Subject: [Ieprep] About these recharter text suggestions... ?

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:54:51 -0500

All

It appears to me that some on our list want to move away from what ieprep 
was orignially founded upon - disaster related communications, and towards, 
seemingly exclusively, military communications.

I, for one, do not agree with this revolutionary shift.

I believe we need to shift from a generally informative WG to a standards 
track WG.

By this I mean to shift our focus on developing informative requirements 
documents that we, in ieprep, will be able to solve through standards 
track, or BCP, documents generated and discussed to the point of consensus, 
by us - in this WG.

I am reading lately offerings and suggestions to make this WG all about 
MLPP, and I don't believe we need to make it only about MLPP, rather, we 
need to add MLPP functionality to what we can standardize.

IEPREP can do a lot more in the area of disaster related communications, 
and we should not completely shift away from addressing that area, which is 
not fully addressed within our RFCs to date.

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

---

From: "Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:45:43 -0400

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE

The intent of my proposed changes are to bring the text of the charter
in line with the deliverables.  All deliverables talked about
government/military networks and had little or nothing to do with
public networks.

With respect to the comment on shifting from informative to standards
track, couldn't agree more.

Stephen 

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 6:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ieprep] About these recharter text suggestions... ?

All

It appears to me that some on our list want to move away from what
ieprep was orignially founded upon - disaster related communications,
and towards, seemingly exclusively, military communications.

I believe we need to shift from a generally informative WG to a
standards track WG.

By this I mean to shift our focus on developing informative requirements
documents that we, in ieprep, will be able to solve through standards
track, or BCP, documents generated and discussed to the point of
consensus, by us - in this WG.

IEPREP can do a lot more in the area of disaster related communications,
and we should not completely shift away from addressing that area, which
is not fully addressed within our RFCs to date.

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE