Re: correction to DHS ieprep-related comments to the FCC
Janet P Gunn <[email protected]> Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:05:16 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ieprep |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF4A1ADEFF.08ABE7FF-ON85256EB0.004C9D2B-85256EB0.004D62FC@csc.com> |
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering why the IP services comments
had been included in the Callea response.
For what it is worth, the minimal request "(or, if they cannot prioritize,
not give
worse service and not destroy the marking)" was based on historical
experiences with the circuit switched networks.
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sob
@harvard.edu To: [email protected]
(Scott Bradner) cc:
Sent by: Subject: [Ieprep] correction to DHS ieprep-related comments to the
ieprep-bounces FCC
06/10/2004 11:10
AM
thanks to George Stanek for correcting my misunderstanding on the
DHS comments
-----
The FCC did issue an NPRM on IP-Enabled Services and sought industry
comments. The DHS comments you referenced below were in response to
the IP-Enabled Services NPRM, not the correspondence on lawful intercept.
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep