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" <rbarnes@bbn.com> 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:rbarnes@bbn.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:38 PM
>> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C
>> (ATTLABS); earlywarning@ietf.org
>> 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: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DALY, BRIAN K
>>> (ATTCINW)
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:33 PM
>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
>>> 
>>> Fine but my "personal" view does not change.
>>> 
>>> Brian Daly
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:31 PM
>>> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); earlywarning@ietf.org
>>> 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: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org <earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org>
>>>> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
>>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org>
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning