Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

ISTM that one beneficial effect of creating this general 
(non-nation-specific) enumeration of services is to provide a gentle way 
of encouraging countries to adopt consistent service definitions. Just 
the small effort of deciding whether one of the existing names will work 
for your service, or whether a new name is needed, can be a nudge toward 
consistency.

This seems important when people and their phones are roaming across 
countries.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 7/13/17 10:47 AM, John-Luc Bakker wrote:
> Vasil makes a key point: countries determine the emergency services 
> provided within the country and the countries assign the number. *So 
> far, countries have not been required to consult with foreign 
> organizations.* Countries may choose to allocate the same number 
> allocated by other countries, however calls may still be routed to PSAPs 
> offering primarily different emergency services: take for example 112 in 
> Europe. Some countries route calls to 112 to police, while others route 
> them to ambulance (in these countries a dedicated emergency number for 
> police may exist (which should bind to the police URN)). Countries have 
> full jurisdiction over their number plans and rules that prescribe how 
> calls to certain numbers shall be treated/routed.
> 
> The only policy they have in common is perhaps the  immediacy of the 
> response. This lines up with the “sos” label (RFC 5031):
> 
>     The 'sos' service type describes emergency services requiring an
> 
>     immediate response, typically offered by various branches of the
> 
>     government or other public institutions.
> 
> The binding of number to URN is country specific. Additional policies 
> beyond the immediacy of the response are country specific. The specific 
> list of services for which immediacy of the response is required are 
> country specific (some services treated as emergency in, say Austria, 
> are not required to be treated as emergency in many other countries).
> 
> Requiring regulators to engage in discussions on ECRIT or awareness of 
> IANA registration processes just for SIP emergency calls seems not 
> practical and confusing, at a minimum.
> 
> Since so much falls solely within the jurisdiction of 
> countries/regulators, this calls into question the need for having a 
> detailed/exhaustive registry beyond identifying some basic, more or less 
> universal services. Beyond this, it is really up to the needs of the 
> public in the country in question.
> 
> *From:*Ecrit [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Aleksiev, Vasil
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2017 6:05 AM
> *To:* Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
> 
> Henning,
> 
> In one country always there is a regulator commission which is 
> monitoring the telecom carriers. The regulator issues rules in written 
> form and monitors if all the carriers are following it. If the written 
> rules are not followed, the regulator issues the respective penalties. 
> So every mobile or fixed operator looks into the written rules and takes 
> care of it. In this sense the telecom operators are only caring what is 
> the regulator definition of emergency calls. That is why we have created 
> a file with links to the respective documents, which are issued by the 
> regulators in the respective countries (in form of law). In such 
> document there is definition for emergency calls and list is present 
> with the numbers considered as emergency in the country. The definition 
> usually includes serving the calls with priority, providing location of 
> the subscribers, providing possibility for call back.
> 
> One operator uses such mechanisms only for numbers defined as emergency 
> by the law. Of course every organisation is free to define its own 
> emergency number for some reasons, but the operators do not have an 
> obligation to take care of this and route such numbers as normal calls.
> 
> I think there is no reason to search in google for every possible 
> emergency number which nobody is routing as emergency according to the 
> regulators requirements.
> 
> BR Vasil
> 
> *Von:*Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017 17:29
> *An:* Aleksiev, Vasil <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* Brian Rosen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
> 
> Vasil,
> 
> the service URN does not prescribe any network priority treatment. 
> Indeed, at least in the US, landline 911 calls are treated exactly the 
> same as regular calls, e.g., during network congestion. (We have the SIP 
> RPH mechanism for prioritizing call treatment, but it's not used for 
> civilian emergency calls.)
> 
> I suspect this is try for many of the non-112 calls today. I very much 
> doubt that marine emergency calls in Finland or 1-800 calls to the 
> poison control center in the US (and the equivalent set of numbers in 
> Germany, say) receive any priority treatment in the network.
> 
> Again, I think it helps make progress if we do not overload labels with 
> policy.
> 
> Naturally, any country or carrier is free to use any label, including 
> the URN, to signify any treatment local law and regulation permits or 
> requires. But the label does not /require/ or imply such network treatment.
> 
> I admit I'm thoroughly confused by this discussion. Where did the 
> priority issue suddenly come from? It's not in any ECRIT document that 
> I'm aware of.
> 
> Henning
> 
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Brian,
> 
>     A service URN with a top-level service type of "sos" is used only
>     when the user intends to establish an emergency call. The emergency
>     call will be treated with priority in the network. For non-emergency
>     numbers in one country sos shall not be used since priority there is
>     not needed.
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Vasil
> 
>     *Von:*Brian Rosen [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017 15:46
>     *An:* Aleksiev, Vasil <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Betreff:* Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
> 
>     Vasil
> 
>     Once again, the name has no significance as long as it is unique. 
>     We use the names as suggestive for the service to aid the service
>     providers, regulators and public safety authorities in setting up
>     the systems, but the urn name is not used by anything other than
>     computer software during an emergency.
> 
>     If one country has a service for an ambulance service that is
>     considered an emergency service, but in another country it is not
>     considered an emergency service, we can, and should still use the
>     service in the sos tree for the non-emergency service.  On the other
>     hand, if there was a country that had two ambulance services, one
>     that was used for emergency transport and another that was used for
>     non-emergency transport, then we would need two URNs, because we
>     have distinct services and need different URNs.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________
> Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be 
> privileged.
> If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, 
> destroy all
> copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for 
> any purpose.
> Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte 
> bevorrechtigtem
> Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, 
> informieren Sie
> bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem 
> System und
> veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich 
> zu welchem Zweck.
> 
> Think before you print!
> 
> T-Mobile Austria GmbH
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Andreas Bierwirth (Vorsitzender), Aufsichtsrat: 
> Dr. Rolf Nafziger (Vorsitzender)
> Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien, Sitz Wien, FN 171112k, UID ATU 
> 45011703, DVR 0898295
> Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: 
> BKAUATWW
> 
> T-Mobile – Das verbindet uns.
> __________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>