Sam,
One of the objectives of the work produced by IEPREP was to lay down
the ground work and put together a baseline set of requirements to
start with when considering solutions. Our intention was that the
baseline then becomes a starting point where more specific
requirements can be put forth. Outside of this, solutions were
definitely out of scope.
My understanding is that there are others that now wish to present
some more specific requirements and potential solutions that do not
fall into the scope of other working groups. So the proposed re-
charter looks to be a natural extension to what has been done.
Interestingly enough, the work that you mention below in your
original posting...
<snip>
"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."
... rfc-4542, rfc-4411, and draft -ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signal-preemption
(along with some other related work) has actually not been done in
IEPREP because the group was not allowed to consider solutions.
Instead, some of the work has been pushed to TSVWG, to the groans and
sometimes confusion of some of the participants of that group, who
wondered what the subject of prioritization had to do with TSVWG.
Part of the revised charter is meant to remove this obstacle.
Also, as Scott Brimm has mentioned, there is a proposed liaison from
the ITU to work with the IETF, with one of the working groups of
interest being IEPREP. It would seem odd to close down the group and
punt the subject to them when they are approaching "us" for
assistance If IEPREP is closed, does that mean the subject gets
pushed over to TSVWG?
-ken
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf