Re: Re-charter? [Sessions?]

Henning

At 10:48 AM 6/30/2005 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>Brief remark: I'm not sure what "sessions" refers to in the snippet below. 
>Is this addressed to the application layer session (say, SIP), a network 
>layer session (RSVP, NSIS) or something else entirely?

I believe this needs to be defined, but is loosely the combination of the 
two since a SIP session can be a call, and a reserved flow can be a call, 
and the combination can be a call. If you only use something like SIP, that 
a SIP session is the definition.

IEPREP isn't likely going to only use RSVP or NSIS for flows, but either in 
combination with something like SIP.


>In general, given the tortuous history of IEPREP discussions, more 
>specificity as to the types of mechanisms and protocols affected would be 
>helpful, in my opinion.

"more specificity" would entail a deep analysis of the problem space - 
which the first 3 new deliverables will cover. You are asking for an ID to 
be written to justify the recharter?

>Are there existing drafts that will be used as baseline (or input)

draft-ietf-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works is mention is this new charter

>or this is a from-scratch effort?
>
>King, Kimberly S. wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.