One document matched: draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-01.txt
Differences from draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-00.txt
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Palet
Internet-Draft Consulintel
Expires: April 14, 2006 October 11, 2005
IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document provides the technical and logistic criteria for the
IAD towards the IETF meetings venue selection, which should be
considered in order to conclude the relevant contractual
negotiations.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Location and hosting criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Logistic criteria for the venue selection . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Technical criteria for the venue selection . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Logistic Risks/Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Technical Risks/Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Timing/planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Process and Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
1. Introduction
The IETF meetings are an important part of the IETF process and their
hosting and organization must be carefully planned. The adequate
planning will allow to ensure that the attendees take advantage of
their time at the meeting with a minimum set of guarantees for
maximizing their performance, which also avoids unexpected situations
and expenses (for example in case of a meeting cancellation, lack of
adequate working conditions, lack of reliable connectivity, etc.).
This document describes elements for both, logistic and technical
criteria for the venue selection, logistic and technical contingency
measures, as well as details related to the planning and timing.
The criteria depicted in this document is not a list of "must" items,
but a list of what needs to be evaluated considering variations and
alternative solutions, or combinations of them, that may be available
and convenient.
Previous experience shows that things could go wrong when there is a
too strict dependence on specific people or equipment and no
alternative points of contact or availability is provisioned.
Overall contingency is consequently very important.
2. Location and hosting criteria
A general recommendation has been that the IETF should try to become
nearer to the people that contribute. However, the IETF is growing
in terms of participants from many countries and although a large
number of them are from North America, experience shows that when the
meeting is organized somewhere else, fewer than half the participants
come from North America. Consequently, to ensure open international
access, the IETF should meet outside North America at least one time
in three.
However, this is a very basic recommendation and the overall
selection criteria from this document is the one that will finally
qualify the location.
When choosing the location, it is important to consider as well, that
the surplus coming from the meetings is very important for the
sustainment of the IETF. Consequently, each particular meeting
overall cost should be considered as part of a more global operation,
not just each meeting as a standalone event. For instance, a lower
meeting cost (balance among food, facilities, network, meeting fees,
host capabilities, sponsorship, attendees cost), may not necessarily
mean a lower secretariat costs.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
Vacations destinations may seem difficult for some people, but this
could also be true for other situations always for a few people. At
the same time, frequent contributors and/or participants of IETF will
often not need to justify its participation regardless of the
location.
One consideration, specially relevant if a vacations location is
chosen is to avoid places with a very heavy concentration of
visitors, together with a very heavy airport overload, which could
difficult and easy transit for IETF participants.
The choice of continent and country depends not only on the
logistical and technical criteria listed in this document, but also
on offers of hosting and sponsorship. The IETF also desires to meet
in countries with significant actual or potential participation.
Hosting and sponsorship have particular impact both financially and
organizationally. Experience shows that when IETF goes to a new
country, an eager and committed local host organization is vital.
Also, a local host willing to sponsor some facilities for the meeting
(without marketing noise) may be of great assistance to the budget in
any country. Some of these matters may be subject to confidential
negotiations, which should be in the hands of IASA and in particular
the IAD [1].
Regarding the sponsorship, the meetings are not directly rewarding as
a marketing action as it may be the case for other type of events, at
least not directly, because the IETF community is mainly compound by
engineers, not customers, but in any case is a rewarding action in
front of the community. This "low level" rewarding is also one more
reason to make sure that not all the sponsorship details are openly
disseminated, unless clearly authorized by the hosts, and even do, it
can be contra-productive for future meetings.
However it may be interesting to have, after each meeting, a summary
evaluation of all the issues and costs, overall figures, which will
help to improve the criteria and the performance of the following
meetings.
One more important consideration is the avoidance of locations in
countries where some attendees could be disallowed to come in. IETF
is an open organization and anyone from any region should always be
able to participate, so the meeting place can't be a barrier.
One open question is related to who is empowered to take the final
decision on any candidate venue/location. Currently it seems that
the IASA will need to take the decision about who "takes the
decision", being the IAD on this regards, just the official point of
contact, consulting the IETF chair and the IASA itself, but probably
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
also the secretariat and the volunteer team which has been around
without a formal position on this. Despite the need for a certain
degree of confidentiality, the evaluation of the criteria should
allow to be aware of the main issues why a venue/location is or not
adequate, and consequently an open report should be produced after
each venue evaluation.
3. Logistic criteria for the venue selection
The average attendance to an IETF meeting is about 1.300 people,
however it may span up to 2.300 people in some circumstances (for
instance, meeting location).
Considering this, the suggested venue meeting room capacity is
calculated for about 1.600 people, including meeting space of about
60.000/5.500 square feets/meters.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
The following table shows the approximate needs for meeting rooms and
their expected size including a few days before the meeting,
considering the usual setup time.
+-----+------+----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Roo | Cap | Sq.F/M | W | T | F | S | S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| m | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-----+------+----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Ter | | 5.000/46 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| m | | 4 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| NOC | | 1.000/93 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Sto | | 700/65 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| r | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| IET | | 1.000/93 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| F | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Sta | | 700/65 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| f | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Hos | | 700/65 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Reg | | 1.000/93 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| . | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Rec | 900 | 8.300/77 | | | | | X | | | | | | |
| . | | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 30t | 675/63 | | | | | X | | | | | | |
| t | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 40t | 675/63 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 100t | 1.200/11 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 200t | 2.200/20 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 4 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 200t | 2.200/20 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 4 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 300t | 2.800/26 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 300t | 2.800/26 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 300t | 2.800/26 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 500t | 4.200/39 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 500t | 4.200/39 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 40hs | 2.100/19 | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | 5 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mee | 20hs | 675/73 | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| t | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Brk | | 15.000 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
| Ple | 1500 | 1.500/13 | | | | | | | | X | X | | |
| n | | 9 | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-----+------+----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Meeting Rooms Requirements
Table 1
Obviously those figures could change from meeting to meeting and are
only an orientation.
Note that some of the meeting rooms can be used for several
functions, according to the meeting schedule, for example the plenary
meeting room is used only when the rest of the sessions aren't
occurring, breaks and registration area in the foyer, etc.
All the meeting rooms should be provided with sufficient number of
power sockets and cords for connecting the laptops of about 80% of
the expected attendees.
The rooms generally are hold in a 24 hours basis, and is highly
recommended the possibility to use them at any time w/o restrictions,
except for the required timing of the cleaning service. In certain
places this could be a cost issue and it may be not convenient.
This may be the case when using conference facilities instead of
meeting rooms in hotels. In those cases, it may be necessary to
increase the security when there are too many entrances. Some
additional technical issues may also arise according to previous
experience, such as access to wiring closets, AV facilities, etc.
Not having the rooms hold in a 24 hours basis could also be a problem
in case electrical or network cabling/equipment has been deployed in
the meeting rooms.
The NOC should provision to setup a router on-site before the
meeting, in order to test everything well in advance.
Furthermore, the approximate requirements for sleeping rooms will be
a block of around 5.515 rooms/nights.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
The following table shows the needs for sleeping rooms including a
few days before the meeting.
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 5 | 100 | 450 | 980 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 970 | 770 | 200 | 40 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Sleeping Rooms Requirements
Table 2
The location of the hotel should be such that allows a quick movement
of the attendees between the sleeping and the meeting rooms. Is
strongly suggested that the meeting rooms are in fact located in the
main hotel (which a minimum capacity of about 60% of the required
sleeping rooms).
If the meeting rooms are not located in the same place as the main
block of sleeping rooms, the inexpensive public transport means
should allow the movement of 100% of the attendees in less than 30
minutes, considering the meeting timing and usual public transport
utilization by the locals.
The ideal situation is that a number of alternative hotels are at
walking distance (10-15 minutes) from the event venue.
Moreover, the attendees (1.600-2.000) should be able to get food for
lunch and dinner, according to the meeting timing, in a maximum of
60-90 minutes, including the transit time (back and forth). In
general, a requirement will be to have a variety of restaurants
within walking distance, allowing reservation of small and medium
tables. Special requirements (such as vegetarian food, others
choices) must be satisfied. Meals must be available when IETF needs
them. If this is not possible, a combination of this with the
delivering of good quality sandwiches (including vegetarian and
alternative choices) on-site could be acceptable.
Places for casual meetings such as BAR BoFs should also be available.
Is expected that the nearby airport is located no more than 50
Kilometers from the main hotels, and again inexpensive public
transportation is available.
The airport should be of such capacity to accommodate 60% of the
attendees arriving and departing on the same day, in addition to the
usual number of passengers.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
The traveling to the venue location should be possible with a maximum
of one flight hop from a major hub. The airport must have a
diversity of international carriers.
The country hosting the event should not limit the attendance for any
participant. Places in the world were a significant number of
contributors can't go or if they have to do a lot of work, should be
rejected as a candidate to host the IETF.
The host country should not have unreasonable visa regulations, i.e.,
either visas are not required for the large majority of participants,
or if they are required, they can be obtained at low cost and don't
take any unnecessary overhead neither from the organization or the
attendees itself. Citizens of certain countries may have difficulty
in obtaining visas for political reasons - the IASA should take all
possible steps to ensure that official governmental support is
available for such people.
4. Technical criteria for the venue selection
In order to accommodate the IETF meeting with technical guarantees of
successful working capabilities for the attendees, the following
technical issues should be considered:
This is only a list, need some work. TBD.
o Telecommunications room availability
o A mechanism to having access 24 hours a day, ahead of the meeting.
o Access to the wiring, what can be uses, what not.
o Some facilities have no wiring.
o Appropriate wiring plan.
o Some facilities have great network access, others nothing (no
fiber links up to the venue). How much can be provisioned and in
what time.
o Need to know the existing infrastructure and what can be done.
o Roof access, in case a WLAN link is required.
o If there is already a WLAN in the building can be turned off ?.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
o Existing infrastructure: fiber, UTP/distances
o Feasibility/facility to setup new cables (fiber/UTP)
o Electrical power capacity
o 24 hours power. Capacity and special distribution issues.
Evaluate the cost of extra.
o Highly reliable Internet link and BW
o 20-25 Mbits, today, of symmetric is a minimum requirement. Backup
needed.
o Multihoming seems to be to strong requirement and will much depend
on the hosts capabilities, however it can be stated: Multiple
physical paths are recommended.
o Facilities for AV, room dimensions for screens (high/wide)
o IPv4 unicast
o DNS
o DHCP
o IPv4 multicast: is still needed today ?
o IPv6 unicast
o IDS, other security issues
o No content filtering or ACLs.
o Managed devices across the entire network ?
o Test the network under heavy load
o Printers
o NOC - primary and backup contacts for all the issues/topics
o Provide stats and info on network status
o WLAN expertise and debugging/monitoring
o Document what can be wrong with the WLAN in advance to inform
users - FAQ to users
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
o Make the wired network production quality, WLAN experimental ?
o Wires to all essential services (e.g. audiocast, chairs,
presenter, jabber scribe)
o White board for the NOC, in visible place
5. Logistic Risks/Contingencies
Physical safety and security threats at the location must be
evaluated, understanding that the attendees come from all over the
world. Any specific threats must be addressed in advance (hiring
guards, etc.).
Appropriate warnings (e.g. about local crime risks) must be given.
An emergency response plan and risk analysis must be in place
throughout the meeting, covering issues such as food intoxication,
medical problems, indications when something is stolen, etc.
A red colored paper should be included in the participants
registration envelope with details about the evacuation plan. It
should also include a clear statement regarding the situation in case
of cancelation (for instance, attendee costs versus committed costs
with the host/hotel, retention of meeting fees, etc.).
An evaluation of was and terrorism risk and measures is also
required. The location should have no exceptional security
considerations on this regard.
Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings.
6. Technical Risks/Contingencies
TBD.
7. Timing/planning
TBD.
Timing for network setup and testing.
24-hours access to meeting rooms for setup and testing.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report
Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue,
the IAD should, before taking a final decision about the acceptance
or rejection of a given proposed venue, make an on-site survey.
The on-site survey report will compare the selection criteria against
the proposal information and the actual on-site findings, describing
possible discrepancies or issues which may need further
considerations even if they aren't directly described as part of the
criteria set out-coming from this document.
9. Process and Openness
In order to demonstrate the compliance with the IETF meeting venue
selection criteria, all the information related to the proposal of a
site will be made publicly available in the IETF web site,
considering the negotiation confidential issues which could be
subjected to the sponsor/hosts decision.
A summary of the information need to be made public regardless of the
site being finally selected or not, and should include all the
options, such as a given city and several venues in the same city,
and so on.
This will not only help the openness of the process but also as
collective knowledge helping into a better organization and solution
of issues for future meetings.
In principle there should not be hidden details to the community
regarding the proponent and site options and that should be the
overall rule for the publication of the details. However, once a
venue is selected, there may be contractual bindings which may not
allow to disclose all the negotiation details, which obviously will
be restricted to a minimum.
The published information will describe what was offered by the
proponent, as well as the report about the on-site survey which
should be done by the IAD before the final acceptance/rejection of a
given proposed venue.
10. Other Issues
Further elaboration is required (TBD) ?
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
11. Conclusions
TBD.
12. Security Considerations
This document doesn't have any protocol-related security
considerations.
13. IANA Considerations
This document doesn't have any specific IANA considerations.
14. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the inputs of Brian Carpenter,
Joel Jaeggli, Jim Martin, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Karen Odonoghue,
Marcia Beaulieu, Albert Vezza and Ray Pelletier.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
15.2. Informative References
[1] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, April 2005.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
Author's Address
Jordi Palet Martinez
Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1
Alcobendas - Madrid
E-28108 - Spain
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria October 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Palet Expires April 14, 2006 [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:17:24 |