MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Public as responders (was RE: [emergency]...PPW l etter re CAP)
The IP issues come under the OASIS IP policies.
I was simply trying to figure out where CAP fits into
the public safety records systems flow if the public
is part of the responder assets. We have packages
for disaster planning, have enabled PDA assets and
Mobile systems, completely understand the dispatch
domain and how it is integrated with the police,
fire and other records systems, but I don't know how
CAP fits with regards to public responders and
public broadcast. I am missing a connection that
I suspect routes through the 911 agency.
BTW: bandwidth is a bigger deal than cherry assumptions
account for. There are an awful lot of low bandwidth
RF systems out there. Even XML is too much and has to
be tokenized/binarized for these systems. So, we usually
advocate NOT using the mobile systems for a lot of media
rich transmissions. Also, remember that mobile systems
operate in occasionally connected modes. In a major
incident, bandwidth is a precious commodity.
As I've said to Rex before, standards and specifications
aren't on the vendor radar until they are in the RFPs from
the 911 local and state agencies. Even then, if there
is already an alternative technology in place that will
satisfy the requirements, it will be bid. I'm trying
to understand in this thread what the requirement for
supporting this suggested change would look like if
or when it hits my desk.
len
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
I have been so wrapped up in the Broadcast Media discussion that I
almost missed this. I hope that this is the sort of concern we can
take up in the public comment period after we release CAP but now it
seems moot until that issue gets some kind of resolution since we
might not vote to release CAP, even though we had agreed to a
Committee Specification status back before the demonstration at the
Global Homeland Security Conference last month.
This particular concern strikes me as something that should be added
to the list of items for consideration in v1.1 of CAP, if that is
even the correct place for it. I am beginning to think that Broadcast
Media ought to take compatibility with CAP as a priority
consideration for requirement in its own standard because I don't
think that any public service use of Broadcast Assets can be
separated from the quagmire of patents and royalties and when you add
liability considerations by even thinking about conferring official
Emergency Management Asset status on members of the public it just
grows more thorns.
And, if we really need to focus on obtaining RFP-Requirement status
in governmental solicitations dealing with life and death issues,
then it really might be best to duck this whole area in favor of
fielding a standard that can stand up to large liability concerns.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]