Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> On 6/21/2011 11:30 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> ...
> 
>>> Actually, it seems that the conference rates at IETF hotels are quite
>>> predictable: a couple of months ago it was possible to book a room at
>>> the QC Hilton for $176 CAD/night _during the IETF meeting_; if you check
>>> the Hilton Web site right now, you will find that equivalent rooms at
>>> the Hilton the week before the IETF run about $100 less than during the
>>> meeting.  It's possible that IETF week marks the transition to high
>>> season rates, but in that case why not move the meeting by a week?  This
>>> is not an isolated case: in Beijing, rooms at the Shangri-La were
>>> significantly cheaper both the week before and the week after the IETF;
>>> in Hiroshima, I got a room at the conference hotel the week of the
>>> meeting for ~$50/night less than the conference rate by eschewing "free"
>>> breakfast.  Admittedly the breakfast in Hiroshima was both tasty and
>>> plentiful, but $50?  Not even in Japan.  It seems apparent that the IAOC
>>> "negotiators" are wearing signs around their necks during the hotel
>>> negotiations; the only question is what is written on the signs.  Is it
>>> "I am a moron" or the simple but effective "F*&k Me"
>> 
>> 
>> It has been repeated ad-nausieum that "conference rates" subsidize the 
>> rental of the meeting room block... 
> 
> So you believe that that is a good way to negotiate?  That could explain
> a lot by itself...

nope, factual reporting should not be construed as approval.

> The fact that the conference rates are more expensive ( on a contract
> signed 24 months out) than a spot check of the room rate at any given
> time should come as no surprise to anyone.
> 
> Really?  So I should expect to pay less as an individual renting a room
> than as a member of a group renting 200?  In what universe does that
> make sense?

In the universe where you sign a contract with a hotel for use of their 
facilities  two years you are in effect paying a risk premium since you a 
enjoining them from selling the facility out from under you. If you've ever 
entered into a futures contract you might be familiar with this... The customer 
who soaks up unused capacity 3 weeks out will pay less for the privledge they 
may not be able to book a meeting room however...

The feedback that I provided into the IASA when the management of the activity 
moved from CNRI to the IAOC/IAD was that more flexibility on dates made it 
easier to negotiate with hotels  on both fees and the use of facilities. The 
IETF community indicated unequically that meeting dates be known as far in 
advance as feasible, and in particular, the dates are fixed considerably ahead 
of hotel contracts, this does not increase your flexibility in negioating.

>> You can cruise the IETF finances if for some reason you don't believe this. 
>> If the room block doesn't get filled you can expect your fees to go up 
>> accordingly over time.
> 
> 
> IEEE 802 had that problem; the last time I checked, their "solution" was
> to raise the meeting fee ($1000 at the recent meeting in Singapore, for
> example, without early-bird discounts) and discount it if one could
> prove that they spent at least 1 night in the conference hotel.  Of
> course, their excuse was a corrupt meeting arranger who locked them into
> exorbitant prices years in advance
> 
>> I will observe that I have generally  not paid the conference rate or stayed 
>> in the meeting hotel while attending the IETF on my own dime (and have 
>> stayed in some rather nicer hotels (paris, stockholm, etc) for less money as 
>> a result. When I attend on behalf my employer I make it clear what we paying 
>> for when participating.
>> 
>> please look at the balance sheet here:
>> 
>> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meeting-Financials-2010-77.pdf
>> 
>> and note both the hotel commission, a credit, and the zero charge associated 
>> with meeting rooms.
>> 
>> It's not clear to me that this can be made more transparent, but if you'd 
>> like to try I'm sure that someone would be happy to nominate you for an open 
>> iaoc position when available.
> 
> Thanks for the non-answer.  My comment had nothing to do with
> "transparency", however, and everything to do with competence...

Which you are qualified to asses on the basis of you long experience in meeting 
booking...

> I do
> wonder what the difference is to us if we pay for the meeting rooms
> directly (through meeting fees) or indirectly (through increased room
> rates)?
> 
>> 
>> joel
>> 
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Keith Moore]

On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:

> On Jun 21, 2011, at 06:30 , Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> It has been repeated ad-nausieum that "conference rates" subsidize the 
>> rental of the meeting room block... The fact that the conference rates are 
>> more expensive ( on a contract signed 24 months out) than a spot check of 
>> the room rate at any given time should come as no surprise to anyone. You 
>> can cruise the IETF finances if for some reason you don't believe this. If 
>> the room block doesn't get filled you can expect your fees to go up 
>> accordingly over time. I will observe that I have generally  not paid the 
>> conference rate or stayed in the meeting hotel while attending the IETF on 
>> my own dime (and have stayed in some rather nicer hotels (paris, stockholm, 
>> etc) for less money as a result. When I attend on behalf my employer I make 
>> it clear what we paying for when participating.
>> 
> 
> Just one additional data-point here. 
> 
> For some of us, getting reimbursed for a higher meeting fee is actually a lot 
> easier than getting reimbursed for a higher hotel-fee. Such would be the case 
> when, for example, traveling on a fixed per-diem intended for covering 
> accommodation/food, but reimbursed on cost for the meeting fee. 

Then again, for others of us, staying at a cheaper hotel a short distance away 
is actually a lot easier than paying out the wazoo for an overpriced meeting 
venue.

Keith

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Glen Zorn]

On 6/21/2011 11:30 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
...

>> Actually, it seems that the conference rates at IETF hotels are quite
>> predictable: a couple of months ago it was possible to book a room at
>> the QC Hilton for $176 CAD/night _during the IETF meeting_; if you check
>> the Hilton Web site right now, you will find that equivalent rooms at
>> the Hilton the week before the IETF run about $100 less than during the
>> meeting.  It's possible that IETF week marks the transition to high
>> season rates, but in that case why not move the meeting by a week?  This
>> is not an isolated case: in Beijing, rooms at the Shangri-La were
>> significantly cheaper both the week before and the week after the IETF;
>> in Hiroshima, I got a room at the conference hotel the week of the
>> meeting for ~$50/night less than the conference rate by eschewing "free"
>> breakfast.  Admittedly the breakfast in Hiroshima was both tasty and
>> plentiful, but $50?  Not even in Japan.  It seems apparent that the IAOC
>> "negotiators" are wearing signs around their necks during the hotel
>> negotiations; the only question is what is written on the signs.  Is it
>> "I am a moron" or the simple but effective "F*&k Me"
> 
> 
> It has been repeated ad-nausieum that "conference rates" subsidize the rental 
> of the meeting room block... 

So you believe that that is a good way to negotiate?  That could explain
a lot by itself...

The fact that the conference rates are more expensive ( on a contract
signed 24 months out) than a spot check of the room rate at any given
time should come as no surprise to anyone.

Really?  So I should expect to pay less as an individual renting a room
than as a member of a group renting 200?  In what universe does that
make sense?

> You can cruise the IETF finances if for some reason you don't believe this. 
> If the room block doesn't get filled you can expect your fees to go up 
> accordingly over time.


IEEE 802 had that problem; the last time I checked, their "solution" was
to raise the meeting fee ($1000 at the recent meeting in Singapore, for
example, without early-bird discounts) and discount it if one could
prove that they spent at least 1 night in the conference hotel.  Of
course, their excuse was a corrupt meeting arranger who locked them into
exorbitant prices years in advance

> I will observe that I have generally  not paid the conference rate or stayed 
> in the meeting hotel while attending the IETF on my own dime (and have stayed 
> in some rather nicer hotels (paris, stockholm, etc) for less money as a 
> result. When I attend on behalf my employer I make it clear what we paying 
> for when participating.
> 
> please look at the balance sheet here:
> 
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meeting-Financials-2010-77.pdf
> 
> and note both the hotel commission, a credit, and the zero charge associated 
> with meeting rooms.
> 
> It's not clear to me that this can be made more transparent, but if you'd 
> like to try I'm sure that someone would be happy to nominate you for an open 
> iaoc position when available.

Thanks for the non-answer.  My comment had nothing to do with
"transparency", however, and everything to do with competence...I do
wonder what the difference is to us if we pay for the meeting rooms
directly (through meeting fees) or indirectly (through increased room
rates)?

> 
> joel
> 
<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Thomas Heide Clausen]

On Jun 21, 2011, at 06:30 , Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> It has been repeated ad-nausieum that "conference rates" subsidize the rental 
> of the meeting room block... The fact that the conference rates are more 
> expensive ( on a contract signed 24 months out) than a spot check of the room 
> rate at any given time should come as no surprise to anyone. You can cruise 
> the IETF finances if for some reason you don't believe this. If the room 
> block doesn't get filled you can expect your fees to go up accordingly over 
> time. I will observe that I have generally  not paid the conference rate or 
> stayed in the meeting hotel while attending the IETF on my own dime (and have 
> stayed in some rather nicer hotels (paris, stockholm, etc) for less money as 
> a result. When I attend on behalf my employer I make it clear what we paying 
> for when participating.
> 

Just one additional data-point here. 

For some of us, getting reimbursed for a higher meeting fee is actually a lot 
easier than getting reimbursed for a higher hotel-fee. Such would be the case 
when, for example, traveling on a fixed per-diem intended for covering 
accommodation/food, but reimbursed on cost for the meeting fee. 

For me, not an eyelid would be bat if I presented a quadruple (or more) 
meeting-fee-bill -- whereas it is a recurring administrative hassle to actually 
get a hotel-bill exceeding the per-diem to pass accounting (and, actually quite 
a lottery each time if it will be reimbursed)

Not wanting to criticize, but  I would encourage that such situations also be 
considered when making plans for the IETF meeting payment structure.

Sincerely yours

Thomas

ps: Other than that, I am actually excited to go to Quebec City which - for 
those who've never been there - is a very very pleasant place to be. Also, when 
there, my French colleagues tend to mock me a whole lot less for my accent ;)

> please look at the balance sheet here:
> 
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meeting-Financials-2010-77.pdf
> 
> and note both the hotel commission, a credit, and the zero charge associated 
> with meeting rooms.
> 
> It's not clear to me that this can be made more transparent, but if you'd 
> like to try I'm sure that someone would be happy to nominate you for an open 
> iaoc position when available.
> 
> joel
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: whine, whine, whine

[John R. Levine]

San Diego is much easier to get to than Quebec City, since multiple air 
carriers serve it.


You can't fool me.  I've been to both.  Quebec is a lot closer, and the 
food is better.


R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[John Levine]

>Why is this being discussed here?  Logistics about Quebec and how to
>get there should be discussed on 81attendees.
>
>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees

The archive link on that page is 404. Has anyone ever posted a
message to that list?

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: whine, whine, whine

[Randall Gellens]

At 3:52 AM + 6/21/11, John Levine wrote:


 Quebec has been in the exact same location for over 400 years.  It's
 not like its a secret to anyone who can look at a map.  It may not be
 as easy to get to as, say, Toronto or Chicago, but (at least from
 where I live) it's a lot easier to get to than a remote armpit like,
 oh, San Diego.


San Diego is much easier to get to than Quebec City, since multiple 
air carriers serve it.  Vancouver is a lot better than San Diego 
because it has a number of direct international flights, making it 
much easier still for those from outside North America.  I'd agree 
that San Diego isn't a great location for an IETF, for one reason 
because  we'd have to be at either a hotel too far to walk anywhere 
or in a conference center.


(By the way, BA just resumed non-stop flights between London and San 
Diego, but I discount that because it's only one flight on one 
airline.)


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Mark Andrews]

Why is this being discussed here?  Logistics about Quebec and how to
get there should be discussed on 81attendees.

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees

In message <4e00239f.4030...@gmail.com>, Henk Uijterwaal writes:
> On 21/06/2011 06:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> > How is travel significantly more difficult to Quebec City?  It's one plane
> > change from most US and Canadian points of origin that I checked, or even
> > direct if you're close enough.
> 
> If you look at the number of cities served by direct flights from Vancouver a
> nd
> Quebec, you will see that the number for Vancouver is much higher.  Vancouver
> also has lots of direct flights to Europe.
> 
> And each extra hop in a flight path, gives the chance of missing a connection
> ,
> the airline losing your bag and all that.
> 
> > My flight in changes in Newark and out in Chicago, both major
> > intercontinental hubs which means there are plenty of long-range connection
> s
> > that are no more difficult.
> 
> In my case, coming from Europe, that means that I have to go through US
> customs, recheck my bags and wait for the next plane.  That is a minimum
> of 2-3 hours extra.
> 
> Henk
> 
> -- 
> -
> -
> Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
>   http://www.uijterwaal.nl
>   Phone: +31.6.55861746
> -
> -
> 
> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
>  (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

getting there

[John Levine]

>> My flight in changes in Newark and out in Chicago, both major
>> intercontinental hubs which means there are plenty of long-range
>> connections that are no more difficult.

>In my case, coming from Europe, that means that I have to go through US
>customs, recheck my bags and wait for the next plane.  That is a minimum
>of 2-3 hours extra.

So get flights that connect in Montreal or Toronto.

Surely this crowd can figure out how to use online booking engines.

R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Henk Uijterwaal]

On 21/06/2011 06:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> How is travel significantly more difficult to Quebec City?  It's one plane
> change from most US and Canadian points of origin that I checked, or even
> direct if you're close enough.

If you look at the number of cities served by direct flights from Vancouver and
Quebec, you will see that the number for Vancouver is much higher.  Vancouver
also has lots of direct flights to Europe.

And each extra hop in a flight path, gives the chance of missing a connection,
the airline losing your bag and all that.

> My flight in changes in Newark and out in Chicago, both major
> intercontinental hubs which means there are plenty of long-range connections
> that are no more difficult.

In my case, coming from Europe, that means that I have to go through US
customs, recheck my bags and wait for the next plane.  That is a minimum
of 2-3 hours extra.

Henk

-- 
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
  Phone: +31.6.55861746
--

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Thanks! (was: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?)

[Keith Moore]

Thanks to those who replied with suggestions for accommodations.

Keith

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Randall Gellens
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:25 PM
> To: Henk Uijterwaal; ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: Dave Crocker
> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
> 
> My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the
> survey did not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult
> to Quebec than other Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more
> expensive.

How is travel significantly more difficult to Quebec City?  It's one plane 
change from most US and Canadian points of origin that I checked, or even 
direct if you're close enough.

My flight in changes in Newark and out in Chicago, both major intercontinental 
hubs which means there are plenty of long-range connections that are no more 
difficult.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> On 6/20/2011 11:54 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Keith,
>> 
>> Here is the tradeoff:
>> 
>> "The community" has expressed a strong preference for one-roof venues 
>> [which often translates to convention center + hotel next door in our
>> case] in a city setting (City West and Maastricht being non-examples).
>> 
>> This leads to (generally speaking):
>> 
>> * Somewhat expensive main hotel rates (although I agree that hotel 
>>  rates seem to be as variable and unpredictable as airline rates, and 
>>  I would hope we could do better even if we sign the contract several 
>>  years in advance.)
> 
> Actually, it seems that the conference rates at IETF hotels are quite
> predictable: a couple of months ago it was possible to book a room at
> the QC Hilton for $176 CAD/night _during the IETF meeting_; if you check
> the Hilton Web site right now, you will find that equivalent rooms at
> the Hilton the week before the IETF run about $100 less than during the
> meeting.  It's possible that IETF week marks the transition to high
> season rates, but in that case why not move the meeting by a week?  This
> is not an isolated case: in Beijing, rooms at the Shangri-La were
> significantly cheaper both the week before and the week after the IETF;
> in Hiroshima, I got a room at the conference hotel the week of the
> meeting for ~$50/night less than the conference rate by eschewing "free"
> breakfast.  Admittedly the breakfast in Hiroshima was both tasty and
> plentiful, but $50?  Not even in Japan.  It seems apparent that the IAOC
> "negotiators" are wearing signs around their necks during the hotel
> negotiations; the only question is what is written on the signs.  Is it
> "I am a moron" or the simple but effective "F*&k Me"


It has been repeated ad-nausieum that "conference rates" subsidize the rental 
of the meeting room block... The fact that the conference rates are more 
expensive ( on a contract signed 24 months out) than a spot check of the room 
rate at any given time should come as no surprise to anyone. You can cruise the 
IETF finances if for some reason you don't believe this. If the room block 
doesn't get filled you can expect your fees to go up accordingly over time. I 
will observe that I have generally  not paid the conference rate or stayed in 
the meeting hotel while attending the IETF on my own dime (and have stayed in 
some rather nicer hotels (paris, stockholm, etc) for less money as a result. 
When I attend on behalf my employer I make it clear what we paying for when 
participating.

please look at the balance sheet here:

http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meeting-Financials-2010-77.pdf

and note both the hotel commission, a credit, and the zero charge associated 
with meeting rooms.

It's not clear to me that this can be made more transparent, but if you'd like 
to try I'm sure that someone would be happy to nominate you for an open iaoc 
position when available.

joel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John 
> C Klensin
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:56 AM
> To: Michael Richardson; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
> 
> > What's a non-peak destination for July?
> 
> Phoenix.  Probably Houston or Fort Worth.  Wellington or
> somewhere on the South Island that doesn't attract skiers.

I was going to suggest Las Vegas.  Certainly has adequate conference facilities 
and plenty of room availability these days.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Glen Zorn]

On 6/21/2011 3:14 AM, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:

> Same in my case!

So why is that the case?  The IAOC is virtually guaranteeing a a
sold-out hotel the week of the IETF meeting, a thing that has not
inconsiderable value in the hospitality.  How can they possibly not do
better?

...
<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Glen Zorn]

On 6/21/2011 2:02 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Exactly.   Given that we spend most of our days in air conditioned
> meeting rooms, Phoenix or Dallas are not bad choices. Dallas is slightly
> better due to air connections.  Houston is not a good choice under any
> circumstance IMHO - I don't think A/C can remove enough humidity to make
> it comfortable in July.  
> 
> Personally, I have no issue with Minneapolis in November or March -
> again we spend most of the time in meeting rooms, so do we really care
> that much about the weather outside?

Some of us actually like to go outside occasionally without being either
blistered or frozen.  Please speak for yourself (or are we using the
royal "we"?

...
<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Glen Zorn]

On 6/20/2011 11:54 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

> 
> Keith,
> 
> Here is the tradeoff:
> 
> "The community" has expressed a strong preference for one-roof venues 
> [which often translates to convention center + hotel next door in our
> case] in a city setting (City West and Maastricht being non-examples).
> 
> This leads to (generally speaking):
> 
> * Somewhat expensive main hotel rates (although I agree that hotel 
>   rates seem to be as variable and unpredictable as airline rates, and 
>   I would hope we could do better even if we sign the contract several 
>   years in advance.)

