Fred Baker wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
There was very little support outside of those involved in the ieprep
working group for the ieprep work.
I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in either
direction about much of anything.
I guess I'm confused. Generally, when I see last calls on charters, I
see no discussion at all. Generally speaking, the people who want a
working group to happen are the ones who want to work in it. The people
who don't expect to work in it don't have much to say on the topic -
the routing people don't comment on network management charters, and
the internet folks don't comment on applications. Asserting that there
is consensus to do or not do anything in such a case is pretty tough;
the point is that there is a body that wants to do the work, and the
IETF does it.
What is different in this case is that there was some discussion. You
stated that you thought it should go to the ITU. Pekka agreed with you,
and Brian stated that he was wondering which way it should go. Scott
brought in the SG13 liaison, who was in the process of sending a
liaison statement to the IETF asking for certain work to be
accomplished. Martin pointed out that ATIS has a place for certain
aspects of the work. Ken, James, Bob, Janet, and myself tried to
present a case that the issues before the house were in fact
appropriate to the IETF.
Am I misremembering?
What I read is that there were some people who didn't plan to be
involved and either wanted to move the work elsewhere or were asking
the question, and some people who wanted to do the work and felt it was
appropriate to the IETF because it related to IETF protocols and to the
Internet. In most cases, people that don't plan to be involved don't
respond; in this case a few did.
I'd hate to hear that the presence of a discussion in the IETF was
taken as a lack of consensus on a topic.
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.
2. There's clearly a need, if the work is to be expanded into new
applications areas, for the experts in those applications to be
deeply involved. That is in fact the main argument why the work
should be done in the IETF if it's done at all. I understand that
this would need a major injection of new blood into the WG. That
won't happen by means of a simple re-charter. It needs an impetus
that would be noticed throughout the IETF.
Again, I am speaking only for myself.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf