[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: The IPAWS Profile Draft
Well, right out of the chute I can see we've got a lot of work to do. It seems, for openers (on page 2), that what DHS has in mind isn't an integrated profile at all, but rather a requirement to use multiple, delivery-system-specific Info blocks. They propose that we start with a minimum of three parallel blocks... one tailored for EAS, another for HazCollect (weather radio), yet another for cellular... and then add additional info blocks for additional delivery systems. That is, of course, completely at odds with the basic concept of CAP interoperability. The whole point of a CAP message is that a single input can trigger multiple outputs in a consistent fashion. Requiring originators to generate three or more separate, redundant versions of a single message is an invitation to inconsistency and places an onerous and unnecessary burden on message originators. At the same time DHS has gone way past the point of providing us with requirements here. What we have instead is a technical specification accompanied by a requirement (section 4.3, Table 1, item 1) that "a developed and agreed-to CAP v1.1 Profile and resulting Schema MUST adhere to the requirements contained herein." Depending on how the words "herein" and "requirements" in that sentence are interpreted, that could be read as meaning we have no choice but to endorse the DHS design as-is. Obviously that would be unacceptable and I'm sure that's not what DHS intended. This is why the closed nature of the DHS process so far has been so regrettable. All that work, all those taxpayer dollars, expended on crafting a detailed design based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the base CAP standard. And now, at this late date, we're in the thankless position of having to tell our federal partners "whoa, not so fast!" Somehow we need to back up and compile a list of specific functional requirements, so the folks who are best qualified to do so can recommend how best to satisfy those requirements and resolve any conflicts among them using the CAP standard. I hope DHS can help us with that, as I assume they would have gone through that stage in the course of their internal design process. - Art Art Botterell, Manager Community Warning System Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff 50 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553 (925) 313-9603 fax (925) 646-1120
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]