Subject: Re: [atoca] Content Responsibility.

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:52:00 +0100

Hi 

I feel that I owe you a clarification on what I mean by 'verbatim'.

I mean the content that the originator produced. If the originator did not
produce and interactive map, for example, then we can't synthesise one!

So it will be for the sender to create whatever message he wants to, in
whatever formats. It will be the job of the participating distributing
network to distribute in the format that they have agreed. 

For example, a message that may end up as a cell broadcast with small text,
may also have a more verbose text version intended for email distribution
and a slightly less verbose one for IM, twitter feed etc. 

So we expect an original CAP message to be very feature rich and the
gateways to be reducing this as the message progresses towards final
distribution. 

On the other hand, if an owner of a network such as a 4G broadband network
is very confident, then he can transmit the whole CAP and let the user
decide what he will display.

Obviously we cant send streaming video to citizens (as an official public
warning message)unless the authorised sender decided to do so. He must then
take all liability for what is sent.

Mark

---

From: "DALY, BRIAN K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:02:33 +0000

Mark -

I think the bottom line is the alert originator or an authorized government entity ("gateway") has to develop the text, and operators or handsets should not have responsibility for figuring out which portions of the text should or should not be displayed.

Thus as an operator I will transmit "verbatim" and expect the Federal Alert Gateway to provide me with the exact text to broadcast over CB. I will not change, modify, translate (e.g. to different languages), or do any other action on the text other than to package it into a CB payload and broadcast it.

I do not envision a 4G network sending entire CAP messages to the device either - in fact, CMAS is carried over to 4G and will work exactly like it is defined for GSM and UMTS.

--------
Brian K. Daly
Director, Core Network & Govn't/Regulatory Standards
AT&T Services, Inc.
+1.425.580.6873
[email-masked]

Rethink Possible

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 6:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [atoca] Content Responsibility.

Hi 

Mark

_______________________________________________
atoca mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca

---

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:14:39 +0100

Chaps;

-BD- "I do not envision a 4G network sending entire CAP messages to the
device either - in fact, CMAS is carried over to 4G and will work exactly
like it is defined for GSM and UMTS."

-MW- Maybe I am not being more all inclusive when I say '4G'. 

Maybe "networks" which are *not* operating GSM, UMTS or LTE standards will
participate, and they may do so within a framework which is not at all like
CMAS.

For example if a university enterprise network were to offer such a service
over its WiFi system, it may decide to go well beyond what CMAS requires as
the IP multicast system seems to have no specific limits as to payload size.

Also, CMAS is the result of negotiations between USA entities, whereas other
non US entities, (and indeed non cellular networks), may decide that some
aspects of CMAS are too limiting to really be a strict model (Though many of
its structures such will be the same).

I feel that more standards than ETWS, CMAS and ETSI 102-900 are yet to
emerge from the back rooms of governments!

So it's not safe to conclude that another participating network with
different system technology will restrict their offering to the subscriber
as much as CMAS has.

IMHO this means that if the participating network will agree, then almost
all of the CAP message would be distributed (minus any security things that
the trust protocol removes, of course!). Provided they are happy with the
burden of so doing. 

However this is the decision of the owners of the participating network, who
are after all, providing their spectrum and base station network. This does
need to be respected in my view.   

Mark

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +0300

Although your discussion is interesting the alert content is outside the scope of the ATOCA group. 

Is there anything in this thread that could provide input to the technical requirements we put into the requirements document?