Brian,
I do not think anyone is suggesting the DoD drives IETF requirements.
But, as a customer of IP services, networks and equipment, it should be
treated as other customers and have their requirements considered into
the overall IETF requirements for these services.
IMO, customer requirements should be written from a high-level
capabilities/services perspective, not at the level of mechanisms or
box-level functions. Functional architectures, protocols, etc should be
discussed and developed within the IETF. And I think having an IEPREP
WG in the IETF is the right venues for this type of work and coordination.
Thanks,
Bob
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Robert G. Cole wrote:
I whole-heartedly agree. I believe the DoD must extend its notions of
Precedence and Preemption to all applications, voice, video, web, ftp,
mail, etc.
...
This illustrates some of my concerns about this requirements work being
done outside the IETF.
1. The DoD doesn't determine IETF requirements. It's one stakeholder
in one country; the IETF looks at things globally.
2. The notion that solutions such as precedence and preemption
are (a) requirements and (b) applicable to all applications just
doesn't compute for me. We'd actually need to understand at a more
basic level what the functional requirements are, in terms that are
meaningful for a datagram network. I don't believe that will
happen in ATIS or ITU-T.
Brian (personal opinion)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf