Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IEPREP Topology Scenarios

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:36:57 EST

In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:18:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >
> > 2.2 The statement about "One key espect ..." concerning prioritization 
> should
> > apply to all four scenarios. This becomes one of the important discussion
> > points for all four scenarios (beginning with "is it needed?"). 
> 
> 
> The intent here is to directly address a list concern/discussion regarding
> whether or not the IP portion (at the GW) of this Topology is ETS aware, and
> whether there was one or two authentication mechanisms used (with the latter
> likely requiring different user behavior if they are on an IP phone vs. a 
> CSN
> phone).
> 
> Should the paragraph after Figure 2 be removed (and likely included within 
> the
> Topology Implications ID that's coming)?
> 

I would say that the definition of scenarios should be agnostic to any 
specific issues that might be discussed later based on those scenarios. I 
think we have different ideas of whether or not the IP portion needs to be 
"ETS aware" or it could change between now a several years from now.

Mike Pierce

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:55:47 -0600

> "ETS aware" or it could change between now a several years from now. 

Fair statement. Anyone else care to comment on this point?

> Mike Pierce 

cheers,
James 

              *************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than 
                         they are willing to allow for others"

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