From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 2 12:04:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08640 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h12H98h11145 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:09:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12H98J11142 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:09:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08626 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12H7NJ11005; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:07:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12H6OJ10411 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:06:24 -0500 Received: from [209.22.88.17] (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA08609 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtassp3.ncr.disa.mil by [209.22.88.17] via smtpd (for ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) with SMTP; 2 Feb 2003 16:55:23 UT Received: by mtassp3.ncr.disa.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:04:15 -0500 Message-ID: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D02EF4CE7@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> From: "Nguyen, An" To: "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:04:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , An artcile from CNN said the SQL worm started from the Pac Rim, mainly from Hongkong and South Korea. And it spread to the Europe and the US. I wonder it caused any considerable stress for the Internet backbone. An -----Original Message----- From: Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)JavaScript:parent.DoCommand("send", parent.form_fr.document.mainForm) Send To: ieprep@ietf.org Sent: 1/31/03 9:11 PM Subject: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm -----Original Message----- From: vern@ee.lbl.gov [mailto:vern@ee.lbl.gov] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:13 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm We have completed our preliminary analysis of the spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL worm. This worm required roughly 10 minutes to spread worldwide making it by far the fastest worm to date. In the early stages the worm was doubling in size every 8.5 seconds. At its peak, achieved approximately 3 minutes after it was released, Sapphire scanned the net at over 55 million IP addresses per second. It infected at least 75,000 victims and probably considerably more. This remarkable speed, nearly two orders of magnitude faster than Code Red, was the result of a bandwidth-limited scanner. Since Sapphire didn't need to wait for responses, each copy could scan at the maximum rate that the processor and network bandwidth could support. There were also two noteworthy bugs in the pseudo-random number generator which complicated our analysis and limited our ability to estimate the total infection but did not slow the spread of the worm. The full analysis is available at http://www.caida.org/analysis/security/sapphire/ http://www.silicondefense.com/sapphire/ http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/sapphire/ David Moore, CAIDA & UCSD CSE Vern Paxson, ICIR & LBNL Stefan Savage, UCSD CSE Colleen Shannon, CAIDA Stuart Staniford, Silicon Defense Nicholas Weaver, Silicon Defense and UC Berkeley EECS _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 2 14:02:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10647 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:02:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h12J7T117441 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:07:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12J7TJ17438 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:07:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10633 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12J6CJ16754; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:06:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12J5mJ16732 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:05:48 -0500 Received: from paixhost.pch.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10600 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:00:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.pch.net (ns1.pch.net [206.220.231.1]) by paixhost.pch.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12IvZj18076; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 10:57:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 10:57:35 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock To: "Nguyen, An" cc: "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm In-Reply-To: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D02EF4CE7@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Nguyen, An wrote: > An artcile from CNN said the SQL worm started from the Pac Rim, mainly from > Hongkong and South Korea. And it spread to the Europe and the US. I wonder > it caused any considerable stress for the Internet backbone. Yes, it did. That's what an emergency looks like from our point of view. It caused very large problems, but was basically contained within four hours, everywhere that mattered, due in large part to the excellent communications which now obtain between ISP NOCs. However, the worm wasn't a particularly virulent one, and four hours could be much improved upon. -Bill _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 2 16:36:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12277 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:36:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h12Leve24528 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:40:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12LevJ24525 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:40:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12261 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12LdLJ24449; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:39:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h12LcEJ24408 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:38:14 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12183 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:33:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.111] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:36:38 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:36:38 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B07EBAC@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Thread-Index: AcLK7eInIvIbWKSIR7ik/RiZmC50lQADeybA From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "Bill Woodcock" , "Nguyen, An" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2003 21:36:38.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B1DD130:01C2CB03] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h12LcEJ24409 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > An artcile from CNN said the SQL worm started from the > > Pac Rim, mainly from Hongkong and South Korea. And it spread > > to the Europe and the US. The article looks like another slashdot post. Is their any proof to the statement? Did people do any backscatter or trace back analysis to validate the claim? > > I wonder it caused any considerable stress for the Internet > > backbone. > Yes, it did. That's what an emergency looks like from our > point of view. One more point. The problem during disaster situations is not just hot spots but also security breaches. A lot of NASA websites has been defaced by hackers in line with the shuttle Columbia incident[1]. So, one of the important work for ieprep is to provide pointers to mitigate such breaches, other than helping the priority traffic to find its way to the destination. > It caused very large problems, but was basically contained within four > hours, everywhere that mattered, due in large part to the excellent > communications which now obtain between ISP NOCs. Obviously, the credit goes to the operators. But, due you think that a good inter-communication and effective filtering is enough to STOP the worm activity in future? From the caida/LBNL/UCB report: "Since high-speed worms are no longer simply a theoretical threat, worm defenses need to be automatic; there is no conceivable way for system ^^^^^^^^^ administrators to respond to threats of this speed. Human-mediated filtering provides no benefit for actually limiting the number of infected machines. While the filtering may mitigate the overhead of the worm's continuing scan traffic, a more sophisticated worm might have stopped scanning once the entire susceptible population was infected, leaving itself dormant on over 75,000 machines to do harm at some future point." How do you make the defense automatic? 1/ Can we maintain a worm bank to analyze various signature of the worms? ( as proposed by vern et all "How to own the Internet in Your Spare Time") 2/ The worms lead to lot of DDOS attacks. Can we concentrate on techniques like trace back, pushback? How about deploying RED-PD. If we deploy RED-PD, how to identify/characterize the high-BW flow or DDoS traffic? 3/ the good old filtering techniques enough? or we have to make it more distributed and use some overlay option like Secure Overlay Services[2]. 4/ or use a combination of the above three. > > However, the worm wasn't a particularly virulent one, and > four hours could be much improved upon. Given the Microsoft buffer overflow vulnerability, hackers should have come up with more destructive pay load. I think they have not studied "how to own the internet in your spare time" to make it more virulent :) [1] http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg03153.html [2] http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/papers/mayday-usits2003/paper.html _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 2 22:15:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17170 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:15:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h133K0V08103 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:20:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h133JxJ08100 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:19:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17167 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h133FFJ08027; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:15:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h133EEJ07982 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:14:14 -0500 Received: from clifden.donelan.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17121 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from sean (helo=localhost) by clifden.donelan.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.34 #3) id 18fX26-0004GI-00; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:12:30 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:12:30 -0500 (EST) From: Sean Donelan To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" cc: Bill Woodcock , "Nguyen, An" , Subject: RE: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm In-Reply-To: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B07EBAC@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a personal statement, and in no way reflects the opinions of anyone else. On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) wrote: > > > An artcile from CNN said the SQL worm started from the > > > Pac Rim, mainly from Hongkong and South Korea. And it spread > > > to the Europe and the US. > > The article looks like another slashdot post. Is their any proof > to the statement? Did people do any backscatter or trace back analysis > to validate the claim? Not that I've seen, but maybe the National Communications System folks have some data they would like to share with industry. When looking at data from this incident you need to be careful to consider that some of the measurement collection systems using MS/SQL were affected, although the systems they were measuring weren't. So there are reports of entire backbones being down, but in fact the backbone was operating more or less normally. What really happened was the system collecting statistics about the backbone used MS/SQL to store the data was infected, or the measurement beacon was in a data center with another MS/SQL infected system which congested the local network affecting all measurements of the backbone. Not to discount the severity of this incident. But on further analysis, I've found most of the reports about 5 root servers being infected, or major Internet backbones collapsing were wrong. Nevertheless, to stablize the networks at the source or destination, many ISPs did block *ALL* UDP 1434 packets in the middle of the network. Government-run networks seemed to have as many infected systems as everyone else. Allowing authorized government users to "exempt" themselves from network management controls would have probably been unwise in this case. Did .MIL exempt some infected machines from management controls allowing them to transmit the infection with high priority packets? > One more point. The problem during disaster situations is not just > hot spots but also security breaches. A lot of NASA websites has been > defaced by hackers in line with the shuttle Columbia incident[1]. The Trippin Smurfs have defaced over 1400 Unix systems (they have a fondness for Linux, Solaris, etc) over the last 16 months. They don't need to rely on security people being "distracted" by a crisis in order to break into systems. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 2 23:03:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18161 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:03:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1348I910884 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:08:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1348IJ10881 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:08:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18143 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13474J10366; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:07:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1346VJ10208 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:06:31 -0500 Received: from clifden.donelan.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18099 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from sean (helo=localhost) by clifden.donelan.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.34 #3) id 18fXqd-0004HK-00; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:04:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:04:43 -0500 (EST) From: Sean Donelan To: Bill Woodcock cc: "Nguyen, An" , "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else. For close to 2 years I've been promoting the position we need to deploy some VOIP phones, and get experience using them during periods of severe network stress. We need understand what the problems in the real world are, while working on things which could improve their performance. Its seems like we just had an excellent opportunity to collect some real world data. Did anyone collect any data? On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > It caused very large problems, but was basically contained within four > hours, everywhere that mattered, due in large part to the excellent > communications which now obtain between ISP NOCs. I was at home, and didn't loose e-mail communications throughout the incident. FYI, I'm in California, my personal e-mail is in Maryland. So I was criss-crossing the US twice to read my e-mail. I was exchanging e-mail with network engineers around the world throughout the night with no noticeble problems. But e-mail tends to be very elastic. Unfortunately, I left my INOC-DBA phone at the office, so I wasn't able to try it during the height of the incident. How well did VOIP work during the height of the UDP storm? Would SIP priority have changed how well the VOIP UDP packets got through during periods of severe Internet congestion? Or were the real problems somewhere else? _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 03:23:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00805 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h138SPq01476 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:28:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h138SOJ01473 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:28:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00801 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:23:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h138R7J01394; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:27:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h138QGJ01336 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:26:16 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00761 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.111] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 3 Feb 2003 02:24:27 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 02:24:27 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B07EBB4@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Thread-Index: AcLLMheH8Qwkl6uXQFWu7oLslrPo+AAEz71Q From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "Sean Donelan" Cc: "Bill Woodcock" , "Nguyen, An" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2003 08:24:27.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAEED0D0:01C2CB5D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h138QGJ01337 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > What really happened was the system collecting statistics about > the backbone used MS/SQL to store the data was infected, or the > measurement beacon was in a data center with another > MS/SQL infected system which congested the local network > affecting all measurements of the backbone. Most of them have their collector systems in a separate management network[1]. Since, slammer had a major effect on local networks, it should be an important factor to be considered. I am not sure, but if this issue has some co-relation with the debate on use of TCP Vs UDP between collectors and exporters in a passive monitoring system, a detailed discussion in psamp/ipfix wg is necessary. > Government-run networks seemed to have as many infected systems as > everyone else. Allowing authorized government users to "exempt" > themselves from network management controls would have probably been > unwise in this case. Can this statement be documented in any one of the drafts( requirements or frame work)? I don't find any details on *how* exemption from management control is done for *IEPS* traffic in any of the ITU standards. > Did .MIL exempt some infected machines from management controls > allowing them to transmit the infection with high priority packets? [1] psamp/ipfix email archives _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 03:25:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00831 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h138UWo01603 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:30:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h138UVJ01600 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:30:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00828 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h138T0J01522; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h138SNJ01466 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:28:23 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00799 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 03:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.111] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 3 Feb 2003 02:26:35 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 02:26:33 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CF7C@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Thread-Index: AcLLOWVC9XoMv5itQKaBS3z/ee99eQAF+AIg From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "Sean Donelan" , "Bill Woodcock" Cc: "Nguyen, An" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2003 08:26:35.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6E22CD0:01C2CB5D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h138SNJ01467 Subject: [Ieprep] RE: Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > For close to 2 years I've been promoting the position we need > to deploy some VOIP phones, and get experience using them during > periods of severe network stress. We need understand what the > problems in the real world are, while working on things which > could improve their performance. I accept. Both Ucolumbia wenyu[1] and Stanford Athina[2] research would have been more representative, if they had more data points or access to stuff other than just end systems. With particular reference to Athena's work, the results are based on probes sent within a particular set of ISPs. It would have been more useful if the above mentioned data sets were available. > Did anyone collect any data? I would be interested in such data sets. > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > It caused very large problems, but was basically contained > > within four hours, everywhere that mattered, due in large > > communications which now obtain between ISP NOCs. > > Unfortunately, I left my INOC-DBA phone at the office, so I > wasn't able to try it during the height of the incident. How > well did VOIP work during the height of the UDP storm? > Would SIP priority have changed how well the VOIP UDP packets > got through during periods of severe Internet congestion? > Or were the real problems somewhere else? I have more questions for Bill. Some of the important results of athina is that: "Although packet voice is in general feasible, many of the measured backbones are not ready to support VoIP today, due to delay variability (in the form of spikes) and loss events. The causes of this behavior seem related to network reconfiguration, router internal operations and protocol exchanges, and not due to congestion[4]." The data sets are taken from backbone network. Even if taken from backbone, what is the actual protocol and configuration glitches? If the same measurements were taken in a under-provisioned environment, what would be the result? Also, sally Floyd has more questions[3] " > In the IEPREP meeting, the example that occasioned my remark was > that of a best-effort, VoIP connection to Nairobi, with good quality, > with reports on the viewgraph of typical packet drop rates of 5-40%. > It turned out that the VoIP connection was sending 64Kbps, on a > 128Kbps link with many users sharing the link. The voice quality > was good. My question was about the experience of the TCP connections > sharing the link at the time." Currently, MOS is the only quality measure (though we have some theoretical models like gilbert etc.) Fred mentioned to me in a discussion that, MOS is a subjective measure and we should come up with a better quality measure to accurately measure the CODEC rate and frame characteristics. An interesting research work will be to build a more predictable quality measure system, to replace the current E-model/NetIQ products. We need data (from representative data points) for experimenting such tools. The paper also has some good results for Bill& Ran. It is better to concentrate on receiver side solutions, loss concealment and playout scheduling than on QoS based differentiation. If we use QoS, it will be interesting to map those CODEC levels with that of network level quality levels. To do all these, we need some real world data. I am happy to look into those questions, if provided with such a data source. [1] http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~wenyu/ [2] http://www.sprintlabs.com/people/amarko/publications.html [3] https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ieprep/current/msg01700.html [4] http://www.sprintlabs.com/people/amarko/PAPERS/IWDC2002/iwdc2002.pdf _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 06:54:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04021 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13BxQj14870 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:59:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13BxPJ14867 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:59:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04000 