Actually, it seems that the conference rates at IETF hotels are quite
predictable: a couple of months ago it was possible to book a room at
the QC Hilton for $176 CAD/night _during the IETF meeting_; if you check
the Hilton Web site right now, you will find that equivalent rooms at
the Hilton the week before the IETF run about $100 less than during the
meeting.  It's possible that IETF week marks the transition to high
season rates, but in that case why not move the meeting by a week?  This
is not an isolated case: in Beijing, rooms at the Shangri-La were
significantly cheaper both the week before and the week after the IETF;
in Hiroshima, I got a room at the conference hotel the week of the
meeting for ~$50/night less than the conference rate by eschewing "free"
breakfast.  Admittedly the breakfast in Hiroshima was both tasty and
plentiful, but $50?  Not even in Japan.  It seems apparent that the IAOC
"negotiators" are wearing signs around their necks during the hotel
negotiations; the only question is what is written on the signs.  Is it
"I am a moron" or the simple but effective "F*&k Me"?

...
<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

whine, whine, whine

[John Levine]

>My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the 
>survey did not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult 
>to Quebec than other Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more 
>expensive.

The hotels in Quebec are no more expensive than hotels in other cities
where the IETF might meet such as Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver.  If
anything, they're cheaper.  Look up some prices on Hotwire ($101/night
for three stars within 1/2 mi of convention centre) or Expedia or
Orbitz if you don't believe it.  The Laval university dorms, which
people tell me are pretty nice, are a reasonable option if you want
cheap, and are a steal at $51.

Quebec has been in the exact same location for over 400 years.  It's
not like its a secret to anyone who can look at a map.  It may not be
as easy to get to as, say, Toronto or Chicago, but (at least from
where I live) it's a lot easier to get to than a remote armpit like,
oh, San Diego.

Since I am your pal, here is a preview of more things to complain
about:

* There is no usable bus from the airport (it runs only at commuter
  hours) and a taxi costs C$32.50

* Nobody will accept US money at par any more, if they accept it at
  all. Your bank probably does not have a branch in Quebec.

* The social event is in the lower city, which is down steep and
  inconvenient streets, stairs, and/or funicular from the upper city
  where the meeting and most hotels are.  Even worse, you will have to
  go up those steep streets, stairs, and/or funicular after the event
  when you are too drunk to remember where your hotel is.

* The city has historic monuments which are insulting to the Americans
  who failed to capture the city in 1775.

* And worst of all, everyone speaks French.

See you all there,
John

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Stephan Wenger]

Vancouver is pretty expensive in summer. Can be twice the rate of November.  
Weather.
Stephan
S.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 20, 2011, at 21:49, Henk Uijterwaal  wrote:

> On 21/06/2011 03:24, Randall Gellens wrote:
>> At 3:55 AM +0200 6/20/11, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>> 
>>> May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community
>>> expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing
>>> that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
>>> smaller.
>> 
>> My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the survey 
>> did
>> not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult to Quebec than 
>> other
>> Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more expensive.  My recollection is that
>> after the survey there was much discussion of this issue, with a number of
>> people pointing out a number of fairly important problems with the survey.  
>> Off
>> the top of my head, in addition to not mentioning the travel issue, also
>> included lumping together into "this group" or "that group" cities which are
>> very different in terms of travel connection, venue suitability, cost, etc.
> 
> I checked and the survey said that the advantage of Vancouver (the alternative
> for Quebec) was that travel to Vancouver was a lot easier than to Quebec.
> 
> At the time when the survey was taken, Quebec had the advantage that there was
> a much wider range of alternative/cheaper hotels available than in Vancouver
> within reasonable distance of the meeting venue.
> 
> Of course, room rates outside the host hotel are not under the control of the
> IETF and can change in the 2 years between fixing the location and the actual
> meeting.
> 
> Henk
> 
> -- 
> --
> Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
>  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
>  Phone: +31.6.55861746
> --
> 
> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
> (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Henk Uijterwaal]

On 21/06/2011 03:24, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 3:55 AM +0200 6/20/11, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> 
>>  May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community
>>  expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing
>>  that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
>>  smaller.
> 
> My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the survey 
> did
> not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult to Quebec than 
> other
> Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more expensive.  My recollection is that
> after the survey there was much discussion of this issue, with a number of
> people pointing out a number of fairly important problems with the survey.  
> Off
> the top of my head, in addition to not mentioning the travel issue, also
> included lumping together into "this group" or "that group" cities which are
> very different in terms of travel connection, venue suitability, cost, etc.

I checked and the survey said that the advantage of Vancouver (the alternative
for Quebec) was that travel to Vancouver was a lot easier than to Quebec.

At the time when the survey was taken, Quebec had the advantage that there was
a much wider range of alternative/cheaper hotels available than in Vancouver
within reasonable distance of the meeting venue.

Of course, room rates outside the host hotel are not under the control of the
IETF and can change in the 2 years between fixing the location and the actual
meeting.

Henk

-- 
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
  Phone: +31.6.55861746
--

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Randall Gellens]

At 3:55 AM +0200 6/20/11, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:


 May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community
 expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing
 that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
 smaller.


My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the 
survey did not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult 
to Quebec than other Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more 
expensive.  My recollection is that after the survey there was much 
discussion of this issue, with a number of people pointing out a 
number of fairly important problems with the survey.  Off the top of 
my head, in addition to not mentioning the travel issue, also 
included lumping together into "this group" or "that group" cities 
which are very different in terms of travel connection, venue 
suitability, cost, etc.


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
Learn from your parents' mistake -- use birth control.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: location preferences

[James M. Polk]

At 04:56 PM 6/20/2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:



On 6/20/2011 2:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Speaking only for myself, I will note that the worst IETF experience I
ever had was in Dallas: the location was remote and poor, we were
flooded out of the hotel, alternatives nearby were few, and you needed
a car to go anywhere.


It was, indeed, a horrible venue, along any number of parameters.


Andrew

rumor has it that IETF65 was supposed to be in New Orleans that 
November, but got hit by a little event called Katrina, so (again - 
only rumors) there had to be a mad scramble to find any hotel that 
could take 1400 in 2 months notice.


Don't hold Dallas being hit by a freak storm against the city's 
ability to have a decent conference - especially given more time to 
plan which hotel to stay in.


Fortunately, Dallas has a few other choices that are likely to work 
better, along every parameter we care about.


yes it does

James


> Also, the crime statistics for the city made me

uneasy.


The crime statistics for most American cities and most major 
European cities make me uneasy.  In 1983 I moved to Toronto from 
Washington DC and was amused by the different perspectives about 
crime.  I was told there were a couple of blocks in downtown Toronto 
that weren't very safe for women alone at night.  By contract, 
perhaps 1/3-1/2 of DC was unsafe for almost anyone at night and 
maybe 1/4 for most folk during the day...


I've been ripped off twice in Paris including a double-team 
pocket-picking. Purses and backpacks of IETF have been stolen -- 
including from the middle of meeting rooms(!) -- in Munich, 
Stockholm and I believe some other places.


In any event, if crime statistics are to become a factor in choosing 
IETF venues, the IETF community needs to develop some consensus 
about this, including what the acceptable parameters are.  As of 
now, I believe that's not generally part of the discussion in choosing a venue.


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Getting to Quebec City

[Julien Laganier]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Rescorla  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM, John Levine  wrote:
>> As you may have noticed, flying to Quebec City (YQB) is incredibly
>> expensive.  That's because it's a regional airport with little
>> competion.  Flying to Montreal is usuallly a lot cheaper.  Getting
>> from Trudeau airport in Montreal involves some planning, but it's not
>> hard.  The trip is about four hours; Quebec is big, bigger than any
>> state in the US.
>
> Nitpick alert:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area
>
> Quebec:   Land area=1,365,128 km2   Water Area=176,928 km2
> Alaska:  Land Area: 1,481,347 km2  Water Area=236,507 km2
>
> Perhaps you meant Continental US.

...or Contiguous US, to rule out any misunderstanding :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States

--julien
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: location preferences

[Dave CROCKER]

On 6/20/2011 3:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

Unfortunately, I suspect adding "low crime" to the requirements list, with even 
the weakest of definitions of that, risks dramatically limiting our short list of 
potential venues.



Especially if the definition of low crime means that the venue hotel isn't 
allowed to rip us off by charging $35 for a hamburger...


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Getting to Quebec City

[Randall Gellens]

At 10:43 AM -0500 6/18/11, Mary Barnes wrote:

 As far as renting a car, it is likely a very good choice for anyone 
that is arriving in Montreal later in the day.  I have a choice of 
one direct flight to Montreal that puts me arriving in Montreal > 
7pm.  Even a one stop flight still puts me arriving around that 
time.  So, given my experience in Maastricht with trains and a trip 
that took about 18 hours gate to gate, I plan to rent a car (and 
drop it off in QC on Sunday), which results in a trip < 8 hours 
gate to gate.


I was considering flying to Montreal and taking the train to Quebec 
City, but the only schedule that was reasonable for me involved an 
overnight in Montreal.  I am planning to take the train from Quebec 
City to Montreal on Friday, and fly home from Montreal on Saturday.


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
Few ideas are really bad.  Most are either pre- or post-mature.
  --Jon Postel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: location preferences

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave 
> CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:57 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: location preferences
> 
> In any event, if crime statistics are to become a factor in choosing IETF
> venues, the IETF community needs to develop some consensus about this, 
> including
> what the acceptable parameters are.  As of now, I believe that's not generally
> part of the discussion in choosing a venue.

Unfortunately, I suspect adding "low crime" to the requirements list, with even 
the weakest of definitions of that, risks dramatically limiting our short list 
of potential venues.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: location preferences

[Dave CROCKER]

On 6/20/2011 2:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Speaking only for myself, I will note that the worst IETF experience I
ever had was in Dallas: the location was remote and poor, we were
flooded out of the hotel, alternatives nearby were few, and you needed
a car to go anywhere.


It was, indeed, a horrible venue, along any number of parameters.  Fortunately, 
Dallas has a few other choices that are likely to work better, along every 
parameter we care about.



> Also, the crime statistics for the city made me

uneasy.


The crime statistics for most American cities and most major European cities 
make me uneasy.  In 1983 I moved to Toronto from Washington DC and was amused by 
the different perspectives about crime.  I was told there were a couple of 
blocks in downtown Toronto that weren't very safe for women alone at night.  By 
contract, perhaps 1/3-1/2 of DC was unsafe for almost anyone at night and maybe 
1/4 for most folk during the day...


I've been ripped off twice in Paris including a double-team pocket-picking. 
Purses and backpacks of IETF have been stolen -- including from the middle of 
meeting rooms(!) -- in Munich, Stockholm and I believe some other places.


In any event, if crime statistics are to become a factor in choosing IETF 
venues, the IETF community needs to develop some consensus about this, including 
what the acceptable parameters are.  As of now, I believe that's not generally 
part of the discussion in choosing a venue.


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

location preferences (was: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:02:24PM -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:
> rooms, Phoenix or Dallas are not bad choices. Dallas is slightly better due
> to air connections.  Houston is not a good choice under any circumstance

Speaking only for myself, I will note that the worst IETF experience I
ever had was in Dallas: the location was remote and poor, we were
flooded out of the hotel, alternatives nearby were few, and you needed
a car to go anywhere.  Also, the crime statistics for the city made me
uneasy.  

All this goes, I think, to show that one cannot satisfy everyone at once.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)]

Same in my case!

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:26 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't
exorbitant?


BTW, I found that like with many previous IETF meetings, if you
call your local travel department, they can often get far cheaper rates
for the rooms at the hotel. For some reason, the IETF "negotiates" rates
that seem to be MSRP.  For this one, for example, I got something like a
%40 discount on the IETF rate.

--Tom


> But that was then and now is now 8->.  One could simply say "suck it
up".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
>> Henk Uijterwaal
>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:55 PM
>> To: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't
>> exorbitant?
>> 
>> On 19/06/2011 08:01, Glen Zorn wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> 
 Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly
>> inappropriate for
 IETF to be meeting in venues where the "conference hotels" are so
 expensive.
>> 
>> May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the
>> community
>> expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities,
>> knowing
>> that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative
hotels
>> smaller.
>> 
>> Henk
>> 
>> --
>>
---
>> ---
>> Henk Uijterwaal   Email:
henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
>>  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
>>  Phone: +31.6.55861746
>>
---
>> ---
>> 
>> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that
day.
>> (John Glanfield, on an engineering
>> project)
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Mary Barnes]

Exactly.   Given that we spend most of our days in air conditioned meeting
rooms, Phoenix or Dallas are not bad choices. Dallas is slightly better due
to air connections.  Houston is not a good choice under any circumstance
IMHO - I don't think A/C can remove enough humidity to make it comfortable
in July.

Personally, I have no issue with Minneapolis in November or March - again we
spend most of the time in meeting rooms, so do we really care that much
about the weather outside?

Mary.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM, John C Klensin  wrote:

>
>
> --On Monday, June 20, 2011 13:32 -0400 Michael Richardson
>  wrote:
>
> >...
> > It's a peak season destination.  We seem to do this a lot.
> > March would be no better, but early November there would be, I
> > think, low peak.
> > What's a non-peak destination for July?
>
> Phoenix.  Probably Houston or Fort Worth.  Wellington or
> somewhere on the South Island that doesn't attract skiers.
> Amundsen-Scott base: although I doubt that they have adequate
> conference facilities, yesterday's mean temperature was circa
> -89F and "daytime" is still several months off.  Other silly
> suggestions on request (although I don't personally consider
> some of the first few silly).
>
>   john
>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, June 20, 2011 13:32 -0400 Michael Richardson
 wrote:

>...
> It's a peak season destination.  We seem to do this a lot.  
> March would be no better, but early November there would be, I
> think, low peak. 
> What's a non-peak destination for July?

Phoenix.  Probably Houston or Fort Worth.  Wellington or
somewhere on the South Island that doesn't attract skiers.
Amundsen-Scott base: although I doubt that they have adequate
conference facilities, yesterday's mean temperature was circa
-89F and "daytime" is still several months off.  Other silly
suggestions on request (although I don't personally consider
some of the first few silly).

   john



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

IETF-meta (Was: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?)

[Richard L. Barnes]

Just a reminder, originally posted September 2010:

NEW NON-IETF LIST ANNOUNCEMENT

IETF Meta-Discussions 

This group is dedicated to the discussion of ancillary issues of interest to 
the IETF community, especially discussions about how IETF discussions and 
meetings should work. 
-- IETF meeting locations / travel 
-- Email composition design patterns 
-- Anything related to DiffServ politics





On Jun 20, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
>> "Ole" == Ole Jacobsen  writes:
>Ole> Here is the tradeoff:
> 
>Ole> "The community" has expressed a strong preference for one-roof
>Ole> venues [which often translates to convention center + hotel
>Ole> next door in our case] in a city setting (City West and
>Ole> Maastricht being non-examples).
> 
>Ole> This leads to (generally speaking):
> 
>Ole> * Somewhat expensive main hotel rates (although I agree that
>Ole> hotel rates seem to be as variable and unpredictable as airline
>Ole> rates, and I would hope we could do better even if we sign the
>Ole> contract several years in advance.)
> 
> okay, but why Quebec City in the summer?
> It's a peak season destination.  We seem to do this a lot.  
> March would be no better, but early November there would be, I think, low 
> peak.
> What's a non-peak destination for July?  Maybe I'm wrong about Quebec.
> 
>Ole> * More choices in the city nearby ranging from apartment
>Ole> rentals, smaller hotels etc, etc.
> 
>Ole> The second item is intended to address your "inclusive"
>Ole> point. As has been pointed out, QC offers a good range of
>Ole> hotels at various price points.
> 
> I'm staying at Laval University resident for $61/night.  Hotwire did
> find a few places equal in distance for ~$108, but the trip was harder
> in my opinion.  I might bring my folding bike, or not (I'm coming by
> train).  There are apparently dozens of buses that travel the 6km
> stretch of Rene Levesque, but I'm doubtful that many will run after 8pm,
> so I'm counting on a few taxi rides.
> 
> I think we will be relatively happy in Quebec.
> 
> -- 
> ]   He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!   |  firewalls  
> [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net 
> architect[
> ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device 
> driver[
>   Kyoto Plus: watch the video 
>  then sign the petition. 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Simon Perreault]

On 2011-06-20 13:32, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I'm staying at Laval University resident for $61/night.  Hotwire did
> find a few places equal in distance for ~$108, but the trip was harder
> in my opinion.  I might bring my folding bike, or not (I'm coming by
> train).  There are apparently dozens of buses that travel the 6km
> stretch of Rene Levesque, but I'm doubtful that many will run after 8pm,
> so I'm counting on a few taxi rides.

Bus to/from Laval University is very frequent and quick. You'll be fine
until around midnight.

This summer a new "bike boulevard" will also be introduced to make it
super easy to bike from the university to the parliament (across the
street from the IETF venue). So that would be another good solution. Let
me know if you want more information.

> I think we will be relatively happy in Quebec.

:)

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source--> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server   --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Michael Richardson]

> "Ole" == Ole Jacobsen  writes:
Ole> Here is the tradeoff:

Ole> "The community" has expressed a strong preference for one-roof
Ole> venues [which often translates to convention center + hotel
Ole> next door in our case] in a city setting (City West and
Ole> Maastricht being non-examples).

Ole> This leads to (generally speaking):

Ole> * Somewhat expensive main hotel rates (although I agree that
Ole> hotel rates seem to be as variable and unpredictable as airline
Ole> rates, and I would hope we could do better even if we sign the
Ole> contract several years in advance.)

okay, but why Quebec City in the summer?
It's a peak season destination.  We seem to do this a lot.  
March would be no better, but early November there would be, I think, low peak.
What's a non-peak destination for July?  Maybe I'm wrong about Quebec.

Ole> * More choices in the city nearby ranging from apartment
Ole> rentals, smaller hotels etc, etc.

Ole> The second item is intended to address your "inclusive"
Ole> point. As has been pointed out, QC offers a good range of
Ole> hotels at various price points.

I'm staying at Laval University resident for $61/night.  Hotwire did
find a few places equal in distance for ~$108, but the trip was harder
in my opinion.  I might bring my folding bike, or not (I'm coming by
train).  There are apparently dozens of buses that travel the 6km
stretch of Rene Levesque, but I'm doubtful that many will run after 8pm,
so I'm counting on a few taxi rides.

I think we will be relatively happy in Quebec.

-- 
]   He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!   |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video 
   then sign the petition. 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Thomas Nadeau]

BTW, I found that like with many previous IETF meetings, if you call 
your local travel department, they can often get far cheaper rates for the 
rooms at the hotel. For some reason, the IETF "negotiates" rates that seem to 
be MSRP.  For this one, for example, I got something like a %40 discount on the 
IETF rate.

