Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

None of you seem to have actually talked to a living, real "regulator" (in
reality, likely a staff person).

You argue that the RFC 5031 model should be abandoned, by assertion. I'm
not sure that trying to make technical arguments is going to convince you
or even first-hand experience of somebody who works for a regulator, so I
don't think continuing this discussion is particularly productive.

Henning

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Ivo Sedlacek <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> > None of this has anything to do with the discussion of whether to
> create, essentially, SOS URNs that are phone numbers.
>
>
>
> It has.
>
>
>
> Several operators indicated that they do not feel authorized to make a
> registration for emergency-services-without-an-assigned-sos-URN (Vasil: I
> see a problem with that I am not authorized to make registrations regarding
> emergency URNs – I am not representing the regulator or the other operators
> in the respective countries. and Roberto: I share the points raised by
> Vasil.) and that a decision needs to be made by the regulator (Vasil: I
> consider talking with regulator not so easy – it has to be done via the
> official channels. I expect the regulator, when wants to start a new
> service, to have a meeting with all the operators present in one country
> and to discuss the details about. On such meeting every operator can state
> its opinion and discuss the requirements and possibilities. The
> requirements for the solution will be finalised and then the regulator can
> publish the respective law. Gathering such meeting is not in mine
> authorities. The result of talking only with some of the attending parties
> in process will be only speculation regarding a future decision. I am also
> not sure if this is the process in every country.).
>
>
>
> That's why the operators want to stick to what is defined by in the
> regulations (i.e. emergency numbers) and enable its usage for addressing
> within 3GPP SIP based mobile networks.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Ivo Sedlacek
>
>
>
> *From:* Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 25, 2017 2:51 PM
> *To:* Ivo Sedlacek <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Ivo Sedlacek <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Henning,
>
> Do you agree that:
> - *today*, most regulators do not indicate what sos URNs to use for
> emergency services; and
>
>
>
> None do, as far as I know. Neither do they specify whether SIP is to be
> used over TCP or UDP, or SIP is used at all, among a myriad of other
> details.
>
>
>
> - *today*, operators of 3GPP SIP based mobile networks need the sos URNs
> for the emergency services (for emergency call routing in their 3GPP SIP
> based mobile networks)?
>
>
>
> Yes. And they should decide whether regulators, in a specific country,
> care about SOS URNs or see that as a low-level engineering detail that is
> invisible to the public.
>
>
>
> None of this has anything to do with the discussion of whether to create,
> essentially, SOS URNs that are phone numbers.
>
>
>
> I haven't heard a substantive argument on this; rather, this is all about
> the perceived mental state or ability of regulators, which seems like a
> rather peculiar way of designing identifiers and protocols.
>
>
>
> I have made a specific set of proposals that provide URNs, sos and
> otherwise, for all EENA-identified services and other, non-emergency ones,
> that are listed as widely-available services. Rather than speculating about
> regulators, it might be more productive to see if they meet the identified
> needs and to identify gaps. I look forward to your feedback.
>
>
>
> Henning
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ivo Sedlacek
>
>
>