Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Padma Valluri <pvalluri@csc.com> Thu, 08 April 2010 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <pvalluri@csc.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 7F02B3A67F4; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ev9uWKkSZWeS; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail64.messagelabs.com (mail64.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769553A63EB; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: pvalluri@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-64.messagelabs.com!1270732730!52003080!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.87]
Received: (qmail 28877 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2010 13:18:51 -0000
Received: from amer-mta101.csc.com (HELO amer-mta101.csc.com) (20.137.2.87) by server-12.tower-64.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Apr 2010 13:18:51 -0000
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta101.csc.com (Switch-3.3.3mp/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o38DIkYt032464; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:18:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <C7E27770.2C9DC%br@brianrosen.net>
References: <04487F1C-3259-485E-BF78-9F50136BBB86@bbn.com> <C7E27770.2C9DC%br@brianrosen.net>
From: Padma Valluri <pvalluri@csc.com>
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: CA7503BE:2F496E41-852576FF:004864D7; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2FP1 CCH2 April 23, 2009
Message-ID: <OFCA7503BE.2F496E41-ON852576FF.004864D7-852576FF.00492183@csc.com>
Sender: Padma Valluri <pvalluri@csc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:18:42 -0400
X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on Padma Valluri/USA/CSC(Release 8.0.2FP1 CCH2|April 23, 2009) at 04/08/2010 09:18:47 AM, Serialize by Notes Client on Padma Valluri/USA/CSC(Release 8.0.2FP1 CCH2|April 23, 2009) at 04/08/2010 09:18:47 AM, Serialize complete at 04/08/2010 09:18:47 AM, S/MIME Sign failed at 04/08/2010 09:18:47 AM: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 8.0.1 HF996|December 23, 2008) at 04/08/2010 09:19:37 AM, Serialize complete at 04/08/2010 09:19:37 AM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00492177852576FF_="
Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org, "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: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:19:16 -0000

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]
>> 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


_______________________________________________
earlywarning mailing list
earlywarning@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning