Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work
Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sun, 28 June 2020 21:03 UTC
Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFBE3A0F49 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rTf9czuLvJ3T for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 994433A0F47 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id i18so12795186ilk.10 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rtTatV6C/R93PxcpPJ3oT62j8qilgzHey6DBcbwsNbM=; b=P6+W8YrRmcFBpZn//y1xZi+lPMjGPL1F/5LdM9uIWtPKlilNoSWYKC791K48YgjJ5S j0ehNhxmBc3JvQgTgjn1TLgsAeN/Q8FTMVvtgIS3bDlihlhfVKK29cB2t70xBpACEptx U3j4lAlKJuhbPha1SboOinjZ7QhQRp6q35vsz/FgOsG7KTT50SXiPBpuogI4s8tFtkRA ZGrdSAMfiWc10byEZ7jXTIj8xioMBfPN6JZBH4RO3WXF65xQU5aoQ9Xe+TUtJN9Tv1M7 SRKYSQkff7+MNRxWwj527DfXD6SAObxlOQAXHf58rmXypV88jjZX/KSNEgxFQv2Js4u6 +ZPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rtTatV6C/R93PxcpPJ3oT62j8qilgzHey6DBcbwsNbM=; b=XKpHKvzb/V9F+6gsyRvim65lJBTo/SF/N+xq8RthZX2Mlk2y84v6Rs5RbpXT2w4SVX 1mhH1x5mibdmQibE8Q9Mlp4Ho2O2j7+1ztYBgI5IZ5vDyRWRm55n2do6YnrU5Ym1Y44q DmmVnUwBpsRoUOfkPykahFg7FFqTjt9ax5UVWcvVSe38VWjg1ICWlb/r1oSwuZNBFLmi FiY4An5yFzDj1qc9r7aJfwWoHN5QiheVI3vOrJbAIKswE7wjlSnsKrmIZizZitaCEoSp JxT2EZStFRWFyYhBK/5DE7U/LJzR3wnkwnPU2PNxVQv/ZytK1s7D/uKL1k89XSaM/Njb JEdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326QlQQN3vrWhfdf9QZrCHPj94rHqXujclTh8qjHHIvWxxnFNQw uymsmIoC7WC0pzyGKeDvmZn6c64awU3MEW9ld98=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3cxeH++1mQ/O2Vdz0fcMHjmWZ8aUYBcO/hlWAJ8r5Rlgpgua6t44FzGHG6wlclakW6u4C71+sjVXAcpjJ50w=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cf06:: with SMTP id c6mr13315155ilo.73.1593378220924; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6SwT2MV-wg5ZA25_Z-iPReX6YZKzPUifBk+-G7js8iFgtw@mail.gmail.com> <9407069F-19E1-4AC1-BE4D-B7D6F62CC34F@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <9407069F-19E1-4AC1-BE4D-B7D6F62CC34F@vpnc.org>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Swcn-y9UevzVB_TgTaPO4PU5Y_hXUBy6i=P9++3c18Vvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9e66605a92b46f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/w9sb7V5iMp2_xKx0ZzcXRat8Q9Y>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 21:03:43 -0000
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 8:14 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote: > > Although there are always layer 8 and 9 reasons for having, or not > having, liaison agreements, ... > Yes. This is the substance of my question. thanks, Rob PS - I used the word "reviewed", but I should have written "read and commented", since no one asked me to do anything. :)
- [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Rob Sayre
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Fred Baker
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Rob Sayre
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Paul Hoffman
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Rob Sayre
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Rob Sayre
- [arch-d] 答复: ETSI Liaison Work Lizhenbin
- [arch-d] 答复: ETSI Liaison Work Lizhenbin
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [arch-d] ETSI Liaison Work Alexandre Petrescu