[Ieprep] Fw: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Thu, 02 November 2006 21:51 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfkSv-0007Jk-5i; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:51:13 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfkSt-0007FL-Pc for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:51:11 -0500
Received: from amer-mta08.csc.com ([20.137.52.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfkSs-0002Zd-GZ for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:51:11 -0500
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta08.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id kA2Lp8Vk018999 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:51:08 -0500 (EST)
To: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <OFD6644434.A1477E94-ON8525721A.0077F4E9-8525721A.00780852@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:51:04 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 11/02/2006 04:50:01 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Subject: [Ieprep] Fw: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org








----- Forwarded by Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC on 11/02/2006 04:50 PM -----

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote on 11/02/2006 02:45:16 PM:

> >>>>> "ken" == ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> writes:
>
>     ken> Sam, One of the objectives of the work produced by IEPREP was
>     ken> to lay down the ground work and put together a baseline set
>     ken> of requirements to start with when considering solutions.
>     ken> Our intention was that the baseline then becomes a starting
>     ken> point where more specific requirements can be put forth.
>     ken> Outside of this, solutions were definitely out of scope.
>
>     ken> My understanding is that there are others that now wish to
>     ken> present some more specific requirements and potential
>     ken> solutions that do not fall into the scope of other working
>     ken> groups.  So the proposed re-charter looks to be a natural
>     ken> extension to what has been done.
>
>     ken> Interestingly enough, the work that you mention below in your
>     ken> original posting...
>     ken> ... rfc-4542, rfc-4411, and draft
>     ken> -ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption  (along with some other
>     ken> related work) has actually not been done in IEPREP because
>     ken> the group was not allowed to consider solutions.  Instead,
>     ken> some of the work has been pushed to TSVWG, to the groans and
>     ken> sometimes confusion of some of the participants of that
>     ken> group, who wondered what the subject of prioritization had to
>     ken> do with TSVWG.  Part
>
> I think the work you cite belongs in tsvwg.  AT least 4542 and
> vpn-signaling-preemption.
>
>     ken> of the revised charter is meant to
>     ken> remove this obstacle.
>
> Which work would be permitted under the revised charter that is
> currently udone elsewhere?  I may have more concerns about the revised
> charter than I thought I did.
>
>     ken> Also, as Scott Brimm has mentioned, there is a proposed
>     ken> liaison from the ITU to work with the IETF, with one of the
>     ken> working groups of interest being IEPREP.  It would seem
>     ken> odd to close down the group and punt the subject to them when
>     ken> they are approaching "us" for assistance  If IEPREP is
>     ken> closed, does that mean the subject gets pushed over to TSVWG?
>
>
> that rather depends on what question they're asking, now doesn't it?
> IF they're asking for enhancements to RSVP to deal with some ETS
> issues, then yes, I'd hope the work would be done in tsvwg.  That way,
> ETS requirements can be balanced against other requirements.  If they
> want to change SIP, I'd hope that it would go through sipping and
> eventually sip.
>
>
> If they want us to do non-protocol work closer to 4542, then perhaps
> we need a WG to do it in.
>
> --Sam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep