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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 05 November 2006 02:35 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgXrZ-0006Cu-Fd; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:35:57 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgXrX-0006CW-B9; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:35:55 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GgXrV-0007Cn-VZ; Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:35:55 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2006 18:35:53 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,388,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="754823545:sNHT60522114"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com []) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ( with ESMTP id kA52Zr4l007350; Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:35:53 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com []) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kA52ZpW4016618; Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:35:51 -0800
Received: from [] ([]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:35:51 -0800
In-Reply-To: <454CEAA2.1040204@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <tslhcxihmw3.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <E1GfLJY-0003B5-Pg@ietf.org> <tslhcxihmw3.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611022301130.25516@netcore.fi> <454CEAA2.1040204@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <6A5DDA18-6F3A-4AC2-A2D2-7FF8718404AB@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:04:59 -0800
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2006 02:35:51.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BFB0560:01C70083]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2472; t=1162694153; x=1163558153; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20WG=20Review=3A=20Recharter=20of=20Internet=20Emergency=20Prepare dness=20(ieprep); X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3D7ntxOs3hN0dFnHM0/9c9SyPH49I=3D; b=FIVE4OuBrDz2DWKa1AuHwpdOtteA4lNjIVacy8YZwq3txVl6b332CMebrm8E/fZKoBhW0U1O PY5DmbvkEXD+vW8boKSp+vcuCZRh91KSQE4OTQjs/X4YiEmamYAnTYB5;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4.cisco.com; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, ieprep@ietf.org, Kimberly King <kimberly.s.king@saic.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [Ieprep] Re: 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

I have to say that my discussions with US DoD and DHS/NCS, and with  
their counterparts in other countries, doesn't suggest that the set  
of technical mechanisms is all specified. If we're looking only at  
voice, it is maybe so, but they're not looking only at voice.  
Questions abound around the mechanisms for sending an email and  
ensuring that it is delivered in a stated time interval on the order  
of minutes or that an indication of failure is returned to the  
sender, and other things.

I am also not at this point convinced that the ITU is the right place  
to have standards discussions regarding the Internet. There is not  
the demonstrated expertise, in my opinion.

So this is not all about mailing liaisons back and forth. If you want  
the standards done right, the experts on the topics need to be doing  

On Nov 4, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hi,
> We now have a fair amount of guidance on how to work with other
> SDO's in general, which would certainly include ITU-T. Just to
> summarise:
>  "IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships,"
>  BCP 102, RFC 4052, April 2005.
>  "Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF,"
>  BCP 103, RFC 4053, April 2005.
>  "Guidelines for Acting as an IETF Liaison to Another Organization,"
>  RFC 4691, October 2006.
> We also have some specific guidance on extensions, when another
> SDO sees a need for IETF protocols to be extended to meet their
> system requirements:
> draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-04.txt (approved as a BCP, in  
> RFC queue).
> A lot of IEPREP work seems to belong in the extensions category.
> The question in my mind is whether the IEPREP work items are in the
> category where we can be confident that these mechanisms are  
> sufficient
> (i.e., we can rely on another SDO to provide realistic requirements
> in the form of liaisons) or whether we need the requirements to be
> developed in the IETF to get them right (i.e., realistic in terms of
> what Internet technology can actually achieve). I think the history
> of work related to IEPREP shows that it's all too easy for people
> steeped in the connection-oriented world to come up with unrealisable
> requirements for a packet network.
>     Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Ieprep mailing list