Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Padma Valluri <pvalluri@csc.com> Thu, 08 April 2010 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <pvalluri@csc.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 40D1528C11F; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.777, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hLMBr1pSx-Hy; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail86.messagelabs.com (mail86.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F60328C113; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: pvalluri@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-86.messagelabs.com!1270734633!14746661!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.88]
Received: (qmail 20026 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2010 13:50:33 -0000
Received: from amer-mta102.csc.com (HELO amer-mta102.csc.com) (20.137.2.88) by server-12.tower-86.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Apr 2010 13:50:33 -0000
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta102.csc.com (Switch-3.3.3mp/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o38DobAD027253; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:50:37 -0400
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Sensitivity:
In-Reply-To: <C7E35393.2CB12%br@brianrosen.net>
References: <C7E35393.2CB12%br@brianrosen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Padma Valluri <pvalluri@csc.com>
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Message-ID: <OFE80C28BB.0036FFF1-ON852576FF.004C0A1C-852576FF.004C0A29@csc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:50:33 -0400
X-Mailer: Lotus Domino Web Server Release 8.5.1FP1 January 05, 2010
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Notes Server on AMER-ML20/SRV/CSC(Release 8.5.1FP1|January 05, 2010) at 04/08/2010 09:50:33, Serialize complete at 04/08/2010 09:50:33, Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 8.0.1 HF996|December 23, 2008) at 04/08/2010 09:51:27 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A \(ATTCINW\)" <DS2225@att.com>, earlywarning@ietf.org, "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)" <md3135@att.com>
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
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, 08 Apr 2010 13:50:44 -0000

I was thinking of a usecase where the issuing authority can use the SIP mechanism to send an alert and it continues until it hits an acess network brocast point where this gets converted to a L2 alert like it happens in other IMS protocols. Won't that require some kind of interworking?
Padma Valluri
CSC

15000 Conference Center Dr., Chantilly, VA  20151
Enforcement Security & Intelligence | w: 703-818-4937 | f: 703-818-4053 |pvalluri@csc.com | http://www.csc.com/" target="blank" rel="nofollow">www.csc.com


This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery.
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose.

-----Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote: -----

To: Padma Valluri/USA/CSC@CSC
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Date: 04/08/2010 09:34AM
cc: "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com>om>, <earlywarning@ietf.org>rg>, <earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org>rg>, "DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)" <md3135@att.com>om>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
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" <pvalluri@csc.com> 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 <br@brianrosen.net>
> To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>om>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)"
> <DS2225@att.com>
> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org, "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)" <md3135@att.com>
> 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" <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 <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
>>>> <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
>>>> <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" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> earlywarning mailing list
>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> earlywarning@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning" target="blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
>
>
>