Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Wed, 07 April 2010 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jgunn6@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 94CA53A69A8; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.836, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 iB9S2KM+7TNj; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail64.messagelabs.com (mail64.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BE73A694D; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: jgunn6@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-64.messagelabs.com!1270676772!106964702!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.88]
Received: (qmail 21185 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 21:46:13 -0000
Received: from amer-mta102.csc.com (HELO amer-mta102.csc.com) (20.137.2.88) by server-8.tower-64.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 21:46:13 -0000
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta102.csc.com (Switch-3.3.3mp/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o37LkBbD008246; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:46:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC4F8133@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
References: <C99FF8B7-61F4-4A05-8389-4F90E43F12F4@g11.org.uk> <C7E25C84.2C971%br@brianrosen.net> <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC4F8133@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: C2BCB9DF:0AC17618-852576FE:00771D03; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2FP1 CCH2 April 23, 2009
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Message-ID: <OFC2BCB9DF.0AC17618-ON852576FE.00771D03-852576FE.00779474@csc.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:46:05 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 8.0.1 HF996|December 23, 2008) at 04/07/2010 05:47:03 PM, Serialize complete at 04/07/2010 05:47:03 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00776BD4852576FE_="
Cc: "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A \(ATTCINW\)" <DS2225@att.com>, earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, earlywarning@ietf.org
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 21:46:19 -0000

I think that the relative priority of "citizen to authority", "authority 
to citizen", "authority to authority",  and even "citizen to citizen" 
needs to be a matter of "local policy", and independent of any IETF 
defined mechanism.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.



From:
"DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com>
To:
"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net>et>, "ken carlberg" <carlberg@g11.org.uk>uk>, 
"SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com>
Cc:
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>et>, earlywarning@ietf.org
Date:
04/07/2010 04:06 PM
Subject:
Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions



Absolutely false!!

You have no clue what the incoming emergency call is about - it could be
a kitty in the tree call, as you put it, or it could be "I just had a
heart attack and need help immediately".

An authority to citizen "call" should never take priority over a citizen
to authority, and this is regulated ni the FCC rules for CMAS.

And your typhoon analogy proves the point - a typhoon is known several
days in advance, while you have minutes to take action on a heart
attack.

Brian Daly

-----Original Message-----
From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:00 PM
To: ken carlberg; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; earlywarning@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Generally, it's not a good idea for any service to impede any other
service,
but we don't have to say that all the time.  Here, I think we don't have
to
discuss how authority to citizen should be prioritized over citizen to
authority.  I rather suspect that an outgoing warning of an impending
typhoon is more important that an incoming kitty-in-the-tree call, but
maybe
that's just me.

ATOCA may or may not be a replacement for something that exists.  Agree
with
Ken, the market (and in this case, likely governments) will decide.

So I would not want to see this text in the charter.

Brian


On 4/7/10 3:48 PM, "ken carlberg" <carlberg@g11.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
> 
>> "The ATOCA solutions will not adversely affect the ability of any
access
>> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
>> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or
other
>> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
>> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported
by
>> any access technology."
> 
> given the previous thread on this list, I'm a bit leery of that first
> sentence.  But, if it were agreed to add it in, then I would expect
the
> individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects
9-1-1
> type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply stating a
position.
> 
> as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any
deployment
> of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market decision.
> 
> -ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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