Fwd: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

It appears this message from Sam didn't make it to the ieprep list, even 
though it <[email protected]> is a cc.

For those of you who care, there have already been a few folks comment on 
the <[email protected]> list agreeing with Sam.

>From: Sam Hartman <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:34:20 -0500
>Cc: Kimberly King <[email protected]>, Scott Bradner <[email protected]>,
>         [email protected]
>Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
>
>[I could not find the ITU's liaison to the IETF.  Scott, if such
>exists, I'd appreciate you forwarding this to them.]
>
>
>Hi.
>
>I'm speaking here as an individual.  I'd like to build consensus for
>my position both within the IESG and within the community, but I
>realize that if I fail to build that consensus, I cannot make this
>objection as a single IESG member.
>
>I don't believe the new charter of ieprep working group belongs in the
>IETF.  I understand why we chartered it here, and I believe that by
>doing as much work as we have done so far in the IETF, we have done
>something useful.  We've described the broad problem and have helped
>to explain how it fits in the Internet context.  That was an important
>thing for us to do.
>
>However the work that remains belongs somewhere else--probably the
>ITU-T.  I propose that we work with ITU to see if they are interested
>in the work and if so, use this as an opportunity to foster
>cooperation with work going to the ITU.
>
>
>In order for the proposed charter to be successful, the working group
>will need to go far outside the IETF's normal technical mandate and
>venture into the space of network design to come up with requirements
>documents.  The technical aspects of this problem are only one of the
>things going into successful requirements.
>
>Based on my limited knowledge I believe that the ITU is in a better
>position than the IETF to specify requirements and mechanisms for
>national and government telecommunications networks.  I think we
>should let them do their job just as we ask them to let us do our job
>and to design the technical protocols that are increasingly being used
>on those networks.
>
>Naturally, the IETF should make any necessary modifications to IETF
>protocols to implement IEPREP work regardless of where it takes place.
>
>The main argument I've heard throughout the existence of ieprep for
>why it needed to happen in the IETF is that if it happens elsewhere,
>they'll do something we don't like or do it wrong.  Perhaps that was
>once a valid argument.  However, I think we have enough of the details
>of technical approaches that we find appropriate documented that we
>can give sufficient input to another body on what approaches work on
>the Internet.  I would assume we'd ask people working in this space to
>take a look at the existing ieprep output, RFC 4542, RFC 4411,
>draft-ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption and other appropriate
>documents.
>
>I think that given this input another group could understand what
>works well on the internet and could work both on requirements related
>to the technology as well as the overall system architecture so we end
>up with deployable solutions at national and governmental levels.
>
>In addition, I believe that since the first part of the ieprep work
>happened here, we would be in a good position to work with whatever
>standards body did the work to scope the charter to favor technologies
>that would work well on the Internet.
>
>
>Thanks for your consideration,
>
>--Sam
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf