Re: [earlywarning] Comments on draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements-00

Hi Martin, 

I searched around a bit and found this document:
http://www.adrc.asia/publications/TDRM2003Dec/19_MR.%20SATORU%20NISHIKAWA.pdf

That document introduced another classification, which I believe is different from what can be found in the CAP document. 

I wonder how the two relate to each other. 

I suspect that there will never be an agreement on the categories and the only way to go with this is to
* just define a top level service 
* pick a few sub-level services
* provide extension points. 

Ciao
Hannes

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:22:21 +0800
> Von: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
> An: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "trutkowski@netmagic.com" <trutkowski@netmagic.com>
> CC: "earlywarning@ietf.org" <earlywarning@ietf.org>, "Tschofenig, 	Hannes \\(NSN - FI/Espoo\\)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
> Betreff: Re: [earlywarning] Comments	on	draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements-00

> For me, the GLIDE number was of interest, particularly in the design of
> the service URN space.  It might be worth looking into a comparison of the
> two taxonomies.
> 
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 4:33 AM
> To: trutkowski@netmagic.com
> Cc: Thomson, Martin; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo);
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Comments on
> draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements-00
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> thanks for pointing to the CAP Implementer's workshop and in particular
> the "Draft Implementors Note on Harmonizing Certain Identifiers in CAP
> Implementations"
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ISS/Meetings/WIS-CAP_Geneva2009/DraftNote.doc.
> 
> My understanding of that document (and my participation at an earlier
> workshop) is there is room for improvement in the CAP specification from an
> interoperability point of view.
> 
> Since the work in this group only focuses on the transport of alerts
> rather than the actual content of the alerts we should not be impacted.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> On 16.07.2010 13:05, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>  Hi Martin,
> 
> You might also consider the concepts on architecture
> and identity constructs that emerged from last year's
> global gathering of emergency messaging authorities
> convened at the World Meteorological Organization.
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ISS/Meetings/WIS-CAP_Geneva2009/DocPlan.html
> 
> See especially the Draft Implementors Note.
> 
> best,
> tony
> 
> 
> I'm currently unsure about the value of this document.  The different
> components of the document are somewhat disjointed: problem statement,
> architectural model, and requirements don't support each other particularly well.
> 
> General Comments:
> 
> This model presented in this document is highly abstract.  Without a more
> concrete relationship with the requirements, it's hard to understand the
> value of the model.  Section 3 looks too much like a copy-and-paste from the
> email architecture.
> 
> A simpler model might be a better starting point:
>    author [1..*] ->  [1] aggregator [1] ->  [1..*] recipient
> 
> Such a model can be evolved to involve relays or mediators by overlapping
> and chaining roles, just as we do for the GEOPRIV model.  Nothing wrong
> with giving these entities names and descriptions, but they can form part of a
> second architectural layer.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org<mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> 