Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Sat, 23 September 2006 16:57 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GRAot-0000fQ-Jd; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:57:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GRAos-0000es-Dy for ieprep@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:57:38 -0400
Received: from [69.37.59.173] (helo=workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GRAor-0000ME-1V for ieprep@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:57:38 -0400
Received: from workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8NHaURZ081742; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:36:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200609231736.k8NHaURZ081742@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: Mpierce1@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:01 EDT." <463.1e206e00.324310d5@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:36:29 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
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
In message <463.1e206e00.324310d5@aol.com> Mpierce1@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:49:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > carlberg@g11.org.uk writes: > > > I'm at a loss as to why there is still no response of *any kind* > > regarding the status of the IEPREP WG and its proposed revised > > charter. I and others have sent private email regarding this matter > > in the past couple of months with no response, and the email (below) > > sent to a more public forum has also generated _no_ response. (and > > please keep in mind, I'm talking about a response as opposed to an > > action/decision) > > This seems to be the result of an organization in which the leaders, > rather than the members/participants, make the decisions. In other > standards bodies, the members have the decision making power. The > leaders don't. The IESG is busy. If you know any of the members personally you'd know that the IESG workload is enormous. Even WGs like IDR which is very much an IETF mainstream effort is often finding the IESG to be slow. > In this case, it was obvious (to me, at least) that many (most?) of > the leadership were against the IETF working on this subject. After > all, Emergency Telephone Service presumes that certain individuals are > authorized to get priority service, and they must be authorized by > governments to do so. And it is quite apparent that the IETF wants to > ignore the existance (or needs) of governments. Lets please dispense with conspiracy theories. A decade ago I worked on the NSFNET which was a government effort and the IETF and IESG was extremely supportive, as they were for NASA, DOE, and DoD networking as well as special needs of supercomputer centers, atmospheric research, radio telemetry, and other applications with special needs. The IETF and IESG continues to be supportive of governemt efforts from NSF research network efforts to Dod needs and I see no reason that ETS would be singled out and not supported. > Maybe the "leadership" can prove my accusations wrong by taking > positive steps to recharter/sanction IEPREP to do real work toward > satisfying the requirements that various governments have for > emergency communications. > > Mike Pierce It might just be that the leadership simply has a heavy workload. I do agree thought that some response, even if to just say where this is on the queue would be helpful. In the past, the best way to find out where something was in the queue is to send email to an IESG member that you happen to know or ask an IESG member in the hallway at an IETF meeting. They don't bite. Maybe since Scott Bradner is a chair of this WG and Scott has good access to the IESG, Scott could find out. IMHO - From a practical standpoint, a rechartering is something that needs clear deliverables and very strong concensus within the WG (meaning discussion and general agreement) and that the WG chairs have to push for to get accomplished. Since I'm a late comer to this WG and haven't gone back through the archives I don't know the level of discussion and support within the WG. Curtis ps - Where is the proposed new charter posted? I've seen a lot of discussion of rechartering on the list but haven't seen a pointer to the charter lately. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- [Ieprep] IEPREP working group ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group Robert G. Cole
- Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group Mpierce1
- Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group Curtis Villamizar