Re: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)"

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 21 October 2014 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542F21A88B5 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 qWL7VDhjloI4 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B611A88F3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2DFDA01B5 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:08:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010A053E080; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:05:04 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130EA59FC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:04:57 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E8CCD261-8A5C-4249-AF65-468FB1441647@nominum.com>
References: <20141021160652.24101.60334.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4BBD7952-84F7-40F9-9034-8DD7A1F2A05C@nominum.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130EA59FC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/mo4rk1fkdGFjQsRjTy9YktkhEn4
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] =?windows-1252?q?Fwd=3A_New_Liaison_Statement=2C_=22Bro?= =?windows-1252?q?adband_Forum_Work_on_=93Hybrid_Access_for_Broadband_Netw?= =?windows-1252?q?orks=94_=28WT-348=29=22?=
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:06:05 -0000

On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:55 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
> FYI. I made sure they were aware of IETF mif and homenet activities in this area. I intend to try to prevent having to track efforts that try to do the same thing in two different ways. But some of the BBF effort may be focused on what can be done around "bonding" of multiple interfaces that are under the control of a single service provider. I don't see this in mif or homenet.

Thanks.   I couldn't really tell what was being proposed from the Liaison statement, so this information is helpful.