Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 09 April 2010 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 F039C3A6999; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.846, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 OEEwGMJykUJx; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5794E3A69A2; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o39K7wj7013424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:58 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.47]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:58 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "creed@opengeospatial.org" <creed@opengeospatial.org>, "MUSGROVE, CHARLES P (ATTCINW)" <CM8655@att.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:56 +0200
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
Thread-Index: AcrYDZBr55pSxroLTPqxLPvFd+7D7gAC8Ywg
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE211E998C6@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <OFCA7503BE.2F496E41-ON852576FF.004864D7-852576FF.00492183@csc.com><C7E35393.2CB12%br@brianrosen.net><FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC4F837D@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net> <49736.76.25.20.162.1270829364.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org> <C2C65F42AFB4B64090C92F28A6F6302E0E742023@BD01MSXMB023.US.Cingular.Net> <50016.76.25.20.162.1270835598.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
In-Reply-To: <50016.76.25.20.162.1270835598.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: "earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org" <earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org>, "DALY, BRIAN K \(ATTCINW\)" <bd2985@att.com>, "earlywarning@ietf.org" <earlywarning@ietf.org>, "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)" <md3135@att.com>
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: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:08:12 -0000

Carl, I think the problem is that your statement: "I do not see discussions on L2 or CMAS or whatever", implies on first reading that there are none, rather than you are not aware of them.

Indeed there are activities taking place on trialing cell broadcast for such alerts, and at least the intent I was seeing from the people involved in this was that they would be looking to activities in ETSI to channel this work into 3GPP, and that they would be using the CMAS work as a starting point. One key problem to solve is that in multilingual countries, the alert would have to be delivered in multiple languages - not a problem except procedures need to be defined to cycle round such messages, which does not exist in CMAS at the moment. I also gathered some clear statements that they wanted a solution independent of any work that took place elsewhere on other infrastructures.

So to me this emphasises that the ATOCO work has to progess in a manner that works in a complementary fashion to other mechanisms already in deployment, and which in certain scenarios may be the only reliable mechanism of delivering the alert, and not just assume from its charter that the mechanism it provides when it is finished is the only fish in the pond.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> creed@opengeospatial.org
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:53 PM
> To: MUSGROVE, CHARLES P (ATTCINW)
> Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org; earlywarning@ietf.org; 
> DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> 
> As I was thinking - there are multiple levels of 
> standardization work going on in Europe. The OGC community is 
> dealing at the application level
> - not the infrastructure level.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Carl
> > Europe is looking at a warning system based on the 3GPP 
> Public Warning 
> > System (PWS) based on cell broadcast. They are studying the 
> US-based 
> > CMAS as a model for their PWS with a long-term goal of 
> supporting PWS 
> > for international roamers (among European countries as well 
> as to/from 
> > US/Asia/elsewhere). The Netherlands is already moving toward 
> > implementation of a cell broadcast-based system.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter Musgrove
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org 
> > [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org]
> > On Behalf Of creed@opengeospatial.org
> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:09 AM
> > To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
> > Cc: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS); earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org; 
> > earlywarning@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> >
> > In Europe they are working toward a Pan-European alerting 
> and warning 
> > infrastructure with full interoperability. However, I am 
> not sure at 
> > what level in the "stack" this work is being done - perhaps more at 
> > the higher levels in the application arena. I do not see 
> discussions 
> > on L2 or CMAS or whatever. The European programs are 
> initially being 
> > funded as part of the FP 6 and 7 initiatives. Check out ORCHESTRA 
> > (http://www.eu-orchestra.org/), GMES/SAFER
> > 
> (http://www.emergencyresponse.eu/site/FO/scripts/myFO_accueil.php?lang
> > =EN) and SANY (http://www.sany-ip.eu/). SANY is interesting because 
> > the focus is on integrating sensor alerts into a modeling, warning, 
> > and alerting infrastructure.
> >
> > Similar activities are occurring in Asia, such as Debris Flow 
> > Monitoring and Alerting in Taiwan, Tsunami Alerting in 
> Indonesia, and 
> > earthquake warning in Japan.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Brian -
> >>
> >> If "no one" is asking for interoperability (and I am not 
> sure who "no 
> >> one"
> >> is :-) ) then I agree this can be a somewhat peaceful 
> co-existence of 
> >> mandated services (CMAS, EAS, iPAWS, DMOpen vs a market driven 
> >> service that is not and will not be designed with the intention to 
> >> integrate into or interoperate with services such as CMAS.
> >>
> >> However, because of the potential for confusion by the reader and 
> >> regulators, all we are asking is that the charter clearly 
> state this 
> >> fact that apparently we are in agreement on.
> >>
> >> Can we craft some language for the charter that emphasizes this?
> >>
> >> Brian D.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
> >> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:34 AM
> >> To: Padma Valluri
> >> Cc: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW); 
> >> earlywarning@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
> >> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> >>
> >> Because it¹s pretty hard to define ³interoperability² with L2 
> >> mechanisms that deliver alerts.  One of the biggest 
> problems I have 
> >> with most existing
> >> L2 specific mechanisms is that they assume they are the only way 
> >> alerts are received. As a result, if you get an alert from 
> some other 
> >> mechanism, you have no idea if its the same alert or a 
> different one.  
> >> Your UI can't help you at all with this.  One of the 
> things I think 
> >> we need is some ID mechanism which is protocol agnostic and simply 
> >> serves as the way to know if you got an alert from 
> multiple sources 
> >> that they are the same alert.
> >>
> >> Actually, no one is asking for interoperability.  They are 
> discussing 
> >> various forms of peaceful co-existence.  Designing the protocol to 
> >> take advantage of some kinds of L2 packet delivery 
> mechanisms may be 
> >> possible however.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/8/10 9:18 AM, "Padma Valluri" <pvalluri@csc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what "use" means here other than to imply 
> >>> interoperable/interworking with existing capabilities 
> that are more 
> >>> efficient in certain segments of the network and deployed 
> already. 
> >>> Why can't we be up front about making the interoperabilty 
> as one of 
> >>> the main requirements of this charter to provide an end-to-end 
> >>> solution?
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Padma .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
> >>> To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>om>, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A 
> (ATTCINW)"
> >>> <DS2225@att.com>
> >>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org, "DOLLY, MARTIN C \(ATTLABS\)"
> >>> <md3135@att.com>
> >>> Date: 04/07/2010 05:55 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not bothered by the first part.  I don't like the 
> last phrase, 
> >>> because I'm not sure we should specifically describe such 
> >>> capabilities, and it may not be a gateway.  How about 
> changing the 
> >>> last sentence to "A goal of the work will be to be able to use 
> >>> layer-2 specific mechanisms, where available, to minimize load on 
> >>> the network."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/7/10 5:41 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ok, I can grant that that's something that's not clearly 
> explained 
> >>>> in the current charter.  However, it's also an issue 
> that will tend 
> >>>> to be
> >>>> layer-2 specific.  How about something like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> "
> >>>> Emergency alerts that are delivered to large numbers of 
> endpoints 
> >>>> can put a large load on the network, particularly when many 
> >>>> affected users are on the same local network (e.g., the 100,000 
> >>>> attendees at a sporting event).  This working group will 
> consider 
> >>>> mechanisms for minimizing this load, such as IP multicast.  In 
> >>>> particular, some approaches have been developed to 
> handle emergency 
> >>>> alerting in different types networks, and it will be a 
> goal of this 
> >>>> working group to facilitate interoperability with these 
> approaches, 
> >>>> for example, to enable gateways to relay messages from this 
> >>>> Internet mechanism into a specific layer-2 channel.
> >>>> "
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:47 PM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It is deficient because it does not take into account 
> the impacts 
> >>>>> that will occur to the various access technologies.  All access 
> >>>>> technologies do not have the same capacity, bandwidth, etc. 
> >>>>> Therefore any design that has the potential to send 
> information to 
> >>>>> all citizens within an area via any variety of access 
> technologies 
> >>>>> needs to consider these factors.
> >>>>> For
> >>>>> example, consider the scenario of trying to send an 
> alert to the 
> >>>>> 100,000 fans at a college football game.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The current draft charter of ATOCA does not address 
> this which is 
> >>>>> why the additional sentences for the second paragraph 
> were proposed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> DeWayne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com 
> >>>>> <mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com> ]
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:38 PM
> >>>>> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
> >>>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); Henning Schulzrinne; 
> DOLLY, MARTIN C 
> >>>>> (ATTLABS); earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text 
> Discussions
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could you please clarify how you believe it to be deficient?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:37 PM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> My "personal" view is that the charter as currently written is 
> >>>>>> not correct or adequate.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DeWayne
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org 
> >>>>>> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org
> >>>>>> <mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org> ] On Behalf Of 
> DALY, BRIAN 
> >>>>>> K
> >>>>>> (ATTCINW)
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:33 PM
> >>>>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne; DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
> >>>>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text 
> >>>>>> Discussions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fine but my "personal" view does not change.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Brian Daly
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu 
> >>>>>> <mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu> ]
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:31 PM
> >>>>>> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
> >>>>>> Cc: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text 
> >>>>>> Discussions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The point is that people speak as individuals in the IETF and 
> >>>>>> there is no particular notion that a corporate opinion has any 
> >>>>>> more weight than that of any individual. Thus, stating a 
> >>>>>> corporate opinion is out of place and against IETF custom and 
> >>>>>> convention.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Henning
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:28 PM, DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They sure do, look at everyone's badge
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org 
> >>>>>>> <earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org>
> >>>>>>> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
> >>>>>>> Cc: earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Wed Apr 07 16:21:20 2010
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text 
> >>>>>>> Discussions
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I didn't know that the IETF had corporate opinions. But maybe 
> >>>>>>> the IETF
> >>>>>> rules have changed recently?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Henning
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:13 PM, DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW) wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For the record, AT&T is in opposition to removing the last 
> >>>>>>>> sentence.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Brian Daly
> >>>>>>>> AT&T
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
> >>>>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> >>>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
> >>>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> >>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> earlywarning mailing list
> >>>>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> >>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> earlywarning mailing list
> >>>> earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> >>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> earlywarning mailing list
> >>> earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>