Subject: [68ATTENDEES] HHonors Gold/Diamond VIP amenities

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:04:42 +0100 (CET)

Speaking of grousing about the hotel...

I'm disappointed by how this hotel is (not) providing amenities to 
HHonors Gold (and probably Diamond) VIP members.  I invite anyone so 
affected to contact me off-list to coordinate a response.

-- Sam

_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:31:48 +0200

>  I'm disappointed by how this hotel is (not) providing amenities to
HHonors Gold (and probably Diamond) VIP members.  

This was not my experience at all.
When I checked in after midnight I was told that no room was available
on the executive floor, but that I would be contacted the next day for
an upgrade.

Sure enough the next morning at 8AM a note was pushed under the door
asking me to call reception. By 9AM I was on the 7th floor.

At the "club room" I am politely asked for my room number
and that's it.

Y(J)S

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:03:28 +0000

> At the "club room" I am politely asked for my room number

I also had a room 'upgrade', or was at least given a refurbished room.

The HHonors thing may be moot soon though; within a few IETFs I suspect 
most or all attendees will be Gold members because the IETF is now using 
Hilton hotels, and a hotel can't upgrade everyone :)

-- 
Tim

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:45:20 +0100

ROBOCOP WG                                                 M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                                       SSW
Expires: July 4, 1984                                       October 1917

                     IETF requirements for policing
                       draft-ietf-government.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 1984

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1945).

Abstract

   This is a standards track document that tells the world how to police
   their cities, streets and subways.  In addition, it provides for
   expression transfer service at all international airports to IETF
   attendees.  These services are paid for by a standardized method of
   calculating hotel charges, and conversion of local currency to an
   IETF standard currency.  This documents asks IANA to allocate a new
   IPv6 Prefix for numbering of IETF currency.  Said currency uses MIPv6
   to stay in contact with IANA.

Richardson                Expires July 4, 2004                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   robocop                    January 2004

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 5

Richardson                Expires July 4, 2004                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   robocop                    January 2004

1.  Introduction

   IETF attendees need safety, and need to be charged properly...

2.  Normative references

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Richardson                Expires July 4, 2004                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   robocop                    January 2004

Author's Address

   Michael C. Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   470 Dawson Avenue
   Ottawa, ON  K1Z 5V7
   CA

   Email: [email-masked]
   URI:   http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/

Richardson                Expires July 4, 2004                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   robocop                    January 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [email-masked].

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Richardson                Expires July 4, 2004                  [Page 5]

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:04:39 +0100

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:45:20AM +0100,
 Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 286 lines which said:

>    This is a standards track document that tells the world how to
>    police their cities, streets and subways.

Jokes aside (and this one is good), I do not think that the IAD or
other participants suggested we tell the police or the mayor HOW to
reduce crime, just that we tell them they should do something
(deciding exactly what to do is clearly not IETF business and, anyway,
we would not have a rough consensus about the solutions to crime).

---

From: "Victor M. Grado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:15:48 -0400

They will probably reply, when you guys eliminate spam and all those
Internet threats
;-)

- V

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:23:51 +0100

>                        draft-ietf-government.txt

Once we agree on the requirements, the IETF should define a criminal  
discovery protocol.

Bob

---

From: Aaron Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:27:41 -0700

> we would not have a rough consensus about the solutions to crime).

I think that we should at least provide a guidance section on current
methods of crime prevention, identification, reporting, and punishment.
We may even be able to target BCP.

Rather than further co-opt this mailing list, I suggest that we set up a
new mailing list to discuss the draft with intent to establish a working
group on the matter. A reasonable deadline to publish a final document
would seem to be April 1. (Note that I have not given a year...)

Aaron

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:26:42 +0000

> Once we agree on the requirements, the IETF should define a criminal  

See RFC3514.   We can tag the criminals ;)

-- 
Tim

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:15:44 +0100

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> IETF requirements for policing draft-ietf-government.txt

    Bob> Once we agree on the requirements, the IETF should define a
    Bob> criminal discovery protocol.

As usual, we have published the solution prior to the requirements.
Please see RFC3514.

-- 
]            Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear."          |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:24:54 +0100

> Hilton hotels, and a hotel can't upgrade everyone :)

I did not get an upgrade this time for exactly that reason.

---

From: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:41:07 +0100

>I did not get an upgrade this time for exactly that reason.

At least, I'm not the only one :-O

BTW, didn't even get access to the 'club' (don't really care since I've no free time)

-eric

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:24:56 -0700

> Once we agree on the requirements, the IETF should define a criminal 
And if IETF fails to agree on the requirements, Czechs should rename the 
protocol to Czech Discovery Protocol to recognize only Czechs. All 
non-Czechs (and criminals) will then not be identified and treated as such.