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

"Thomson, Martin" <> Tue, 20 July 2010 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7589B3A6892 for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.714
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5PvZM65gINhV for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902013A65A5 for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]:61448 "EHLO") by with ESMTP id S323798Ab0GTXUR (ORCPT <rfc822;>); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:20:17 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:20:16 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by ([fe80::58c3:2447:f977:57c3%10]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:20:12 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:22:21 +0800
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] Comments on draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements-00
Thread-Index: AcsoOlKUAMi2XuhKRPWO2dHCeK8U/wAJ/zFA
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB77314ASISPE7MB1comm_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on
Cc: "" <>, "Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" <>
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Comments on draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Authority-to-Individuals \(Early Warning\) Emergency " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:20:04 -0000

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 []
Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 4:33 AM
Cc: Thomson, Martin; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo);
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"

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.


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.

See especially the Draft Implementors Note.


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<>