[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
- To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, iesg@ietf.org
- Subject: RE: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:53:01 +0200
I believe that we have lately our liason responses that we
did send back to ITU recorded. So that seems good to do
for this one too.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: woensdag 9 juli 2003 15:32
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: FWD: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF
> (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP
> Services over MPLS)"
>
>
> Question: we currently post liaison statements on our web page. Should
> we be doing anything similar with responses we send back? In theory,
> I'd say yes, but things could get tricky deciding when a response is
> formal/worthy enough of posting on the web page.
>
> Thomas
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
> To: <nadine.joubert@itu.int>, <statements@ietf.org>
> Cc: <sebek@itu.int>, <Gabrielle.Regan@itu.int>, <gab@sun.com>,
> <proberts@megisto.com>, <swallow@cisco.com>, <loa@pi.se>,
> <sob@harvard.edu>,
> <narten@us.ibm.com>, <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:46:40 -0500
> Subject: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF
> (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS
> (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
> Thread-Topic: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF
> (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS
> (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
> Thread-Index: AcMl7yjPjPk31D6BQlKr/LeTA4wfogVWsTXA
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for the information related to the ongoing work in ITU-T
> on the subject of Mobile IP services over MPLS. We (Mobile IP WG
> chairs) have informed the Mobile IP working group about the ongoing
> work and had sought feedback from the WG members.
>
> At this time, there is no interest in the IETFs Mobile IP working
> group on this topic. The focus (in IETFs Mobile IP WG) remains
> primarily on enabling a solution that is L3 based. At this time we do
> not have any specific comments about the solution being discussed in
> SG13 (Y.MIPoMPLS) of ITU-T.
>
> Regards,
> Mobile IP WG chairs
> (Basavaraj Patil, Gabriel Montenegro, Phil Roberts)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext nadine.joubert@itu.int [mailto:nadine.joubert@itu.int]
> > Sent: 29 May, 2003 09:32 AM
> > To: statements@ietf.org
> > Cc: sebek@itu.int; Gabrielle.Regan@itu.int; gab@sun.com;
> > proberts@megisto.com; Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas);
> swallow@cisco.com;
> > loa@pi.se
> > Subject: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF
> (mobileip, mpls
> > WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services
> > over MPLS)"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find attached a liaison statement from Q.11/13
> Rapporteur Group
> > (Sophia Antipolis, 14-16 May 2003) of ITU-T Study Group 13 on "Draft
> > Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
> > addressed to IETF
> > (mobileip WG and mpls WG) for your consideration and comments.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Georges Sebek
> >
> > <<LS-IETF_ymipompls.pdf>> <<028e.pdf>>
> >
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>