Subject: Re: IEPS

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Sep 2001 14:43:32 +0000

Thanks Ken,

I think it is a good start, but is that's all the IETF is providing?

I was also thinking, that there is no protocol to choose the best web
site to surf. I think now, DNS provide some site with several IP in a
round robin fashion. However there is no define way to select the IP
that provide the best throughoutput or best reliability... It is good
for load blancing, but not for clients to find the best site. Does IPv6
solve this problem?

I think the IETF should take this individual contributions and move them
to working groups..

Cheers
[email-masked]

On 12 Sep 2001 15:11:10 +0100, Ken Carlberg wrote:

> 
> hello,
> 
> a friend forwarded your email to me.
> 
> > Can someone from the IETF lists all the work that are done or on
> > progress to improove the Internet when disasters strike (on an
> > engeenering point of view).
> 
> there is not much in the way of what you are asking.  Internet
> standards and drafts tend to focus on single problems, and 
> generally avoid solutions that would cross several working groups.
> 
> there is an *individual* draft submission by myself and a colleague
> on International Emergency Preparedness Scheme (IEPS) at:
> 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carlberg-ieps-framework-01.txt
> 
> there is also another individual draft on 911:
> 
> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/sip/drafts/draft-schulzrinne-sip-911-01.txt
> 
> i need to stress that these are individuall contributions and not 
> approaches or standards of a working group
> 
> regards,
> 
> -ken
>

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:39:58 +0100

> I think it is a good start, but is that's all the IETF is providing?

again, as i mentioned privately, and now publicly, the IEPS draft is
a private contribution to the IETF.  its not to be confused for an
official working group product.  and just as important, its critical
to keep in mind that its a work-in-progress.

finally, its individuals/engineers that need to put forth proposals.
the IETF, and in particular the IAB in the past, have presented
areas that should be discussed and investigated.  but it is individuals
(engineers) that put forth specific standard solutions to solve specific
problems to the IETF.  not the other way around.  others on the IESG 
and on this list are better qualified to respond to procedures.
(i think there is also the POISSON?? working group to address that)

> I was also thinking, that there is no protocol to choose the best web site
> to surf. I think now, DNS provide some site with several IP in a round
>  robin fashion. However there is no define way to select the IP that
> provide the best throughoutput or best reliability... It is good for load 
> blancing, but not for clients to find the best site. Does IPv6 solve this 
> problem?

in relation to what you write above, IPv6 is a tangent.  there would also
seem to be a need for greater support of IPv6 (among transits) as a 
production level service before any related IPv6 solutions should be 
considered for addressing problems that arise due to emergency-related 
problems.  but thats just my personal opinion.

> I think the IETF should take this individual contributions and move them

others would disagree.  the SIP-911 proposal would probably become a
working group item for SIPPING(?), but I'm just speculating.   chances
are good that the IEPS draft will stay an individual contribution.

at some point, the 'requirements' portion of the IEPS draft will be 
separated out and eventually circulated through the IESG for their 
comments.

-ken