Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Shane Kerr]

Russ,

On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>   The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
> 
> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
> schedule:

In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
we see in the Tao of the IETF:

... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 

This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
"annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.

If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!

Thanks,

--
Shane

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

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Glen Zorn]

On 8/23/2011 5:08 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Russ,
> 
> On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>>   The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>>
>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
>> schedule:
> 
> In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
> agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
> we see in the Tao of the IETF:
> 
> ... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
> participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
> scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
> present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 
> 
> This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
> there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
> meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
> time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
> "annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.
> 
> If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Either that or the idea that Friday is an "off day" has to go.  Oh,
wait, it has, a couple of years ago.  Slow learner or just in denial?

> 
> Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Shane
> 
> ___
> 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: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Fully agree. We should consider Friday (morning) as yet another
normal (.5) IETF day or not. 

jaap

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

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Shane Kerr]

Glen,

On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:14 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote:
> > 
> > If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> > extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> > extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> > properly, then this ideology needs to go.
> 
> Either that or the idea that Friday is an "off day" has to go.  Oh,
> wait, it has, a couple of years ago.  

I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that Friday is considered an "off
day". I did not even say that the working group session that I missed
was on a Friday.

What I think is we would get a better use of time by making an agenda
and sticking to it. I think that would make it easier on everyone
attending. I also think that without this, Friday slots will always be
ghetto.

> Slow learner or just in denial?

That's pretty rude. It makes me sad that this kind of mail is "okay" at
the IETF. :(

--
Shane

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Thomas Nadeau]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:34 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier
>  wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> As for the rates, they are high.  Taiwan is expensive,
>> particularly given that the hotels know what our options are
>> when we book the TICC.  The Hyatt knew that foreign visitors
>> needed to use the Hyatt as headquarters and charged
>> accordingly.  Since the time of our site visit, 2 new hotels
>> have been constructed in the vicinity of the TICC (Le Meridien
>> and W), which may provide more competition for Hyatt in these
>> circumstances.  At the time we were working on this event,
>> there were no acceptable options.
> 
> Ray,
> 
> I know you want to find sponsors and go where the sponsors want
> to go.  I accept the explanation that you negotiated as hard as
> you could for both room rates and cancellation policies.  But I
> have to wonder, especially in the light of Lixia's observation
> about the US Govt rate (which, internationally, is often a
> pretty good measure for the higher end of a reasonable rate in a
> given city), whether there is a stopping rule.  We were told in
> Quebec that you had given up on one Southeast Asian city because
> rooms would have cost over USD 300 a night. I don't remember
> hearing about a sponsor there.  What looks like USD 275 net is
> not all that much less than USD 300, especially if the dollar
> continues to sink.
> 
> So, if you had a sponsor for a future meeting at that other
> location, would an estimated USD 300 be acceptable?  USD 350?
> 
> I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
> that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
> another alternative.   If there are no local ones, that
> alternative is usually described as "just say no and go
> elsewhere".  What I'm trying to understand, mostly for the
> future and with the understanding that it is presumably much too
> late for Taipei and the several following meetings, is whether
> you would ever consider that an option for a meeting for which
> you have a sponsor if you hold it in a particular place or if
> you and the IAOC really believe there is no alternative under
> those circumstances.

I think we need to adopt a simple rule of thumb whereby we do not book venues 
where room rates of less than $200 USD are unavailable - sponsor or otherwise.

Tom


> 
>   john
> 
> 
>   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: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Tim Chown]

The room rate I see is 8500 TWD, which is $293 a night.   That is a Grand King 
room, for 2 people.

If you don't put G-23ET in the corporate/group box, it gets much worse!  I'm 
guessing the web link on the IETF site should read 
http://taipei.grand.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/index.jsp?extCorporateId=G-23ET to 
simplify that? 

On the plus side, flying out from Europe the time zones mean I don't need to 
stay Saturday night, so that actually puts the total hotel cost down, since the 
stay is 5 nights not the usual 6 (remembering that you need to fly in/out 
including a Saturday night for the cheaper flight).

Tim

On 23 Aug 2011, at 12:57, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:34 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> As for the rates, they are high.  Taiwan is expensive,
>>> particularly given that the hotels know what our options are
>>> when we book the TICC.  The Hyatt knew that foreign visitors
>>> needed to use the Hyatt as headquarters and charged
>>> accordingly.  Since the time of our site visit, 2 new hotels
>>> have been constructed in the vicinity of the TICC (Le Meridien
>>> and W), which may provide more competition for Hyatt in these
>>> circumstances.  At the time we were working on this event,
>>> there were no acceptable options.
>> 
>> Ray,
>> 
>> I know you want to find sponsors and go where the sponsors want
>> to go.  I accept the explanation that you negotiated as hard as
>> you could for both room rates and cancellation policies.  But I
>> have to wonder, especially in the light of Lixia's observation
>> about the US Govt rate (which, internationally, is often a
>> pretty good measure for the higher end of a reasonable rate in a
>> given city), whether there is a stopping rule.  We were told in
>> Quebec that you had given up on one Southeast Asian city because
>> rooms would have cost over USD 300 a night. I don't remember
>> hearing about a sponsor there.  What looks like USD 275 net is
>> not all that much less than USD 300, especially if the dollar
>> continues to sink.
>> 
>> So, if you had a sponsor for a future meeting at that other
>> location, would an estimated USD 300 be acceptable?  USD 350?
>> 
>> I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
>> that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
>> another alternative.   If there are no local ones, that
>> alternative is usually described as "just say no and go
>> elsewhere".  What I'm trying to understand, mostly for the
>> future and with the understanding that it is presumably much too
>> late for Taipei and the several following meetings, is whether
>> you would ever consider that an option for a meeting for which
>> you have a sponsor if you hold it in a particular place or if
>> you and the IAOC really believe there is no alternative under
>> those circumstances.
> 
> I think we need to adopt a simple rule of thumb whereby we do not book venues 
> where room rates of less than $200 USD are unavailable - sponsor or otherwise.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
>> 
>>  john
>> 
>> 
>>  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

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Tim Chown]

Oh, and *after* you book, it says

Additional Charges  
10.000 Percent service charge

So the charge is 10% higher than what's displayed. It would be nice if the full 
charge was more up front.  People checking for budget in advance may be unaware 
of this.

Tim

On 23 Aug 2011, at 13:22, Tim Chown wrote:

> The room rate I see is 8500 TWD, which is $293 a night.   That is a Grand 
> King room, for 2 people.
> 
> If you don't put G-23ET in the corporate/group box, it gets much worse!  I'm 
> guessing the web link on the IETF site should read 
> http://taipei.grand.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/index.jsp?extCorporateId=G-23ET to 
> simplify that? 
> 
> On the plus side, flying out from Europe the time zones mean I don't need to 
> stay Saturday night, so that actually puts the total hotel cost down, since 
> the stay is 5 nights not the usual 6 (remembering that you need to fly in/out 
> including a Saturday night for the cheaper flight).
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 23 Aug 2011, at 12:57, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:34 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 ...
 As for the rates, they are high.  Taiwan is expensive,
 particularly given that the hotels know what our options are
 when we book the TICC.  The Hyatt knew that foreign visitors
 needed to use the Hyatt as headquarters and charged
 accordingly.  Since the time of our site visit, 2 new hotels
 have been constructed in the vicinity of the TICC (Le Meridien
 and W), which may provide more competition for Hyatt in these
 circumstances.  At the time we were working on this event,
 there were no acceptable options.
>>> 
>>> Ray,
>>> 
>>> I know you want to find sponsors and go where the sponsors want
>>> to go.  I accept the explanation that you negotiated as hard as
>>> you could for both room rates and cancellation policies.  But I
>>> have to wonder, especially in the light of Lixia's observation
>>> about the US Govt rate (which, internationally, is often a
>>> pretty good measure for the higher end of a reasonable rate in a
>>> given city), whether there is a stopping rule.  We were told in
>>> Quebec that you had given up on one Southeast Asian city because
>>> rooms would have cost over USD 300 a night. I don't remember
>>> hearing about a sponsor there.  What looks like USD 275 net is
>>> not all that much less than USD 300, especially if the dollar
>>> continues to sink.
>>> 
>>> So, if you had a sponsor for a future meeting at that other
>>> location, would an estimated USD 300 be acceptable?  USD 350?
>>> 
>>> I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
>>> that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
>>> another alternative.   If there are no local ones, that
>>> alternative is usually described as "just say no and go
>>> elsewhere".  What I'm trying to understand, mostly for the
>>> future and with the understanding that it is presumably much too
>>> late for Taipei and the several following meetings, is whether
>>> you would ever consider that an option for a meeting for which
>>> you have a sponsor if you hold it in a particular place or if
>>> you and the IAOC really believe there is no alternative under
>>> those circumstances.
>> 
>> I think we need to adopt a simple rule of thumb whereby we do not book 
>> venues where room rates of less than $200 USD are unavailable - sponsor or 
>> otherwise.
>> 
>> Tom
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> john
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
> ___
> 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: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Worley, Dale R (Dale)]

> From: Michael StJohns
> 
> Could you refresh my memory as to which hotels we stayed at had this
> policy?  I literally cannot remember having any hotel cancellation
> policy with more than a single night fee ever.

Maastricht had particularly fierce cancellation rules.  I don't
remember the details, but under some circumstances you could have to
pay for the entire stay.

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

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[IETF Chair]

Shane:

>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>>  The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>> 
>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
>> schedule:
> 
> In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
> agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
> we see in the Tao of the IETF:
> 
>... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
>participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
>scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
>present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 
> 
> This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
> there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
> meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
> time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
> "annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.
> 
> If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> properly, then this ideology needs to go.
> 
> Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!

The important dates page for the meeting 
 shows a date for 
the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda.  We try very hard to make no 
changes after the final agenda date.  Sometimes changes are unavoidable because 
the Area Directors learn about WG-specific details that cause conflicts.  That 
said, we do our best to keep to the final agenda.

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

Re: Last Call: (IPv6Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

[Tim Chown]

On 22 Aug 2011, at 23:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> +1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
> go defensive - it isn't saying "IPv4 is evil" or anything silly
> like that, it's just saying "IPv6 is the future".
> 
> RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready
> for it yet, but draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is a step on the way.

I agree with Ned and Brian.

Tim

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:57 -0400 Thomas Nadeau
 wrote:

>> I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
>> that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
>> another alternative.   If there are no local ones, that
>> alternative is usually described as "just say no and go
>> elsewhere".  What I'm trying to understand, mostly for the
>> future and with the understanding that it is presumably much
>> too late for Taipei and the several following meetings, is
>> whether you would ever consider that an option for a meeting
>> for which you have a sponsor if you hold it in a particular
>> place or if you and the IAOC really believe there is no
>> alternative under those circumstances.
> 
> I think we need to adopt a simple rule of thumb whereby we do
> not book venues where room rates of less than $200 USD are
> unavailable - sponsor or otherwise.

Tom, I'm usually not the one to leap to the defense of the IAOC
on meeting costs, but I think we need to be very careful about
such rules.  For many of us, total cost of meeting -- total
hotel room costs (which may be different from quoted rate), air
fares and other transport, days away from home, meals,
registration fee (for this meeting, I notice what I think is is
a new incentive to register at the last minute prior to the
"early" cutoff), even the cost of beer for those who depend on
it to lubricate conversations -- is far more important than the
hotel bill alone.  In many cities, rooms quoted at USD 200 (or
much less) are easy to find, but one can make up for it in taxi
charges or Internet access surcharges.  Others may have
different constraints -- I've worked with companies for whom
transport to a meeting comes out of different accounts than
being there and therefore counts either more or less.  And hotel
(and other on-site) costs can fluctuate considerably as exchange
rates change.

Of course, the difficulty of calculating total meeting costs is
that each of us has different habits, comes from different
locations, has different travel perferences, etc.  IAOC claims
that they try to approximate that number and consider it.  I
think they often get it wrong but acknowledge that it is
probably impossible to get it right.

So I'm opposed to a USD 200 (or any other number) firm limit on
hotel rates.  At the same time, I continue to wish that the IAOC
would be more open with the community about how these decisions
are made and, in particular, how the tradeoffs between
sponsorship (and hence lower costs to the IETF for meeting
infrastructure and arrangements) and meetings costs to attendees
are made... open enough that the community could give
substantive guidance on the subject, guidance that I assume the
IAOC would follow if it were coherent and plausible.

Being a little cynical, I do wonder if we would see a difference
in meeting selection patterns if all IASA staff and IAOC members
were required to stay in hotel or other rooms costing no more
than, say, your USD 200 per night figure (including transport,
if necessary, to and from the meeting site).  It might help to
calibrate the pain level.  The idea is not realistic for a
number of reasons, but might make an interesting
thought-experiment.

 john

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Thomas Nadeau]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:

>> From: Michael StJohns
>> 
>> Could you refresh my memory as to which hotels we stayed at had this
>> policy?  I literally cannot remember having any hotel cancellation
>> policy with more than a single night fee ever.
> 
> Maastricht had particularly fierce cancellation rules.  I don't
> remember the details, but under some circumstances you could have to
> pay for the entire stay.

One would think that when the IETF negotiates the room block/fees, that 
this could be done as well. After all we are in many cases, booking a 
significant portion of the hotel in question in addition to its conference 
facilities.

--Tom



> 
> Dale
> ___
> 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: Last Call: (IPv6Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

[Eric Rosen]

This document really wants to be a BCP that makes deployment and strategy
recommendations.  But for some reason it has been disguised as a standards
track document (i.e., as a protocol specification), and the result is that
RFC 2119 language is being used in a very peculiar way.  I think this is
what is responsible for the impression that the document is "bizarre".

Some examples:

  a best effort SHOULD be made to update existing hardware and software
  to enable IPv6 support.

RFC 2119 language is used to distinguish optional from mandatory features in
an implementation.  But "a best effort ... to update existing hardware and
software" does not seem to be a feature of an implementation.  I just don't
understand what this statement requires, or how one would tell if a given
implementation is compliant with it or not.

Current IP implementations SHOULD support IPv6.

Presumably, "current" implementations support whatever they support, I don't
really understand what is being required here.  

New IP implementations MUST support IPv6.

Is there some objective difference between a "new" implementation and a
"current" implementation?  How many lines of code have to change before a
"current" implementation becomes a "new" one?

But I don't really see why "new" vs. "current" is even relevant.  If there
were a lot of folks writing IP implementations from scratch, using only the
RFCs for guidance, it would be really important to make sure they know about
IPv6.  Does anyone think that that's a real problem?

It may be a problem that new products continue to come out without IPv6
support, but in general, those new products use current implementations.  So
again, there doesn't actually seem to be a useful requirement expressed.

  IPv6 support MUST be equivalent or better in quality and
  functionality when compared to IPv4 support in an IP
  implementation.

So if the v6 support has more bugs than the v4 support (and hence lesser
quality), the implementation would be out of compliance with standards?  I
don't think IETF standards set quality metrics on implementations.

As for functionality, consider the following bit of functionality: the
ability to communicate with an IPv4-only host.  This is a piece of
functionality that v4 support has but v6 support doesn't.  So I guess no
implementation could ever meet the "requirements" of this document.

Finally:

  MUST NOT require IPv4 for proper and complete function.

Suppose the "proper and complete" function of a box requires the downloading
of updates from a server the box cannot necessarily reach using IPv6.  Then
IPv4 would be required for proper and complete function of the box.  Or
perhaps the box is a network monitoring appliance of some sort, and has to
use both IPv4 and IPv6 to do its job.  In this case too, v4 is required for
"proper and complete" function, but that shouldn't lead anyone to say that
the box is non-compliant with IETF standards.

This document just does not say what it means.  The RFC 2119 language is not
being used in the usual manner, it's really being used for its rhetorical
value.  This is not appropriate.  



















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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08

[Ben Campbell]

Thanks for the response. One further comment below. I removed sections that I 
think have been sufficiently addressed:

On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
[…]

> 
>> -- section 3: First paragraph: " Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a
>> variable of attacks on the label assigned by the Egress node. "
>> 
>> Is "variable" the correct word?
>> 
> 
> It seems to describe the sentence well. We are open to any suggestion. 
> 

Maybe "variety"?

