OASIS Emergency Management TC

  • 1.  CAP 1.2 Vote for CS and OS ??

    Posted 02-10-2010 19:16 
    Friends,

As you probably know there is a ballot open now for EM-TC members to 
vote for the CAP 1.2 Committee Specification and to ask OASIS Staff 
to begin the OASIS-wide vote to be held to promote this work to an 
OASIS Standard.  These are two separate ballots open now on our site.

As you may also know, Gary Ham ran into some problems with digital 
signatures and their use in OPEN using JAXB and the Oracle 10G SOA 
Suite.  There have been discussion on the list in the past few days 
about the issue.  Gary has stated the problem he (and Neil) has seen 
for which he has found an available work around.  Don McGary and 
Jocob Westfall have provided proof that the XML is correct and 
validates.  The three companies who made statements of use for CAP 
1.2 have not seen a problem with their implementations.

So, here we are needing to get a vote approved to allow CAP 1.2 to go 
forward - or not.  I wanted to give a brief history of this work and 
begin any discussion the members have for discussion on this list.

The CAP 1.2 was required for the IPAWS profile to accommodate the 
CMAS program need for an "avoid" response type.  DMOPEN is the 
program that will be used to exchange CAP messages for CMAS as well 
as EAS and HazCollect specifically for IPAWS.

Our ITU friends have expressed concern with CAP 1.2 as they have 
members that see this as a major released and not a minor.  Update 
for CAP 1.2 is not likely right away from that community.

Our members that have expressed concern over CAP 1.2 with regard to 
non-repudiation, authorization and authentication anticipate these to 
be covered in the CAP 2.0 spec that will be aligned with the DE 2.0.

Please post any concerns you have about voting on the list so we can 
discuss them openly.  If you do not have concerns and are a voting 
member of the TC, cast your vote so that we will know where we 
stand.  Votes can always be changed until the cut-off on the 15th.

Regards,

Elysa Jones, Chair
OASIS EM-TC
CTO, Warning Systems, Inc.


  • 2.  RE: [emergency] CAP 1.2 Vote for CS and OS ??

    Posted 02-10-2010 19:31 
    My questions to the TC are this:
1. Is it better for DM-OPEN to just implement the workaround or for us to make changes to the 1.2 spec?
2. What are the specific technical concerns from ITU?
3. Regarding concerns with regards to non-repudiation, authorization and authentication: what are the specific technical shortfalls in this revision as it relates to actual implementations of a system?  Are those with concerns ok with tabling them until 2.0?


-Don
Office: 315-838-2669
Cell: 315-383-1197
dmcgarry@mitre.org



    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 3.  Re: [emergency] CAP 1.2 Vote for CS and OS ??

    Posted 02-10-2010 20:52 
    I have another meeting right now, but I did want to let you know that 
I'm aware of this, not ignoring, talking about it offline and I will get 
back to putting out a reply as soon as I can.

Cheers,
Rex

McGarry, Donald P. wrote:
> My questions to the TC are this:
> 1. Is it better for DM-OPEN to just implement the workaround or for us to make changes to the 1.2 spec?
> 2. What are the specific technical concerns from ITU?
> 3. Regarding concerns with regards to non-repudiation, authorization and authentication: what are the specific technical shortfalls in this revision as it relates to actual implementations of a system?  Are those with concerns ok with tabling them until 2.0?
>
>
> -Don
> Office: 315-838-2669
> Cell: 315-383-1197
> dmcgarry@mitre.org
>
>
> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 4.  Re: [emergency] CAP 1.2 Vote for CS and OS ??

    Posted 02-10-2010 23:58 
    Hi Everyone,

Just got off the phone.

Some questions I can answer, some I can only give my opinion. Number 3 
is looooonnnnnnggggggg, so read the short summary at the start.

1. My opinion: It's better to do a work-around. I don't want to spend 
any more time on CAP v1.anything. This is just my opinion. Even though I 
don't want to chair or, perhaps, do much more than monitor the efforts 
and add my $0.02, we need to be getting CAP 2.0 and EDXL-DE 2.0 moving 
forward in lock-step.

2. My understanding is that ASN.1 is a binary encoding, so adding a new 
element, i.e.


  • 5.  Re: [emergency] CAP 1.2 Vote for CS and OS ??

    Posted 02-11-2010 00:59 
    Oops, forgot to note that I'll vote for approval as a Committee 
Specification. And push to get the 2.0 efforts moving forward more 
vigorously.

Note: it has been possible to do all this since EDXL-DE was first 
approved, and it hasn't turned into a nightmare yet. The difference is 
that now people are just beginning to understand systems of systems and 
networks of networks for real and there are going to be many bumps in 
the road as move toward a robust emergency messaging capability.

I'd be happier if we had funding to create the kind of guidance 
documentation we really need, and keep it up to date on a regular basis.

Hint hint.

Cheers,
Rex

Rex Brooks wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Just got off the phone.
>
> Some questions I can answer, some I can only give my opinion. Number 3 
> is looooonnnnnnggggggg, so read the short summary at the start.
>
> 1. My opinion: It's better to do a work-around. I don't want to spend 
> any more time on CAP v1.anything. This is just my opinion. Even though 
> I don't want to chair or, perhaps, do much more than monitor the 
> efforts and add my $0.02, we need to be getting CAP 2.0 and EDXL-DE 
> 2.0 moving forward in lock-step.
>
> 2. My understanding is that ASN.1 is a binary encoding, so adding a 
> new element, i.e.


Related Content