Re: Re-charter?

Apparently some people received a mangled version of this, so I am
resending it at Scott's request (Scott, let me know if this fixed it)
J.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep