[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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, February 2020, . 9. Informative References [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, . [RFC6771] Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771, DOI 10.17487/RFC6771, October 2012, . [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, . 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 . 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, . 6.2. Informative References [CONT-DIST] IETF, "Number of attendees per continent across meetings", . [IETFMEET] Hinden, B. and R. Pelletier, "IAOC Report IETF79", November 2010, . [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, February 2020, . 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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, February 2020, . [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, February 2020, . 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 ========================================================================= Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Daley, Ed. Request for Comments: 9712 S. Turner BCP: 226 IETF Administration LLC Updates: 8718, 8719 January 2025 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: 2070-1721 IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review Abstract 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"). 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/rfc9712. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 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 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. Summary of Changes to RFCs 8718 and 8719 3. The Meeting (Rotation) Policy and Exploratory Meetings 3.1. Current Policy 3.2. Discussion 3.3. Resolution: Replacement of the Process for an Exploratory Meeting 4. Hotels and the Facility 4.1. The "One-Roof" Preference 4.1.1. Current Policy 4.1.2. Discussion 4.1.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation 4.2. Number of Rooms Reserved 4.2.1. Current Policy 4.2.2. Discussion 4.2.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718 4.3. Overflow Hotels 4.3.1. Current Policy 4.3.2. Discussion 4.3.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation 4.4. Ad Hoc Space including the Lounge and Terminal Room 4.4.1. Current Policy 4.4.2. Discussion 4.4.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718 5. IANA Considerations 6. Security Considerations 7. References 7.1. Normative References Contributors Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction IETF meeting venues are researched, negotiated, booked, and managed in accordance with "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process" [RFC8718] and "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF" [RFC8719]. While these RFCs were 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 the current model for IETF meetings. 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. 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. 2. Clarifies the interpretation of "close proximity" as used in [RFC8718]. 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". 4. Clarifies that the IASA should interpret any reference to "Overflow Hotels" in [RFC8718] as an entirely optional feature that the IASA can choose to provide at its own discretion. 5. Updates the ad hoc space specified in various parts of [RFC8718] to better match the community requirements, as expressed in post- meeting surveys. 3. The Meeting (Rotation) Policy and Exploratory Meetings 3.1. Current Policy The current meeting (rotation) policy is set as the "1-1-1-*" policy in [RFC8719]: | [...] the meeting policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is | that meetings should rotate between North America, Europe, and | Asia. and | [...] 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 | "*"). Furthermore, Section 4 of [RFC8719] describes the process for agreeing on an exploratory meeting, which includes the requirement for a participant to nominate the city, the community to discuss it, and the IETF chair to determine if there is consensus for the city to be considered suitable. 3.2. Discussion Community consensus is a very high bar, much higher than is required for a meeting in Asia, Europe, or North America. For those ordinary meetings, the IASA considers community feedback but is ultimately the decision maker and can choose to go ahead with a meeting in a particular city even if there is no community consensus on the suitability of that city for an IETF meeting. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated by the low attendance at some exploratory meetings that community consensus is orthogonal to the viability of meeting in a particular city. 3.3. Resolution: Replacement of the Process for an Exploratory Meeting This document replaces Section 4 of [RFC8719] and sets the new process as follows: Exploratory meetings may be scheduled by the IASA following its normal processes, including those for assessing the suitability of a particular city, consulting with the IETF community, and deferring to the IESG if there is any concern that the core objective from [RFC8718] of 'why we meet' might not be met. The IASA should ensure that the frequency of exploratory meetings is such that it does not redefine the concept of 'exploratory' and that the distribution of exploratory meetings does not disproportionately impact meetings in the 1-1-1 regions. 4. Hotels and the Facility 4.1. The "One-Roof" Preference 4.1.1. 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. It also provides the following important criteria (only listing those directly relevant): | * The IETF Hotels are within close proximity to each other and | the Facility. 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. 4.1.2. Discussion What happens in practice is that the IASA books a venue that conforms to one of two separate configurations: 1. A "One-Roof" venue of a hotel with the meeting space in the hotel or directly attached. The advantages of this configuration are: * With a large enough room block, the meeting space is generally free. * For those IETF participants (and staff) that normally stay in the IETF hotel, there is a strong sense of community. * It is usually easier and more flexible to work with a single point of contact instead of several (e.g., convention centers have separate contacts for Audio/Visual services, Food/ Beverage services, and meeting space). * It can be much cheaper for the IASA than working with a separate convention center. * Group discussions can move more naturally from the Facility to the hotel. * It is easier to negotiate network changes to the hotel as part of an overall network package. * Someone can walk from their room to the meeting space in a few minutes, staying indoors the whole time. The disadvantages are: * There are a limited number of hotels (and therefore cities) with large enough meeting space and sufficient rooms. * The room rates at conference hotels are often on the high side, which can be more expensive for IETF participants. 