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

"HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 ADA1512D0E1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 x-oYxNii9dSX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A503312D0BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u37HcSqe003756 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:41:18 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 225u3ehxe4-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:41:18 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u37HfHaW016006 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:41:17 -0400
Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u37HfBSA015915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:41:12 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.150]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:41:09 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCG.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.7.206]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:41:08 -0400
From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
CC: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Thread-Topic: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Thread-Index: AdGQXOo2K6ee2QfjSBaO8Tfj5mxHYwJCqcjan/XAz9Df+XGQAIAAI5yA///ENwA=
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:41:08 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <00b001d190f1$196e6b80$4c4b4280$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.110.241.96]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1F06A3D53F285C448F7FD1150BE2771B@LOCAL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-04-07_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1601100000 definitions=main-1604070250
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p7Q5HBujPTlSWdsT2zKzELpHsyQ>
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 22:12:36 -0000

On 4/7/16, 1:15 PM, "ietf on behalf of Adrian Farrel" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of adrian@olddog.co.uk>; wrote:



>> A practical issue is that announcing a venue before there is a contract
>> in place for the meeting site impairs our ability to negotiate the
>> contract.
>
>We are engineering.
>But I will break a rule and go there.
>
>I don't see that saying "we are considering Hong Kong, Singapore, and Manila"
>reduces our ability to negotiate in Singapore. Maybe it even strengthens it.
>
>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.

	Tony