Re: [earlywarning] (no subject)

[[e-mail]]

Absolutely agree! The OGC Members have developed and are working alerting
and warning applications in many countries. Many different
infrastructures, policies, and endpoints. FCC rules do not apply :-)

Carl


> please, let's remember not to be U.S. centric.
>
> -ken
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:03 PM, DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW) wrote:
>
>> They are connected to the wireless network and under FCC rules the CMSP
>> has responsibility for delivering emergency alerts to those devices
>> under FCC Part 10 rules and the CMSP election to provide those alerts.
>>
>> So no, this work does not apply. CMAS applies to those devices.
>>
>> Brian Daly
>>
>> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 5:00 PM
>> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] (no subject)
>>
>> Are they connected to the Internet?
>>
>> If they are, it would apply.  If they aren’t, then it wouldn’t apply.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On 3/25/10 7:51 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> That will not apply to devices connected to wireless cellular networks.
>>
>>
>> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:50 PM
>> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] (no subject)
>>
>> Once again, this is NOT about a solution limited to wireless cellular
>> networks.  It is about a solution for internet connected endpoints of
>> all kinds.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On 3/25/10 7:46 PM, "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Keith – We agree with you, and to further the point, in wireless
>> cellular IP networks a point to point solution would be problematic.
>> Cell Broadcast is used for CMAS because SMS cannot be used for any real
>> time alerting – it was not designed for that application and has serious
>> limitations, as the FCC CMSAAC studied.
>>
>> When it comes to the evolved packet core and IMS, again a point to point
>> solution  will cause significant congestion on the network and a
>> broadcast/multicast solution must be used to effectively deliver alert
>> messages. Thus things like location and “priority” are already handled
>> in the delivery network.
>>
>> ATIS and 3GPP will be studying how to support multimedia alerts in the
>> future, as recommended by the FCC CMSAAC. This is all beyond the scope
>> of this work effort.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian
>>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:13:24 +0100
>> From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Updated Charter Text for ATOCA
>> To: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>,
>>       "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Message-ID:
>>       <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> What I am not seeing here is any separation of the problem from the one
>> that cell broadcast attempts to solve. Fundamentally, cell broadcast, as
>> exists on all GSM, UTRAN and E-UTRAN based cell phones and is being used
>> for Tsunami warning and Public Warning, exists and is not going to
>> substantially change. The major limitation here is is length of message,
>> and what does get transmitted will be very much dependent on that
>> restriction.
>>
>> Moreover I have heard from a number of governmental bodies that they are
>> happy with that situation and are not envisaging further standardisation
>> in that area outside of 3GPP.
>>
>> So my view at the moment is that there is no point in IETF trying to
>> address the scope of what is already specified in cell broadcast (from
>> base station to end mobile).
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> earlywarning mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>