Martin said, "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." ATIS is a US National standards group, not an international one and thus does not cover the ieprep, as a whole, "customer base". The groups requiring ieprep functionality include the NCS (your CUSTOMER) but also US DoD and NATO. I've also been informed (by Fred Baker and others) that several governments have talked with them about needing such capabilities. Kimberly -----Original Message----- From: mdolly@xxxxxxx To: Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; ieprep@xxxxxxxx; King, Kimberly S.; Brian E Carpenter; Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Sam Hartman; Pekka Savola Sent: 11/6/2006 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf