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

["James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>]

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.

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.

the framework RFCs are for within a single public domain.  The other RFCs 
are requirements based.

There is no architecture guidelines docs or peering guidelines or the like.

This is because the charter of the past didn't allow such work.

This new charter was supposed to allow such work AND investigate if 
protocol mods were needed to accomplish those arch and peering guideline 
efforts.

> This should already provide
> sufficient information how to continue the work.

continue the work.... where? by who? by another SDO?  Why?


> What isn't clear to me is what's the deployment level of these
> frameworks and various mechanisms.

there are no "various mechanisms" defined, there are only framework and 
requirements. Little can be accomplished with just that IMO.

>  We seem to have spent at least
> ~4 years on this.

with both hands tied behind our backs, typing with with toes (so to speak).

> Overprovisioning and intra-domain TE seems to have been a popular approach,

in which IEPREP doc was "Overprovisioning" and "intra-domain TE " discussed?

> but apart from that, where has this been  deployed and how?
>
> Maybe we should let ITU, vendors, and/or deploying organizations to
> apply the existing techniques

What "techniques" have been defined?

I believe folks are assuming IEPREP has accomplished more than it was 
allowed to accomplish to date, and they ought to walk before they are 
allowed to run.  A framework doesn't allow IEPREP to even walk.

IEPREP was so constrained RFC 4542 had to be driven through another WG 
(TSVWG) because it wasn't allowed in IEPREP. Strike that, it would be 
allowed, but it would still be an individual ID because the charter 
wouldn't allow it to be a WG item even today.

SPeaking of RFC4542, it was a INFO instead of a BCP because of the IESG, 
which didn't want an explanation of more than a dozen EXISTING mechanisms 
and techniques to be considered a BCP (isn't that by definition a BCP 
<explaining how to put together a series of standards track RFCs>?).

> and frameworks, let this rest for 5 years and then come back to look if 
> there is something more to be said on the subject.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf