Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Wed, 07 April 2010 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
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 28B3E3A69BF for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, 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 DNAYQkBmiFUD for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD503A67D7 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.1.255.171] (port=58970 helo=col-dhcp-192-1-255-171.bbn.com) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1NzdEW-000Ke8-IJ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:56:24 -0400
Message-Id: <2747AAD0-00B0-4077-93CB-27A708A3628C@bbn.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
In-Reply-To: <C7E27770.2C9DC%br@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:56:23 -0400
References: <C7E27770.2C9DC%br@brianrosen.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A \(ATTCINW\)" <DS2225@att.com>, earlywarning@ietf.org, "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: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:56:29 -0000

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
>
>