RE: [emergency-msg] SitRep Issue

I sent a direct reply essentially saying the same thing – there is a requirement, but the intention was to use the DE distribution type “Request” – though we need to discuss  how  the recipient knows “what” is being requested…

 

Thanks,

Tim Grapes

Evotec

703-304-4829

 

 

From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 7:46 AM
To: ''; ''
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] SitRep Issue

 

So I'll say that I don't think we need this. Having a request message implies a req/reply messaging implementation and does not coincide with the conops of filling out ics forms or sit rep reports. This capability could be handled by sending a de with the dist type of request or through other implementation specific mechanisms. At this point I am wary of adding anything else to this spec as it is already pretty hefty.
Thanks! 
Don McGarry 
The MITRE Corp. 
 
(315) 838-2669 Office 
(703) 595-9375 Cell 
Sent via Blackberry
 

From: Rex Brooks [mailto:] 
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:36 AM
To:  <> 
Subject: [emergency-msg] SitRep Issue 
 

Hi Everyone,

As I was working along on the SitRep doc, it dawned on me that we do not have any specific "RequestForSitRep" messages and it seems to me like that would be a good thing to have unless we expect all jurisdictions to have well-known and published policies wrt to the frequency for sending reports up the chain of incident command. I know we don't have that now. We do have a requirement for it,  

·         as a part of the use of the DE which has it as a distributionType,

·         as a Request for Information from Table 3 of the Requirements pdf (which I would suggest be a request for one of the specific report types, and,

·         as a part of Response Resources (particularly when making use of RM. 

However, we seem to have missed the second bullet above when we categorized our requirements.

Note: we also don't use "Dispatch" or any of the sensor types from the DE.

Unless I get a groundswell of opinion that we don't need it, I plan to add a blank RequestFor.. for each of the report types. I would expect that the same elements in the reports themselves would be part of a RequestFor...(that report type).

We also don't have a "Recall" as we do in the RM, but I don't see an immediate need for it and we also didn't have a requirement for it. Again, unless we have a groundswell requiring it, I will leave it out.

Cheers,
Rex