Re: [earlywarning] (no subject)
"DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com> Fri, 26 March 2010 01:20 UTC
Return-Path: <BD2985@att.com>
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 382153A6B14 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 zlV7iQfaq9cC for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A903A6B7A for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: BD2985@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1269566462!24819765!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25]
Received: (qmail 23676 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2010 01:21:03 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-7.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Mar 2010 01:21:03 -0000
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2Q1L29I007480; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:21:02 -0500
Received: from td03xsmtp005.US.Cingular.Net (td03xspare20-new.us.cingular.net [135.179.64.44] (may be forged)) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2Q1KvJd007403; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:20:57 -0500
Received: from bd01xsmtp004.US.Cingular.Net ([135.163.18.45]) by td03xsmtp005.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:20:56 -0500
Received: from BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net ([135.214.27.50]) by bd01xsmtp004.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:55 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CACC82.952733E4"
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:55 -0700
Message-ID: <FDFC6E6B2064844FBEB9045DF1E3FBBC093CB7@BD01MSXMB016.US.Cingular.Net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] (no subject)
thread-index: AcrMdXWIhGzmyLmiQ4WdBMpKl0bbeQAAHYYoAAAHKwAAAE0s2QABLtAAAABVy9EAAD/rSwAAUKQpAABAD3IAADQRYAAATMFW
From: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)" <BD2985@att.com>
To: James.Winterbottom@andrew.com, br@brianrosen.net, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com>, keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com, earlywarning@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2010 01:20:55.0737 (UTC) FILETIME=[955FAA90:01CACC82]
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: earlywarning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Authority-to-Individuals \(Early Warning\) Emergency " <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: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:20:58 -0000
James Good point and I think this is an area for discussion along with the dot11 issue. I see these as part of the work that this effort should evaluate. This is different from where the end device obtains service directly from the 3GPP network. Brian Brian K. Daly ------- Sent from my Blackberry ________________________________ From: Winterbottom, James <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com> To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); br@brianrosen.net <br@brianrosen.net>; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW); keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>; earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org> Sent: Thu Mar 25 18:14:35 2010 Subject: RE: [earlywarning] (no subject) Brian D, We are increasingly seeing 3G hotspot devices, aka MiFi type devices. In this mode the devices using 3G as a backhaul are connected to the Internet and almost certainly do not have access to the underlying IMS services. Any solution needs to work in that environment too. I am interested to hear what you are proposing here. Cheers James ________________________________ From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW) Sent: Friday, 26 March 2010 12:07 PM To: br@brianrosen.net; SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW); keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com; earlywarning@ietf.org Subject: Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) This is NOT silly Brian but serious when you consider the consequences to the networks. We have a solution in place for devices connected to a 3GPP network - we are asking that this work exclude devices that support 3GPP PWS/CMAS (EPC and IMS) as those solutions as designed and optimized for the "layer 2" networks. We even have mobile device behavior specifications. I propose we adopt the language in the charter. Brian Brian K. Daly ------- Sent from my Blackberry ________________________________ From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> To: SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW); DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>; earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org> Sent: Thu Mar 25 17:59:21 2010 Subject: Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) I think this is silly. No one is working on alert mechanisms that apply to the Internet. The Internet is global, ubiquitous and independent of L2. The proposed work applies to any kind of device connected to the Internet. Whatever scale problems exist apply to all L2s one way or another. They must be faced and solved for the work to be useful. To exclude wireless IMS systems based on the notion that someone else is working on a system limited to cell broadcast is, in my opinion, not a good idea. I do well understand that vendors and carriers don’t like multiple answers to the same problem. I get that. However, the IETF is the proper place to do work on alerts on the Internet, and should not exclude parts of the Internet. Brian On 3/25/10 8:50 PM, "SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <DS2225@att.com> wrote: I propose that the following sentence be added to the ATOCA charter: The ATOCA RFC's are not applicable to wireless devices which receive their connectivity via 3GPP EPC/IMS. <---------------------------> DeWayne Sennett, AT&T Services, Inc. Sent from my BlackBerry ________________________________ From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org <earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org> To: keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>; br@brianrosen.net <br@brianrosen.net>; earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org> Sent: Thu Mar 25 17:43:10 2010 Subject: Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Keith You bring up a good point - we don't want to design a solution that will result in failure of the network, therefore I second DeWayne's proposal to exclude from the charter devices that support PWS (and CMAS under that umbrella) and to acknowledge this solution may result in network problems (e.g. Congestion). Brian Daly Brian K. Daly ------- Sent from my Blackberry ________________________________ From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>; DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); earlywarning@ietf.org <earlywarning@ietf.org> Sent: Thu Mar 25 17:35:30 2010 Subject: RE: [earlywarning] (no subject) Yes those cellphones could well be connected to the internet. But cell broadcast service exists on 3GPP phones. For alerts that are intended to hit a large proportion of the phones in any cell, it makes best use of the bandwidth. You bring up an IP connection to all cellphones in that cell, and then broadcast warnings to all those cells, and the net result will be inappropriate loading of cells specifically for this traffic. Given that such warnings may otherwise create network stress as a result of the public warning being made in the first place, the first point of call for getting such warnings to cellphone uses has to be cell broadcast. It appears that many governmental organisations have accepted cell broadcast as the desired means of delivering public warnings to cellphones. Therefore any IETF activity has to acknowledge that solution exists for cellphones. Further I believe that any IETF solution has to specifically NOT convey the impression that for cellphones, the IETF solution is a good way forward for the warning itself. Users could well find the warnings from the IETF solution to an IP endpoint delivered well after the cell broadcast warning. And certainly the IETF solution should not expect priority over other types of traffic at that point, because at cell broadcast channel already exists to give that priority for the appropriate type of traffic. regards Keith ________________________________ From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:00 AM To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); earlywarning@ietf.org 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)" <BD2985@att.com> wrote: That will not apply to devices connected to wireless cellular networks. From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:50 PM To: DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW); earlywarning@ietf.org 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)" <BD2985@att.com> 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)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Updated Charter Text for ATOCA To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "earlywarning@ietf.org" <earlywarning@ietf.org> Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE20D1639BB@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> 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 earlywarning@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Brian Rosen
- [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Brian Rosen
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) ken carlberg
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) ken carlberg
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) ken carlberg
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Brian Rosen
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) James M. Polk
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Winterbottom, James
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Winterbottom, James
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) DALY, BRIAN K (ATTCINW)
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Winterbottom, James
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Art Botterell
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Winterbottom, James
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Art Botterell
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) Kepeng Li
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) creed
- Re: [earlywarning] (no subject) creed