Re: [Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 6-10 - discussion request]

[[e-mail]]

In a message dated 11/5/2002 5:24:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[e-mail] writes:


> On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 16:48 America/Montreal, [e-mail] 
> wrote:
> > [MAP] What you''ve described above is exactly correct. The applicable 
> > WG to show up at with an explanation of what one wants and why is 
> > IEPREP. We all agree that it is not the place to propose specific 
> > changes to specific protocols,
> 
> I was talking about "specific changes to specific protocols" as the work 
> that
> seems to be out of scope for this WG.  You misread my note -- but that's
> OK because you're really 100% consistent in misreading my notes so I expect
> it these days.
> 
> > but if possibilites can't be mentioned, then we'll never get there.
> 
> 
> > Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, or whatever WG and claim
> > to need something. We already agreed that doesn't work.
> 
> You might think that, but I know of a lot of folks who have been VERY VERY 
> successful
> in doing just that with those WGs and with others.  It *does* require that 
> one present
> a sound *technical* case -- which is often missing from NCS and its 
> contractors.
> 
> And there is most assuredly NOT WG consensus on the last two sentences from 
> you above,
> so "we" must mean "NCS and its contractors" in your sentence.  It does NOT 
> mean
> "this WG".
> 


[MAP] I don't understand why you continue to be so abusive in your responses 
to me (and others) on this list. It is totally uncalled for.

Let me clarify one thing first: I am not "NCS and its contractors". To be 
open, which I wish everyone would be, I am a contractor supported by DISA, 
which is responsible for standards and policies for the US Defense 
communications networks. My purpose is to push for support of emergency 
services in IP so that the US Defense communications networks can use IP for 
its voice and other traffic. (NCS has a different mission, but I believe any 
protocol changes can and must support both sets of requirements.)

As I clearly stated, I completely agree with your statement that "specific 
changes to specific protocols" are out of scope for IEPREP. But there seems 
to be a continuing disagreement/confusion on what IEPREP exists for and how 
"we (DISA)" are supposed to bring forward proposed requirements for emergency 
services. My statement was "The applicable WG to show up at with an 
explanation of what one wants and why is IEPREP".

Further, I stated that: "Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, or 
whatever WG and claim to need something. We already agreed that doesn't 
work." Yes, please read everything I write as if it is preceeded by "IMHO". I 
would like to hear from anyone who doesn't believe that statement. You didn't 
say that you didn't agree with my statement, only that there are "a lot of 
folks" who don't follow it. I know there are, and that's one of the things I 
thought "we (WG)" are trying to fix.

I thought the point of draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-05 was that requirements had 
to be agreed in SIPPING before specific protocol changes were proposed to 
SIP. And for the emergency work, I thought "we (WG)" had agreed that IEPREP 
had to agree on requirements before anything was brought to SIPPING (or other 
WGs).

If I have misunderstood the process that "we (WG and DISA)" are attempting to 
follow, I hope Scott or Allison or Kimberly will set me (and others) straight.

Mike Pierce
Artel