Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Public Safety?

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:44:48 -0500

Would this be true if Blackberries were as ubiquitous as mobile phones?  I
just don't know.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:31 PM
To: Ken Diliberto
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Public Safety?

On September 11, AOL distributed Blackberry-based IM devices to critical 
people working in New York 

...

That being the case, unless someone can tell me about a serious 
problem that happened with it, my first cut suggests that this is a service 
that works fine as is.

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

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:28:58 -0500

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:44:48 -0500
> Would this be true if Blackberries were as ubiquitous as

Dear Fred;

The problems are

1.) There are _six_ different formats with some market
share.

2.) Little wars break out to deny or gain interoperability,
particularly between two companies in Redmond, Washington,
and Ashburn, Virginia. 

There are programs that will talk to all 6 services, they
are also part of the technological arms race mentioned in 
# 2.

So, this may not be as trivial as it appears on the
surface...

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:06:21 -0800

>2.) Little wars break out to deny or gain interoperability,

Understood. That is the subject of 
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.html, where the little wars 
happen in a teakettle, which in turns whistles continuously. It's quite 
noisy, as you may guess.

The question before *this* house is whether there is something specific 
that is required for IM to be useful to emergency workers - a specific 
configuration, a specific diffserv service specified on the packets (and 
please demonstrate that there is a problem that this solves), or whatever. 
I'm right with you in voting for interoperability. That's not the issue 
before this working group, except to add one set of votes for the actors in 
the IM drama to stop their silly lets-be-anything-but-interoperable games.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:13:21 -0500

> happen in a teakettle, which in turns whistles continuously. It's quite

For what it's worth, IMPP has long moved beyond the warring-camp stage.
Whether it's output (data object definitions for interoperation) is
useful at this point, given changes in the environment, is a separate
discussion.

> the IM drama to stop their silly lets-be-anything-but-interoperable games.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), most of
these actors seem to have little interest in 'playing' in the IETF in
any event.