Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 06:30:56 -0700

At 1:07 AM +0200 7/29/08, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

>  what worries me greatly is that we in the future find any hosts at 
> all given that the only thing you can expect as a host is 
> complaints and endless threads about visa / robbery / cookies / how 
> the showers works threads on mailinglist.

Well, if we don't care about visa issues, crime, cookies, nor 
showers, I'm sure there are a *lot* of places we could meet!  :-)

(And, by the way, quite a lot of the email I've seen about the hotel 
network have been attempts to point out severe problems, not blaming 
the host nor the hotel, just good-faith attempts to get things to 
work better)
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
You never finish a program, you just stop working on it.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:10:58 -0400

>> "the powers that be" are trying to optimize location /
>> internationalization / the host that PAYs preferences to
>> location for their needs / and a number of factors including
>> availability of a hotel. This equation is far from easy, but
>>  what worries me greatly is that we in the future find any
>>  hosts at  all given that the only thing you can expect as a
>> host is  complaints and endless threads about visa / robbery
>> / cookies / how  the showers works threads on mailinglist.
> 

Let me add two comments to Randy's, noting that this is not
about the facilities for IETF 72 at all (and that I waited until
now to post this in the hope of avoiding confusion of what I'm
about to say with a complaint about that particular location).

(1)  Ray advertised these per-meeting lists as the place to post
information about, and issues with, the meeting before and
during it.  While my personal opinion is that some of the
threads (including this one and the earlier/related Guestroom
Network one), and some of the complaining/ whining went on much
too long, if you (the IAOC) don't want the input, don't ask for
it.  And, if you don't think the hotel or host doesn't want to
hear the input, don't tell them about the list.

(2) I note with some chagrin that Kurt's optimization list of
"location / internationalization / the host that PAYs
preferences to location for their needs / and a number of
factors including availability of a hotel" does not include
"total cost to attendees".   Given that we come from different
locations and have different needs, I don't even know how IAOC
figures that out, but I'm worried that it periodically does not
appear to have been high on the consideration list.   

To repeat something I suggested just before this meeting, even
if the IAOC cannot optimize for total cost of attendance, I
believe that the IAOC and Secretariat should be able to
determine and post, well before the meeting, estimates of local
contributing costs -- options for airport transport and their
costs; typical costs of meals in hotel restaurants and other
restaurants within short distances; ranges of food choices
available; maybe local air quality reports; whether the hotel
guestroom network was to be lashed up to the IETF one or kept
separate (and, if the latter, what it was going to cost guests);
whether the terminal room arrangements will be made by an
experience team under contract to the IETF or by a sponsor and
what is expected; transport plans to and from the city center if
that is relevant; and so on.   I think others in the community
can add to that list, but with the understanding that the items
on it are data to be collected and reported rather than things
we really expect IAOC to use as criteria.   

I think it is a wonderful accomplishment of the IAOC/IASA model
that we now have meeting dates set well into future and sites
lined up a year or so in advance rather than carrying out that
process on a just-in-time basis.  I am extremely impressed by
the degree to which sponsors and the Secretariat have been able
to remedy problems once they have occurred, whether those be
problems with networks, problems with room environments (meeting
rooms or sleeping rooms); alternate transport arrangements, and
so on.  But I believe we need to get far more of those
activities, and the likely need for them, into the long-term
understanding and planning process, rather than dealing with
them "just in time" or a tad later.   As with hotel
construction, I don't believe that we should try to constrain
IAOC to avoid a location that is likely to be suboptimal on one
of these characteristics.  But I do believe that IETF
participants should have information sufficiently far in advance
that we can make rational decisions about whether to attend.

With information on a timely basis, if the overall choice of
location and facilities does not meet the needs of one of us,
then he or she has a better ranger of options, including remote
participation.  Clearly having those options might stop a lot of
the endless whining that others have complained about -- if I
have the ability to make a truly informed choice, than I can't
very well complain about its consequences.   And, its IAOC
selects a site and a significant fraction of the community
decides to vote with its feet and participate remotely (or, with
many site arrangements, even just stay elsewhere), that would be
measurable and unambiguous wrt appropriate criteria for future
meeting site selection.

    john

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:07:23 +0200

John,

On 3 aug 2008, at 16.10, John C Klensin wrote:
> Network one),

I'll note that it was several times pointed out that the hotel room  
network issues should be bought up with the hotel as noone on this  
list had any relation to it except that the host kindly improved the  
service over what we would otherwise have had. Which I think was the  
point missed on this list.

> and some of the complaining/ whining went on much
> too long, if you (the IAOC)

Please note that I am no longer on the IAOC.

> don't want the input, don't ask for

I am sure the current IAOC as well as the host is happy to hear about  
issues they can solve and do to improve the meetings. The food  
comments are one such topic.

> appear to have been high on the consideration list.

I can only speak for the time I was on the IAOC, but at least then we  
frequently tried to estimate the total cost. The problem however isn't  
so much the total cost as to where to set the barrier. For example  
with a weak USD exchange rate, Europe might seem very expensive to US  
participants, while when the USD was almost twice the current exchange  
rate, Europe probably seemed very cheap, while for Europeans it was  
prhibitly expensive. It also depends on your employers policies etc.  
But the IAOC still tried to make an estimate for total costs. But I  
agree that is hard too.

> we really expect IAOC to use as criteria.

While I think some of the suggestions above are good ones, I also  
think there is a limit to how much the IAOC/IAD need/should work on to  
help attendees. We are al grown ups with different backgrounds,  
experiences, culture and how used we are to travel. The IAOC/IAD can't  
possibly be expected to deal with can cater for all people in all  
given circumstances.

> so on.

Agreed.

>  But I believe we need to get far more of those

I guess I am naive, but I have always based my attendance on the  
benefit for my employer and the achievements I believe I can  
contribute to, rather than my personal comfort.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:55:11 -0400

Kurtis,

--On Monday, 04 August, 2008 10:07 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>... 
>...
>> about the facilities for IETF 72 at all (and that I waited
>> until now to post this in the hope of avoiding confusion of
>> what I'm about to say with a complaint about that particular
>> location).
>> 
>> (1)  Ray advertised these per-meeting lists as the place to
>> post information about, and issues with, the meeting before
>> and during it.  While my personal opinion is that some of the
> I'll note that it was several times pointed out that the hotel
> room network issues should be bought up with the hotel as
> noone on this list had any relation to it except that the host
> kindly improved the service over what we would otherwise have
> had. Which I think was the point missed on this list.

Again, speaking to the general case rather than this specific
one, there are three ways we can have in-room networks.  The
hotel can stick with its standard arrangements, we can replace
their WAN connection with ours, or we can install some routing
and try to run both.   We can't do a thing about their
in-building infrastructure unless we start putting our own
(presumably wireless) infrastructure in the halls.   If there
are problems with the in-building infrastructure, of course one
needs to take it up with the hotel... except for two little
things: (i) CityWest notwithstanding, the average hotel around
the world has a staff that knows absolutely nothing about its
Internet infrastructure other than how to power cycle devices
when they stop working and (ii) when the IAOC advertises free
Internet access in rooms, there is some limited IETF obligation
to understand that "Internet access" implies connections that
work, deliver addresses, route packets, etc., not just plug in
and to provide an interface with the hotel about that...  or to
say "well, there are Internet connections in the rooms, and they
are free, but maybe they won't work".   

That is another "full information; full disclosure" issue, not
any need to be coddled, especially since some of us may choose
locations based on the likelihood of being able to work there at
night.

> Please note that I am no longer on the IAOC.

I was aware of that.  I also assume that many members of the
IAOC, and Ray, are reading this list.  Apologies for the
confusing pronoun.

>...
> I can only speak for the time I was on the IAOC, but at least
> then we frequently tried to estimate the total cost. The
> problem however isn't so much the total cost as to where to
> set the barrier. For example with a weak USD exchange rate,
> Europe might seem very expensive to US participants, while
> when the USD was almost twice the current exchange rate,
> Europe probably seemed very cheap, while for Europeans it was
> prhibitly expensive. It also depends on your employers
> policies etc. But the IAOC still tried to make an estimate for
> total costs. But I agree that is hard too.

That is precisely why I'm suggesting more information.  If IETF
participants decide that a particular meeting is too expensive,
or that the hotel is, and vote with their feet, then the IAOC
will get bottom-line feedback, not just complaining from those
who tend to be loud.  If that bottom-line feedback causes a
budget crisis, presumably there would be learning.

> While I think some of the suggestions above are good ones, I
> also think there is a limit to how much the IAOC/IAD
> need/should work on to help attendees. We are al grown ups
> with different backgrounds, experiences, culture and how used
> we are to travel. The IAOC/IAD can't possibly be expected to
> deal with can cater for all people in all given circumstances.

I agree completely.  When I make my own arrangements for a
meeting in a particular location, I decide whether local
arrangements are adequate and, if they are not, either figure
out how to make them adequate, decide I can deal with it, or
decide to not go.  In the case of the IETF, I have little
control over those decisions and those who do take on some
responsibility to provide information or pointers to
information.  For example, in the case of CityWest, it was hard
to even find out exactly where the place was located or what the
local alternative options were and the information that the only
practical way to get there was taxi came as a rude, and late,
surprise. 

>...
>> IAOC to avoid a location that is likely to be suboptimal on
>> one of these characteristics.  But I do believe that IETF
>> participants should have information sufficiently far in
>> advance that we can make rational decisions about whether to
>> attend.

> I guess I am naive, but I have always based my attendance on
> the benefit for my employer and the achievements I believe I
> can contribute to, rather than my personal comfort.

Across the IETF, circumstances differ.   I'm older than you are,
probably have a few more health issues, and my employer is the
guy I look at in the morning while shaving.  Any IETF meeting
costs come out of my pocket and any days I spend at IETF (or
getting to or from) are days I cannot bill to anyone.  For any
meeting, I make a decision as to whether to attend based on a
combination of overall costs, weighing the value of my showing
up versus what could be accomplished by remote participation,
perception of health risks (some of which you might classify as
"personal comfort"), and so on.   Because of some of those
factors, I travel only in business class to Europe or Asia.
That actually makes me less sensitive to on-site meeting costs
and registration fees than many participants because, usually,
the majority of my costs are spent as soon as I set foot on an
airplane.   But that doesn't stop me from being very concerned
when I see meeting fees and overall cost of attendance rising
rapidly toward historic ISO or ITU levels.  If those rising
costs are combined with discomfort, serious problems finding
food I can eat, perceived health risks, etc., my incentives to
just stay home increase significantly.  

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:10:37 -0700

John C Klensin wrote:
>         the IAOC and Secretariat should be able to
> determine and post, well before the meeting, estimates ...

+1

The exercise of developing a listing of participant costs, local facilities, and 
the like, and then posting it at the time the venue is announced (and probably 
updating it 3 months before the event) could be quite helpful for public 
awareness and dialogue.

I suggest that there be some effort to have total costs to an attendee be a 
table, itself.

One axis should have 3 entries: Origination from most popular Asian, North 
American, and European IETF source regions.  This factors in cost variations in 
travel and currency.  The other access should be two-, three- and four-star 
hotel, including distance from the venue.  Presumably the 4-star will be the 
conference venue.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:12:49 +0200

> locations based on the likelihood of being able to work there at

Sure, for planning ahead I agree. But once a the venue and told where  
to report problems -  you have to agree that people (besides trying to  
help each other) should bring the complaints to the responsible, and  
not to the general IETF attendees. .

> budget crisis, presumably there would be learning.

Agreed. I still believe the issue is what level of detail is needed  
and worth the effort. Before the IAOC apparently this was less of an  
issue, now we seems to have come far enough that these are the issues  
to worry about, which I assume is a good thing! (Yes, I know there  
where "how big are our cookies" discussions before, but they centered  
around the cost of the IETF meetings, not the personal attendance cost).

> practical way to get there was taxi came as a rude, and late,

I agree that transportation information should be available well in  
advance. Especially perhaps at destinations where expectations of  
command of the english language might be less (for example Japan vs  
Dublin). As for finding CityWest and directions, I simply Googled for  
CityWest, and then clicked "Location".

> Across the IETF, circumstances differ.

Agreed.

>  I'm older than you are,
> "personal comfort"), and so on.

I agree that making data that is easily available publicly to aid  
decisions for attendees is a good thing, I also think there is a limit  
to how much effort should be put into this.

>  But that doesn't stop me from being very concerned

All of these concerns was around already when I was on the IAOC. But  
again, the IAOC also needs to handle the trade-off against getting  
venues at all, venues that offer a reasonable accommodation cost,  
covering international locations, finding a host/sponsor (and taking  
their wishes into account. Or the meeting fees would be even higher),  
travel costs to the various locations, etc. I've said it before and  
it's not an easy equation to make work.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

---

From: Dale Worley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:35:08 -0400

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:55 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> (ii) when the IAOC advertises free

I've always taken "free in-room Internet" to mean "you get the hotel's
in-room Internet service, for free" which implies "you may have a hard
time getting it to work".  But perhaps that should be stated more
clearly.

