Subject: RE: [Ieprep] draft-ietf-ieprep-requirements-00.txt

From: "Beard, Cory" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:01:29 -0500

> From: senthil ayyasamy [mailto:[email-masked]]
> - ISPs generally oversubscribe their links than
> overprovision.Will this be a factor ?

A distinction is that overprovisioning occurs in the core, and
oversubscription in the access networks.

Cory Beard

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:19:40 -0400

> oversubscription in the access networks.

Typically, yes.

There exist examples of access networks that were also built in an
over-provisioned manner (including several MANs in North America,
Japan, Australia, and Europe).  As you note, these are less common
than under-provisioned access networks just now.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:47:25 -0700

At 07:19 PM 6/28/2002 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>Japan, Australia, and Europe).

The point that has to be considered is not that there are examples of 
heavily overprovisioned networks in the core and in the access, or that 
there are examples otherwise, but that there are examples of both.

Therefore, while I agree with you that overprovisioning works and is the 
choice made by a number of upper crust ISPs, it is not the only relevant 
solution.

It seems to me that the requirements draft should be talking about the 
problem to be solved ("we need the phones and certain sites to be 
accessible be emergency workers when things are falling apart"), and if it 
mentioned solutions at all ("overprovisioning" or "QoS"), it should mention 
them as examples of a solution which can fix the problem being addressed, 
discussion of which can help identify requirements remaining to be addressed.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:07:03 -0700

At 09:01 PM 6/28/2002 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>Since the I-D submissions have closed down, such a revision might 
>reasonably be put up on a web or ftp server with URL posted to the WG list 
>(as Fred did recently with one of his I-Ds).

I would be willing to post it at the same site I did mine.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:01:26 -0400

On Friday, June 28, 2002, at 08:47 , Fred Baker wrote:
> accessible be emergency workers when things are falling apart"), and if 
> it mentioned solutions at all ("overprovisioning" or "QoS"), it should 
> mention them as examples of a solution which can fix the problem being 
> addressed, discussion of which can help identify requirements remaining 
> to be addressed.

I don't think it is clever to spend energy in the Requirements draft 
talking about
any examples of implementation approaches.  In any event, I think the 
current
Requirements draft goes beyond mentioning example implementations and 
confuses
requirements with implementation approaches.

While I'm suggesting editorial changes to the Requirements draft, I 
think that
a new section ("Scope") need to be added at the front of this draft.  
Proposed
text for this follows:

	Scope:
		This document describes high-level requirements, but not 
implementation
	approaches, for networks that claim to provide Internet Emergency 
Preparedness
	Services (IEPS).  Nothing in this document is applicable to an IP 
network that
	does NOT claim to provide such services.  Discussion of how 
existing IETF
	standards-track technologies might be used to implement such 
capabilities
	is provided in several related, but separate, documents.

I'd like to see an editorial pass on the Requirements document happen.  
I think it
would be helpful if such a pass could happen prior to Yokohama.  Since 
the I-D
submissions have closed down, such a revision might reasonably be put up 
on a
web or ftp server with URL posted to the WG list (as Fred did recently 
with
one of his I-Ds).

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]