IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good job!

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Sun, 07 August 2011 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3EE821F886E for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <Q1b4AreY1SfZ>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.386, BAYES_00=-2.599, PLING_QUERY=1.39, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1b4AreY1SfZ for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501D921F887C for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=rg+ietf@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1312759537; x=1344295537; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:cc:content-type:x-random-sig-tag; z=Message-Id:=20<p0624060fca64cc5a66ea@loud.pensive.org> |In-Reply-To:=20<4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net> |References:=20<4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com>=0D=0A=20<A5B9F0 59BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com>=0D=0A=20<80A 0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intr a.net>=0D=0A=20<3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@soft armor.com>=0D=0A=20<alpine.OSX.2.01.1108011727420.20499@1 73-11-110-132-sfba.hfc.comcastbu=0D=0A=20siness.net>=20<4 E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net>|X-Mailer:=20Eudora=20for=20 Mac=20OS=20X|Date:=20Sun,=207=20Aug=202011=2016:20:07=20- 0700|To:=20<dcrocker@bbiw.net>,=20<81attendees@ietf.org> |From:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> |Subject:=20Re:=20[81attendees]=20are=20we=20getting=20co mplacent?=20Good=20job!|Cc:=20Dave=20CROCKER=20<dhc@dcroc ker.net>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"=20=3B=20format=3D"flowed"|X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201.0b28; bh=PScYgqKoL9Fw92YqaFwxBHdudeg0JVD7GEitwRxa5J4=; b=pang6/INRlqyOgbGGFqjhVZjkqTYBPX5yQ3dqWwaL+xuFuZSPn3NV9zo RyPe4N4hOVQCeoTAY15ba19BBdN3ueiblHNS0qtyrs92O6HrfLorxEhZ6 dngahzJI0FhYhXFJ60qUNKlIk2imi0l5aS02pYvVkvJI64SUvQUbG6xNk c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6431"; a="108684593"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2011 16:25:37 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,333,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="59414948"
Received: from warlock.qualcomm.com ([129.46.50.49]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Aug 2011 16:25:37 -0700
Received: from loud.pensive.org (myvpn-r-710.ras.qualcomm.com [10.64.2.198]) by warlock.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id p77NPapw008864; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:25:37 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624060fca64cc5a66ea@loud.pensive.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net>
References: <4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com> <A5B9F059BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@softarmor.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108011727420.20499@173-11-110-132-sfba.hfc.comcastbu siness.net> <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:20:07 -0700
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 81attendees@ietf.org
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Subject: Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good job!
X-BeenThere: 81attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 81 Attendee List <81attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/81attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:81attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:25:14 -0000

At 11:10 AM -0700 8/3/11, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>  In addition, non-hub venues have much more fragile and limited 
> connectivity. Quebec city is serviced by a couple of regional 
> carriers, to only a few cities, codeshares with major airlines 
> notwithstanding.

Plenty of non-hub cities have much better air service.  (Multiple 
carriers, mainline jets, etc.)  If we were to include ease of access 
in the criteria, we wouldn't need to be so strict as only 
hub/non-hub, but could have a ranking that went from something like 
hub, hublet, multiple carriers with some intercontinental, multiple 
carriers with mainline jets, regional carriers only.

>  Transitions always make a process more fragile and carry additional cost.
>
>  (This includes opportunities for luggage or the passenger to miss 
> the connection.  I enjoyed both of these excellent experiences on 
> this trip -- one going and one returning -- by way of demonstrating 
> that these are not matters of theoretical concern.)

Sorry to hear you had problems both ways!

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Admiration: Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email