[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL DE "issue" senderID
Thanks Dave, This is an important distinction, and I did not appreciate it fully until now. You are right, of course. Since I can't be at the meeting today, I am taking this opportunity to voice my support for this, and to apologize for not taking the time to appreciate this more fully. I was seeing sensors as contained within a system which would take the sensor signal and translate it with the capacities of the system as the "source" or <senderID> . I didn't understand that they are not always uniquely associated with a domain. I'm having a Home Simpson moment here, (sound of palm smacking forehead, to the tune of "DOH!") Sorry, Rex At 8:24 AM -0600 8/17/05, Ellis, David wrote: >EM TC > >The CAP philosophy of messages being sent from "people" to "people" >thru application interface forms is not the "machine" to "machine" >EDXL philosophy. Sensor devices are not always uniquely associated >with a domain and they are for sure not sent by an individual actor. >In fact, most are on private "e.g. 10.1.1.1" internet non-routable >networks. Because there are so many instantiations of these types >of sensor networks we have explored MAC addresses of devices NICs >for identifying the unique source of the application device sending >the EXDL message. We need to consider expanding the restriction of ><senderID> to more than an individual "e-mail address". > >David E. Ellis >Information Management Architect >(505) 844-6697 > -- 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]