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

David R Oran <oran@cisco.com> Fri, 26 March 2010 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <oran@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 DAF3D3A6982 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 RrPSh0Aa+R1G for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427093A69D6 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQAACuyrEuQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACbKhUBAQsLJAYcphmZEIR+BA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,315,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="4858630"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2010 19:35:55 +0000
Received: from [10.32.245.152] (stealth-10-32-245-152.cisco.com [10.32.245.152]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2QKAIRh010752; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:10:19 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: David R Oran <oran@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC3A8887@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:10:11 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C718259D-FD05-4F8D-AA51-0A9B008DBCDE@cisco.com>
References: <C7D24EAC.2B5BC%br@brianrosen.net><8136DC6D-FD55-4A9F-A81B-902584B3DF6D@cs.columbia.edu> <424647DE-DA3B-4141-A1A1-060B7F7195E5@incident.com> <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC3A8887@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
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 20:10:13 -0000

On Mar 26, 2010, at 3:56 PM, DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW) wrote:

> Agree Art - Twitter is like SMS - no guarantee, unreliable, and prone to
> congestion. While in general it is good to try to get the message out as
> many ways as possible, at least one should be deemed "reliable".
> 
Sometimes reliability is the enemy of resilience. I would argue we're mostly shooting for the latter, and the former is often over-rated, especially if people start thinking it will work when needed and don't think more broadly, like maybe the cell tower just fell down.

That's why I think it's extremely short-sighted to try to "exempt" any particular device from the general IETF solution, and we should view the particular L2-specific mechanisms as optimizations to reduce load/congestion.

It also makes sense to view the cell-broadcast capability as an "underlay" for delivery of the more general Internet-generated and managed emergency alerts as opposed to some parallel and un-coordinated capability. 

Cheers, DaveO.

> Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:37 AM
> To: earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] What problem is ATOCA trying to address?
> 
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 3/26/10 9:14 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> And to bore everyone again with the same thing: In many cases,
> notifications are routinely sent to people outside a specific area or
> beyond a single network.
> 
> Which is why I thought it might be useful to reflect on WHY, after all
> these years, IP multicast has such limited scope, and on whether similar
> constraints might apply here.
> 
> Meanwhile, unicast approaches like Twitter rarely try to reach everyone
> on a particular local network, and they don't have any strict
> constraints on latency or even reliability, so I'd be cautious about
> assuming their suitability in emulation of a multicasting function.
> Anyone who's ever tried to text on New Year's Eve or Mother's Day should
> be able to relate.
> 
> - Art
> _______________________________________________
> 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