RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep)

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Mon, 06 November 2006 22:58 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhDQT-0003iL-If; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:58:45 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhDQO-0003aj-Ug; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:58:40 -0500
Received: from amer-mta08.csc.com ([20.137.52.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhDIn-0000dB-VZ; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:50:53 -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 kA6Mn3Q2025012; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:50:44 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <702ADCB87C5EF340B1D7A597A9DFF1DA23EE55@0015-its-exmb02.us.saic.com>
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep)
To: "King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <OFD9941F68.F529ED6C-ON8525721E.007C8BCB-8525721E.007D7554@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:50:20 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 11/06/2006 05:49:37 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc: 'Sam Hartman ' <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, "'ietf@ietf.org '" <ietf@ietf.org>, "'ieprep@ietf.org '" <ieprep@ietf.org>, 'Scott Bradner ' <sob@harvard.edu>
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




Two non-US governments are participating in the Industry Requirements (IR)
effort addressing the migration of (G)ETS  from circuit switched networks
to Core IP networks.  It is anticipated that this IR effort will feed into
standards- identifying new needs.  Some of these needs will feed into
ATIS/ITU, but others will feed into IETF.

In addition, the vendors and carriers are somewhat segmented.  Some of them
are primarily active in ATIS/ITU.  Others are primarily active in 3GPP or
3GPP2.  There is no one SDO that can be the home to  ALL the ETS work.

Janet



KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com wrote on 11/06/2006 05:31:59 PM:

> Martin said, "ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for
ATIS.
> Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
> (vendors, service providers, contractors,  and most importantly
> CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work."
>
> ATIS is a US National standards group, not an international one and thus
> does not cover the ieprep, as a whole, "customer base".  The groups
> requiring ieprep functionality include the NCS (your CUSTOMER) but also
US
> DoD and NATO.  I've also been informed (by Fred Baker and others) that
> several governments have talked with them about needing such
capabilities.
>
> Kimberly
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdolly@att.com
> To: Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; ieprep@ietf.org; King, Kimberly S.; Brian E Carpenter;
> Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Sam Hartman; Pekka Savola
> Sent: 11/6/2006 2:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet   Emergency
> Preparedness (ieprep)
>
> 1) Should this work be done within the IETF?
>
> Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g.,
> architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol
> extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol
> extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work
> MUST be done in the IETF.
>
> WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY
> be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a
> gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and
> deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the
> expertise is not in the IETF.
>
> ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS.
>
> Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
> (vendors, service providers, contractors,  and most importantly
> CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work.
>
> 2) If it is done within the IETF, where?
>
>  I will save my opinion for a later time.
>
> -


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