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

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Thu, 02 November 2006 21:48 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfkQ5-0006Lr-Lr; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:48:17 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfkQ5-0006Lm-B6 for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:48:17 -0500
Received: from amer-mta08.csc.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfkQ2-0002Ca-WA for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:48:17 -0500
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com []) by amer-mta08.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id kA2Lm8Xi017753 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:48:13 -0500 (EST)
To: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <OF7DB5BB8C.EB2CAF10-ON8525721A.0077ACC5-8525721A.0077C257@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:48:05 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 11/02/2006 04:47:06 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Subject: [Ieprep] Fw: 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

----- Forwarded by Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC on 11/02/2006 04:47 PM -----

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> wrote on 11/02/2006 01:58:01 PM:

> Sam,
> One of the objectives of the work produced by IEPREP was to lay down
> the ground work and put together a baseline set of requirements to
> start with when considering solutions.  Our intention was that the
> baseline then becomes a starting point where more specific
> requirements can be put forth.  Outside of this, solutions were
> definitely out of scope.
> My understanding is that there are others that now wish to present
> some more specific requirements and potential solutions that do not
> fall into the scope of other working groups.  So the proposed re-
> charter looks to be a natural extension to what has been done.
> Interestingly enough, the work that you mention below in your
> original posting...
> <snip>
> "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
> documents."
> ... rfc-4542, rfc-4411, and draft -ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption
> (along with some other related work) has actually not been done in
> IEPREP because the group was not allowed to consider solutions.
> Instead, some of the work has been pushed to TSVWG, to the groans
> and sometimes confusion of some of the participants of that group,
> who wondered what the subject of prioritization had to do with
> TSVWG.  Part of the revised charter is meant to remove this obstacle.
> Also, as Scott Brimm has mentioned, there is a proposed liaison from
> the ITU to work with the IETF, with one of the working groups of
> interest being IEPREP.  It would seem odd to close down the group
> and punt the subject to them when they are approaching "us" for
> assistance  If IEPREP is closed, does that mean the subject gets
> pushed over to TSVWG?
> -ken
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Ieprep mailing list