RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas

["Paulsen,Norm [Ontario]" <Norm.Paulsen@ec.gc.ca>]

Actually I shouldn't have used the word forwarding as it implies pushing and I too prefer polling/pulling.

 

So if a CAP message meets the CAP schema but not a known profile it is not processed further and not made available. Good to know.

 

All I ask is that any reporting of failure distinguishes CAP schema failure from profile failures.

 

Other than that, it was just a soapbox moment that I took.

 

Thanks

---

From: Gary Ham [mailto:gham@grandpaham.com]
Sent: March 9, 2010 4:24 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm [Ontario]
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML); emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL
Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas

I think you misunderstand,

IPAWS-OPEN will take any valid CAP message as long as the sender is authorized, and make it retrievable by any who are authorized to retrieve. The retriever can then determine if the message is useful on their net or not.   But pushes are another matter. Before DM-OPEN pushes out a message it has received for re-transport  (e.g., NWEMs to the NWS, and perhaps Canadian profile message???) it will test against whatever profile the receiver requires, and will not process further if it does not meet the profile.  That is why pushes are a pain, and why we will have to negotiate each push arrangement separately and have a formal agreement with the system we push to.  Pulls are a lot less of a problem for us because the pulling system can deal with the issues.

Gary

On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Paulsen,Norm [Ontario] wrote:

Thanks

 

Not quite sure exactly what you mean by structure, but it sounds like it will not accept anything that doesn't have elements with values specific to these concerns. This contradicts the line that says takes any valid CAP message.

 

However, I have no problem with IPAWS-OPEN doing that at all. I also no problem with IPAWS-OPEN requiring my Canadian Structure before accepting my CAP and forwarding.

 

What I need to stress is that if indeed it is only open to these "structures" then it can't be truly said to be accepting any valid CAP message. It can though be said to be accepting of any CAP IPAWS message (if indeed those structures are defined in IPAWS).

 

Thanks

 

Norm

---

From: Gary Ham [mailto:gham@grandpaham.com]
Sent: March 9, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Paulsen,Norm [Ontario]
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; David RR Webber (XML); emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Dwarkanath,Sukumar - INTL
Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas

I cannot speak details for IPAWS specifically, because not all aspects have been built or even designed, but I can give some general direction. IPAWS-OPEN (yep 3.0 will be called IPAWS-OPEN) is planned to have a single CAP input interface that takes any valid CAP message.  Depending on content (does it have the appropriate CMAS structures, EAS structures, NWEM structures, etc), user permissions, and user direction, it will be made available to multiple other networks, gateways, interoperating systems, push capabilities, etc., as applicable.  Data driven, as simple as possible, as complex as necessary. That is the goal. 

R/s

Gary

 

Gary Ham

http://grandpaham.com

703-899-6241