Re: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (E.212 IMSIs
Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com Tue, 08 February 2000 21:11 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 QAA11250 for <itu+ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA27229 for <itu+ietf-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:10:28 -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 QAA11245; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:57 -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 QAA27208; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:10:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA27174 for <itu+ietf@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:10:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cqmx.corp.comsat.com (cqmx.corp.comsat.com [134.133.184.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11237 for <itu+ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com
Received: from cqgate5.cmc.comsat.com ([134.133.162.20]) by cqmx.corp.comsat.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:05 -0500
Received: from ccMail by cqgate5.cmc.comsat.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 0000A523; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:33 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 16:10:58 -0800
Message-ID: <0000A523.C22277@comsat.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (E.212 IMSIs
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IMA.Boundary.3905500590"
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
OK.
I want IETF to make sure the current reference for E.212 IMSIs is
used.
I want whoever suggested E.214 to identify why.
Based on your exec sum before I joined the list, you already handled
alerting the IETF. (I assume our lists of I-Ds matched.)
I invite whoever's interested to think about the "new" E.212.
Finally, if anyone finds "NNAR" problems related to E.212/IMSIs,
please advise.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [ITU+IETF] Re: comments on workshop issue 7 (E.212 IMSIs ...
Author: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> at INTERNET
Date: 2/8/00 12:22 PM
OK, so give me the executive summary:
what do you want ITU to do?
what do you want IETF to do?
_______________________________________________
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