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

Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09

[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-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-08-22
IESG Telechat date: 2011-08-25

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. This 
version addresses the editorial comments from my previous review, except for 
one that I understand from separate email will be dealt with as an RFC editor 
note.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

None
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Nomcom 2011-2012: Call for Nominations

[NomCom Chair]

Hi All,

The 2011-2012 Nominating committee is seeking nominations from now 
until October 2, 2011. The list of open positions can be found at:

https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/

Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages by 
selecting the Nominate link at the top of the page.  The URL for
NomCom 2011-2012 pages is: 

https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/

Nominations may also be made by email to nomco...@ietf.org.
If you do so, please include the word "Nominate" in the Subject and 
indicate in the email who is being nominated, their email address (to
confirm acceptance of the nomination), and the position for which you 
are making the nomination. If you wish to nominate someone via email 
for more than one position, please use separate emails to do so.

Self nomination is welcome. 

NomCom 2011-2012 will follow the policy for "Open Disclosure of Willing 
Nominees" described in RFC 5680.  As stated in RFC 5680: "The list of 
nominees willing to be considered for positions under review in the 
current NomCom cycle is not confidential". Willing Nominees for each 
position will be publicly listed.  The public nominee list will be 
updated at least once a week and possibly more often as nominations are 
received.

With the exception of publicly listing willing nominees, the 
confidentiality requirements of RFC 3777 remain in effect.  All 
feedback and NomCom deliberations will remain confidential and not 
disclosed. 

Because the list of nominees this year is public, we will accept 
feedback on the nominees starting August 23, 2011. Per RFC 5680, we 
will accept feedback from the entire IETF community on all the nominees. 

If you wish to provide anonymous feedback, the chair or any of the 
members will be happy to handle this for you.  The Nominating Committee 
chair can be reached at nomcom-ch...@ietf.org and the entire nominating 
committee can be reached at nomco...@ietf.org. The email addresses of 
individual NomCom members is also on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages.

In addition to nominations, the Nominating Committee is actively
seeking community input on the jobs that need to be filled.  We have
received the job descriptions from the IAB, IESG, and IAOC and they can
be found at:

https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iab-requirements
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iesg-requirements
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iaoc-requirements

However, we also need the community's views and input on the jobs 
within each organization. If you have ideas on job responsibilities 
(more, less, different), please let us know.  Please send suggestions 
and feedback to nomco...@ietf.org. 

Thank you,

Suresh Krishnan
Chair, NomCom 2011-2012
nomcom-ch...@ietf.org
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Nomcom 2011-2012: Call for Nominations

[NomCom Chair]

Hi All,

The 2011-2012 Nominating committee is seeking nominations from now 
until October 2, 2011. The list of open positions can be found at:

https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/

Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages by 
selecting the Nominate link at the top of the page.  The URL for
NomCom 2011-2012 pages is: 

https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/

Nominations may also be made by email to nomco...@ietf.org.
If you do so, please include the word "Nominate" in the Subject and 
indicate in the email who is being nominated, their email address (to
confirm acceptance of the nomination), and the position for which you 
are making the nomination. If you wish to nominate someone via email 
for more than one position, please use separate emails to do so.

Self nomination is welcome. 

NomCom 2011-2012 will follow the policy for "Open Disclosure of Willing 
Nominees" described in RFC 5680.  As stated in RFC 5680: "The list of 
nominees willing to be considered for positions under review in the 
current NomCom cycle is not confidential". Willing Nominees for each 
position will be publicly listed.  The public nominee list will be 
updated at least once a week and possibly more often as nominations are 
received.

With the exception of publicly listing willing nominees, the 
confidentiality requirements of RFC 3777 remain in effect.  All 
feedback and NomCom deliberations will remain confidential and not 
disclosed. 

Because the list of nominees this year is public, we will accept 
feedback on the nominees starting August 23, 2011. Per RFC 5680, we 
will accept feedback from the entire IETF community on all the nominees. 

If you wish to provide anonymous feedback, the chair or any of the 
members will be happy to handle this for you.  The Nominating Committee 
chair can be reached at nomcom-ch...@ietf.org and the entire nominating 
committee can be reached at nomco...@ietf.org. The email addresses of 
individual NomCom members is also on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages.

In addition to nominations, the Nominating Committee is actively
seeking community input on the jobs that need to be filled.  We have
received the job descriptions from the IAB, IESG, and IAOC and they can
be found at:

https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iab-requirements
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iesg-requirements
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iaoc-requirements

However, we also need the community's views and input on the jobs 
within each organization. If you have ideas on job responsibilities 
(more, less, different), please let us know.  Please send suggestions 
and feedback to nomco...@ietf.org. 

