Subject: Re: [Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 6-10 - discussion request]

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:30:09 -0500

On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 14:13 America/Montreal, Daniel Sullivan 
wrote:
> I think this group is working on stuff for the future. If we didn't 
> need to
> make changes, we could shut down the IETF.  How boring that would be! 
> :-))

I remain a little befuddled about the charter language, despite a couple
of attempts by Scott to clarify.  No doubt Scott will clarify the below
if I err greatly.

However, *this particular group* is supposed to focus on how one could 
deploy
IEprep services *using existing mechanisms*.  The group is specifically 
NOT
supposed to work on protocol design or changes to IETF protocol specs.
So the focus of this group is how can we do IEprep stuff *today* (not
in some indefinite future) using *existing* mechanisms.

So work on changing things is legitimate for the IETF, but not 
particularly
the focus of this particular working group.  As an example, this group
is offering input to SIP WG.  SIP WG can then choose whether or not to
make any changes and also which changes it wants to make.

So I'd say that if there are particular changes one wants to make to 
IETF
protocols, then one should take those up in the *normal* IETF manner:
	- show up at the applicable other WG
	- explain what one wants and why one wants it
	- write an Internet-Draft outlining one's proposal
	- try to persuade that WG community to make those changes
	- work with the normal process of the IETF

No doubt Scott will correct any confusion in the above.

Ran
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 17:37:05 -0500 (EST)

> No doubt Scott will correct any confusion in the above.

the 1st deliverable of this group is a requirements doc to SIPPING
that doc will, by definition, be talking about things that are not
present in SIP

the 2nd deliverable is a document that says what we can and can 
not do in ISPs and the Internet with existing Internet technology 

a number of IDs have been submitted to the WG that go beyond
what is doable in today's Internet

I think that the 1st pass on these documents have to reflect
what is possible with today's Internet technology -

after we have that we can start looking at requirements that imply 
changes in IETF protocols (aside from SIP which we are already doing) - 
any such requirements will have to be delt with in the way that
the SIP requirements are being delt with - writing a document that
describes specific requirements for a specific IETF protocol (more
than one document if there are more thna one IETF protocol) which
would then be forwarded to the working group responsibe for the
protocol (if any, if there is no such working group, one might
have to be formed)

there is a bigger problem with developing requirements that imply
rearchitecting ISPs or the Internet - that seems unrealistic, and
requirements that define business practices for ISPs - that is
an area that the IETF specifically avoids

Scott