Re: WCIT outcome?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 03 January 2013 12:13 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 C1EAE21F8A7E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:13:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.158
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, 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 Ne3eXd2drSB1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:13:04 -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 E416021F868B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:13:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 56968 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2013 12:13:39 -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 12:13:39 -0000
Message-ID: <50E5756A.2090506@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:11:22 +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: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
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> <50E543C7.6070809@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D24FE5CCE@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
In-Reply-To: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D24FE5CCE@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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 12:13:05 -0000

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> It's really not that simple. If it were all the world would be doing it for everything.

You should recognize that all the smart phones are working fine
(or even better than LTE) with Wifi and that Wifi support
prioritized packets.

						Masataka Ohta