Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Wed, 07 April 2010 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <br@brianrosen.net>
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 77FBB3A68D8 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.615
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 9N4gDOvF4WG8 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ebru.winwebhosting.com (ebru.winwebhosting.com [67.18.150.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1781228C130 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neustargw.va.neustar.com ([209.173.53.233] helo=[192.168.129.39]) by ebru.winwebhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <br@brianrosen.net>) id 1Nzbgx-000204-1i; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:17:39 -0500
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:17:44 -0400
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com>, ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com>
Message-ID: <C7E260A8.2C983%br@brianrosen.net>
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
Thread-Index: AcrWi0usG9/KhYhZR3OiTWO1oA9w7wAAJi8QAADfTYs=
In-Reply-To: <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC4F8124@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ebru.winwebhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - brianrosen.net
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, earlywarning@ietf.org
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:17:57 -0000

In what way would any RFC not have to meet that requirement?

I understand that you are concerned that this work overlaps layer 2 specific
solutions.  However, there is no need to explicitly put this work in second
class.  It's not going to affect any words in a protocol specification.  If
there is a regulatory requirement that makes ATOCA compliant
implementations, like any other service, subservient in some way to some
other service, so be it.  The charter, and the spec, don't need to say that;
it's always true.

Brian




On 4/7/10 3:56 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com> wrote:

> The second is more than a market decision - it is an interaction with a
> regulatory requirement.
> 
> Perhaps a better way to phrase is as follows:
> 
> "Additionally, ATOCA will not interfere with nor replace solutions
> designed to meet regulatory requirements for any authority to citizen
> alerting of any access technology."
> 
> Brian Daly
> AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ken carlberg
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:48 PM
> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> 
> 
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
> 
>> "The ATOCA solutions will not adversely affect the ability of any
> access
>> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
>> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or
> other
>> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
>> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported
> by
>> any access technology."
> 
> given the previous thread on this list, I'm a bit leery of that first
> sentence.  But, if it were agreed to add it in, then I would expect the
> individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects
> 9-1-1 type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply stating
> a position.
> 
> as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any
> deployment of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market decision.
> 
> -ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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