RE: Re-charter?

MLPP is not intended for the public network.  If you're on the DoD private network, the fact that you're using
it means you have accepted the terms of service. Given the number of high priority users, there is minimal impact on routine traffic. 

One (I think ) outstanding question is whether 911 on the public net gets any special priority. Right now we don't have a way to give
priority to a call.  So your 911 call would be equally unintelligible.    

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf
> Of Jason Michael Canon
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:58 PM
> To: Jason Michael Canon; King, Kimberly S.; Janet P Gunn
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter?
> 
> 
> Sorry, I meant GETS/WPS and MLPP.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jason Michael Canon" <[email protected]>
> To: "King, Kimberly S." <[email protected]>; "Janet P Gunn" 
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; 
> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter?
> 
> 
> I have a generic, high level question.
> 
> As a civilian in an emergency situation I call 9-1-1 to 
> report some life
> threatening situation in my
> house.  While the call is in progress a sufficient number 
> of government
> officials evoke a GETS/WAS
> or MOP capability and my call is effectively preempted or 
> degraded to a
> level that is not tolerable.
> My question is did a public policy debate result in a 
> Congressional law or
> FCC Regulation that permits
> the ITEM to craft enabling technology?  If so, a reference 
> to the document
> would be greatly
> appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Janet P Gunn" <[email protected]>
> To: "King, Kimberly S." <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter?
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a generic, high level comment.
> >
> > If we are extending the charter from “requirements only” 
> to “requirements
> > and solutions where not covered elsewhere”,  I think the 
> solution space
> > should include solutions for “the evolution of GETS/WPS 
> to IP” as well as
> > solutions for “the evolution of MLPP to IP”.
> >
> > Similarly, the requirements and frameworks that have been 
> previously
> > produced cover the entire IEPREP scope, both "sort of 
> like MLPP" and "sort
> > of like GETS".  So I think it would be appropriate to 
> have deliverables
> > such as
> > "Emergency Threats Analysis for Commercial/Public Networks"
> > "Requirements for Emergency Preparedness in 
> Commercial/Public Networks"
> > "Potential Solutions for Commercial/Public Networks"
> > "Mechanisms to be Used by Commercial/Public Networks"
> > as well as the ones proposed for "Government/Military Networks".
> >
> > I think that would be more useful than "Differences 
> between GETS and MLPP
> > networks", especially since some of the differences which 
> are significant
> > in the circuit switched world may be less significant in 
> the packet
> > switched world.  But maybe if I saw an abstract of what 
> was intended for
> > the document, I would change my mind.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------
> >
> > This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please
> > delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of 
> the mistake in
> > delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall 
> not operate to
> > bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant 
> to explicit 
> > written
> > agreement or government initiative expressly permitting 
> the use of e-mail
> > for such purpose.
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                      "King, Kimberly
> >                      S."                      To:      "Ieprep 
> > ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
> >                      <KIMBERLY.S.KING         cc:      
> [email protected], 
> > "Jon Peterson \([email protected]\)"
> >                      @saic.com>               
> <[email protected]>
> >                      Sent by:                 Subject: [Ieprep] 
> > Re-charter?
> >                      ieprep-bounces
> >
> >
> >                      06/30/2005 10:24
> >                      AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott and I have asked for a 1 hour meeting slot at
> > the Paris IETF meeting to discuss a possible re-charter
> > of ieprep.  A provisional new charter is included below.
> >
> > Kimberly
> >
> >
> > *****************************************
> > Draft revision
> > Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) Charter
> >
> > Description of Working Group:
> >
> > Effective telecommunications capabilities are imperative to
> > facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious
> > disaster events including natural disasters (e.g.,
> > hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those created by man
> > (e.g., terrorist attacks, combat situations or wartime
> > events).  In addition, related capabilities should be usable
> > in normal command and control operations of military
> > services, which often have timeliness requirements even in
> > peacetime.  The IEPREP WG will address proactive and
> > reactive robustness and recovery from various outages using
> > three perspectives:
> >
> > 1. A commercial (i.e., or public) telecommunications
> > infrastructure
> >
> > 2. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure
> > that may retains sole ownership and administration of its
> > own resources
> >
> > 3. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure
> > that combines private resources and leverages public
> > infrastructure.  This scenario may be subject to local
> > policies, laws, and regulations.
> >
> > Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly.
> > Quick response for recovery operations requires immediate
> > access to any public telecommunications capabilities at
> > hand. These capabilities include: conventional telephone,
> > cellular phones, and Internet access via online terminals,
> > IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The commercial
> > telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to
> > Internet-based technology.  Therefore, the Internet
> > community needs to consider how it can best support
> > emergency management and recovery operations.
> >
> > Potential disasters for governmental/military
> > infrastructures can extend beyond what might be experienced
> > by the commercial/public sector and can be anticipated to
> > some degree.  Thus, proactive mechanisms to address would-be
> > outages are required for these scenarios.
> >
> > The IEPREP WG will work on these three perspectives
> > (commercial, governmental/military, and the combination) and
> > synergize common mechanisms and requirements into other
> > groups where possible, while maintaining a separate track of
> > IEPREP documents for the unique mechanisms and requirements
> > of each perspectives.
> >
> > Now that the initial documents describe the broad problem
> > space and its salient characteristics, new efforts will
> > focus on specific requirements and solutions such as those
> > pertaining to the governmental/military sector.  One
> > document exists in the Transport Area working group of
> > interest to IEPREP that could satisfy a governmental
> > framework/BCP is draft-ietf-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works-XX.  This
> > document will progress to completion in that WG, yet be the
> > basis of more work in this IEPREP WG.  Some additional
> > efforts on the governmental/military track within IEPREP
> > will focus on this TSVWG document, analyze gaps, and provide
> > input where needed.
> >
> > The following are four specific examples that can satisfy
> > the interests of governmental/military (and potentially,
> > commercial/public) emergency communications:
> >
> > 1. Conveying information about the priority of specific
> > flows (or sessions) that originate in a VoIP environment.
> > This could include a requirements effort to describe
> > extensions to NSIS or RSVP. Requirements for NSIS would be
> > forwarded to the NSIS working group. Requirements for RSVP
> > could be forwarded to tsvwg or worked on in IEPREP.
> >
> > 2. Nested VPNs require special considerations for routing
> > and QoS if nodes in the path that make these decisions
> > generally have limited information.
> >
> > 3. Some countries require civil networks to preempt sessions
> > under state circumstances, and preemption is considered an
> > absolute requirement in governmental networks in most
> > countries. Unless implementation of these requirements can
> > be objectively shown to threaten network health (via
> > simulation or in operations), then the requirement needs to
> > be considered by IEPREP and specific solutions must be
> > developed.
> >
> > 4. Non-real-time applications require measures of QoS and
> > other preferential treatments, as voice will not be the only
> > application used by IEPREP.
> >
> > In the IETF, considerations for treatment and security of
> > emergency communications stretch across a number of Areas
> > and Working Groups, notably including the various telephony
> > signaling working groups, Protocol for carrying
> > Authentication for Network Access (pana), the open Transport
> > Area for path-coupled signaling and various operational
> > groups. IEPREP will cooperate closely with these groups and
> > with those outside of the IETF such as various ITU-T study
> > groups.
> >
> >
> > If there is an existing WG that can discuss the requirements
> > for extending their protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will
> > generate only a requirements document for that group to
> > discuss.
> >
> > If there is not an existing WG that can discuss the
> > requirements for extending their protocol or mechanism,
> > IEPREP will prepare requirements and discuss the extension
> > of that protocol/mechanism or protocols/mechanisms within
> > IEPREP.
> >
> >
> > Goals and Milestones:
> >
> > Done   Submit initial I-D of Requirements
> >
> > Done   Submit initial I-D of Framework
> >
> > Done   Submit initial I-D of Recommendations BCP
> >
> > Done   Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for publication as an
> >       Informational RFC
> >
> > Done   Submit Framework I-D to IESG for publication as an
> > Informational RFC
> >
> > Dec 03 Submit Recommendations I-D to IESG for publication as
> > a BCP
> >
> > Oct 05 Submit an initial I-D of Emergency Threats Analysis
> > of Government/Military Networks
> >
> > Dec 05 Submit an initial I-D of Differences between GETS and
> > MLPP Networks
> >
> > Feb 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of
> > Government/Military Networks
> >
> > Mar 06 Submit an initial I-D of Considerations for potential
> > solutions of Government/Military Networks
> >
> > Apr 06 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms to be used by
> >       Government/Military Networks
> >
> > Oct 05 Submit final I-D of Emergency Threats Analysis of
> >       Government/Military Networks to IESG as Informational
> > RFC
> >
> > Feb 06 Submit final I-D of Requirements of
> > Government/Military Networks to IESG as Informational RFC
> >
> > Apr 06 Submit final I-D of Mechanisms to be used by
> >       Government/Military Networks to IESG as BCP RFC
> >
> > The working group will discuss re-chartering if additional
> > efforts are agreed upon by the WG (for example, work items
> > related to protocols outside existing WGs).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ieprep mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ieprep mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ieprep mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ieprep mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
>