Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Another version of a potential IEPREP charter

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:10:11 -0400

On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:30 PM, King, Kimberly S. wrote:

> We were asked to tighten up the potential new charter.  Here is a  
> start.
> Comments?

A while back there was a suggestion to change the name of the group  
to a name that included MLPP because it seemed that the new  
milestones moved away to some degree from the original "emergency"  
motivation of the group.  It was felt that such a move would not be  
accepted by the IESG, so I'd like to make an attempt to find some  
middle ground in recognizing the evolution of the group.

below are some suggested changes in both the charter name and in the  
first couple of paragraphs of the previously suggested new charter (I  
left the rest of the charter intact).  Note that the "new" and "old"  
sections are marked with "< >" tags).

While there is precedent in changing WG names, I've been told that it  
can be a big administrative hassle -- especially with respect to  
retaining/associating previous archived information.  So, we would be  
bound to the same IEPREP acronym.

Finally, you'll notice that the main changes I have suggested is an  
emphasis on prioritization (which has always been a foundation of  
this group) and de-emphasizing the word "emergency".

comments?

-ken
=====================================

<NEW>
Internet Prioritization and Preparedness (IEPREP) Charter
</new>

     <old>
     Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) Charter
     </old>

<NEW>----------------------------------
Prioritization involves conveying the importance of communications.   
Communities of interest have viewed prioritization as one step in  
facilitating immediate recovery operations during emergencies/ 
disasters, or in other occasions when resources are at a minimum and  
particular sets of users (e.g., first responders) have a need to  
obtain the best available service.  Either circumstance may involves  
communications over the Internet or private IP networks/intranets.

Natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those  
created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, wartime events) may occur at  
any time.  Quick response for recovery operations requires immediate  
access to any telecommunications capabilities at hand. These  
capabilities include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and  
Internet access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless  
PDAs. The commercial telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly  
evolving to Internet-based technology. Therefore, the Internet  
community needs to consider how it can best support prioritized  
communications.

Actions taken upon prioritized communications vary per interested  
party.  On one hand, traffic engineering or schemas to improve the  
probability of establishing/maintaining communications during times  
of distress may prove sufficient.  Other groups may have an interest  
in a more binary approach of displacing or preempting lower priority  
communications.
</new>----------------------------------

<OLD>------------------------------------------------------
Description of Working Group: Effective telecommunications  
capabilities are imperative to facilitate immediate recovery  
operations for serious emergency events including natural disasters  
(e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those created by man  
(e.g., terrorist attacks, combat situations or wartime events). In  
addition, related capabilities should be operative in normal command  
and control operations of military services, which often have  
timeliness requirements even in peacetime.

Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick  
response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any  
telecommunications
capabilities at hand. These capabilities include: conventional  
telephone, cellular phones, and Internet access via online terminals,  
IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The commercial telecommunications  
infrastructure is rapidly evolving to Internet-based technology.  
Therefore, the Internet community needs to consider how it can best  
support emergency management and recovery operations.
</old>-----------------------------------------------------

The IEPREP WG will address proactive measures to congestion and  
recovery from various outages using three perspectives:

1. A commercial (i.e., or public) telecommunications infrastructure

2. An enterprise or governmental/military telecommunications  
infrastructure that retains sole administration of its own network  
resources

3. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure that  
combines private resources and leverages public infrastructure.

Now that the initial documents describing the broad problem space and  
its salient characteristics have been completed, new efforts will  
focus on specific requirements and solutions, such as those  
pertaining to the governmental/military sector. The following are  
specific examples that can satisfy the interests of governmental/ 
military (and potentially, commercial/public/enterprise) emergency  
communications:

1. Under emergency circumstances, some countries require civil  
networks to distinguish sessions based on the user's indication of  
precedence.  The network can use the precedence information to give  
priority to some sessions over others, up to and including preemption  
of lower-precedence sessions.  In many countries' governmental  
networks, the capabilities needed to support precedence-based  
preferential treatment are requirements on the equipment and services  
used to build those networks.  As Internet-based technology
continues to expand into civil and government networks, requirements  
for precedence-based capabilities will need to be developed. IEPREP  
will document these requirements as they pertain to technologies of  
interest to IETF.

2.  Specific countries may have additional considerations that define  
the context in which they implement session precedence and  
preemption.  For example, network ownership constraints (which may  
differ from commercial deployments), communities of interest  
including dial-plan considerations, encryption assumptions and any  
limitations arising from differing security levels, etc. that should  
be described before mechanisms can be proposed.  IEPREP should  
document the context for implementing solutions.  In addition,  
specific solutions must be developed when appropriate.

3. While voice was the driving application for IEPREP in the past,  
preferential treatments will need to be applied to all applications  
essential to emergency communications. Preferential treatment must  
address robustness of both voice and non-real-time applications that  
share the same infrastructure. The IEPREP WG should document the  
preferential treatment mechanisms that are appropriate for any  
essential communications.

