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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf