idnits 2.17.1 draft-duke-shmoo-remote-meetings-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (28 July 2020) is 1368 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 shmoo M. Duke 3 Internet-Draft F5 Networks, Inc. 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 28 July 2020 5 Expires: 29 January 2021 7 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Remote Meetings 8 draft-duke-shmoo-remote-meetings-00 10 Abstract 12 The IETF firmly believes in the value of in-person meetings to reach 13 consensus on documents. However, various emergencies can make a 14 planned in-person meeting impossible. This document provides 15 criteria for making this judgment. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 January 2021. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 41 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 42 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 43 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 44 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 45 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 46 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Decision Criteria and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3.1. IETF LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3.2. IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 4. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4.1. Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 4.2. Postponement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 4.3. Virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 4.4. Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 5. Refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 1. Introduction 70 One highlight of the IETF calendar is in-person general meetings, 71 which happen three times a year at various locations around the 72 world. 74 Various events could make a scheduled IETF meeting impossible, in 75 that a particular time or place can be largely closed to travel or 76 assembly. These conditions do not always have obvious thresholds. 77 For example: 79 * The meeting venue itself may close unexpectedly due to a health 80 issue, legal violation, or other localized problem. 82 * A natural disaster could degrade the travel and event 83 infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to 84 further burden that infrastructure with a meeting. 86 * War or civil unrest could make a meeting unsafe. 88 * A political, economic, or public health crisis could result in 89 widespread national or corporate travel bans. 91 This document provides procedures for the IETF to decide to postpone, 92 move, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting. 94 2. Conventions 96 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 97 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 98 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 100 3. Decision Criteria and Roles 102 3.1. IETF LLC 104 The LLC is responsible for assessing if it is safe to hold the 105 meeting given the following criteria. This assessment SHOULD occur 106 eight weeks prior to the first day of the meeting, though events may 107 require reevaluation as late as during the meeting itself. 109 The criteria in Section 3.1 of [RFC8718] apply to venues that have 110 changed status. Specifically: 112 * Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a 113 meeting with the expected number of participants and staff. 115 * It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility 116 and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize 117 the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; 118 in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for 119 remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to, 120 native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global 121 reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would 122 materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it 123 MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet. 125 * A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and 126 available within walking distance to provide for the full number 127 of participants and staff. 129 Additionally, there should not be any US [USSTATE] or UK [UKFO] 130 travel advisories for the location of the meeting. These sources are 131 chosen to be easily accessible in English. This should not be 132 interpreted as requiring cancellation due to a warning about a 133 different region in the host nation, or in the rural area surrounding 134 a host city provided transportation to the airport is secure. 136 Finally, the LLC should assess the impact of various travel 137 restrictions, legal and corporate, on the ability of critical support 138 staff and contractors to enter the host nation. The LLC can cancel 139 the event if it concludes it cannot adequately support it. 141 3.2. IESG 143 The IESG assesses if projected attendance is high enough to capture 144 the benefit of an in-person meeting. In some cases, corporate travel 145 restrictions may lower attendance in the absence of any formal 146 guidance from authorities. If it concludes that attendance is too 147 low, it can cancel the meeting regardless of the LLC's safety 148 assessment. 150 The IESG is discouraged from relying on a simple count of expected 151 event attendance. Even dramatically smaller events with large remote 152 participation may be successful. The IESG might consider: 154 * Are many working groups largely unaffected by the restrictions, so 155 that they can operate effectively? 157 * Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group 158 meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if 159 many participants are remote? 161 4. Remedies 163 In the event cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF 164 has several options. 166 4.1. Relocation 168 For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting 169 week but move it to a more accessible venue. To the maximum extent 170 possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue. 171 In particular, the IETF should strive to meet the criteria in 172 [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]. 174 4.2. Postponement 176 Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the 177 next best option is to delay the meeting until specific date at which 178 conditions are expected to improve. The new end date of the meeting 179 must be at least 30 days before the beginning of the following IETF 180 meeting. 182 Note that due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will 183 usually not be feasible. 185 4.3. Virtualization 187 The final option is to make the meeting fully remote. This requires 188 different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside 189 the scope of this document. 191 4.4. Cancellation 193 As a last resort, IETF may cancel the meeting totally. This is a 194 last resort in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult 195 for attendees to even attend remotely. Not holding a meeting at all 196 has wide implications for the rhythm of IETF personnel policies, such 197 as the nomination process and seating of new officers. 199 5. Refunds 201 The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable 202 travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc). 204 However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of 205 registration fees is appropriate: 207 * Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants. 208 It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed 209 without incident. 211 * Upon postponement, the LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered 212 attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled 213 time. 215 * When the meeting becomes remote, the LLC SHOULD attempt to recover 216 whatever venue-related payments, past or future, it can and rebate 217 this to registered attendees, up to a maximum of their total cost 218 of registration. 220 These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its 221 participants. However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency 222 of the organization, the LLC may suspend them. 224 6. Security Considerations 226 This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet 227 protocols. 229 7. IANA Considerations 231 There are no IANA requirements. 233 8. Informative References 235 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 236 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 237 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 238 . 240 [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection 241 Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, 242 February 2020, . 244 [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy 245 of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, 246 February 2020, . 248 [UKFO] Office, U.F., "Foreign Travel Advice", n.d., 249 . 251 [USSTATE] State, U.D.o., "International Travel", n.d., 252 . 255 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 257 Appendix B. Change Log 259 Author's Address 261 Martin Duke 262 F5 Networks, Inc. 264 Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com