Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

We are just stating that ATOCA contradicts the CMAS (& EAS) rules, as
well as iPAWS and DMOpen architectures, and thus is in a different
class. Thus we believe we do need to be up front in the charter and nto
to confuse the industry.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:18 PM
To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); ken carlberg; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; earlywarning@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

In what way would any RFC not have to meet that requirement?

I understand that you are concerned that this work overlaps layer 2
specific
solutions.  However, there is no need to explicitly put this work in
second
class.  It's not going to affect any words in a protocol specification.
If
there is a regulatory requirement that makes ATOCA compliant
implementations, like any other service, subservient in some way to some
other service, so be it.  The charter, and the spec, don't need to say
that;
it's always true.

Brian

On 4/7/10 3:56 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com> wrote:

> The second is more than a market decision - it is an interaction with
a
> regulatory requirement.
> 
> Perhaps a better way to phrase is as follows:
> 
> "Additionally, ATOCA will not interfere with nor replace solutions
> designed to meet regulatory requirements for any authority to citizen
> alerting of any access technology."
> 
> Brian Daly
> AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ken carlberg
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:48 PM
> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> 
> 
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
> 
>> "The ATOCA solutions will not adversely affect the ability of any
> access
>> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
>> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or
> other
>> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
>> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported
> by
>> any access technology."
> 
> given the previous thread on this list, I'm a bit leery of that first
> sentence.  But, if it were agreed to add it in, then I would expect
the
> individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects
> 9-1-1 type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply
stating
> a position.
> 
> as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any
> deployment of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market
decision.
> 
> -ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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