In the IETF, considerations for treatment and security of emergency  
communications stretch across a number of working groups, mostly in  
the RAI Area, notably including the various voice/video signaling  
working groups, instant messaging, and QoS signaling. IEPREP will  
cooperate closely with these groups and with those outside of the  
IETF such as various ITU-T study groups.  In addition, IEPREP will  
pursue subject matter experts (e.g.,
security) for specification review if such expertise does not exist  
within the working group in order to ensure continued high quality  
specifications.

If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or  
mechanism, IEPREP will generate only a requirements document for  
those groups to evaluate. If there is not an existing group that can  
extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will prepare requirements and  
discuss the extension of that protocol/mechanism or protocols/ 
mechanisms within IEPREP.

Goals and Milestones:

Done Submit initial I-D of Requirements

Done Submit initial I-D of Framework

Done Submit initial I-D of Recommendations BCP

Done Produce an Requirements I-D to IESG for publication as an  
Informational RFC

Done Submit Framework I-D to IESG for publication as an Informational  
RFC

Aug 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of Government/Military  
Networks for Precedence and Preemption

Aug 06 Submit an initial I-D of ETS Terminology.  This document  
should define ieprep related terms (e.g., ETS, GETS, MLPP) and  
explain their relationships and how they have been used in existing RFCs

Sept 06 Submit an initial I-D of Deployment Considerations of  
Precedence and Preemption on Government/Military Networks.  This  
document should clarify the context that Government/Military  
requirements must operate.

Nov 06 Submit final I-D of Requirements of Government/Military  
Networks for Precedence and Preemption to IESG for publication as an  
Informational RFC

NOV 06 Submit final I-D of ETS Terminology to IESG for publication as  
an Informational RFC.

Jan 07 Submit an final I-D of Deployment Considerations of Precedence  
and Preemption on Government/Military Networks to IESG for  
publication as an Informational RFC.

Feb 07 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and  
Preemption to be used by Government/Military Networks

Apr 07 Submit final I-D of Mechanisms for Precedence and Preemption  
to be used by Government/Military Networks to IESG for publication as  
a BCP

Apr 07 The working group will discuss re-chartering if additional  
efforts are agreed upon by the WG (for example, work items related to  
protocols outside existing WGs).

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

---

From: "Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:04:42 -0400

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE
 
Essentially accept Ken's proposal with some modifications.  Still do not
like the text that Ken didn't modify so my suggested changes are
provided.  Hopefully the strikeouts and additions are visible.  This
proposed text brings the charter in line with the deliverables and makes
it clear that the focus is on MLPP for managed IP networks and public
networks where permissible by regulations/law.
 
Stephen Perschau

<Text Proposed By
Carlberg>---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

Prioritization involves conveying the importance of communications.
Communities of interest have viewed prioritization as one step in
facilitating immediate response and recovery operations during
emergencies/ disasters, or at times when network resources are stressed
possibly due to damage, congestion, denial of service attacks, etc.  It
is during these types of events that in other occasions when resources
are at a minimum and particular sets of users (e.g., first responders
authorized users) have a need to obtain the best available service.
Either circumstance may involve communications over the Internet or
private IP networks/intranets.

Natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those
created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, wartime events) may occur at
any time.  Quick response for response and recovery operations requires
immediate access to any available telecommunications resources
capabilities at hand. These resources  capabilities include not only:
conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet access via online
terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs but also access to available
network resources (e.g., bandwidth). Because the commercial
telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to Internet-based
technology . Therefore, the Internet community needs to consider how its
protocols can best support prioritized communications in
government/military networks.

Actions taken upon prioritized communications vary per interested party.
There are different ways to provide prioritization  (1) On one hand,
traffic engineering or schemas to that improve the probability of
establishing/maintaining communications during times of stress, (2)
distress may prove sufficient.  Other groups may have an interest in a
more binary approach of displacing or preempting lower priority
communications.

<Text Proposed by
Carlberg>---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

Delete all text beginning with "The IEPREP WG will address proactive
measures...." up to the milestones and insert the following replcaement
text: 

<NEW>-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------<NEW>

The IEPREP WG will address proactive measures to deal with response and
recovery efforts from the following two perspectives:

1. A government/military telecommunications network that retains sole
administration control of its own network resources.

2. A government/military telecommunications infrastructure that combines
enterprise network resources and leverages public network resources.

These new efforts will focus on specific requirements and solutions
pertaining to the government/military sector.

While voice traffic was the driving application in the past,
preferential treatment needs to be applied to all traffic pertaining to
response and recovery operations. This includes real-time (e.g., voice,
streaming video, etc.) and non-real-time (e.g., text messaging, SMS,
etc.) traffic that will be competing for the same network resources as
non response and recovery operations traffic. The WG will document the
preferential treatment mechanisms that are appropriate for
communications used in response and recovery operations.

Under certain circumstances, some countries require their networks to
distinguish sessions based on the user's indication of precedence.  The
network can use the precedence information to give priority to some
sessions over others, up to and including preemption of lower-precedence
sessions. In many countries' government/military networks, the
capabilities needed to support precedence-based preferential treatment
are requirements on the equipment and services used to build those
networks.  As Internet-based technology continues to expand into
government/military networks, requirements for precedence-based
capabilities will need to be developed. The Working Group (WG) will
document these requirements as they pertain to technologies of interest
to IETF.

Some countries have additional considerations that define the context in
which they implement session precedence and preemption.  For example,
network ownership constraints (which may differ from commercial
deployments), communities of interest including dial-plan
considerations, encryption assumptions, and limitations arising from
different security levels, etc. that should be described before
mechanisms are proposed.  The WG will document the context for
implementation solutions.

In the IETF, consideration for treatment and security of communications
for response and recovery  operations stretch across a number of working
groups, mostly in the RAI Area, including  various working groups
involved with voice/video signaling, instant messaging, QoS signaling,
etc.  The WG will cooperate
closely with these groups and with those outside the IETF (e.g., ITU-T
Study Groups).  To ensure high quality specifications the WG will pursue
subject matter expert (e.g., security) for specification review.

If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism,
the IEPREP WG will generate a requirements document for evaluation by
the group responsible for the protocol.  If there is not an existing
group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, the IEPREP WG will
prepare requirements and discuss the extension of that
protocol/mechanism or protocols/mechanisms within IEPREP.

<NEW>-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------,NEW>

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

---

From: "Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:29:37 -0400

Sorry for having to resend this but the text deletions/modifications in
Ken's proposed text did not go through as highlighted.  Ignore the
previous email.

Stephen Perschau

-----Original Message-----
From: Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2 
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:05 PM
To: ken carlberg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Another version of a potential IEPREP charter
(UNCLASSIFIED)

 
Stephen Perschau

<Text Proposed By

Prioritization involves conveying the importance of communications.
Communities of interest have viewed prioritization as one step in
facilitating response and recovery operations during emergencies/
disasters, or at times when network resources are stressed possibly due
to damage, congestion, denial of service attacks, etc.  It is during
these types of events that particular sets of users (e.g., authorized
users) have a need to obtain the best available service. Either
circumstance may involve communications over the Internet or private IP
networks/intranets.

Natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those
created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, wartime events) may occur at
any time.  Quick response for response and recovery operations requires
immediate access to available telecommunications resources. These
resource include not only: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and
Internet access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs
but also access to available network resources (e.g., bandwidth).
Because telecommunications infrastructures are  rapidly evolving to
Internet-based technology the Internet community needs to consider how
its protocols can support prioritized communications in
government/military networks.

There are different ways to provide prioritization: (1) traffic
engineering or schemas that improve the probability of
establishing/maintaining communications during times of stress, or (2) a
more binary approach of displacing or preempting lower priority
communications.

<Text Proposed by
Carlberg>---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

Delete all text beginning with "The IEPREP WG will address proactive
measures...." up to the milestones and insert the following replacement
text: 

In the IETF, consideration for treatment and security of communications
for response and recovery  operations stretch across a number of working
groups, mostly in the RAI Area, including  various working groups
involved with voice/video signaling, instant messaging, QoS signaling,
etc.  The WG will cooperate closely with these groups and with those
outside the IETF (e.g., ITU-T Study Groups).  To ensure high quality
specifications the WG will pursue subject matter expert (e.g., security)
for specification review.

The milestones remain as proposed

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:58:17 -0400

My comments on the first part.

* on the lines I changed

Thanks,

Janet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Perschau, Stephen CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]> wrote on

> Carlberg>---------------------------------------------------------------
*> Prioritization involves identifying communications that have authorized
access to preferential treatment.

> facilitating response and recovery operations during emergencies/
*> disasters, or in other occasions where ordinary communications are
likely to fail
*>  and a particular sets of authorized users (e.g., first responders,
chain of command
*>  have a need to obtain  a service that might not otherwise be available.
*> These circumstance may involve communications over the Internet or
private IP
> networks/intranets.
*Delete> Natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and
those
*Delete> created by man (e.g., terrorist attacks, wartime events) may occur
at
*Delete> any time.
*> These users require
> but also access to available network resources (e.g., bandwidth).
*> Both the commercial telecommunications infrastructure and
private/enterprise/military
*> telecommunications infrastructures are  rapidly evolving to
*> Internet-based technology. The Internet community needs to consider how
> its protocols can support prioritized communications in these contexts.

*> There are different ways to provide prioritization: (1) in some contexts
traffic
> engineering or schemas that improve the probability of
*> establishing/maintaining communications during times of stress are
appropriate,  (2) in other contexts a
> more binary approach of displacing or preempting lower priority
*> communications is appropriate.