A modified charter has been submitted for the Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) working group in the Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by November 7th. +++ Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) ========================================= Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Kimberly King <kimberly.s.king@saic.com> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Director(s): Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor: Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> Mailing Lists: General Discussion: ieprep@ietf.org To Subscribe: ieprep-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe ieprep Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ieprep/index.html Description of Working Group: Effective telecommunications capabilities are imperative to facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious emergency events including natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, combat situations or wartime events). In addition, related capabilities should be operative in normal command and control operations of military services, which often have timeliness requirements even in peacetime. Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any telecommunications capabilities at hand. These capabilities include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The commercial telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to Internet-based technology. Therefore, the Internet community needs to consider how it can best support emergency management and recovery operations. The IEPREP WG will address proactive measures to congestion and recovery from various outages using three perspectives: 1. A commercial (i.e., or public) telecommunications infrastructure 2. An enterprise or governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure that retains sole administration of its own network resources 3. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure that combines private resources and leverages public infrastructure. Now that the initial documents describing the broad problem space and its salient characteristics have been completed, new efforts will focus on specific requirements and solutions, such as those pertaining to the governmental/military sector. The following are specific examples that can satisfy the interests of governmental/military (and potentially, commercial/public/enterprise) emergency communications: 1. Under emergency circumstances, some countries require civil networks to distinguish sessions based on the userA-s indication of precedence. The network can use the precedence information to give priority to some sessions over others, up to and including preemption of lower-precedence sessions. In many countriesA- governmental networks, the capabilities needed to support precedence-based preferential treatment are requirements on the equipment and services used to build those networks. As Internet-based technology continues to expand into civil and government networks, requirements for precedence-based capabilities will need to be developed. IEPREP will document these requirements as they pertain to technologies of interest to IETF. 2. Specific countries may have additional considerations that define the context in which they implement session precedence and preemption. For example, network ownership constraints (which may differ from commercial deployments), communities of interest including dial-plan considerations, encryption assumptions and any limitations arising from differing security levels, etc. that should be described before mechanisms can be proposed. IEPREP should document the context for implementing solutions. In addition, specific solutions must be developed when appropriate. 3. While voice was the driving application for IEPREP in the past, preferential treatments will need to be applied to all applications essential to emergency communications. Preferential treatment must address robustness of both voice and non-real-time applications that share the same infrastructure. The IEPREP WG should document the preferential treatment mechanisms that are appropriate for any essential communications. In the IETF, considerations for treatment and security of emergency communications stretch across a number of working groups, mostly in the RAI Area, notably including the various voice/video signaling working groups, instant messaging, and QoS signaling. IEPREP will cooperate closely with these groups and with those outside of the IETF such as various ITU-T study groups. In addition, IEPREP will pursue subject matter experts (e.g., security) for specification review if such expertise does not exist within the working group in order to ensure continued high quality specifications. If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will generate only a requirements document for those groups to evaluate. If there is not an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will prepare requirements and discuss the extension of that protocol/mechanism or protocols/mechanisms within IEPREP. Before this working group undertakes any new protocol development, a recharter is required. Goals and Milestones: Done Submit initial I-D of Requirements Done Submit initial I-D of Framework Done Submit initial I-D of Recommendations BCP Done Produce an Requirements I-D to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done Submit Framework I-D to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Dec 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of Government/Military Networks for Precedence and Preemption Dec 06 Submit an initial I-D of ETS Terminology. This document should define ieprep related terms (e.g., ETS, GETS, MLPP) and explain their relationships and how they have been used in existing RFCs Dec 06 Submit an initial I-D of Deployment Considerations of Precedence and Preemption on Government/Military Networks. This document should clarify the context that Government/Military requirements must operate. Mar 07 Submit final I-D of Requirements of Government/Military Networks for Precedence and Preemption to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Mar 07 Submit final I-D of ETS Terminology to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. Jul 07 Submit an final I-D of Deployment Considerations of Precedence and Preemption on Government/Military Networks to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. Aug 07 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and Preemption to be used by Government/Military Networks Sep 07 Submit final I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and Preemption to be used by Government/Military Networks to IESG for publication as a BCP Dec 07 The working group will discuss re-chartering if additional efforts are agreed upon by the WG (for example, work items related to protocols outside existing WGs). _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
