RE: How to handle Validation failures was RE: [Sipping-emergency] proposed charter, new wg on emergency

> I changed the subject, as we are off the subject of a new charter,
> as we agree validation should be in that charter.
> 

Brian,

I'm not sure that everyone on this distribution agrees that validation
should be in the scope of this proposed working group. In fact, until I read
your mail, I had gotten the sense that several voices (including James, Marc
and Nate) were questioning this idea.

I think validation as such is probably outside of the core expertise of the
IETF, whereas routing is more likely to be a place where we can do some
solid work. The expertise of the IETF does not lie in subjects like whether
Conrad St is in Butler County or Pine Township, nor in recommending how you
might figure something like that out. Moreover, this seems to be a back-end
application issue, not a protocol issue, as I think a number of people have
already pointed out.

I think that validation is a separable operation from routing, even if it is
a prerequisite in some operational models. An umbrella specification that
described everything you needed to do in order to provide emergency services
might include validation, but that doesn't mean that the routing protocol
should change in any way because validation was or was not performed. But I
don't think the IETF has the breadth to tackle that whole umbrella.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc. 

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
Sipping-emergency@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency