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

[ken carlberg <carlberg at g11.org.uk>]

>     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
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf