Subject: [Ieprep] ETS (was Re: [Tsvwg] <draft-lefaucheur-emergency-rsvp> : Preemption scope)

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:19:29 -0400

just to note, the following RFC documents contain text on Emergency  
Telecommunications Service (ETS).

rfc-3487:  Requirements for Resource Priority Mechanisms for the
                   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
rfc-3689:  General Requirements for
                   Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)
rfc-3690:  IP Telephony Requirements for
                   Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)
rfc-4190:  Framework for Supporting Emergency Telecommunications
                   Service (ETS) in IP Telephony
rfc-4375:  Emergency Telecommunications Services (ETS) Requirements
                    for a Single Administrative Domain
rfc-4412:  Communications Resource Priority for
                    the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
rfc-4542: Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) for
                  Real-Time Services in the Internet Protocol Suite

I've cc'ed the IEPREP list since nearly all of the above documents  
came from that group.  I kindly ask that if people choose to continue  
the discussion on ETS, please drop the TSVWG from the cc list and  
continue it on IEPREP.

-ken

On Jun 6, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

> Martin,
>
> Dolly, Martin C, ALABS wrote:                    (Tue, 06 Jun 2006  
> 13:18:47)
>> TDR is the international service, where ETS is a national service  
>> (e.g.,
>> USA)
>
> As a general rule Canada adopts US terminology over International
> terminology in telecommunications, or make ups their own terms.
>
> It is likely do to the proximity and friendly nature of the two
> countries.
>
> --brian
>
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email-masked]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:53:28 -0600

ken,

ken carlberg wrote:                              (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:19:29)
> the discussion on ETS, please drop the TSVWG from the cc list and  

Well, RFC 4190 section 4.3 explicitly scopes out network traffic
engineering in support of ETS.  Also, from the ieprep charter:

 "It is out of scope for this working group to do protocol or protocol
  feature development."

Whereas, as you should known as an author,
draft-lefaucheur-emergency-rsvp-01 clearly indicates:

 "This document specifies RSVP extensions necessary for supporting such
  admission priority capabilities."

I am confused by your request to drop tsvwg from the cc list: Is not
RSVP protocol and protocol feature development within the tsvwg charter?

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:19:51 -0400

Brian,

> RSVP protocol and protocol feature development within the tsvwg  

Yes, I quite agree with the point you make in your above question.   
On the other hand, in my view a discussion about ETS itself is  
informational in nature, and that is what I wished to move (if  
necessary) to IEPREP.

I may have been too pessimistic in feeling that any continued  
discussion on ETS will become protracted and philosophical in  
nature.  I'll respect your wishes and leave tsvwg on.  In any case,  
hopefully pointing out the previous RFCs has been helpful for you.

cheers,

-ken