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13Bw7J14805; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:58:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13Bv8J14739 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:57:08 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA03923 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 06:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:54:56 +0000 To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" cc: ieprep Subject: Re: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:24:27 CST." <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B07EBB4@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: <24055.1044273293@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > Government-run networks seemed to have as many infected systems as > > everyone else. Allowing authorized government users to "exempt" > > themselves from network management controls would have probably been > > unwise in this case. > > Can this statement be documented in any one of the drafts( requirements > or frame work)? I don't find any details on *how* exemption from > management control is done for *IEPS* traffic in any of the ITU > standards. one can consider IEPS as a recent extension of HPC/NS-EP -- the former taking an international perspective of NS/Ep, which is national in scope. an example of info on the latter and network management controls can be found at the latter. http://www.interconnection.bellsouth.com/products/vertical/gets.html going beyond what is stated in the above URL, my understanding is that the implementation of these exemptions have limitations. these are not exemptions that have no boundaries and starve out other traffic. once this additional threshold is reached within that PSTN segment, GETS users have the same chance and resources as anyone else. also, the point is taken about the concern raised in allowing exemptions to take place. The Framework doesn't specifically cite the Network Management Controls of telecom carriers since this refers specifically to trunk groups. However, the Framework document does have a section on Traffic Engineering and a discussion about limiting the allocation of resources for HPC -- and that its a good thing to have thresholds. We can probably add a paragraph or two to the section to bring up the specific subject of Network Management Controls (and cite what they are and what they pertain to) in the next version of the draft. side note, even though nothing is particularly stated in the Framework draft, we're currently bundling the subject of IP network management within the area of traffic engineering. if folks feel we should have a separate section on network management with specific points to be made about SNMP (beyond the fact that it will probably exist :-), please bring up these points and let me know. side, side note, i'll be on travel for a few days, so i'll be a while in responding to any points. regards, -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 07:47:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06549 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13Cqpf18896 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:52:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13CqpJ18893 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:52:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06531 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:47:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13CpCJ18813; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:51:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13CotJ18760 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:50:55 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06418 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:48:02 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003020307484518919 ; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 07:48:45 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1A8KF484>; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:50:39 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'Sean Donelan'" , Bill Woodcock Cc: "Nguyen, An" , "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:48:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sean said: >This is a personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect >the views of >anyone else. ditto >For close to 2 years I've been promoting the position we need to deploy >some VOIP phones, and get experience using them during periods >of severe >network stress. We need understand what the problems in the real >world are, while working on things which could improve their >performance. I agree with you and suspect the choice of codecs is extremely important. Also, last week I was at a conference and presented some information about ieprep. One fellow stood up and said that if networks were under severe network stress then we should be recommending the use of low-bandwidth elastic communications such as IM rather than non-elastic non-congestion aware applications such as VoIP. It is also a interesting viewpoint. (See http://www.saint2004.org/archives/wk6-em/ for the Internet Emergency Workshop presentations including detailed information about IAA.) >I was at home, and didn't loose e-mail communications throughout the >incident. FYI, I'm in California, my personal e-mail is in Maryland. >So I was criss-crossing the US twice to read my e-mail. I was >exchanging >e-mail with network engineers around the world throughout the >night with >no noticeble problems. But e-mail tends to be very elastic. I think the US didn't experience the most severe problems. Some of the Japanese people I spoke with did experience significant problems including delayed email (although there could be many causes for that.) > >Would SIP priority have >changed how >well the VOIP UDP packets got through during periods of severe Internet >congestion? Of course you already know the answer to this. No, SIP priority markings can't affect the success of the VoIP UDP packets. (See James Polk's last draft illustrating that SIP signaling and media streams take different paths.) The SIP priority could be used at stateful proxies and especially at end systems like PSTN gateways for an increased probably to resources (if allowed by policy). Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 08:01:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06910 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13D6Yp19535 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:06:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13D6YJ19532 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:06:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06903 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:01:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13D55J19466; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:05:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13D44J19416 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:04:04 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06843 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3DE67105; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:11:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:02:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: Sean Donelan From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Feb 2, 2003, at 22:12 America/Montreal, Sean Donelan wrote: > Did .MIL exempt some infected machines from management controls > allowing > them to transmit the infection with high priority packets? Sean, By JCS directive, there is no deployed QoS in any DISA/DIA-operated IP network. That is, there is no deployed QoS in NIPRnet, SIPRnet, or the more highly classified US-military IP networks. Some of the service-unique IP networks, for example USN IP networks which are not operated by or subject to DISA, have had QoS deployed, but I'm not certain of the current deployment state of QoS in those nets these days. So no "management controls" (of the sort that exist in GETS-like PSTN systems) actually exist in the DISA-operated IP networks. Of course they have the usual set of tools available (e.g. router ACLs) should they wish to deploy them. I'm not currently informed about details of any counter-measures that might or might not have been deployed to deal with the worm on NIPRnet. At least in theory, SIPRnet and the more highly classified networks do not interconnect at the IP-layer with the global IP network, but instead are deliberately isolated for security reasons. Ran rja@extremenetworks.com _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 08:21:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07261 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13DQWV20995 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:26:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13DQVJ20992 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:26:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07257 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13DO5J20815; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:24:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13DNiJ20795 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:23:44 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07161 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD65567105; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:31:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:21:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" To: "King, Kimberly S." From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <73453B17-377A-11D7-BDF0-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 07:48 America/Montreal, King, Kimberly S. wrote: > Also, last week I was at a conference and presented some information > about > ieprep. One fellow stood up and said that if networks were under > severe > network stress then we should be recommending the use of low-bandwidth > elastic communications such as IM rather than non-elastic > non-congestion > aware applications such as VoIP. It is also a interesting viewpoint. > (See > http://www.saint2004.org/archives/wk6-em/ for the Internet Emergency > Workshop presentations including detailed information about IAA.) I agree with that fellow, simply because that approach will maximise the utility of the network and use of elastic/congestion-avoiding applications is visibly better for the overall health of the network at any time. Ran _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 08:46:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07633 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:46:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13Dplt22714 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:51:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13DpkJ22711 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:51:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07630 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13Do3J22669; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13DnbJ22634 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:49:37 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07613 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:46:45 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003020308473132104 ; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 08:47:31 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:47:14 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'RJ Atkinson'" , "King, Kimberly S." Cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:47:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 07:48 America/Montreal, King, Kimberly S. >wrote: >> Also, last week I was at a conference and presented some information >> about >> ieprep. One fellow stood up and said that if networks were under >> severe >> network stress then we should be recommending the use of >low-bandwidth >> elastic communications such as IM rather than non-elastic >> non-congestion >> aware applications such as VoIP. It is also a interesting >viewpoint. >> (See >> http://www.saint2004.org/archives/wk6-em/ for the Internet Emergency >> Workshop presentations including detailed information about IAA.) Ran said: >I agree with that fellow, simply because that approach will >maximise the >utility of the network and use of elastic/congestion-avoiding >applications >is visibly better for the overall health of the network at any time. True but it is also a question of context. Case 1: A traditional disaster (e.g., earthquake, flood) occurs. This has traditionally been associated with PSTN congestion into and out of the affected area. Suppose we want to use the Internet for emergency communications. It is possible that the Internet as a whole does not suffer from congestion (e.g., September 11) and hence VoIP may be viable especially if access link issues can be resolved. Other systems such as IAA are also quite helpful and can even alleviate some PSTN traffic if folks are content to see the person in question is safe and therefore don't necessarily pick up the PSTN telephone. Case 2: An "Internet disaster" (e.g., a worm or event leading to severe Internet stress) occurs. The PSTN may be a fine way to communicate (instead of VoIP over the Internet) since such an event may be global in scale and not occurring at a local place where PSTN congestion typically occurs. Emergency operations that are affected by this type of disaster are those which use the Internet on a daily basis such as hospitals and ambulances which use a web interface to exchange information about occupancy and emergency room status. These folks should understand their dependency upon the Internet and maintain backup methods (to avoid single points of failure). What I told the man who asked about VoIP is that the scope of Emergency Communications is vast. The two cases I've listed are simplifications and the PSTN and Internet are not totally disjoint systems. The point is that it is important for the context be discussed along with the problem and possible solutions. Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 12:26:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14094 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13HW2t07024 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13HW2J07021 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:32:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14085 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:26:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13HTUJ06830; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:29:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13HSdJ06774 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:28:39 -0500 Received: from [140.32.132.66] (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13986 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.nps.navy.mil by [140.32.132.66] via smtpd (for [132.151.6.1]) with ESMTP; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:25:33 -0800 Received: from ziggy ([131.120.179.220]) by capella.nps.navy.mil (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h13HJ0vD029458; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:19:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm From: Rex Buddenberg To: RJ Atkinson Cc: Sean Donelan , ieprep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 03 Feb 2003 09:11:10 -0800 Message-Id: <1044292271.6478.233.camel@ziggy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A bit more ... and mostly speculative. The Navy has wrapped IP cocoons around legacy satcom circuits and terminated them at routers -- the program is called ADNS. The shore side of these circuits terminates at the Fleet NOCs which are part of the NCTAMS (Naval Computer & Telecom Area Master Stations, I think -- there are a handful worldwide). ADNS has a box (called the CRIU -- CAP-to-Router-Interface-Unit) that has 16 buffers. The router infers priorities from IP addresses and port numbers and enqueues to each buffer accordingly; then they are drained in priority order to the comms. So there is a homegrown QoS control. The fleet NOCs have extensive firewall setup with bastion hosts, intrusion detection sensors and screening routers. The screening policy is tight -- everything is blocked except a. b. c.. Given what I know to be blocked, I'd be surprised if SQL packets are passed. So my guess is that the afloat networks as well as the plumbing that reaches to them were pretty well isolated. More data. The Navy runs segregated LANs on its ships. To feed them from ashore, they tunnel (using Motorola NES boxes) through the ADNS structure. So, as Ran said, as long as the SIPRNET segregation practice matches the theory, the classified networks should not be affected by this one. On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 05:02, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > On Sunday, Feb 2, 2003, at 22:12 America/Montreal, Sean Donelan wrote: > > Did .MIL exempt some infected machines from management controls > > allowing > > them to transmit the infection with high priority packets? > > Sean, > > By JCS directive, there is no deployed QoS in any DISA/DIA-operated IP > network. That is, there is no deployed QoS in NIPRnet, SIPRnet, or the > more > highly classified US-military IP networks. Some of the service-unique > IP networks, > for example USN IP networks which are not operated by or subject to > DISA, > have had QoS deployed, but I'm not certain of the current deployment > state > of QoS in those nets these days. > > So no "management controls" (of the sort that exist in GETS-like PSTN > systems) > actually exist in the DISA-operated IP networks. Of course they have > the usual > set of tools available (e.g. router ACLs) should they wish to deploy > them. > > I'm not currently informed about details of any counter-measures that > might or might not have been deployed to deal with the worm on NIPRnet. > > At least in theory, SIPRnet and the more highly classified networks > do not interconnect at the IP-layer with the global IP network, but > instead > are deliberately isolated for security reasons. > > Ran > rja@extremenetworks.com > > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 3 18:11:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24881 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:11:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h13NGfe01766 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:16:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13NGfJ01763 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:16:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24857 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13NF6J01677; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:15:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13NEFJ01615 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:14:15 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24800 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:08:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.111] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:12:09 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:12:08 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B07EBBA@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Thread-Index: AcLLgqFDEU6XRpeRTL+ZiWXsS1E7qAAVmh8g From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "King, Kimberly S." , "Sean Donelan" , "Bill Woodcock" Cc: "Nguyen, An" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2003 23:12:09.0440 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD3A0E00:01C2CBD9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h13NEFJ01616 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > http://www.saint2004.org/archives/wk6-em/ for the Internet Emergency > Workshop presentations including detailed information about IAA.) The *ieprep in IETF* presentation mentions two schemes: GETS and GTPS. Any document to read about GTPS? what is the big difference between GETS and GTPS ( as both seems to be for PSTN)? _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 4 06:10:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15980 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:10:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h14BFjT17037 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:15:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14BFjJ17034 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:15:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15962 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:09:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14BBAJ16832; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:11:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14B35J15982 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:03:05 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15702 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 05:57:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 05:59:47 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003020406003300341 ; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:00:33 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1A8KGJJX>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:02:27 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) '" Cc: "'Nguyen, An '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:00:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] GETS and GTPS Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >Any document to read about GTPS? The framework document has some information about GTPS in Appendix A. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt There is also a presentation on GETS at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/slides/ieprep-2/ >what is the big difference between >GETS and GTPS ( as both seems to be for PSTN)? There are actually many differences but a central aspect of GETS is that it doesn't depend upon predetermined telephone lines to be provisioned for the service but rather is potentially available on any line. (Configuration issues of the standard end device is pretty much a non-issue and the "intelligent" network can provide enhanced service.) Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 4 08:02:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21456 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h14D7VJ26035 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:07:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14D7VJ26032 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:07:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21445 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14D28J25064; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:02:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h13DhEJ22371 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:43:14 -0500 Received: from [209.22.88.17] (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA07506 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtassp3.ncr.disa.mil by [209.22.88.17] via smtpd (for ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 13:31:48 UT Received: by mtassp3.ncr.disa.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:40:42 -0500 Message-ID: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D029E13F9@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> From: "Folts, Harold" To: "ieprep List (E-mail)" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:40:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C2CB89.D4732830" Subject: [Ieprep] ITU-T Workshop on Telecommunications for Disaster Relief Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2CB89.D4732830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The ITU-T has organized a three-day workshop in Emergency Telecommunications in Geneva, Switzerland, February 17-19, 2003. You can find more information at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/ets/. The event has a close relationship with the considerations being addressed by ieprep. It is a fully open event and ieprep participants will be most welcome to participate. Hal ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2CB89.D4732830 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Folts, Hal.vcf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Folts, Hal.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;=01 REV:20010930T194720Z END:VCARD ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2CB89.D4732830-- _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 5 07:00:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20467 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:00:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h15C6dj18840 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:06:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h15C6dJ18837 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:06:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20399 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h15C5BJ18751; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:05:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h15C4EJ18629 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:04:14 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20209 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.111] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:01:24 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:01:22 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CF8D@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Thread-Index: AcLLiuVxnoEJo08ARmuIjyFzBD4k9QBfkHZQ From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "King, Kimberly S." , "RJ Atkinson" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2003 12:01:24.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E05E2C0:01C2CD0E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h15C4EJ18630 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >I agree with that fellow, simply because that approach will > >maximise the utility of the network and use of elastic/ > >congestion-avoiding applications is visibly better for the > >overall health of the network at any time. > > True but it is also a question of context. > > Case 1: A traditional disaster (e.g., earthquake, flood) > occurs. > > Case 2: An "Internet disaster" (e.g., a worm or event leading > to severe Internet stress) occurs. > What I told the man who asked about VoIP is that the scope of > Emergency Communications is vast. The two cases I've listed are > simplifications and the PSTN and Internet are not totally > disjoint systems. One important point is that Internet traffic is so dynamic that multiple cases have to be added to the above list. personally, I feel sorry for the internet measurement community whose task becomes harder with every major worm outbreak, as we become increasingly paranoid. Is your Internet/PSTN option workable model? what is the context behind the above scenario? - off-loading the congestion from PSTN/Internet to the other. I am not sure. But, given the gateway constraints, I don't think off-loading is a viable solution. or - PSTN/Internet acting as a back-up to the other. If so there are multiple back-up options. An ad-hoc network, all type of airline communication etc. what about separate spectrum for ieprep :) The charter lists more..PDA, cell phones. > The point is that it is important for the context be discussed > along with the problem and possible solutions. We have plenty of solutions. We need context to narrow done the problem space. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 5 20:08:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17329 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h161ENM11001 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:14:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h161ENp10998 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:14:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17316 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h161CTp10941; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:12:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h161Bhp10908 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:11:43 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17284 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:04:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:07:33 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003020520081930115 ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:08:19 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1A8KHQQB>; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:10:14 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) '" , "'King, Kimberly S. '" , "'RJ Atkinson '" Cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Did anyone get any good testing data of VOIP under network congestion? Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:08:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >Is your Internet/PSTN option workable model? >what is the context behind the above scenario? I didn't intend these as a "model" but rather to point out the differences between the ramifications of a traditional disaster and an Internet security incident. Sentil said: >We have plenty of solutions. We need context to narrow done >the problem space. Yes. I'll send out a proposed context within a week. Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 6 04:12:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA09448 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h169Il614822 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:18:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169Ilp14819 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:18:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA09377 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169H4p14746; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169Fdp14650 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:15:39 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA09254 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.111] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:12:24 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:12:24 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CF94@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm Thread-Index: AcLLex1q0czsQXa0QfmOPr7yvp3X1wCPQhmA From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "Ken Carlberg" Cc: "ieprep" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2003 09:12:24.0701 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCD242D0:01C2CDBF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h169Fdp14651 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > Government-run networks seemed to have as many infected > > > systems as everyone else. Allowing authorized government > > > users to "exempt" themselves from network management > > > controls would haveprobably been unwise in this case. > > We can probably add a paragraph or two to the section to bring > up the specific subject of Network Management Controls (and cite > what they are and what they pertain to) in the next version of the > draft. I am just curious on what you will write except Sean Donelan's point. I remember an amusing comment in the Atlanta meet that spam filters should be exempted for priority mails. > we're currently bundling the subject of IP network management > within the area of traffic engineering. what work your referring too? Any middleware/XML stuff in academia? The known NM package is ATT's Netscope with couple of other packages from HP etc. Also,TEWG is busy with diff-te-reqts and tewg-measure specs. > if folks feel we should have a separate section on network > management with specific points to be madeabout SNMP > (beyond the fact that it will probably exist :-) By the time, your frame work becomes RFC, XML would have replaced SNMP :) All companies are developing their own standards (Cisco- SAA) As per recent iab-nm-report, their exists lot of skepticism around use of SNMP. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 6 09:42:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19599 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:42:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h16EmaY04511 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:48:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16Emap04508 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:48:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19581 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16El8p04452; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:47:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16Ekgp04431 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:46:42 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA19511 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:39:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:43:15 +0000 To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" cc: ieprep Subject: Re: [Ieprep] FW: The Spread of the Sapphire/Slammer SQL Worm In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Feb 2003 03:12:24 CST." <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CF94@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: <1160.1044542593@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > we're currently bundling the subject of IP network management > > within the area of traffic engineering. > > what work your referring too? Any middleware/XML stuff in academia? > The known NM package is ATT's Netscope with couple of other packages > from HP etc. Also,TEWG is busy with diff-te-reqts and tewg-measure > specs. i have no desire to bring up work that is only being advanced in academia. unless one sees a vendor working on a given area, or on something similar, i feels its best to avoid purely academic pursuits in the framework document. > By the time, your frame work becomes RFC, XML would have replaced > SNMP :) All companies are developing their own standards (Cisco- SAA) > As per recent iab-nm-report, their exists lot of skepticism around > use of SNMP. i don't follow. regardless of the advances in using or incorporating XML, UML, etc., SNMP will still be around, and in my view still represents a foundation for network management. nothing beats the installed base. the headache for vendors is that fragmentation of efforts will continue to flourish. as for the skepticism about SNMP, that approaches the area of religious wars, and i'd rather let others rant. i also assume that it still follows that network operators still avoid the SET commands like the plague, and i don't know if XML-type work will change that. regards, -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 6 10:21:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21420 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h16FSJp07329 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:28:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16FSJp07326 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:28:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21385 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:21:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16FR3p07293; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16FQlp07257 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:26:47 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21193 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:22:21 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003020610230911009 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:23:09 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:22:52 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:23:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] Possible work item Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In an attempt to provide a context for a BCP, I'm proposing the below. Does the group feel this type of document would be helpful? Please toss around the idea, modify, etc. Anybody interested in contributing? Assume response and recovery services are to be supported over a particular administrative domain (e.g., U.S. Homeland Security has been considering connecting first-responders including FEMA to GuardNET). Since disasters may result in physical network damage or network congestion, some response and recovery services may be adversely impacted (e.g., VoIP and video). The overall goal of these services is that communications are understandable and applications perform to the best extent practical using the surviving network. Congestion may occur in access links or elsewhere in the network. Possible work item: BCP--IETF Recommendations for Supporting Response and Recovery Services over an Administrative Domain Highlights: An overview of what can and cannot be accomplished with today's protocols including a discussion of quality of service mechanisms and alternatives. - Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 6 11:25:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24531 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h16GVqT12442 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:31:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16GVqp12439 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:31:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24477 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:24:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16GU5p12337; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16GTCp12267 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:29:12 -0500 Received: from pfwhqs1.ncr.disa.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA24409 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtahqs3.ncr.disa.mil by pfwhqs1.ncr.disa.mil via smtpd (for ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) with SMTP; 6 Feb 2003 16:20:11 UT Received: by mtahqs3.ncr.disa.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1GJXQJD6>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:28:24 -0500 Message-ID: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D02EF4CF0@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> From: "Nguyen, An" To: "'King, Kimberly S.'" Cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Possible work item Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:25:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kim, >-----Original Message----- >From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com] >Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:23 AM >To: Ieprep (E-mail) >Subject: [Ieprep] Possible work item >In an attempt to provide a context for a BCP, I'm proposing the below. Does >the group feel this type of document would be helpful? Please toss around >the idea, modify, etc. Anybody interested in contributing? >Assume response and recovery services are to be supported over a particular >administrative domain (e.g., U.S. Homeland Security has been considering >connecting first-responders including FEMA to GuardNET). Since disasters >may result in physical network damage or network congestion, some response >and recovery services may be adversely impacted (e.g., VoIP and video). The >overall goal of these services is that communications are understandable and >applications perform to the best extent practical using the surviving >network. Congestion may occur in access links or elsewhere in the network. > >Possible work item: >BCP--IETF Recommendations for Supporting Response and Recovery >Services over an Administrative Domain Is this Administration Domain assumed to be involved with a single or multiple AS's? I think we need to have two separate scenarios here. We can work on one at a time. What is your opinion? >Highlights: An overview of what can and cannot be accomplished with today's >protocols including a discussion of quality of service mechanisms and >alternatives. - An _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 6 18:32:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08767 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h16Ncus08411 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:38:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16Ncup08408 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:38:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08755 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:31:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16NbKp08341; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:37:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16Na8p07653 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:36:08 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08687 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:28:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:31:38 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003020618322500059 ; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:32:25 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1A8K21XJ>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:34:20 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'Nguyen, An '" , "''King, Kimberly S.' '" Cc: "'Ieprep (E-mail) '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Possible work item Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:32:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h16Na8p07654 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Kimberly said: >Possible work item: >BCP--IETF Recommendations for Supporting Response and Recovery >Services over an Administrative Domain >Highlights: An overview of what can and cannot be accomplished with today's >protocols including a discussion of quality of service mechanisms and >alternatives. An said: >Is this Administration Domain assumed to be involved with a single or >multiple AS's? I think we need to have two separate scenarios here. We >can >work on one at a time. What is your opinion? Is your question about QoS when you say "involved"? In terms of QoS over multiple domains, let me quote the words of Geoff Huston "The relatively loosely coordinated structure of the public Internet will have to change from the state we have today if we want to use QoS based services. The changes include: · A common selection of a set of QoS mechanisms to deploy, · Ubiquitous deployment of these mechanisms across both service provider and client networks, · The adoption of a uniform set of retail tariffs for QoS services, · The definition and common acceptance of multi-party QoS-related financial settlements that support fair and equitable cost distribution among multiple providers, and · The definition of commonly accepted service performance metrics and related measurement methodologies to allow end-to-end and network-by-network service outcomes to be objectively assessed. This is a significant agenda for the industry at large to undertake, and more so in an environment that features diversity and vigorous competition between various public Internet service providers. " http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_qos.html So, my opinion is that QoS should be approached assuming a single AD unless you know something that I don't about how the above can be accomplished. Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 8 12:04:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25137 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h18HCQP30962 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:12:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h18HCQp30959 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:12:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25125 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h18HANp30915; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:10:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h18H3Mp30048 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:03:22 -0500 Received: from rediffmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA24950 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11316 invoked by uid 510); 8 Feb 2003 17:06:08 -0000 Date: 8 Feb 2003 17:06:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20030208170608.11315.qmail@webmail24.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (202.134.200.4) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 08 feb 2003 17:06:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Rajneesh Saha" Reply-To: "Rajneesh Saha" To: Ieprep@ietf.org Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Ieprep] XTI Interface for RAW IP Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I have been trying to use the XTI Interface to RAW IP for writing a STREAM based kernel device driver, but have not been able to register the new protocol ID with IP or send any data using the t_sndudata using the XTI interface. I was searching the IETF mail archives and saw some relevant information regarding the XTI interface to raw IP in the the IP Emergency group. Posting this query here might not be correct, but any information would be a real help. Please provide any relevant pointers that can help. Thanks in advance Best Regards Rajneesh _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 10 11:38:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14848 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:38:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1AGkrC27036 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:46:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AGkrp27033 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:46:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14813 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:37:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AGjHp26958; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:45:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AGiop26928 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:44:50 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14752 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:38:22 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003021011391116051 ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:39:11 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1QMCN0NB>; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:41:07 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:39:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message announces WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service (draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-01.txt). The intension is for this draft to have informational RFC status. The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24, 2003. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 10 11:38:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14894 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1AGlKm27064 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:47:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AGlKp27061 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:47:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14843 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AGk1p27008; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:46:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AGj4p26943 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:45:04 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14757 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:38:41 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003021011392723305 ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:39:27 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1PJMVYJQ>; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:39:10 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:39:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message announces WG last call for General Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service (draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-general-01.txt). The intension is for this draft to have informational RFC status. The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24, 2003. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 13 07:28:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10764 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1DCchW16974 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:38:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCchp16971 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:38:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10761 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:28:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCb7p16473; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:37:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCYmp16110 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:34:48 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10671 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:27:13 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003021307280326165 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:28:03 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XS6TWC1>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:27:45 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:28:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] SIP Operation in the Public Internet Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , A recent NANOG presentation titled "SIP Operation in the Public Internet: What Makes Running it a Challenge and What it Takes to Deal With It" is now available and contains many useful and interesting ideas! http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/jiri.html _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 13 07:32:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10808 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1DCgBU17134 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:42:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCgBp17131 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:42:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10805 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCekp17088; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:40:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCdup17012 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:39:56 -0500 Received: from paixhost.pch.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10779 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:29:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.pch.net (ns1.pch.net [206.220.231.1]) by paixhost.pch.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCXBU12452; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:33:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:33:11 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock To: "King, Kimberly S." cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] SIP Operation in the Public Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > A recent NANOG presentation titled > "SIP Operation in the Public Internet: > What Makes Running it a Challenge and > What it Takes to Deal With It" is now > available and contains many useful and > interesting ideas! Yeah, we were very impressed with Jiri's presentation and happy to have it as a part of NANOG. Unfortunately he wasn't able to make it to NordNOG, so Patrik Faltstrom is doing a similar talk here. -Bill _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 15:31:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04012 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1EKZds22585 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:35:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKZdp22582 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:35:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03976 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKXkp22440; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:33:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKWDp22378 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:32:13 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03846 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:27:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W5LV>; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:29:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'King, Kimberly S.'" , "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:28:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Here are my comments on the "General Requirements" document Is it "IEPREP" or "Ieprep"? Both are used. Section 3 4) Network Functionality I am not sure that "better packet loss", "better delay" or "better jitter" is really what we are after. These should be covered by SLAs, whether or not it is emergency traffic. In cases where, at the application level, there is some kind of "admission control" we want a better probability of admission. For inelastic applications, where there is some kind of negotiation for capacity, etc. we want a "better negotiating position". For elastic applications (e.g., I am alive) it is still not clear to me what we want. Maybe THAT is where we want lower packet loss. Section 4 1) The phrase "better than best effort" is kind of awkward. Maybe "other than best effort" would be better. Janet -----Original Message----- From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:39 AM To: Ieprep (E-mail) Cc: 'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail) Subject: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS This message announces WG last call for General Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service (draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-general-01.txt). The intension is for this draft to have informational RFC status. The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24, 2003. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 15:40:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04365 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:40:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1EKiRI23706 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:44:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKiRp23703 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:44:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04359 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKh1p23656; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKgxp23638 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:42:59 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04260 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:38:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W5NF>; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:40:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'King, Kimberly S.'" , "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:38:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This document seems a mere shadow of its former self. I thought this was supposed to be the MORE specific document, but all the specificity (like references to "call admission") has been removed. There seems to be little here that is not also covered by the "General Requirements" document, or Henning's SIPPING document. Section 3 says it relates only to "Telephony Signaling". I seems to me that is already covered by Henning's document. Is there any reason we can't put in "requirements" (or goals, or objectives, or desires) for reduced blocking probability, or increased admission probability for calls (since we are talking telephony specifically, "calls" ARE defined at the application level) within the IP part of the network? This would parallel the "Network Functionality" section of the General Requirements, and make them specific to Telephony. Janet -----Original Message----- From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:39 AM To: Ieprep (E-mail) Cc: 'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail) Subject: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS This message announces WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service (draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-01.txt). The intension is for this draft to have informational RFC status. The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24, 2003. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 16:08:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05056 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1ELCgB25538 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:12:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELCgp25535 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:12:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05038 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELB1p25464; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELA1p25397 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:10:01 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04981 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.211] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:09:27 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:09:26 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CFB9@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Thread-Index: AcLUaFG8Vajz6ut2Rnu25i3PwI+eyQAA6QtA From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "Gunn, Janet" , "King, Kimberly S." , "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2003 21:09:27.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BBC8340:01C2D46D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h1ELA1p25398 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Section 4 > 1) The phrase "better than best effort" is kind of awkward. Maybe > "other than best effort" would be better. The term *better than best effort* is in use for many years. The commonly referred acronym is BBF services. It generally refers to QoS services like Diffserv, Intserv etc. I am not sure about its context in the draft. Its a correct use of terminology, if it refers to QoS services. Since many people in the list hates the term QoS, the authors might have picked up the term "better than best effort" :) _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 16:08:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05058 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1ELCgW25554 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:12:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELCgp25551 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:12:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05036 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:08:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELAnp25438; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:10:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EL9dp25371 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:09:39 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04972 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W5Q1>; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:07:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:05:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Most of these comments are editorial rather than content-based. Abstract Is there a definition of "stub domain"? 1.1.1 NCS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. The non governmental participants in GETS are a LOT more than "a select set of individuals" I THINK the GETS users are split roughly 50/50 between government and non government users. 1.2 Should say "...interactive voice has a lower threshold of loss than elastic applications..." NOT "...than other elastic applications..." Interactive voice is NOT an elastic application. What do you mean by "carriers"? "...some of the protocols of discussed in section 4..." should be "...some of the protocols discussed in section 4..." Section 2, pg 6 When talking about "higher probability" it would be helpful to define "higher probability than WHAT". I am assuming it means "higher probability than for an equivalent non-emergency call". I don't agree with the statement "... probability ... cannot easily be quantified." I quantify probability all the time. Some kind of weird formatting "=A0" before "Hence, ..." Pg 7 "More specifically, we associate this objective in the context of IP telephony acting as part of the Public Telephone Network (PTN). This, as opposed to the use of IP telephony within a private or stub network." Might want to put this in the scope section. "a higher probability of call completion than that of normal IP telephony call traffic." Might want to say this earlier. Pg 8 Authentication is not necessarily centralized. Section 3- First sentence needs to be reworked to reflect that you now have TWO (not just ONE) objectives. Pg 11 reference to Henning's document - it no longer refers explicitly to headers. Pg 12 Here you introduce MLPP. Would it make sense to also discuss it in section 1.1? Pg 15. This statement is NOT true: "As a point of reference, existing SLAs established by the NCS for GETS service tend to focus on a maximum allocation of (e.g., 1%) of calls allowed to be established through a given LEC using HPC. Once this limit is reached, all other GETS calls experience the same probability of call completion as the general public. " GETS is ENGINEERED for 1% GETS calls, and some of the SLAs refer to such a limit, but there is NO real time MECHANISM to track GETS usage, and NO real time MECHANISM to change the treatment of GETS calls. In WPS (the wireless extension to GETS) there IS a traffic threshold (25% WPS in a single cell) beyond which the priority treatment for radio channels changes. But NOT in GETS. Under "traffic engineering", might it make sense to discuss the Sprint and Genuity access link traffic engineering approaches described in Atlanta. Pg 16. In general, PSTN authentication does NOT need to be PIN based. WPS authentication is not PIN based, and, for GSM, not centralized. In discussing generic PSTN based priority systems, it would be helpful to describe them in a way which encompasses both WPS AND GETS. (WPS is now operational, at least as "IOC phase 1".) Section 5 Key Scenarios "imply", not "infer" Pg 18 "The fact that each administrative domain peers with each other as part of the PSTN, means that existing security, in the form of Personal Identification Number (PIN) authentication (under the context of telephony infrastructure protection), is the default scope of security. " No longer true. WPS authentication "exists" (went live Dec 22), and is NOT PIN based. To describe PINs as the "default mechanism" WOULD place "additional requirements on existing authorized emergency telephony systems." Page 22 Under standards work, you might want to make reference to the changes to the CDMA standards to support emergency traffic. Like the CPC, there MAY be a need to translate these new parameters into SIP, etc. Janet -----Original Message----- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:52 AM Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group of the IETF. Title : Framework for Supporting IEPS in IP Telephony Author(s) : K. Carlberg, I. Brown Filename : draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2003-1-20 This document presents a framework for supporting authorized emergency related communication within the context of IP telephony. We present a series of objectives that reflect a general view of how authorized emergency service, in line with the Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS), should be realized within today's IP architecture and service models. From these objectives, we present a corresponding set of protocols and capabilities, which provide a more specific set of recommendations regarding existing IETF protocols. Finally, we present two scenarios that act as guiding models for the objectives and functions listed in this document. These, models, coupled with an example of an existing service in the PSTN, contribute to a constrained solution space. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 16:09:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05093 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1ELDl925615 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:13:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELDlp25612 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:13:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05089 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELC1p25505; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ELBHp25475 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:11:17 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04999 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W5QN>; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:08:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)'" , "King, Kimberly S." , "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:07:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , OK, if it IS in common use I withdraw the comment. -----Original Message----- From: Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) [mailto:saq66@umkc.edu] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 4:09 PM To: Gunn, Janet; King, Kimberly S.; Ieprep (E-mail) Cc: 'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail) Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS > Section 4 > 1) The phrase "better than best effort" is kind of awkward. Maybe > "other than best effort" would be better. The term *better than best effort* is in use for many years. The commonly referred acronym is BBF services. It generally refers to QoS services like Diffserv, Intserv etc. I am not sure about its context in the draft. Its a correct use of terminology, if it refers to QoS services. Since many people in the list hates the term QoS, the authors might have picked up the term "better than best effort" :) _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 18:58:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09881 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1F02ci04927 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:02:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F02cp04924 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:02:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09862 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F01Ap04885; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:01:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F00Pp04828 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:00:25 -0500 Received: from [209.22.88.17] (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA09803 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtassp3.ncr.disa.mil by [209.22.88.17] via smtpd (for ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 23:49:43 UT Received: by mtassp3.ncr.disa.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1ZJ8Q6JY>; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:59:02 -0500 Message-ID: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D02EF4D1D@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> From: "Nguyen, An" To: "'Gunn, Janet'" Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:58:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , -----Original Message----- From: Gunn, Janet [mailto:Janet.Gunn@DynCorp.com] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 4:06 PM To: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt >1.1.1 >NCS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. > Not officially until March 1. The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24. Technically, it should still be NCS. But I think we should add a sentence in the paragraph to link the NCS to the Department of Homeland security. An _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 14 19:10:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10129 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1F0Emg06195 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:14:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F0Emp06192 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:14:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10119 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F0D5p06127; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F0C9p06057 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:12:09 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10092 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.0.8.119]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A861A67104; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:23:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:11:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ieprep@ietf.org To: "Gunn, Janet" From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0788AE49-407A-11D7-8F6A-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Feb 14, 2003, at 16:05 America/Montreal, Gunn, Janet wrote: > 1.1.1 > NCS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. > > The non governmental participants in GETS are a LOT more than "a > select set > of individuals" I THINK the GETS users are split roughly 50/50 between > government and non government users. Relative to the total US telephone-accessible population, the total number of authorised GETS users is *TINY*. So "select set of individuals" seems indisputably accurate, regardless of what percentage are govt/non-govt. Ran _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 15 07:33:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01742 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1FCc2A22375 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FCc2p22372 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:38:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01731 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:33:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FCaLp21609; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:36:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FCZMp21586 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:35:22 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA01707 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:34:03 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:28:14 EST." Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: <17405.1045312442@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Is it "IEPREP" or "Ieprep"? Both are used. i'll change it so that its uniform throughout the document. > I am not sure that "better packet loss", "better delay" or "better > jitter" is really what we are after. These should be covered by SLAs, > whether or not it is emergency traffic. well, I'll agree that at this stage I don't know what specifically is requested or needed. the key phrase in the original passage is "CAN be realized". Loss, delay, and jitter are areas that can be qualified and addressed by a network. An SLA or some form of a business agreement would be used to identify which areas are being requested as well as the quantifiable measure that is targeted. I feel comfortable with identifying loss, delay, jitter as examples of aspects associated with network functionality and using it in the pursuit of higher probability. > In cases where, at the application level, there is some kind of > "admission control" we want a better probability of admission. since you specifically scope the above comment to the application layer, then it should be placed in requirement(s) documents that are extensions or more specific to General requirements. hence, given the two documents we have, it should be discussed in the Telephony Requirements draft. The reason I wish to push the above comment away from the General Requirements is that I want that draft to stay clear from a series of "if" or "in the case of..." type statements. I would like it to be simple and slim. > For inelastic applications, where there is some kind of negotiation for > capacity, etc. we want a "better negotiating position". > > For elastic applications (e.g., I am alive) it is still not clear to me > what we want. Maybe THAT is where we want lower packet loss. again, the above should be addressed in specific requirements for specific applications or types of applications. also, one will need to qualify what is considered a "better negotiating position" > Section 4 > 1) The phrase "better than best effort" is kind of awkward. Maybe > "other than best effort" would be better. i'll go along with Senthilkumar's comment on the subject. also a google search on the phrase will show a number of hits showing papers that use the phrase. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 15 08:09:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02278 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:09:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1FDDOK24011 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:13:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FDDOp24008 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:13:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02274 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FDC4p23979; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:12:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FDBdp23958 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:11:39 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA02261 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:10:42 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:38:59 EST." Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:10:41 +0000 Message-ID: <18747.1045314641@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > This document seems a mere shadow of its former self. I thought this > was supposed to be the MORE specific document, but all the specificity > (like references to "call admission") has been removed. There seems to > be little here that is not also covered by the "General Requirements" > document, or Henning's SIPPING document. well, the draft was written from scratch, so it is not based on previous efforts, nor a continuation of other drafts. Otherwise, we would have add additional authors listed. is there a specific draft you had in mind? Hennings SIPPING draft is for SIP and only SIP and is (i believe) an official output of SIPPING wg. If down the line one were to come up with some additional IEPREP-related effort for something like MEGACO, or some other form of telephony signaling, then this document would apply. In addition, Hennings document does not discuss accounting -- nor should it. And yes, there is overlap in the requirements topics between this draft and Hennings. > Section 3 says it relates only to "Telephony Signaling". I seems to > me that is already covered by Henning's document. Is there any reason > we can't put in "requirements" (or goals, or objectives, or desires) > for reduced blocking probability, or increased admission probability > for calls (since we are talking telephony specifically, "calls" ARE > defined at the application level) within the IP part of the network? > This would parallel the "Network Functionality" section of the General > Requirements, and make them specific to Telephony. well, you've stated a lot in the above. we can add requirements, but outside of the discussion on accounting, we haven't received any other specific requests. if we take out the part in the "(..)", then no. the scope of the document states that it refers to IP telephony from the perspective of an end-to-end application -- and not the IP part of the network. in addition we state that the document is an extension of the General requirements, hence there isn't a need to restate those requirements. from these application requirements, we can then slide into the Framework document that presents a more specific set of goals and objectives. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 15 13:41:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06155 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:41:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1FIji807698 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:45:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FIjip07695 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:45:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06142 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:40:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FIiIp07648; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:44:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FIhhp07613 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:43:43 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA06108 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:42:40 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:38:59 EST." Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:42:39 +0000 Message-ID: <2179.1045334559@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , one thing i wanted to add in case i wasn't clear in my last message. i have no objections to adding a item on application level admission control in the Telephony Requirements document. but it would be easier to articulate something if you had a specific item in mind. Perhaps Mike Pierce has a thought on the subject. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 15 15:26:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07058 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:26:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1FKV1812265 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:31:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FKV1p12262 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:31:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07042 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:26:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FKTNp12206; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:29:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FKSlp12181 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:28:47 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA06998 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:27:41 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:05:36 EST." Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:27:39 +0000 Message-ID: <6394.1045340859@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Abstract > Is there a definition of "stub domain"? definitions and references can be found in rfc 1631, 3022, 1322, 1364, 1477, 1478, 1745, and some others > 1.1.1 > NCS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. I'll note this in the next version of the draft > The non governmental participants in GETS are a LOT more than "a select > set of individuals" I THINK the GETS users are split roughly 50/50 > between government and non government users. i think "select set of individuals" is fine. nothing breaks with the phrase and it doesn't relate to size. but the point is taken that the system is not just a collections of users from the govt. > 1.2 > Should say "...interactive voice has a lower threshold of loss than > elastic applications..." NOT "...than other elastic applications..." > Interactive voice is NOT an elastic application. the change will be made. > What do you mean by "carriers"? telco carriers. i've not come across the term carriers in association with ISPs. however, i shall extend the term so that it will read as "telecom carriers" > "...some of the protocols of discussed in section 4..." > should be > "...some of the protocols discussed in section 4..." the change will be made. > Section 2, pg 6 > > When talking about "higher probability" it would be helpful to define > "higher probability than WHAT". I am assuming it means "higher > probability than for an equivalent non-emergency call". ok. additional verbage will be added to provide a point of comparison. > I don't agree with the statement "... probability ... cannot easily be > quantified." I quantify probability all the time. the meaning statement is within a larger context as stated below: The critical word in this objective is "probability", as opposed to assurance or guarantee -- the latter two placing a higher burden on the network. It stands to reason, though, that the word "probability" is a less tangible description that cannot be easily quantified. It is relative in relation to other traffic transiting the same network. I'm not sure its fair to cut out so much of what is stated and expect the parts to stand on its own. as I stated in the comments on the General Requirements, aspects such as delay, loss, and jitter can be (within limitations) addressed by the network. so if one is going to focus on probability, which of those three does one concentrate on? to me, that not an easy question to make a definitive statement about. > Some kind of weird formatting "=A0" before "Hence, ..." its a problem i have with NROFF. i'll fix it in the next release. > Pg 7 > "More > specifically, we associate this objective in the context of IP > telephony acting as part of the Public Telephone Network (PTN). > This, as opposed to the use of IP telephony within a private or stub > network." > > Might want to put this in the scope section. noted. > "a higher probability > of call completion than that of normal IP telephony call traffic." > > Might want to say this earlier. noted > Pg 8 > Authentication is not necessarily centralized. page 8 doesn't have any word on authentication. is there a specific phrase or sentence that you were concerned about? your statement is a bit general and I'd rather not read things into that may not be there. > Section 3- First sentence needs to be reworked to reflect that you now > have TWO (not just ONE) objectives. ok, the change will be made. > Pg 11 reference to Henning's document - it no longer refers explicitly > to headers. the original passage is: [15] is a (soon to be) RFC that defines the requirements for a new header field for SIP in reference to resource priority. This new header field is meant to provide an additional measure of distinction that can influence the behavior of gateways and SIP proxies. my understanding is that it pertains to requirements for a header *field*. so yes, we are in agreement. > Pg 12 Here you introduce MLPP. Would it make sense to also discuss it > in section 1.1? i'll give it some thought. > Pg 15. This statement is NOT true: > "As a point of reference, existing SLAs established by the NCS > for GETS service tend to focus on a maximum allocation of (e.g., 1%) > of calls allowed to be established through a given LEC using HPC. > Once this limit is reached, all other GETS calls experience the same > probability of call completion as the general public. " > > GETS is ENGINEERED for 1% GETS calls, and some of the SLAs refer to such > a limit, but there is NO real time MECHANISM to track GETS usage, and NO > real time MECHANISM to change the treatment of GETS calls. you've totally lost me. if you claim that my statement of "SLAs...focus on a maximum allocation" is incorrect, how can you then state that "SLAs refer to such a limit"? are the words "focus" and "refer" that different? we have also had private discussions of how some vendors provide limits on trunk queuing used for GETS calls. is that not a real-time functionality? usage of a service, and in particular its individual components, can be in several forms. my original passage does not refer to a specific form nor where limits exist. > In WPS (the wireless extension to GETS) there IS a traffic threshold > (25% WPS in a single cell) beyond which the priority treatment for radio > channels changes. But NOT in GETS. ok. but as stated above, i did not refer to a specific form of threshold or mechanism used to achieve it int he original passage. > Under "traffic engineering", might it make sense to discuss the Sprint > and Genuity access link traffic engineering approaches described in > Atlanta. I'll review what was presented to see what can be added to the TE section. > Pg 16. > > In general, PSTN authentication does NOT need to be PIN based. WPS > authentication is not PIN based, and, for GSM, not centralized. In > discussing generic PSTN based priority systems, it would be helpful to > describe them in a way which encompasses both WPS AND GETS. (WPS is now > operational, at least as "IOC phase 1".) i'll defer my response to Ian on this. > Section 5 Key Scenarios > > "imply", not "infer" ok > Pg 18 > "The fact that > each administrative domain peers with each other as part of the PSTN, > means that existing security, in the form of Personal Identification > Number (PIN) authentication (under the context of telephony > infrastructure protection), is the default scope of security. " > > No longer true. WPS authentication "exists" (went live Dec 22), and is > NOT PIN based. To describe PINs as the "default mechanism" WOULD place > "additional requirements on existing authorized emergency telephony > systems." understood about WPS and its use of the unique SIM identifier. again, i'll defer to Ian on the subject of security. however, i have a question about the subject of PINs. Is there a general term that encompasses the use of PINs (the numbers that people use to identify use of service) and unique identifiers used to phone SIMs? in my ignorance, I thought that these two unique identifiers could be termed as PINs. > Page 22 > > Under standards work, you might want to make reference to the changes to > the CDMA standards to support emergency traffic. Like the CPC, there > MAY be a need to translate these new parameters into SIP, etc. if we add info into the body of the document refering to CDMA standards, then we'll certainly add the corresponding reference. regards, -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 15 18:13:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08523 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:13:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1FNHqd20388 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:17:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FNHqp20385 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:17:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08517 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:13:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FNGEp20356; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:16:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1FNF4p20315 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:15:04 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08498 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:10:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W6G7>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:12:05 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:10:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> In cases where, at the application level, there is some kind of >> "admission control" we want a better probability of admission. > >since you specifically scope the above comment to the application layer, >then it should be placed in requirement(s) documents that are extensions >or more specific to General requirements. hence, given the two >documents we have, it should be discussed in the Telephony Requirements >draft. I agree. That is what I was looking for in the telephony requirements and couldn't find. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 16 00:50:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12431 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1G5sYH04468 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:54:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1G5sYp04465 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:54:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12427 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1G5rEp04449; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:53:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1G5qBp04425 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:52:11 -0500 Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12414 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:47:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id h1G4wgN3004222 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from OCCLUST03EVS1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.10) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.032) id 3DF6BD4E02779072; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:50:58 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:50:56 -0500 Message-ID: <456FD0E7B215B24ABBAD711614E4A7A2018425FF@OCCLUST03EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Thread-Index: AcLUaGv215W0JhlqRw6Y68M779/QUABD7DCg From: "Dvorak, Charles A (Chuck), ALABS" To: "King, Kimberly S." , "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h1G5qBp04426 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Some comments intended to improve the draft: In the circuit world, we know that ETS means increasing (not guaranteeing) the probability of completion of labeled calls. Since IP knows nothing about calls, it knows nothing about call completion. All it can do is give some type of reduced probability regarding packet loss, jitter and delay--right? So far so good. But the requirements here are in terms of doing "better than best effort," which I accept is all that can be done within the scope, but just what does this mean in terms of the applications? Possibly everything, and maybe nothing--there is some reduction of IP loss, jitter and/or delay, but the result (even if achieved) may not be visible to the user. For example, if you decrease the end-to-end delay from 150 to 100 msec through special treatment...a voice call doesn't much care. (And that same resource could instead have been used to get more "calls" through.) If the intent is to do exactly what I am describing, namely say that the "requirement" is ONLY to do "better than best effort," well OK, but it really doesn't mean much--maybe we should be clearer about this. Hope this helps, Chuck Dvorak AT&T Labs > -----Original Message----- > From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com] > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:39 AM > To: Ieprep (E-mail) > Cc: 'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail) > Subject: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS > > > This message announces WG last call for > General Requirements for Emergency Telecommunication Service > (draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-general-01.txt). > The intension is for this draft to > have informational RFC status. > > The cut-off date for WG last call is Feb 24, 2003. > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep > _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 16 08:56:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26280 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1GE0nU08168 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:00:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GE0np08165 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:00:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26270 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GDwbp08092; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:58:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GDvbp08071 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:57:37 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA26263 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc-62-30-162-53-hw.blueyonder.co.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with UK SMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:56:11 +0000 From: Ian Brown To: ieprep Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:55:52 -0000 Message-ID: <000501c2d5c3$1eba73b0$35a21e3e@happy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6394.1045340859@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Janet wrote: >In general, PSTN authentication does NOT need to be PIN based. WPS >authentication is not PIN based, and, for GSM, not centralized. In >discussing generic PSTN based priority systems, it would be helpful to >describe them in a way which encompasses both WPS AND GETS. (WPS is >now operational, at least as "IOC phase 1".) OK -- I'll make a couple of updates in the next version. Thanks, Ian. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 16 10:43:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27000 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1GFlnk13030 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:47:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GFlnp13027 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:47:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26994 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GFkDp12994; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:46:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GFjWp12969 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:45:32 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26970 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:40:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.0.8.113]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A35A67122; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:56:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:44:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ieprep To: Ken Carlberg From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: <6394.1045340859@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Message-Id: <79607C7F-41C5-11D7-859E-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, Feb 15, 2003, at 15:27 America/Montreal, Ken Carlberg wrote: >> 1.2 >> Should say "...interactive voice has a lower threshold of loss than >> elastic applications..." NOT "...than other elastic applications..." >> Interactive voice is NOT an elastic application. > > the change will be made. I disagree with the claim that "interactive voice is NOT an elastic application". There are deployed VoIP systems (e.g. in production use by US DoD) that provide an existence proof that VoIP can be an elastic application. Those systems shift from higher-bandwidth codecs to lower-bandwidth codecs in response to detected congestion on access links. That doesn't mean that all VoIP deployments have that property, but clearly *some* definitely do today (and have done for a few years now). >> What do you mean by "carriers"? > > telco carriers. i've not come across the term carriers in association > with ISPs. however, i shall extend the term so that it will read as > "telecom carriers" Would be better talk about "telephony carriers" or "IP carriers" to reduce ambiguity. "telecom carriers" is an ambiguous term, unfortunately. Ran _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 16 10:48:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27050 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1GFqeg13147 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:52:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GFqep13144 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:52:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27043 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GFp2p13114; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:51:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1GFoup13100 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:50:56 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27023 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.0.8.113]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5FF67122; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:01:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:49:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" To: "Dvorak, Charles A (Chuck), ALABS" From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: <456FD0E7B215B24ABBAD711614E4A7A2018425FF@OCCLUST03EVS1.ugd.att.com> Message-Id: <3A8B8D46-41C6-11D7-859E-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Feb 16, 2003, at 00:50 America/Montreal, Dvorak, Charles A (Chuck), ALABS wrote: > Possibly everything, and maybe nothing--there is some reduction of IP > loss, jitter and/or delay, but the result (even if achieved) may not > be visible to the user. For example, if you decrease the end-to-end > delay from 150 to 100 msec through special treatment...a voice call > doesn't much care. (And that same resource could instead have been > used to get more "calls" through.) The above analysis has some implicit assumptions about which codecs (and so forth) are being used. For at least some codecs, reducing end-to-end delay or jitter can improve the "perceived quality" of a voice call. It also assumes that voice is the primary/only application of interest, whereas the Japanese deployment shows that this is not necessarily the case. > If the intent is to do exactly what I am describing, namely say that > the "requirement" > is ONLY to do "better than best effort," well OK, but it really > doesn't mean much > --maybe we should be clearer about this. Also important to keep in mind that the "general" document is quite explicitly NOT focused on voice applications. Instead, it covers all kinds of applications, including a whole range of things that are not voice/voice-related. Depending on which of those applications is being considered, the degree of benefit will necessarily vary. Voice-specific discussion is intended to be in the "Telephony Requirements" document rather than the "General Requirements" document -- as a matter of document scope. Ran _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 08:27:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21789 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HDWFd26011 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:32:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HDWFp26008 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:32:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21786 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HDUJp25936; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:30:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HDTGp25885 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:29:16 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA21752 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:23:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:27:14 +0000 To: RJ Atkinson cc: ieprep Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:44:03 EST." <79607C7F-41C5-11D7-859E-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:27:11 +0000 Message-ID: <658.1045488431@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I disagree with the claim that "interactive voice is NOT an elastic > application". There are deployed VoIP systems (e.g. in production use > by US DoD) that provide an existence proof that VoIP can be an elastic > application. Those systems shift from higher-bandwidth codecs to > lower-bandwidth codecs in response to detected congestion on access > links. > > That doesn't mean that all VoIP deployments have that property, but > clearly *some* definitely do today (and have done for a few years now). yes, good point. and we also have potential feedback from RTCP (when its not being blocked). its ia case of all TCP apps are elastic, and UDP based apps have a tendency not to be -- its up to the developer to add it. I'll make this distinction clearer in the next draft. > Would be better talk about "telephony carriers" or "IP carriers" to > reduce ambiguity. "telecom carriers" is an ambiguous term, > unfortunately. ok, i'll expand the respective terms for clarity -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 08:44:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22129 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:44:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HDnGY27412 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:49:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HDnFp27409 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:49:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22112 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HDm2p27372; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HDlop27342 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:47:50 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA22100 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:42:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:55 +0000 To: "Dvorak, Charles A (Chuck), ALABS" cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for General Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:50:56 EST." <456FD0E7B215B24ABBAD711614E4A7A2018425FF@OCCLUST03EVS1.ugd.att.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:51 +0000 Message-ID: <2286.1045489551@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , the points you make are good ones. beyond what I would add to what Ran said is that the context of the requirement is the use of better than best effort as opposed to a guarantee with hard bounds. and more importantly, we use the word "should" in this respect. also, an underlying aspect in my response to Janet's earlier email on the topic is that I'd prefer to stay away from identifying exactly how things are to be done in this document. this in addition to my desire to avoid getting caught into a series of IF/THEN/ELSE type statements. the subject of your comment is well suited for the Telephony Framework document, and I'll make sure that it is discussed there. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:03:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27404 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:03:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HI8aG11620 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:08:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HI8ap11617 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:08:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27395 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:02:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HI77p11069; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HI70p10843 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:07:00 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27389 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7LD>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:03:12 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:01:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Maybe I am not clear about what goes in the "telephony requirements" and what goes in the "framework". For instance, the framework document talks quite clearly about "high probability of call completion". That would seem to be an appropriate application "IP Telephony Requirement." What am I missing? Janet -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 1:43 PM To: Gunn, Janet Cc: Ieprep (E-mail) Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS one thing i wanted to add in case i wasn't clear in my last message. i have no objections to adding a item on application level admission control in the Telephony Requirements document. but it would be easier to articulate something if you had a specific item in mind. Perhaps Mike Pierce has a thought on the subject. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:12:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27607 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIHXS12080 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:17:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIHXp12077 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:17:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27597 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIG4p11975; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:16:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIFpp11928 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:15:51 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27537 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7LM>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:12:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:10:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Maybe that could be made more explicit. It makes sense now, but I didn't "get" that aspect of it from the actual document -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] Hennings SIPPING draft is for SIP and only SIP and is (i believe) an official output of SIPPING wg. If down the line one were to come up with some additional IEPREP-related effort for something like MEGACO, or some other form of telephony signaling, then this document would apply. In addition, Hennings document does not discuss accounting -- nor should it. And yes, there is overlap in the requirements topics between this draft and Hennings. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:27:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27796 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:27:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIWQa12540 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:32:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIWQp12537 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:32:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27793 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIV4p12504; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:31:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIV0p12481 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:31:00 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27777 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7LS>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:27:12 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'RJ Atkinson'" , Ken Carlberg Cc: ieprep Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:25:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Point taken- but the current wording "...interactive voice has a lower threshold of loss than >> elastic applications..."implies that ALL interactive voice is elastic. -----Original Message----- From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 10:44 AM To: Ken Carlberg Cc: ieprep Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt On Saturday, Feb 15, 2003, at 15:27 America/Montreal, Ken Carlberg wrote: >> 1.2 >> Should say "...interactive voice has a lower threshold of loss than >> elastic applications..." NOT "...than other elastic applications..." >> Interactive voice is NOT an elastic application. > > the change will be made. I disagree with the claim that "interactive voice is NOT an elastic application". There are deployed VoIP systems (e.g. in production use by US DoD) that provide an existence proof that VoIP can be an elastic application. Those systems shift from higher-bandwidth codecs to lower-bandwidth codecs in response to detected congestion on access links. That doesn't mean that all VoIP deployments have that property, but clearly *some* definitely do today (and have done for a few years now). >> What do you mean by "carriers"? > > telco carriers. i've not come across the term carriers in association > with ISPs. however, i shall extend the term so that it will read as > "telecom carriers" Would be better talk about "telephony carriers" or "IP carriers" to reduce ambiguity. "telecom carriers" is an ambiguous term, unfortunately. Ran _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:33:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27934 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIcJv13549 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:38:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIcIp13546 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:38:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27931 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:32:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIb1p12788; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:37:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIaYp12731 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:36:35 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27869 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7LZ>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:32:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:31:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Maybe Henning can clarify, but the current version of draft-ietf-ieprep-sip-reqs-03.txt says "This document describes requirements rather than possible existing or new protocol features. Although it is scoped to deal with SIP-based applications, this should not be taken to imply that mechanisms have to be SIP protocol features such as header fields, methods or URI parameters." It presents requirements for which a new header field is the "obvious" solution, but no longer states it as a requirement FRO a header field. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] > Pg 11 reference to Henning's document - it no longer refers explicitly > to headers. the original passage is: [15] is a (soon to be) RFC that defines the requirements for a new header field for SIP in reference to resource priority. This new header field is meant to provide an additional measure of distinction that can influence the behavior of gateways and SIP proxies. my understanding is that it pertains to requirements for a header *field*. so yes, we are in agreement. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:45:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28074 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIoIt13955 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:50:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIoIp13952 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:50:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28068 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIn3p13907; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:49:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HImnp13888 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:48:49 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28057 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7MF>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:43:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , My point is that "probability" is an INHERENTLY quantitative concept. Maybe it is "where I am coming from" but, to me, saying that "probability cannot be easily quantified" is as grating as saying "number cannot easily be quantified". It may be very difficult to know, or even estimate, for instance, the NUMBER of grains of sand on the beach. But it is still INHERENTLY quantifiable. I think part of the problem may be in applying "probability" to delay, loss, and jitter. The probability of loss is certainly well defined and measurable. But when you get to jitter and delay, you can only talk about the probability that it is within defined bounds. It is awkward to talk about "probability of delay" or "probability of jitter" because that probability is 1, there is ALWAYS some delay and some jitter. I will remain uncomfortable with this usage, but it IS a usage issue, not a content issue. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] > I don't agree with the statement "... probability ... cannot easily be > quantified." I quantify probability all the time. the meaning statement is within a larger context as stated below: The critical word in this objective is "probability", as opposed to assurance or guarantee -- the latter two placing a higher burden on the network. It stands to reason, though, that the word "probability" is a less tangible description that cannot be easily quantified. It is relative in relation to other traffic transiting the same network. I'm not sure its fair to cut out so much of what is stated and expect the parts to stand on its own. as I stated in the comments on the General Requirements, aspects such as delay, loss, and jitter can be (within limitations) addressed by the network. so if one is going to focus on probability, which of those three does one concentrate on? to me, that not an easy question to make a definitive statement about. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:51:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28237 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIuOY14206 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:56:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIuOp14203 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:56:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28208 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIt3p14125; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIqKp14032 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:52:20 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA28143 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:50:20 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:10:33 EST." Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:50:19 +0000 Message-ID: <6471.1045507819@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Maybe I am not clear about what goes in the "telephony requirements" and > what goes in the "framework". For instance, the framework document > talks quite clearly about "high probability of call completion". That > would seem to be an appropriate application "IP Telephony Requirement." > What am I missing? the framework document discusses high probability as an objective, and in particular a default position with respect to Policy. It also goes on to state that Policy can be used to basically over-ride probability and use pre-emption (please excuse the hand waving with respect to mechanisms and how this is deployed -- i assume at gateways or servers that retain application level state of a 'call'). now, if as you suggest "high probability of call completion" is a requirement, in what form should it be (Must?, Should?)? And does this adversely affect efforts like MLPP where pre-emption (as opposed to probability) is a requirement? this is why it is easier for us to work with a specific suggested articulation of a requirement than just the general subject of "high probability call completion is a requirement". > Maybe that could be made more explicit. It makes sense now, but I > didn't "get" that aspect of it from the actual document i could add some verbage to this affect of distinguishing the telephony requirements from the SIPPING document. it didn't seem necessary at the time given that the documents were products of separate groups with separate scopes/charter. how do the chairs (and co-author) feel? -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:51:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28239 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIuQ714223 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:56:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIuPp14220 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:56:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28212 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIt4p14141; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIrBp14046 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:53:11 -0500 Received: from dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28147 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:47:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from cs.columbia.edu (tallgrass.netlab.uky.edu [204.198.76.66]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1HIp1P5012766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E512F2F.7010302@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:27 -0500 From: Henning Schulzrinne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Gunn, Janet" CC: "'Ken Carlberg'" , ieprep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Indeed. The requirements draft takes great pains to be solution-neutral and thus does not address a specific mechanism. In reality, the number of possibilities aren't infinite, given the constraints of the protocol. There will shortly be a solution-oriented draft that does indeed propose a new header field, after trying to exhaustively go through all the design options and identifying why no other solution satisfies the requirements stated. As always, I might have missed possibilities or solutions, but I'm sure that participants in this and SIP-related working groups won't be shy in pointing out any such omission. In short, Janet is correct. Gunn, Janet wrote: > Maybe Henning can clarify, but the current version of > draft-ietf-ieprep-sip-reqs-03.txt says > "This document describes requirements rather than possible existing or > new protocol features. Although it is scoped to deal with SIP-based > applications, this should not be taken to imply that mechanisms have > to be SIP protocol features such as header fields, methods or URI > parameters." > > It presents requirements for which a new header field is the "obvious" > solution, but no longer states it as a requirement FRO a header field. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] > > >>Pg 11 reference to Henning's document - it no longer refers explicitly >>to headers. > > > the original passage is: > > [15] is a (soon to be) RFC that defines the requirements for a new > header field for SIP in reference to resource priority. This new > header field is meant to provide an additional measure of distinction > that can influence the behavior of gateways and SIP proxies. > > my understanding is that it pertains to requirements for a header *field*. > so yes, we are in agreement. > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 13:51:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28263 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HIuRc14241 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:56:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIuRp14238 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:56:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28216 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIt5p14161; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:55:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HIrdp14065 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:53:39 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28154 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7MG>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:49:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:48:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I was referring to this sentence "In an IP network, the authentication center will need to securely signal back to the IP ingress point that a given user is authorized to send ETS related flows. " The usage "authentication center" implies to me that authentication is centralized. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] > Pg 8 > Authentication is not necessarily centralized. page 8 doesn't have any word on authentication. is there a specific phrase or sentence that you were concerned about? your statement is a bit general and I'd rather not read things into that may not be there. > _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 14:02:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28467 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:02:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HJ7Xv15377 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:07:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HJ7Wp15374 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:07:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28445 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HJ68p14605; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:06:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HJ5Yp14569 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:05:34 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA28379 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:03:26 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:48:16 EST." Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:03:25 +0000 Message-ID: <7298.1045508605@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > My point is that "probability" is an INHERENTLY quantitative concept... i think we talking about an ant hill in the scheme of things. i'll just reword the paragraph. and i'll wait until tomorrow for any additional messages on the same subject. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 17 14:19:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29050 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HJPCo16330 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:25:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HJPCp16327 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:25:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29037 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HJNqp16275; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:23:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HJLrp16198 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:21:53 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28945 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W7MY>; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:17:58 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Ken Carlberg'" Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:16:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , That's OK with me. It's usage, not content. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 2:03 PM To: Gunn, Janet Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt > My point is that "probability" is an INHERENTLY quantitative concept... i think we talking about an ant hill in the scheme of things. i'll just reword the paragraph. and i'll wait until tomorrow for any additional messages on the same subject. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 18 08:19:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27604 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:19:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1IDPNn26567 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:25:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IDPNp26564 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:25:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27598 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IDN8p26232; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:23:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IDMDp26155 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:22:13 -0500 Received: from mailvwy01.exadir.itu.ch (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27391 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailvwy01.exadir.itu.ch ([156.106.192.18]) by mailvwy01.exadir.itu.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:19:53 +0100 Received: FROM mail6.itu.ch BY mailvwy01.exadir.itu.ch ; Tue Feb 18 14:19:53 2003 +0100 Received: from happy ([156.106.204.207]) by mail6.itu.ch (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1IDJk2u423752; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:19:53 +0100 (MET) From: "Ian Brown" To: "'Gunn, Janet'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:19:31 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c2d750$60015210$cfcc6a9c@happy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2003 13:19:53.0813 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C89F050:01C2D750] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Janet wrote: > The usage "authentication center" implies to me that > authentication is centralized. I'll update this to remove the confusion. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 18 14:22:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05737 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1IJSD619351 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:28:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IJSDp19348 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:28:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05734 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IJQHp19314; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:26:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IJPxp19290 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:25:59 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05718 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:19:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:22:26 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003021814231731915 ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:23:17 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XSX93T1>; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:25:17 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'Ken Carlberg '" , "'Gunn, Janet '" Cc: "'Ieprep (E-mail) '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:23:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ken said: >i could add some verbage to this affect of distinguishing the telephony >requirements from the SIPPING document. it didn't seem necessary >at the time given that the documents were products of separate >groups with separate scopes/charter. how do the chairs (and co-author) >feel? This chair doesn't feel strongly about this issue and thinks either way is fine. Kimberly -----Original Message----- From: Ken Carlberg To: Gunn, Janet Cc: Ieprep (E-mail) Sent: 2/17/2003 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS > Maybe I am not clear about what goes in the "telephony requirements" and > what goes in the "framework". For instance, the framework document > talks quite clearly about "high probability of call completion". That > would seem to be an appropriate application "IP Telephony Requirement." > What am I missing? the framework document discusses high probability as an objective, and in particular a default position with respect to Policy. It also goes on to state that Policy can be used to basically over-ride probability and use pre-emption (please excuse the hand waving with respect to mechanisms and how this is deployed -- i assume at gateways or servers that retain application level state of a 'call'). now, if as you suggest "high probability of call completion" is a requirement, in what form should it be (Must?, Should?)? And does this adversely affect efforts like MLPP where pre-emption (as opposed to probability) is a requirement? this is why it is easier for us to work with a specific suggested articulation of a requirement than just the general subject of "high probability call completion is a requirement". > Maybe that could be made more explicit. It makes sense now, but I > didn't "get" that aspect of it from the actual document i could add some verbage to this affect of distinguishing the telephony requirements from the SIPPING document. it didn't seem necessary at the time given that the documents were products of separate groups with separate scopes/charter. how do the chairs (and co-author) feel? -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 18 21:23:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15222 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1J2Ssk14654 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:28:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J2Ssp14651 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:28:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15215 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:22:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J2RGp14610; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:27:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J2R0p14594 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:27:00 -0500 Received: from pfwhqs1.ncr.disa.mil (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA15188 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtahqs3.ncr.disa.mil by pfwhqs1.ncr.disa.mil via smtpd (for ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 02:18:20 UT Received: by mtahqs3.ncr.disa.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:27:14 -0500 Message-ID: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D02EF4D29@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> From: "Nguyen, An" To: "'Gunn, Janet'" , "'Ian Brown'" Cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:23:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Janet, I think centralized authentication is needed for authorized emergency services. It is not applicable to GETS and WPS now. But it should be in the future. Anyhow, the wordings in the draft should also allow room for centralized authentication implementation when needed. An -----Original Message----- From: Gunn, Janet [mailto:Janet.Gunn@DynCorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:23 PM To: 'Nguyen, An'; 'Ian Brown' Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Nothing wrong with it- I just don't think should be assumed. -----Original Message----- From: Nguyen, An [mailto:nguyena@ncs.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:57 AM To: 'Ian Brown'; Gunn, Janet Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Janet, I am curious ... What is the wrong with centralized authentication? We will have a scenario where SIP calls are from one end to other. GETS and WPS might not be part of those calls at all. An -----Original Message----- From: Ian Brown [mailto:I.Brown@cs.ucl.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 8:20 AM To: 'Gunn, Janet' Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Janet wrote: > The usage "authentication center" implies to me that > authentication is centralized. I'll update this to remove the confusion. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 19 10:11:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27590 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1JFHiw18028 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JFHip18025 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27587 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JFG9p17903; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:16:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JFEkp17752 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:14:46 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27367 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <17A0W0MZ>; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:09:58 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Nguyen, An'" , "'Ian Brown'" Cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:08:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , That is fine with me. I just don't want to require it. -----Original Message----- From: Nguyen, An [mailto:nguyena@ncs.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:23 PM To: Gunn, Janet; 'Ian Brown' Cc: 'ieprep@ietf.org' Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Janet, I think centralized authentication is needed for authorized emergency services. It is not applicable to GETS and WPS now. But it should be in the future. Anyhow, the wordings in the draft should also allow room for centralized authentication implementation when needed. An -----Original Message----- From: Gunn, Janet [mailto:Janet.Gunn@DynCorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:23 PM To: 'Nguyen, An'; 'Ian Brown' Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Nothing wrong with it- I just don't think should be assumed. -----Original Message----- From: Nguyen, An [mailto:nguyena@ncs.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:57 AM To: 'Ian Brown'; Gunn, Janet Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Janet, I am curious ... What is the wrong with centralized authentication? We will have a scenario where SIP calls are from one end to other. GETS and WPS might not be part of those calls at all. An -----Original Message----- From: Ian Brown [mailto:I.Brown@cs.ucl.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 8:20 AM To: 'Gunn, Janet' Cc: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Janet wrote: > The usage "authentication center" implies to me that > authentication is centralized. I'll update this to remove the confusion. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 19 11:06:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29911 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1JGD8g22389 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JGD8p22386 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:13:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29895 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JGBMp22245; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:11:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JGAcp22170 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:10:38 -0500 Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29836 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.6/8.12.2) id h1JG7U5N018729; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:07:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:07:30 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bradner Message-Id: <200302191607.h1JG7U5N018729@newdev.harvard.edu> To: I.Brown@cs.ucl.ac.uk, Janet.Gunn@DynCorp.com, nguyena@ncs.gov Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt Cc: ieprep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <7F18415E4D63CB45BB9B3A591F68D12D02EF4D29@emshqs1.ncr.disa.mil> Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I think centralized authentication is needed for authorized emergency > services. I find it hard to imagine a single centeralized authentication system to deal with emergency services on the international Internet Scott _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 26 17:33:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29944 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1QMh2g18059 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QMh2p18056 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:43:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29931 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QMfEp18002; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:41:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QMe3p17953 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:40:03 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA29869 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:29:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:33:15 +0000 To: ieprep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:33:13 +0000 Message-ID: <2894.1046298793@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ok, here is an attempt to add a requirement to the draft regarding IP telephony signaling. Application Layer Signaling Application-layer mechanisms specifically targeted to recognize ETS type labels MUST be ABLE to support better than best effort service. This support SHOULD focus on probability of forwarding packets used for call completion. Probability MAY reach 100% depending on the local policy associated with the label. Local policy MUST also be used to determine IF better than best effort is to be applied to a specific label (or related set of labels). The above paragraph MUST be taken in its entirety. The ability to support better than best effort does not mean that the application-layer mechanism is expected to be activated. Further, we do not define the means by which better than best effort is or should be realized. Application-layer mechanims that do not recognize ETS type labels are not subject to this requirement. comments/thoughts? -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 26 17:55:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00818 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:55:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1QN5ec19102 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:05:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QN5dp19099 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:05:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00802 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:55:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QN44p19047; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:04:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QN3Mp19008 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:03:22 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00693 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:55:59 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003022617565422840 ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:56:54 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:56:36 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'Ken Carlberg '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:56:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ken said: >comments/thoughts? I find that abstractions are wonderful but examples really make things clear. You propose: "Application-layer mechanisms specifically targeted to recognize ETS type labels MUST be ABLE to support better than best effort service. This support SHOULD focus on probability of forwarding packets used for call completion. Probability MAY reach 100% depending on the local policy associated with the label. Local policy MUST also be used to determine IF better than best effort is to be applied to a specific label (or related set of labels)." Do you have an example, albeit hypothetical, of an application-layer mechanism that might be targeted to recognize ETS type labels meeting the above criteria? How about one that fails? The intent of my questions is to make the proposed requirement more lucid. Kimberly _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 26 18:48:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03048 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1QNwSq22510 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:58:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QNwSp22507 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:58:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03041 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:48:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QNu8p22384; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:56:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QNtPp22352 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:55:25 -0500 Received: from clifden.donelan.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02961 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from sean (helo=localhost) by clifden.donelan.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.34 #3) id 18oBIR-0006qe-00 for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:49:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:49:07 -0500 (EST) From: Sean Donelan To: ieprep@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ieprep] Is voice the best communications method in an emergency Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , My opinion only, not representative of any organization or employer. Of course, after the every war we find out the gee-wiz gadgets didn't perform as well as thought. But Newsweek's article on modern communications during chaotic situations had an interesting observation which may be applicable to the use of communication systems during other crisis or emegencies. http://www.msnbc.com/news/875620.asp?0ql=c9p "In combat, e-mail is said to be more reliable than voice transmission, which is prone to cross talk and crashes more often than the Tactical Internet." _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 26 21:53:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06555 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:53:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1R33Cw01208 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:03:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R33Cp01205 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:03:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06552 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R31Cp01157; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:01:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R30Hp01129 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:00:17 -0500 Received: from kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06539 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.211] RDNS failed) by kc-msxproto2.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:53:53 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Is voice the best communications method in an emergency Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:53:53 -0600 Message-ID: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CFF4@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] Is voice the best communications method in an emergency Thread-Index: AcLd8cN+vRpm9qGHQs2B1dVXrYtuyAAFxcjg From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" To: "Sean Donelan" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2003 02:53:53.0964 (UTC) FILETIME=[76D78EC0:01C2DE0B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h1R30Hp01130 Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > "In combat, e-mail is said to be more reliable than voice > transmission, which is prone to cross talk and crashes more > often than the Tactical Internet." It depends on the situation and context. Last week, I read an article which explained the usefulness of VoIP during emergency times. http://www.cio.com/archive/020103/et_article.html "On Sept. 11, 2001, the phone company's central switching station serving the headquarters of New York City's Department of Sanitation (DSNY) was crushed by the collapse of the Towers. The very agency with line responsibility for the Herculean cleanup effort that would soon be required suddenly found itself unable to communicate with its offices and personnel. Even worse, DSNY headquarters soon learned it was on its own so far as restoring service was concerned; its telecom provider-Verizon-had its own wounds to look after. But the Sanitation Department's commissioner made his needs clear to MIS Director Steven Stam: He wanted his telephones back immediately, whether it was possible or not. Fortunately Stam had a few functional assets, including a reasonably robust LAN and the knowledge that there was a fiber data line running through the building that did not terminate at the destroyed Verizon facility. Strictly speaking, the fiber didn't belong to his department (it was leased by the Department of Health), but these were unusual times ("I begged, I borrowed, I was accused of stealing," Stam remembers), and by Monday, Sept. 24, he had started to lash those together to support a voice-over-IP (VoIP)network-using the LAN to carry phone calls and support a gateway into the public switched telephone network (PSTN). By the following Monday he received the go-ahead for the rollout, and the new phones began to ring one week later. With technical help from Dimension Data (a networking infrastructure services company in Reston, Va.), Stam had 285 VoIP phones running throughout the department's headquarters. Today, with 600 phones in three buildings on the new system, Stam is beginning to refocus on more traditional IS issues, such as tracking the reduction in costs. "Fifty percent of our phone calls are internal," he says. " _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 00:19:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08409 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1R5TmQ08806 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:29:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R5Tmp08803 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:29:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08406 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R5SBp08770; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:28:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R5Rmp08748 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:27:48 -0500 Received: from paixhost.pch.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08402 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.pch.net (ns1.pch.net [206.220.231.1]) by paixhost.pch.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1R5L6U29235; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:21:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:21:06 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock To: "King, Kimberly S." cc: "'Ken Carlberg '" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Application-layer mechanisms specifically targeted > to recognize ETS type labels MUST be ABLE to support > better than best effort service. There can be, by definition, no such thing. Since so many of you prefer semantics to reality, I'd like to point out that QoS provides services which is, by definition, worse than Best Effort. -Bill _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 06:09:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25207 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RBJm908443 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:19:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RBJmp08440 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:19:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25170 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RBI9p08336; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:18:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RBH1p08306 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:17:01 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA25135 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:10:23 +0000 To: Bill Woodcock cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:21:06 PST." Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:10:21 +0000 Message-ID: <18158.1046344221@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > Application-layer mechanisms specifically targeted > > to recognize ETS type labels MUST be ABLE to support > > better than best effort service. > > There can be, by definition, no such thing. Since so many of you prefer > semantics to reality, I'd like to point out that QoS provides services > which is, by definition, worse than Best Effort. QoS is a term that really gets tossed around very freely and at times hap-hazardly on this list, so lets put some perspective into the discussion. QoS does not *provide* a service. Mechanisms provide QoS. These mechanisms can exist at various levels and forms. We can add classifiers and schedulers in routers to support a measure of quality to the flow. We already know your position on QoS support in the network (routers), so lets not bother rehashing that thread. And please keep in mind that the word "network" was not used in the above excerpt, bt rather "application-layer mechanisms" was specifically stated. One can also use schemas like FEC to provide a measure of end-to-end QoS either at the transport layer (see work from Luigi Rizzo on this) or at the application layer -- such as your demonstration at the last IETF where each respective SIP phone added FEC packets to compensate for the loss in order to retain a measure of QoS experienced by the end user. Outside of FEC, there are other approaches in use today to try and achieve better than best effort service. Re-read an excerpt from Kimberly's email describing the service offered by Worldcom. -ken From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 6:12 PM Subject: [Ieprep] commercial SIP service Worldcom offers IP Communications, a converged voice/data service using SIP mainly targeted at small to medium businesses. I contacted them on behalf of ieprep as a result of last week's discussions and Henry Sinnreich was kind enough to provide some answers. They will: Provision CPE to support a fixed maximum number of voice calls over a customer access link. This is based upon policy of UDP to TCP ratios and also maximum data burst sizes. What this means is that the customers may choose more or fewer maximum voice connections (as a function of the link speed) with the tradeoff of how fast they can send data during times when all those virtual voice channels are in use. They use a QoS appliance at the customer premise to track the number of calls. .... _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 06:34:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25718 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:34:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RBi4910160 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:44:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RBi4p10157 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:44:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25706 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RBg4p10125; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:42:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RBf9p10102 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:41:09 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA25666 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:34:11 +0000 To: "King, Kimberly S." cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:56:52 EST." Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:34:06 +0000 Message-ID: <19692.1046345646@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , hi Kimberly, > Do you have an example, albeit hypothetical, of an application-layer > mechanism that might be targeted to recognize ETS type labels meeting > the above criteria? How about one that fails? The intent of my > questions is to make the proposed requirement more lucid. for the sake of discussion, we could use the system in place at Worldcom (mentioned in the previous email) that takes a count of the SIP calls. If we added support recognizing ETS labeled traffic (via the hypothetical SIP R-P header :-), then those labeled packets that are recognized could be placed in a separate queue and thus bypass the queue threshold used for all other non-labeled SIP packets. It would be a crude but simplistic way of providing better than best effort service for certain SIP messages. An example of one that fails is simply the same mechanism without the spport to recognize that R-P header -- ie, what we have today. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 08:35:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01571 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RDjCq19534 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:45:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RDjCp19531 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:45:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01477 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RDh4p19400; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:43:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RDgWp19339 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:42:32 -0500 Received: from seahorse.shentel.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01362 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:32:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from Steve (ha96s025.d.shentel.net [204.111.96.25]) by seahorse.shentel.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h1RDZG116377; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:35:16 -0500 From: "Steve Silverman" To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" , "Sean Donelan" , Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Is voice the best communications method in an emergency Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:36:35 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390B02CFF4@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's a human factor. There are times when voice is more flexible and believable. It's easier to trust a voice you recognize than an email (with no authentication). Many people don't type and in an emergency they can talk a lot faster than they can type (or hunt and peck). In practice, it is much better to support multiple info channels. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: ieprep-admin@ietf.org > [mailto:ieprep-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:54 PM > To: Sean Donelan; ieprep@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Is voice the best communications method in an > emergency > > > > > "In combat, e-mail is said to be more reliable than voice > > transmission, which is prone to cross talk and crashes more > > often than the Tactical Internet." > > It depends on the situation and context. Last week, I read > an article which explained the usefulness of VoIP during > emergency times. > http://www.cio.com/archive/020103/et_article.html > ... > > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep > > _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 08:40:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02062 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RDowA19963 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:50:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RDowp19960 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:50:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02037 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RDn2p19871; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RDmsp19851 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:48:54 -0500 Received: from dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01838 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from cs.columbia.edu (tallgrass.netlab.uky.edu [204.198.76.66]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1RDgF7T029819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:42:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E5E15C3.1060909@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:42:27 -0500 From: Henning Schulzrinne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Silverman CC: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" , Sean Donelan , ieprep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Is voice the best communications method in an emergency References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Plus, this mailing list has provided ample evidence that email is not always the best medium for avoiding misunderstandings and may not always encourage the most civilized discourse. I assume the IESG and IAB, as well as the IETF as a whole, have reasons to regularly incorporate telechats, video conferences and face-to-face meetings in their processes. Steve Silverman wrote: > It's a human factor. There are times when voice is more flexible and > believable. It's easier > to trust a voice you recognize than an email (with no authentication). > Many people don't type > and in an emergency they can talk a lot faster than they can type (or > hunt and peck). In practice, it is much > better to support multiple info channels. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 08:56:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02875 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RE6NE20766 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:06:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RE6Np20763 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:06:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02851 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RE54p20715; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RE4wp20695 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:04:58 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02835 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:54:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.0.8.114]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB60567115; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:12:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:58:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ieprep] voice vs data Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: "Steve Silverman" From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <85637EF6-4A5B-11D7-9402-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 08:36 America/Montreal, Steve Silverman wrote: > It's a human factor. There are times when voice is more flexible and > believable. It's easier to trust a voice you recognize than an email > (with no authentication). In stressed situations, odds are that a lower-bandwidth CODEC will be in use; with such CODECs, it is often the case that one can't use one's ears to 'authenticate' the voice at the other end. > Many people don't type and in an emergency they can talk a lot faster > than they can type (or hunt and peck). The opposite is also true. People vary. An advantage to typing is that the bandwidth required is tremendously lower (even if one is signing one's emails with a digital signature/cryptographic hash). Another advantage to typing is that the message is likely to be seen in whatever form it was written. > In practice, it is much better to support multiple info channels. No argument on that. Ran rja@extremenetworks.com _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 09:54:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06277 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RF4fn25462 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:04:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RF4fp25459 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:04:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06253 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RF34p25372; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:03:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RF2Gp25334 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:02:16 -0500 Received: from paixhost.pch.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06158 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.pch.net (ns1.pch.net [206.220.231.1]) by paixhost.pch.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1REtOU03359; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:55:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:55:24 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock To: Ken Carlberg cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-Reply-To: <18158.1046344221@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Ken Carlberg wrote: > Please keep in mind that the word "network" was not used in the > above excerpt, but rather "application-layer mechanisms" was > specifically stated. Ah, quite true, my apologies. I just blanched at the thought of a technical specification containing a requirement for "better than best". I would hope that some more felicitous phrase might be found prior to any potential publication. -Bill _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 10:09:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07177 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:09:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RFJ2526778 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFJ2p26775 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:19:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07125 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:08:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RF73p25661; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:07:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RF6vp25561 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:06:57 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06335 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:59:11 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003022710000801140 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:00:08 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:59:49 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:00:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] Considerations on the IEPREP requirements for SIP Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , FYI: The following draft came out today on the SIPPING mailing list. "A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Considerations on the IEPREP requirements for SIP Author(s) : J. Peterson Filename : draft-peterson-sipping-ieprep-00.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2003-2-26 The IEPREP working group has provided the SIPPING WG with a framework and requirements draft for prioritized communications services in SIP. The considerations raised in that draft are examined here, and some feedback and implementation recommendations based on its requirements are provided. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-sipping-ieprep-00.txt " _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 10:26:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08046 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RFaaT27719 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:36:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFaZp27716 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:36:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07982 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFP4p27046; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:25:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFOfp27015 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:24:41 -0500 Received: from chntex01.is.dyncorp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07525 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:14:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by chntex01.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:16:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Gunn, Janet" To: "'Bill Woodcock'" , Ken Carlberg Cc: "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:14:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Bill, It was with your comments in mind that I initially suggested "other than best effort" (for the general requirements document) but was assured that "better than best effort" was a well understood and well defined term. Something may be "better" in one dimension/metric, and "worse" in another. Janet -----Original Message----- From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody@pch.net] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:55 AM To: Ken Carlberg Cc: 'ieprep@ietf.org ' Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Ken Carlberg wrote: > Please keep in mind that the word "network" was not used in the > above excerpt, but rather "application-layer mechanisms" was > specifically stated. Ah, quite true, my apologies. I just blanched at the thought of a technical specification containing a requirement for "better than best". I would hope that some more felicitous phrase might be found prior to any potential publication. -Bill _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 10:39:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08500 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RFnWd29152 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:49:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFnWp29149 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:49:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08493 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFm2p29098; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RFldp29073 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:47:39 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08436 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:37:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:39:47 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.11]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003022710404224929 ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:40:42 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exbh01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:42:45 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "'King, Kimberly S.'" , "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "Allison Mankin (E-mail)" , "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Considerations on the IEPREP requirements for SIP Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:40:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Also, the discussion of Jon's ieprep-sipping draft should take place just on the sipping list. - Kimberly >-----Original Message----- >From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:KIMBERLY.S.KING@saic.com] >Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:00 AM >To: Ieprep (E-mail) >Subject: [Ieprep] Considerations on the IEPREP requirements for SIP > > > >FYI: The following draft came out today on the SIPPING mailing list. > > >"A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Considerations on the IEPREP >requirements for SIP > Author(s) : J. Peterson > Filename : draft-peterson-sipping-ieprep-00.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2003-2-26 > >The IEPREP working group has provided the SIPPING WG with a framework >and requirements draft for prioritized communications services in >SIP. The considerations raised in that draft are examined here, and >some feedback and implementation recommendations based on its >requirements are provided. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-sipping-iepr ep-00.txt " _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 11:02:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09456 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RGCZ331064 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:12:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RGCZp31061 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:12:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09446 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RGB6p31013; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:11:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RGAcp30954 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:10:38 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA09357 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sonic.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:03:30 +0000 To: "Gunn, Janet" cc: "'Bill Woodcock'" , "'ieprep@ietf.org '" Subject: Re: [Ieprep] WG last call for IP Telephony Requirements for ETS In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:14:31 EST." Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:03:28 +0000 Message-ID: <7712.1046361808@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Ken Carlberg Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > It was with your comments in mind that I initially suggested "other than > best effort" (for the general requirements document) but was assured > that "better than best effort" was a well understood and well defined > term. > > Something may be "better" in one dimension/metric, and "worse" in another. all that matters is a better value for the metric(s) that one uses. from my perspective, better than best effort is fine. if the two of you can agree on a different and more precise phrase, let me know and I'll probably use it. -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 27 12:24:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12688 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1RHYlx05657 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:34:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RHYlp05654 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:34:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12644 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RHX4p05486; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:33:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RHWFp05380 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:32:15 -0500 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12492 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com by mclmx.mail.saic.com for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:24:30 -0500 Received: from mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.12]) by mcl-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.17) with SMTP id M2003022712252604970 ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:25:26 -0500 Received: by mcl-its-exig01.mail.saic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:25:07 -0500 Message-Id: From: "King, Kimberly S." To: "Ieprep (E-mail)" Cc: "'Scott Bradner ' (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:25:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Ieprep] Agenda Scheduling Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , If you want to discuss issues with drafts at the San Francisco meeting, please request a slot to do so, by sending mail to the WG chairs. Keep in mind: It is not the purpose of a WG session to have presentation of the content of a document. It is assumed that all attendees will have read the drafts in advance of the meeting. For documents that are work-in-progress, the presentation should cover issues resolved since the last draft followed by open issues, and controversial topics with the intent to reach a resolution of said issues and topics. For new work items, the presentation should focus on what the problem is and why it is necessary for the work group to address it. Further it must be shown how the work falls within the existing charter; no time will be allocated for proposals that do not fit the current WG charter. The appropriate way of bringing new work to the working group is to post an Internet Draft, send a pointer to the draft to the mailing list and promote discussion on the list. Slots on the agenda should be used to discuss outstanding topics that haven't been settled on the mailing list. Keep the number of slides in presentations small. Speakers should budget their at least 25% of their time to allow for discussion/questions. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep