IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Hotel situation

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 16 December 2015 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC781A908E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:15:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cq7GKmI3a81X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C641A9091 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBGNEuRZ021573 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:14:56 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk tBGNEuRZ021573
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1450307697; bh=kV9qxpanyA4x3zTuLuSjMXDf1ww=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=5qVJn329m+gPv0P87RJsN96A7xpiJJoMEDmKmP4ysHvqFhDSXt8QJY2VZ+zZe2z/b uQDgpD2ihZ5OoLe++2im4nh/aeR21RbozazkTOQNtlYZ6wp58v19iaMPE9pBKUitZx cGcXWr/Cyrxq5ANOPik1wCLQ8zgeBtRkVIjx/YrQ=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id rBFNEu1940011523uI ret-id none; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:14:57 +0000
Received: from 20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net (20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:457b:ec16:a523:82f7] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBGNDcXC002488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:13:39 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <69F43094-1ADB-4474-92B4-B706A0F964D1@puck.nether.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:13:38 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|badf29b738c652c920b448e6edd3535crBFNEu03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|3DEC78C4-FF79-4FD2-BFE8-D0DC3295D93A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09C09@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <69F43094-1ADB-4474-92B4-B706A0F964D1@puck.nether.net> <3DEC78C4-FF79-4FD2-BFE8-D0DC3295D93A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=rBFNEu194001152300; tid=rBFNEu1940011523uI; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: tBGNEuRZ021573
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/C2kuQ-yqXJ26rdy3RtYbHaTcSYs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:15:04 -0000

> On 16 Dec 2015, at 17:09, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> 
> This list is almost exclusively places that have more than 1k rooms.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_hotels_in_the_world

Interesting.

But have we had over 1,000 rooms in one venue in recent memory? 

I looked back at old meeting invitation emails, and it seems of late the number of rooms in the reserved block are generally not explicitly stated. It was more common for older meetings. From those I can see:

IETF 77, Anaheim, 1,000 rooms
IETF 73, Minneapolis, 750 rooms
IETF 80, Prague, 600 rooms

But these were 5+ years ago. It may simply have become harder over time to get such large blocks? 

Looking at IETF 96 in Berlin, the InterContinental Berlin only has 558 rooms and suites, and the Conrad Seoul for IETF 97 has 434 rooms.

Tim

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status