Subject: [Ieprep] Moving forward: draft-carlberg-ets-*.txt

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:53:55 -0500

Hi,

1) I appreciate Hal's note suggesting that draft-carlberg-ets-*.txt be 
made
WG documents.  I would ask that they be targeted as the standards-track
requirements [1] documents for those aspects of the current charter,
subject to whatever editing turns out to be necessary to get them into
a form congruent with WG Rough Consensus.

2) I would also ask Scott that we have *discussion* time for those
two documents in Atlanta on the IEprep Agenda. [1]

3) I'd like to ask that folks here please take time now, before Atlanta,
to read and critique the documents from Ken Carlberg (I kibbutzed, but 
the work
and words are mostly Ken's).  They are short documents (and I hope also
sweet :-).

General IP Carrier Requirements:
	draft-carlberg-ets-general-00.txt

Application-specific Requirements for IP Telephony:
	draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-00.txt

3B) I'm looking for slightly different kinds of review from our two 
segments
of participants.  From the folks worried about GETS-like stuff, please
focus on whether the core essentials did get documented clearly in those
two documents.  From the operators, is the verbage clear enough that 
there
is no intent for unfunded mandates or that an operator has to deploy any
of this stuff ?  Of course, feel free to comment on anything, but those
two questions are my core concern for the above documents at this time.

Thanks,

Ran
[email-masked]

NOTES:
[1] IETF-definition for "requirements", not DoD-definition.  (I'd like 
to keep
Hal's document on what he thinks a GETS-like service might look like 
translated
into the global Internet, but that document doesn't contain 
IETF-requirements).
[2] I hate lots of presentations at IETF meetings, so I'm deliberately
asking for discussion time rather than presentation time.  I'd like to 
assume
that reasonable people will have read the drafts and that others will 
either
do so in real-time or keep quiet.

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:20:01 -0500 (EST)

> I would ask that they be targeted as the standards-track

as a general rule the IETF does not make requirements documents 
standards track (other than router/host requirements which
were standards track but might be BCP today) - requirements
for future software development (see RFC 1726) are generally
published as Informational RFCs

Scott

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:08:30 -0500

> published as Informational RFCs

OK, then rephrase my request to be that draft-carlberg-ets-*.txt be
considered the WG's "requirements" document output (possibly also
including Henning's draft in that set) in the charter, replacing
the current draft in that role.

<opinion>
The existing documents draft-ietf-ieprep-* seem to be too far away
editorially to be worth editing into IETF-style requirements documents,
but are potentially useful as informational documents describing
the services from an NCS perspective or describing a possible (but
not mandated) deployment framework.
</opinion>

Ran