Re: [atoca] The future of atoca

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 23 July 2012 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EB421F864B for <atoca@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.493, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7DUVLBq9kRu for <atoca@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E41621F8646 for <atoca@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q6N1Y25P002930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:34:04 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.44]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:34:02 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>, "atoca@ietf.org" <atoca@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:34:01 +0200
Thread-Topic: [atoca] The future of atoca
Thread-Index: Ac1naBb5zdRNBgj1T76mexnDaJ5bQgBBMHlQ
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE240AE89B6@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20120721131113.7B35C21F8646@ietfa.amsl.com> <B1C4C394-1E40-48FF-AE06-7B3871EEAA08@incident.com>
In-Reply-To: <B1C4C394-1E40-48FF-AE06-7B3871EEAA08@incident.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: Re: [atoca] The future of atoca
X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <atoca.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/atoca>, <mailto:atoca-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/atoca>
List-Post: <mailto:atoca@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:atoca-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca>, <mailto:atoca-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:34:10 -0000

I'd note that closing the working group and closing the mailing list are not one and the same thing. 

Mailing lists can exist without the continuation of the working group.

So as and when interest does arise, and activity on the mailing list identifies this, either drafts can be discussed and prepared for individual submission, or a new working group can be chartered and the work resumed as chartered activity.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: atoca-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:atoca-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Art Botterell
> Sent: 21 July 2012 18:41
> To: atoca@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [atoca] The future of atoca
> 
> Mark makes the essential point, IMHO.  This working group may simply have
> been ahead of its time.  So if the WG format isn't appropriate... I don't
> really have an opinion on that... I hope we can find some way to keep a
> less formal conversation going among folks who are interested, in
> anticipation that relevant issues may come clear over the next few years.
> 
> - Art
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Mark Wood wrote:
> 
> >
> > I Repeat;
> >
> > The matter of using public networks for authority to citizen
> communication
> > is only just now becoming a mainstream topic. We just did not have a
> model
> > for such before the deployment of ETWS in Japan and now CMAS in the USA
> in
> > 2012.
> >
> > Now that we do have such systems is the time to address the matter.
> >
> > I deduce that anyone wanting to obtain a licence for a public mobile
> network
> > will have to have some sort of method of realising the same burdens that
> are
> > now placed on the cellular network providers. The wording of the
> > requirements will probably be non technology dependent, so the same
> burdens
> > will be a requirement for all system technologies.
> >
> > We have not had this conversation yet, and we need to have it now that
> > CMAS/ETSI has finally just arrived (after a long gestation period).
> >
> > It will probably take at least another year to understand what the
> issues
> > are before we can make any submissions to the IETF.
> >
> > Mark wood DRCF.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > atoca mailing list
> > atoca@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> atoca mailing list
> atoca@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca