Subject: Re: [Ieprep] identification of packets

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:34:46 EST

In a message dated 12/8/2002 8:58:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> 
> third, it is important for IETF to hear from other communities 
> too (here, emergency response community.) At last, they are the 
> 

[MAP] There have been many comments made by two major potential users of this 
capability - NCS and DoD in the US - but their comments have been routinely 
slammed.

> 
> So, why cant we start a separate interest list (like diffserv
> interest list.... If your in Diffserv list, How many mail of yours 
> have been bypassed to diffserv-interest list by Brian? ) to talk about 
> all this other issues and leave this list for requirements 
> discussion. 
> 

[MAP] I can't afford to be on too many more lists. This one needs to come to 
decisions/agreements on requirements, then we can participate in "solutions" 
discussions (maybe in DiffServ).

> Also, I suggest we keep some separate threads while 
> discussing each issue (like the same way
> SIP requirements was discussed.) Else, it will boil 
> down to another over provisioning discussion. 
> 
> 

[MAP] Regardless of any other discussion, I would like to see an end to any 
discussion on this list about "over-provisioning". We all agree a carrier can 
do it if they want, but it's not the solution to the problem.

Mike Pierc
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:15:22 -0500

On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 10:34 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> [MAP] There have been many comments made by two major potential users 
> of this capability - NCS and DoD in the US - but their comments have 
> been routinely slammed.

When anyone makes a silly comment, the comment is likely to get slammed.
(It happens to me all the time and is just part of life.)  When folks 
make
non-silly comments or ask reasonable questions, those generally get 
taken
seriously (e.g. Janet Gunn's recent scenario discussion).

> all this other issues and leave this list for requirements

The point of the comment was that it is silly to try to talk about
"all these other issues" when the problem definition is not generally
agreed to yet (and clearly it is not generally agreed to as of now).

> SIP requirements was discussed.)

I keep trying to edit Subject: lines to reflect the current
topics.  It would not hurt for others to do the same when
the topic changes.

> [MAP] Regardless of any other discussion, I would like to see an end
> to any discussion on this list about "over-provisioning". We all agree
> a carrier can do it if they want, but it's not the solution to the 
> problem.

It is the best solution in town, for a wide range of situations, so it 
is
pure fantasy to think it won't keep being brought up here.  In fact, 
over
provisioning seems to be the current DISN strategy for at least the 
CONUS IP
networks [1] (and I wish them every success in getting it deployed for 
their
networks).

Ran

[1] There appears to be an RFI out from DISA regarding availability of 
dark fibre
in CONUS.  (I think it is a safe bet DISA aren't planning to use the 
fibre
for long-haul cable television links. :-)

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