Subject: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:27:29 -0500

Just a thought on the citizen notification topic that was briefly 
mentioned yesterday: I think that LoST can actually be quite useful 
there. The main problem for citizen notification is to find out where to 
get notifications since it will, in general, be very difficult for 
authorities to find out what devices are within their geographic reach. 
(Clearly, this is possible for cell phones and maybe for some 
residential access, but requires tight coordination of the government 
authorities with all network providers.)

The solution is simple: When querying LoST, get back a SIP URI or email 
address or other identifier that one can subscribe to and then get 
notifications for that geographic area.

This is not in scope, but it might be worth keeping in mind, 
particularly since it seems to fit the existing model. (We'd probably 
define a new service URN service for that.)

Henning

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:42:21 -0500

On Mar 22, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> particularly since it seems to fit the existing model. (We'd  
> probably define a new service URN service for that.)

I was thinking exactly that.  urn:service.sos.disaster-notice.  And  
defining it in such a way, I think it might be within the scope of  
the working group.

-andy

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:43:12 -0500

Or receive back the multicast S,G to 'tune into"......

-Marc- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST
> 
> Just a thought on the citizen notification topic that was 
> briefly mentioned yesterday: I think that LoST can actually 
> be quite useful there. The main problem for citizen 
> notification is to find out where to get notifications since 
> it will, in general, be very difficult for authorities to 
> find out what devices are within their geographic reach. 
> residential access, but requires tight coordination of the 
> government authorities with all network providers.)
> 
> The solution is simple: When querying LoST, get back a SIP 
> URI or email address or other identifier that one can 
> subscribe to and then get notifications for that geographic area.
>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:09:27 -0500

Most likely a pointer to SDP in that case, since a multicast address by 
itself probably isn't sufficient to communicate.

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:19:48 -0500

Generally, I think this is a good idea.

A problem with it is that what you REALLY want is an opt-in of the form
"send me notices of emergencies where I am at the moment," which is fairly
straightforward, but you also want one that was "send me notices of
emergencies where my child is at the moment", which is less straightforward.

The general way notification services that exist now work is that you
register with an AREA of interest, and a notifier registers with an area of
service. For example, Contra Costa County Sheriffs Office registers as a
recipient of weather events within Contra Costa County.  NOAA registers as a
notifier of weather events for all of the United States.  If NOAA issues an
alert for four counties including Contra Costa County; the Sheriffs office
gets that alert.  Look at EPAD at Comcare (www.comcare.org/epad.html).

Nevertheless, Henning has talked about keeping "liveness" of a mapping by
tracking location relative to the service boundary of, say, a PSAP.  I'm
still not sure how that works, but if it did, it would be the kind of thing
we want for this use.

Brian

________________________________________
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:42 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

This is not in scope, but it might be worth keeping in mind, particularly
since it seems to fit the existing model. (We'd probably define a new
service URN service for that.)

I was thinking exactly that. urn:service.sos.disaster-notice. And defining
it in such a way, I think it might be within the scope of the working group.

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:18:59 -0500

The two services (citizen-to-authority and authority-to-citizen) are 
probably sufficiently distinct that something like

urn:service:alert.chemical

might be a better fit, where 'chemical' might identify the type of 
emergency I'm interested in. For example, the person responsible for the 
air intake valves at the Pentagon may not be particularly concerned with 
'amber alerts' (for non-US audience: These are alerts for missing children.)

> defining it in such a way, I think it might be within the scope of the 
> working group.
> 
> -andy

---

From: Shida Schubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:31:20 -0800

Hi Brian;

 I think Rohan was suggesting some draft for filtering location info
and event package for delivering location for the purpose of "I
want to know where foo is.".  I guess one can use the information
attained through the event package mentioned above and plug
that into what henning is suggesting.

 Regards
  Shida

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:39:33 -0500

I agree that you need to be able to get alerts for other places. There 
are two cases:

(1) "Alert me for point X"

(2) "Alert me for area Y (polygon)"

I think (1) is easy to handle in LoST, regardless of whether X happens 
to be my current location or that of some other party. Obviously, the 
notification for point X might cover a whole county or larger region. 
The same region hinting would apply here, i.e., the response from LoST 
would indicate the polygon or civic address coordinates where the same 
notification address applies. There is no need to re-query until you or 
your child move outside that area.

(2) is somewhat harder, as the polygon may have many notification 
addresses if it spans multiple jurisdictions. I'm less sure that this is 
actually needed in practice.

Henning

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:42:24 -0500

What I don't think would work would be a service that got (filtered)
notifications of current location changes, and for each of those
notifications, queried LoST to determine the service notifier, and when it
changed, initiated a new subscription to the new notifier.

Take an example: you are on a mobile device, near a border, and moving.
When you first start, you are in one country, and you subscribe to that
country's notification service.  No problem.   But, you are moving.  Some
service is subscribed to your presence and tracking you (opt-in of course).
Does that service have to continuously query using LoST to determine that
you have crossed the boundary?  

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Shida Schubert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:31 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Andrew Newton'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

Hi Brian;

 Regards
  Shida

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:12:45 -0500

You seem to have a mediated model in mind where the end user subscribes 
to the 'emergency alerting service' and the mediator then provides and 
possibly aggregates alerts from multiple sources. The mediator obviously 
needs to subscribe to my location to make this work, like you indicate.

In that model, the mediating service would get the location 
notifications for you (and probably lots of other people), query LoST 
and cache the results. If somebody shows up in a new area, it changes 
the alert notification or the alert subscriptions. This certainly 
doesn't require re-querying LoST for each border crossing.

Henning

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:27:56 -0500

I think you more or less answered the question earlier, when you described
how LoST can return information that lets you determine locally if you are
still in an area where the mapping remains valid.  I'm still somewhat
skeptical of how that works for geo (I'm guessing you have to return the
entire service boundary of the service, which could be pretty large, and
then the local decision is point-in-polygon).  It's very nice where there
are regular civic boundaries (for example, valid for the entire
country/state/county...), which probably would be common.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:13 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Shida Schubert'; 'Andrew Newton'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

Henning

Brian Rosen wrote:
>> recipient of weather events within Contra Costa County.  NOAA registers
as
> a
defining

---

From: Shida Schubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:29:34 -0800

I guess other alternative is to enable people to subscribe to
user's emergency notification.

 This way, only target user will be the one needing to
query the LoST.

 1. I would subscribe to my son's emergency notification info.
 2. When my son's UA or PUA receives an emergency notification
      from emergency notification server it sends out the same information
      to the subscriber who subscribed to emergency notification info.

 BTW I am concerned with frequency the LoST queries are to
be made if the service discussed here is really considered.
 To really minimize the frequency of the queries, the only
way I can think of is by setting a query trigger filter based on
location range on the user device or out-bound proxy(In which
case proxy needs to store the location used in the last query for
comparison).
 
 Regards
  Shida Schubert

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> You seem to have a mediated model in mind where the end user 
> subscribes to the 'emergency alerting service' and the mediator then 
> provides and possibly aggregates alerts from multiple sources. The 
> mediator obviously needs to subscribe to my location to make this 
> work, like you indicate.
>
>> From: Shida Schubert [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, March 
>> 22, 2006 11:31 AM
>> To: [email-masked]
>>> register with an AREA of interest, and a notifier registers with an 
>>> area
>> of
>>> recipient of weather events within Contra Costa County.  NOAA 
>>> registers as
>> a
>>> notifier of weather events for all of the United States.  If NOAA 
>>> issues
>> an
>>> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 
>>> 2006 10:42 AM
>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne
>>> Cc: [email-masked]'
>>> particularly

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:36:00 -0500

I think we're in general agreement. I would add that a service provider 
can choose to approximate the coverage region by a fewer-faced polygon, 
at the cost of having overlapping polygons in the border regions. This 
is probably harmless in practice and may even be useful since 
emergencies rarely conform to county boundaries.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:22:10 -0500

I'm not quite sure I understand your model or your concern. The number 
of extra LoST queries would be very small - probably about one or two a 
day for most users, at most. This obviously depends on the validity 
period of the information returned, but I don't see any reason why a 
subscription address would change frequently. They'd probably change 
about as frequently as IETF mailing list addresses... Thus, unless I'm 
traveling very large distances each day, always into uncharted 
territory, I wouldn't need to make any extra queries since the 
subscription address information could well be valid for days or weeks 
and since the user can easily cache the one or two regions they are 
likely to traverse during their commute.

I'm expecting notification regions to be roughly of city or county size, 
for practical reasons.

Henning

Shida Schubert wrote:
>>> you have crossed the boundary? Brian
>>>

---

From: Shida Schubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:07:45 -0800

Hi Henning;

 You have a valid point.
 I guess if the client queries the LoST server only when there
is a change in city, state or country in its civic address,
the frequency of LoST queries won't be an issue.

 Regards
  Shida Schubert

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> of extra LoST queries would be very small - probably about one or two 
> a day for most users, at most. This obviously depends on the validity 
> I'm expecting notification regions to be roughly of city or county 
> size, for practical reasons.
>
> Henning
>
> Shida Schubert wrote:
>>
>>> notifications for you (and probably lots of other people), query 
>>> LoST and cache the results. If somebody shows up in a new area, it 
>>> changes the alert notification or the alert subscriptions. This 
>>> certainly doesn't require re-querying LoST for each border crossing.
>>>
>>> Henning
>>>
>>> Brian Rosen wrote:
>>>> From: Shida Schubert [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, 
>>>> March 22, 2006 11:31 AM
>>>> To: [email-masked]
>>>>> register with an AREA of interest, and a notifier registers with 
>>>>> an area
>>>> of
>>>>> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, March 
>>>>> 22, 2006 10:42 AM
>>>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne
>>>>> Cc: [email-masked]'