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

["Dolly, Martin C, NPE" <mdolly at att.com>]

1) Should this work be done within the IETF?

Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g.,
architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol
extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol
extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work
MUST be done in the IETF. 

WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY
be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a
gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and
deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the
expertise is not in the IETF.

ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS. 

Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
(vendors, service providers, contractors,  and most importantly
CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work.

2) If it is done within the IETF, where?

 I will save my opinion for a later time.

-

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