MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Fw: [emergency] Broadcast, TV, PPW, etc.
I have been reading these threads with great interest and believe that,
from an infrastructure perspective, some simplicity of thought may be
useful: To whit the following questions:
1. Who are we trying to deliver CAP 1.0 messages to? Answering this
question will orient us to the various necessary enabling mechanisms and
infrastructures.
2. What are we trying to deliver? Necessary composition and format, already
generally defined within CAP 1.0, but left open to further refinement as
reflected by the current dialogue.
3. Why are we delivering these messages? Lets formally define the use
case(s) for CAP 1.0. This will re-orient us to various infrastructures,
payload types and requirements.
4. When do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? This goes to the question of
persistant, versus demand-based, infrastructure mechanisms, and/or
capabilities.
5. Where do we need to deliver CAP 1.0 messages? Knowing "where" messages
are to be delivered focuses our effort on the various available delivery
methods and constraints.
In general, however, it appears that we are trying to answer questions based
on "thinking" rather than "knowing" what we're talking about. That clearly
puts the cart before the horse and, in my view, is of dubious value in
standards setting where clarity of thought and methodical attention to
detail are most critical.
I have a meeting with the folks at NDS in the morning. At that time I will
engage them in a dialogue associated with these, and other broader
terresteral broadcast issues. Once that relationship is initiated we will
have an expert source available to us which we should assertively leverage
in the dialogue related to infrastructure, message payload and transport
delivery methods. Additionally, it is my belief that we should engage in a
direct dialogue with the authors of the PPW letter to insure that their
interests are clearly understood in the context of that document, in
addition to identifying other potential "expert" knowledge-partners as
evolve our thinking in the future.
It might be useful to remember that we are engaged in a marathon not a
sprint. The current CAP spec contains language that specifically leaves the
schema open to further refinement as its requirements change based on our
acquisition of "better" information. It should be apparent, therefore, that
we won't be done any time soon, and must accept iterative development as a
baseline. This means that at various points in time we'll either be on, or
off, the mark depending on what we "know" versus what we "think." In my
view, however, it is most important to settle down and methodically "figure
it out." Otherwise, we're just a mob of "smart guys" with too much time on
our hands.
Rick
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]