Re: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

Hannes

a few comments, edits and suggestions...

At 10:35 PM 5/10/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>Looks fine.  One minor comment and a few suggestions on paragraph 
>breaks (WallOfText is difficult to read ;).
>
>--Martin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:earlywarning-
> > [e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 1:52 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as you all have seen it is a bit difficult to come up with a text that
> > makes everyone happy. Please find an updated proposal below based on
> > the recent discussions on the list.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> >
> > Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
> > ==================================
> >
> > There are a variety of mechanisms that authorities have available to
> > notify citizens and visitors of

s/of/during

>emergency events. Traditionally, they
> > have done so with broadcast networks (radio and television). For
> > commercial mobile devices, broadcasting services such as the Public
> > Warning System (PWS), the Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS),
> > and the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) are standardized and are
> > in the process of being deployed

s/the process of being deployed/various stages of deployment

>.  The Internet provides another way
> > for authority to citizen

shouldn't this be "authority-to-citizen" (without the quotes, but 
still hyphenated)?

>alerts to be sent, but it also presents new
> > challenges. While there are some existing layer 2
> > mechanisms for delivering alerts

"," (comma)

>  the work in this group focuses on
> > delivering alerts to IP endpoints only.

I think this reads better -- but I'm not that rabid about this change
s/IP endpoints only/IP only endpoints

> >
> > The general message pattern that this group is intended to address is
> > the sending of alerts from a set of pre-authorized agents (e.g.,
> > governmental agencies) to a large population without impacting the
> > layer 2 networks
>
>Why restrict this to layer 2?  It seems evident that there are 
>implications at other layers that are equally worthy of consideration.

to this question -- I think this is to address AT&T's CMAS concern.

I'm ok with this scope limitation on the impact of L2 networks.


>Suggest: without adverse effect on networks
>
> > (e.g. causing congestion or denial of service).
>
>Break paragraph here.

I agree with this break


> > The goal of
> > this group is not to specify how originators of alerts obtain
> > authorization, but rather how an ATOCA system can verify that
> > authorization and deliver messages to the intended recipients. A
> > critical element of the work are the mechanisms that assure that

suggest removing the second "that" here

>only
> > those pre-authorized agents can send alerts via ATOCA, through an
> > interface to authorized alert distribution networks (e.g., iPAWS/DM-
> > Open in the U.S.).
> >
> > This work

s/This work/The ATOCA effort

>is differentiated from and is not intended to replace other
> > alerting mechanisms (e.g., PWS, CMAS, ETWS), as the recipients of these

remove above "these" at the end of this sentence

> > ATOCA alerts are the wide range of devices connected to the Internet
> > and

add "of" or "various" to this sentence here

 > private IP networks which humans may have "at hand" to get such events,
> > as well as automatons who may take action based on the alerts. This
> > implies that the content of the alert contains some information which
> > is
> > intended to be consumed by humans, and some which is intended to be
> > consumed by automatons.
>
>Break here too.

agreed


> > Ideally, the alerts would contain, or refer to
> > media other than text media (e.g., audio and/or video), but the initial
> > work in the group is focused on small messages,

I'm not sure I agree with this limitation -- given that everyone here 
has read about CAP for a number of years and is well aware that it 
readily allows URIs to audio and video alerts that can easily be 
displayed within a device's browser.

>which may be
> > mechanically rendered by the device in other forms (text to speech for
> > example).

May I suggest this replacement paragraph instead of what's 
immediately above (between Martin's two paragraph breaks):

"Ideally, the alerts would contain, or refer to media other than text 
media (e.g., audio and/or video). The initial work in the group is 
focused on small messages, which may be mechanically rendered by the 
device in other forms (text to speech for example), and may include 
rich media if the additional complexity involved can be kept to a minimum."


>And here.
>
> > In situations of a major emergency there could be scenarios
> > where there are multiple alerts generated that may require that a
> > priority mechanism (defined by alert originator policy) has to be used.
> > The work on a resource priority mechanism is out of scope of the
> > initial
> > charter, but may be revisited at a later date.
> >
> > Which devices should get alerts is primarily driven by location.  The
> > first set of recipients that must be catered for are those within the
> > area identified by the alert originator to be affected by the alert.

s/alert/emergency event

> > In many jurisdictions, there are regulations that define whether
> > recipients/devices within the affected area have opt-in or opt-out
> > capability, but the protocols we

s/we/ATOCA

>will define will include both opt-in
> > and opt-out mechanisms. The group will explore how to support both
> > opt-in and opt-out at the level of communication protocols and/or
> > device behavior.
> >
> > Another class of recipients that are in scope of the work are explicit
> > opt-in subscriptions which ask for alerts for a specified location, not
> > necessarily the physical location of the device itself. An example of
> > such a subscription would be 'send me alerts for location x' (previously
> > determined as the location of interest). This work may build on
> > existing IETF geopriv location work.
>
>s/geopriv/GEOPRIV/
>
> > There are efforts in other fora on early warning, which will be
> > considered in this effort.  For example, we expect to make use of the
> > OASIS Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) for the encoding of alerts.  OGC,
> > ATIS, TIA, ITU-T, ETSI and 3GPP also have alert efforts underway, and
> > consultation with these efforts will be undertaken to avoid unnecessary
> > duplication of effort and also to avoid unintentional negative impacts
> > on the layer 2 networks.
>
>As above, suggest: s/layer 2//
>
> > Of course, existing protocols for delivering
> > messages (e.g., SIP) will be the basis for the message delivery system
> > of this working group.
> >
> > The security implications of mechanisms that can send alerts to billions
> > of devices are profound, but the utility of the mechanism encourages us
> > to face the problems and solve them. In addition, the potential
> > performance and congestion impacts to networks resulting from sending
> > alert information to billions of devices must be considered and solved
> > if such a service is implementable.

What about how the alerts are distributed to the distribution servers 
(kinda like LoST-sync specified)?  Is this in or out of scope? There 
is a milestone already, but no charter text that I remember reading.

James

> >
> > Milestones
> >
> > TBD      Initial document for "Terminology and Framework" document.
> >          A starting point for this work is
> >          draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requirements.
> > TBD      Initial document for conveying alerts in SIP.
> >          A starting point for this work is draft-rosen-sipping-cap
> > TBD     Initial document for conveying alerts through point to
> > multipoint methods.
> > TBD      Initial document for locating the alerting server for a
> > geographic region.
> >          A starting point for this work is
> > draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning.
> > TBD     Initial document addressing security, performance and
> > congestion issues for alert distribution.
> > TBD     Initial document for interfacing existing alert
> > distribution systems.
>
>_______________________________________________
>earlywarning mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning