Re: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal

"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@andrew.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 1AB2228C10C for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.923, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 rgEHk69lMQl6 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from csmailgw1.commscope.com (csmailgw1.commscope.com [198.135.207.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E079628C111 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.86.20.102] ([10.86.20.102]:12497 "EHLO ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com") by csmailgw1.commscope.com with ESMTP id S21241276Ab0EKDdz (ORCPT <rfc822; earlywarning@ietf.org>); Mon, 10 May 2010 22:33:55 -0500
Received: from SISPE7HC1.commscope.com (10.97.4.12) by ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com (10.86.20.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Mon, 10 May 2010 22:33:54 -0500
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC1.commscope.com ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Tue, 11 May 2010 11:33:52 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "earlywarning@ietf.org" <earlywarning@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:35:35 +0800
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal
Thread-Index: Acrsa9X8ZV4a5LxcSw+GagLHDWvkEgETYv2g
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7E235C2@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <4BE19433.3050604@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BE19433.3050604@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw1.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal
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: Tue, 11 May 2010 03:34:07 -0000

Looks fine.  One minor comment and a few suggestions on paragraph breaks (WallOfText is difficult to read ;).

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:earlywarning-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 1:52 AM
> To: earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> as you all have seen it is a bit difficult to come up with a text that
> makes everyone happy. Please find an updated proposal below based on
> the recent discussions on the list.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
> ==================================
> 
> There are a variety of mechanisms that authorities have available to
> notify citizens and visitors of emergency events. Traditionally, they
> have done so with broadcast networks (radio and television). For
> commercial mobile devices, broadcasting services such as the Public
> Warning System (PWS), the Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS),
> and the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) are standardized and are
> in the process of being deployed.  The Internet provides another way
> for authority to citizen alerts to be sent, but it also presents new
> challenges. While there are some existing layer 2
> mechanisms for delivering alerts the work in this group focuses on
> delivering alerts to IP endpoints only.
> 
> The general message pattern that this group is intended to address is
> the sending of alerts from a set of pre-authorized agents (e.g.,
> governmental agencies) to a large population without impacting the
> layer 2 networks 

Why restrict this to layer 2?  It seems evident that there are implications at other layers that are equally worthy of consideration.

Suggest: without adverse effect on networks

> (e.g. causing congestion or denial of service).

Break paragraph here.

> The goal of
> this group is not to specify how originators of alerts obtain
> authorization, but rather how an ATOCA system can verify that
> authorization and deliver messages to the intended recipients. A
> critical element of the work are the mechanisms that assure that only
> those pre-authorized agents can send alerts via ATOCA, through an
> interface to authorized alert distribution networks (e.g., iPAWS/DM-
> Open in the U.S.).
> 
> This work is differentiated from and is not intended to replace other
> alerting mechanisms (e.g., PWS, CMAS, ETWS), as the recipients of these
> ATOCA alerts are the wide range of devices connected to the Internet
> and
> private IP networks which humans may have "at hand" to get such events,
> as well as automatons who may take action based on the alerts. This
> implies that the content of the alert contains some information which
> is
> intended to be consumed by humans, and some which is intended to be
> consumed by automatons.  

Break here too.

> Ideally, the alerts would contain, or refer to
> media other than text media (e.g., audio and/or video), but the initial
> work in the group is focused on small messages, which may be
> mechanically rendered by the device in other forms (text to speech for
> example).

And here.

> In situations of a major emergency there could be scenarios
> where there are multiple alerts generated that may require that a
> priority mechanism (defined by alert originator policy) has to be used.
> The work on a resource priority mechanism is out of scope of the
> initial
> charter, but may be revisited at a later date.
> 
> Which devices should get alerts is primarily driven by location.  The
> first set of recipients that must be catered for are those within the
> area identified by the alert originator to be affected by the alert.
> In many jurisdictions, there are regulations that define whether
> recipients/devices within the affected area have opt-in or opt-out
> capability, but the protocols we will define will include both opt-in
> and opt-out mechanisms. The group will explore how to support both
> opt-in and opt-out at the level of communication protocols and/or
> device behavior.
> 
> Another class of recipients that are in scope of the work are explicit
> opt-in subscriptions which ask for alerts for a specified location, not
> necessarily the physical location of the device itself. An example of
> such a subscription would be 'send me alerts for location x' (previously
> determined as the location of interest). This work may build on
> existing IETF geopriv location work.

s/geopriv/GEOPRIV/

> There are efforts in other fora on early warning, which will be
> considered in this effort.  For example, we expect to make use of the
> OASIS Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) for the encoding of alerts.  OGC,
> ATIS, TIA, ITU-T, ETSI and 3GPP also have alert efforts underway, and
> consultation with these efforts will be undertaken to avoid unnecessary
> duplication of effort and also to avoid unintentional negative impacts
> on the layer 2 networks.

As above, suggest: s/layer 2//

> Of course, existing protocols for delivering
> messages (e.g., SIP) will be the basis for the message delivery system
> of this working group.
> 
> The security implications of mechanisms that can send alerts to billions
> of devices are profound, but the utility of the mechanism encourages us
> to face the problems and solve them. In addition, the potential
> performance and congestion impacts to networks resulting from sending
> alert information to billions of devices must be considered and solved
> if such a service is implementable.
> 
> Milestones
> 
> TBD      Initial document for "Terminology and Framework" document.
>          A starting point for this work is
>          draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requirements.
> TBD      Initial document for conveying alerts in SIP.
>          A starting point for this work is draft-rosen-sipping-cap
> TBD	  Initial document for conveying alerts through point to
> multipoint methods.
> TBD      Initial document for locating the alerting server for a
> geographic region.
>          A starting point for this work is
> draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning.
> TBD	  Initial document addressing security, performance and
> congestion issues for alert distribution.
> TBD	  Initial document for interfacing existing alert
> distribution systems.