headers
King, Kimberly S. | 30 Jun 2005 16:24
Picon
Favicon

Re-charter?


Scott and I have asked for a 1 hour meeting slot at 
the Paris IETF meeting to discuss a possible re-charter 
of ieprep.  A provisional new charter is included below.

Kimberly

*****************************************
Draft revision
Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) Charter   

Description of Working Group:

Effective telecommunications capabilities are imperative to 
facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious 
disaster events including natural disasters (e.g., 
hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and those created by man 
(e.g., terrorist attacks, combat situations or wartime 
events).  In addition, related capabilities should be usable 
in normal command and control operations of military 
services, which often have timeliness requirements even in 
peacetime.  The IEPREP WG will address proactive and 
reactive robustness and recovery from various outages using 
three perspectives:

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

2. A governmental/military telecommunications infrastructure 
that may retains sole ownership and administration of its
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Henning Schulzrinne | 30 Jun 2005 16:48

Re: Re-charter?

Brief remark: I'm not sure what "sessions" refers to in the snippet 
below. Is this addressed to the application layer session (say, SIP), a 
network layer session (RSVP, NSIS) or something else entirely?

In general, given the tortuous history of IEPREP discussions, more 
specificity as to the types of mechanisms and protocols affected would 
be helpful, in my opinion. Are there existing drafts that will be used 
as baseline (or input) or this is a from-scratch effort?

King, Kimberly S. wrote:

> 3. Some countries require civil networks to preempt sessions 
> under state circumstances, and preemption is considered an 
> absolute requirement in governmental networks in most 
> countries. Unless implementation of these requirements can 
> be objectively shown to threaten network health (via 
> simulation or in operations), then the requirement needs to 
> be considered by IEPREP and specific solutions must be 
> developed.
>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Dennis Q Berg | 1 Jul 2005 17:17
Favicon

Re: Re-charter?


Just a logistic note to start.  For discussion of the charter, and if there
are also going to be any presentations, it strikes me that an hour is a bit
short.  Would it be possible to schedule a slot of at least an hour and a
half?

Dennis

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                       
                      "King, Kimberly                                                                                                  
                      S."                      To:      "Ieprep (ieprep <at> ietf.org)" <ieprep <at> ietf.org>                                   
                      <KIMBERLY.S.KING         cc:      sob <at> harvard.edu, "Jon Peterson \(jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz\)"                   
                       <at> saic.com>               <jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz>                                                              
                      Sent by:                 Subject: [Ieprep] Re-charter?                                                           
                      ieprep-bounces                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                       
                      06/30/2005 10:24                                                                                                 
                      AM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Janet P Gunn | 1 Jul 2005 21:31
Favicon

Re: Re-charter?


Closely related to the question "what is a session" is the question"what is
pre-emption?"  In the circuit switched world, a connection is "nailed up"
and there is little confusion on what constitutes a "session" or
"pre-emption".

But in the IP world, even if we restrict our discussion to SIP related
sessions, it is not so clear. Once a session has been established, how many
packets need to be dropped, how bad does the "quality" need to get, before
we declare that the  session has "failed" or been "pre-empted"?

Looking at it from another perspective, If traffic engineering indicates
that a given (IP) interface or route can accept 100 simultaneous calls with
a given QoS, but there is a mechanism to allow "special" calls to be
accepted (without actually tearing down existing calls) above that
threshold, at what point do I declare that the "special" calls are
pre-empting "regular calls"? As soon as I exceed the engineered
capacity(typically a utilization less than 100%)?  Once I exceed the raw
capacity (even though all calls may continue to meet the specified QoS)?
When a single call drops below its QoS specification? For how long?

And so on.

While the CONCEPT of "pre-emption based" vs. "non-pre-emption based"
carries over from the circuit switched world, and is useful in the IP world
(especially when IP networks are operating under rules and regulations
developed for the circuit switched world), the specific definition do not
carry over with any intrinsic clarity.

If we are going to go down this path, I think the first step is to agree on
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Janet P Gunn | 1 Jul 2005 21:37
Favicon

Re: Re-charter?time slot?


According to the IETF web site,
July 5, Tuesday is the  closing date for Working Group and BOF initial
scheduling 17:00 ET (21:00 GMT)
July 11, Monday is the  Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working
Group and BOF meetings 09:00 ET (13:00 GMT)
July 18, Monday is the closing date for Final Working Group and BOF
scheduling 17:00 ET (21:00 GMT)

So if there is a need for a longer slot, the request would need to be
submitted very soon.

Janet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                            
                      Dennis Q                                                                                              
                      Berg/FED/CSC             To:      "King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING <at> saic.com>                      
                       <at> CSC                     cc:      ieprep-bounces <at> ietf.org, "Jon Peterson                              
                      Sent by:                 \(jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz\)" <jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz>, "Ieprep            
                      ieprep-bounces           \(ieprep <at> ietf.org\)" <ieprep <at> ietf.org>, sob <at> harvard.edu
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Janet P Gunn | 1 Jul 2005 22:01
Favicon

Re: Re-charter?





I have a generic, high level comment.

If we are extending the charter from “requirements only” to “requirements
and solutions where not covered elsewhere”,  I think the solution space
should include solutions for “the evolution of GETS/WPS to IP” as well as
solutions for “the evolution of MLPP to IP”.

Similarly, the requirements and frameworks that have been previously
produced cover the entire IEPREP scope, both "sort of like MLPP" and "sort
of like GETS".  So I think it would be appropriate to have deliverables
such as
 "Emergency Threats Analysis for Commercial/Public Networks"
 "Requirements for Emergency Preparedness in Commercial/Public Networks"
"Potential Solutions for Commercial/Public Networks"
"Mechanisms to be Used by Commercial/Public Networks"
as well as the ones proposed for "Government/Military Networks".

I think that would be more useful than "Differences between GETS and MLPP
networks", especially since some of the differences which are significant
in the circuit switched world may be less significant in the packet
switched world.  But maybe if I saw an abstract of what was intended for
the document, I would change my mind.

Janet
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Jason Michael Canon | 1 Jul 2005 22:54
Picon

Re: Re-charter?

I have a generic, high level question.

As a civilian in an emergency situation I call 9-1-1 to report some life 
threatening situation in my
house.  While the call is in progress a sufficient number of government 
officials evoke a GETS/WAS
or MOP capability and my call is effectively preempted or degraded to a 
level that is not tolerable.
My question is did a public policy debate result in a Congressional law or 
FCC Regulation that permits
the ITEM to craft enabling technology?  If so, a reference to the document 
would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks,
Jason

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Janet P Gunn" <jgunn6 <at> csc.com>
To: "King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING <at> saic.com>
Cc: <ieprep-bounces <at> ietf.org>; <jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz>; 
<ieprep <at> ietf.org>; <sob <at> harvard.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter?

>
>
>
>
> I have a generic, high level comment.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Jason Michael Canon | 1 Jul 2005 22:58
Picon

Re: Re-charter?

Sorry, I meant GETS/WPS and MLPP.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason Michael Canon" <fiatlux <at> adelphia.net>
To: "King, Kimberly S." <KIMBERLY.S.KING <at> saic.com>; "Janet P Gunn" 
<jgunn6 <at> csc.com>
Cc: <ieprep-bounces <at> ietf.org>; <ieprep <at> ietf.org>; 
<jon.peterson <at> neustar.biz>; <sob <at> harvard.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re-charter?

I have a generic, high level question.

As a civilian in an emergency situation I call 9-1-1 to report some life
threatening situation in my
house.  While the call is in progress a sufficient number of government
officials evoke a GETS/WAS
or MOP capability and my call is effectively preempted or degraded to a
level that is not tolerable.
My question is did a public policy debate result in a Congressional law or
FCC Regulation that permits
the ITEM to craft enabling technology?  If so, a reference to the document
would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks,
Jason

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Janet P Gunn" <jgunn6 <at> csc.com>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Fred Baker | 1 Jul 2005 23:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re-charter?


On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Jason Michael Canon wrote:

> My question is did a public policy debate result in a Congressional 
> law or FCC Regulation that permits
> the ITEM to craft enabling technology?

Someone has to pass a law before we get to develop a protocol?

What law permitted us to develop the Internet?

Please. We are not permitted to do things that law/regulation 
precludes. If law/regulation doesn't preclude something, we don't have 
to bow and scrape in front of a regulator to get permission to think 
about it.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dennis Q Berg | 1 Jul 2005 23:42
Favicon

Re: Re-charter?





To help with your question:

GETS and WPS use priority feature, not preemption.

The FCC ruled on the legality of both GETS and WPS.  Specifically see, FCC
Report and Order, Establishment of Rules and Regulations for Priority
Access, Second Report and Order #96-86, 3 July 2000.

In compliance with the FCC R&O, functionality was designed and developed in
Wireless Priority Service to assure that the public is given adequate
access.  This feature, Resource Capacity Assurance for the Public (RCAP)
governs allocation of wireless radio resources between public and WPS
calls.  The current default reserves several times more capacity for the
public than for users of the priority service.  Extensive modeling and
analysis have been performed to predict the adequacy of the feature.  The
results show insignificant impact of WPS traffic on the public in a
spectrum of plausible congestion scenarios.

Hope that helps.

Dennis


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane