[Ecrit] Country-Specific Emergency Service sub-type

[Georg Mayer <[e-mail]>]

Hello Ecrit experts,

here are the notes and once more the slides from the discussions on
country-specific emergency service sub-type which we had during the
IETF/3GPP coordination meeting this week.

Cheers,
Georg



Participants:
- Ben Campell
- Adam Roach
- Robert Sparks
- Roger Marshall
- Georg Mayer
- Andrew Allen
- Roland Jesske
- Wu-Chi Feng
- Danny Moses
- ...

Georg: presented slides

Ben/Adam:
The proposal circumvents the registration policy of emergency services,
which mandates new emergency services to undergo expert reviewed.

The registry and the registration policy were established by IETF
consensus.

In order to change the process in a way that something like the
suggested sub-type could be done, a change proposal would need to go
through IETF last call. The community needs to have consensus to change
the process.

Ben:
Current process allows for country specific registrations, but only in a
way as e.g. "xy-specific-service", where "xy" would indicate the
country. So all country specific services would in fact be top-level
emergency services and would need to go through the IANA experts review
process.

Adam:
Country specific registrations are not the best approach. The idea was
an abstraction level, independent of the country.

Andrew:
but even the same service could have different meaning in different
countries (counsel, animal control)

Christer:
How can we flexibly assign temporary URNs, e.g. flood, avalanche

Georg:
There needs to be (country specific) flexibility to allow for assignment
of emergency services provided by currently deployed (CS-based) PSAPs.

Adam:
The current registration process is not complicated and quite open. It
is also fast (new registrations should go through in approximately one
week).

The emergency-services should not indicate numbers, but the service itself.


Ben/Adam/Robert:
There are practically three ways to approach this.

1) Change the registration process
3GPP comes up with an internet draft that shows that the current
registration of emergency service types is not flexible enough. The
draft could suggest that the expert review is not needed anymore. Such
draft would need to result in a standards track RFC.

2) Create an exception of the registration process
3GPP comes up with an internet draft that shows that for
country-specific emergency services a different registration policy
(without expert review) would be needed. Such draft would as well need
to result in a standards track RFC.

3) Use the process
Collect a list of country-specific services (per country) and send them
via one of the ADs for IANA registration. The list doesn't need to be
exhaustive, but as complete as possible.


Open Question to 3GPP:
If the country-specific sub-type would be granted, how and where would
the country specific sub-types be registered? Who would take care of the
related registry/registries? Would that be 3GPP? If yes, how would the
registration of sub-types work?


Next steps:
3GPP should discuss this input and see if the proposed ways forward are
feasible or if more input is needed. Future discussions should, if
possible, take place on the ECRIT mailing list.




-- 
Georg Mayer
3GPP CT Chairman
HUAWEI Technologies
Mobile: [phone]