Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

"Patrik Fältström " <> Sun, 29 December 2019 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101A5120180 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 00:00:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LyIB7ibp93FH for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16F5C12004E for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:61ce:2bc8:31cc:8fd]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4301C246A6; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:59:58 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1577606398; bh=w6YiSwi9BHT7UY0kHnw2+fWntZ2U3HyEAhldNW0Qwpk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CgPN7H06ZAuViVSWplQ/1jGELBMSqUIhFZgfTd4g8wbYdryzbuOLTvDSdQMKc5jw9 KU9VJ1VOYc4DQD/64XaRpNdSif0fdBBd+XldlDONUEjDX1A7sLP8ken90+mxlvu1xL YHZ7w3x8+0OZdgiIhKDQIZKCDPYOb+MkLU1R1yFk=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <>
To: "Yaakov Stein" <>
Cc: "Scott Brim" <>,
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:59:56 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB0573E1B462A3804525BB2646C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_7E545D3B-0289-4EDD-B84E-31BB7EE0D6D8_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:00:02 -0000

On 29 Dec 2019, at 8:51, Yaakov Stein wrote:

>> Correct Scott, but I was more thinking of the fact ITU-T results might bind the members (the member States) by treaties, which implies the members do not have any choice but implement the outcomes. Just like ICANN outcomes are binding for the contracted parties in many cases.
> No, almost all ITU-T results are called "Recommendations" because they are precisely that.
> They do not bind members unless the member adopts them into its own national legislation.

Yakov, I did write "might", and you point out exactly what members of ITU have to fight around OR ELSE it ends up being binding. Which is easier or harder depending on what is written in the treaties (and why there is such a fight at WCIT).