Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situation)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 28 December 2015 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 84DAF1ACDD6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:23:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 sZGZqI2T98cO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DCF61ACDCF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aDh8c-0003Lw-3J; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:23:38 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:23:32 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situation)
Message-ID: <C8170C858129F18E9AC16A84@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151228231400.GK723@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <56719B42.2040902@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1512160924570.39773@rabdullah.local> <D296DF8F.8DA39%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com> <1DEF233B-FBA8-4750-AB4B-3E0F55822C9E@isoc.org> <D297326B.8DCF8%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com> <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.c om> <20151218171654.GA27965@cisco.com> <CAHw9_iJJn7pWxkct90drfBqLT6cMTDzyPZOHD6R5kwERmKtowA@mail.gmail.com> <EB9B93801780FD4CA165E0FBCB3C3E672B48F66F@SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broa dcom.com> <20151228231400.GK723@mx2.yitter.info>
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-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/G2u_nhAMlJv0GsYE75bHvy3HcIA>
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: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:23:41 -0000


--On Monday, December 28, 2015 18:14 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>...
>  Note that such a
> payment would be quite bad for us, because it'd be in effect an
> unbudgetted expense the IETF would have to cover somehow.
> It's part of the reason (as I noted in my other posting on
> this topic) I'm a little uncomfortable with making hotel deals
> so far in the future.

And another strong argument against making plans nine years in
advance rather than three, at least IMO.

   john