[Ieprep] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Thu, 02 November 2006 18:48 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gfhbp-0001Qd-7a; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:48:13 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gfhbo-0001QY-Bk for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:48:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gfhbk-0003iv-Vt for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:48:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2006 13:48:07 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,381,1157342400"; d="scan'208"; a="108558926:sNHT70417020"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com []) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ( with ESMTP id kA2Im68w017466 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:48:06 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com []) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kA2Im6YJ005253 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:48:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:48:06 -0500
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:48:05 -0500
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: jmpolk@email.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:48:04 -0600
To: ieprep@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2006 18:48:06.0077 (UTC) FILETIME=[6EF2B6D0:01C6FEAF]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=3770; t=1162493286; x=1163357286; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:Fwd=3A=20Re=3A=20WG=20Review=3A=20Recharter=20of=20Internet=20Emergency= 0A=20=20Preparedness=20(ieprep) |To:ieprep@ietf.org; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DueMwp1DoXJMqc1X1E/9a1kPsm3Q=3D; b=Z6qyd4icamGqSTGnmNOjZANSnU5D7ZmjF/ahX0GKgwBU26ve8cpn3fbIaFN4Zl9xo8mdsSOs u3WybkiEvB//JCu2ern6t4Lq7puE8yFpYx7RobzWFBo/9ed8P0fEdjty;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc
Subject: [Ieprep] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
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

It appears this message from Sam didn't make it to the ieprep list, even 
though it <ieprep@ietf.org> is a cc.

For those of you who care, there have already been a few folks comment on 
the <ietf@ietf.org> list agreeing with Sam.

>From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
>To: ietf@ietf.org
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:34:20 -0500
>Cc: Kimberly King <kimberly.s.king@saic.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>,
>         ieprep@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
>[I could not find the ITU's liaison to the IETF.  Scott, if such
>exists, I'd appreciate you forwarding this to them.]
>I'm speaking here as an individual.  I'd like to build consensus for
>my position both within the IESG and within the community, but I
>realize that if I fail to build that consensus, I cannot make this
>objection as a single IESG member.
>I don't believe the new charter of ieprep working group belongs in the
>IETF.  I understand why we chartered it here, and I believe that by
>doing as much work as we have done so far in the IETF, we have done
>something useful.  We've described the broad problem and have helped
>to explain how it fits in the Internet context.  That was an important
>thing for us to do.
>However the work that remains belongs somewhere else--probably the
>ITU-T.  I propose that we work with ITU to see if they are interested
>in the work and if so, use this as an opportunity to foster
>cooperation with work going to the ITU.
>In order for the proposed charter to be successful, the working group
>will need to go far outside the IETF's normal technical mandate and
>venture into the space of network design to come up with requirements
>documents.  The technical aspects of this problem are only one of the
>things going into successful requirements.
>Based on my limited knowledge I believe that the ITU is in a better
>position than the IETF to specify requirements and mechanisms for
>national and government telecommunications networks.  I think we
>should let them do their job just as we ask them to let us do our job
>and to design the technical protocols that are increasingly being used
>on those networks.
>Naturally, the IETF should make any necessary modifications to IETF
>protocols to implement IEPREP work regardless of where it takes place.
>The main argument I've heard throughout the existence of ieprep for
>why it needed to happen in the IETF is that if it happens elsewhere,
>they'll do something we don't like or do it wrong.  Perhaps that was
>once a valid argument.  However, I think we have enough of the details
>of technical approaches that we find appropriate documented that we
>can give sufficient input to another body on what approaches work on
>the Internet.  I would assume we'd ask people working in this space to
>take a look at the existing ieprep output, RFC 4542, RFC 4411,
>draft-ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption and other appropriate
>I think that given this input another group could understand what
>works well on the internet and could work both on requirements related
>to the technology as well as the overall system architecture so we end
>up with deployable solutions at national and governmental levels.
>In addition, I believe that since the first part of the ieprep work
>happened here, we would be in a good position to work with whatever
>standards body did the work to scope the charter to favor technologies
>that would work well on the Internet.
>Thanks for your consideration,
>Ietf mailing list

Ieprep mailing list