Re: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (E.212 IMSIs
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 09 February 2000 00:43 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14109 for <itu+ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:43:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA04030 for <itu+ietf-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:42:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14104; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:43:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA04002; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:42:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA03977 for <itu+ietf@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:41:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-mailhub-3.cisco.com (sj-mailhub-3.cisco.com [171.68.224.215]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14101 for <itu+ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:43:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rhino (rhino.cisco.com [172.20.9.57]) by sj-mailhub-3.cisco.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03798; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p7020-img-nt (fred-hm-dhcp1.cisco.com [171.69.128.116]) by rhino (SMI-8.6/CISCO.WS.1.1) with SMTP id QAA25984; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:46:11 -0800
Message-Id: <4.1.20000208162521.01864be0@flipper.cisco.com>
X-Sender: fred@flipper.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 16:30:14 -0800
To: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (E.212 IMSIs
Cc: itu+ietf@ietf.org, "Ash; Gerald R (Jerry); ALARC" <gash@att.com>, Emad Qaddoura <emadq@nortelnetworks.com>, Haseeb Akhtar <haseeb@nortelnetworks.com>, Mohamed Khalil <mkhalil@nortelnetworks.com>, Raja Narayanan <raja@nortelnetworks.com>, "Shaw; Robert" <Robert.Shaw@itu.int>, "'fredgaechter@monmouth.com'" <fredgaechter@monmouth.com>, "Tar; John" <John.Tar@itu.int>
In-Reply-To: <0000A523.C22277@comsat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Joint ITU+IETF Discussion List <itu+ietf.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: itu+ietf@ietf.org
At 04:10 PM 2/8/00 -0800, Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com wrote: > I want IETF to make sure the current reference for E.212 IMSIs is > used. Please give me the bibliographic text; I will make it available to the relevant authors. > I want whoever suggested E.214 to identify why. I checked up on it because issue 7, as discussed during the workshop, calls out E.212 and E.214. Do you have a problem with issue 7? Should references to E.214 also include references to E.212, be replaced by references to E.212, what? > I invite whoever's interested to think about the "new" E.212. I have no idea what you are talking about. How many E.212s has the ITU got? Last I checked, the ITU assigns one designator to one document, which it may periodically update. Am I incorrect? _______________________________________________ ITU+IETF mailing list ITU+IETF@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf
- Re: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (… Andrew.Gallant
- Re: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (… Fred Baker