Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-rosen-ecrit-service-urn-subregistries-00.txt

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

You’re understanding is correct, although in theory, the sub registry could have a different management policy than the sos registry.  For sos.police, sos.fire, and sos.ambulance, the policy is expert review, the same as sos.

Brian

> On Dec 23, 2016, at 4:15 AM, Ivo Sedlacek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>  
> > At least in my experience, the changes in the network take a lot of time to plan and implement.
>  
> When all required emergency URNs are specified, then providing emergency services in a 3GPP specified SIP network requires solely enhancements of the operator's network as:
> - any SIP user agent in a 3GPP mobile phone supporting non-emergency voice service over a 3GPP specified SIP network is already required to support also the emergency voice service over the 3GPP specified SIP network; and
> - PSAPs do not need to be changed - if a PSAP is connected to public switched telephony network (PSTN) only, then a node in the operator's SIP network interworks the emergency SIP call to an PSTN call towards PSAP.
>  
> So, when all required emergency URNs are specified, including an emergency URN for any emergency service *already available via public switched telephony network* in the country of the SIP based network, then it is just matter of decision of the operator.
>  
> And the operator needs to make that decision at a moment when, in *a location*, a 3GPP specified SIP based network is available while 3GPP specified circuit switched networks is not available. That can happen soon.
>  
> So, stating it in a different way, if a country defines an emergency service *already available via public switched telephony network* for which an emergency URN is not specified, then the operator is forced to keep 3GPP specified circuit switched network in any location where 3GPP specified SIP based network is available (and that's costly and inefficient use of precious radio resources).
>  
> That's why getting emergency URNs for any any emergency service *already available via public switched telephony network* needs to be reasonably quick.
>  
> > The expert merely authorizes an entry in the sos registry for a service with a period in it.  When the document creating a sub-registry is published,
> > that entry is removed from the sos registry, and included in the sub registry.  The net effect is no change, the service is exactly the same.
>  
> Let me try to reformulate the above to check if I understood correctly. To me, the above suggests:
> - the sub-registries are solely a way of organizing and showing the emergency URNs at IANA pages.
> - the sub-registries do not state any restrictions on registration of new emergency URNs (and do not make it any easier either). I.e. rfc7163 applies no matter whether IANA keeps a sub-registry or not.
>  
> If that's correct understanding and assuming the draft explicitly state so, I would be OK with it.
>  
> If it is incorrect understanding, can you please explain?
>  
> > I asked IANA to change “federal” to “national”, but it hasn’t happened yet.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Kind regards
>  
> Ivo