OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [emergency] Public as responders (was RE: [emergency]...PPW l etter re CAP)

The IP issues come under the OASIS IP policies.  

I was simply trying to figure out where CAP fits into 
the public safety records systems flow if the public 
is part of the responder assets.  We have packages 
for disaster planning, have enabled PDA assets and 
Mobile systems, completely understand the dispatch 
domain and how it is integrated with the police, 
fire and other records systems, but I don't know how 
CAP fits with regards to public responders and 
public broadcast.  I am missing a connection that 
I suspect routes through the 911 agency.

BTW:  bandwidth is a bigger deal than cherry assumptions 
account for.  There are an awful lot of low bandwidth 
RF systems out there.  Even XML is too much and has to 
be tokenized/binarized for these systems.  So, we usually 
advocate NOT using the mobile systems for a lot of media 
rich transmissions.  Also, remember that mobile systems 
operate in occasionally connected modes.  In a major 
incident, bandwidth is a precious commodity.

As I've said to Rex before, standards and specifications 
aren't on the vendor radar until they are in the RFPs from 
the 911 local and state agencies.  Even then, if there 
is already an alternative technology in place that will 
satisfy the requirements, it will be bid.   I'm trying 
to understand in this thread what the requirement for 
supporting this suggested change would look like if 
or when it hits my desk.


From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

I have been so wrapped up in the Broadcast Media discussion that I 
almost missed this. I hope that this is the sort of concern we can 
take up in the public comment period after we release CAP but now it 
seems moot until that issue gets some kind of resolution since we 
might not vote to release CAP, even though we had agreed to a 
Committee Specification status back before the demonstration at the 
Global Homeland Security Conference last month.

This particular concern strikes me as something that should be added 
to the list of items for consideration in v1.1 of CAP, if that is 
even the correct place for it. I am beginning to think that Broadcast 
Media ought to take compatibility with CAP as a priority 
consideration for requirement in its own standard because I don't 
think that any public service use of Broadcast Assets can be 
separated from the quagmire of patents and royalties and when you add 
liability considerations by even thinking about conferring official 
Emergency Management Asset status on members of the public it just 
grows more thorns.

And, if we really need to focus on obtaining RFP-Requirement status 
in governmental solicitations dealing with life and death issues, 
then it really might be best to duck this whole area in favor of 
fielding a standard that can stand up to large liability concerns.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]