Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

I have a draft in progress:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-service-urn-subregistries-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-service-urn-subregistries-00>

Henning and I are going to add subtrees for several kinds of services, and we can include the non-emergency services in that.

It is informational - in only asks IANA to create sub registries, and does not update 5031.  I don’t think we need to update 5031 if we do that.

Brian

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> As in my prior message to Gunnar, I’m convinced; let’s have non-emergency services, >including one for ambulance.
> 
> Great.
> 
> The question then is whether we should update RFC 5031, to make it more clear.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> RFC 5031 defines semantics for the sos sub-service, and at least my 
>>>> understanding is that sos is to be used for emergency services, and 
>>>> nothing else.
>>> 
>>> There is no limit expressed, or implied, that sos is restricted to 
>>> łflashing lights˛ emergencies.  Itąs suggestive of emergency, but not 
>>> exclusively used that way.
>>> The counter example was the non-emergency ambulance service.  Using 
>>> sos.ambulance for a non emergency ambulance service, unless a country 
>>> has both an emergency and a non-emergency ambulance service that 
>>> needs urns, is appropriate I think.
>>> I donąt think it would be wrong to create a non-emergency ambulance 
>>> registration, but I also donąt think we need to.
>> 
>> I think we should have separate URNs for emergency and non-emergency 
>> services - no matter if the emg and non-emg services are provided in 
>> the same country or in different countries.
>> 
>>> There is no MUST language at all.  Anything is acceptable, although 
>>> the expert review gets to offer an opinion, and take it to the list 
>>> if needed.
>>> 
>>> The review is merely supposed to make sure the service is distinct 
>>> from an existing registration.  Registrations are cheap.
>> 
>> Not if we are going to have list discussions about the name whenever a 
>> URN is to be registered. It would prolong the registration and, 
>> depending on who participate in such discussions, the outcome would be 
>> very inconsistent.
>> 
>> So, I strongly think that if the service is an emergency service, we 
>> use sos. If the service is not an emergency service, we donąt use sos.
>> 
>> And, *URNs* are cheap, so we are not going to łrun out of them˛ if we 
>> use different ones for emergency services and non-emergency services.
>> 
>> 
>>>> If we start using non-sos for emergency services, and sos for 
>>>> non-emergency services, I think we will end up in a messŠ
>>> 
>>> The above example is how I think we donąt get into a mess.  I donąt 
>>> think there is a good reason to create an ambulance service that 
>>> isnąt in the sos tree unless we have an incidence of two services and 
>>> we need to differentiate.  Even if the ambulance service in a country 
>>> is not considered an emergency service, using sos.ambulance for it is 
>>> fine in my opinion.
>> 
>> I have a different opinion :)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>