IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 15 August 2013 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F3011E8164 for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 sM6lb6J+-TUs for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FC921F9A74 for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id D0ML1m0081ei1Bg5B3JfMq; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:18:39 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id D3Je1m01A3ZTu2S3k3JeMr; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:18:39 +0000
Message-ID: <520CF14D.2060006@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:18:37 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 87attendees@ietf.org
References: <C4413723-4E83-44D8-967D-C61564F33843@isoc.org> <CAKKJt-dCsJKzkuWmtPYaLct_9zzbe2HCXBB52QNerC4hHKaqWQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D5C64C2-1187-42A7-B237-8AAEC4810D57@isoc.org> <D1CEAB47-2B80-4FA9-9B18-C018BF10E794@checkpoint.com> <20130814153327.GK3865@mx1.yitter.info>, <CAH1iCipcmf6baef+Ehys-OCQ1E6AqStCxYXDDJS8TLW1z+G=_Q@mail.gmail.com> <60958B6B-A77C-4A83-A5CD-336432DBA8D7@ericsson.com>, <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308150927240.39997@joyce.lan> <1DE0D0DF-A90C-4B27-804D-FEBA8098BCD4@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <1DE0D0DF-A90C-4B27-804D-FEBA8098BCD4@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1376579919; bh=MdM32/Odz7koi5Vqb2xIYZABttOiqnpo8JDMvQaJaMA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=rsnDQUFwsK1behzFi1AeS9n/cKhS6UG2SdEqs7Dg5h947LfdToOUIGikkCm4l9pXH a4Z2FvrEUQUMuELQUkx2RO+V5TD/+O0a93/L89RQ3hC0h5Z4uXSR7AlCF+XdDLa929 7jimObqRu41WnCrgYPM2DhoosXs0YHmn2yzh5fJlL8OuP/lCemV58z9DqBiJ9ledKf obMuJWUdjIJvW2dvoaGMhV61SLgrgvQTFdEMCLMMwH3fqF4Ae4f42UTnb0jEUOlujO DL2bdtQncjeQiqS7jhZ3JODlEBkEIb8W6Vpf/0WimV++BmBers1T6P/nj4ed087zEf NBVtiLFlHJbsw==
Subject: Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review
X-BeenThere: 87attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <87attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/87attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:87attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:18:45 -0000

I don't think we should imagine that we can have a major influence on 
the booking policies of hotel chains. I'm sure they think long and hard 
about this, and the tradeoffs that overbooking entails. (Just as 
airlines clearly do.)

Do major hotel chains differ in a significant way about how they handle 
this? If so, maybe we could insist on being told what the policy is, and 
then use that as a factor in which hotels we choose.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 8/15/13 11:13 AM, Jakob Heitz wrote:
> Don't book more people than rooms.
> If a booked person doesn't show, let the hotel charge that person a cancellation fee to cover revenue lost due to empty rooms.
>
> --
> Jakob Heitz.
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>>> Don't bump anyone.  Apply a cancelation fee.
>>
>> Not an option.  If the hotel has more people than rooms, they have to bump someone, and there's no way to force a person who's checked into a room out of it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 87attendees mailing list
>> 87attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees
> _______________________________________________
> 87attendees mailing list
> 87attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email