Subject: RE: [Ieprep] What next?, getting to the BCP deliverable.

From: "Folts, Harold" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:58:23 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:49 AM
> To: Ken Carlberg
> Cc: ieprep
> Subject: Re: [Ieprep] What next?, getting to the BCP deliverable.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 08:21 , Ken Carlberg wrote:
> > my hope would be that the differences between other 
> countries would be
> > quite small, and mostly a reflection of local laws and 
> regulation that
> > amount to turn-on or turn off feature X.
> 
> 	I have specific reason to believe that European 
> requirements vary
> significantly from the US requirements.  And the Japanese 
> presentations
> at IETF have so far been fairly different from the DISA presentations.
> 
> 	So I think it would be very unwise for an 
> *international* activity
> like IETF to get driven primarily by US requirements.  I second 
> Alistair's
> request to note the existence of national variation in requirements
> and to put more efforts into getting inputs from other 
> nations/areas/regions
> than the US.
> 

Ran, let me provide you some very important background.

Over the past 2.5 years, I have been very active in collaboration with many
nations around the world. The requirements that I have been addressing are
inclusive so that truly International solutions are established. These
issues are being addressed in the following regional and international
organizations:

1. Nine Study Groups of the ITU - the original ITU-T Recommendation E.106
was agreed upon in March 2000. E.106 is the International Emergency
Preference Scheme was posted at an ID some time ago and is well referenced
in my white paper. Draft ITU-T Recommendation F.706, Service Definition for
the International Emergency Multimedia Service, is in final approval stage
of approval, which is expected in October 2001. It also is well referenced
in my white paper.

2. The NATO Civil Communications Planning Committee (CCPC) of the civil
side, not military side, of NATO. They actually originated the draft that
became ITU-T Rec E.106.

3. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has an active
program underway for emergency telecommunications (EMTEL), with Projects
MESA, TIPHON, and 3GPP. These projects are open to full international
participation. ETSI had a very successful EMTEL workshop in February that
had participation from many countries and emergency organizations within
those countries.

4. IETF for over 2 years has been provided specific technical proposals ad
IDs that have been open to discussion and input from the collective
international participants in the working groups and via the lists ieps and
ieprep.

5. United Nations Working Group on Emergency Telecommunications (WGET).

I have also personally collaborated with Japan, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany as well as interacted with representatives from many countries in
all of the above activities.

Yes we must have participation from other nations and we have already kept
their views and input in full consideration of progressing this work.
Continuing participation is not only welcome but encouraged.

While my white paper did include a table of 14 requirements that were
identified by a US Government committee, they are mostly high level "ity"
aspects and only serve as a very general basis for emergency
telecommunications overall. The more specific 11 requirements/objectives
have, in fact, considered requirements of other nations. For example, the
optional preemption requirement that has been included. Preemption in US
public telecommunication networks is not allowed. All of the others have
been widely presented internationally, well discussed, and well received.

I could go further and include other references that have been considered:

1. ITU-D Handbook on Disaster Communications, published 2001

2. Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for
Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations - June 1998

3. Second Tampere Conference on Disaster Communications - May 2001

4. World Telecommunication Development Conference - Resolutions 172 and 255,
Istanbul, Turkey 18-27 March 2002.

I am personally active in this work as systems engineer for emergency
telecommunications under a task in the National Communications System, which
is a confederation of 22 Federal agencies. Only one of these agencies is
DoD. I am with NASA on detail to the NCS. DISA MLPP requirements represent
only one component, of many others, of the overall work for emergency
telecommunications to support recovery operations from serious disaster
events.

All requirements from participating nations will continue to be addressed in
the work as it progressed toward internationally agreed upon solutions. The
emergency telecommunications work for future networks is multidimensional
and addresses many aspects. Not all these are of concern to the IETF and are
being addressed in the other appropriate organizations.

The revised requirements document that I am working on will be presenting
the requirements/objectives from the white paper that should appropriately
be addressed by the IETF. Others are being addressed by other responsible
organizations.

My last point is that this effort is not only government driven, but is
being done in close cooperation and partnership with the telecommunications
industry in many countries.

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:08:15 -0400

On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 10:58 , Folts, Harold wrote:
> inclusive so that truly International solutions are established.

Harold,

	It is important in an IETF context for the other players you mention
to actually show up and participate here.  No matter how well intentioned
any human might be, people make mistakes or forget things or overlook 
things.
The IETF needs to have visible public agreement from folks outside the
US that the approach being taken within IETF is internationally 
agreeable.

	No one person is *capable* of providing assurance of that needed public
agreement.  So trying to present yourself as the one person who has 
everyone's
requirements is well-intentioned, but not nearly sufficient.

	If you are in contact with so many folks as you outline, you should
undertake active measures to get those other folks to show up at IETF
and participate directly for themselves here.  That will demonstrate the
kind of broad multi-national support that is needed.  And nothing less
will really be sufficient.

Regards,

Ran
[email-masked]