RE: [Ieprep] (Forwarded) alternate version of revised IEPREP char ter
"King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com> Mon, 26 June 2006 13:43 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FurNJ-0000LN-8N; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:37 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FurNH-0000LD-9Z for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:35 -0400
Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FurNG-0000tm-Oe for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:35 -0400
Received: from 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx.mail.saic.com; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:24 -0400
Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2006062609432127269 ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:22 -0400
Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <NACVK0TA>; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:21 -0400
Message-Id: <702ADCB87C5EF340B1D7A597A9DFF1DA01426E9F@0015-its-exmb02.us.saic.com>
From: "King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com>
To: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly@att.com>, Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>, ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] (Forwarded) alternate version of revised IEPREP char ter
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:43:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 509eeaf340e89c687918a6101c6def35
Cc: "Taylor, Carollyn D CIV NCS NC2" <carol-lyn.taylor@dhs.gov>, stephen.perschau@dhs.gov
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
Hello Martin, I am pleased that folks are expressing support for the milestones and activities presented in the alternate version of the charter as they coincide with the version of the charter that I sent out. The only substantive change of the potentially revised charter (sent out by Janet on behalf of Steve) is a name change of the working group from IEPREP to MTW (MLPP That Works). I think there is little chance of the IESG supporting such a name change. Thus if it is the work and the activities are what is important, then it makes sense to focus on the version that I posted on June 12. Namely: Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) Charter Description of Working Group: Effective telecommunications capabilities are imperative to facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious emergency events including natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, combat situations or wartime events). In addition, related capabilities should be operative in normal command and control operations of military services, which often have timeliness requirements even in peacetime. Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any telecommunications capabilities at hand. These capabilities include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The commercial telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to Internet-based technology. Therefore, the Internet community needs to consider how it can best support emergency management and recovery operations. The IEPREP WG will address proactive measures to congestion and recovery from various outages using three perspectives: 1. A commercial (i.e., or public) telecommunications infrastructure 2. An enterprise or governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure that retains sole administration of its own network resources 3. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure that combines private resources and leverages public infrastructure. Now that the initial documents describing the broad problem space and its salient characteristics have been completed, new efforts will focus on specific requirements and solutions, such as those pertaining to the governmental/military sector. The following are specific examples that can satisfy the interests of governmental/military (and potentially, commercial/public/enterprise) emergency communications: 1. Under emergency circumstances, some countries require civil networks to distinguish sessions based on the user's indication of precedence. The network can use the precedence information to give priority to some sessions over others, up to and including preemption of lower-precedence sessions. In many countries' governmental networks, the capabilities needed to support precedence-based preferential treatment are requirements on the equipment and services used to build those networks. As Internet-based technology continues to expand into civil and government networks, requirements for precedence-based capabilities will need to be developed. IEPREP will document these requirements as they pertain to technologies of interest to IETF. 2. Specific countries may have additional considerations that define the context in which they implement session precedence and preemption. For example, network ownership constraints (which may differ from commercial deployments), communities of interest including dial-plan considerations, encryption assumptions and any limitations arising from differing security levels, etc. that should be described before mechanisms can be proposed. IEPREP should document the context for implementing solutions. In addition, specific solutions must be developed when appropriate. 3. While voice was the driving application for IEPREP in the past, preferential treatments will need to be applied to all applications essential to emergency communications. Preferential treatment must address robustness of both voice and non-real-time applications that share the same infrastructure. The IEPREP WG should document the preferential treatment mechanisms that are appropriate for any essential communications. In the IETF, considerations for treatment and security of emergency communications stretch across a number of working groups, mostly in the RAI Area, notably including the various voice/video signaling working groups, instant messaging, and QoS signaling. IEPREP will cooperate closely with these groups and with those outside of the IETF such as various ITU-T study groups. In addition, IEPREP will pursue subject matter experts (e.g., security) for specification review if such expertise does not exist within the working group in order to ensure continued high quality specifications. If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will generate only a requirements document for those groups to evaluate. If there is not an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will prepare requirements and discuss the extension of that protocol/mechanism or protocols/mechanisms within IEPREP. 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 Done Produce an Requirements I-D to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done Submit Framework I-D to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Aug 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of Government/Military Networks for Precedence and Preemption Aug 06 Submit an initial I-D of ETS Terminology. This document should define ieprep related terms (e.g., ETS, GETS, MLPP) and explain their relationships and how they have been used in existing RFCs Sept 06 Submit an initial I-D of Deployment Considerations of Precedence and Preemption on Government/Military Networks. This document should clarify the context that Government/Military requirements must operate. Nov 06 Submit final I-D of Requirements of Government/Military Networks for Precedence and Preemption to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC NOV 06 Submit final I-D of ETS Terminology to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. Jan 07 Submit an final I-D of Deployment Considerations of Precedence and Preemption on Government/Military Networks to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. Feb 07 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and Preemption to be used by Government/Military Networks Apr 07 Submit final I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and Preemption to be used by Government/Military Networks to IESG for publication as a BCP Apr 07 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). -----Original Message----- From: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ieprep-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dolly, Martin C, ALABS Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:36 PM To: Janet P Gunn; ieprep@ietf.org Cc: Taylor, Carollyn D CIV NCS NC2; stephen.perschau@dhs.gov Subject: RE: [Ieprep] (Forwarded) alternate version of revised IEPREP charter Hello, I support this charter, and being there has not been ay other views, I assume you all agree as well. (ass/u/me) Kimberly: what is your view as chair??? Peace, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Janet P Gunn [mailto:jgunn6@csc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:37 PM To: ieprep@ietf.org Cc: Taylor, Carollyn D CIV NCS NC2; stephen.perschau@dhs.gov Subject: [Ieprep] (Forwarded) alternate version of revised IEPREP charter I have been asked to send this to the IEPREP list on behalf of Carol-Lyn Taylor and Stephen Perschau (both of NCS). Janet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- ----- Forwarded by Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC on 06/13/2006 01:30 PM ----- > Sent on behalf of Stephen Perschau: > > Attached is a version of the proposed draft new charter that I would > like to see discussed. It is different from the one sent by Dr. > King. This version of the proposed draft charter focuses on DoD > aspects. MLPP is not an intrinsic aspect of an ETS although it can > be used where permitted. MLPP is used on a daily basis by DoD in > their enterprise network and the charter should reflect that fact. > Stephen Perschau > ********************************************************************* > MTW (MLPP That Works) Formally (ieprep) Charter > > Description of Working Group: Effective telecommunications > capabilities in enterprise networks (private commercial or > government/military networks) are necessary for normal day-to-day > operations. These enterprise capabilities can also be used to > facilitate response and recovery operations for emergency events > including natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) > and those created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, combat situations > or wartime events). > > The WG will address proactive measures to deal with emergency events > from the following perspectives: > > 1. A government/military telecommunications network that retains > sole administration of its own network resources. > > 2. A government/military telecommunications infrastructure that > combines enterprise network resources and leverages public network resources. > > These new efforts will focus on specific requirements and solutions > pertaining to the government/military sector. > The following apply: > 1. Under certain circumstances, some countries require their > networks to distinguish sessions based on the user's indication of > precedence. The network can use the precedence information to give > priority to some sessions over others, up to and including > preemption of lower-precedence sessions. In many countries' > governmental networks, the capabilities needed to support > precedence-based preferential treatment are requirements on the > equipment and services used to build those networks. As Internet- > based technology continues to expand into government/military > networks, requirements for precedence-based capabilities will need > to be developed. The Working Group (WG) will document these > requirements as they pertain to technologies of interest to IETF. > > 2. Some countries have additional considerations that define the > context in which they implement session precedence and preemption. > For example, network ownership constraints (which may differ from > commercial deployments), communities of interest including dial-plan > considerations, encryption assumptions and limitations arising from > differing security levels, etc. that should be described before > mechanisms are proposed. The WG will document the context for > implementing solutions. In addition, solutions must be developed > when appropriate. > > 3. While voice was the driving application in the past, preferential > treatment will need to be applied to all applications used in > response and recovery operations. Preferential treatment must be > applied to real-time (e.g., voice) and non-real-time applications > (e.g., Text messaging, SMS) that share the same network. The WG will > document the preferential treatment mechanisms that are appropriate > for any essential communications. > > In the IETF, considerations for treatment and security of > communications for response and recovery operations stretch across a > number of working groups, mostly in the RAI Area, notably including > the various voice/video signaling working groups, instant messaging, > and QoS signaling. The WG will cooperate closely with these groups > and with those outside of the IETF such as ITU-T study groups. In > addition, the WG will pursue subject matter experts (e.g., security) > for specification review if such expertise does not exist within the > working group in order to ensure continued high quality specifications. > > If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or > mechanism, the WG will generate only a requirements document for > those groups to evaluate. If there is not an existing group that can > extend a protocol or mechanism, the WG will prepare requirements and > discuss the extension of that protocol/mechanism or > protocols/mechanisms within the WG. > > Goals and Milestones: > > Aug 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of Government/Military > Networks for Precedence and Preemption > > Sept 06 Submit an initial I-D of Deployment Considerations of > Precedence and Preemption on Government/Military Networks. This > document should clarify the context that Government/Military > requirements must operate. > > Nov 06 Submit final I-D of Requirements of Government/Military > Networks for Precedence and Preemption to IESG for publication as an > Informational RFC. > Jan 07 Submit final I-D of Deployment Considerations of Precedence > and Preemption on Government/Military Networks to IESG for > publication as an Informational RFC. > > Feb 07 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and > Preemption to be used by Government/Military Networks > > Apr 07 Submit final I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and Preemption > to be used by Government/Military Networks to IESG for publication as a BCP > > Apr 07 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). > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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 mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- RE: [Ieprep] (Forwarded) alternate version of rev… King, Kimberly S.
- RE: [Ieprep] (Forwarded) alternate version of rev… Janet P Gunn