Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Wed, 07 April 2010 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jgunn6@csc.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 6AD4D3A6956; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.743, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Qt0BpBbANpGv; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail94.messagelabs.com (mail94.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725FD3A691F; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: jgunn6@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-94.messagelabs.com!1270677802!25110229!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.88]
Received: (qmail 1499 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 22:03:22 -0000
Received: from amer-mta102.csc.com (HELO amer-mta102.csc.com) (20.137.2.88) by server-8.tower-94.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 22:03:22 -0000
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta102.csc.com (Switch-3.3.3mp/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o37M3L2k005565; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:03:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BE16D422273834438B43B6F7D730220F0D1A338C@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
References: <20100406111818.284140@gmx.net><BE16D422273834438B43B6F7D730220F0D1A2FDB@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net> <C99FF8B7-61F4-4A05-8389-4F90E43F12F4@g11.org.uk> <BE16D422273834438B43B6F7D730220F0D1A338C@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 177516DE:0905AA2A-852576FE:00785208; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2FP1 CCH2 April 23, 2009
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Message-ID: <OF177516DE.0905AA2A-ON852576FE.00785208-852576FE.00792751@csc.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:03:17 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 8.0.1 HF996|December 23, 2008) at 04/07/2010 06:04:12 PM, Serialize complete at 04/07/2010 06:04:12 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00792306852576FE_="
Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org, 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 22:03:28 -0000

I don't have a dog in this fight (and I am not even "working") this week- 
but I can't resist putting in my 2 cents.

1) Typically, the greatest congestion occurs close to the "edges", whether 
you call it "the access network" or "the last mile".
 
2) There is often (but by no means always) a positive correlation between 
events that trigger both "citizen to authority" and "authority to citizen" 
messages,  and localized network congestion.

3) Any mechanism to support either "citizen to authority" or "authority to 
citizen" , or "authority to authority", "special" treatment should do so 
in a manner that does not exacerbate the localized congestion.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.

earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 04/07/2010 04:20:38 PM:

> [image removed] 
> 
> Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> 
> SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) 
> 
> to:
> 
> ken carlberg
> 
> 04/07/2010 04:21 PM
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
> 
> Cc:
> 
> Hannes Tschofenig, earlywarning
> 
> In regards to the comment on the first sentence, all services have to be
> evaluated for impact before they are implemented in any live
> environment.  However, a service that is designed from the beginning
> with no consideration of the impacts to the access technologies is a
> very badly designed service.  ATOCA will have an adverse effect to at
> least some of the access technologies and if ATOCA is designed without
> any considerations of the capabilities and limitations of the access
> technologies, it will fail and it will cause adverse effects to the
> access technologies.
> 
> The proof of network congestion already exists.  This is demonstrated
> repeatedly as "all circuits busy" error responses, dropped calls,
> fast-busy tones, delayed delivery of SMS messages, etc. 
> 
> Since ATOCA is the new communications entity beginning proposed, the
> burden of proof is on ATOCA to prove that it will not adversely impact
> any of the associated access technologies.
> 
> DeWayne 
> 
> 
> -----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