Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 






Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 12/01/2006 05:20:31 AM:

>
> Speaking only for myself: I'm now reasonably satisfied that if this work
> is to be done, it will be done better in the IETF than in the ITU.
> However, looking at the last draft of the charter that I've seen, I am
> concerned about two things.
>
> 1. There's a presumption that "precedence" and "preemption" are the
> mechanisms - but those aren't requirements, they are solutions, and
> it isn't clear to me that they can ever be appropriate solutions
> in the upper layers of the Internet. The requirement is presumably
> that important application level sessions succeed in emergency
situations,
> even if less important ones fail. The best way to meet that
> requirement might be different for each type of application
> protocol. Neither the charter text nor the list of deliverables
> recognizes such differentiation; they simply assume that precedence
> and preemption are the only possible solutions.

I completely agree that, for many circumstances, "precedence and
preemption" are not the appropriate solutions.

In fact, there is a substantial subset of the IEPREP working group which
wants to avoid anything that could be considered "precedence and
preemption", preferring to focus on other approaches.

The way I read the charter, "precedence and preemption" is only one of four
examples. Even then, it does not  specify precedence and preemption" as the
solution/mechanism, but only as the highest level user/organization view.

None the less, I would, as an individual, favor a rewording of the charter
that made it clearer that "precedence and preemption" was not the primary
focus of the WG.

The mis-perception that the WG is focused on "precedence and preemption"
is, unfortunately, reinforced by the list of milestones, which focus on the
"military" environment.

I would also, as an individual,  favor modification to the list of
milestones to include milestones that are clearly not associated with
"precedence and preemption".

Janet
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]