--Tom


> But that was then and now is now 8->.  One could simply say "suck it up".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Henk Uijterwaal
>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:55 PM
>> To: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't
>> exorbitant?
>> 
>> On 19/06/2011 08:01, Glen Zorn wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> 
 Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly
>> inappropriate for
 IETF to be meeting in venues where the "conference hotels" are so
 expensive.
>> 
>> May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the
>> community
>> expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities,
>> knowing
>> that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
>> smaller.
>> 
>> Henk
>> 
>> --
>> ---
>> ---
>> Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
>>  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
>>  Phone: +31.6.55861746
>> ---
>> ---
>> 
>> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
>> (John Glanfield, on an engineering
>> project)
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Ole Jacobsen]

Keith,

Here is the tradeoff:

"The community" has expressed a strong preference for one-roof venues 
[which often translates to convention center + hotel next door in our
case] in a city setting (City West and Maastricht being non-examples).

This leads to (generally speaking):

* Somewhat expensive main hotel rates (although I agree that hotel 
  rates seem to be as variable and unpredictable as airline rates, and 
  I would hope we could do better even if we sign the contract several 
  years in advance.)

* More choices in the city nearby ranging from apartment rentals, 
  smaller hotels etc, etc.

The second item is intended to address your "inclusive" point. As has 
been pointed out, QC offers a good range of hotels at various price 
points.

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: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo


On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Keith Moore wrote:

> On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> 
> >> On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly inappropriate 
> >>> for
> >>> IETF to be meeting in venues where the "conference hotels" are so
> >>> expensive.
> > 
> > May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community
> > expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing
> > that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
> > smaller.
> 
> Is it necessary to remind "the community" that consensus of the 
> community is meaningless if the community isn't inclusive?
> 
> Keith
> 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Keith Moore]

On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

> On 19/06/2011 08:01, Glen Zorn wrote:
>> On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> 
>>> Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly inappropriate for
>>> IETF to be meeting in venues where the "conference hotels" are so
>>> expensive.
> 
> May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community
> expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing
> that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
> smaller.

Is it necessary to remind "the community" that consensus of the community is 
meaningless if the community isn't inclusive?

Keith

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [codec] Last Call: (Codec Requirements) to Informational RFC

[Carsten Bormann]

On Jun 20, 2011, at 15:31, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> This is all a sort of confusing point of many IETF documents and not unique 
> to this one. I think the important points is that for many IETF documents, 
> the people listed on the front page are not the authors. Typically the list 
> of authors is a much longer list. And to clarify what I mean by Author, I 
> mean it in the sense that it would used in copyright law. I do think the 
> Acknowledgements section needs to identity anyone who is a contributor to the 
> document. The limit on number of people on the front pages makes it 
> impossible to even put all the authors on the front page if we wanted to. 

Ceterum censeo: A situation that is untenable.

(And that may actually be problematic in countries with droit 
d'auteur/Urheberrecht such as Germany, but that's not my point.)

Gruesse, Carsten

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[John E Drake]

But that was then and now is now 8->.  One could simply say "suck it up".

Sent from my iPhone


> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Henk Uijterwaal
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:55 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't
> exorbitant?
> 
> On 19/06/2011 08:01, Glen Zorn wrote:
> > On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> >> Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly
> inappropriate for
> >> IETF to be meeting in venues where the "conference hotels" are so
> >> expensive.
> 
> May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the
> community
> expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities,
> knowing
> that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
> smaller.
> 
> Henk
> 
> --
> ---
> ---
> Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
>   http://www.uijterwaal.nl
>   Phone: +31.6.55861746
> ---
> ---
> 
> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
>  (John Glanfield, on an engineering
> project)
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?

[Henk Uijterwaal]

On 19/06/2011 08:01, Glen Zorn wrote:
> On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
>> Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly inappropriate for
>> IETF to be meeting in venues where the "conference hotels" are so
>> expensive.

May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community
expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing
that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels
smaller.

Henk

-- 
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
  Phone: +31.6.55861746
--

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08

[Ben Campbell]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06-17
IESG Telechat date: 2011-06-23

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I 
still have a concern about the generation of the PSK.

Major issues:

In my initial Gen-ART review, I made the following comment: The draft says that 
the procedure that the HAAA follows to generate the PSK is out of scope. But 
doesn't the IKE2 initiator need to understand the procedure? If the procedure 
is not defined somewhere, how you achieve any degree of interoperability?

The author responded that the PSK generation was in fact important for 
interoperability, but that the specific procedures have been intentionally left 
to other specifications. It is up to specifications that use this Diameter 
application to define the PSK generation mechanism. Further, the author 
indicated 2 3GPP2 specs that have done this.

I am still concerned that this means that this specification cannot be 
implemented in an interoperable way without effectively profiling it. There is 
no apparent coordination on how such profiling may be done, and by whom. I 
think this is likely to result in implementation islands that can't talk to 
each other. I recognize that there is precedent for doing this, but I think it 
is something that should not be done without careful consideration, 
particularly in a standards track RFC. I leave it to the IESG to confirm 
whether it is appropriate in this circumstance.

I further note that there is  no apparent way to negotiate or declare what PSK 
generation mechanism might be used, if an implementation supports more than one.

Minor Issues: None
Editorial Comments: None


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-law-rfc4869bis-01

[Ben Campbell]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, 
please see the FAQ at .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may 
receive.

Document: draft-law-rfc4869bis-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell  
Review Date: 2011-06-17
IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-13

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.


Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- section 4, 2nd paragraph:

Is this paragraph intended to recommend any specific action for implementors?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04

[Ben Campbell]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, 
please see the FAQ at .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may 
receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06-17
IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-20
IESG Telechat date: 2011-06-23

Summary:

The draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have 
a few editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to final 
publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- general: 

Idnits reports some potential issues. please check.

-- abstract:

The headers say this draft obsoletes these RFCs. Does moving to historical 
obsolete then in that sense? Perhaps the abstract should say something like 
"obsoletes, and moves to historical"

-- section 1, 2nd paragraph: "...designed to help transitioning the Internet..."

Help transition, help in transitioning, or help the transition of

-- section 1, last paragraph:

Please expand 6rd on first mention. Also, Is this meant as an explicit 
recommendation of 6rd as an alternative?

-- section 3, third paragraph: "...same operational burden has manually 
configured tunnels..."

s/has/as

-- section 3, first bullet: "... and in the case the relay is overloaded packet 
loss."

"overloaded, packet loss."

-- section 3, third bullet: "...customer relationship or..."

"... customer relationship between the end-user and the relay operator, or..."

-- section 3, 4th bullet: "In case of the reverse path 6to4 relay and the 
anycast forward 6to4 relay, these have to be open for any address. Only limited 
by the scope of the routing advertisement. "

Awkward sentence followed by a sentence fragment. Can these be reworded?

-- section 3, 5th bullet: "black hole"

Please define "black hole" in this context, or use a more descriptive (I.e. 
less jargony) term.


-- section 4, 2nd paragraph: "It is expected that disabling 6to4 in the IPv6 
Internet will take some time."

Who expects it? The IETF? v6ops? The authors? (or can we just drop "It is 
expected that")

"...deploy native IPv6 service."

s/service/services

-- section 4, numbered list:

It's not clear to me why this is a numbered list rather than an ordinary 
paragraph

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 6/17/11 7:25 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

On 2011-06-17 06:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

On 6/17/11 12:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

not
clearly compatible with the web security model,

How?


"about:blank" in particular is magic with respect to security on the web
in various ways (e.g. it can end up same-origin with http:// pages). So
I think we do need to specify exactly when this magic security behavior
takes place.


The spec is not meant to imply that the special same-origin behaviour
for about:blank is to be inherited by any other about URI, even if other
URIs also return a blank document. Perhaps, I need to make that clearer
in the spec.


Yes, but is it meant to be inherited by "about:blan%6b" ?  That's the 
issue that needs sorting out in terms of normalization, for example.


The current spec draft explicitly says that "about:blan%6b" and 
"about:blank" are equivalent.


I just did some testing on that, since it looks like it won't happen 
otherwise.  You can see the testcase I used at the end of the mail. 
Results are:


Gecko all versions: URI not loaded at all
Chrome 11 stable: document URI is still shown as escaped,
  security magic is done
Chrome 14 dev: same as Chrome 11 stable
WebKit tip: same as Chrome 11 stable
Safari 5: same as Chrome 11 stable
Opera 11.11: URI not loaded at all (or at least the subframe's load
 event doesn't fire).
IE9: Loads error page in the subframe and alerts an access denied error.
 This is the same in stadards, IE8, IE7, and quirks modes (though
 the textual representation of the error varies).

I didn't bother testing older Opera versions; if someone cares please 
feel free to do so.


Note that some browsers have behavior that differs between iframes and 
the url bar.  For the url bar, I observe the following behaviors for 
"about:blan%6b":


Firefox all versions: alert saying the URI is invalid and cannot be
  loaded.
Chrome 11: URL bar shows "about:blank", content area shows a blank
   document.
Chrome 14: redirects to chrome://blank which then gives an "invalid
   URI" error page
WebKit tip: URL bar shows "about:blan%6b", content area shows a blank
document.
Safari 5: As WebKit tip.
Opera 11.11: Redirects to "opera:blank" which gives an "Invalid address"
 error page.
IE9: URL bar shows "about:blan%6b" and an error page is shown.

So it could be argued that Chrome 11, WebKit tip, and Safari 5 do what 
the spec currently calls for.  No other browser does.  And Chrome 14 is 
inconsistent in how it handles this URI depending on the context it's 
encountered in.


-Boris

Testcase:



  
  
var i;
onload = function() {
  i = document.getElementById("iframe");
  i.onload = function() {
try {
  alert(this.contentDocument.documentURI);
  alert(this.contentDocument.documentElement);
} catch(e) { alert(e); }
  }
  i.src = "about:blan%6b";
}
  

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [codec] Last Call: (Codec Requirements) to Informational RFC

[Cullen Jennings]

This is all a sort of confusing point of many IETF documents and not unique to 
this one. I think the important points is that for many IETF documents, the 
people listed on the front page are not the authors. Typically the list of 
authors is a much longer list. And to clarify what I mean by Author, I mean it 
in the sense that it would used in copyright law. I do think the 
Acknowledgements section needs to identity anyone who is a contributor to the 
document. The limit on number of people on the front pages makes it impossible 
to even put all the authors on the front page if we wanted to. 

So my main point is, just because someone is listed on front page or not, 
should not be used to decide if they are an author or not. 

The use of "Ed." has been a bit inconsistent at the IETF and I'm not aware of 
good guidelines on how and when to use it. Traditionally when we have had a few 
people producing the drafts and incorporating work from the multiple people in 
on the mailing list, the people where were actively editing the document have 
often been listed on the front page. There are many exception to this - I was a 
bit cheesed to not be listed on the front page of RFC 4244. 

Back to the matter at hand ... This is a pretty classic sort of document where 
an individual draft got selected as a basis for the WG document, multiple 
people in the WG contributed text, a final draft was produced. Historically, 
most IETF docs like this do not put "Ed" after all the people on the front 
page. However, perhaps we should, I don't really have any strong opinion one 
way or the other. I can confirm that this document, like many documents coming 
out of a WG,  includes contribution from people beyond the list of names on the 
front page. 

Cullen


On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> In this draft, the editors of draft are not named as editors but as authors.
> Thus, I would suggest to follow the example given in
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5620.txt and add an ", Ed." behind the
> names. A list of authors is given in the acknowledgement section of the
> draft.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Christian Hoene
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: codec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:codec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of The IESG
>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:24 PM
>> To: IETF-Announce
>> Cc: co...@ietf.org
>> Subject: [codec] Last Call:  (Codec
>> Requirements) to Informational RFC
>> 
>> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Wideband Audio Codec
>> WG
>> (codec) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Codec Requirements'
>>   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
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>> 
>> Abstract
>> 
>> 
>>   This document provides specific requirements for an Internet audio
>>   codec.  These requirements address quality, sampling rate, bit-rate,
>>   and packet loss robustness, as well as other desirable properties.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-requirements/
>> 
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-requirements/
>> 
>> 
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> codec mailing list
>> co...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> ___
> codec mailing list
> co...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Getting to Quebec City

[Simon Perreault]

We wrote these instructions for those who want to fly to Montréal
instead of Québec:

http://ietf81.ca/?page_id=423

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source--> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server   --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf