[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. len 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]