country specific emergency URNs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
66 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

country specific emergency URNs

Aleksiev, Vasil

Hello,

3GPP tried to register “sos.country-specific” sub-service type with IANA and got a comment back that “country-specific” is not an emergency service. There was a discussion on the last IETF meeting on this topic and as outcome 3 ways forward presented to 3GPP CT1 – change the registration process, create an exception in the registration process or use the current process.

There were discussions how to go forward with this topic in 3GPP CT1. With the help of some of the delegates list with emergency services was prepared in order to see what exactly problems we might have with registration. You can see the list attached.

Looking to the list there are some issues which I believe cannot be solved within the current registration process. I have tried to summarize the comments and the examples that we had during our discussions in 3GPP CT1 and to start a discussion in ECRIT mailing list regarding the possible registration of these specific emergency services. Meanwhile there is a process to make the list with the emergency services bigger.

There are some conclusions seen from the list:

 

  1. Each emergency service needs to have unique emergency service URN. Handling in IMS can be different than handling in CS.

 

Example1:

 

In Czech republic, there is a "Municipal police" emergency service (156) and a "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (158) + other emergency services.

 

Within the CS domain it is possible to indicate the emergency service required, but in a limited set (3GPP TS 22.101) - there is only one bit for Police in the Emergency category Information Element.

 

An operator in Czech republic can provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 158 and the Police bit in the Emergency category IE. Whenever the user dials 158 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS EMERGENCY SETUP with the Emergency category IE with the Police bit set or a UE-detectable IMS emergency call setup with the Request-URI set to the urn:service:sos.police, sent within emergency PDN connection. Either the MSC or the IMS network in Czech republic route the call to the PSAP providing the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service.

 

The operator in Czech republic canNOT provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 156 and a bit in the Emergency category Information element since:

- the "Police" bit is taken for the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service);

- there is no other related bit; and

- providing no bit implies a generic emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service).

 

Given that the UE is not configured with 156, whenever the user dials 156 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS SETUP for 156 or a non-emergency IMS call setup for <a href="tel:156;phone-context=%3cphone-context">tel:156;phone-context=<phone-context>.

In CS, the MSC is always in the same country as the UE so the MSC just routes the non-emergency CS domain call for 156 to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

In IMS, it is not so easy since inbound-roamer would have P-CSCF abroad.

                The P-CSCF abroad sends a 380 response to the UE to inform the UE that the UE dialed an emergency number. In the 380 response, there is a Contact header field indicating the "Municipal police" emergency service.

                Based on the 380 response, the UE determines that a call to an emergency number was attempted and the UE selects whether to attempt the emergency call in CS or in IMS.

                               If in IMS, the UE establishes an emergency PDN connection, and sets up a UE-detectable IMS emergency call and sets the Request-URI to the Contact of the 380 response, i.e. the Request-URI contains a sos URN identifying the "Municipal police" emergency service. Based on the Request-URI, the IMS network in Czech republic routes the call to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

                               If in CS, since the the Contact of the 380 response does not match any of urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.police, urn:service:sos.ambulance, urn:service:sos.fire, urn:service:sos.marine, urn:service:sos.mountain, the UE sends CS SETUP for 156.

 

The marked text above is one reason why each emergency service needs to have a unique emergency service URN (either country specific emergency URN or an emergency URN assigned by IANA and ECRIT).

 

 

  1. It is not possible to consolidate services which are in different nations.

 

Emergency service X might have a different meaning in different countries, e.g. X.A in country A and X.B in country B.

Furthermore, even if at the moment X.A and X.B would be identical, it cannot be guaranteed that national regulations of A and B would keep X.A and X.B in-line.

From this perspective it would make sense to allow national regulators to determine their national emergency service URNs in a way that is clearly indicated as country-specific.

Assume there are several countries defining the following emergency service:

* 555 - religious/spiritual counselling

It might be difficult to ensure to people of different religious convictions that they end up with a counsellor of their need/expectation. Whilst this maybe could be solved by a designator for specific religion, the issue would for sure be seen by some countries as their decision to make (locally).

 

EXAMPLE 2

142- Telefonseelsorge (Telefone soul care) is defined as emergency number in Austria and is served by the Catholic and Evangelistic Churches in Austria.

106 - Mental problems hotline in Belgium has nothing to do with the Church.

988 - Helpline (domestic violence/ suicides) in Poland.

 

It is not possible to consolidate these emergency numbers in 3 different countries under only one urn. They provide almost the same service, but have different ways to help. These 3 numbers cannot be referred to a single URN, since public and regulator expectations towards them are different.

 

EXAMPLE 3

197- Terror Alert - Child Alert in France

114 - Child emergency in Italy

They cannot be under one URN since the number in France is also responsible for Terror Alert.

 

  1. In some countries some counselling services are considered as emergency and in other countries they are only counselling services.

 

EXAMPLE 4

In Austria:

-  147 - Notrufdienst für Kinder und Jugendliche is emergency number according to the regulators/ law. While in Germany +49 800 1110333 Kinder- und Jugendtelefon is not emergency service.

 

IANA have registered urn:service:sos for “emergency services” and urn:sos:counceling for non-emergency services. 147 has to be mapped under the “emergency services” tree to satisfy Austrian regulatory requirements, while +49 800 1110333 has to remain under the “non-emergency services” tree. It is unclear how the ECRIT expert will handle these requests given the following description for the expert’s role in 4.3 of RFC 5031:

“The expert review should take into account whether these services are offered widely and in different countries, with approximately the same caller expectation in terms of services rendered.”

 

  1. The local regulator may want to have the routing urns in local language or may want to have a better translation to English that what is chosen in the time of the registration.

 

All the examples show that emergency services have its local peculiarities in different countries and consolidating them under respective sos sub-services is difficult. In some cases consolidation is possible (the sos urns which are already registered). But in other cases it is not possible to use the current registration process and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in different countries.

I believe the examples above give arguments to use “sos.country-specific”.

 

Best regards,

Vasil

 

T-Mobile International Austria GmbH

Vasil Aleksiev

SIM - Standardization & IPR Management

 

Rennweg 97-99, A-1030 Wien

Mobile: +43 676 8200 5145

E-Mail: [hidden email]

www.t-mobile.at 

 

LIFE IS FOR SHARING

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

Emergency-numbers-v1.6.xlsx (24K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Brian Rosen
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the values in the registry are supposed to be used for.

They are meant to be used to identify unique services.  

It’s useful to try to not have a lot of services that really are the same service having different entries, but two services that are indeed different ought to have different entries.


Also, the routing of a service can be whatever is needed; no assumption about routing is made other than the implication that the routing element will have different service URNs for different services.

With that it mind, my suggestions for the cases you cited are inline:


On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,
3GPP tried to register “sos.country-specific” sub-service type with IANA and got a comment back that “country-specific” is not an emergency service. There was a discussion on the last IETF meeting on this topic and as outcome 3 ways forward presented to 3GPP CT1 – change the registration process, create an exception in the registration process or use the current process. 
There were discussions how to go forward with this topic in 3GPP CT1. With the help of some of the delegates list with emergency services was prepared in order to see what exactly problems we might have with registration. You can see the list attached. 
Looking to the list there are some issues which I believe cannot be solved within the current registration process. I have tried to summarize the comments and the examples that we had during our discussions in 3GPP CT1 and to start a discussion in ECRIT mailing list regarding the possible registration of these specific emergency services. Meanwhile there is a process to make the list with the emergency services bigger.
There are some conclusions seen from the list:
 
  1. Each emergency service needs to have unique emergency service URN. Handling in IMS can be different than handling in CS.
 
Example1:
 
In Czech republic, there is a "Municipal police" emergency service (156) and a "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (158) + other emergency services. 
 
Within the CS domain it is possible to indicate the emergency service required, but in a limited set (3GPP TS 22.101) - there is only one bit for Police in the Emergency category Information Element.
 
An operator in Czech republic can provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 158 and the Police bit in the Emergency category IE. Whenever the user dials 158 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS EMERGENCY SETUP with the Emergency category IE with the Police bit set or a UE-detectable IMS emergency call setup with the Request-URI set to the urn:service:sos.police, sent within emergency PDN connection. Either the MSC or the IMS network in Czech republic route the call to the PSAP providing the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service.
 
The operator in Czech republic canNOT provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 156 and a bit in the Emergency category Information element since:
- the "Police" bit is taken for the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service);
- there is no other related bit; and
- providing no bit implies a generic emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service).
 
Given that the UE is not configured with 156, whenever the user dials 156 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS SETUP for 156 or a non-emergency IMS call setup for <a href="tel:156;phone-context=%3cphone-context" style="color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline;" class="">tel:156;phone-context=<phone-context>. 
In CS, the MSC is always in the same country as the UE so the MSC just routes the non-emergency CS domain call for 156 to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.
In IMS, it is not so easy since inbound-roamer would have P-CSCF abroad. 
                The P-CSCF abroad sends a 380 response to the UE to inform the UE that the UE dialed an emergency number. In the 380 response, there is a Contact header field indicating the "Municipal police" emergency service. 
                Based on the 380 response, the UE determines that a call to an emergency number was attempted and the UE selects whether to attempt the emergency call in CS or in IMS.
                               If in IMS, the UE establishes an emergency PDN connection, and sets up a UE-detectable IMS emergency call and sets the Request-URI to the Contact of the 380 response, i.e. the Request-URI contains a sos URN identifying the "Municipal police" emergency service. Based on the Request-URI, the IMS network in Czech republic routes the call to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.
                               If in CS, since the the Contact of the 380 response does not match any of urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.police, urn:service:sos.ambulance, urn:service:sos.fire, urn:service:sos.marine, urn:service:sos.mountain, the UE sends CS SETUP for 156.
 
The marked text above is one reason why each emergency service needs to have a unique emergency service URN (either country specific emergency URN or an emergency URN assigned by IANA and ECRIT).
There will be some form of “national.police” and some form of “local.police” or “municipal.police" registrations.   If needed, other police registrations can be made, but just using the two registrations for “national.police” and “local.police” and mapping 158 to “national.police’ and “156” to “local.police” would make sense here.  The routing element can still route a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP or a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP if it needs to.  Routing can be anything you need it to be; the name of the service doesn’t influence routing.  The system clearly can correctly route a 156 call and a 158 call on the ÇS or IMS networks, and it can clearly route a local.police and a national.police the same way.  The point here is that you have exactly two service codes (156 and 158) and you need exactly two service URNs, and there isn’t any reason at all that using “local.police” and “national.police” won’t work fine.
 
 
  1. It is not possible to consolidate services which are in different nations.
 
Emergency service X might have a different meaning in different countries, e.g. X.A in country A and X.B in country B.
Furthermore, even if at the moment X.A and X.B would be identical, it cannot be guaranteed that national regulations of A and B would keep X.A and X.B in-line.
From this perspective it would make sense to allow national regulators to determine their national emergency service URNs in a way that is clearly indicated as country-specific.
I don’t agree.  While it may be the case that in some future time some country changes the generally accepted definition of a service, all that we care about is that there is a reasonable mapping available.  If we need to, when the new service is defined, it can get a new service urn if it is indeed a different service.

Assume there are several countries defining the following emergency service:
* 555 - religious/spiritual counselling
It might be difficult to ensure to people of different religious convictions that they end up with a counsellor of their need/expectation. Whilst this maybe could be solved by a designator for specific religion, the issue would for sure be seen by some countries as their decision to make (locally).
Like police, fire and ems, if we need a service URN for “spiritualCounseling” and in some country there is “christian.spiritualCounseling” and “moslem.spiritualCounseling” where in another country there is “Catholic.spiritualCounseling” and “easternOrthodox.spiritualCounseling” then we can make registrations for each of them, because they are actually different services.
 
EXAMPLE 2
142- Telefonseelsorge (Telefone soul care) is defined as emergency number in Austria and is served by the Catholic and Evangelistic Churches in Austria.
106 - Mental problems hotline in Belgium has nothing to do with the Church.
988 - Helpline (domestic violence/ suicides) in Poland.
 
It is not possible to consolidate these emergency numbers in 3 different countries under only one urn. They provide almost the same service, but have different ways to help. These 3 numbers cannot be referred to a single URN, since public and regulator expectations towards them are different.
I think those are separate services and would clearly qualify for separate registrations.    While one country might have a suicide prevention service and a separate domestic violence service, there could be a question of whether a combined service is a separate service.  I would think it would be, and would qualify for a registration.  It would clearly work if 988 in Poland used the “suicidePrevention” service URN even though it combines it with domestic violence.  However, I think it’s probably best to give it a separate service URN.
 
EXAMPLE 3
197- Terror Alert - Child Alert in France
114 - Child emergency in Italy
They cannot be under one URN since the number in France is also responsible for Terror Alert. 
Same as above. I think France should have a separate registration, but it would work fine if they just used “childEmergency”.
 
  1. In some countries some counselling services are considered as emergency and in other countries they are only counselling services.
 
EXAMPLE 4
In Austria:
-  147 - Notrufdienst für Kinder und Jugendliche is emergency number according to the regulators/ law. While in Germany +49 800 1110333 Kinder- und Jugendtelefon is not emergency service.
So?  Do you want to map +49 800 1110333 in Germany to childEmergency or not?  If its not mapped to the service URN, then there is no problem.  If it is, then the call is not an emergency call.  The service URN is designed to work with non-emergency services.  There is no restriction on sos:counseling that it can only be used for non-emergency calls.  If it makes sense in some country to treat it as an emergency call, do it.  Nothing will break somewhere else.

