Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IETF 104 Registration and Hotel Reservations Openo

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 15 January 2019 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 C660C1277CC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:55:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 kslLMptBti0g for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:55:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CABE1276D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:55:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9161D3808A; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:54:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8C67523DB; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:55:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF923D2; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:55:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IETF 104 Registration and Hotel Reservations Openo
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mYRiMeHVEPA3_gV0Zhus8nc=pK94FN2LSadN2V6Zc_Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181220194742.39286200BC3F9B@ary.qy> <C4C3E99E-7FDF-42AD-8AAF-BA9A7BF9DF62@soton.ac.uk> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1812211147590.48467@ary.qy> <E0B84494-6B60-4AEB-B8E9-8C6F673624FA@tzi.org> <E73FC76E-6CD5-4543-A189-D51ACC7EAEBE@amsl.com> <167d262e9c8.27ce.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <23396A80-F252-4FFB-B0D0-B17D86F1C73E@amsl.com> <44640168-deb7-c613-3420-ad5df95b1736@labn.net> <956E76FA5156981CD09F5C1F@PSB> <098ecda6-b344-7cb7-5943-d6279ee89108@labn.net> <7C9DD929-2301-4993-9B03-A15B41B8D664@nbcuni.com> <sa6va2qotld.fsf@chopps.org> <CAPt1N1n7=eZqABbejLCuURMpJCQJE8WL3xuOrMTzCG5mSW9vhw@mail.gmail.com> <sa6tviaos7w.fsf@chopps.org> <CAPt1N1mYRiMeHVEPA3_gV0Zhus8nc=pK94FN2LSadN2V6Zc_Og@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:55:26 -0500
Message-ID: <11070.1547567726@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tub3MFmNsSmPnW5jCpWqZlVtPTM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:55:31 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > Because that deal is not on offer. The hotel is trying to create market
    > conditions that favor them, and they don't offer a deal that doesn't
    > sustain those conditions. You can argue that agreeing to these
    > conditions is stupid, but not agreeing to them may result in the hotel

Despite the negotiation, I find the IETF rate at the main hotel (particularly
when it's Asia) is beyond what I can justify in my budget. I'd usually rather
stay in the main hotel.

Our blocks seem small compared to the total attendance... ~400 rooms with
1200 people attending, and yet our blocks seem to sell out frustratingly fast.

It seems that if we could buy *all* the rooms in the hotel, that there
would be no further optimization that the hotel could do.
That's a high risk to the IETF, but if we can do it, then we might find a new
balance in price.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-