Re: [earlywarning] WG Review: Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <> Mon, 26 July 2010 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8051F3A69E0; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.862
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.213, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WCISk5S9LG36; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F793A67F5; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o6Q6N22F025145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:23:04 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:23:03 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:23:02 +0200
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] WG Review: Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
Thread-Index: AcsoPxnsORMl8CwSRR21RvxGAljgFwD09IqA
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] WG Review: Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:22:47 -0000

I notice it says SIP is one of the candidates for this.

Surely if SIP is to be used, I assume that criteria for selection of a mechanims applies as has already been detailed for instant messaging.

Has someone already evaluated the criteria for warnings, and therefore verfied that they are appropriate for transport in SIP messages, as opposed to using MRCP.

I know the ETWS / CMA alerts all fit into 170 odd characters by definition, because that is the maximum length of the transport, but even the alert identity information I have seen discussed elsewhere, and proposed for use in this protocol, seems to be an OID and could be many 10s of characters in its own right. 

So all I am asking is whether the messaging criteria have already been evaluated and been found suitable for SIP transport, as opposed to a separate media stream using MRCP.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of IESG Secretary
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:00 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [earlywarning] WG Review: Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Real-time 
> Applications and Infrastructure Area.  The IESG has not made 
> any determination as yet.
> The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided 
> for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to 
> the IESG mailing
> list ( by Tuesday, July 27, 2010.               
> Authority to Citizen Alert (ATOCA)
> ----------------------------------
> Current Status: Proposed Working Group
> Last Modified: 2010-07-15
> Chairs(s)
> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Directors:
>    Gonzalo Camarillo <>
>    Robert Sparks <>
> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:
>    Robert Sparks <>
> Mailing Lists:
>   General Discussion:
>   To Subscribe: <>
>   Archive: <>
> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:
>    Robert Sparks <>
> Description of Working Group:
> There are a variety of mechanisms that authorities have 
> available to notify citizens and visitors during emergency 
> events. Traditionally, they have done so with broadcast 
> networks (radio and television). For commercial mobile 
> devices, broadcasting services such as the Public Warning 
> System (PWS), the Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System 
> (ETWS), and the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) are 
> standardized and are in various stages of deployment.  The 
> Internet provides another way for authority-to-citizen alerts 
> to be sent, but it also presents new challenges. While there 
> are some existing layer 2 mechanisms for delivering alerts, 
> the work in this group focuses on delivering alerts to IP 
> endpoints only.
> The general message pattern that this group is intended to 
> address is the sending of alerts from a set of pre-authorized 
> agents (e.g., governmental agencies) to a large population 
> without impacting layer 2 networks (e.g. causing congestion 
> or denial of service).
> The goal of this group is not to specify how originators of 
> alerts obtain authorization, but rather how an ATOCA system 
> can verify authorization and deliver messages to the intended 
> recipients. A critical element of the work are the mechanisms 
> that assure that only those pre-authorized agents can send 
> alerts via ATOCA, through an interface to authorized alert 
> distribution networks (e.g., iPAWS/DM-Open in the U.S.).
> 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.  
> Ideally, the alerts would contain, or refer to media other 
> than text media (e.g., audio and/or video). The initial work 
> in the group is focused on small messages, which may be 
> mechanically rendered by the device in other forms (text to 
> speech for example). Future work in the group may investigate 
> rich media.
> In situations of a major emergency there could be scenarios 
> where there are multiple alerts generated that may require 
> that a priority mechanism (defined by alert originator 
> policy) has to be used. The work on a resource priority 
> mechanism is out of scope of the initial charter, but may be 
> revisited at a later date.
> 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.  In many jurisdictions, 
> there are regulations that define whether recipients/devices 
> within the affected area have opt-in or opt-out capability, 
> but the protocols ATOCA will define will include both opt-in 
> and opt-out mechanisms. The group will explore how to support 
> both opt-in and opt-out at the level of communication 
> protocols and/or device behavior.
> Another class of recipients that are in scope of the work are 
> explicit opt-in subscriptions which ask for alerts for a 
> specified location, not necessarily the physical location of 
> the device itself.
> An example of such a subscription would be 'send me alerts 
> for location x' (previously determined as the location of interest).
> This work may build on existing IETF GEOPRIV location work.
> There are efforts in other fora on early warning, which will 
> be considered in this effort.  For example, we expect to make 
> use of the OASIS Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) for the 
> encoding of alerts. OGC, ATIS, TIA, ITU-T, ETSI and 3GPP also 
> have alert efforts underway, and consultation with these 
> efforts will be undertaken to avoid unnecessary duplication 
> of effort and also to avoid unintentional negative impacts on 
> the networks. Of course, existing protocols for delivering 
> messages (e.g., SIP, XMPP, or SMTP) will be the basis for the 
> message delivery system of this working group.
> Any service discovery mechanisms defined by the group are 
> expected to reuse existing discovery frameworks.
> The security implications of mechanisms that can send alerts 
> to billions of devices are profound, but the utility of the 
> mechanism encourages us to face the problems and solve them. 
> In addition, the potential performance and congestion impacts 
> to networks resulting from sending alert information to 
> billions of devices must be considered and solved if such a 
> service is implementable. To avoid manual configuration of 
> servers distributing alerts a discovery mechanism will be specified.
> NOTE FOR CHARTER REVIEW (this section to be removed before charter
> approval): Some early drafts related to this proposed work are
> * draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requirements
> * draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning
> * draft-rosen-atoca-server-discovery
> * draft-rosen-atoca-cap
> * draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements
> Goals and Milestones
> Jan 2011  Submit "Terminology and Framework" to the IESG for 
>          publication as Informational 
> Apr 2011  Submit "Addressing security, performance and
>          congestion issues for alert distribution" to the 
>          IESG for publication as Informational 
> Apr 2011 Submit conveying point-to-point Authority to Citizen Alerts
>         to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
> May 2011  Submit "Discovering alerting servers" to the IESG for 
>          publication as Proposed Standard
> Jun 2011 Submit conveying point-to-multipoint Authority to Citizen 
>         Alerts to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
> Aug 2011 Submit "Considerations for interworking with currently 
>         deployed alert distribution systems" to the IESG for 
>         publication as Informational
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list