Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

creed@opengeospatial.org Fri, 09 April 2010 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <creed@opengeospatial.org>
X-Original-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2943A68DB; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q3p7N2yjJZPE; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (mail.opengeospatial.org [66.244.86.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9EA3A68E3; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.opengeospatial.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3+etch1) with ESMTP id o39HrItS030345; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:53:18 -0400
Received: from 76.25.20.162 (SquirrelMail authenticated user creed) by mail.opengeospatial.org with HTTP; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <50016.76.25.20.162.1270835598.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
In-Reply-To: <C2C65F42AFB4B64090C92F28A6F6302E0E742023@BD01MSXMB023.US.Cingular.Net >
References: <OFCA7503BE.2F496E41-ON852576FF.004864D7-852576FF.00492183@csc.com><C7E35393.2CB12%br@brianrosen.net><FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC4F837D@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net> <49736.76.25.20.162.1270829364.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org> <C2C65F42AFB4B64090C92F28A6F6302E0E742023@BD01MSXMB023.US.Cingular.Net>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: creed@opengeospatial.org
To: "MUSGROVE, CHARLES P (ATTCINW)" <CM8655@att.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/10721/Fri Apr 9 08:47:07 2010 on mail.opengeospatial.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org, earlywarning@ietf.org, "DALY, BRIAN K \(ATTCINW\)" <bd2985@att.com>, "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)" <md3135@att.com>
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
X-BeenThere: earlywarning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Authority-to-Individuals \(Early Warning\) Emergency " <earlywarning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning>
List-Post: <mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:53:28 -0000

As I was thinking - there are multiple levels of standardization work
going on in Europe. The OGC community is dealing at the application level
- not the infrastructure level.

Thanks!

Carl
> Europe is looking at a warning system based on the 3GPP Public Warning
> System (PWS) based on cell broadcast. They are studying the US-based CMAS
> as a model for their PWS with a long-term goal of supporting PWS for
> international roamers (among European countries as well as to/from
> US/Asia/elsewhere). The Netherlands is already moving toward
> implementation of a cell broadcast-based system.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Musgrove
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of creed@opengeospatial.org
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:09 AM
> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
> Cc: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS); earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org;
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>
> In Europe they are working toward a Pan-European alerting and warning
> infrastructure with full interoperability. However, I am not sure at what
> level in the "stack" this work is being done - perhaps more at the higher
> levels in the application arena. I do not see discussions on L2 or CMAS or
> whatever. The European programs are initially being funded as part of the
> FP 6 and 7 initiatives. Check out ORCHESTRA
> (http://www.eu-orchestra.org/), GMES/SAFER
> (http://www.emergencyresponse.eu/site/FO/scripts/myFO_accueil.php?lang=EN)
> and SANY (http://www.sany-ip.eu/). SANY is interesting because the focus
> is on integrating sensor alerts into a modeling, warning, and alerting
> infrastructure.
>
> Similar activities are occurring in Asia, such as Debris Flow Monitoring
> and Alerting in Taiwan, Tsunami Alerting in Indonesia, and earthquake
> warning in Japan.
>
> Regards
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>> Brian -
>>
>> If "no one" is asking for interoperability (and I am not sure who "no
>> one"
>> is :-) ) then I agree this can be a somewhat peaceful co-existence of
>> mandated services (CMAS, EAS, iPAWS, DMOpen vs a market driven service
>> that is not and will not be designed with the intention to integrate
>> into
>> or interoperate with services such as CMAS.
>>
>> However, because of the potential for confusion by the reader and
>> regulators, all we are asking is that the charter clearly state this
>> fact
>> that apparently we are in agreement on.
>>
>> Can we craft some language for the charter that emphasizes this?
>>
>> Brian D.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org]
>> On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:34 AM
>> To: Padma Valluri
>> Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW);
>> earlywarning@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>
>> Because it¹s pretty hard to define ³interoperability² with L2 mechanisms
>> that deliver alerts.  One of the biggest problems I have with most
>> existing
>> L2 specific mechanisms is that they assume they are the only way alerts
>> are
>> received. As a result, if you get an alert from some other mechanism,
>> you
>> have no idea if its the same alert or a different one.  Your UI can't
>> help
>> you at all with this.  One of the things I think we need is some ID
>> mechanism which is protocol agnostic and simply serves as the way to
>> know
>> if
>> you got an alert from multiple sources that they are the same alert.
>>
>> Actually, no one is asking for interoperability.  They are discussing
>> various forms of peaceful co-existence.  Designing the protocol to take
>> advantage of some kinds of L2 packet delivery mechanisms may be possible
>> however.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On 4/8/10 9:18 AM, "Padma Valluri" <pvalluri@csc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what "use" means here other than to imply
>>> interoperable/interworking with existing capabilities that are more
>>> efficient
>>> in certain segments of the network and deployed already. Why can't we
>>> be
>>> up
>>> front about making the interoperabilty as one of the main requirements
>>> of this
>>> charter to provide an end-to-end solution?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Padma .
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
>>> To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>om>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)"
>>> <DS2225@att.com>
>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org, "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)"
>>> <md3135@att.com>
>>> Date: 04/07/2010 05:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not bothered by the first part.  I don't like the last phrase,
>>> because
>>> I'm not sure we should specifically describe such capabilities, and it
>>> may
>>> not be a gateway.  How about changing the last sentence to "A goal of
>>> the
>>> work will be to be able to use layer-2 specific mechanisms, where
>>> available,
>>> to minimize load on the network."
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/7/10 5:41 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I can grant that that's something that's not clearly explained in
>>>> the current charter.  However, it's also an issue that will tend to be
>>>> layer-2 specific.  How about something like this:
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>> Emergency alerts that are delivered to large numbers of endpoints can
>>>> put a large load on the network, particularly when many affected users
>>>> are on the same local network (e.g., the 100,000 attendees at a
>>>> sporting event).  This working group will consider mechanisms for
>>>> minimizing this load, such as IP multicast.  In particular, some
>>>> approaches have been developed to handle emergency alerting in
>>>> different types networks, and it will be a goal of this working group
>>>> to facilitate interoperability with these approaches, for example, to
>>>> enable gateways to relay messages from this Internet mechanism into a
>>>> specific layer-2 channel.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:47 PM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is deficient because it does not take into account the impacts
>>>>> that
>>>>> will occur to the various access technologies.  All access
>>>>> technologies
>>>>> do not have the same capacity, bandwidth, etc. Therefore any design
>>>>> that
>>>>> has the potential to send information to all citizens within an area
>>>>> via
>>>>> any variety of access technologies needs to consider these factors.
>>>>> For
>>>>> example, consider the scenario of trying to send an alert to the
>>>>> 100,000
>>>>> fans at a college football game.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current draft charter of ATOCA does not address this which is why
>>>>> the additional sentences for the second paragraph were proposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> DeWayne
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com <mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com>
>>>>> ]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:38 PM
>>>>> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
>>>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C
>>>>> (ATTLABS); earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please clarify how you believe it to be deficient?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:37 PM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My "personal" view is that the charter as currently written is not
>>>>>> correct or adequate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DeWayne
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>> <mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org> ] On Behalf Of DALY, BRIAN K
>>>>>> (ATTCINW)
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:33 PM
>>>>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>>>>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine but my "personal" view does not change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian Daly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu> ]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:31 PM
>>>>>> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>>>>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that people speak as individuals in the IETF and there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> no particular notion that a corporate opinion has any more weight
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> that of any individual. Thus, stating a corporate opinion is out of
>>>>>> place and against IETF custom and convention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:28 PM, DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They sure do, look at everyone's badge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org <earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org>
>>>>>>> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
>>>>>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wed Apr 07 16:21:20 2010
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't know that the IETF had corporate opinions. But maybe the
>>>>>>> IETF
>>>>>> rules have changed recently?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henning
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:13 PM, DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the record, AT&T is in opposition to removing the last
>>>>>>>> sentence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brian Daly
>>>>>>>> AT&T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>
>