Re: [earlywarning] What problem is ATOCA trying to address?

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Fri, 26 March 2010 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
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 1411C3A6A07 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.297, BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 3TCFi7Qnpyg5 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tarap.cc.columbia.edu (tarap.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B898A3A6A21 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-26-78.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-26-78.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.26.78]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by tarap.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2QHMeB0003197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
References: <C7D24EAC.2B5BC%br@brianrosen.net> <8136DC6D-FD55-4A9F-A81B-902584B3DF6D@cs.columbia.edu> <424647DE-DA3B-4141-A1A1-060B7F7195E5@incident.com>
In-Reply-To: <424647DE-DA3B-4141-A1A1-060B7F7195E5@incident.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <1F855A89-6D5F-4284-9140-4022FB979F0F@cs.columbia.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:22:40 -0400
To: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.7
Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] What problem is ATOCA trying to address?
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: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:22:21 -0000

As it happens, our local police department uses Twitter for alerts: see

http://twitter.com/leoniapd

Works quite well.

On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Art Botterell wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2010, at 3/26/10 9:14 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> And to bore everyone again with the same thing: In many cases, notifications are routinely sent to people outside a specific area or beyond a single network.
> 
> Which is why I thought it might be useful to reflect on WHY, after all these years, IP multicast has such limited scope, and on whether similar constraints might apply here.
> 
> Meanwhile, unicast approaches like Twitter rarely try to reach everyone on a particular local network, and they don't have any strict constraints on latency or even reliability, so I'd be cautious about assuming their suitability in emulation of a multicasting function.  Anyone who's ever tried to text on New Year's Eve or Mother's Day should be able to relate.
> 
> - Art
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>