RE: Discussion on Charter

ieprep (currently) is not meeting according to the draft agenda at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_62.txt
so discussing this will have to be on the list and/or hallway conversations.

I think there's sufficient interest from a good portion of the ieprep WG 
participants to work on a government-side set of solutions (vs. the current 
"public-only" solution side), which include extensions to existing 
protocols. Scott's position has always been to develop requirements from 
the IEPREP WG, and have the protocol WGs develop the actual standards. 
Well, that sounded great then, but it hasn't been working out that way (see 
Fred's note).

I think there has been considerable resistance since Pittsburgh from the 
chairs and the IESG to have a government network focused area of work in 
this (or any other) WG.

With the above in mind, there really hasn't been a forum (WG) to take an 
extension to RSVP or Diffserv to, so each extension has been waffling since 
initial submission until now. This is clearly not efficient, and it 
obviously not getting vendors anywhere wrt solving customer requirements 
for solutions they want to buy.

At 10:51 PM 2/23/2005 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>At 01:19 AM 02/24/05 -0500, Ken Carlberg wrote:
>>if you'll recall from the original note, the question was whether to 
>>re-charter
>>IEPREP or start a new working group.  by listing the following drafts in
>>response to my comment, are we to assume that you wish to recharter the 
>>IEPREP
>>group or start a new group?
>
>personally, I don't care. From my perspective, either gives us a way 
>forward, and that's what I'm looking for.
>_______________________________________________
>Ieprep mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep


cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented