RE: Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

For one, I have yet to see a B2BUA (SBC) in any IETF document. They are
in every service provider network. So, not to reflect them is an
illusion as best.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:31 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: Dolly, Martin C, ALABS; Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole; [email protected];
[email protected]; Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Pekka Savola
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency
Preparedness (ieprep)

On 11/09/2006 18:43 PM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
>>>>>> "Scott" =3D=3D Scott W Brim <[email protected]> writes:
>=20
>     Scott> However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do
>     Scott> protocols.  The IETF needs to consider how proposed
>     Scott> "architectures" fit in with all the other requirements on
>     Scott> the Internet.  The IETF doesn't do protocol engineering, it
>     Scott> does Internet engineering.  It is fine for other
>     Scott> organizations (not necessarily SDOs) to do service
>     Scott> requirements and scenarios.  They can *propose*
>     Scott> architectures.  If the IETF can support those architectures
>     Scott> in ways that are consistent with overall Internet design,
>     Scott> then fine.  Otherwise the IETF should not be restricted to
>     Scott> just protocol extension/definition.  The IETF has to think
>     Scott> of a bigger picture.
>=20
>=20
> Completely agree.  I'd rather see architectures and systems proposed
> elsewhere, reviewed by the ietf, and then us develop the protocols.
> There may be some cases where we do architecture work; I don't think
> this is one of them.

Please help me figure out the essential differences between
"architecture" that should be done in the IETF and "architecture" that
can be done elsewhere.