Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"

"James M. Polk" <> Tue, 18 January 2011 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047ED3A6F67 for <>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:30:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.362
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CwTF3aJQUk9u for <>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131313A6F58 for <>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEACakNU2rR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACkX3OoLZo0hVAEhG8
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2011 22:33:28 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0IMXRwm013085; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:33:27 GMT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:33:26 -0600
To: "Peter Sanders" <>, "'Brian Rosen'" <>, "''"
From: "James M. Polk" <>
In-Reply-To: <00a301cbb660$37fdd9d0$a7f98d70$>
References: <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC024A1E59@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net> <002201cbb636$27cdf790$7769e6b0$> <> <00a301cbb660$37fdd9d0$a7f98d70$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:30:52 -0000

At 10:04 AM 1/17/2011, Peter Sanders wrote:
>Hi Brian and Mark,
>Brian, you state in your email the following:
>"It's VERY valuable to know that every entity that should get the alert got
>The authorities may not know who in particular needs to receive the alert
>message. They wish that everyone in a specific area receives it. However,
>the authorities may have no idea who is in the target area at that moment,
>so they can't ask for confirmation; they can, but they don't know if they
>miss a few acks.


I believe that is true in push based alerting, but not in 
subscription based alerting. If SIP is used, and each end-system that 
wants to receive a certain alert SUBSCRIBEs to the alerting service, 
then the alerting service will NOTIFY the end-system that wanted to 
receive the alert, with a 200 OK as the return acknowledgement that 
the NOTIFY with the CAP message/container (or whatever is ultimately 
chosen to tell the receiver what's happening) would be the confirmation.

This is all predicated on the use of SIP for this discussion.

As Brian effectively points out, if there are many alerting servers 
alerting a subset of the subscribed end-systems, this scales far 
better, and I bet it doesn't need to be coalesced in real time for 
any reports. Further, the 200 OKs are far smaller in size than the 
alert message itself, so the traffic is far less in the upstream direction.


>Finding out who is in a specific area is technically possible, but may
>generate far more network traffic than the acks you expect from a few
>million people, and it takes time too.
>I just wanted to add these remarks to the discussion.
>Best regards,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
>Sent: maandag 17 januari 2011 15:44
>Subject: Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
>It may be, but I'd like to explore this a bit anyway.
>Millions of messages (acknowledgements) is a scale we can deal with today.
>Hundreds of millions is probably beyond what we can deal with in a response
>to a very large alert.
>Most systems consist of several smaller subsystems.  The purpose of an
>acknowledgement is to make sure everyone got the message.  If the subsystem
>can determine that every one of its clients got it, it can report that up
>the line.  It can save missed acks for later analysis, or if there are few
>enough of them, report them up.
>This means messages national scale which have small effectivity times can't
>reasonably ask for message acknowledgement.  Anything smaller than that
>probably can.
>Since most alerts really don't involve hundreds of millions of
>notifications, most alerts probably can ask for them.
>If your delivery mechanism is multicast, the multicast mechanism itself
>doesn't track who gets the alert in any way we can use.  That implies
>something else is tracking who gets the alert, a complication that could
>loom large.  Some systems do know who gets the alert (sometimes because it
>knows who it is connected to, and all of them get the alert).  Certainly,
>anything with a subscription has the characteristic that the sender knows
>who all the recipients are.
>It's VERY valuable to know that every entity that should get the alert got
>it.  The only other mechanism we have is some repeating of the sending in
>the hopes that everyone got it.  In some cases you may have more than one
>"path" to the same recipient.  That might be multiple devices, multiple
>services, or multiple logical or physical connections.  You may try one
>first, and if that doesn't get an ack, try another.  Although we often think
>of this mechanism as needing no more than seconds to deploy, in fact many
>alerts would be fine with a few minutes, and trying some things sequentially
>may make sense.
>So, yes, probably a Tsunami alert to all of East Asia can't ask for
>acknowledgements.  An "Amber Alert" (possible abducted child) to a county
>might very well.  Certainly, a snow emergency closing to the parents of an
>elementary school could.
>On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:03 AM, <>
><> wrote:
> > Hello chaps,
> >
> > Yes, it's only possible to have any kind of delivery reports regarding
> > specific terminals on a one-to-one kind of unicast delivery. The
> > were not considering Cell Broadcast or any other kind of multicast
> > technology as they have selected a SMS based delivery system, so this is
> > probably what they had in mind. I noticed that atoca language about this
> > reserved mostly for the 'subscription push' kind of distribution.  We need
> > to take care not to make it look like a mandated requirement for
> > broadcast/multicast bearers.
> >
> > IMHO, the other special problems with multicast,  mean that it needs
> > different and special requirements and cannot be generalized with other
> > 'push' or 'pull'  technologies quite so easily, tempting though that is. I
> > think this problem happens because most IT professionals are familiar with
> > TCP and UDP but rarely use multicast so are unfamiliar with its very
> > different attributes.
> >
> > Many vendors offer systems which do have a positive indication of who got
> > what,  and this is a good thing for applications of up to about 10,000
> > receivers. Netherlands studies showed that by the time you scale up to
> > millions,  the mass scale of all this becomes a problem, so large scale
> > systems will have to reluctantly abandon the notion of  individual
> > confirmation.
> >
> > Besides, the police authority of a large city don't have the time, during
> > emergency, to check out millions of replies nor take any action if someone
> > does not reply (they are too busy). On the other hand a smaller community
> > may value such a facility, so it seems that they authority will need to
> > choose whatever is appropriate for the circumstances at their discretion.
> > There is no 'one size fits all' solution so we will have to blend many
> > bearers in any real situation.  For example the Norwegians take the
> > view.
> >
> > However, it is possible to confirm that the multicast was transmitted, as
> > network of feedback receivers is envisaged in conjunction with an outer
> > reporter system, which would report of the message was transmitted on air.
> > If it did not, then an alarm would be generated by the originating
> > aggregator for the log file. So the positive indication of the fact of the
> > transmission over the air is satisfied even though individual delivery is
> > not.
> >
> > In summary, IMHO,  Broadcast/multicast bearers will need special treatment
> > as they don't neatly conform to the classic notions of 'push' or 'pull'.
> >
> > Warm regards, Mark  Wood.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > earlywarning mailing list
> >
> >
>earlywarning mailing list
>earlywarning mailing list