Re: [70ATTENDEES] Construction noise

John C Klensin <> Wed, 05 December 2007 16:06 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwlV-0006bf-98; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:06:25 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzfZu-0007Wk-4J for; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:45:18 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzfZs-00067x-Mr for; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:45:18 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=localhost) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IzfZo-000OLq-Hh; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:45:12 -0500
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:45:11 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Lindberg, Jon" <>,,
Subject: Re: [70ATTENDEES] Construction noise
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:06:23 -0500
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: This list is used to email information pertinent to the current IETF meeting during the meeting and for 30 days after the meeting <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

--On Tuesday, 04 December, 2007 15:14 -0500 "Lindberg, Jon"
<> wrote:

> Construction should not start that early!  I will be meeting
> with the hotel within 90 minutes and report back with more
> details following our meeting.

In my first conversation with them on the subject yesterday, I
was informed that the construction crew worked 8 to 4 or 8 to 5,
that I could expect the noise during that interval all week, and
that I had better get used to it because there was no
alternative.   The person I spoke with also told me that it was
ok because we were all in the meeting area all day anyway and
there was no construction there.   Fortunately for me, a short
time later the folks with the rotary hammer apparently managed
to break a pipe over the room, resulting in the room becoming
uninhabitable, and they had a cancellation, so they moved me.
But that clearly isn't a general solution.

People pay for these rooms for 24 hours,  not when the hotel
thinks they should be in them.   If the hotel wants to make them
uninhabitable for 8 or 9 hours of the day, the rates should go
down by at least 1/3, probably more.


70ATTENDEES mailing list