1 / 14

Working Group #9 CAP Implementation

Working Group #9 CAP Implementation. September 12, 2012 Co-Chair Chris Homer Co-Chair Ed Czarnecki. Working Group #9 CAP Implementation.

willa-craft
Télécharger la présentation

Working Group #9 CAP Implementation

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. Working Group #9CAP Implementation September 12, 2012 Co-Chair Chris Homer Co-Chair Ed Czarnecki

  2. Working Group #9 CAP Implementation • Description: The overall goal for Working Group 9 is provide recommendations and best practices to the FCC on CAP/EAS implementation progress through 2012. A specific near-term goal is to review the FCC’s Fifth Report & Order (released January 10, 2012) on CAP deployment. • Duration:  • First Report March 2012 • Second Report June 2012 • Third Report September 2012

  3. CSRIC Working Group Structure

  4. Working Group Deliverable Timeline Working Group 1 Working Group 2 Working Group 3 Working Group 4 Working Group 5 Deliverables:D= 12/5/11, F= 12/5/11, V = 12/8/11 Deliverables:D= 2/23/12, F= 3/8/12, V = 3/22/12 Deliverable s: D= 5/9/12, F= 5/23/12, V = 6/6/12 Deliverables: D= 8/15/12, F= 8/29/12, V = 9/12/12 Deliverables: D= 11/7/12, F= 11/21/12, V = 12/5/12 Working Group 6 Deliverables: D= 2/6/13, F= 2/20/13, V = 3/6/13 Working Group 7 Working Group 8 Working Group 9 Working Group 10 D = draft report to Steering Committee F = final report to CSRIC Members V = Vote by full CSRIC

  5. Working Group 9 – 24 Team Members • Harold Price, Sage Alerting Systems • Jeb Benedict, CenturyLink • Jeff Staigh, Univision • Jim Gorman, Gorman-Redlich • Kelly Williams, National Association of Broadcasters • Larry Estlack, Michigan Association of Broadcasters • Matthew Straeb, GSS • Michael Hooker, T-Mobile • Mike Nawrocki, Verizon • Ron Boyer, Boyer Broadband • Tim Dunn, T-Mobile • Eric Ehrenreich, FCC • Al Kenyon FEMA • Andy Scott, National Cable Television Association (NCTA) • Art Leisey, Trilithic • Bill Marriott, ComLabs • Bill Robertson, DAS • Bob Sherry, Intrado • Chris Homer, DirecTV (Chair) • Clay Freinwald, Washington SECC • Daryl Parker, TFT • Donald Walker, GRM • Doug Semon, Time Warner Cable • Edward Czarnecki, Monroe Electronics (Co-Chair) • Gary Timm, Wisconsin SECC

  6. Working Group 9 - Executive Summary • CSRIC Working Group 9 was established to provide recommendations and best practices for the deployment of CAP. • March 2012 • Text to Speech • Device Certification • June 2012 • Audio File Security • Audio File Format • September 2012 • Case Study from Local and State use of CAP • Best Practices • Text Style Guide

  7. Working Group # 9 – Case Study Analysis • The Working Group reviewed four distinct case studies of state and local CAP architectures, representing a diversity of technical approaches, using different background technologies. • Washington State CAP Emergency Alert System • Oklahoma State CAP Emergency Alert System • Teton County Wyoming CAP Emergency Alert System • Michigan State CAP Emergency Alert System

  8. Working Group # 9 – Findings • Different Approaches Noted in Case Studies • Implementation • Top Down (Washington State) • Grass Roots (Michigan State) • Distribution • Internet • Satellite • Combination of Internet/Satellite • Architecture • Local Standalone Server • Hosted Service • Combination of Local Server/Hosted Service • Authentication • Reuse of IPAWS Digital Signature • End-to-End Encryption • None

