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

----- Forwarded by Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC on 11/02/2006 04:51 PM -----

ken carlberg <[email protected]> wrote on 11/02/2006 03:03:15 PM:

> >     ken> Interestingly enough, the work that you mention below in your
> >     ken> original posting...
> >     ken> ... rfc-4542, rfc-4411, and draft
> >     ken> -ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption  (along with some other
> >     ken> related work) has actually not been done in IEPREP because
> >     ken> the group was not allowed to consider solutions.  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 to
> >     ken> do with TSVWG.  Part
> >
> > I think the work you cite belongs in tsvwg.  AT least 4542 and
> > vpn-signaling-preemption.
>
> I mentioned the above as examples, not as a case-by-case examination
> of what should or should not be in IEPREP.  But along those lines,
> rfc-4542 (titled "Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications
> Service"), where ETS was first established in IEPREP and the draft
> deals with priority and preemption, seems odd to me to be in TSVWG.
> But if you feel differently, then we agree to disagree.
>
> >     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 revised
> > charter than I thought I did.
>
> I am not speaking of any specific work other than what has been
> discussed in the proposed re-charter.  to consider otherwise is to go
> beyond what I stated.
>
> >     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.  It would seem
> >     ken> odd to close down the group and punt the subject to them when
> >     ken> they are approaching "us" for assistance  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.
>
> we will have to wait to see what they request.  all I stated was that
> they were coming to us and that it was odd to close down a group they
> were interested in working with.  Anticipating hypotheticals are not
> useful because they can put us down a rat hole that may or may not
> have substance.
>
> -ken
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf