Re: [Ecrit] [IANA #658921] General Request for Assignment (urn-serviceid-labels)

This question isn't specific to Dan, but more to the wider ECRIT community on ever decreasing service URNs.

For NENA i3 today, if I provide a LIS I must validate all civic locations against an LVF. This essentially issues a LoST findService request against the civic location with the specific service URN I am interested in, which at present is just urn:service:sos.

When requesting a location from a LIS, there is no way to say that I want a location for a specific service type. Sooooo I want to make 100% sure that everybody is aware and in agreement that if a civic location is validated against urn:service:sos that it has to be valid for any subordinate service identified in this service urn tree.

Cheers
James

From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Mongrain
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2013 1:12 PM
To: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [IANA #658921] General Request for Assignment (urn-serviceid-labels)

I am currently writing a draft that will specify jurisdictional scope for a Service URN.  I hope to have it completed and published early next week.  As I have suggested previously it documents the addition of a PIDF-LO civic tag at the end of a Service URN to specify a specific jurisdiction in the case multiple jurisdictions offer the service.  I think that by proceeding this way, it alleviates the need to register multiple combinations of Service URNs and jurisdictional scopes.  We can still register the generic Service URNs (sos.police.traffic, sos.fire.highrise, etc.) and in locations where the service is offered by multiple jurisdictions then one can add the jurisdictional scope at the end of the Service URN.

Dan
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com<mailto:ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hello,

I am the author of the IANA registration request.

I would be happy with "country" instead of "national" in the URN, if that's the experts' preference.
I would also be happy with "A3" instead of "local" in the URN, if that's the experts' preference.

I.e.
- urn:service:sos.police.country - The 'police.national' service refers to the emergency service offered by the police department or other law enforcement authorities of the government of a country.
- urn:service:sos.police.A3 - The 'police.local' service refers to the emergency service offered by the police department or other law enforcement authorities of the authorities of a city, township, shi (JP).

Do I need to send another IANA registration request or can the IANA existing registration request be modified?

Kind regards

Ivo Sedlacek

This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>

-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Rosen, Brian
Sent: 19. března 2013 17:46
To: Marc Linsner
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org<mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [IANA #658921] General Request for Assignment (urn-serviceid-labels)

Yes

In my opinion, urn:service:sos.police.national should be registered, although I would prefer the term "country" for reasons detailed below.

I do not believe urn:service:sos.police.local should be registered, because the term "local" is ambiguous in many countries and regions.  In some areas, there are multiple levels of "local" that may have separate service URLs.  For example, you could have state, county and municipal police agencies, any of which could be considered "local".

While an expert does not usually supply alternatives, I think the ecrit work group has considered the suggestion to use the "A" levels in PIDF-LO to denote the levels of "local".  So, for example, urn:service:sos.police.a2 would be the county police, assuming A1 was state, A2 was county and A3 was city.  One could speculate whether urn:service:sos.police.a6 (neighborhood) was useful for anything, but there are "neighborhood watch" organizations that might qualify, and "vigilante" is probably not a good registration.

Using the "A" levels leads you to use "country" as that is the top level name for the field in PIDF-LO.  "national" is an obvious synonym, and I think it's okay to use it.

However, "local" is ambiguous.

Brian

On Mar 19, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com<mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com>>
 wrote:

> Brian,
>
> Would you please provide a review of this IANA request for registrations.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc & Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org<mailto:iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>>
> Reply-To: <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org<mailto:iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>>
> Date: Friday, February 15, 2013 6:34 PM
> Cc: <ecrit-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:ecrit-chairs@tools.ietf.org>>
> Subject: [IANA #658921] General Request for Assignment
> (urn-serviceid-labels)
> Resent-From: <wg-alias-bounces@tools.ietf.org<mailto:wg-alias-bounces@tools.ietf.org>>
> Resent-To: <rmarshall@telecomsys.com<mailto:rmarshall@telecomsys.com>>, <marc.linsner@cisco.com<mailto:marc.linsner@cisco.com>>
> Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:22:12 +0000
>
>> Dear Marc and Roger,
>>
>> IANA just received a request for two registrations in the 'sos'
>> Sub-Services registry at
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-serviceid-labels, which has the
>> ECRIT working group listed as its expert reviewer.
>>
>> Can you ask the working group to review the request below? If these
>> are OK, how should we fill out the Description fields in the registry?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Amanda Baber
>> IANA Request Specialist
>> ICANN
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Contact Name:
>> Ivo Sedlacek
>>
>> Contact Email:
>> ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com<mailto:ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
>>
>> Type of Assignment:
>> Assignment of an service URN with the 'sos' service type as specified
>> in RFC5031, section 4.2.
>>
>> The following service URNs are proposed to be registered:
>> - urn:service:sos.police.local - The 'police.local' service refers to
>> the emergency service offered by the police department or other law
>> enforcement authorities of the local or municipal authorities.
>> - urn:service:sos.police.national - The 'police.national' service
>> refers to the emergency service offered by the police department or
>> other law enforcement authorities of the national government.
>>
>> Registry:
>> Service URN Labels, 'sos' Sub-Services as shown at
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-serviceid-labels/urn-serviceid-labels.
>> xml
>>
>> Description:
>> In the Czech republic and Poland, there are two public safety
>> answering points (PSAP) offering the police related emergency
>> services. The PSAP of the municipal police and the PSAP of the
>> national police. There is currently no way how to distinguish whether
>> the user wishes to contact the PSAP of the municipal police or the PSAP of the national police.
>>
>> In Czech, the related regulation is
>> http://aplikace.mvcr.cz/sbirka-zakonu/ViewFile.aspx?type=c&id=5134
>> pages
>> 9 and 10 section 4.5 which lists the number 156 for "Obecní policie"
>> (= municipal police) and the numbers 158 for "Policie České
>> republiky" (= Czech republic police). Both numbers are listed with
>> note 2) which states "Číslo je národním číslem pro tísňové volání" (=
>> the number is a national number for emergency calls).
>>
>> In Poland,
>> http://uke.gov.pl/tablice-numerow-kierowania-alarmowego-nka-9410
>> lists the number 986 for "straż miejska" (= municipal police) and the
>> number
>> 997 for Policja (= police) as "numery alarmowe" (= emergency numbers).
>>
>> Additional Info:
>> The registry is defined by RFC5031, section 4.2
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org<mailto:Ecrit@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org<mailto:Ecrit@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit