Subject: RE: [Ieprep] problem context

From: "Choi, Don" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:49:15 -0500

Ran,

Please check the minutes of the IEPREP BOF at SLC.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:18 PM
To: Choi, Don
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] problem context

On Monday, Nov 25, 2002, at 12:52 America/Montreal, Choi, Don wrote:
> The requirement for MLPP like service in internet (IP-based network) 
> has
> been part of IEPREP WG all along.

	Disagree.  It has NOT been here "all along".   It is an example
of "feature creep" or "charter creep".  I've been at each IEprep BOF
or WG meeting.  MLPP hasn't even been discussed at most of them.

	Also work specifying an MLPP mechanism is outside charter, since
IEprep
does not do protocol design.

> The requirement exists for emergency
> situations, and it should work over an IP-based network.

	No.  That is also wrong. The requirement for emergency situations is

that
the packets actually get delivered, NOT that anyone have, implement, or 
deploy
MLPP (or any other particular mechanism).

	The WG to address MLPP is probably DiffServ.  I infer that DoD/NCS 
folks haven't
succeeded (yet ?) in persuading DiffServ to specify something that 
DoD/NCS folks like.
None the less, DiffServ is the WG where MLPP mechanisms are most likely 
actually
to get specified and where desires for MLPP need to get expressed 
(assuming folks
want MLPP to actually happen inside IETF specs).  Earlier it sounded 
like you all
grasped this fact and were trying to work within DiffServ; I must have 
misunderstood.

	Given absence of much (any ?) present/likely future deployment of 
inter-domain
DiffServ, it is actually a good thing that emergency communications 
over the Internet
does not need or rely on MLPP.

Ran
[email-masked]

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:51:09 -0500

> Please check the minutes of the IEPREP BOF at SLC.

Don,

	One instance does not contradict my claim of "most".  There were
at least 3 separate BOFs for IEprep, which itself was a violation of the
normal IESG custom of only allowing 2 BOFs to any given proposal.  And
at SLC, that notion was shot up pretty broadly by IETF folks.

Mind, several IAB members at SLC each came away with the understanding 
that
"no WG would be created since there was clear community consensus to 
NOT create
this WG".  Obviously community input from the BOF was not the basis of 
the
IESG decision to charter this WG.

Mumble.

Ran