Re: on the ieprep charter

On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Robert G. Cole wrote:
> + I agree with expanding the scope of the WG away from solely an  
> emergency Telecomm focus to a more general emergency communications  
> focus.  I do not think a totally military focus is correct however;  
> this is only one of several sectors the IETF needs to address.   
> There is significant overlap in the needs for emergency services  
> within Enterprise, Public and Military networks, that to focus on a  
> single sector would represent a disservice to all of these  
> communities.

yes.

My observation here is that in the PSTN there is a single common set  
of tools used, the information elements in SS7. The implementation of  
these vary: some networks use preemption (my observation is that most  
networks I have spoken with use preemption), and some use other  
techniques like call queuing, trunk queuing, and alternative call  
routing. That argues that it is not necessary and is perhaps  
inappropriate to attempt to mandate that a difference in underlying  
implementation forces a difference in protocol.

I would go a step further. At the end of the day, carriers and  
vendors are being asked to implement one thing or another, with  
enough options to cover the needs of their various countries. In the  
PSTN, this was done in an international body, the SS7 protocols are  
used world-wide, and basically those two options are used in common  
implementation throughout the world. This vendor sells not only to US  
DoD and US DHS/NCS and their contractors. Cisco sells to many service  
providers that offer service in multiple countries; one of such told  
me that their services were offered in 70 countries. Cisco also sells  
to NATO, which in the final analysis means that it provides tools to  
military networks i roughly 90 countries. Asking for this DHS/NSC vs  
DoD division is a microcosm of the reality that this working group  
needs to address.

In my humble opinion, which is of course always right (but I am too  
humble to say so), what we really need is a single common solution  
that can be interoperably deployed in preemption-ok and preemption- 
not-ok networks in a wide variety of countries, with configuration  
options to deal with the differences in implementation approach. If  
that is in the end not the objective, then I believe the working  
group should not be chartered. This ultimately hurts everyone, and is  
not my desire, but is the only thing that would make sense in the  
context.