Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

[[e-mail]]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:34 AM
> To: Padma Valluri
> Cc: [e-mail]; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW);
> [e-mail]; 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" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> To: Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)"
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail], "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)"
>> <[e-mail]>
>> 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" <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> ]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:38 PM
>>>> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
>>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C
>>>> (ATTLABS); [e-mail]
>>>> 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: [e-mail]
>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> ] On Behalf Of DALY, BRIAN K
>>>>> (ATTCINW)
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:33 PM
>>>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine but my "personal" view does not change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian Daly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:31 PM
>>>>> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>>>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); [e-mail]
>>>>> 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: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>
>