IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 08 September 2004 06:16 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28023; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 02:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4vo7-0000ud-QS; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:19:52 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4vj3-0003Ak-Q9; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:14:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4veW-0000sA-Sr for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:09:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22900 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 02:09:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4vi6-0000n3-AP for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:13:39 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5155661BD8; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:09:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07529-02; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:09:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (145.80-202-211.nextgentel.com [80.202.211.145]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D853861B92; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:09:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:09:22 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: scott bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, leslie@thinkingcat.com
Message-ID: <4FCF49BF20304535081422DE@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <20040908001054.B183D7E76F@newdev.harvard.edu>
References: <20040908001054.B183D7E76F@newdev.harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--On tirsdag, september 07, 2004 20:10:54 -0400 scott bradner 
<sob@harvard.edu> wrote:

> leslie sez:
>> In my reading of Scenarios A & B, the suggestion
>> is that ISOC takes on the administrative work more-or-less
>> directly.
>
> takes on" the admin work or "contracts vendors" to do the admin work
>


takes on the admin work of contracting vendors to do the real work.

at least that's my understanding of what makes sense.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email