2. A meeting space not co-located with a hotel (normally a convention center) but where there are hotels within a short walk. The advantages of this configuration are: * It makes many more cities available as potential venues. * It provides more options for local hotels. * It enables the IASA to negotiate a lower room rate than otherwise as convention centers generally have a range of hotels nearby. The disadvantages are: * Convention centers are much more difficult to negotiate with and are less flexible. * The IASA has to pay for the meeting space. * For those IETF participants (and staff) that normally stay in the IETF hotel, the sense of community is diminished. * The choice of a main hotel and negotiation for the network at that hotel are more complicated. To meet in cities that do not have suitable "One-Roof" venues, the IASA needs to work with convention centers. If this approach is not taken, then many cities and potentially some countries will be practically excluded as meeting venues. It should also be noted that a "One-Roof" venue shifts the costs of the meeting onto participants whereas a convention center shifts the costs onto the IASA. Despite "One Roof" being expressed as a preference in [RFC8718], there are some in the community who consider it as the only way to meet the requirement for "close proximity". 4.1.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation To address this concern, the IASA should interpret the "close proximity" requirement of [RFC8718] as follows: Where the meeting space is a convention center or another facility without a directly attached hotel, the "close proximity" requirement for the IETF Hotels should mean that the time it takes to walk from the IETF Hotels to the meeting space should be no longer than ten minutes, and it should be a safe walk including early in the morning and late at night. It should be noted that Section 3.2.2 of [RFC8718] already uses a walkability test of 5-10 minutes for a similar purpose. 4.2. Number of Rooms Reserved 4.2.1. Current Policy [RFC8718] includes the following requirement as an important criterion: | * The guest rooms at the IETF Hotels are sufficient in number to | house one-third or more of the projected meeting attendees. 4.2.2. Discussion COVID-driven cancellations and lockdowns have 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 securing a booking, as they aim to protect themselves from any similar sudden loss of income. For example, many hotels are now requiring conference organizers to provide full payment in advance for guest room blocks. Where the IASA can get a large room block, it is finding that hotels are less willing to provide good discounts, so room pricing is not always on a par with other nearby hotels that have a smaller number of available rooms. 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 in price and availability. The net result is that the IASA is reserving more hotel rooms than are being used, which exposes it to unnecessary risk as they are required to financially guarantee certain levels of occupancy, and this leads to wasted effort. 4.2.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718 To address this issue, this document updates Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] by replacing the total room block requirement for IETF Hotels from "one-third or more of projected meeting attendees" to a more flexible "sufficient rooms to meet the expected demand". 4.3. Overflow Hotels 4.3.1. Current Policy Section 1 of [RFC8718] defines "Overflow Hotels" as follows: | 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. The concept is further expanded in Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718]: | Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient | travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest | room rates 4.3.2. Discussion The IASA has historically contracted with Overflow Hotels including those at other price points from the IETF Hotels. They were very underutilized by attendees, reflecting the general underutilization of IETF contracted room blocks and exposing the IASA to financial risk with little benefit to participants. As a result, the use of Overflow Hotels has reduced, and they are rarely contracted. However, due to the way they are incorporated into [RFC8718], there are still many who believe these are, or should be, a normal feature of IETF meetings. 4.3.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation To address this issue, the IASA should interpret any reference to Overflow Hotels as an entirely optional feature that the IASA can choose to provide at its own discretion. 4.4. Ad Hoc Space including the Lounge and Terminal Room 4.4.1. Current Policy Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] include 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. While not a formal requirement, a terminal room (described as a dedicated room with extended opening hours beyond the normal hours of IETF meetings), Ethernet connectivity, a printer, and a staffed help desk have been long-standing features of IETF meetings. 4.4.2. Discussion Both the lounge and the terminal room are used regularly but lightly, i.e., far below capacity. The reason for this is explained in the feedback to post-meeting surveys: Most participants want an immediately accessible ad hoc meeting space, which is best provided by plenty of hallway seating. The IASA has responded to this feedback by adopting a new practice of bringing in additional in- hallway seating whenever that provided by the venue is insufficient. Dedicated rooms, such as the lounge or terminal room, or external facilities "within walking distance (5-10 minutes)" are unsuitable for the majority of participant needs, though there remains a need for quiet places to work between sessions. 4.4.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718 To address this issue, [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. 5. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 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, . [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, February 2020, . Contributors Thanks to the following people for their contributions to this document: 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 Wilmington, DE 19801 United States of America Email: jay@staff.ietf.org Sean Turner IETF Administration LLC 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 United States of America Email: sean@sn3rd.com