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
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
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 shoul
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,
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
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=
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 C
> 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 detai
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 t
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 r
--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
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 ha
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
wh
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
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-
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
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
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 a
> 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 ar
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 (
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 committ
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
S
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. simil
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
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 point
> 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
pay
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 of
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
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 Beave
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
> "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>
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
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 wo
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 ab
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 conven
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 co
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.
>
--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
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 oth
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
40 matches
Mail list logo
