Re: [earlywarning] Some further scoping issues

[Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski at netmagic.com>]

These seem like good admonitions.  The broader scope will provide
greater value to work, rather than attempting to deal a specific kind
of implementation that gets into an already well-established regulatory
domain.

For those of you unfamiliar with the new FCC Part 10 rules specifying
Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) implementations, they are available at
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.10&idno=47
For U.S. implementations, note that 47 CFR Sec. 10.410 requires that
"Presidential
Alerts preempt all other Alert Messages."

ciao,
--tony
> For the future work in this group I furthermore suggest that 
>
> * we do not focus our efforts on defining an architecture used for
> distributing of alert messages (like we did it in ECRIT with the
> PhoneBCP/Framework document). Instead, we develop building blocks (like
> conveying CAP in SIP). I believe we will run into lots of problems with the
> different usages, different solutions that have been specified elsewhere
> already, etc. 
>
> * we do not pick a single alert document format (as a
> mandatory-to-implement), like CAP or GeoRSS, but instead give those who
> deploy these mechanisms freedom. 
>
> * we do not define our own alert document format (because there are other
> formats available already). 
>
> We can always decide later to document ways how people use our stuff. 
>