Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
>  
> In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:49:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> [e-mail] 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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep