Contact information joeljoseph77...@gmail.com or Whatsapp__+2349012487471__+2348144237688
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025, 12:26 AM Jay Daley via auth48archive < auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Karen > > Sorry for the delay. Notes below: > > > On 24 Dec 2024, at 15:13, 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 > > --> > > I believe this should be part of BCP 226 as this updates two existing > documents in that BCP. > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI: The "sortRefs" and "symRefs" elements > > were absent in the submitted XML file, so we have > > added them accordingly. > > --> > > All good. > > > 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 > > --> > > All good. > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > IETF region > Exploratory meeting > > > > > > > 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). > > --> > > I prefer more direct text: > > > Following a review of the IETF meeting venue requirements, this > > document updates RFC 8718 "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue > > Selection Process", clarifies how the IETF Administration Support > > Activity (IASA) should interpret some elements of RFC 8718, and > > specifies a replacement exploratory meeting process, thereby updating > > RFC 8719 "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF". > > > > > > > 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. > > --> > > I prefer to leave as is - "informed by" seems a well known term, but maybe > I’ve misunderstood the issue? > > > > > > > 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... > > --> > > Yes. > > > > > > > 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". > > --> > > All good. > > > > > 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. > > --> > > Agreed, > > > 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. > > --> > > First, I think we can just remove the clause "to accommodate us" and leave > the sentence finishing at "sufficient rooms". Second, the second > occurrence is an unnecessary word-for-word repetition and so that whole > sentence can be removed, leaving the paragraph starting with "To meet in > cities …" > > > > > > > 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". > > --> > > Agreed. > > > 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. > > --> > > The intent here is to explain that we bring in the in-hallway seating from > third parties outside of the venue so yes the change works, but if I could > think of a better word that does not suggest we rent it from the venue, > then that would be better, But I can’t. > > > 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. > > --> > > Works for me. > > > 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. > > --> > > They are not co-authors so if you think Acknowledgements is more in line > with the series standards then yes I’m happy with that. > > > > > > > 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. > > Wherever possible, we want to follow the format in RFC 8718/8719, which I > believe is as follows: > > > > > Lounge vs. lounge > > (Note: lowercase in RFC 8718) > > lounge > > > > > 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.) > > meeting (rotation) policy. > > > > > One Roof vs. one roof > > (Note: uppercase in RFC 8718.) > > One Roof > > > > > Overflow Hotels vs. overflow hotels > > (Note: uppercase in RFC 8718.) > > Overflow Hotels > > > > > Terminal Room > > (Note: lowercase in RFC 8718 and other RFCs.) > > terminal room > > > > > 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. > > --> > > Yes. > > > 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. > > --> > > That was considered throughout the authoring process. > > Thanks! > > Jay > > > > > > > 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) : > > > > > > > > -- > Jay Daley > IETF Executive Director > exec-direc...@ietf.org > > -- > auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
