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

----- Forwarded by Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC on 11/02/2006 04:50 PM -----

Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote on 11/02/2006 02:45:16 PM:

> >>>>> "ken" =3D=3D ken carlberg <[email protected]> writes:
>
>     ken> Sam, One of the objectives of the work produced by IEPREP wa=
s
>     ken> to lay down the ground work and put together a baseline set
>     ken> of requirements to start with when considering solutions.
>     ken> Our intention was that the baseline then becomes a starting
>     ken> point where more specific requirements can be put forth.
>     ken> Outside of this, solutions were definitely out of scope.
>
>     ken> My understanding is that there are others that now wish to
>     ken> present some more specific requirements and potential
>     ken> solutions that do not fall into the scope of other working
>     ken> groups.=A0 So the proposed re-charter looks to be a natural
>     ken> extension to what has been done.
>
>     ken> Interestingly enough, the work that you mention below in you=
r
>     ken> original posting...
>     ken> ... rfc-4542, rfc-4411, and draft
>     ken> -ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption=A0 (along with some other
>     ken> related work) has actually not been done in IEPREP because
>     ken> the group was not allowed to consider solutions.=A0 Instead,=

>     ken> some of the work has been pushed to TSVWG, to the groans and=

>     ken> sometimes confusion of some of the participants of that
>     ken> group, who wondered what the subject of prioritization had t=
o
>     ken> do with TSVWG.=A0 Part
>
> I think the work you cite belongs in tsvwg.  AT least 4542 and
> vpn-signaling-preemption.
>
>     ken> of the revised charter is meant to
>     ken> remove this obstacle.
>
> Which work would be permitted under the revised charter that is
> currently udone elsewhere?  I may have more concerns about the revise=
d
> charter than I thought I did.
>
>     ken> Also, as Scott Brimm has mentioned, there is a proposed
>     ken> liaison from the ITU to work with the IETF, with one of the
>     ken> working groups of interest being IEPREP.=A0 It would seem
>     ken> odd to close down the group and punt the subject to them whe=
n
>     ken> they are approaching "us" for assistance=A0 If IEPREP is
>     ken> closed, does that mean the subject gets pushed over to TSVWG=
?
>
>
> that rather depends on what question they're asking, now doesn't it?
> IF they're asking for enhancements to RSVP to deal with some ETS
> issues, then yes, I'd hope the work would be done in tsvwg.  That way=
,
> ETS requirements can be balanced against other requirements.  If they=

> want to change SIP, I'd hope that it would go through sipping and
> eventually sip.
>
>
> If they want us to do non-protocol work closer to 4542, then perhaps
> we need a WG to do it in.
>
> --Sam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf=