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

[[e-mail]]

In a message dated 11/5/2002 3:31:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[e-mail] writes:


> I remain a little befuddled about the charter language, despite a couple
> of attempts by Scott to clarify.  No doubt Scott will clarify the below
> if I err greatly.
> 
> However, *this particular group* is supposed to focus on how one could 
> deploy
> IEprep services *using existing mechanisms*.  The group is specifically NOT
> supposed to work on protocol design or changes to IETF protocol specs.
> So the focus of this group is how can we do IEprep stuff *today* (not
> in some indefinite future) using *existing* mechanisms.
> 



[MAP] I don't know why this continues to cause confusion. In his Oct 24 
e-mail, Scott wrote:

"I do not see anything in the charter that restricts this WG to 
only producing requirements that describe existing IP protocol functions"

I thought that was pretty clear.

> So work on changing things is legitimate for the IETF, but not particularly
> the focus of this particular working group.  As an example, this group
> is offering input to SIP WG.  SIP WG can then choose whether or not to
> make any changes and also which changes it wants to make.
> 
> So I'd say that if there are particular changes one wants to make to IETF
> protocols, then one should take those up in the *normal* IETF manner:
>     - show up at the applicable other WG
>     - explain what one wants and why one wants it
>     - write an Internet-Draft outlining one's proposal
>     - try to persuade that WG community to make those changes
>     - work with the normal process of the IETF
> 



[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, 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.

> No doubt Scott will correct any confusion in the above.
> 

Mike Pierce
Artel