Re: [earlywarning] New Charter Text Proposal

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

Okay with me


On 5/5/10 11:52 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> as you all have seen it is a bit difficult to come up with a text that makes
> everyone happy. Please find an updated proposal below based on the recent
> discussions on the list.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
> ==================================
> 
> There are a variety of mechanisms that authorities have available to
> notify citizens and visitors of 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 the process of being deployed.
> 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 the 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 that
> 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.).
> 
> This work is differentiated from and is not intended to replace other
> alerting mechanisms (e.g., PWS, CMAS, ETWS), as the recipients of these
> ATOCA alerts are the wide range of devices connected to the Internet and
> 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), but 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). 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 alert.  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 we 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 layer 2 networks. Of course, existing protocols for delivering
> messages (e.g., SIP) will be the basis for the message delivery system
> of this working group.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Milestones
>  
> TBD      Initial document for "Terminology and Framework" document.
>          A starting point for this work is
>          draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requirements.
> TBD      Initial document for conveying alerts in SIP.
>          A starting point for this work is draft-rosen-sipping-cap
> TBD   Initial document for conveying alerts through point to
> multipoint methods.
> TBD      Initial document for locating the alerting server for a
> geographic region.
>          A starting point for this work is
> draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning.
> TBD   Initial document addressing security, performance and congestion issues
> for alert distribution.
> TBD   Initial document for interfacing existing alert
> distribution systems.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning