Subject: [Ieprep] Problem?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 17:17:47 EST

To all,

The following quote, taken from a recent e-mail, certainly shows why we are 
having such difficulty on this list in getting anywhere.

"If we know _in advance_ that the emergency traffic is going to be between
A and B, ..."

There seem to be some (maybe only one?) who still do not grasp the problem - 
emergencies are not preplanned.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:24:42 -0500

Mike,

	Actually that quote doesn't illustrate what you claim.  Instead,
it was part of a constructive response to a scenario outlined by Janet
Gunn, where part of the scenario specifically involved two organisations
that do know in advance they would want to be connected to handle
emergency traffic.

	You consistently talk about IEprep only for unplanned scenarios,
but other folks quite legitimately talk about scenarios where it is
quite predictable in advance that a pair (or set) of organisations will
want/need to be able to communicate for emergency purposes.

	You don't have any statutory monopoly on the definition of what
constitutes legitimate scenarios.  Anyone participating here can propose
any scenario.  The WG consensus determines how we proceed.

	So your note mainly illustrates how out of step you are as compared
with most of the WG...

Ran

On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 17:17 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:

> To all,
>
> The following quote, taken from a recent e-mail, certainly shows why 
> we are having such difficulty on this list in getting anywhere.
>

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