Subject: RE: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:42:52 -0500

I've also worked with people who used "telecommunications" to mean "data
communications" (including the LAN, which annoyed the h&** out of me) and
"telephony" to mean voice.  
 
I think the usage is very non-standardized, and whatever we decide, SOMEONE
will think we meant something different.

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

At 01:04 PM 4/4/2002 -0500, Folts, Harold wrote: 

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [ mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

At 04:06 AM 3/25/2002 -0700, Stuart (Stu) Goldman wrote: 

Ken, 

I believe that Hal is now using the term ETS (Emergency Telecommunications
Service) rather than ECS. 

I have an issue with this change in view of the IEPREP Charter addressing
more than Voice (ie Telecommunications) -- and of the two then prefer ECS
(which could mean anything from Voice to IM to FTP to HTTP to whatever IAA
uses)

[HF] The term "communication is too general and can include postal service
and smoke signals. Telecommunications is appropriate and should not be
limited to voice or telephony. I consider telecom. to apply equally to the
Internet and all modes in a network infrastructure.

"Tele" means 'over some(long) distance(s)' -- so strictly speaking
(writing), you're correct with your intention. But most of us in this
community know there is a difference in most networks - especially in closed
networks like enterprises where most of us work - between Telecommunications
and Datacommunications. The former means "voice", the latter means
"everything else". FTP, SMTP and HTTP (3 desirable applications from your
ID)  for example will always fall under the "Datacommunications" side of
this categorization, not to the Telecommunications side. I would consider
"communications" to be a better word than "Telecom", "Datacom", "Transfer",
or any others I've heard or read or thought of. I'm looking at it to relieve
confusion on  limiting focus to only voice (which you state as not being
your desires here, which I agree with BTW)

Hal 

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/>

---

From: "Hal Folts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:33:57 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Gunn,
Janet NE
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:43 PM
To: 'James M. Polk'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

  I think the usage is very non-standardized, and whatever we decide,
SOMEONE will think we meant something different.

  Janet, where have you been. I have been in the telecommunications business
for over forty years now and the definition is very clear.
Telecommunications is a means of conveying communications and information
via electrical means, including telegraphy, data communications, wireless,
telephony, etc. Let's not try to be clever and try to define new terms.
Telecommunications is not restricted to voice only. Data Communications is a
subset of telecommunications. The ITU International Telecommunication Union
was founded in 1863 when Marconi started to send radio waves and morse
invented his code. Let's not waste anymore time on this issue!!

      -----Original Message-----
      From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
      Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:24 PM
      To: [email-masked]
      Subject: Re: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

            I believe that Hal is now using the term ETS (Emergency
Telecommunications Service) rather than ECS.
          I have an issue with this change in view of the IEPREP Charter
addressing more than Voice (ie Telecommunications) -- and of the two then
prefer ECS (which could mean anything from Voice to IM to FTP to HTTP to
whatever IAA uses)

          [HF] The term "communication is too general and can include postal
service and smoke signals. Telecommunications is appropriate and should not
be limited to voice or telephony. I consider telecom. to apply equally to
the Internet and all modes in a network infrastructure.

          Hal

      *************************************
      "People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they
are willing to allow for others"

      James M. Polk
      Consulting Engineer
      Office of the CTO

      Cisco Systems
      www.cisco.com

---

From: Alistair Munro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:31:20 +0100

Hi All,

This exchange must be going nowhere... I feel as if we are digging up
someone's grave.

>           "Tele" means 'over some(long) distance(s)' -- so
>           strictly speaking (writing), you're correct with
>           your intention. But most of us in this community
>           know there is a difference in most networks -
>           especially in closed networks like enterprises
>           where most of us work - between Telecommunications
>           and Datacommunications. The former means "voice",
>           the latter means "everything else".
>
"Tele" means "at a distance"; "phony" relates to sound, not fakery; data
and voice are services; IP, X.25, etc., etc. are protocols at various
internetworking layers - packet mode, circuit-mode, synchronous,
asynchronous, whatever; LANs, I-, V- series are physical/media layers;
FTP, voice, fax, SMTP are applications. They are all part of
telecommunications.

It doesn't matter anyway. Emergency services and preparedness require
them all and the Internet is in a position to support them all -
cheaper, faster, better GoS, etc. Can there really be any doubt about
scope? It is the agencies' and vendors' choice as to what they
implement, not to impose restrictions on what this WG recommends.

From my position, there are many actors that want to move to an
exclusively IP platform for many key services. This WG is going to
deliver the information I/they need.

Regards,

Alistair