Subject: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:50:45 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IP Telephony Requirements for Emergency 
                          Telecommunication Service
	Author(s)	: K. Carlberg, R. Atkinson
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.txt
	Pages		: 6
	Date		: 2003-9-9
	
This document presents a list of requirements in support of Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS) within the context of IP telephony.
It is an extension to the general requirements presented in [3].
Solutions to these requirements are not presented in this document.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Ken Carlberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:59:05 -0400

FYI.  The latest version of the telephony requirements draft reflects
minor changes requested by the AD in order for it to be advanced for
review by the IESG.  Item 5 of section 3 (Requirements) was revised, and
new text in the form of item 2 was added to section 4 (Issues).

I forgot to mention that the previous announcement on the General
Requirements draft reflected minor changes requested by the IESG.

-ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:51 AM
> To: IETF-Announce:
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.txt
> 
> This draft is a work item of the Internet Emergency Preparedness
Working
> Group of the IETF.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-06.t
xt
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the

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

---

From: Sean Donelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:30:20 -0400 (EDT)

"Priority" is a buzzword networking executives use to describe assigning
levels of importance to network traffic. The practice is intended to
ensure that a company's most important data gets through a crowded
connection.

But it's a different story for the health care industry and government
agencies, whose notoriously large data appetites have created a market for
connections 10 times the size of a typical data pipe. Since these
customers haven't yet come close to stressing their connection's capacity,
they have no need for expensive and hard-to-manage priority systems, AT&T
Ethernet Services Director Franco Callocchia said.

http://news.com.com/2100-1035_3-5083779.html

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:31:52 -0500

Just because someone with a lofty title said it - it doesn't make what he 
said right

The US Gov and others already employ priority networks; those that don't, 
haven't moved their time critical applications over to their Ethernet 
networks (yet)

>http://news.com.com/2100-1035_3-5083779.html

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:13:52 -0400

On Tuesday, Sep 30, 2003, at 13:31 America/Montreal, James M. Polk 
wrote:
> Just because someone with a lofty title said it - it doesn't make what 
> he said right

The term "right" is highly subjective.  Reasonable people could have
different values for "right" in any number of circumstances.  The quote
that Sean supplied is quite useful, IMHO, because it explains what the
commercial marketplace (in the form of at least one major service 
provider)
believes is needed and practical.  If you find published quotes from
other service providers with different views, you are certainly free
to post them for perusal, but jumping on Sean that way is excessive.

> The US Gov and others already employ priority networks; those that 
> don't, haven't moved their time critical applications over to their 
> Ethernet networks (yet)

Your claim is far too bold, hence untrue.

All of our time-critical applications run over Ethernet (using our own
equipment).  I seriously doubt that you are as omniscient as your
claim would require.  Some organisations do run time-critical apps
over Ethernet.  No doubt, there are some organisations that do not.

And the US DoD, in the form of the currently deployed DISN, does NOT
use priority in its IP networks (specifically NIPRnet, SIPRnet),
according to the folks that operate those networks.  Those folks
further say that the US DoD JCS has *prohibited* deployment of
prioritisation in DoD IP networks (unless a JCS waiver is obtained;
DISA network ops folks tell me they do not have such a waiver).

My own experience is that the USG is sufficiently large that it
almost never has a single perspective on any networking topic,
but instead has a myriad of views in its different component
organisations.

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

Disclaimer: Employed by, but not speaking for, Extreme Networks.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:24:46 -0400

> over Ethernet.  No doubt, there are some organisations that do not.

Just to be clear:

	Some folks regularly do run time-critical apps over Ethernet,
*without enabling any sort of prioritisation*.

	A well-engineered switched Ethernet infrastructure can provide
tremendous predictability and excellent operational characteristics
without enabling any form of prioritisation.  This is particularly
true for modern Ethernet, where switching is most commonly deployed,
the low cost of high-speed Ethernet kit makes it economical to
over-provision capacity, and a variety of ring technologies exist
for resilience.

Yours,

Ran

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:46:50 -0500

Ran

Needless to say, I completely disagree with your position and don't rely on 
quotes from people I don't know (like you do apparently) to get my 
information. I like first hand knowledge.

I feel that any further reaction would not be in this list's best interest 
(a rat hole) - but am available to talk during, before, or after our 
meeting in Minneapolis at whatever length you wish about this

BTW - I was at no time getting on Sean for what he sent to the list - I was 
merely reacting to the quoted person's claim that prioritization in IP was 
not necessary. I actually appreciate reading that someone said this 
(therefore - Thank you Sean for sending this to the list!)

At 05:13 PM 9/30/2003 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>On Tuesday, Sep 30, 2003, at 13:31 America/Montreal, James M. Polk wrote:
>commercial marketplace (in the form of at least one major service provider)

cheers,
James

                                *******************