[Ieprep] on the ieprep charter

"Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole@jhuapl.edu> Wed, 12 July 2006 12:53 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0eDc-0002mO-7x; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:53:32 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0eDa-0002mI-J0 for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:53:30 -0400
Received: from aplesnation.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0eDX-0006mU-Ae for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:53:30 -0400
Received: from jhuapl.edu ([]) by aplesnation.dom1.jhuapl.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:53:26 -0400
Received: from ([]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 5502123.1430109; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:53:17 -0400
Message-ID: <44B4F17B.70105@jhuapl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:56:27 -0400
From: "Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole@jhuapl.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ieprep@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2006 12:53:26.0919 (UTC) FILETIME=[2AE72170:01C6A5B2]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Subject: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter
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


I am not sure of the lastest revision to the charter, so will make a few 
general comments on various versions and discussions.  I am also curious 
of the target date for completing the charter revision.

+ I agree with expanding the scope of the WG away from solely an 
emergency Telecomm focus to a more general emergency communications 
focus.  I do not think a totally military focus is correct however; this 
is only one of several sectors the IETF needs to address.  There is 
significant overlap in the needs for emergency services within 
Enterprise, Public and Military networks, that to focus on a single 
sector would represent a disservice to all of these communities.

+ I agree with the suggestion to expand beyond requirements and 
informational to standard track RFCs, if necessary.  There are clearly 
gaps in the current set of standards within the scope of emergency services.

That being said, I have a few specific comments:

+ I would shy away from the term 'Telecommunications' and use 
'Communications' when refering to working group scope.  Using it as an 
example is fine.

+ I generally prefer to use the term 'Precedence' in place of 
'Prioritization' when refering to general capabilities and requirements. 
  Prioritization implies (to some) a (queuing)mechanism, which may not 
be required in many instances.

+ A 'Feb 07 draft on mechanisms' is suggested.  Is this to focus on 
transport service mechanisms and/or application level mechanisms?

+ Perhaps the WG should consider drafting an I-D on Application 
Considerations when accessing emergency transport services.  I know 
there has been some discussion of Email/SMTP in this group.  Should the 
charter make discussion of application considerations in scope?  I think 
yes. I think such a document would point out some interesting 
interactions required between the network and the applications, e.g., 
access control, multiplexing, etc.


Ieprep mailing list