Dale

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:44:35 -0500

I travel a lot and use hotels that often offer "free in-room Internet"
and have never encountered the problems I did on Friday nite after the
IETF meeting.  My expectation is that the price for "free Internet" is
really built into the price of the room - i.e., there's nothing that's
really "free".   However, we do have to consider the location, as I
found that Internet is not nearly as widely available in much of
Ireland, including in Dublin hotels.  I stayed in a supposed "business
class" hotel in Dublin for two days prior to the meeting and had no
Internet access except for the pay 10 euros per minute console in the
lobby - those same sorts of consoles were the Internet source at the
Cork airport, as well. 

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Dale Worley
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Meeting arrangements and costs (was: Re:
Clarifying Host Responsibilities )

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:55 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> Internet access in rooms, there is some limited IETF obligation to 
> understand that "Internet access" implies connections that work, 
> deliver addresses, route packets, etc., not just plug in and to 
> provide an interface with the hotel about that...  or to say "well, 
> there are Internet connections in the rooms, and they

Dale

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:05:37 -0700

On Aug 11, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> However, we do have to consider the location, as I

I stayed at the Tallaght Cross Hotel in Tallaght, about 7km from the  
IETF hotel, for the duration of IETF.   There was free WiFi in the  
lobby, and free 10baseT internet in the room.   This was at a  
reasonably inexpensive but high-quality hotel, whose main customers  
seem to be tourists and family of patients at the nearby hospital.    
I.e., not people on expense accounts.

My experience has been that the more the hotel caters to people who  
are on expense accounts, the more likely they are to charge a fee for  
internet access.   Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with hotels like  
this, because the IETF is too big to fit into a typical tourist hotel.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:07:18 -0700 (PDT)

The Friday night problem appears to have been some kind of glitch 
possibly related to the IETF infrastructure going away and the 
hotel's "normal" mode not being properly reconfigured (I am guessing).

It was all working fine by Saturday morning.

In general, I think it would be difficult for the IAOC and AMS to 
provide in-room Internet access that is any "better" than what you 
would normally get at a given property. Generally speaking, the best 
we can negotiate is for the fee to be removed either before checkout
or by having access be just "open". In some cases, the NOC folks may 
be allowed access to the hotel network to provide better bandwidth
etc, but some hotels have very restrictive policies about this 
(notably the Starwood Group).

It would also help a great deal if IETF attendees treated the in-room 
network more like a "normal" visitor, i.e., used it only for e-mail,
Web browsing etc, and not some sort high-capacity multimedia system
with infinite capacity.

At CityWest we had a perfectly good "terminal room" and wireless 
access in all the meeting rooms and hotel lobby areas. We can 
certainly wish for more, but it's a matter of resources.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:24:18 -0700

>> are free, but maybe they won't work".   

We helped them upgrade some elements their network prior to the descent 
of the hordes.

we provided them transit.

We helped them debug once it melted.

Due to the iptv, the general profusion of unmanged devices, and the 
overall scale of the project we were not in a position to take over and 
operate their network.

---

From: "Ondřej Surý" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:31:57 +0200

> I stayed in a supposed "business
> lobby

I stayed in hostel in Connemara (west of Ireland) for 20EUR a night
for some days week before IETF and it included breakfast and free
internet ;).  Oh well, and you fire alarm at 3AM in the morning

But yes, I do find it strange how much you sometimes have to pay
for internet access in some hotels.

Ondrej.
-- 
 Ondřej Surý
 technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer
 -----------------------------------------
 CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry
 Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
 mailto:[email-masked] http://nic.cz/
 sip:[email-masked] tel:+420.222745110
 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112
 -----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:26:44 +0200

> internet ;).  Oh well, and you fire alarm at 3AM in the morning

...and they make Whiskey there... Actually a peated irish single malt,  
believe it or not. Hope you tried some...

http://www.connemarawhiskey.com/

    Patrik

---

From: "Ondřej Surý" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:12:36 +0200

> http://www.connemarawhiskey.com/

Ah, missed that.  But I visited Old Bushmills few days after Connemara :).

Ondrej.