[Atoca] Summary of "Requirement D2: Large Audience" Discussion

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Sun, 27 February 2011 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3853A69E4 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:10:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nqW55QlmE4hh for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E02713A69DF for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2011 10:11:08 -0000
Received: from a88-115-222-204.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.1.3]) [88.115.222.204] by mail.gmx.net (mp069) with SMTP; 27 Feb 2011 11:11:08 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX187OVYVSyE7iR4veYiXDB3hHcVTA82FtwG7wrqOPf NQJJHvnAU3B7fS
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:11:07 +0200
Message-Id: <31689DE4-E825-4B0B-96D0-EEA85A08E227@gmx.net>
To: earlywarning@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [Atoca] Summary of "Requirement D2: Large Audience" Discussion
X-BeenThere: earlywarning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <earlywarning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning>
List-Post: <mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:10:14 -0000

Hi all, 

thank you for your feedback on the long thread regarding the large audience requirement. 

Your feedback went in various directions, some of them were not related to the initial question. 

The initial question was about the refinement of the currently provided text that does not further specify a **number** for large audience. 

Two suggestions were made to deal with this issue: 

1) Talk about broadcast

2) Segment the numbers into groups depending on the likely number of recipients. 

Both approaches sound fine to me but I believe the former might be more appropriate because it points to the different architectural variants currently described in the document. 

I believe that this would be a good discussion topic for the upcoming IETF meeting. In particular, it would be interesting to discuss what tools we have in SIP to deal with the fulfillment of some of these requirements.  

The discussion then went on and lot of focus was spent on the "acknowledgment" messages that a receiver may sent as a confirmation of an alert delivery. 
There, a number of issues were raised, such as 
* At what layer does the ack happen? (e.g., SIP 200 OK, transport layer, application layer ack)
* Is the ack useful for cases were the alert message it targeted to a specific set of receivers rather than broadcasted? 
* Are we bound to the capabilities of the underlying communication infrastructure? 
* What are the scalability constraints? 
* Is an aggregation mechanism for acks useful? 

Ciao
Hannes