RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

Nadine,

> Further, the NENA WG then has tried to stay aware of what is
> going on in many industry forums in the expectation of
> identifying and recommending standard solutions that would
> meet those requirements, and in the hope of promoting
> widespread implementation of location-related capabilities.
> This is an ongoing work effort.

It is the act of NENA 'recommending standard solutions' that I am referring
to. IMO, that is outside of NENA's expertise.

>
> In the liaisons that were sent out to many SDOs last summer,
> the NENA WG encouraged these SDOs to work in cooperation with
> IETF toward common solutions. NENA has a keen interest in
> seeing common location solutions become widely available. In
> addition to this encouragement, the liaisons that were sent
> out included a summary of the above-mentioned requirements,
> as well as examples of proposed solution(s) that the NENA WG
> found to meet many of these requirements, to stimulate dialog.

I wasn't specifically referring to the liaisons from NENA last summer, sorry
that wasn't clear, but I was focused on NENA's new found agent, ESIF/NGES.
It's very interesting on how Martin is characterizing these latest liaisons
from NGES as an ESIF effort, but yet in that very venue when I questioned
why normal ANSI engineering practices were not being exercised, I was told
to go back to NENA if I questioned the requirements. So either that effort
is an ESIF project requiring due ANSI proscribed engineering, or ESIF/NGES
is an agent for NENA as was explained to me in that venue. Martin is
changing the characterization of this project to fit his needs in the
current conversation.

  
>
> To my knowledge, the NENA WG has never "passed off as a
> derelict response" the responses that have been received from
> several SDOs to these liaisons.

Again, this is my opinion of how NGES is handling responses to their
liaison, sorry for the confusion.

>
> As you point out, IETF has the deepest understanding of the
> Internet, but it has always seemed to me that in the area of
> location capabilities, the community of mobile and IP service
> and solution providers have valuable insights to offer.
> Members of the NENA WG have tried to advocate within IETF
> (and industry SDOs) for solutions that would meet practical
> needs of the emergency services community, and also have a
> better chance of being implemented in existing
> infrastructures beyond enterprise environments.

So, come one and all with requirements. When consensus on requirements is
achieved, come one and all with solution proposals. I've tried to
demonstrate with the ECRIT example how that process works and at the same I
believe we've witnessed how it doesn't work by bringing the requirements
along with a proposed solution in what appears to be a mixed up sequence.

>
> I am encouraged by Ted Hardie's comments and the hope that
> the Geopriv WG will be able to make some progress in the
> Prague meeting.

I have great hope for this effort. I hope Ted can provide the spark to get
things moving forward. I know I'm tired of trying.

-Marc-

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:45:55 -0400