Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

["Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <[e-mail]>]

I suspect there is one normative statement we should make (emphasise). That is that any usage of a type and subtypes MUST meet the semantics of the type and the subtypes and not just the subtype.

Thus it must be made more explicit that if I use “sos”, I want an immediate response, and if I use “ambulance” with it, I want an ambulance with immediate response. Failure to do this will mean that those responders that validly remove subtypes they do not need to understand will receive erroneous emergency calls.

Keith

From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 15 July 2017 15:02
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

I have a draft in progress:
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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