I don't believe the new charter of ieprep working group belongs in
the IETF... the work that remains belongs somewhere else--probably
the ITU-T.
Let's address this directly.
ITU-T gave us a set of requirements in
[3] "Description of an International Emergency Preference Scheme
(IEPS)", ITU-T Recommendation E.106 March, 2000.
[4] "Description for an International Emergency Multimedia
Service",
ITU Draft Recommendation F.706, February, 2002.
[5] "Call Priority Designation for H.323 Calls", ITU Recommendation
H.460.4, November, 2002.
[6] ITU, "Multi-Level Precedence and Preemption Service, ITU,
Recommendation, I.255.3, July, 1990.
We had to rewrite them, resulting in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3523.txt
3523 Internet Emergency Preparedness (IEPREP) Telephony Topology
Terminology. J. Polk. April 2003. (Format: TXT=10190 bytes)
(Status:
INFORMATIONAL)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3689.txt
3689 General Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service
(ETS). K. Carlberg, R. Atkinson. February 2004. (Format:
TXT=21680
bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3690.txt
3690 IP Telephony Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service
(ETS). K. Carlberg, R. Atkinson. February 2004. (Format:
TXT=13919
bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4190.txt
4190 Framework for Supporting Emergency Telecommunications Service
(ETS) in IP Telephony. K. Carlberg, I. Brown, C. Beard. November
2005. (Format: TXT=69447 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4375.txt
4375 Emergency Telecommunications Services (ETS) Requirements for a
Single Administrative Domain. K. Carlberg. January 2006. (Format:
TXT=17037 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
We also specifically addressed their requirements (in tsvwg)
operationally:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4542.txt
4542 Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) for
Real-Time Services in the Internet Protocol Suite. F. Baker,
J. Polk.
May 2006. (Format: TXT=99770 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4594.txt
4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J.
Babiarz, K. Chan, F. Baker. August 2006. (Format: TXT=144044
bytes)
(Status: INFORMATIONAL)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr
"Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes", Kwok Ho Chan, 22-Oct-06
and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp
"An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic", Fred Baker, 6-Oct-06
The last two are in last call and in discussion in tsvwg respectively.
The remaining requirements, as I understand them, relate to more
traditional internet applications: the delivery of email within a
stated interval, reliable file transfer at a stated rate in the
presence of imperfect links and competing traffic deemed by the
administration to be of lower importance, instant messaging, and so on.
What is the argument by which you come to believe that traditional
internet transports and applications that are standardized in the
IETF are properly moved to other standards bodies?
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf