[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness ieprep
From: ken carlberg
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:03:15 -0500
    ken> Interestingly enough, the work that you mention below in your
    ken> original posting...
    ken> ... rfc-4542, rfc-4411, and draft
    ken> -ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption  (along with some other
    ken> related work) has actually not been done in IEPREP because
    ken> the group was not allowed to consider solutions.  Instead,
    ken> some of the work has been pushed to TSVWG, to the groans and
    ken> sometimes confusion of some of the participants of that
    ken> group, who wondered what the subject of prioritization had to
    ken> do with TSVWG.  Part

I think the work you cite belongs in tsvwg.  AT least 4542 and

I mentioned the above as examples, not as a case-by-case examination of what should or should not be in IEPREP. But along those lines, rfc-4542 (titled "Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications Service"), where ETS was first established in IEPREP and the draft deals with priority and preemption, seems odd to me to be in TSVWG. But if you feel differently, then we agree to disagree.

    ken> of the revised charter is meant to
    ken> remove this obstacle.

Which work would be permitted under the revised charter that is
currently udone elsewhere?  I may have more concerns about the revised
charter than I thought I did.

I am not speaking of any specific work other than what has been discussed in the proposed re-charter. to consider otherwise is to go beyond what I stated.

    ken> Also, as Scott Brimm has mentioned, there is a proposed
    ken> liaison from the ITU to work with the IETF, with one of the
    ken> working groups of interest being IEPREP.  It would seem
    ken> odd to close down the group and punt the subject to them when
    ken> they are approaching "us" for assistance  If IEPREP is
    ken> closed, does that mean the subject gets pushed over to TSVWG?

that rather depends on what question they're asking, now doesn't it?
IF they're asking for enhancements to RSVP to deal with some ETS
issues, then yes, I'd hope the work would be done in tsvwg.  That way,
ETS requirements can be balanced against other requirements.  If they
want to change SIP, I'd hope that it would go through sipping and
eventually sip.

we will have to wait to see what they request. all I stated was that they were coming to us and that it was odd to close down a group they were interested in working with. Anticipating hypotheticals are not useful because they can put us down a rat hole that may or may not have substance.


Ietf mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>