Re: [Ecrit] Country-Specific Emergency Service sub-type

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

Sorry I missed the discussion. I second the notion that we need data, i.e.,
is there a real problem?

Note that having the same service have different names in different
countries is not a problem - it's a feature, since the URNs are never
exposed to users. Routing is done by location, so it should generally be
clear what service is needed. It's obviously possible that certain services
exist in only one country (maybe Huldufolk reporting in Iceland?).

We do need the discovery mechanisms described in the ECRIT architecture so
that tourists and others know what emergency services are available,
preferably in terms that are roughly translatable into their UI language.
But that's a separate problem (but one I hope 3GPP is addressing in its
discussions.)

Country-specific names make it much harder to build internationalized user
interfaces, in addition to the other problems discussed below.

I look forward to seeing the tentative list of emergency services so that
we have something specific to discuss.

Henning

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Georg Mayer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>