Re: [earlywarning] Final Charter Text. Thanks!

["Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith, 

thanks for your comment. A few notes inside. 

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:38:24 +0200
> Von: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>
> An: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Betreff: Re: [earlywarning] Final Charter Text. Thanks!

> Firstly a question:
> 
> What does "initial" mean in the milestones?

In context of the sentences it means that it is not covered by this version of the charter (which is the first, initial charter). 


> 
> Secondly can you put some dates in the milestones, even if they are things
> like "Charter date plus 9 months". 

Good point. I forgot that. 
Done. 

> I at least need to understand the
> proposed document sequence.
> 
> I assume the approved milestones will not contain text such as:
> 
> "A starting point for this work is draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning."
> 
> so can you move this text to some sort of editorial gloss at the end -
> which will not appear in the final charter. 
> 

It is actually quite common to indicate the starting point, which does not mean that the work will actually be used as a WG item. 


Ciao
Hannes


> regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] 
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:13 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [earlywarning] Final Charter Text. Thanks!
> > 
> > Thank you all for participating in this charter discussion. I 
> > plan to submit the following charter text to the RAI ADs 
> > within the next 24 hours. I included a few minor wording 
> > changes based on the very recent feedback on the list. 
> > 
> > Brian D., James P. + Martin T.: Please browse through the 
> > text to see whether you are happy with it.
> > 
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
> > ==================================
> > 
> > There are a variety of mechanisms that authorities have 
> > available to notify citizens and visitors during emergency 
> > events. Traditionally, theyhave 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 various stages of deployment.  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 layer 2 networks (e.g. causing congestion 
> > or denial of service). 
> >  
> > The goal of this group is not to specify how originators of 
> > alerts obtain authorization, but rather how an ATOCA system 
> > can verify authorization and deliver messages to the intended 
> > recipients. A critical element of the work are the mechanisms 
> > that assure that onlythose 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.).
> > 
> > The ATOCA effort is differentiated from and is not intended 
> > to replace other alerting mechanisms (e.g., PWS, CMAS, ETWS), 
> > as the recipients of ATOCA alerts are the wide range of 
> > devices connected to the Internet and various 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.  
> > 
> > Ideally, the alerts would contain, or refer to media other 
> > than text media (e.g., audio and/or video). 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). Future work in the group may investigate 
> > rich media.
> > 
> > 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 emergency event.  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 ATOCA 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.
> > 
> > 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 networks. 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. To avoid manual configuration of 
> > servers distributing alerts a discovery mechanism will be specified.
> > 
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > earlywarning mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning