Re: [emergency-cap-profiles] info block rationale

["Art Botterell" <ABott@so.cccounty.us>]

OK, I've noted our conclusion from this week's call and summarized
Jake's language in the worksheet; we can use his full language later in
a more expansive document.

That said... I do anticipate we may get some pushback on this point as
we move through the comment process.  The use of info blocks for various
languages seems fairly uncontroversial, but I suspect some delivery
systems may not want to buffer delayed-onset alert-segments in their own
systems, or to need to route different parts of a single message to
different target audiences using their own technology.  

We'll see, but personally I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask
originators to create separate CAP messages for distinct audiences
(language excepted).  And I think life might be a lot easier for
distributors, without being that much harder for originators, if all
messages could be assumed to be for immediate distribution (of course,
the description and instruction could still address a timeline for the
actual event) rather than asking them to hold message content for later
(by which time it might have been updated or canceled, or even just
forgotten by the originator in the rush of events... you see how it can
get complicated.)  

Certainly we had a theoretical basis for allowing these more esoteric
uses of the info block in the CAP spec, and one certainly can imagine
use-cases for them, I don't believe I've ever seen them occur in actual
practice.  That's why I'm thinking we may be called upon to reconsider
whether they're necessary enough to justify putting the accompanying
complexity on IPAWS infrastructure and dissemination components.

Again, just my personal thoughts.

- 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