Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

"SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW)" <> Wed, 07 April 2010 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4780928C10B for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zvPGeeX-S2zD for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E10B3A67A4 for <>; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 25918 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 20:20:47 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 20:20:47 -0000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o37KKkSc008534; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:20:46 -0500
Received: from td03xsmtp008.US.Cingular.Net ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o37KKfsE007978; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:20:42 -0500
Received: from BD01XSMTP003.US.Cingular.Net ([]) by td03xsmtp008.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:20:41 -0500
Received: from BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net ([]) by BD01XSMTP003.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:20:39 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:20:38 -0700
Message-ID: <BE16D422273834438B43B6F7D730220F0D1A338C@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
Thread-Index: AcrWi0uYFwM2XZurSCubEInR3djUqAAAr18g
References: <><BE16D422273834438B43B6F7D730220F0D1A2FDB@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net> <>
To: "ken carlberg" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2010 20:20:39.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA656330:01CAD68F]
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <>,
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:21:27 -0000

In regards to the comment on the first sentence, all services have to be
evaluated for impact before they are implemented in any live
environment.  However, a service that is designed from the beginning
with no consideration of the impacts to the access technologies is a
very badly designed service.  ATOCA will have an adverse effect to at
least some of the access technologies and if ATOCA is designed without
any considerations of the capabilities and limitations of the access
technologies, it will fail and it will cause adverse effects to the
access technologies.

The proof of network congestion already exists.  This is demonstrated
repeatedly as "all circuits busy" error responses, dropped calls,
fast-busy tones, delayed delivery of SMS messages, etc. 

Since ATOCA is the new communications entity beginning proposed, the
burden of proof is on ATOCA to prove that it will not adversely impact
any of the associated access technologies.


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of ken carlberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:48 PM
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig;
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] Finishing the Charter Text Discussions

On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, SENNETT, DEWAYNE A (ATTCINW) wrote:

> "The ATOCA solutions will not adversely affect the ability of any
> technology to provide emergency services to the citizens (e.g. 9-1-1
> calls) or to provide communication services to first responders or
> authorized emergency services personnel.  Additionally, ATOCA is not
> replacement solution for any authority to citizen alerting supported
> any access technology."

given the previous thread on this list, I'm a bit leery of that first
sentence.  But, if it were agreed to add it in, then I would expect the
individuals who make a claim that an ATOCA solution adversely affects
9-1-1 type calls will be required to prove it instead of simply stating
a position.

as for the second sentence, that is out of scope of the IETF.  any
deployment of what is considered an ATOCA solution is a market decision.


earlywarning mailing list