[earlywarning] ATOCA proposed charter should appear for external review soon

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 15 July 2010 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AAE3A67F9 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.491
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rg1nJagejyL6 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966A93A6B91 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (pool-173-71-46-100.dllstx.fios.verizon.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6FJxZ0X031276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:59:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:59:34 -0500
Message-Id: <3971D619-C8DA-401E-921F-0500ED5BA5D7@nostrum.com>
To: earlywarning@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [earlywarning] ATOCA proposed charter should appear for external review soon
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: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:59:31 -0000

On today's IESG call, the ATOCA charter was approved (with a few edits) for external review.
Watch ietf-announce for an announcement of the review.

The edits to the charter text were minor - the IESG requested clarification that the group was
not being restricted to only producing solutions using the SIP protocol and that it was not the
intent to create a new discovery protocol from scratch.

The milestones got a stronger touch - it was not clear how the point-to-multipoint milestone
related to the previous milestones and the IESG requested clarification on the scope of the
"interfacing existing alert distribution systems" milestone.

Below is what should appear for external review. Please comment on the external review thread
when it appears.




Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Last Modified: 2010-07-15


Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Directors:
    Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
    Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>

Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:
    Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>

Mailing Lists:
   General Discussion: earlywarning@ietf.org
   To Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
   Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning>

Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:
    Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>

Description of Working Group:

There are a variety of mechanisms that authorities have available to
notify citizens and visitors during 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 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
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.).

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, XMPP, or SMTP) 
will be the basis for the message delivery system of this working group.
Any service discovery mechanisms defined by the group are expected
to reuse existing discovery frameworks.

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.

NOTE FOR CHARTER REVIEW (this section to be removed before charter
approval): Some early drafts related to this proposed work are
 * draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requirements
 * draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning
 * draft-rosen-atoca-server-discovery
 * draft-rosen-atoca-cap
 * draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements

Goals and Milestones
Jan 2011  Submit "Terminology and Framework" to the IESG for 
          publication as Informational 
Apr 2011  Submit "Addressing security, performance and
          congestion issues for alert distribution" to the 
          IESG for publication as Informational 

Apr 2011 Submit conveying point-to-point Authority to Citizen Alerts
         to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard

May 2011  Submit "Discovering alerting servers" to the IESG for 
          publication as Proposed Standard
Jun 2011 Submit conveying point-to-multipoint Authority to Citizen Alerts
         to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Aug 2011 Submit "Considerations for interworking with currently 
         deployed alert distribution systems" to the IESG for 
         publication as Informational