Janet, I agree there is not "one stop shopping" on this and/or most topics.
Martin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:50 PM To: King, Kimberly S. Cc: 'Sam Hartman '; '[email protected] '; '[email protected] '; Dolly, Martin C, NPE; 'Scott Bradner ' Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep) Two non-US governments are participating in the Industry Requirements (IR) effort addressing the migration of (G)ETS from circuit switched networks to Core IP networks. It is anticipated that this IR effort will feed into standards- identifying new needs. Some of these needs will feed into ATIS/ITU, but others will feed into IETF. In addition, the vendors and carriers are somewhat segmented. Some of them are primarily active in ATIS/ITU. Others are primarily active in 3GPP or 3GPP2. There is no one SDO that can be the home to ALL the ETS work. Janet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/06/2006 05:31:59 PM: > Martin said, "ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS. > Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players > (vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly > CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work." > > ATIS is a US National standards group, not an international one and thus > does not cover the ieprep, as a whole, "customer base". The groups > requiring ieprep functionality include the NCS (your CUSTOMER) but also US > DoD and NATO. I've also been informed (by Fred Baker and others) that > several governments have talked with them about needing such capabilities. > > Kimberly > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; King, Kimberly S.; Brian E Carpenter; > Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Sam Hartman; Pekka Savola > Sent: 11/6/2006 2:22 PM > Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency > Preparedness (ieprep) > > 1) Should this work be done within the IETF? > > Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g., > architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol > extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol > extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work > MUST be done in the IETF. > > WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY > be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a > gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and > deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the > expertise is not in the IETF. > > ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS. > > Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players > (vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly > CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work. > > 2) If it is done within the IETF, where? > > I will save my opinion for a later time. > > - _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
