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

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 14 August 2013 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4897D21E80B0 for <>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EjTj4mnWTSGK for <>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57BE11E8156 for <>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7EHPPb0018860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:25:28 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:25:12 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Spencer Dawkins <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:, Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:25:46 -0000

On 8/14/2013 10:18 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> If the registration form had a checkbox as Andrew described, I'd check
> it for Dallas, and probably for Vancouver and for Toronto as well.

This entire thread seems to be based on the view that we should help 
hotels mishandle a very large block of reservations.

Reservations at a hotel are not supposed to be a 'hope' of a room, but a 
commitment for one, with the hotel suffering serious penalty for getting 
things wrong.  I don't mean merely that they find some other room 
somewhere else, inconveniencing their now-non-guest, but cost that hurts 
the hotel.

An error of the scale of 25 rooms indicates that the hotel did not take 
its responsibility seriously enough.  It goes far beyond the typical 
statistics of "sometimes the numbers don't quite align", as inevitably 
happens with hotels, but isn't supposed to happen often.  It represents 

That the error seems to be happening more than once suggests that our 
contracts are not forceful enough.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking