Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter

"Robert G. Cole" <> Thu, 27 July 2006 19:34 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Bcb-0004RC-Cz; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:34:13 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Bca-0004Qr-21 for; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:34:12 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6BcY-0008MQ-PM for; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:34:12 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 5502123.2400938; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:33:39 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:37:51 -0400
From: "Robert G. Cole" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Is this something that is or should be captured within the text of the 
IEPREP charter, i.e., objectives for paritioning work into protocols at 
UNIs and NNIs and behaviors (where appropriate) within network interiors?


Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Robert G. Cole wrote:
>> "There is enough similarities in the needs of these broad industry  
>> segements with respect to communications requirements/needs in  
>> emergency situations that:
>> a) Protocols can be enhanced (or in some cases developed) to handle  
>> the similarities, while
>> b) Differences are relegated to implementations or behavior  
>> descriptions."
> Yes, that is my opinion. Just an opinion, mind you. But I should  think 
> that a common UNI and NNI signaling mechanism could be  described that 
> enabled every implementation (regardless of nation or  type of network) 
> to classify requests in an appropriate manner  (routine or whatever 
> other level might apply, and whether the  customer was authorized to 
> make the request) and then implement what  needs to be done. In some 
> networks, for some services such as VoIP  and Video/IP, that will 
> include preemption; in other networks, the  same services will include 
> trunk queuing or other approaches. For  other services, such as 
> preferring some elastic traffic over others  and the transitive trust 
> issues in delivering an email within a short  stated interval, other 
> considerations may also come into play.
> Note that I carefully separated that into three broad categories:  UNI, 
> NNI, and everything else. "everything else" is within a network,  and I 
> think that is the network's problem although I may have some  
> suggestions. NNI may be able to be handled by SLAs, although one  could 
> argue that the entire discussion here is regarding edge  conditions in 
> SLAs. It is the UNI that concerns me the most, as it  tends to be the 
> place where the biggest problems occur, and where  problems occur at 
> NNIs they can be treated as a variety of aggregated  UNI. It is the NNI 
> and the UNI that are most in view in RFC 4542.
> One thing to consider is that the intra-network case and the NNI case  
> are somewhat specialized( we are simply looking at IP traffic,  usually 
> in an aggregated form), while the UNI crosses a variety of  types of 
> products including SMTP servers, telephones and telephone  middleware, 
> etc ad nauseum. I think the UNI is the most interesting  and important 
> case.

Ieprep mailing list