Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"

"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> Mon, 17 January 2011 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@andrew.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 2F49E3A6DAE for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:09:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mOsZPuxwFEIs for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from csmailgw1.commscope.com (csmailgw1.commscope.com [198.135.207.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6033A6DBF for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.86.20.103] ([10.86.20.103]:15684 "EHLO ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com") by csmailgw1.commscope.com with ESMTP id S41433815Ab1AQFMM (ORCPT <rfc822; earlywarning@ietf.org>); Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:12:12 -0600
Received: from SISPE7HC1.commscope.com (10.97.4.12) by ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com (10.86.20.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:12:12 -0600
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC1.commscope.com ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:12:07 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
To: Art Botterell <artbotterell@gmail.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:12:05 +0800
Thread-Topic: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
Thread-Index: Acu2BF5AO+s86cIvQzGY8TjhOO8dIAAADPpA
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F525968A@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <AC859123-98E0-4188-8898-0CBBDA567FBC@gmx.net> <A7EF592C-E85F-4FD1-9F69-C59327D735AC@gmail.com> <1285F7FB-FFBE-4B49-87F8-FCDCDF1F1AD3@gmx.net> <8DB1F455-6444-4FC6-841A-60242CAAE0BC@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8DB1F455-6444-4FC6-841A-60242CAAE0BC@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw1.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Cc: "earlywarning@ietf.org" <earlywarning@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
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: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 05:09:40 -0000

Interesting tidbit from the Australian warning system discussions: the originating systems (the first relay) provides a report to the emergency authority on the number of deliveries.  That suggests that feedback occurs at some level.

I don't know whether this sort of reporting is something that would be part of a requirement, but I'll try to find out.

--Martin

On 2011-01-17 at 14:20:37, Art Botterell wrote:
> Mainly I was just suggesting one way of looking at the "how large is
> 'large'" question.  Although it does highlight some of Martin's
> questions about how to adapt a session initiation protocol to a one-to-
> very-many application, if that's what we have in mind.  As he rightly
> points out, responses don't only happen at the application level.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Art
> 
> On Jan 16, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>; wrote:
> 
> > Hi Art,
> >
> > that's an interesting comment particularly since we do not have a
> requirement for responses by receivers (or Recipients) of alert
> messages. I am not sure to whom they would sent their response to. To
> the originator, to some gateway, etc?
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:58 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
> >
> >> One difference in "broadcast" delivery is that it's frequntly
> impractical and/or undesirable to try to track individual deliveries or
> process individual responses.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> - Art
> >>
> >> On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>; wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> during the ATOCA meeting at IETF#79 Igor raised a question
> regarding requirement D2:
> >>> "
> >>> Req-D2:
> >>>
> >>>    The protocol solution MUST allow delivery of messages
> >>>    simultaneously to a large audience.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> He was asking whether there is a need to put a number for large
> audience there.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe Igor has a specific number in mind that would matter from a
> protocol design perspective but I do not have such a number that would
> provide a meaningful distinction.
> >>>
> >>> There is, however, the question what types of problems we expect
> with very large number of alert message receivers and how we document
> this aspect in the requirements document.
> >>>
> >>> Suggestions? Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Ciao
> >>> Hannes
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> earlywarning mailing list
> >>> earlywarning@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
> >
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning