Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter

"Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole@jhuapl.edu> Thu, 27 July 2006 18:36 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Aiz-0004Ow-Ff; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:36:45 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Aiy-0004Or-Tw for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:36:44 -0400
Received: from pilot.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.200] helo=jhuapl.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Aix-0002AN-NH for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:36:44 -0400
Received: from ([128.244.96.244]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 5502123.2396550; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:36:19 -0400
Message-ID: <44C9089E.3050802@jhuapl.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:40:30 -0400
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: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter
References: <44B4F17B.70105@jhuapl.edu> <80703C4C-C585-4601-9518-270A3A6A49CC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <80703C4C-C585-4601-9518-270A3A6A49CC@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
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

Fred,

So do you think the following statement is roughly true?

"There is enough similarities in the needs of these broad industry 
segements with respect to communications requirements/needs in emergency 
situations that:

a) Protocols can be enhanced (or in some cases developed) to handle the 
similarities, while

b) Differences are relegated to implementations or behavior descriptions."

Thanks,

Bob

Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> My observation here is that in the PSTN there is a single common set  of 
> tools used, the information elements in SS7. The implementation of  
> these vary: some networks use preemption (my observation is that most  
> networks I have spoken with use preemption), and some use other  
> techniques like call queuing, trunk queuing, and alternative call  
> routing. That argues that it is not necessary and is perhaps  
> inappropriate to attempt to mandate that a difference in underlying  
> implementation forces a difference in protocol.

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