Subject: [Ieprep] Re-charter?

From: Dennis Q Berg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:33:20 -0400

Comments, reactions to the draft IEPREP charter inserted after text below.

Dennis

__________________

>The IEPREP WG will address proactive and
>reactive robustness and recovery from various outages using
>three perspectives:

Why emphasize outages at the exclusion of congestions?

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

>2. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure
>that may retains sole ownership and administration of its
>own resources

>3. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure
>that combines private resources and leverages public
>infrastructure.  This scenario may be subject to local
>policies, laws, and regulations.

This taxonomy is going to cause confusion because it tries
to summarize in three categories what it more than three, i.e.

                    Public                       Private
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial      General Public, Enterprise       Enterprise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gov't            FTS, GETS                       various
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Military          DSN offnet                      DSN

Perhaps it would be better to start with just the twofold distinction
of the matrix: application (commercial, civilian Gov't, military) and
network accessibility/control (public, private).

>Thus, proactive mechanisms to address would-be
>outages are required for these scenarios.

Again, just outages and not "outages and congestion".

>The IEPREP WG will work on these three perspectives
>(commercial, governmental/military, and the combination) and
>synergize common mechanisms and requirements into other
>groups where possible, while maintaining a separate track of
>IEPREP documents for the unique mechanisms and requirements
>of each perspectives.

Seems that the end of this should be "...for the unique mechanisms
and requirements for emergency preparedness of each perspective."

>Now that the initial documents describe the broad problem
>space and its salient characteristics, new efforts will
>focus on specific requirements and solutions such as those
>pertaining to the governmental/military sector.

What documents are these?  The completed IEPREP documents or
the tsvwg-mlpp draft mentioned here?

Why specifically single out one of the three perspectives rather
than saying "new efforts will focus on specific requirements
for solutions for each of the three perspectives"?

>One document exists in the Transport Area working group of
>interest to IEPREP that could satisfy a governmental
>framework/BCP is draft-ietf-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works-XX.

Should a charter reference a specific draft? Understand that
this is supposed to be an example of the previous statement
that other WGs will do the general mechanisms and requirements
and IEPREP will do specifics that pertain to emergency preparedness -
but it seems inappropriate to enshrine a specific example,
especially when it is only a draft, and likely at least to need
discussion if not being controversial in a WG charter.

>The following are four specific examples that can satisfy
>the interests of governmental/military (and potentially,
>commercial/public) emergency communications:

Just a clarity issue : this statement sounds like the four items following
are solutions rather than what I think is meant: specific examples
of issues that will be worked.

>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

What ID is this. I don't see a document listed under IEPREP that fits
this description.

>Oct 05 Submit an initial I-D of Emergency Threats Analysis
of Government/Military Networks

>Dec 05 Submit an initial I-D of Differences between GETS and
MLPP Networks

The "GETS vs. MLPP" dichotomy does not seem to fit cleanly in to the
framework of the three perspectives, since it is government/public using
the same network as commercial/public (see comment above with matrix).
To force it into the three perspectives framework, you would have
to call it "government/commercial/public" - but that category doesn't exist
in the three perspectives framework.

Also, what would the scope of this document be in terms of the
three general scopes referenced here - threats, requirements, solutions?

>Feb 06 Submit an initial I-D of Requirements of
>Government/Military Networks

>Mar 06 Submit an initial I-D of Considerations for potential
>solutions of Government/Military Networks

>Apr 06 Submit an initial I-D of Mechanisms to be used by
       Government/Military Networks

This list of documents seems to say that the recharter effort is not
really going to work on the three perspectives, only one: the
       Gov't/Military.

>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).

Aren't these already included in the recharter under "mechanisms"?

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

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

---

From: "Ken Carlberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:41:09 -0400

> Why emphasize outages at the exclusion of congestions?

the term outages was not meant to exclude the term congestion.  
this can be resolved by using different terms such as "...recovery 
from various and substantial disruptions...", or something like that.

> to summarize in three categories what it more than three, i.e.

its my impression that the Charter should not be one that covers 
all possibilities, but rather one that identifies particular area(s)
to be covered by the group at this time.  It has been expressed
in the past to have the group and its output expand its horizon to
include potential solutions -- particularly those that one comes 
across in government/military networks and intranets.  some of the
efforts from Polk/baker/pierce represent examples of these proposed
solutions that have a specific target in mind.

if there is an expansion of the taxonomy, it would seem that there would
be a corresponding need to identify corresponding drafts to be done.

> discussion if not being controversial in a WG charter.

there is precedent to include mention of drafts into charters
(see: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/magma-charter.html).
At least for initial discussion, I think its beneficial to
provide an example for additional understanding, though if it
causes a lot of indigestion, the final Charter for IEPREP can 
discard mentioning works in progress.

-ken