Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

[[e-mail]]

Keith -

Apologies. You are correct. I am personally not aware of any. As you and
others have stated, there are definitely discussions and work being done
at other levels in the warning/alerting standards stack - such as using
CMAS as a starting point.

Multi-language is definitely something the OGC Members are tuned into.

Thanks!

Carl


> Carl, I think the problem is that your statement: "I do not see
> discussions on L2 or CMAS or whatever", implies on first reading that
> there are none, rather than you are not aware of them.
>
> Indeed there are activities taking place on trialing cell broadcast for
> such alerts, and at least the intent I was seeing from the people involved
> in this was that they would be looking to activities in ETSI to channel
> this work into 3GPP, and that they would be using the CMAS work as a
> starting point. One key problem to solve is that in multilingual
> countries, the alert would have to be delivered in multiple languages -
> not a problem except procedures need to be defined to cycle round such
> messages, which does not exist in CMAS at the moment. I also gathered some
> clear statements that they wanted a solution independent of any work that
> took place elsewhere on other infrastructures.
>
> So to me this emphasises that the ATOCO work has to progess in a manner
> that works in a complementary fashion to other mechanisms already in
> deployment, and which in certain scenarios may be the only reliable
> mechanism of delivering the alert, and not just assume from its charter
> that the mechanism it provides when it is finished is the only fish in the
> pond.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> [e-mail]
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:53 PM
>> To: MUSGROVE, CHARLES P (ATTCINW)
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>
>> As I was thinking - there are multiple levels of
>> standardization work going on in Europe. The OGC community is
>> dealing at the application level
>> - not the infrastructure level.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Carl
>> > Europe is looking at a warning system based on the 3GPP
>> Public Warning
>> > System (PWS) based on cell broadcast. They are studying the
>> US-based
>> > CMAS as a model for their PWS with a long-term goal of
>> supporting PWS
>> > for international roamers (among European countries as well
>> as to/from
>> > US/Asia/elsewhere). The Netherlands is already moving toward
>> > implementation of a cell broadcast-based system.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Peter Musgrove
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [e-mail]
>> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> > On Behalf Of [e-mail]
>> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:09 AM
>> > To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
>> > Cc: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS); [e-mail];
>> > [e-mail]
>> > Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>> >
>> > 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > earlywarning mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>
>