[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes for March 29, 2005
Hi Everyone, My apologies again for being so tardy with these minutes, but hopefully this will make up for it. EM-Msg Meeting March 29, 2005 Minutes Roll: Voting Members: Eleanor Robinson Rob Torchon Art Botterel Paul Embley Kon Wilms Rex Brooks Gary Ham David Ellis Walid Ramadan Prospective members Adam Hocek Observers Sylvia Webb Carl Reed Due to the recent abuse of our previous teleconference facility, we met on the interim line provided by Paul Embley. There was no specific agenda following upon the previous TC meeting's disruption, and the uncertainty as to what our priority in this subcommittee ought to be at that point. We briefly aknowledged Michael Daconta's recent message about slowing down the movement toward an EDXL Distribution component and Elysa's response noting that we were specifically asked to move the standards-writing process forward quickly. Kon cited issues with EDXL in relation to element names for other than SOAP messages, specifically asking if we should consider options for requirements outside SOAP-specific messaging channels. It appeared that there was some general agreement that this was an idea worth pursuing. Gary noted that DMIS has someone looking into that area. Art pointed out that there are alternatives to SOAP such as RSS that certainly deserve our attention. Dave asked if we should consider security considerations within the scope of this EDXL Distribution component. Gary explained that we have been considering security a separate issue and effort that is being worked on by other groups at a lower level or at least a different level scopewise than we are working with EDXL. Art said that we can't put a finger on "the" specific network in which EDXL will be deployed, and hence can't, and shouldn't try to include specific security processes for inclusion in the scope of EDXL Distribution. Gary extended that to say that we could not even specify the "networks" per se. So there was general consensus that security was not in scope. We then explored, again with general consensus, the issue of developing a set of specific use-cases upon which to build our work, perhaps starting with requirements based on those use-cases. Art pointed out that DMIS and EPAD were two clear choices and Dave discussed SWARM and ASOC in the sensor context as suitable choices as well. Carl said he would, and in fact has, sent a message to the list with specific urls for the IETF-GEOPRIV work that is relevant to this topic and which address privacy and security issues with use cases, and so, can serve as examples from which we can learn how other groups approach developing requirements. Gary noted that we (considering his work in DMIS as part of our work) didn't/couldn't take the time to build a query structure for an EDXL Interface in the trials held last fall/winter, so those trials can be used to identify a set of use cases, as well, that can serve to point us in the direction of what Interfaces are likely to be needed--providing some guidance as we proceed. We identified 3 areas of use cases off the top: Broadcast Pub/Sub Directed Push/Pull We had reasonable consensus that these use cases should provide for rules-based governance and role-based access, despite our agreement that security per se was not in scope. In general terms we decided that we need to investigate how much human intervention was needed or should be allowed. We decided to drastically cut down on the enumeration of send and recipient types, restricting those to top level categories and that we should treat event types in a similar manner. We also reached consensus that the Distribution component would be the smallest possible set of elements to reduce the chance of error and to keep computational performance overhead to a minimum. My notes boiled down to four main bullet points taking for granted the previously agreed overall Message ID components: * TargetArea - not Required * Audience (RecipientType) - Required * ContentType (MimeType) - Required * Emergency EventType - Required I am copying Gary's message with his summary of the consensus on cutting down the scope of the EDXL Distribution component: ________________________________________________________ At 1:17 PM -0500 3/29/05, Ham, Gary A wrote: To all, If I got our meeting straight today the stripped down version of the Distribution element would include the following currently defined elements: For identification 1. messageID (1) 2. senderID (1) 3. dateTimeSent (1) For Message content: 4. messageFormat (1 or more) For Intended Recipient Identification 5. recipient Address (0 or more) For message Categorization 6. messageStatus (1) 7. messageType (1) 8. eventType (1 or more) 9. icsType (1 or more) Note: ICS command type or interest is a new element replacing all of the other categories in a fully NIMS complient way. For defining a geographic area of interest 10. targetArea (0 or more) Note: structure to be based on an external standard. ________________________________________________________ (Note: I included this in order to provide a better overall capture of the consensus. I posted a reply to Gary's message and hope we can continue the discussion on the email list.) The meeting adjourned Ciao, Rex -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]