Thank you,

Suresh Krishnan
Chair, NomCom 2011-2012
nomcom-ch...@ietf.org
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Thomas Nadeau]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:57 -0400 Thomas Nadeau
>  wrote:
> 
>>> I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
>>> that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
>>> another alternative.   If there are no local ones, that
>>> alternative is usually described as "just say no and go
>>> elsewhere".  What I'm trying to understand, mostly for the
>>> future and with the understanding that it is presumably much
>>> too late for Taipei and the several following meetings, is
>>> whether you would ever consider that an option for a meeting
>>> for which you have a sponsor if you hold it in a particular
>>> place or if you and the IAOC really believe there is no
>>> alternative under those circumstances.
>> 
>> I think we need to adopt a simple rule of thumb whereby we do
>> not book venues where room rates of less than $200 USD are
>> unavailable - sponsor or otherwise.
> 
> Tom, I'm usually not the one to leap to the defense of the IAOC
> on meeting costs, but I think we need to be very careful about
> such rules.  For many of us, total cost of meeting -- total
> hotel room costs (which may be different from quoted rate), air
> fares and other transport, days away from home, meals,
> registration fee (for this meeting, I notice what I think is is
> a new incentive to register at the last minute prior to the
> "early" cutoff), even the cost of beer for those who depend on
> it to lubricate conversations -- is far more important than the
> hotel bill alone.  In many cities, rooms quoted at USD 200 (or
> much less) are easy to find, but one can make up for it in taxi
> charges or Internet access surcharges.  Others may have
> different constraints -- I've worked with companies for whom
> transport to a meeting comes out of different accounts than
> being there and therefore counts either more or less.  And hotel
> (and other on-site) costs can fluctuate considerably as exchange
> rates change.
> 
> Of course, the difficulty of calculating total meeting costs is
> that each of us has different habits, comes from different
> locations, has different travel perferences, etc.  IAOC claims
> that they try to approximate that number and consider it.  I
> think they often get it wrong but acknowledge that it is
> probably impossible to get it right.

I agree that the overall cost of each meeting is what really counts.
HOWEVER, most of us work at companies which have rules for 
limits on specific charges (i.e.: hotel room rates).  Having room rates
(fees/taxes/etc...) that exceed about $200 usually gets people in 
trouble with their travel departments, not to mention the overall cost
of the meeting.  I think this was discussed at the last Plenary where
typical meeting venues in Asia were having very significantly higher
costs associated with meeting venues/hotels.

> So I'm opposed to a USD 200 (or any other number) firm limit on
> hotel rates.  At the same time, I continue to wish that the IAOC
> would be more open with the community about how these decisions
> are made and, in particular, how the tradeoffs between
> sponsorship (and hence lower costs to the IETF for meeting
> infrastructure and arrangements) and meetings costs to attendees
> are made... open enough that the community could give
> substantive guidance on the subject, guidance that I assume the
> IAOC would follow if it were coherent and plausible.

I am not advocating for any hard limit. I said "about $200".  I think
most people would agree that $210 or even $230 would be acceptable, 
whereas $300 is getting a bit silly.

> Being a little cynical, I do wonder if we would see a difference
> in meeting selection patterns if all IASA staff and IAOC members
> were required to stay in hotel or other rooms costing no more
> than, say, your USD 200 per night figure (including transport,
> if necessary, to and from the meeting site).  It might help to
> calibrate the pain level.  The idea is not realistic for a
> number of reasons, but might make an interesting
> thought-experiment.

Indeed. Budget is budget.

--Tom




> 
> john
> 
> 

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

RE: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Worley, Dale R (Dale)]

> From: Thomas Nadeau
> 
> One would think that when the IETF negotiates the room block/fees,
> that this could be done as well. After all we are in many cases,
> booking a significant portion of the hotel in question in addition to
> its conference facilities.

Speaking as someone who has never arranged a convention...  There must
be some difficulty given the IETF's use of sponsors.  E.g., for the
Maastricht meeting, we were sponsored by SIDN, a Netherlands company.
This automatically restricted us to a fairly small number of venues,
which is going to make it harder to get good terms when negotiating.

In regard to cancellations, the situation is inherently poor -- if the
bulk of the hotel's business (or the profitable part of it) is due to
conventions, a freed-up room may not be easily resellable, as there is
unlikely to be another convention in the same facility at the same
time.

At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
price without committing to buying any particular number of rooms,
versus only a limited number of possible sellers.

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

RE: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Ole Jacobsen]

You said:

"At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
 price without committing to buying any particular number of rooms,
 versus only a limited number of possible sellers."

When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a 
certain number of rooms (the "room block"). There are certainly pros
and cons with group rates. On the pro side: guaranteed rate (but not 
necessarily the absolute lowest available at any time), included 
benefits (breakfast, Internet, if applicable), free or subsidized
meeting rooms where applicable. On the cons side is of course the
cancellation policy (not that it has to be as onerous as this one).

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


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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Thomas Nadeau]

But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more 
reasonable rates than $200+ night?

--Tom



On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

> 
> You said:
> 
> "At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
> price without committing to buying any particular number of rooms,
> versus only a limited number of possible sellers."
> 
> When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a 
> certain number of rooms (the "room block"). There are certainly pros
> and cons with group rates. On the pro side: guaranteed rate (but not 
> necessarily the absolute lowest available at any time), included 
> benefits (breakfast, Internet, if applicable), free or subsidized
> meeting rooms where applicable. On the cons side is of course the
> cancellation policy (not that it has to be as onerous as this one).
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Ole Jacobsen]

Probably not for that hotel in that location in the current economic 
climate etc. I wasn't the negotiator :-)


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 Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

> 
>   But surely based on that block purchasing power we could 
>   negotiate more reasonable rates than $200+ night?
> 
>   --Tom
> 
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[David Morris]

Reasonable has to be measured on the basis of what the venue might expect
for alternative customers at the time of negotiation, not our world view 
of hotels at the time of meetings.

For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same 
season, etc. at the same venue.

It is a separate discussion re. whether the overall cost or distribution
of categories of costs is optimum for the group.

Dave Morris

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

> 
>   But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more 
> reasonable rates than $200+ night?
> 
>   --Tom
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
> > 
> > You said:
> > 
> > "At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
> > price without committing to buying any particular number of rooms,
> > versus only a limited number of possible sellers."
> > 
> > When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a 
> > certain number of rooms (the "room block"). There are certainly pros
> > and cons with group rates. On the pro side: guaranteed rate (but not 
> > necessarily the absolute lowest available at any time), included 
> > benefits (breakfast, Internet, if applicable), free or subsidized
> > meeting rooms where applicable. On the cons side is of course the
> > cancellation policy (not that it has to be as onerous as this one).
> > 
> > Ole
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Discussing a DISCUSS - down-refs in draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02

[SM]

There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:



The IETF LC
(https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=9680&tid=1314107697)
did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321.  There is no doubt in my
mind that no one will object to these downrefs, but they need to be explicitly
called out in the IETF LC.



The intent of this message is to discuss the DISCUSS as there seems 
to be a misunderstanding about down-refs.  I do not consider it as 
inappropriate for the AD to have lodged the above DISCUSS.


The argument for this DISCUSS is that the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 
5321 have not been called out during the IETF Last Call.  The quick 
fix is to rerun the Last Call.  That approach would not materially 
affect the outcome.


I have pointed out during the Last Call that there are down-refs [1] 
and provided a justification for them.  Appendix B of 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 contains a RFC 4897 statement/ disclaimer.


I would be grateful if the IESG or Area Director can clarify the 
DISCUSS criteria used [2] given that BCP 97 allows for annotations in 
handling of normative references in Standards-Track documents.


If there is appropriate community review, is it acceptable to add a 
downward reference even though it was not explicitly called out 
previously?  In other words, why should there be another Last Call?


Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68421.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:

> For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
> we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same 
> season, etc. at the same venue.

_And_ having negotiated at the same time, as Ray pointed out already
in this thread.  Every time one of these discussions comes up, people
seem to forget that the negotiations are happening several years in
advance of the actual event.  Agreements about the future almost
always require the party buying to take some risk that they will be
paying more than the going rate at the time the actual sale date
arrives.  In the case of hotel agreements, the block negotiator takes
some risk that there will be a lower price or otherwise better terms
actually available at the time of the block being used.  The hotel
takes some risk that the block negotiator is unable to deliver the
actual room occupancy negotiated.  Each is making a bet.  

If you don't like the cancellation terms (or other terms of the bet),
don't participate in it: don't make a reservation in the IETF block.

A

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

RE: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Worley, Dale R (Dale)]

> From: Ole Jacobsen [o...@cisco.com]
> 
> When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a
> certain number of rooms (the "room block").

Are we really committing?  Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel
fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to
paying the difference?  And of course, there are cancels after the
cutoff, which reduce the number of rooms sold in the block (unless the
IETF is picking up the tab for those, too).

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Fred Baker]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

> 
>   But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more 
> reasonable rates than $200+ night?

Well, the Cisco corporate rate at the Hyatt is also $265/night. Given that the 
hotel is around the corner from the Cisco office, we have some traffic there.

I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates as 
measured in US dollars.

>   --Tom
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You said:
>> 
>> "At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
>> price without committing to buying any particular number of rooms,
>> versus only a limited number of possible sellers."
>> 
>> When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a 
>> certain number of rooms (the "room block"). There are certainly pros
>> and cons with group rates. On the pro side: guaranteed rate (but not 
>> necessarily the absolute lowest available at any time), included 
>> benefits (breakfast, Internet, if applicable), free or subsidized
>> meeting rooms where applicable. On the cons side is of course the
>> cancellation policy (not that it has to be as onerous as this one).
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> 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: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Fred Baker]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:

> Are we really committing?  Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel
> fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to
> paying the difference? 

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Donald Eastlake]

Most hotel contracts I've signed have a clause called "Attrition"
which calls for payment if the rooms actually taken fall below some
percentage of the "room block", like below 90% or the like.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com


On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Fred Baker  wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>
>> Are we really committing?  Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel
>> fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to
>> paying the difference?
>
> yes.
> ___
> 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: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Ole Jacobsen]

Exactly.

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 Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> Most hotel contracts I've signed have a clause called "Attrition"
> which calls for payment if the rooms actually taken fall below some
> percentage of the "room block", like below 90% or the like.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street
>  Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Fred Baker  wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> >
> >> Are we really committing?  Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel
> >> fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to
> >> paying the difference?
> >
> > yes.
> > ___
> > 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: Discussing a DISCUSS - down-refs in draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02

[Sam Hartman]

> "SM" == SM   writes:

SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
SM> 

SM> The IETF LC
SM> 
(https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=9680&tid=1314107697)
SM> did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321.  There is no
SM> doubt in my mind that no one will object to these downrefs, but
SM> they need to be explicitly called out in the IETF LC.

SM> 

SM> The intent of this message is to discuss the DISCUSS as there
SM> seems to be a misunderstanding about down-refs.  I do not
SM> consider it as inappropriate for the AD to have lodged the above
SM> DISCUSS.

SM> The argument for this DISCUSS is that the downrefs to RFC 4954
SM> and 5321 have not been called out during the IETF Last Call.
SM> The quick fix is to rerun the Last Call.  That approach would
SM> not materially affect the outcome.

SM> I have pointed out during the Last Call that there are down-refs
SM> [1] and provided a justification for them.  Appendix B of
SM> draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 contains a RFC 4897 statement/
SM> disclaimer.

Hey, I think I read RFC 4897 once.
Someone's actually trying to use that? Who knew!

Seriously, section 3.1 of RFC 4897 makes it clear that an RFC 4897
downward reference does not need an RFC 3967-style comment in the IETF
last call.  As best I can tell, this discuss should be cleared because
The AD is confused about what BCP is being applied here.

Really this is one of those situations where we're all sitting around
the table playing a nice game of "publish that doc" and people have to
get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF rules erata and the IETF
player's magazine articles with rules commentary and figure out what is
going on.:-)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Livingood, Jason]

On 8/23/11 3:09 PM, "Fred Baker"  wrote:

>I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates
>as measured in US dollars.

I suspect Fred is spot on -- current exchange rate fluctuation is
undoubtedly a huge issue. I would speculate that most hotels would
negotiate for payment in their local currency and that since the time of
that agreement the US dollar has depreciated against most currencies
(blame 'quantitative easing' I suppose).

Jason

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 8/23/11 4:34 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> On 8/23/11 3:09 PM, "Fred Baker"  wrote:
> 
>> I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates
>> as measured in US dollars.
> 
> I suspect Fred is spot on -- current exchange rate fluctuation is
> undoubtedly a huge issue. I would speculate that most hotels would
> negotiate for payment in their local currency and that since the time of
> that agreement the US dollar has depreciated against most currencies
> (blame 'quantitative easing' I suppose).

Come on, folks, let's be honest: all-in-one conference hotels, and
hotels connected to conference centers, charge exorbitant amounts of
money for the convenience of sleeping in close proximity to the meeting
rooms. Thanks to tips from other cost-conscious IETFers, I was able to
find hotels costing $100 (IETF 81) and $170 (IETF 82) a night cheaper
than the official venue. Sure, I have to walk for five minutes to get
back and forth to the meeting rooms, but that seems like a small price
to pay. If you don't like the recommended hotels, vote with your feet.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Glen Zorn]

On 8/23/2011 10:13 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

...

>   I agree that the overall cost of each meeting is what really counts.
> HOWEVER, most of us work at companies which have rules for 
> limits on specific charges (i.e.: hotel room rates).  Having room rates
> (fees/taxes/etc...) that exceed about $200 usually gets people in 
> trouble with their travel departments, not to mention the overall cost
> of the meeting.  I think this was discussed at the last Plenary where
> typical meeting venues in Asia were having very significantly higher
> costs associated with meeting venues/hotels.

This suggests that perhaps we should look a bit more a _untypical_
venues.  As I attempted (apparently with little success) to point out on
this list, once you expand your scope outside of NE Asia (by which I
mean Japan, South Korea and the easy targets in China (Beijing,
Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.), a whole new world opens up...

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Eric Burger]

IAOC members are like all other IETF members. We pay for our hotel rooms. That 
means when I have a full-time job that wants me at the IETF, I stay at the 
convention hotel. When I don't have a full-time sponsor, like now, I stayed at:

o   A charming bed & breakfast 500m from the Maastricht convention center. The 
entire week was the price of one night at the NH. In 2010 US Dollars, about USD 
215. In 2011 US Dollars, about USD 260. Then again, that was per week, not per 
night.

o   A Hilton in Beijing. That was free for me, as I had tons of HHonors points. 
Taxi ~ USD 6/day.

o   The Hilton in Prague. Score! More HHonors points. Before anyone cries foul, 
I am NOT on the IAOC venue selection committee, so no, I had no influence on 
picking a Hilton.

o   A tourist hotel 2.5km from the Quebec convention center. That hotel was CDN 
140/night less expensive than the Hilton. CDN 20/day, including tip, if you 
took a taxi by yourself. Much cheaper if you took mass transit. Yes, now I am 
low on Hilton points.

In Beijing and Quebec I moved to the conference hotel mid-week because I had a 
sponsor for half the week. Your mileage may vary.


On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Being a little cynical, I do wonder if we would see a difference
> in meeting selection patterns if all IASA staff and IAOC members
> were required to stay in hotel or other rooms costing no more
> than, say, your USD 200 per night figure (including transport,
> if necessary, to and from the meeting site).  It might help to
> calibrate the pain level.  The idea is not realistic for a
> number of reasons, but might make an interesting
> thought-experiment.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Glen Zorn]

On 8/24/2011 12:46 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:

>> From: Thomas Nadeau
>>
>> One would think that when the IETF negotiates the room block/fees,
>> that this could be done as well. After all we are in many cases,
>> booking a significant portion of the hotel in question in addition to
>> its conference facilities.
> 
> Speaking as someone who has never arranged a convention...  There must
> be some difficulty given the IETF's use of sponsors.  E.g., for the
> Maastricht meeting, we were sponsored by SIDN, a Netherlands company.
> This automatically restricted us to a fairly small number of venues,
> which is going to make it harder to get good terms when negotiating.

Speaking as one who has, there is no difficulty unless the sponsor
decides to create one (e.g., by treating the meeting as a recruiting
tool, perhaps hoping to impress prospective employees with the wonders
of the particular office park wasteland where their headquarters happens
to be located ;-).  Microsoft, for example, hosted a meeting in Orlando
and Cisco has, I believe, hosted or co-hosted meetings all over the world...

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Glen Zorn]

On 8/24/2011 3:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
> 
>> For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
>> we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same 
>> season, etc. at the same venue.
> 
> _And_ having negotiated at the same time, as Ray pointed out already
> in this thread.  Every time one of these discussions comes up, people
> seem to forget that the negotiations are happening several years in
> advance of the actual event.  Agreements about the future almost
> always require the party buying to take some risk that they will be
> paying more than the going rate at the time the actual sale date
> arrives.  

This can be minimized, though, right?  Maybe the conference room rate
could be set at a percentage of the rack rate, for example.

> In the case of hotel agreements, the block negotiator takes
> some risk that there will be a lower price or otherwise better terms
> actually available at the time of the block being used.  The hotel
> takes some risk that the block negotiator is unable to deliver the
> actual room occupancy negotiated.  Each is making a bet.

Yes, but the total risk on the part of the hotel is that it will be in
the normal state of having empty rooms that need to be filled...

> 
> If you don't like the cancellation terms (or other terms of the bet),
> don't participate in it: don't make a reservation in the IETF block.

And I do, and have for some time now (since I have no corporate expense
account); this has the added benefit (from my POV, YMMV) of actually
_visiting_ Prague, Maastricht, etc. (as opposed to essentially shipping
myself air freight to a facility that could as easily be in Dallas or
(cringe) Minneapolis except that the people might look different or talk
funny, then shipping myself back again).
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Discussing a DISCUSS - down-refs in draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:02 -0400 Sam Hartman
 wrote:

>> "SM" == SM   writes:
> 
> SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for
> draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: SM> 
> 
> SM> The IETF LC
> SM>
> (https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=96
> 80&tid=1314107697) SM> did not call out the downrefs to
> RFC 4954 and 5321.  There is no SM> doubt in my mind that
> no one will object to these downrefs, but SM> they need to
> be explicitly called out in the IETF LC.
>...
  
> Hey, I think I read RFC 4897 once.
> Someone's actually trying to use that? Who knew!
> 
> Seriously, section 3.1 of RFC 4897 makes it clear that an RFC
> 4897 downward reference does not need an RFC 3967-style
> comment in the IETF last call.  As best I can tell, this
> discuss should be cleared because The AD is confused about
> what BCP is being applied here.
> 
> Really this is one of those situations where we're all sitting
> around the table playing a nice game of "publish that doc" and
> people have to get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF
> rules erata and the IETF player's magazine articles with rules
> commentary and figure out what is going on.:-)

As someone else who read 4897 once or twice, and independent of
my role as co-editor of the draft in question,

+1.

john




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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Glen Zorn]

On 8/24/2011 5:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

...

> Come on, folks, let's be honest: all-in-one conference hotels, and
> hotels connected to conference centers, charge exorbitant amounts of
> money for the convenience of sleeping in close proximity to the meeting
> rooms. Thanks to tips from other cost-conscious IETFers, I was able to
> find hotels costing $100 (IETF 81) and $170 (IETF 82) a night cheaper
> than the official venue. Sure, I have to walk for five minutes to get
> back and forth to the meeting rooms, but that seems like a small price
> to pay. If you don't like the recommended hotels, vote with your feet.

Unfortunately, since the meeting fees are tied to the block occupancy
(via conference room charges, etc.), this puts us in a double-bind
situation: the smaller the block, the higher the other fees.  This is
the concern that I expressed during the plenary in QC, that because of
exorbitant hotel rates (and consequent lack of occupancy) the meeting
fees would themselves become exorbitant to compensate, the end result
being that major corporate support would be mandatory for attendants:
independents, academics and even employees of small companies need not
apply.  I hope we don't want to go there...

> 
> Peter
> 

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

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> On 8/24/2011 3:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
>> 
>>> For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
>>> we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same 
>>> season, etc. at the same venue.
>> 
>> _And_ having negotiated at the same time, as Ray pointed out already
>> in this thread.  Every time one of these discussions comes up, people
>> seem to forget that the negotiations are happening several years in
>> advance of the actual event.  Agreements about the future almost
>> always require the party buying to take some risk that they will be
>> paying more than the going rate at the time the actual sale date
>> arrives.  
> 
> This can be minimized, though, right?  Maybe the conference room rate
> could be set at a percentage of the rack rate, for example.

There are of course other exposures to be accounted for.

year over year the dollar buys a bit less than 10% less TWD than it did this 
time in 2010. while it is certainly could be done I don't think any of the 
participants bought dollar hedge contracts against the future cost of their 
hotel stay. the person arriving from geneva will pay about 14% less then they 
would have a year ago. given taiwan had about 1% inflation over the same time 
scale it seems unlikely that their costs went down correspondingly.

>> In the case of hotel agreements, the block negotiator takes
>> some risk that there will be a lower price or otherwise better terms
>> actually available at the time of the block being used.  The hotel
>> takes some risk that the block negotiator is unable to deliver the
>> actual room occupancy negotiated.  Each is making a bet.
> 
> Yes, but the total risk on the part of the hotel is that it will be in
> the normal state of having empty rooms that need to be filled...
> 
>> 
>> If you don't like the cancellation terms (or other terms of the bet),
>> don't participate in it: don't make a reservation in the IETF block.
> 
> And I do, and have for some time now (since I have no corporate expense
> account); this has the added benefit (from my POV, YMMV) of actually
> _visiting_ Prague, Maastricht, etc. (as opposed to essentially shipping
> myself air freight to a facility that could as easily be in Dallas or
> (cringe) Minneapolis except that the people might look different or talk
> funny, then shipping myself back again).
> ___
> 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