "and"): > > Original: > [...] the meeting policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that > meetings > should rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia. 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 "*"). > > Current: > [...] the meeting policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that > meetings > should rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia. > --> > > > 10) <!--[rfced] There are two instances of "to accommodate us". Is it okay > to refer to "us", or would it be clearer (or more formal) to say > "to accommodate the IETF meeting requirements" as shown below? > > Original: > * There are a limited number of hotels (and therefore cities) > with large enough meeting space and sufficient rooms to > accommodate us. > > While a "one-roof" venue is preferred, there are a limited number of > hotels (and therefore cities) with large enough meeting space and > sufficient rooms to accommodate us. > > Perhaps: > * There are a limited number of hotels (and therefore cities) > with large enough meeting space and sufficient rooms to > accommodate the IETF meeting requirements. > > While a "one-roof" venue is preferred, there are a limited number of > hotels (and therefore cities) with large enough meeting space and > sufficient rooms to accommodate the IETF meeting requirements. > --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI: RFC 8718 states "one-third or more of projected > meeting attendees" rather than "one-third of the projected > attendees", so we have updated the text accordingly. > > Original: > To address this, this document updates Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] 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". > > Current: > To address this issue, this document updates Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] > by replacing the total room block requirement for the IETF Hotels from > "one-third or more of projected attendees" to a more flexible > "sufficient rooms to meet the expected demand". > --> > > > 12) <!--[rfced] Can "hiring" be replaced with "renting" or "providing" for > clarity as shown below? > > Original: > The IASA has responded to this feedback by adopting > a new practice of hiring in hallway seating whenever > that provided by the venue is insufficient. > > Perhaps: > The IASA has responded to this feedback by adopting > a new practice of renting in-hallway seating whenever > that provided by the venue is insufficient. > --> > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the following text to make the sections > and RFC being referenced clearer: > > Original: > To address this, is updated as follows: [RFC8718] > > 1. Section 3.2.2 is updated so that the bullet on ad-hoc meeting > space now reads: > > There are sufficient, easily accessible places within the > Facility for people to hold ad hoc conversations and group > discussions. > > 2. Section 3.2.4 is updated so that the bullet on the lounge now > reads: > > There are sufficient places within the Facility suitable for > people to work online on their own devices. > > Current: > To address this, [RFC8718] is updated as follows: > > 1. Section 3.2.2 of [RFC8718] is updated so that the entry on > ad hoc meeting space (first bullet) now reads: > > | There are sufficient, easily accessible places within the > | Facility for people to hold ad hoc conversations and group > | discussions. > > 2. Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] is updated so that the entry on > the lounge (sixth bullet) now reads: > > | There are sufficient places within the Facility suitable for > | people to work online on their own devices. > --> > > > 14) <!--[rfced] Are these contributors considered coauthors for their > contributions, or should the Contributors section perhaps be > retitled "Acknowledgements" and the text be updated as shown > below? Please let us know your preference. > > Original: > Contributors > > Thanks to all of the contributors: Laura Nugent, Stephanie McCammon, > Alexa Morris, Greg Wood, Lars Eggert Eggert and Jason Livingood. > > Perhaps: > Acknowledgements > > Thanks to the following people for their contributions to > this document: Laura Nugent, Stephanie McCammon, Alexa Morris, > Greg Wood, Lars Eggert Eggert, and Jason Livingood. > --> > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they > may be made consistent. > > Lounge vs. lounge > (Note: lowercase in RFC 8718) > > Meeting (Rotation) Policy vs. meeting rotation policy > (Note: appears as "meeting policy" in RFC 8719. Perhaps use > "meeting (rotation) policy" or "meeting rotation policy" > for consistency in Sections 2 and 3.1.) > > One Roof vs. one roof > (Note: uppercase in RFC 8718.) > > Overflow Hotels vs. overflow hotels > (Note: uppercase in RFC 8718.) > > Terminal Room > (Note: lowercase in RFC 8718 and other RFCs.) > > > b) Should one instance of "facility" perhaps be "Facility" in Section 4.1.2? > > Original: > * Group discussions can more naturally move from the facility to > the hotel. > > Perhaps: > * Group discussions can move more naturally from the facility to > the hotel. > --> > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/kc > > > On Dec 23, 2024, at 6:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2024/12/23 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9712-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9712 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9712 (draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-03) > > Title : IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review > Author(s) : J. Daley, S. Turner > WG Chair(s) : > Area Director(s) : > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
