idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits27623/draft-cooper-shmo-questions-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 (May 13, 2020) is 731 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Network Working Group A. Cooper 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Intended status: Informational R. Housley 5 Expires: November 14, 2020 Vigil Security 6 S. Krishnan 7 Kaloom 8 May 13, 2020 10 Questions Arising Concerning In-Person Meeting Cancellation 11 draft-cooper-shmo-questions-00 13 Abstract 15 The COVID-19 pandemic has required the IETF community to confront 16 complicated questions about the cancellation and replacement of in- 17 person meetings. This document lists some general questions that 18 have come up for discussion in the community as the IESG, the IRTF 19 Chair, and the IETF LLC have been faced with making decisions about 20 IETF 107 and IETF 108. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2020. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2.1. Participation and attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.2. Travel and entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.3. Safety and health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.4. Meeting host and sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.5. Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.6. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 1. Introduction 71 The COVID-19 pandemic has required the IETF community to confront 72 complicated questions about the cancellation and replacement of in- 73 person meetings. This document lists some general questions that 74 have come up for discussion as the IESG, the IRTF Chair, and the IETF 75 LLC have been faced with making decisions about whether IETF 107 and 76 IETF 108 should be held as in-person meetings. In many places, 77 inspiration was drawn from [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]. 79 This document is focused solely on questions concerning in-person 80 meeting cancellation and it intentionally does not address planning 81 for fully online meetings. This document is offered purely to frame 82 discussion, and it is not intended to be published as an RFC. 84 2. Questions 86 [RFC8719] summarized the goal for face-to-face meetings of IETF WGs 87 as mainly to provide a high-bandwidth mechanism for working out 88 unresolved issues. Historically, these are held in locations from 89 which most of the IETF participants have come in the recent past, 90 with a goal of distributing the travel effort for the participants 91 who attend in person and distributing the timezone difficulty for 92 those who participate remotely. In the current climate, the IETF 93 leadership, in consultation with the community, needs to determine 94 whether an in-person meeting will be safe and effective. 96 2.1. Participation and attendance 98 Questions that have come up about participation and attendance 99 include: 101 1. Approximately how many in-person attendees are expected? How 102 does this compare to previous in-person meetings in the same 103 region or at the same time of year? 105 2. Approximately how many WGs and RGs expect to have a productive 106 in-person meeting based on their expected participation? 108 3. Approximately how many WG and RG chairs and authors who would 109 normally attend in person are expected to attend? How does this 110 compare to previous in-person meetings in the same region or at 111 the same time of year? 113 4. Which of these measures should be used to assess the viability of 114 an in-person meeting, if any? 116 5. For any of these measures, what threshold of expected in-person 117 attendance justifies going forward with an in-person meeting? A 118 majority? A significant majority? Something else? Is an in- 119 person meeting with a small (by some definition) number of in- 120 person attendees and a large number of remote attendees viable? 122 2.2. Travel and entry 124 [RFC8718] includes the following criteria related to travel and 125 entry: 127 "Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and 128 burden for participants traveling from multiple regions. 130 "Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are 131 likely to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants 132 who wish to do so can attend. The term "travel barriers" is to 133 be read broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful 134 meeting can be had." 136 Questions that have come up related to travel and entry include: 138 1. Should there be meeting cancellation criteria related to travel 139 cost, as there is for venue selection, since travel costs can 140 change in relation to world events? 142 2. Should there be meeting cancellation criteria related to travel 143 availability, since this too can be affected by world events? 145 3. Should the "overwhelming majority" criterion used for venue 146 selection also apply to meeting cancellation criteria concerning 147 entry? 149 4. Should entry requirements related to health assessments of 150 travelers, quarantine, or isolation requirements be factored in 151 to decisions about in-person meeting cancellation, and if so, 152 how? Should these requirements be evaluated both for the country 153 where the meeting is being hosted and for the countries from 154 which attendees are traveling? Is a "reasonable and 155 nondiscriminatory" test appropriate for these kinds of 156 requirements? 158 5. How should corporate travel restrictions play into meeting 159 cancellation decisions, if at all? Should they be evaluated 160 directly using their own specific criteria, or should 161 participation and attendance criteria be used without considering 162 corporate travel restrictions? 164 2.3. Safety and health 166 [RFC8718] includes the following criteria related to safety and 167 health: 169 "Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are 170 acceptable." 172 Questions related to safety and health have centered around multiple 173 dimensions: 175 1. Risks to attendees and others once they are at the venue or in 176 the country where the meeting is taking place. These include 177 getting sick, causing other attendees and staff to become sick, 178 and getting stuck in-country. 180 2. Risks to attendees and others while traveling to the venue. 181 These include getting sick, causing other people to get sick, and 182 being quarantined. 184 3. Risks to attendees and others once they arrive home from the 185 venue. These include getting sick, causing other people to get 186 sick, and being quarantined.. 188 2.4. Meeting host and sponsors 190 [RFC8718] includes a criterion that says: 192 "The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and 193 sponsors." 195 While communication with IETF 107 and IETF 108 hosts and sponsors has 196 been frequent, criteria related to host and sponsorship availability 197 have not currently been used for determining cancellation plans for 198 IETF 107 and IETF 108. We are thankful for the unconditional support 199 of hosts and sponsors during these uncertain times, but we need to 200 determine whether host and sponsor availability related criteria need 201 to be included in the future. 203 2.5. Venue 205 Discussions about IETF 107 and IETF 108 have assumed that the 206 meetings would be cancelled if the venues where the meetings were 207 scheduled to be held were closed or otherwise unable to provide the 208 contracted meeting services. Similarly, if mass gatherings in the 209 venue city or country are banned, then it has been assumed our 210 meetings would be cancelled. 212 2.6. Timing 214 Questions have arisen about how far in advance of a meeting a 215 cancellation decision needs to be made. The level of flexibility 216 around this depends on the circumstances, but when there is some 217 flexibility, there has been discussion about whether a cancellation 218 date should be chosen to give participants higher certainty further 219 in advance or to be able to evaluate circumstances as close to the 220 original meeting date as possible, or somewhere in between. 222 3. Security Considerations 224 This note proposes no protocols and therefore introduces no new 225 protocol insecurities. 227 4. IANA Considerations 229 This document has no IANA actions. 231 5. Informative References 233 [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection 234 Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, 235 February 2020, . 237 [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy 238 of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, 239 February 2020, . 241 Authors' Addresses 243 Alissa Cooper 244 Cisco 246 Email: alcoop@cisco.com 248 Russ Housley 249 Vigil Security, LLC 251 Email: housley@vigilsec.com 253 Suresh Krishnan 254 Kaloom 256 Email: suresh.krishnan@gmail.com