Re: [Atoca] I-D Action:draft-ietf-atoca-requirements-01.txt

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <> Mon, 17 January 2011 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42EC28C1D6 for <>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.623
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.626, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x17WMeZwq-mi for <>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8218F28C1A2 for <>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p0HHoNfL005102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:50:23 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:50:23 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:50:20 +0100
Thread-Topic: [Atoca] I-D Action:draft-ietf-atoca-requirements-01.txt
Thread-Index: Acu05stlidXWWaCaS4i9mac+KqYVAABhziGQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <20110115190001.18610.17937.idtracker@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20110115190001.18610.17937.idtracker@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
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
Subject: Re: [Atoca] I-D Action:draft-ietf-atoca-requirements-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:47:50 -0000

I was scanning the charter to see if we had requirements for all items mentioned in the charter.

For the following text:

"Which devices should get alerts is primarily driven by location.
The first set of recipients that must be catered for are those
within the area identified by the alert originator to be affected
by the emergency event. " 

I could see the requiremnet for recipient control of this:


      The protocol solution MUST allow a potential Recipient to express
      the geographical area it wants to receive alerts about.

But I could see no corresponding require for the sender to be able to indicate which geographic locations it wants its alerts to go to.

I also looked at the following charter text:

"The ATOCA effort is differentiated from and is not intended to
replace other alerting mechanisms (e.g., PWS, CMAS, ETWS), as the
recipients of ATOCA alerts are the wide range of devices connected to
the Internet and various private IP networks, which humans may have
"at hand" to get such events, as well as automatons who may take
action based on the alerts. This implies that the content of the
alert contains some information, which is intended to be consumed
by humans, and some which is intended to be consumed by automatons.

I could see nothing in the i-d that even mentioned this, let alone discussed it. Rather the text:

   "This problem has been illustrated by the London underground bombing
   on July 7, 2006, as described in a government report [July2005].  The
   UK authorities could only use broadcast media and could not, for
   example, easily announce to the "walking wounded" where to assemble."

Could be be taken to imply that they intend to do exactly that, as I understand the UK initiative as a result of that was directed to mobile phone solutions, as identified above.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of 
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:00 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [Atoca] I-D Action:draft-ietf-atoca-requirements-01.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Authority-to-Citizen Alert 
> Working Group of the IETF.
> 	Title           : Requirements, Terminology and 
> Framework for Exigent Communications
> 	Author(s)       : H. Schulzrinne, et al.
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-atoca-requirements-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 14
> 	Date            : 2011-01-15
> Before, during and after emergency situations various 
> agencies need to provide information to a group of persons or 
> to the public within a geographical area.  While many aspects 
> of such systems are specific to national or local 
> jurisdictions, emergencies span such boundaries and 
> notifications need to reach visitors from other jurisdictions.
> This document provides terminology, requirements and an 
> architectural description for protocols exchanging alerts 
> between IP-based end points.
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> nts-01.txt
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail 
> reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII 
> version of the Internet-Draft.