idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-06.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 (9 August 2021) is 984 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 9 August 2021 5 Expires: 10 February 2022 7 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings 8 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-06 10 Abstract 12 The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to 13 discuss issues and advance the Internet. However, various 14 emergencies can make a planned in-person meeting infeasible. This 15 document provides criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC (LLC), 16 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and Internet Research 17 Task Force (IRTF) Chair in deciding to postpone, move, or cancel an 18 in-person IETF meeting. 20 Discussion Venues 22 This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 24 Discussion of this document takes place on the mailing list 25 (shmoo@ietf.org), which is archived at 26 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/shmoo/. 28 Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at 29 https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 February 2022. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 55 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 56 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 57 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 58 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 59 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 60 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. Decision Criteria and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3.1. IETF LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3.2. IESG and IRTF Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 4. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 4.1. Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 4.2. Virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 4.3. Postponement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 4.4. Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 5. Refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 B.1. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-05 . . . . . . . . 9 81 B.2. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-04 . . . . . . . . 9 82 B.3. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-03 . . . . . . . . 9 83 B.4. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-02 . . . . . . . . 9 84 B.5. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 . . . . . . . . 9 85 B.6. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . 9 86 B.7. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 . . . . . . . . 9 87 B.8. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . 10 88 B.9. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 89 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 91 1. Introduction 93 Among the highlights of the IETF calendar are in-person general 94 meetings, which happen three times a year at various locations around 95 the world. 97 Various major events may affect the suitability of a scheduled in- 98 person IETF meeting, though for some events this may not be 99 immediately obvious. For example: 101 * A meeting venue itself may unexpectedly close or otherwise be 102 unable to meet IETF meeting requirements due to a health issue, 103 legal violation, or other localized problem. 105 * A natural disaster could degrade the travel and meeting 106 infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to 107 further burden that infrastructure with a meeting. 109 * War, civil unrest, or public health crisis could make a meeting 110 unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel 111 bans. 113 * An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for 114 travel, resulting in lower expected attendance. 116 * Changes in visa policy or other unexpected governmental 117 restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous 118 attendees. 120 This document provides criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC 121 (LLC), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and Internet 122 Research Task Force (IRTF) Chair in deciding to postpone, move, or 123 cancel an in-person IETF meeting. 125 2. Conventions 127 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 128 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 129 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 130 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 131 capitals, as shown here. 133 In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that 134 houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s), as defined in 135 [RFC8718]. 137 3. Decision Criteria and Roles 139 The LLC assesses whether an in-person meeting is logistically and 140 financially viable in light of events, and assembles information 141 about various travel restrictions that might impact attendance. The 142 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and Internet Research Task 143 Force (IRTF) Chair assess if the projected attendance is sufficient 144 for a viable in-person meeting. 146 3.1. IETF LLC 148 The LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue for 149 an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in response 150 to a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt. If such 151 an event occurs more than fourteen weeks before the start of the 152 scheduled meeting, it is deemed a non-emergency situation. Later 153 events, up to and including the week of a meeting itself, are deemed 154 an emergency situation. 156 In non-emergency situations, if the LLC determines the scheduled 157 meeting clearly cannot proceed (e.g., the venue has permanently 158 closed), then it MUST share the reason(s) with the community and MUST 159 consult on its proposed remedy. In less clear cases, the LLC SHOULD 160 conduct a formal reassessment process that includes: 162 * Consulting with the community on the timetable of the decision 163 process. 165 * Consulting with the community on criteria to assess the impact of 166 new developments. 168 * Publishing an assessment report and recommended remedy. 170 * Seeking approval of the IESG and IRTF Chair for the 171 recommendation. 173 In emergency situations, which lack the time for a consultation 174 process, this document provides criteria that have IETF consensus and 175 which the LLC MUST apply in its assessment. 177 The LLC will collect information about the likely impact to in-person 178 attendance of national travel advisories, national and corporate 179 travel bans, availability of transportation, quarantine requirements, 180 etc. and report the results to the IESG and IRTF Chair. 182 These criteria, some of which are derived from Section 3 of 183 [RFC8718], apply to venues that are re-evaluated due to an emergency: 185 * Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a 186 meeting with the expected number of participants and staff. 188 * It is possible to provision Internet access to the venue that 189 allows those attending in person to utilize the Internet for all 190 their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; in addition, there 191 must be sufficient bandwidth and access for remote attendees. 192 Provisions include, but are not limited to, native and unmodified 193 IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global reachability; there may be 194 no additional limitation that would materially impact their 195 Internet use. To ensure availability, it MUST be possible to 196 provision redundant paths to the Internet. 198 * A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and 199 available within walking distance to provide for the expected 200 number of participants and staff. 202 * Local health and public safety infrastructure expects to have 203 adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the 204 meeting week. 206 Finally, the LLC MUST assess the impact on its own operations, 207 including: 209 * The number of critical support staff, contractors, and volunteers 210 who can be at the venue. 212 * The financial impact of continuing a meeting, or implementing any 213 of the possible remedies. 215 The LLC SHOULD cancel an in-person meeting and explore potential 216 remedies if it judges a meeting to be logistically impossible or 217 inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibilities. 219 In the event of considerations this document does not foresee, the 220 LLC should protect the health and safety of attendees and staff, as 221 well as the fiscal health of the organization, with approval from the 222 IESG and IRTF Chair. The IESG should pursue a later update of this 223 document. 225 3.2. IESG and IRTF Chair 227 If the LLC assesses there are no fundamental logistical or financial 228 obstacles to holding a meeting in an emergency situation, the IESG 229 and IRTF Chair assess if projected attendance is high enough to 230 achieve the benefit of an in-person meeting. The IESG and IRTF Chair 231 SHOULD cancel the in-person meeting if that benefit is insufficient. 233 The IESG and IRTF Chair are discouraged from relying on a simple head 234 count of expected meeting attendance. Even dramatically smaller 235 meetings with large remote participation may be successful. In 236 addition to the LLC's estimate, the IESG and IRTF Chair might 237 consider: 239 * Are many working groups and research groups largely unaffected by 240 the restrictions, so that they can operate effectively? 242 * Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group 243 meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if 244 many participants are remote? 246 4. Remedies 248 If a meeting cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the LLC, 249 IESG, and IRTF Chair have several options. The remedies in this 250 section should be considered in light of four principles, presented 251 in no particular order: 253 * Hold the scheduled sessions of a meeting in some format. 255 * Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible. 257 * Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last minute 258 flight changes, etc. 260 * Ensure sufficient time and resources to adequately prepare an 261 alternative. 263 The following remedies are listed in approximate declining order of 264 preference. 266 4.1. Relocation 268 For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting 269 week but move it to a more accessible venue. To the maximum extent 270 possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue. 271 In particular, the LLC SHOULD meet the criteria in [RFC8718] and 272 [RFC8719]. 274 Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees 275 SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the 276 meeting. 278 4.2. Virtualization 280 The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue 281 availability, is to make a meeting fully online. This requires 282 different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside 283 the scope of this document. 285 4.3. Postponement 287 Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the 288 next best option is to delay a meeting until a specific date, at the 289 same venue, at which conditions are expected to improve. The new end 290 date of a meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of 291 the following IETF meeting, and a meeting MUST begin no earlier than 292 30 days after the postponement announcement. 294 Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be 295 feasible. However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover 296 at least some of their travel expenses than other options. 298 Note that it is possible to both postpone and relocate a meeting, 299 though this has the disadvantages of both. 301 4.4. Cancellation 303 The LLC, IESG, and IRTF Chair may cancel a meeting entirely in the 304 event that worldwide conditions make it difficult for attendees to 305 even attend online. Not holding a meeting at all can have wide 306 implications, such as effects on the nomination process and seating 307 of new officers. 309 Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when 310 emergencies occur immediately before or during a meeting, so that 311 there is no opportunity to make other arrangements. 313 5. Refunds 315 The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable 316 travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc). 318 However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of 319 registration fees is appropriate: 321 * Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants. 322 It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed 323 without incident. 325 * Upon postponement, the LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered 326 attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled 327 time. Attendees can opt out of receiving a refund. 329 * When a meeting is virtualized, the LLC MUST offer to refund 330 registered attendees the difference between their paid 331 registration fee and the equivalent fee for an online meeting. 332 The LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered attendees who do not 333 wish to attend an online meeting. 335 * The LLC SHOULD offer refunds to attendees whose government 336 forbids, or has issued a safety advisory against, visits to the 337 host venue, even if the in-person meeting will continue. It 338 SHOULD NOT refund cancellations due to employer policy or personal 339 risk assessments. 341 These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its 342 participants. However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency 343 of the organization, the LLC may suspend them. 345 6. Security Considerations 347 This document introduces no new concerns for the security of Internet 348 protocols. 350 7. IANA Considerations 352 There are no IANA requirements. 354 8. Normative References 356 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 357 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 358 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 359 . 361 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 362 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 363 May 2017, . 365 [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection 366 Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, 367 February 2020, . 369 [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy 370 of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, 371 February 2020, . 373 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 375 Jay Daley provided extensive input to make this document more usable 376 by the LLC. Many members of the IESG and the SHMOO working group 377 also provided useful comments. 379 Appendix B. Change Log 381 B.1. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-05 383 * Minor changes from IETF review 385 B.2. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-04 387 * Threshold for "emergency" changes to 14 weeks 389 * Clarified refund policy 391 * IETF Last Call nits 393 B.3. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-03 395 * Clarifications from AD review 397 B.4. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-02 399 * Added IRTF to IESG responsibilities 401 * WGLC Nits 403 B.5. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 405 * Added refund principles for hybrid meetings 407 B.6. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 409 * Jay Daley's nits 411 * Distinguish the emergency and non-emergency process 413 * Eliminated USSTATE/UKFO references 415 * Clarified roles of LLC and IESG 417 B.7. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 419 * Change to WG draft 421 B.8. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 423 * Added mention of IRTF 425 * Discussed consensus on cancellation 427 B.9. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 429 * Defined "venue" 431 * Added principles for selecting remedies and rewrote alternatives. 433 * Added local authority travel advisories 435 * Added some criteria from IETF 109 437 Author's Address 439 Martin Duke 440 F5 Networks, Inc. 442 Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com