RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep)

"Dolly, Martin C, NPE" <mdolly@att.com> Mon, 06 November 2006 22:58 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhDQM-0003Xo-Cf; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:58:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhDQK-0003Vm-HU; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:58:36 -0500
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com ([216.82.250.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhDLZ-0000rh-Gn; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:53:42 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: mdolly@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1162853617!8113834!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 1272 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2006 22:53:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO attrh9i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2006 22:53:37 -0000
Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kA6Ml0Wq024853; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:47:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst07.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.12]) by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kA6MklrC024754; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:46:51 -0500 (EST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:52:12 -0600
Message-ID: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A017101B716C@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <200611062250.kA6MoOwF020628@cyrus2.wsscan.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep)
Thread-Index: AccB9fbXyjh5luwuQfyL8lWtOMgUXgAACHLg
From: "Dolly, Martin C, NPE" <mdolly@att.com>
To: <jgunn6@csc.com>, "King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org, ieprep@ietf.org, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
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

Janet,

I agree there is not "one stop shopping" on this and/or most topics.

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: jgunn6@csc.com [mailto:jgunn6@csc.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:50 PM
To: King, Kimberly S.
Cc: 'Sam Hartman '; 'ieprep@ietf.org '; 'ietf@ietf.org '; Dolly, Martin
C, NPE; 'Scott Bradner '
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency
Prepar edness (ieprep)

Two non-US governments are participating in the Industry Requirements
(IR)
effort addressing the migration of (G)ETS  from circuit switched
networks
to Core IP networks.  It is anticipated that this IR effort will feed
into
standards- identifying new needs.  Some of these needs will feed into
ATIS/ITU, but others will feed into IETF.

In addition, the vendors and carriers are somewhat segmented.  Some of
them
are primarily active in ATIS/ITU.  Others are primarily active in 3GPP
or
3GPP2.  There is no one SDO that can be the home to  ALL the ETS work.

Janet



KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com wrote on 11/06/2006 05:31:59 PM:

> Martin said, "ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for
ATIS.
> Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
> (vendors, service providers, contractors,  and most importantly
> CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work."
>
> ATIS is a US National standards group, not an international one and
thus
> does not cover the ieprep, as a whole, "customer base".  The groups
> requiring ieprep functionality include the NCS (your CUSTOMER) but
also
US
> DoD and NATO.  I've also been informed (by Fred Baker and others) that
> several governments have talked with them about needing such
capabilities.
>
> Kimberly
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdolly@att.com
> To: Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; ieprep@ietf.org; King, Kimberly S.; Brian E
Carpenter;
> Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Sam Hartman; Pekka Savola
> Sent: 11/6/2006 2:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet   Emergency
> Preparedness (ieprep)
>
> 1) Should this work be done within the IETF?
>
> Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g.,
> architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol
> extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol
> extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work
> MUST be done in the IETF.
>
> WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY
> be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a
> gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and
> deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the
> expertise is not in the IETF.
>
> ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS.
>
> Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
> (vendors, service providers, contractors,  and most importantly
> CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work.
>
> 2) If it is done within the IETF, where?
>
>  I will save my opinion for a later time.
>
> -


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