Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

> If that is true, we do we separate the sub-services to begin with? Why do we define sub-service specific registration procedures (even though they happen to be identical for the existing sub-services?
Because we would like the name to be suggestive of the function so that provisioning and debugging is easier.  That really is why we did it that way.  Using a GUID would have worked.

>  
> 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 “flashing lights” emergencies.  It’s 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 don’t think it would be wrong to create a non-emergency ambulance registration, but I also don’t think we need to.

> Where is it said that it is ok to use sos also for non-emergency services, and to use non-sos for emergency services?
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.

>  
> If we start using non-sos for emergency services, and sos for non-emergency services, I think we will end up in a mess…
The above example is how I think we don’t get into a mess.  I don’t think there is a good reason to create an ambulance service that isn’t 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.


>