Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-george-travel-faq-03.txt> (IETF meeting attendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions) to Informational RFC

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:30:47 +0000

This is pretty good already. Some additional FAQs I'd
suggest below. Feel free to take 'em or leave 'em, I'll
not be upset.

- "Anyone found a cheaper hotel option?" In addition to the
main and backup hotels, the reality is that some IETF attendees
prefer to stay elsewhere. If there are things worth recommending
about that, people will be interested, esp. in cost and flocking
together.

- If there's any crazy hotel booking rules related to the main
or backup hotels, additional explanation is usually useful

3.1: - maybe add "non flight options" sometimes places are
drivable or accessible via train for enough attendees to be
noteworthy

3.1.1.1 - where to find the taxi rank at the airport

3.1.1 - commuting info for those not in main hotels, incl. e.g.
mass transit daily/weekly tickets etc. routes

3.2.1 - places to get a grab'n'go sandwich etc.

3.3 - local etiquette maybe, but I can't think of a good
example that wouldn't insult somebody:-)

Cheers,
S.

On 02/07/2012 10:58 PM, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'IETF meeting attendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions'
>    <draft-george-travel-faq-03.txt>  as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-03-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>     This document attempts to provide a list of the common Frequently
>     Asked Questions (FAQs) that IETF meeting attendees often ask
>     regarding travel logistics and local information.  It is intended to
>     assist those who are willing to provide local information, so that if
>     they wish to pre-populate answers to some or all of these questions
>     either in the IETF Wiki or a meeting-specific site, they have a
>     reasonably complete list of ideas to draw from.  It is not meant as a
>     list of required information that the host or secretariat needs to
>     provide, merely as a guideline.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-george-travel-faq/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-george-travel-faq/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:55:39 +0100

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:30 AM
> example that wouldn't insult somebody:-)

Which motion of the head means yes, and which means no?

Tom Petch

> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
>

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:20:20 -0500

Also useful: What levels of tips are normally expected in what circumstances (in restaurants, taxi's, etc..). 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of t.petch
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:56 AM
To: Stephen Farrell; [email-masked]
Cc: The IESG
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-george-travel-faq-03.txt> (IETF meetingattendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions) to Informational RFC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:30 AM

Tom Petch

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:06:13 -0800

perhaps this document should not attempt to duplicate Rough Guide or
Lonely Planet?

randy

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:31:06 -0800

>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-03-06. Exceptionally, comments may be

In Section 1:

   "more efficiently than waiting until someone sends an email to the
    [email-masked] list in the days leading up to the meeting."

The XX is ambiguous.

In Section 2:

   "Therefore, this document is intended to be something that can be
    provided to host event organizers that may not have much familiarity
    with the IETF, so that they have a better sense of the information
    that attendees will find helpful."

The draft is written from am IETF perspective for an IETF audience. 
Does http://wikitravel.org/en/Paris provide answers to some of the 
questions in this draft?

   "In reading this document, one may ask, "why would such a
    technologically advanced and internet-savvy organization need such
    help?  Isn't that why search engines exist?"  And the answer is that
    yes, we can sometimes find what we're looking for with search
    engines, but that results in hundreds of people spending their time
    searching, which is not very efficient.  In addition, despite the"

If hundreds of people spent their time searching, there would have 
been more information on 
http://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/doku.php  Or is it 
not efficient for people to share the information they have found?

The following people have contributed to the ietf83 section:

  Kevin P. Fleming
  Stephanie McCammon
  Amy Vezza
  Iljitsch van Beijnum
  Scott Brim

   "no matter how good online translation is getting, some of the most
    informative sites may be difficult for non-native speakers to"

Is this about informative sites being difficult for non-native 
speakers or for people from a specific part of the world?  I suggest 
that the author seeks feedback from people who use English as a 
second language.

Visa requirements is a one-liner whereas food considerations are 
discussed in several paragraphs.  Section 3.3 is labelled 
International considerations.  The entire document is about 
international considerations.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:22:57 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
>
> In Section 1:
>
[WEG] Well, it was intended to be generic (a variable to represent multiple numbers). Are you saying ambiguous as in "this intent is unclear, use a different method to represent this generically" or "you should use a specific number as an example, e.g. [email-masked]"?
Would "the meeting-specific attendees email list" be better?

> The draft is written from am IETF perspective for an IETF audience.
[WEG] It was written by an IETF person, in the IETF's process for managing documents. Within those constraints, it was meant to assume very little about what people know about IETF such that it could be useful to a non-IETF audience. If there's a point to this comment other than to be snarky, I'm missing it.

> Does http://wikitravel.org/en/Paris provide answers to some of the
[WEG] Probably. This draft is not about evaluating sources of information to be provided for individual and specific IETF meetings. It is meant to be generic. I'd encourage you to post that link to the Paris IETF's wiki.

>     "but that results in hundreds of people spending their time
>     searching, which is not very efficient."
>
[WEG] no one can force those who find an answer to their question (via whatever method) to post it to the wiki. The meeting wiki is only as good as its level of contribution, and this document isn't making commentary on that problem. This is simply noting that lots of attendees need a similar set of information.

> speakers or for people from a specific part of the world?
[WEG] I think this is pretty self-explanatory taken in the context of the preceding sentences, but I'll attempt to clarify. When one is attempting to do research about a place one is planning to visit, if the site with the best information is only available in the local language, and half of the site is flash or graphical text buttons, sending it to translate.google is not going to translate the text contained in flash or images, which may make the site difficult or impossible to use. The source and destination language/region is immaterial. This is simply defining a practical matter associated with language barriers online.

> I suggest that the author seeks feedback from people who use English as a
> second language.
[WEG] The author has sought and received feedback from the IETF list multiple times prior to last call, and again now. One might be forgiven for assuming that there are a few nonnative English speakers among the subscribers of said list who have read the document. If those who use English as a second language have text to provide, he'll gladly accept it. Otherwise, maligning the document or its author because it attempts to cover language issues but was written by an native English speaker is not particularly productive.

> discussed in several paragraphs.
[WEG] The main posting on the IETF site regarding the specific meeting includes a link to one or more Visa information sites. IETF has been providing links to Visa information for years, as it is far more critical to foreign attendance than any of the other items discussed in this document. Therefore I didn't spend a lot of time on it. The only part of the currently-provided visa information that I have seen complaints about is when the combination of the source and destination countries' embassies don't play nicely together and Visas take too long to be practical. That is a much different problem. However, more than one person has commented about the limited text with regards to visas, so I'll attempt to bolster the Visa discussion slightly, but suggested text is welcome.

 Section 3.3 is labelled
> international considerations.
[WEG] After reviewing what is in this section based on your comment, I'd argue the other way. Like the rest of the document, a large portion of it is not specific to international travel and may vary by region and municipality within the same country. I'm open to suggestions as to an alternate heading for section 3.3 that is more descriptive than "other."

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:43:02 -0800

Hi,
At 07:22 13-02-2012, George, Wes wrote:
>[WEG] Well, it was intended to be generic (a variable to represent 
>multiple numbers). Are you saying ambiguous as in "this intent is 
>unclear, use a different method to represent this generically" or 
>"you should use a specific number as an example, e.g. [email-masked]"?

I suggest using the example.  BTW, I understand what you meant by 
"XX".  See comment below.

>[WEG] It was written by an IETF person, in the IETF's process for 
>managing documents. Within those constraints, it was meant to assume 
>very little about what people know about IETF such that it could be 
>useful to a non-IETF audience. If there's a point to this comment 
>other than to be snarky, I'm missing it.

You could look at the content in terms of your target audience.  The 
draft mentions "host event organizers that may not have much 
familiarity with the IETF".  The first two sections are more like 
Last Call material to give IETF participants a sense of why the draft 
is intended to be published as a RFC.

The intent was not to be snarky.

Let's assume that you are a host and you have to find the 
information.  You can either take the points to cover "as-is" or 
you'll try and identify what information is important, what is useful 
and what is nice to have.  As an example, how to get to the venue 
might be important; how to does one differentiate between tap water 
and bottled in a restaurant is nice to have.

>[WEG] Probably. This draft is not about evaluating sources of 
>information to be provided for individual and specific IETF 
>meetings. It is meant to be generic. I'd encourage you to post that 
>link to the Paris IETF's wiki.

I don't have write access to the Wiki.

>[WEG] no one can force those who find an answer to their question 
>(via whatever method) to post it to the wiki. The meeting wiki is 
>only as good as its level of contribution, and this document isn't 
>making commentary on that problem. This is simply noting that lots 
>of attendees need a similar set of information.

I agree that the meeting wiki is only as good as the level of contribution.

>[WEG] I think this is pretty self-explanatory taken in the context 
>of the preceding sentences, but I'll attempt to clarify. When one is 
>attempting to do research about a place one is planning to visit, if 
>the site with the best information is only available in the local 
>language, and half of the site is flash or graphical text buttons, 
>sending it to translate.google is not going to translate the text 
>contained in flash or images, which may make the site difficult or 
>impossible to use. The source and destination language/region is 
>immaterial. This is simply defining a practical matter associated 
>with language barriers online.

To a layperson person, a "Flash" web site is as good as any other web 
site.  I understand your point about translating content.  My point 
was more about the information which the "average" attendee would 
look for.  See below.

>[WEG] The author has sought and received feedback from the IETF list 
>multiple times prior to last call, and again now. One might be 
>forgiven for assuming that there are a few nonnative English 
>speakers among the subscribers of said list who have read the 
>document. If those who use English as a second language have text to 
>provide, he'll gladly accept it. Otherwise, maligning the document 
>or its author because it attempts to cover language issues but was 
>written by an native English speaker is not particularly productive.

The point was not about whether you have attempted to get 
feedback.  I mentioned how you can get the kind of feedback to make 
the document more accessible to the target audience.

>[WEG] The main posting on the IETF site regarding the specific 
>meeting includes a link to one or more Visa information sites. IETF 
>has been providing links to Visa information for years, as it is far 
>more critical to foreign attendance than any of the other items 
>discussed in this document. Therefore I didn't spend a lot of time 
>on it. The only part of the currently-provided visa information that 
>I have seen complaints about is when the combination of the source 
>and destination countries' embassies don't play nicely together and 
>Visas take too long to be practical. That is a much different 
>problem. However, more than one person has commented about the 
>limited text with regards to visas, so I'll attempt to bolster the 
>Visa discussion slightly, but suggested text is welcome.

I clicked on the link on the IETF web site for visa information and I 
got to http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/t-shirt-design-contest.html :-)

Visa information tends to be an issue for some participants.  The 
IAOC provides minimal information as it is not a travel agency yet. 
:-)  As a quick comment, people might generally look for the 
following information:

   (i)   Do I need a visa for the country (list of countries for 
which a visa is required)

   (ii)  List of embassies

   (iii) How long does the processing of the visa application generally take

   (iv)  Can I get a letter of invitation from the local host

   (v)   Requirements for visa application

>[WEG] After reviewing what is in this section based on your comment, 
>I'd argue the other way. Like the rest of the document, a large 
>portion of it is not specific to international travel and may vary 
>by region and municipality within the same country. I'm open to 
>suggestions as to an alternate heading for section 3.3 that is more 
>descriptive than "other."

A tourist might look for the following topics:

   (a) Planning your trip

   (b) Transportation

   (c) Health

   (d) Safety

   (e) Electricity

   (f) Communication

   (g) Accommodation

   (h) Climate

   (i) Money

   (j) Where to eat

   (k) Language

Everyone can find at least some information to get around if the 
destination is considered as international.  If the destination is 
considered as non-international travel, some of the information may 
be considered as obvious.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:02:35 -0800 (PST)

Wes,

As an additional example of "what can be done and has been done" you 
might want to point to http://hiroshima-info.info which is an example 
of a volunteer-contributed website (for IETF 76) which gives travel 
info from (I must admit) a "geek" perspective and from someone who has 
attended a lot of IETF meetings and similar events all over the world.

In my view, a lot of travel information is often provided from the 
perspective of "locals" instead of from the perspective of "visitors"
and the above example is intended to represent the latter, with a
specific category of visitor.

This was initially the placeholder info site for IETF76, it was later 
replaced (but still linked to) by the official WIDE host site.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:48:38 -0500

Revision -04 has been posted which I believe addresses all of the comments received thus far.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-travel-faq-04

Thanks,

Wes George

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:59 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-george-travel-faq-03.txt> (IETF meeting attendees'
> Frequently Asked (travel) Questions) to Informational RFC
>
>