I think it is a good start, but is that's all the IETF is providing?
again, as i mentioned privately, and now publicly, the IEPS draft is
a private contribution to the IETF. its not to be confused for an
official working group product. and just as important, its critical
to keep in mind that its a work-in-progress.
finally, its individuals/engineers that need to put forth proposals.
the IETF, and in particular the IAB in the past, have presented
areas that should be discussed and investigated. but it is individuals
(engineers) that put forth specific standard solutions to solve specific
problems to the IETF. not the other way around. others on the IESG
and on this list are better qualified to respond to procedures.
(i think there is also the POISSON?? working group to address that)
I was also thinking, that there is no protocol to choose the best web site
to surf. I think now, DNS provide some site with several IP in a round
robin fashion. However there is no define way to select the IP that
provide the best throughoutput or best reliability... It is good for load
blancing, but not for clients to find the best site. Does IPv6 solve this
problem?
in relation to what you write above, IPv6 is a tangent. there would also
seem to be a need for greater support of IPv6 (among transits) as a
production level service before any related IPv6 solutions should be
considered for addressing problems that arise due to emergency-related
problems. but thats just my personal opinion.
I think the IETF should take this individual contributions and move them
to working groups..
others would disagree. the SIP-911 proposal would probably become a
working group item for SIPPING(?), but I'm just speculating. chances
are good that the IEPS draft will stay an individual contribution.
at some point, the 'requirements' portion of the IEPS draft will be
separated out and eventually circulated through the IESG for their
comments.
-ken