Fw: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

----- Forwarded by Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC on 11/02/2006 04:49 PM -----

Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote on 11/02/2006 02:30:43 PM:

> >>>>> "James" == James M Polk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>     James> At 12:41 PM 11/2/2006 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>     >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Sam Hartman wrote: > 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.
>     >>
>     >> I think I'll agree with Sam.
>
>     James> I do not agree with Sam
>
>     >> Having looked at the output of the WG, it already seems to
>     >> include a couple of useful framework documents and about 4
>     >> requirements documents.
>
>     James> the framework RFCs are for within a single public domain.
>     James> The other RFCs are requirements based.
>
>     James> There is no architecture guidelines docs or peering
>     James> guidelines or the like.
>
> Why does that belong in the IETF?  RFC 2418 gives a good set of things
> to consider for determining whether work belongs in the IETF.  I will
> try to write up a guideline by guideline analysis of this work,
> although when I briefly examine the guidelines my continuing reaction
> is that the work probably does not belong in the IETF.  If you have
> time to write up such an analysis I'd be interested in what you come
> up with.
>
>     >> This should already provide sufficient information how to
>     >> continue the work.
>
>     James> continue the work.... where? by who? by another SDO?  Why?
>
>
> My proposal is ITU-T--probably SG 13, although I don't understand ITU
> internals enough to know for sure that's the right place.
>
> Obviously, this assumes they want to do the work.
>
> To propose concrete action, I think the IETF should draft a liaison
> statement for action to the ITU asking for them to comment on whether
> they see any current conflicts and on whether there are parts of this
> work they would be interested in picking up.  Such liaisons are not
> uncommon when appropriate; we had such an exchange with IEEE when the
> trill working group was formed.
>
>
> If the ITU says that they're not interested in these aspects of the
> work, and no one else makes an alternative proposal, then I would not
> object to the work being chartered in the IETF.  However if the ITU
> would be interested in working on this problem space (or especially is
> already work on this problem space), we need to carefully ask
> ourselves why each aspect of the work being done in the IETF belongs
> here.
>
>
> --Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf