IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 07 August 2012 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BF121F86F6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.283
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdGVJkJFdZRB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7D921F855B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 804E518C0B2; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:19:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
Message-Id: <20120807151930.804E518C0B2@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:19:30 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:19:32 -0000

    > From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>

    > For organizations renumbering is more painful, but as long as there's
    > plenty of time to prepare - it should be manageable. If it's too
    > painful, there are provider independent addresses, but how many really
    > need them?

Or we could separate location and identity. Just a thought. Oh, wait...

(Just channeling my inner Randy... :-)

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email