[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
- To: "Scott W Brim" <swb at employees.org>, "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
- Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
- From: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly at att.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:10:51 -0600
- Cc: "Robert G. Cole" <robert.cole at jhuapl.edu>, ietf at ietf.org, ieprep at ietf.org, Scott Bradner <sob at harvard.edu>, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>, Janet P Gunn <jgunn6 at csc.com>, Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
- In-reply-to: <45553601.3070706@employees.org>
- List-help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Thread-index: AccFOY3XXVn4X/5ySIif/AYEX1U1eAAHlhrA
- Thread-topic: [Ieprep] 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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:swb at employees.org]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:31 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: Dolly, Martin C, ALABS; Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole; ietf at ietf.org;
ieprep at ietf.org; 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" == Scott W Brim <swb at employees.org> writes:
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep