Subject: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-06.txt

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:36:15 -0600

In light of the upcoming meeting in Orlando, I have updated the
document.  For folks that are not on the IETF-86 attendees list, we've
had a fairly lengthy discussion about the remoteness of the venue and
the lack of access to food other than the hotel restaurants that are
often mediocre and over-priced.   For folks that aren't familiar, this
document has recommendations for meeting planners and IAOC folks in
terms of selecting venues that can ensure that IETF participants have
access to the types of food they require during the meetings.   Lunch
is often the biggest challenge due to frequent lunchtime meetings and
the volume of people requiring lunch at the exact same time.

I wrote this document right after the IETF meeting in Dublin (almost 5
years ago) and given the Orlando venue selection (which occurred after
the Dublin meeting) it does not seem to me that the requirements and
recommendations in this document are being considered as serious input
to that process.   While I am the most vocal with regards to this
issue, it isn't just me - others just don't want to be the target for
the types of discussions we inevitably have on this topic.  I will
note that if we were discussing wheel chair accessibility to IETF
meetings, most folks would understand the concern.  In the US, medical
conditions that require special diets are considered hidden
disabilities and the same legal requirements apply in terms of those
diets being accommodated.   While IETF is a non-profit, my
understanding is they have no legal requirements to provide the
accommodations, one would expect such as part of the nature of IETF in
terms of being an open and inclusive organization.

I will note that there have definitely been improvements since Dublin,
including the fruit bars when we have Ice Cream Thursdays and the
secretariat always communicates requirements when they are made aware
(e.g., WG chairs luncheon, as well as IAB stuff).  ISOC has also been
accommodating for their Tuesday lunch sessions.   As an aside while
I'm on the food topic, I didn't learn until last IETF that we don't
have Ice Cream Thursdays unless someone sponsors it.  Since I was
highly disappointed at the Atlanta meeting, I was able to get Polycom
to sponsor the event at IETF-86 ;)

At this stage, the feedback I would like related to this document is
with regards it's readiness for publication as an RFC.  One of the
updates to the document was with regards to the references to other
IETF logistic documents (the Tao and the travel FAQ) which have since
been published.  I believe this document is equally substantive and
applicable to the IETF as those documents.

Regards,
Mary

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-06.txt
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Healthy Food and Special Dietary
Requirements for IETF meetings
        Author(s)       : Mary Barnes
        Filename        : draft-barnes-healthy-food-06.txt
        Pages           : 18
        Date            : 2013-02-25

Abstract:
   This document describes the basic requirements for food for folks
   that attend IETF meetings require special diets, as well as those
   that prefer to eat healthy.  While, the variety of special diets is
   quite broad, the most general categories are described.  There can be
   controversy as to what constitutes healthy eating, but there are some
   common, generally available foods that comprise the basis for healthy
   eating and special diets.  This document provides some
   recommendations to meeting planners, as well as participants, in
   handling these requirements.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-healthy-food

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-healthy-food-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-barnes-healthy-food-06

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:10:44 -0800

On 2/25/13 10:36 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> the types of discussions we inevitably have on this topic.
fwiw I generally support documents that encourage a consistent and 
repeatable approach to meeting requirements and which assigns 
responsibility to the participants as well, and I would probably support 
this document.

One observation though. The introduction:

   While much of the success of IETF protocols can be attributed to the
    availability of large cookies and readily available beer, there are
    some IETF participants for whom such items aren't compatible with
    dietary restrictions or the choice to eat a healthy diet.

A significant contributor to the complaints about breaks without snacks 
and indeed "cookies" is hypoglycemia and there the snack/cookie issue 
should be seen in that light. Big cookies is clearly a trope, in the 
context of plenary dicussion, but low blood sugar is not.

>    I will

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:03:02 -0800

Hi Mary,
>to sponsor the event at IETF-86 ;)

This is ample motivation for me to support the draft. :-)

>with regards it's readiness for publication as an RFC.  One of the

It better to decide whether to publish now (Last Call) then to wait 
another five years.

In Section 4:

  "A wide range of research has shown that about 10% of the population
   prefer to eat a healthy diet."

Can I have some references for that?

  "Thus, it is estimated that at least 10 percent of the IETF
   participants would take advantage of healthy food offerings."

Based on the previous sentence, the above could be read as at least 
10 percent of IETF participants are educated. :-)

   "There are laws in many countries and jurisdictions (e.g.,U.S., E.U.)
    that make it illegal to mislabel foods that are Halal or Kosher.  At
    this time, food manufacturers in many jusisdictions (e.g.,U.S., U.K,
    E.U.) must include all ingredients on the labels of any packaged food
    product."

The "must" was violated ( 
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/horse-meat-food-labelling-plan_en.htm 
).

In Section 5:

   "For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant
    information can be gathered from attendees that have previously
    visited the city."

There are recurrent discussions as nobody volunteered to gather that 
information in one place.

In Section 8:

   "One can never assume that everything has been taken care of by
    someone else."

I suggest moving that to the security considerations section.

I suggest having the draft make recommendations instead of setting 
requirements.  Some of the items in Section 7 "might" be things the 
IETF can do; some of the items are for other parties.  It would be 
easier if the two sets are kept separate.  I suggest moving the 
History stuff to an appendix (e.g. "The Cornucopia restaurant in 
Dublin [cornucopia] is a perfect example of how this can be done in 
an extremely cost-effective efficient and gastronomically appealing 
manner".  I suggest avoiding stuff like "American Disabilities 
Act".  It would be better to formulate the draft in terms of an 
international audience.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:51:03 -0600

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:10 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> repeatable approach to meeting requirements and which assigns responsibility
> to the participants as well, and I would probably support this document.
>
> A significant contributor to the complaints about breaks without snacks and
> indeed "cookies" is hypoglycemia and there the snack/cookie issue should be
> seen in that light. Big cookies is clearly a trope, in the context of
> plenary dicussion, but low blood sugar is not.
[MB]  Cookies, like any processed carbohydrates, are a poor food
choice for folks that have blood sugar issues (you can find the
research on this in pubmed).  A low carb diet is a significantly
better choice if one has difficulty stabilizing blood sugar.
Certainly, once you reach the hypoglycemic point you do need carbs
immediately but something like fruit juice or even better chocolate
milk (since it has some protein) is a much better choice for that
situation than a cookie.  Eating a cookie will just cause the cycle to
repeat until you do get real food into your system.   So, avoiding
processed carbs in lieu of fresh vegetables and fruit along with
protein such as peanut butter, nuts or cheese can reduce the incidence
of hypoglycemia.   Fortunately, some of the venues have had the veggie
trays during breaks and that's great as it does give us some options.
Since I do have issues with hypoglycemia, I must eat frequently and I
always have safe and appropriate snacks with me to tide me over -
again, nuts or high protein snack bars work really well in this
situation.  And, I regularly smuggle them in (packaged) to countries
that don't want you bringing in any food.  I will have a *big* issue
if we travel to a country and they get confiscated.  From a practical
perspective, given that the hotels likely charge $3.00/cookie, IETF
could buy cases of quality vegan, kosher, gluten-free snack bars for
the same price.  Of course that gets into some of the issues I
highlight with regards to these hotels not allowing outside food.
[/MB]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:02:02 -0600

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:03 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It better to decide whether to publish now (Last Call) then to wait another
> five years.
>
> In Section 4:
>
[MB]  You can find quite a few articles that discuss how many people
follow a healthy lifestyle - exercise, eat their veggies, don't smoke,
etc. and that's about 10% if the population (there are US and European
studies).   In is extremely common for those who do one to do the
other.  The  highest number I have found for the recommended amount of
veggies is about 12%, for example.  If you want I can add some of
these references:
- http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/hei/HEi89-90report.pdf (12%
scored in the range classified as a healthy diet)
- http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/8/213 (Study of Basque women)
- http://www.ehfg.org/fileadmin/ehfg/Website/Archiv/2011/Presentations/W3/w3_1_chestnov_2.pdf
(a Russian study)
Or, I can change the "about" to "roughly".  I think the number is
likely a tad higher.  My point was that it's not just too or three
people but a fair percentage of the participants.
[/MB]
> Based on the previous sentence, the above could be read as at least 10
> percent of IETF participants are educated. :-)
[MB]  I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt ;) [/MB]
> I suggest moving that to the security considerations section.
[MB] Ok. [/MB]
> requirements.
[MB] I don't know that the distinction particularly matters in this
type of document.  These are
requirements to ensure that some of us have food that we can eat.  If
the some of requirements aren't
satisfied, some of us do not have readily accessible food to eat. [/MB]
> Some of the items in Section 7 "might" be things the IETF can
> do; some of the items are for other parties.
[MB] My opinion is that the folks that sign contracts and work with
the venue staff are responsible for
communicating those requirements and ensuring the venue can meet those
requirements. [/MB]
>  It would be easier if the two
> sets are kept separate.  I suggest moving the History stuff to an appendix
> (e.g. "The Cornucopia restaurant in Dublin [cornucopia] is a perfect example
> of how this can be done in an extremely cost-effective efficient and
> gastronomically appealing manner".
[MB] I personally think it's really helpful to have a very specific,
real-life example. But,  I could
change it to be more general and not reference the specific restaurant
since we also had a
great place like that in Quebec City.  [/MB]

>I suggest avoiding stuff like "American
> Disabilities Act".  It would be better to formulate the draft in terms of an
> international audience.
[MB] It is an example and it's the only one I'm familiar with although
I assume other countries have similar laws.  The last sentence
referencing the ADA is a very important distinction in terms of who is
required to obey the law, but perhaps it's not particular useful or
relevant to this document, so I can remove that sentence. [/MB]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:16:11 -0900

On 2/25/13 7:02 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> likely a tad higher.  

I'd actually guess that it's considerably higher, although I don't
know that "I'd actually guess" is a useful metric.

> relevant to this document, so I can remove that sentence. [/MB]

This probably goes to the broader question about this particular
meeting (IETF 86( but I think it's important to note -somewhere-
that just because a particular facility/building meets ADA
requirements does not mean that the meeting is particularly
accessible.

I like this document, and I think it will also be very useful for
people who would like to come to a meeting but unsure about
being able to eat.  I'd like to see it progress.

Melinda

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:55:05 -0800

Hi Mary,
>veggies is about 12%, for example.  If you want I can add some of

Thanks.  I asked as the question might be asked.  I don't think that 
the references are needed in the draft.

>people but a fair percentage of the participants.

Ok.

>[MB]  I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt ;) [/MB]

:-)

>satisfied, some of us do not have readily accessible food to eat. [/MB]

In my humble opinion it might be less difficult to get the draft 
through the process.  The sponsoring AD might have a better idea.

There are a few points in Section 4 which the IETF cannot say no to 
as it will be viewed as insensitive.

>communicating those requirements and ensuring the venue can meet those

After Downtown Disney anyone will be able to see whether any of the 
requirements were mentioned in any contract.

>great place like that in Quebec City.  [/MB]

I don't know how the IETF meeting locations will evolve.   My guess 
is that the IETF will never go to that Dublin location again. The 
food outlets referenced in the draft are not available in every 
country.  That is why I suggested being more general.

>relevant to this document, so I can remove that sentence. [/MB]

I'll make a side comment first.

  "IETF is an open and inclusive organization"

"inclusive" is a code word for something else.

Legal matters are generally problematic.  It does not bother me if 
the American Disabilities Act is applicable for Canada and 
Quebec.  The people from those countries might have a different opinion. :-)

If the document is published with the following text: "It represents 
the consensus of the IETF community, it creates a very important distinction.

It has been said that the following does not exist: http://freebeer.org

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:42:16 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM

> information in one place.

[WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share information collaboratively about specific locations' healthy/restricted diet options based on past experience. It could probably be a persistent subsection of the IETF meeting wiki, or it could just as easily be a pointer to a non-IETF-specific external website that is set up with precisely this goal (helping travelers with special dietary needs meet their requirements in strange cities) in mind.

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: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:09:25 -0600

> [WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share information collaboratively a…
[MB] That's an excellent suggestion in terms of information sharing.
We have been doing that on the IETF food list, but for the cities that
we re-visit on a regular basis, having this more widely available on a
wiki would be helpful.  Perhaps, we could add something to the tools
page and do it by meeting location to include all the logistics
(including the food) and have it more permanent. [/MB]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:36:26 -0500

--On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 09:09 -0600 Mary Barnes
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> [WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be
>> appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a
>> wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share
>> information collaboratively about specific locations'
>> healthy/restricted diet options based on past experience. It
>> could probably be a persistent subsection of the IETF meeting
>> wiki, or it could just as easily be a pointer to a
>> non-IETF-specific external website that is set up with
>> precisely this goal (helping travelers with special dietary
>> needs meet their requirements in strange cities) in mind.

> [MB] That's an excellent suggestion in terms of information
> sharing. We have been doing that on the IETF food list, but
> for the cities that we re-visit on a regular basis, having
> this more widely available on a wiki would be helpful.
> Perhaps, we could add something to the tools page and do it by
> meeting location to include all the logistics (including the
> food) and have it more permanent. [/MB]

Let me suggest a small refinement.  See if you can separate the
"help in particular locations" issues from the "if there aren't
answers to these questions, we can't go there" ones.  Then we
need to make that list clear to the IASA in "a site visit isn't
complete without answers" form.  The specific answers and
optimizations are going to differ from site to site --and that
is where community input and wikis are useful-- but we need,
IMO, to eliminate "didn't think about that" and "don't have a
clue" from the information related to these subjects that comes
back from site visits.

    john

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:26:38 -0500

>>>>> "Mary" == Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> writes:
    >>> In Section 5:
    >>> 
    >>> "For cases of first time attendees for a specific location,
    >>> relevant information can be gathered from attendees that have
    >>> previously visited the city."

    >>> There are recurrent discussions as nobody volunteered to gather
    >>> that information in one place.

    >> [WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be appropriate -
    >> having this draft explicitly recommend use of a wiki or other
    >> semi-permanent method to store and share information
    >> collaboratively about specific locations' healthy/restricted diet
    >> options based on past experience. It could probably be a
    >> persistent subsection of the IETF meeting wiki, or it could just
    >> as easily be a pointer to a non-IETF-specific external website
    >> that is set up with precisely this goal (helping travelers with
    >> special dietary needs meet their requirements in strange cities)
    >> in mind.

    Mary> [MB] That's an excellent suggestion in terms of information
    Mary> sharing.  We have been doing that on the IETF food list, but
    Mary> for the cities that we re-visit on a regular basis, having
    Mary> this more widely available on a wiki would be helpful.
    Mary> Perhaps, we could add something to the tools page and do it by
    Mary> meeting location to include all the logistics (including the
    Mary> food) and have it more permanent. [/MB]

That's one of the best arguments as to why we should revisit cities
we have bene to before ... 

(a recent Type-II diabetic. I booked a place in Orlando with a
kitchen...)

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works