[Ieprep] Re-charter?
Dennis Q Berg <dberg3@csc.com> Thu, 07 July 2005 12:35 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01108 for <ieprep-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:35:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqW2Z-0002oa-SM for ieprep-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:03:45 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqVZI-0002ql-0o; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 08:33:28 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqVZH-0002pp-BK for ieprep@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 08:33:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00957 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:33:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from amer-mta02.csc.com ([20.137.2.248]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqW0P-00020Y-HL for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:01:33 -0400
Received: from amer-gw09.csc.com (amer-gw09.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta02.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id j67CXLO7006865; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:33:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Ieprep] Re-charter?
To: "Ieprep (ieprep@ietf.org)" <ieprep@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002
Message-ID: <OFDD6D467F.29DF7330-ON85257037.0041567D-85257037.0044F899@csc.com>
From: Dennis Q Berg <dberg3@csc.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 08:33:20 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 07/07/2005 08:33:02 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2e8fc473f5174be667965460bd5288ba
Cc: sob@harvard.edu, "Jon Peterson (jon.peterson@neustar.biz)" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
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>
Sender: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7e439b86d3292ef5adf93b694a43a576
Comments, reactions to the draft IEPREP charter inserted after text below. Dennis __________________ >The IEPREP WG will address proactive and >reactive robustness and recovery from various outages using >three perspectives: Why emphasize outages at the exclusion of congestions? >1. A commercial (i.e., or public) telecommunications >infrastructure >2. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure >that may retains sole ownership and administration of its >own resources >3. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure >that combines private resources and leverages public >infrastructure. This scenario may be subject to local >policies, laws, and regulations. This taxonomy is going to cause confusion because it tries to summarize in three categories what it more than three, i.e. Public Private -------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial General Public, Enterprise Enterprise --------------------------------------------------------------- Gov't FTS, GETS various ----------------------------------------------------------------- Military DSN offnet DSN Perhaps it would be better to start with just the twofold distinction of the matrix: application (commercial, civilian Gov't, military) and network accessibility/control (public, private). >Thus, proactive mechanisms to address would-be >outages are required for these scenarios. Again, just outages and not "outages and congestion". >The IEPREP WG will work on these three perspectives >(commercial, governmental/military, and the combination) and >synergize common mechanisms and requirements into other >groups where possible, while maintaining a separate track of >IEPREP documents for the unique mechanisms and requirements >of each perspectives. Seems that the end of this should be "...for the unique mechanisms and requirements for emergency preparedness of each perspective." >Now that the initial documents describe the broad problem >space and its salient characteristics, new efforts will >focus on specific requirements and solutions such as those >pertaining to the governmental/military sector. What documents are these? The completed IEPREP documents or the tsvwg-mlpp draft mentioned here? Why specifically single out one of the three perspectives rather than saying "new efforts will focus on specific requirements for solutions for each of the three perspectives"? >One document exists in the Transport Area working group of >interest to IEPREP that could satisfy a governmental >framework/BCP is draft-ietf-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works-XX. Should a charter reference a specific draft? Understand that this is supposed to be an example of the previous statement that other WGs will do the general mechanisms and requirements and IEPREP will do specifics that pertain to emergency preparedness - but it seems inappropriate to enshrine a specific example, especially when it is only a draft, and likely at least to need discussion if not being controversial in a WG charter. >The following are four specific examples that can satisfy >the interests of governmental/military (and potentially, >commercial/public) emergency communications: Just a clarity issue : this statement sounds like the four items following are solutions rather than what I think is meant: specific examples of issues that will be worked. >Goals and Milestones: >Done Submit initial I-D of Requirements >Done Submit initial I-D of Framework >Done Submit initial I-D of Recommendations BCP What ID is this. I don't see a document listed under IEPREP that fits this description. >Oct 05 Submit an initial I-D of Emergency Threats Analysis of Government/Military Networks >Dec 05 Submit an initial I-D of Differences between GETS and MLPP Networks The "GETS vs. MLPP" dichotomy does not seem to fit cleanly in to the framework of the three perspectives, since it is government/public using the same network as commercial/public (see comment above with matrix). To force it into the three perspectives framework, you would have to call it "government/commercial/public" - but that category doesn't exist in the three perspectives framework. Also, what would the scope of this document be in terms of the three general scopes referenced here - threats, requirements, solutions? >Feb 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of >Government/Military Networks >Mar 06 Submit an initial I-D of Considerations for potential >solutions of Government/Military Networks >Apr 06 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms to be used by Government/Military Networks This list of documents seems to say that the recharter effort is not really going to work on the three perspectives, only one: the Gov't/Military. >The working group will discuss re-chartering if additional >efforts are agreed upon by the WG (for example, work items >related to protocols outside existing WGs). Aren't these already included in the recharter under "mechanisms"? _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- [Ieprep] Re-charter? King, Kimberly S.
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Dennis Q Berg
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter?time slot? Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Jason Michael Canon
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Jason Michael Canon
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Dennis Q Berg
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Steve Silverman
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Janet P Gunn
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Bose, Pratik
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Dennis Q Berg
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? [Sessions?] James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? [solutions already?] James M. Polk
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? [MLPP limited to privateā¦ James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? [IP911 and preemption] James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter? [MLPP limited to privateā¦ Janet Gunn
- [Ieprep] Re-charter? Dennis Q Berg
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Ken Carlberg
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? Dennis Q Berg
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? James M. Polk
- RE: [Ieprep] Re-charter? King, Kimberly S.