Excerpts from Sam Hartman on Wed, Nov 01, 2006 04:34:20PM -0500: > [I could not find the ITU's liaison to the IETF. Scott, if such > exists, I'd appreciate you forwarding this to them.] The ITU-T's liaison from SG13 to the IETF is Hui-Lan Lu. CCed. FYI SG13 is about to send something to the IETF asking for help on technical issues in emergency telecommunications. I'll ask them to expedite it but you shouldn't expect it before the middle of next week. swb > > > Hi. > > I'm speaking here as an individual. I'd like to build consensus for > my position both within the IESG and within the community, but I > realize that if I fail to build that consensus, I cannot make this > objection as a single IESG member. > > 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. > > However the work that remains belongs somewhere else--probably the > ITU-T. I propose that we work with ITU to see if they are interested > in the work and if so, use this as an opportunity to foster > cooperation with work going to the ITU. > > > In order for the proposed charter to be successful, the working group > will need to go far outside the IETF's normal technical mandate and > venture into the space of network design to come up with requirements > documents. The technical aspects of this problem are only one of the > things going into successful requirements. > > Based on my limited knowledge I believe that the ITU is in a better > position than the IETF to specify requirements and mechanisms for > national and government telecommunications networks. I think we > should let them do their job just as we ask them to let us do our job > and to design the technical protocols that are increasingly being used > on those networks. > > Naturally, the IETF should make any necessary modifications to IETF > protocols to implement IEPREP work regardless of where it takes place. > > The main argument I've heard throughout the existence of ieprep for > why it needed to happen in the IETF is that if it happens elsewhere, > they'll do something we don't like or do it wrong. Perhaps that was > once a valid argument. However, I think we have enough of the details > of technical approaches that we find appropriate documented that we > can give sufficient input to another body on what approaches work on > the Internet. I would assume we'd ask people working in this space to > take a look at the existing ieprep output, RFC 4542, RFC 4411, > draft-ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption and other appropriate > documents. > > I think that given this input another group could understand what > works well on the internet and could work both on requirements related > to the technology as well as the overall system architecture so we end > up with deployable solutions at national and governmental levels. > > In addition, I believe that since the first part of the ieprep work > happened here, we would be in a good position to work with whatever > standards body did the work to scope the charter to favor technologies > that would work well on the Internet. > > > Thanks for your consideration, > > --Sam > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf