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

"Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole@jhuapl.edu> Wed, 15 November 2006 14:37 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkLth-0005ra-IS; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:37:53 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkLth-0005rS-6y; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:37:53 -0500
Received: from pilot.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.200] helo=jhuapl.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkLtf-0004gL-VO; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:37:53 -0500
Received: from ([128.244.246.166]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 5502123.11895703; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:37:29 -0500
Message-ID: <455B26A4.8030702@jhuapl.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:39:32 -0500
From: "Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole@jhuapl.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
References: <tslhcxihmw3.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <E1GfLJY-0003B5-Pg@ietf.org> <tslhcxihmw3.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20061102124821.03caff08@email.cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611022301130.25516@netcore.fi> <454CEAA2.1040204@zurich.ibm.com> <6A5DDA18-6F3A-4AC2-A2D2-7FF8718404AB@cisco.com> <454F52B7.4000403@jhuapl.edu> <4559F098.1070308@zurich.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4559F098.1070308@zurich.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, ieprep@ietf.org, Kimberly King <kimberly.s.king@saic.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@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

Brian,

I do not think anyone is suggesting the DoD drives IETF requirements. 
But, as a customer of IP services, networks and equipment, it should be 
treated as other customers and have their requirements considered into 
the overall IETF requirements for these services.

IMO, customer requirements should be written from a high-level 
capabilities/services perspective, not at the level of mechanisms or 
box-level functions.  Functional architectures, protocols, etc should be 
discussed and developed within the IETF.  And I think having an IEPREP 
WG in the IETF is the right venues for this type of work and coordination.

Thanks,
Bob

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> Robert G. Cole wrote:
> 
>> I whole-heartedly agree.  I believe the DoD must extend its notions of 
>> Precedence and Preemption to all applications, voice, video, web, ftp, 
>> mail, etc.  
> 
> ...
> 
> This illustrates some of my concerns about this requirements work being
> done outside the IETF.
> 
> 1. The DoD doesn't determine IETF requirements. It's one stakeholder
> in one country; the IETF looks at things globally.
> 
> 2. The notion that solutions such as precedence and preemption
> are (a) requirements and (b) applicable to all applications just
> doesn't compute for me. We'd actually need to understand at a more
> basic level what the functional requirements are, in terms that are
> meaningful for a datagram network. I don't believe that will
> happen in ATIS or ITU-T.
> 
> Brian (personal opinion)

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