1 / 9

Alert Gateway Group (AGG)

Alert Gateway Group (AGG). Status Report to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee September 19, 2007 Anthony Melone, AGG Leader. AGG Progress Since Last Update. Submitted Two Drafts on Alert Gateway Requirements August 9th: Third Draft September 7th: Final Draft

honorato-graham
Download Presentation

Alert Gateway Group (AGG)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Alert Gateway Group (AGG) Status Report to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee September 19, 2007 Anthony Melone, AGG Leader

  2. AGG Progress Since Last Update • Submitted Two Drafts on Alert Gateway Requirements • August 9th: Third Draft • September 7th: Final Draft • Completed all Deliverables • Finalized Alert GW filtering and mapping logic from CAP to CMAC protocol • Set alert expiration to one hour if not provided • Finalized Alert GW message construction logic to support both free format text and automatic text generation • Use CAP parameter for free format text • For automatic text generation, use canned text “in this area” for area effected instead of listing area names to meet the CMA message length limitation • Limit the sender agency to 12-character if necessary

  3. Alert Gateway Requirements • Outline of requirements is as follows: • Alert Gateway Architecture • Security • System capacity and Performance • Interfaces and Protocols • Protocol Mapping • CMS Provider Profiles • Reporting • Performance Testing

  4. Summary of Draft Conclusions • Alert Gateway Architecture • Flexible Architecture • Geo-redundant • Security Requirements • Authentication and Authorization • At both B and C interfaces • Assumed that B Interface is within government defined “trust-model” • C interface will support non-proprietary standards-based security (e.g. IPSec, SSL) • Gateway locations will be physically secured

  5. Summary of Draft Conclusions • System Capacity and Performance • Capacity • Based on historical data the Alert Gateway should be designed to support • 25,000 CMA’s per year. • Design peak rate of 30 alerts per second. • Buffering • The Alert Gateway shall support two queues per CMSP Gateway • One queue for buffering the Presidential alerts • Another queue for buffering non-Presidential alerts • The processing of Presidential alerts takes priority over non-Presidential alerts • Non-Presidential alerts are processed sequentially as received

  6. Summary of Draft Conclusions • Interface and Protocols • B Interface • Documented, Non-proprietary standards based (likely IP) • CAP v1.1 protocol (XML) • C Interface • Documented, Non-proprietary standards based (likely IP) • XML based protocol • Protocol Mapping • CAP Element to “CMAS” Element (w/CTG, AIG) • Translation Logic • Defined Default Values • CAP Element to Text Verbatims (w/UNG, AIG)

  7. Summary of Draft Conclusions • CMSP Profiles • CMSP GWs Information (i.e. IP addresses) • Geo-Location Coverage on a State Level • Reporting • Message Logs • On-line (90 days) • Archived (36 months) • General System & Performance Reporting

  8. Summary of Draft Conclusions • Performance Testing • Connectivity (C interface) • Periodic “keep alive” messaging • CMSP requested testing after planned and unplanned outages • Functional (Alert GW through CMSP GW) • Alert GW originated Test Messages • Accepted by CMSP GW, but not sent to end user device • Support Overall System Testing • Will be treated as a normal message with appropriate mapping of CAP element to CMAS element to maintain “test” identity of alert

  9. Conclusions • The AGG has resolved all the technical issues related to Alert GW. • The AGG has completed specifying all technical requirements for the Alert Gateway

More Related