  9. Working Group # 9 – Findings • Challenges Noted Case Studies • Early Adoption • Earlier version of CAP 1.1 was adopted first • Equipment had not been tested end-to-end • Gaining Consensus • Gaining support from all emergency management groups • Training • Need to train on new systems • Need to provide consistency in message origination • Lack of funding to provide proper training

  10. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • EAS CAP Best Practices • Best Practice for Message Origination • Complete the FEMA IPAWS Basic Course IS-247.a • Have a FEMA Complaint/Conformant CAP Origination Tool • Have proper credentials and digital signatures for the CAP aggregator for which you are originating • Review your State’s FCC approved State Plan • Best Practice for Text to Speech • Message Originators should bear in mind that the content they input for text-to-speech would also be viewed on screen via TV and cable systems. Message originators should avoid excessive use of acronyms or jargon. • Messages should optimally be succinct and to-the-point. If an alert message contains many words and characters, originators should make use of punctuation such as periods and commas. This can better pace the synthetic speech rendering of the sentences and helps the message content flow evenly and properly. • As a general convention, entry of addresses or extensions with a large number of digits may necessitate use of a space between each number. For example, 32457 Safety Road should be entered in as 3 2 4 5 7 Safety Road. • Refer to the stylistic guidelines indicated in FEMA’s IS-247 training course (Lesson 2: Appropriate, Effective, and Accessible Alert and Warning Messages), as well as the style guide recommended by Appendix 6.1 of this report.

  11. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • EAS CAP Best Practices • Best Practice for Audio • CAP provides at least two methods for audio to be transported and inserted in a resultant EAS message. • An audio file can be inserted as a resource block, or the audio can be converted with Text to Speech from the description and instruction elements of the CAP info block. • Although Text to Speech is an optional by current FCC Part 11 rules, the originator must realize that without one of these two methods, no audio will be present in the resultant EAS message; all a listener will hear are the EAS header codes, the Attention Signal, and the End-of-Message signal. Note that IPAWS currently depends on Text-to-Speech conversion.

  12. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • EAS CAP Best Practices • Best Practice for SSL Certificates • CAP/EAS devices are, for the most part, unattended, headless, embedded processor type systems. User maintenance interactions need to be limited and may not have Internet access for security reasons. • CAP/EAS devices will have a set of common Root CA certificates that are updated slowly. They may not be up to date with intermediate certificates. It has become a common practice for a web server to send the server certificate as well as the various chained intermediate certificates. Likewise, in the specialized environment of CAP/EAS device, sending the chain will allow the CAP/EAS device to verify the chain of trust with only information from the SSL connection alone, as long the device has the applicable Root CA certificate. • If a CAP server wants to use HTTPS/SSL access and support the widest range of CAP/EAS devices, it must send all of the chained certificates (not including the Root CA) for SSL connections. • A CAP/EAS device must provide a means for its users to update the store of Root CA certificates, either by a firmware update, or a special certificate update. • CAP server owners should be aware that a change to the Root CA for its certificate chain, especially when a new CA is used, might cause CAP/EAS devices to not be able to connect to their server until the device manufactures can issue an update. • Likewise, self-signed certificates may not work with all CAP/EAS devices, and should be avoided.

  13. Working Group # 9 - Next Steps • Continue to report on current EAS CAP activities • Look to the future of CAP EAS • Future benefits and challenges • Divergence from legacy EAS • Convergence with other/future alerting capabilities

  14. Tentative - Project Timeline FCC CAP Deadline 6/30/2012 2012 2013 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Nov Dec Jan May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct WG9 Kickoff Meeting CSRIC Meeting Friday, 12/16/2011 WG9 Implementation Report2 12/5/12 CSRIC Meeting Friday, 12/5/2012 CSRIC Meeting Weds, 9/12/2012 CSRIC Meeting Thurs, 3/8/2012 WG-9 Report 1 CSRIC Meeting Weds, 6/6/2012 Final CSRIC Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013

More Related