Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

From: "Nguyen, An" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:58:47 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Gunn, Janet [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 4:06 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

>1.1.1	
>NCS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security.
>
Not officially until March 1. The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24. 
Technically, it should still be NCS. But I think we should add a sentence in
the paragraph to link the NCS to the Department of Homeland security. 

An

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:25:42 -0500

Point taken- but the current wording "...interactive voice has a lower
threshold of loss than
>> elastic applications..."implies that ALL interactive voice is elastic.

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 10:44 AM
To: Ken Carlberg
Cc: ieprep
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

On Saturday, Feb 15, 2003, at 15:27 America/Montreal, Ken Carlberg 
wrote:
>> 1.2
>> Should say "...interactive voice has a lower threshold of loss than
>> elastic applications..." NOT "...than other elastic applications..."
>> Interactive voice is NOT an elastic application.
>
> the change will be made.

I disagree with the claim that "interactive voice is NOT an elastic
application".  There are deployed VoIP systems (e.g. in production use
by US DoD) that provide an existence proof that VoIP can be an elastic
application.  Those systems shift from higher-bandwidth codecs to
lower-bandwidth codecs in response to detected congestion on access 
links.
That doesn't mean that all VoIP deployments have that property,
but clearly *some* definitely do today (and have done for a few years 
now).

>> What do you mean by "carriers"?
>
> telco carriers.  i've not come across the term carriers in association
> with ISPs.  however, i shall extend the term so that it will read as
> "telecom carriers"

Would be better talk about "telephony carriers" or "IP carriers"
to reduce ambiguity.  "telecom carriers" is an ambiguous term,
unfortunately.

Ran

---

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:43:31 -0500

My point is that "probability" is an INHERENTLY quantitative concept.  Maybe
it is "where I am coming from" but, to me, saying that "probability cannot
be easily quantified" is as grating as saying "number cannot easily be
quantified".  It may be very difficult to know, or even estimate, for
instance, the NUMBER of grains of sand on the beach.  But it is still
INHERENTLY quantifiable.

I think part of the problem may be in applying "probability" to delay, loss,
and jitter.

The probability of loss is certainly well defined and measurable.  But when
you get to jitter and delay, you can only talk about the probability that it
is within defined bounds. It is awkward to talk about "probability of delay"
or "probability of jitter" because that probability is 1, there is ALWAYS
some delay and some jitter.

I will remain uncomfortable with this usage, but it IS a usage issue, not a
content issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:[email-masked]]

> I don't agree with the statement "... probability ... cannot easily be
> quantified."  I quantify probability all the time.

the meaning statement is within a larger context as stated below:

   The critical word in this objective
   is "probability", as opposed to assurance or guarantee -- the latter
   two placing a higher burden on the network.  It stands to reason,
   though, that the word "probability" is a less tangible description
   that cannot be easily quantified.  It is relative in relation to
   other traffic transiting the same network.

I'm not sure its fair to cut out so much of what is stated and expect
the parts to stand on its own.  as I stated in the comments on the
General Requirements, aspects such as delay, loss, and jitter can be
(within limitations) addressed by the network.  so if one is going to
focus on probability, which of those three does one concentrate on?  to
me, that not an easy question to make a definitive statement about. 
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:16:28 -0500

That's OK with me.  It's usage, not content.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 2:03 PM
To: Gunn, Janet
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

> My point is that "probability" is an INHERENTLY quantitative concept...

i think we talking about an ant hill in the scheme of things.  i'll just
reword the paragraph.  and i'll wait until tomorrow for any additional
messages on the same subject.

-ken

---

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:08:24 -0500

That is fine with me.  I just don't want to require it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nguyen, An [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:23 PM
To: Gunn, Janet; 'Ian Brown'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

Janet,

I think centralized authentication is needed for authorized emergency
services. It is not applicable to GETS and WPS now. 
But it should be in the future. Anyhow, the wordings in the draft should
also allow room for centralized authentication implementation when needed.

An

-----Original Message-----
From: Gunn, Janet [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:23 PM
To: 'Nguyen, An'; 'Ian Brown'
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

Nothing wrong with it- I just don't think should be assumed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nguyen, An [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:57 AM
To: 'Ian Brown'; Gunn, Janet
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

Janet,

I am curious ... What is the wrong with centralized authentication? We will
have a scenario where SIP calls are from one end to other. GETS and WPS
might not be part of those calls at all.

An

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Brown [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 8:20 AM
To: 'Gunn, Janet'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

Janet wrote:
> The usage "authentication center" implies to me that 
> authentication is centralized.

I'll update this to remove the confusion.