[atoca] ATOCA status at time of closing

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BF421F8518 for <atoca@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.85
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VCFBLU9aOC5Y for <atoca@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAA021F84D5 for <atoca@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so2857314lbk.31 for <atoca@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=FDB0b7dL+KQEyjbb3WB5i+f9sA82fZxkIqHwgauyLkM=; b=OaiDC1Cer96mdo1vfauMruyRM2bQXh9Jbv2FRPoS9R2OTPuq5JyYThsFfTRs1AQEXm G0/YeSX/bh0fxk9xowX+h6D8uoGC8KRsyI35jrYmK/z7bNkCjOeS/27lRf7aOQiTq0IN LZX/jlgzf4EvtesdoifKTn1uKKrC0m6Xek+Y+VaYKAzMzKgUsS4w324mtEOdd3TBq1MJ +sI86mZff+EFTt1MmoRlVUuBFsKs/UaMGm9vervsdVvHnMq1bE4dQwi7U9PynnVq8QEi JlomZjv4ePdg2JPsrrfghWZFMAlcWtsmvUy1CdOi3xXsGZKLsefdf49NKsh0gmzfFBnT v5rQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id o9mr6316482lbk.123.1352848829942; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU1vbf9drbXu0qts8L+Fw1dg4LRr8w-H1ZEvfxB=YG6Uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: atoca@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe2d7ef18bc104ce68a94b
Subject: [atoca] ATOCA status at time of closing
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: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:20:32 -0000

In addition to reaching rough consensus on closing the group, the working
group also concluded that it is important to record, for posterity, what
course was followed to reach this point.

The working group initially performed some exploration of the problem space
as part of a requirements analysis process.  The history of
draf-ietf-atoca-requirements reveals some of the conclusions that were made
during this process.

Broadly speaking the following problems were identified:

 - point-to-point delivery of alerts
   publish/subscribe architectures were considered likely solutions; a
candidate solution was proposed for SIP (draft-rosen-atoca-sip-cap); XMPP
(XEP-0127) was also identified

 - point-to-multipoint delivery of alerts
   draft-barnes-atoca-delivery was proposed for this purpose

 - secure identification of alert originators
   a candidate solution was proposed for the alert envelope

 - discovery of (or delegation of identification for) trusted alert
 - discovery of alert distribution channels
   these were not considered necessary for some classes of alerting
   draft-barnes-atoca-meta was proposed to address both aspects of discovery

The work in the group concluded primarily due to a lack of engagement.  It
was not clear that there was sufficiently widespread support for the work
that the group was conducting.  The small number of technical contributions
did not attract adequate feedback or implementation.

During the course of the work it became apparent that there are some
problems here that could benefit from the expertise that is available in
the IETF.  However, with the problem so loosely scoped, this group was
considered unlikely to achieve consensus behind a solution at the present.