The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, but the working group concluded before this work was approved as a standards-track protocol. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on complete IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The IESG has chosen to publish this document in order to document the work as it was when the working group concluded and to encourage experimentation and development of the technology. Readers of this RFC should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.

This report has been reviewed by the Office of Civil Defense and Is approved for publication. This approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of Civil Defense or various state and local civil defense organizations. MENLO PARKAlthough this document does not contain classified Information, It has not been approved for open publication by the Department of Defense. Open publication, CALIFORNIAwholly at In pert, Is prohibited without prior approval of Stanford Research Institute.Qualified requesters malt secure copies of this report from the Defense Documentation Centers Comaron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. I INTRODUCTIONThe general requirements for a radio warning system have been formulated in sufficient detail in previous studies (Refs. 1 through 5)* to raise several questions about the system. 1.How does a radio warning system fit in with other OCD programs anid systems, both in their present configuration and in possible future configurations ?2. What subsystems of the total civil defense effort should be studied in detail for potential interfaces with a radio warning system? 3. Do the results of interface considerations suggest any early guidelines for radio warning system design and configuration studies?To answer the first two of these questions and prepare for answering the third, the major information flows of the civil defense program need to be considered. Figure 1 portrays the major nodes and links of these information flows as they might appear at some future time. Note that OCD Regional The remainder of this poe will be largely a description of the present and potental forms of nods and links shown on Figure 1, together with analyses of interfaces between them and the radio warning system (symbolized by dotted qleferenoes are listed at the close of each section. The foregoing nterface programs should give a reasonably complete picture of the total civil defense effort as it affects requirements for a radio warning system. The following classification scheme (similar to that proposed by SDC in Reference 5) will be used for the purpose of analyzing system re quirements: Security and sabotageThe general a~proach in each section of the paper will be to describe the present and potential scope of an interface program; significant proposals from rceent and current research on the program; characteristics or features on which the effectiveness of the program hinges during an attack, with emphasis on any interactIons with the radio warning system; and design guidelines or 3 implications of the program for the radio warning system. It is not the objectiv of the interface study to specify total radio warning system requirements, but to identify Rny refinements, amplifications, or changes of present requ-hements that appear necessary to consider or to study due to the anticipated interaction of the radio warnir systera with other civil defense programs. 2. A deficiency of prepared shelter spaces in no way reduces the desirability for complete r...