Subject: Re: International Emergency Preference Scheme

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 07:21:18 +0100

At 13:25 21/12/2000 -0500, Folts, Harold wrote:
>In March 2000, the ITU-T established Recommendation E.106, A Description of
>an International Emergency Preference Scheme (IEPS). This Recommendation
>presents the basic requirements for preferential treatment of critical
>communications to support recovery operations from serious disasters such as
>earthquakes and severe storms. While E.106 is based upon Public Switched
>Telephone Network (PSTN) services, considerable effort is underway to
>migrate these capabilities to next generation networks based upon Internet
>technology.

note - this effort is focused at recovering the society from a serious 
disaster, not recovering the network, I think.

>The first issue of pursuit is to ensure an effective interface between the
>PSTN and IP-telephony services.

this strikes me as a profoundly strange approach, but I may be biased.

>  It is expected that this interface will
>touch on a number of work areas in the IETF. Many of the capabilities and
>protocol mechanisms may already exist and need to be identified and adapted
>as necessary. There could also be some areas where additional work may be
>needed. Nevertheless, we expect that coordination and interaction with
>various IETF work areas will be needed to help fulfill the requirements for
>IEPS in next generation networks.

Reactions I've heard vary from "their ideas are just too broken for words" 
to "what they want can be built easily using DiffServ - this should be a 
call for tender, not a standardization proposal".
Clarity of desired outcome may be a Good Thing.

>At IETF 48 in Pittsburgh we had a BOF on IEPS where the background and
>considerations for IEPS were presented. We hope to have another BOF with
>more detailed discussion at IETF 50 in Minneapolis. Two Internet Drafts on
>IEPS have been posted and are available at www.iepscheme.net along with
>other relevant documents.  We also have established an Email List for
>discussion of the IEPS issues. You are invited to subscribe using the
>instructions provided at the IEPS web site and contribute to the discussions
>and progress of work.

Mentioning the location of the mailing list may not be a bad idea.

>Many thanks for you interest and support.
>
>Hal
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>*       Hal Folts
>*       Senior Systems Engineer
>*       Next Generation Networks
>*       Technology and Programs Division (N2)
>*       National Communications System
>*       701 South Courthouse Road
>*       Arlington, VA 22204-2198
>*       Tel: +1 703 607-6186   Fax: +1 703 607-4830
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>-
>This message was passed through [email-masked], which
>is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
>Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:54:29 -0800

>call for tender, not a standardization proposal".

What they want is, in essence, to know that all the tools exist so that 
they can in fact go out to tender with the service providers. They have 
identified at least one hole in SIP with respect to their requirements. 
They believe that they need five call placement priorities. H.323 allows 
them one, and SIP allows them four. There may be other mismatches.

The absence of an obvious need for protocol development here is why I have 
not rushed into opening a working group. I suspect that between IPSEC, SIP, 
and Diff-serv, we are very close, and feel that work placement should 
happen after the analysis is in. When we have a significant user community 
that comes to us asking to discuss their specific requirements, I think the 
correct response is not to flame them, but to do the analysis and help them 
become clued in.