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

[Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>]

      On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [e-mail] wrote:
    > I don't understand why you continue to be so abusive in your
    > responses to me (and others) on this list.

Ran hasn't been abusive.  Ran has been a remarkable model of restraint and
decorous moderation.  Ran has simply been asking you questions which
you're ignoring or refusing to answer.

    > 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.

How many times do you need to be told that THIS IS NOT OKAY?  If you don't
have the intellectual honesty and strength of conviction to say something
because YOU believe it, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR YOU IN THE IETF.

You are participating as an INDIVIDUAL, not representing an organization.

We want to know what YOU think.  We already know that organizations are
incapable of thought.

    > There seems to be a continuing disagreement/confusion on
    > what IEPREP exists for...

"The working group will devlop a Requirements for Internet Emergency
Preparedness in the Internet RFC which will detail the specific functions
and technologies needed to provide support for Emergency Preparedness
systems in the Internet" and "a BCP to identify mechanisms to provide
deterministic behavior of applications, mechanisms for authentication and
authorization, and recommendations for application design with existing
protocols."  Specifically:

   "Deliverables

    Best Current Practice: IETF Recommendations for the Emergency
    Telecommunications Service using existing protocols - what can be done
    with existing protcols and what can not be done.

    Informational: Requirements for Internet Emergency Preparedness in the
    Internet. Framework for Supporting Internet Emergency Preparedness in
    IP Telephony."

It also contains the remarkably unfortunate phrase "The international
community needs advice," and fails to provide for a needs analysis before
launching into requirements.  And both of these documents, though actually
in early draft stage presently, were due three months ago.

Some of that seems pretty ill-conceived, but I don't see where the
ambiguity you're finding in it lies.

    > ...and how "we (DISA)" are supposed to bring forward proposed
    > requirements for emergency services.

Sorry, who asked DISA, or any portion of the DoD of the US or any country
to bring anything forward?

    > 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."  I would like to hear from anyone who doesn't believe
    > that statement.

Of course that's false.  SIPPING and DIFFSERV exist for the purpose of
development within their areas.  That's what they're there for.  They do
work at each IETF, brought to them by responsible individuals within the
IETF, in exactly the manner that Ran, or I, or any other individual with
relevant business would do so.  SIPPING, at any rate, actually completes
that work and produces standards which are implemented in the actual
production network.  Every day.

The problem isn't SIPPING or DIFFSERV.  The issue is that they're
successfully defending themselves against a violation of the IETF
standards process, and you're whining about it.

    > 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 where exactly do you see a "SIP Guidelines" in the deliverables for
this working group?  I see two deliverables, both well overdue, and no
contribution to either of them from you.  In this mailing list, please
discuss the deliverables for this working group, before wandering off to
tell other working groups what they should be doing.

    > 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).

Amen to that.

                                -Bill


_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep