IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF hotel selection mode and a proposal (was" Re: Hilton BA is Booked already?)

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 18 December 2015 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 A44431B326A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:01:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 oj2ydoRgZ56y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC431B3268 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stubbs.local.chopps.org (75-128-113-61.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com [75.128.113.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81F8661D78; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:01:42 +0000 (UTC)
References: <076c01d138e7$0a68dba0$1f3a92e0$@olddog.co.uk> <5672E4BB.2050702@dcrocker.net> <FA905E0564B6E47B70076F92@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.15; emacs 24.5.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
Subject: Re: IETF hotel selection mode and a proposal (was" Re: Hilton BA is Booked already?)
In-reply-to: <FA905E0564B6E47B70076F92@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:01:41 -0500
Message-ID: <m2egekbgtm.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/THHWUZfKo02ghfii2QXGpDK4FGQ>
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:01:44 -0000

Perhaps if a perfect I* block is around 100 (95 this time?), and the
target block size is 600 rooms, then the I* block should be 1/6 of whatever we
actually get?  Certainly that would be fair share the pain. Then
again, maybe these I* folks deserve the rooms regardless given the
availability and workload expectations. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email