Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:29:53 -0800

On Nov 5, 2006, at 16:06, King, Kimberly S. wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP
>> intersects with security.
>
> The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not which  
> working
> group addresses a particular aspect.

Note that I wrote:

> TSVWG is the WG currently chartered for RSVP
> maintenance, which I would see this falling under.

I made no statement of where RSVP work should happen in the future,  
but having this work elsewhere would obviously require consensus at  
various levels.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:13:06 -0600

>but having this work elsewhere would obviously require consensus at

didn't the IESG, about 18 months ago (it may be longer) write a letter to 
either ITU-T or ETSI  to stop attempting to extend RSVP, that it was 
supposed to be done in the IETF?

I seem to remember that event occuring, though I admit I don't remember the 
details; Allison Mankin would know, as should Jon Peterson.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:32:27 -0500

>>>>> "King," == King, Kimberly S <[email-masked]> writes:

    King,> On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss
    >> where RSVP intersects with security.

    King,> The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not
    King,> which working group addresses a particular aspect.

O, I agree that there is work related to ETS that belongs at the IETF.
My question is whether there is any that belongs in ieprep.

---

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:06:48 -0500

> intersects with security.

The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not which working
group addresses a particular aspect.  

Kimberly

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: King, Kimberly S.; Pekka Savola; Scott Bradner; [email-masked]
Sent: 11/5/2006 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr
ep)

> intersects with security.

I agree with Sam. TSVWG is the WG currently chartered for RSVP  
maintenance, which I would see this falling under. Here is the  
relevant charter text:

    The currently active TSVWG work items mostly fall under the
    following topics:

    (...)

    Maintenance of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP),
    which involves bug fixes to the RSVP specifications and
    their progression along the standards track. This work item
    may also include a small number of extensions to RSVP or
    advisory documents to address specific application
    scenarios. In order to maintain stable specifications,
    additional work on RSVP in TSVWG requires Area Director
    approval.

Lars

 <<SMIME.txt>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:30:06 +0100

(Catching up...)

James M. Polk wrote:
...
> didn't the IESG, about 18 months ago (it may be longer) write a letter 
> to either ITU-T or ETSI  to stop attempting to extend RSVP, that it was 
> I seem to remember that event occuring, though I admit I don't remember 
> the details; Allison Mankin would know, as should Jon Peterson.

We've made our general position very clear, most recently by
approving draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-04.

We published RFC 3936 in 10/04.

We wrote to ITU-T in 12/04:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file62.txt

They replied rapidly:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file78.pdf

    Brian