Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Fine with me.

On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> 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]
>>> 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] 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]
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>