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]