Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Tue, 26 September 2006 21:26 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSKS3-0002Io-TS; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:26:52 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSKS3-0002Ij-Kd for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:26:51 -0400
Received: from amer-mta07.csc.com ([20.137.52.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSKS2-0000ep-D2 for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:26:51 -0400
Received: from amer-gw09.csc.com (amer-gw09.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta07.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k8QLQmh6016058; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <200609261656.k8QGuF1h002117@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels
To: curtis@occnc.com
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <OF98D06FD5.0301A37E-ON852571F5.00759F38-852571F5.0075B270@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:26:40 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 09/26/2006 05:25:36 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
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









Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> wrote on 09/26/2006 12:56:15 PM:
..
>
> The real challenge is making an ETS work in the real world where a
> natural disaster (or worse) has taken out a good part of the physical
> infrastructure.  The solution may need to adapt to whatever level of
> infrastructure is left.  A fixed allocation and a largely static
> configuration might not work at all under those circumstances.  The
> ETS has to work as best as possible within the disaster area.  That is
> part of what we are trying to accomplish I hope.

Agreed.


_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep