Subject: [Ieprep] IEPREP Charter

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:35:45 EST

In a message dated 11/26/2002 4:03:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I don't feel there is anything especially sinister about dealing with 
> military networking requirements provided the participants understand 
> that the military will have to pay for their services just like 
> everyone else. Certainly many of the requirements are similar, but I 
> really don't care as long as we get a decision from the ADs or a 
> consensus from the WG.  Whatever the outcome, I think the charter needs 
> to get clarified.  My proposed text (for both possible outcomes) is 
> below.
> 

<snip>

[MAP] I would like to see changes to the IEPREP charter to make the following 
points very clear:

1. Scope of work includes both a.) civilian emergency access to 
telecommunications facilities by individuals as authorized by a government 
(e.g., GETS in the US) and b.) military priority systems within essentially 
closed networks (e.g. MLPP). The WG explicitly accepts governments and 
military organizations as legitimate users of IP and of IETF standards and as 
legitimate participants in the standards process (through the individual 
participants they support).

2. IEPREP is to examine ways to provide preferential treatment to calls 
(within the IP environment) only in cases in which congestion occurs. (It 
will not engage in discussions of whether or not congestion can occur. It is 
presumed that it can.)

3. The situation of most concern is a congestion case that would be caused by 
massive failures in the infrastructure, caused by a natural or man-made 
disaster of a magnitude which has not ever occurred (and we hope never does). 
(That means that the WG may consider evensts like 9/11, the Baltimore Train 
tunnel, calls from Nairobi, etc. as interesting case studies, but not as 
proof that there is no problem.)

4. Since over-provisioning is an operational choice made by a carrier and can 
not be used in all cases, it is not to be discussed in IEPREP.

5. The primary results of IEPREP are "requirements" to give to other WGs to 
identify where changes are needed in protocols, etc. Nothing out of IEPREP is 
a mandate on any vendor or carrier to provide anything. (WIth this 
understanding in the Charter, there should be no need for further concerns to 
be raised that the IETF should not require carriers to provide this or that 
functionality.)

By clearly stating these points and thereby eliminating the ongoing 
discussions related to several non-issues, the WG should be able to focus on 
the real issues that it was created to address (or clearly identify that 
there are already solutions which can be applied so the WG can be disbanded).

Mike Pierce
Artel