Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:16:58 -0000

Brian

This could be a matter for debate on the list as this could be a matter
for local authority as I could imagine that this is made part of the
'universal' service so an opt-in form would be inappropriate as everyone
would get it as a default. As the major disadvantage for this opt-in
service is maintenance costs of the database when it may only be
deployed in anger once in a blue moon.

The opt-in for the "send me notices of emergencies where my child is at
the moment" could be a separate and even commercial service which may
require a separate requirement draft? Going into solution mode would
presence also be part of this service?

Regards

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 22 March 2006 16:20
To: 'Andrew Newton'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

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

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

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

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

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:20:09 -0000

Henning 

You are correct unfortunately politians tend to get very protective over
what they consider to be their sovereignty

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 22 March 2006 17:36
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Thought on citizen notification & LoST

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.

Brian Rosen wrote:
> 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
>