IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [earlywarning] What problem is ATOCA trying to address?

Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com> Fri, 26 March 2010 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mlinsner@cisco.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 306EC3A6B15 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.819
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 AjvIxLydrbQP for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2197C3A6A0B for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAP90rEtAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACbKXOnMJkUhH4E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,315,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="96449966"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2010 15:50:26 +0000
Received: from [10.116.195.122] (rtp-mlinsner-8719.cisco.com [10.116.195.122]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2QFoOJR002610; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:50:25 GMT
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:50:22 -0400
From: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
To: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>, earlywarning@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C7D24FFE.2287B%mlinsner@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] What problem is ATOCA trying to address?
Thread-Index: AcrM/Arjjs+n+lTycUOfZ40GjVPg8g==
In-Reply-To: <EB0E9151-20A6-4576-AFE7-CEDE3FFEF79A@incident.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] What problem is ATOCA trying to address?
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: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:50:07 -0000

On 3/26/10 11:34 AM, "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2010, at 3/26/10 6:42 AM, Marc Linsner wrote:
>> Any IP device, any IP network, any message (not just Fed. Gov't), all under
>> end-user control (opt-in, opt-out, additional locations, etc.).
> 
> So is it possible we're really just revisiting IP multicast?

I wouldn't draw that conclusion.

I would desire/expect more application around it such that an 'aggregator'
of messages from various entities might provide a service to my
specification.  IP multicast may or may not have a play.

-Marc-



> 
> - Art
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email