Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEFF12D718 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
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 autolearn_force=no
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 EJksUJgAPnyt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 B4F5412D749 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 1aoIMi-00089d-Ep; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:25:28 -0400
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:25:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Message-ID: <345BC98986BA481F4E325FE4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <ACF0B32B-6961-4705-9150-30D661E66138@att.com>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$@olddog.co.uk> <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net> <00b001d190f1$196e6b80$4c4b4280$@olddog.co.uk> <ACF0B32B-6961-4705-9150-30D661E66138@att.com>
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/hYAqzicOOcN92W1bMtv3-cHMBHI>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:25:34 -0000


--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 17:41 +0000 "HANSEN, TONY L"
<tony@att.com>; wrote:

>> But there we go. Looks like sometimes we may need to pay a
>> price to get what we want. The loss on cancelation may be
>> greater than the loss on negotiation.
> 
> 
> There have been periodic surveys after meetings, and there
> have certainly been questions in there regarding potential
> sites with a means of adding comments.
> 
> 
> It seems like this practice should continue.

Of course, those periodic surveys have been available to meeting
attendees and have not picked up any information or preferences
those who did not show up in person for one reason or another
might have.