IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WCIT outcome?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 03 January 2013 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 6251021F8971 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:41:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.282
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B4RGOCAv+aZh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F67F21F86F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 55511 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2013 08:41:41 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 3 Jan 2013 08:41:41 -0000
Message-ID: <50E543C7.6070809@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:39:35 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <50E439C5.2020808@gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D24FE4DAF@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
In-Reply-To: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D24FE4DAF@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:41:14 -0000

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the world
> has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation.

If you don't insist on allocating fixed bandwidths, CSMA/CA takes care 
of most of issues.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email