Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Fred Baker wrote: On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: There was very little support outside of those involved in the ieprep working group for the ieprep work. I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in either direction about much of anything. I guess I'm confused. Generally, when I see last calls on charters, I see no discussion at all. Generally speaking, the people who want a working group to happen are the ones who want to work in it. The people who don't expect to work in it don't have much to say on the topic - the routing people don't comment on network management charters, and the internet folks don't comment on applications. Asserting that there is consensus to do or not do anything in such a case is pretty tough; the point is that there is a body that wants to do the work, and the IETF does it. What is different in this case is that there was some discussion. You stated that you thought it should go to the ITU. Pekka agreed with you, and Brian stated that he was wondering which way it should go. Scott brought in the SG13 liaison, who was in the process of sending a liaison statement to the IETF asking for certain work to be accomplished. Martin pointed out that ATIS has a place for certain aspects of the work. Ken, James, Bob, Janet, and myself tried to present a case that the issues before the house were in fact appropriate to the IETF. Am I misremembering? What I read is that there were some people who didn't plan to be involved and either wanted to move the work elsewhere or were asking the question, and some people who wanted to do the work and felt it was appropriate to the IETF because it related to IETF protocols and to the Internet. In most cases, people that don't plan to be involved don't respond; in this case a few did. I'd hate to hear that the presence of a discussion in the IETF was taken as a lack of consensus on a topic. Speaking only for myself: I'm now reasonably satisfied that if this work is to be done, it will be done better in the IETF than in the ITU. However, looking at the last draft of the charter that I've seen, I am concerned about two things. 1. There's a presumption that "precedence" and "preemption" are the mechanisms - but those aren't requirements, they are solutions, and it isn't clear to me that they can ever be appropriate solutions in the upper layers of the Internet. The requirement is presumably that important application level sessions succeed in emergency situations, even if less important ones fail. The best way to meet that requirement might be different for each type of application protocol. Neither the charter text nor the list of deliverables recognizes such differentiation; they simply assume that precedence and preemption are the only possible solutions. 2. There's clearly a need, if the work is to be expanded into new applications areas, for the experts in those applications to be deeply involved. That is in fact the main argument why the work should be done in the IETF if it's done at all. I understand that this would need a major injection of new blood into the WG. That won't happen by means of a simple re-charter. It needs an impetus that would be noticed throughout the IETF. Again, I am speaking only for myself. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Brian, 1. There's a presumption that "precedence" and "preemption" are the mechanisms - but those aren't requirements, they are solutions, and it isn't clear to me that they can ever be appropriate solutions in the upper layers of the Internet. The requirement is presumably that important application level sessions succeed in emergency situations, even if less important ones fail. The best way to meet that requirement might be different for each type of application protocol. Neither the charter text nor the list of deliverables recognizes such differentiation; they simply assume that precedence and preemption are the only possible solutions. Forgive me a naive question but what is there other than precedence or preemption? Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Eliot Lear wrote: Brian, 1. There's a presumption that "precedence" and "preemption" are the mechanisms - but those aren't requirements, they are solutions, and it isn't clear to me that they can ever be appropriate solutions in the upper layers of the Internet. The requirement is presumably that important application level sessions succeed in emergency situations, even if less important ones fail. The best way to meet that requirement might be different for each type of application protocol. Neither the charter text nor the list of deliverables recognizes such differentiation; they simply assume that precedence and preemption are the only possible solutions. Forgive me a naive question but what is there other than precedence or preemption? Well, if you require both real time and elastic applications to continue to work simultaneously, because both are carrying emergency material, you actually need to share the resources between them appropriately. That is more subtle than either precedence or preemption. Also, I suspect that if the application concerned is some sort of Web Services based transactional stuff, the fact that a given XML document forms part of an emergency communication may be buried so deep in the document that identifying it externally will be next to impossible, especially if it's encrypted. If it gets preempted, bad things may happen. I don't claim to be an expert. But I don't like the idea that just because precedence and preemption are the preferred models for circuit-switched emergency communications, they are therefore correct for the Internet. It doesn't follow, and I don't like building it into a charter. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: 2. There's clearly a need, if the work is to be expanded into new applications areas, for the experts in those applications to be deeply involved. That is in fact the main argument why the work should be done in the IETF if it's done at all. I understand that this would need a major injection of new blood into the WG. That won't happen by means of a simple re-charter. It needs an impetus that would be noticed throughout the IETF. An alternative to trying to get all the application specialists in a RAI WG would be to try to get folks from RAI to other areas. That would be similar to what v6ops WG did 3-4 years ago. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/01/2006 05:20:31 AM: > > Speaking only for myself: I'm now reasonably satisfied that if this work > is to be done, it will be done better in the IETF than in the ITU. > However, looking at the last draft of the charter that I've seen, I am > concerned about two things. > > 1. There's a presumption that "precedence" and "preemption" are the > mechanisms - but those aren't requirements, they are solutions, and > it isn't clear to me that they can ever be appropriate solutions > in the upper layers of the Internet. The requirement is presumably > that important application level sessions succeed in emergency situations, > even if less important ones fail. The best way to meet that > requirement might be different for each type of application > protocol. Neither the charter text nor the list of deliverables > recognizes such differentiation; they simply assume that precedence > and preemption are the only possible solutions. I completely agree that, for many circumstances, "precedence and preemption" are not the appropriate solutions. In fact, there is a substantial subset of the IEPREP working group which wants to avoid anything that could be considered "precedence and preemption", preferring to focus on other approaches. The way I read the charter, "precedence and preemption" is only one of four examples. Even then, it does not specify precedence and preemption" as the solution/mechanism, but only as the highest level user/organization view. None the less, I would, as an individual, favor a rewording of the charter that made it clearer that "precedence and preemption" was not the primary focus of the WG. The mis-perception that the WG is focused on "precedence and preemption" is, unfortunately, reinforced by the list of milestones, which focus on the "military" environment. I would also, as an individual, favor modification to the list of milestones to include milestones that are clearly not associated with "precedence and preemption". Janet > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Janet, See inline, Cheers, Martin Janet wrote: The mis-perception that the WG is focused on "precedence and preemption" is, unfortunately, reinforced by the list of milestones, which focus on the "military" environment. I would also, as an individual, favor modification to the list of milestones to include milestones that are clearly not associated with "precedence and preemption". >>MCD>> The main authors have a certain focus in their writing, but this can be moderated with input from others (e.g., those representing the ETS community, as an example). For this to occur though, the environment for providing input needs to be a bit more "friendly" (for lack of a better term). In addition, as I stated earlier on this topic there is not one forum that can address all of the industries needs. There is a place for the IETF, ATIS and the ITU, and we should avoid "forum bashing", as it leads us no where. Cheers, Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Martin, yes, I agree. Janet "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/01/2006 02:05:54 PM: > Janet, See inline, Cheers, Martin > > Janet wrote: > The mis-perception that the WG is focused on "precedence and preemption" > is, unfortunately, reinforced by the list of milestones, which focus on > the > "military" environment. > > I would also, as an individual, favor modification to the list of > milestones to include milestones that are clearly not associated with > "precedence and preemption". > > >>MCD>> The main authors have a certain focus in their writing, but this > can be moderated with input from others (e.g., those representing the > ETS community, as an example). For this to occur though, the environment > for providing input needs to be a bit more "friendly" (for lack of a > better term). > In addition, as I stated earlier on this topic there is not one forum > that can address all of the industries needs. There is a place for the > IETF, ATIS and the ITU, and we should avoid "forum bashing", as it leads > us no where. > > Cheers, > > Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
BAOZI BAIDU Thank you for your Open Forum submission.
From: "Casey Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Thank you for your Open Forum submission. Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:14:41 -0800 From: "Chronicle Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Casey Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Thank you for your Open Forum submission. Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:14:12 -0800 The Chronicle welcomes Open Forum submissions on any topic. We will review your submission and contact you if we accept it for publication. If you have not heard from us after five business days, it is unlikely we will use it so please feel free to take your submission to another publication. Due to the volume of submissions that we receive, we cannot give individual critiques about why we did not choose to publish your piece. We receive many submissions each week for essentially six Open Forum slots, so don't be discouraged if your op-ed was not selected for publication. We are looking for pieces that are timely, conversational and challenge the reader to think about an issue in a different way. We look for pieces that offer solutions, not ones that merely bemoan a problem. If you still have questions about Open Forum, please call Deputy Editorial Page Editor Lois Kazakoff at 415.777.7018 and follow the prompts. _ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG _ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme002001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DOMAIN DISPUTES: BIG STAR OLD NAVY BAOZI BAIDU GREEN SWASTIKA SAILOR MOON
Most all domain disputes can be connected to INFRINGEMENT issues in other areas. From: "Casey Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BIG STAR OLD NAVY BAOZI BAIDU GREEN SWASTIKA SAILOR MOON Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:13:47 -0800 Casey Farrell, AuthorSan Francisco, CaliforniaDecember 1, 2006 Names on LEFT are CLAIMED by the AUTHOR; & those on RIGHT are considered as INFRINGEMENTs. There are a few others also and some in combination with these named. The common link is the profitability, being mostly popular culture, sportswear, Internet, and soforth. The INFRINGEMENT CLAIM is based on BRAND strategies and business plans, which involved consulting with governmental agencies regarding 'alternative state revenues' while intelligencing private industry, who would have provided 'fulfilment' capabilties so that several parties were privy, and all that was necessary was a LICENSING AGREEMENT w/ the DESIGNER, yet none conducted themselves in any manner other than to suggest RACKETEERING or at the very least gross incompetance and neglect of their own best corporate interests and the lack of forsight in the interests of the citizenry both as a relief to the taxpayer and as an advertisement to the world of our interesting material culture, however, this CONTINUING 'coincidence' of MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROPREITARY to the DESIGNER showing up in some other shape, fashion, or form as per "REVERSE ENGINEERING' makes one think there might be an INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT RING somewhere nearby, or at least within reach by the INTERNET of SAN FRANCISCO's ISPs? AFFIDAVIT the DAY BIG STAR OIEAU GREEN SWASTIKA CALIFORNIA STAR BAOZI PRESIDIO OFFICERS CLUB etc. Copyright 2006 Casey Farrell ALL RIGHTS RESERVED _ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01 _ Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces friends module. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DOMAIN DISPUTES: BIG STAR OLD NAVY BAOZI BAIDU GREEN SWASTIKA SAILOR MOON
Most all omain disputes can be connected to INFRINGEMENT issues in other areas. From: "Casey Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BIG STAR OLD NAVY BAOZI BAIDU GREEN SWASTIKA SAILOR MOON Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:13:47 -0800 Casey Farrell, AuthorSan Francisco, CaliforniaDecember 1, 2006 Names on LEFT are CLAIMED by the AUTHOR; & those on RIGHT are considered as INFRINGEMENTs. There are a few others also and some in combination with these named. The common link is the profitability, being mostly popular culture, sportswear, Internet, and soforth. The INFRINGEMENT CLAIM is based on BRAND strategies and business plans, which involved consulting with governmental agencies regarding 'alternative state revenues' while intelligencing private industry, who would have provided 'fulfilment' capabilties so that several parties were privy, and all that was necessary was a LICENSING AGREEMENT w/ the DESIGNER, yet none conducted themselves in any manner other than to suggest RACKETEERING or at the very least gross incompetance and neglect of their own best corporate interests and the lack of forsight in the interests of the citizenry both as a relief to the taxpayer and as an advertisement to the world of our interesting material culture, however, this CONTINUING 'coincidence' of MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROPREITARY to the DESIGNER showing up in some other shape, fashion, or form as per "REVERSE ENGINEERING' makes one think there might be an INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT RING somewhere nearby, or at least within reach by the INTERNET of SAN FRANCISCO's ISPs? AFFIDAVIT the DAY BIG STAR OIEAU GREEN SWASTIKA CALIFORNIA STAR BAOZI PRESIDIO OFFICERS CLUB etc. Copyright 2006 Casey Farrell ALL RIGHTS RESERVED _ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01 _ Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