 
IANA have registered urn:service:sos for “emergency services” and urn:sos:counceling for non-emergency services. 147 has to be mapped under the “emergency services” tree to satisfy Austrian regulatory requirements, while +49 800 1110333 has to remain under the “non-emergency services” tree. It is unclear how the ECRIT expert will handle these requests given the following description for the expert’s role in 4.3 of RFC 5031: 
“The expert review should take into account whether these services are offered widely and in different countries, with approximately the same caller expectation in terms of services rendered.”
This is urn:service:sos.childEmergency (or something like it), not urn:service.sos or urn:sos:counceling.

 
  1. The local regulator may want to have the routing urns in local language or may want to have a better translation to English that what is chosen in the time of the registration.
 
All the examples show that emergency services have its local peculiarities in different countries and consolidating them under respective sos sub-services is difficult. In some cases consolidation is possible (the sos urns which are already registered). But in other cases it is not possible to use the current registration process and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in different countries. 
Once again, this is a urn, not a human readable tag.  It could be X4476 and work fine.  

If there are distinct services, they should get distinct service urns.  Service urns are inexpensive and the process to get a new one is simple.  The fact that in some countries some unusual services, or service combinations exist doesn’t detract from the overall observation that in most countries, there is a common set of services that they all agree on.  Where there are distinct services, ask for a service urn and you will get one.

I believe the examples above give arguments to use “sos.country-specific”.
I don’t agree at all

Brian


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Henning Schulzrinne
Just to add to this: URNs are not meant to encode all kinds of policy by name, e.g., whether a service is legally considered an emergency service or not. They are protocol identifiers, not legal or human interface labels. The precise content, operator and status of well-known (including emergency) services sometimes change, without the number changing, so this isn't a particularly new issue.

The same basic service can function quite differently in different countries, as you know, but we still call it something similar or give it the same number. (For example, many emergency services that have separate numbers in European countries all use 911 in the US.)

Thus, the only real requirement is that, within a country or other appropriate jurisdiction, each distinct service has a unique name so that calls can be routed appropriately.

A secondary requirement is that a traveler should get a reasonably-close approximation of the service if it is mapped to the same URN. For example, it is probably better that somebody who has a speed dial button for children's services in Austria gets the rough equivalent in Germany or Italy, rather than having to look up the local number. In that case, a caller really does not care one bit that it is legally an emergency service in Austria, and not in Germany.

The notion of country-specific labels defeats this core portability design goal of the sos URN.

Similarly, if a single number serves two different purposes in one country, there is no harm in having two labels. Indeed, that's probably a good idea, just in case they get split later.

I think a helpful next step, which you have already started, is to enumerate the classes of emergency and related public services that currently do not have a suitable URN. We can then decide what the appropriate tree might be, recognizing that some may be a bit fuzzy (e.g., the child services you mentioned). The tree only matters in the case where a particular label does not exist in a country and labels are stripped. In some cases, the right approach may be to define related services in both the 'sos' and 'counseling' tree.

Henning

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Brian Rosen <[hidden email]> wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the values in the registry are supposed to be used for.

They are meant to be used to identify unique services.  

It’s useful to try to not have a lot of services that really are the same service having different entries, but two services that are indeed different ought to have different entries.


Also, the routing of a service can be whatever is needed; no assumption about routing is made other than the implication that the routing element will have different service URNs for different services.

With that it mind, my suggestions for the cases you cited are inline:


On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,
3GPP tried to register “sos.country-specific” sub-service type with IANA and got a comment back that “country-specific” is not an emergency service. There was a discussion on the last IETF meeting on this topic and as outcome 3 ways forward presented to 3GPP CT1 – change the registration process, create an exception in the registration process or use the current process. 
There were discussions how to go forward with this topic in 3GPP CT1. With the help of some of the delegates list with emergency services was prepared in order to see what exactly problems we might have with registration. You can see the list attached. 
Looking to the list there are some issues which I believe cannot be solved within the current registration process. I have tried to summarize the comments and the examples that we had during our discussions in 3GPP CT1 and to start a discussion in ECRIT mailing list regarding the possible registration of these specific emergency services. Meanwhile there is a process to make the list with the emergency services bigger.
There are some conclusions seen from the list:
 
  1. Each emergency service needs to have unique emergency service URN. Handling in IMS can be different than handling in CS.
 
Example1:
 
In Czech republic, there is a "Municipal police" emergency service (156) and a "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (158) + other emergency services. 
 
Within the CS domain it is possible to indicate the emergency service required, but in a limited set (3GPP TS 22.101) - there is only one bit for Police in the Emergency category Information Element.
 
An operator in Czech republic can provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 158 and the Police bit in the Emergency category IE. Whenever the user dials 158 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS EMERGENCY SETUP with the Emergency category IE with the Police bit set or a UE-detectable IMS emergency call setup with the Request-URI set to the urn:service:sos.police, sent within emergency PDN connection. Either the MSC or the IMS network in Czech republic route the call to the PSAP providing the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service.
 
The operator in Czech republic canNOT provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 156 and a bit in the Emergency category Information element since:
- the "Police" bit is taken for the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service);
- there is no other related bit; and
- providing no bit implies a generic emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service).
 
Given that the UE is not configured with 156, whenever the user dials 156 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS SETUP for 156 or a non-emergency IMS call setup for <a href="tel:156;phone-context=%3cphone-context" style="color:rgb(149,79,114);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">tel:156;phone-context=<phone-context>. 
In CS, the MSC is always in the same country as the UE so the MSC just routes the non-emergency CS domain call for 156 to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.
In IMS, it is not so easy since inbound-roamer would have P-CSCF abroad. 
                The P-CSCF abroad sends a 380 response to the UE to inform the UE that the UE dialed an emergency number. In the 380 response, there is a Contact header field indicating the "Municipal police" emergency service. 
                Based on the 380 response, the UE determines that a call to an emergency number was attempted and the UE selects whether to attempt the emergency call in CS or in IMS.
                               If in IMS, the UE establishes an emergency PDN connection, and sets up a UE-detectable IMS emergency call and sets the Request-URI to the Contact of the 380 response, i.e. the Request-URI contains a sos URN identifying the "Municipal police" emergency service. Based on the Request-URI, the IMS network in Czech republic routes the call to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.
                               If in CS, since the the Contact of the 380 response does not match any of urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.police, urn:service:sos.ambulance, urn:service:sos.fire, urn:service:sos.marine, urn:service:sos.mountain, the UE sends CS SETUP for 156.
 
The marked text above is one reason why each emergency service needs to have a unique emergency service URN (either country specific emergency URN or an emergency URN assigned by IANA and ECRIT).
There will be some form of “national.police” and some form of “local.police” or “municipal.police" registrations.   If needed, other police registrations can be made, but just using the two registrations for “national.police” and “local.police” and mapping 158 to “national.police’ and “156” to “local.police” would make sense here.  The routing element can still route a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP or a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP if it needs to.  Routing can be anything you need it to be; the name of the service doesn’t influence routing.  The system clearly can correctly route a 156 call and a 158 call on the ÇS or IMS networks, and it can clearly route a local.police and a national.police the same way.  The point here is that you have exactly two service codes (156 and 158) and you need exactly two service URNs, and there isn’t any reason at all that using “local.police” and “national.police” won’t work fine.
 
 
  1. It is not possible to consolidate services which are in different nations.
 
Emergency service X might have a different meaning in different countries, e.g. X.A in country A and X.B in country B.
Furthermore, even if at the moment X.A and X.B would be identical, it cannot be guaranteed that national regulations of A and B would keep X.A and X.B in-line.
From this perspective it would make sense to allow national regulators to determine their national emergency service URNs in a way that is clearly indicated as country-specific.
I don’t agree.  While it may be the case that in some future time some country changes the generally accepted definition of a service, all that we care about is that there is a reasonable mapping available.  If we need to, when the new service is defined, it can get a new service urn if it is indeed a different service.

Assume there are several countries defining the following emergency service:
* 555 - religious/spiritual counselling
It might be difficult to ensure to people of different religious convictions that they end up with a counsellor of their need/expectation. Whilst this maybe could be solved by a designator for specific religion, the issue would for sure be seen by some countries as their decision to make (locally).
Like police, fire and ems, if we need a service URN for “spiritualCounseling” and in some country there is “christian.spiritualCounseling” and “moslem.spiritualCounseling” where in another country there is “Catholic.spiritualCounseling” and “easternOrthodox.spiritualCounseling” then we can make registrations for each of them, because they are actually different services.
 
EXAMPLE 2
142- Telefonseelsorge (Telefone soul care) is defined as emergency number in Austria and is served by the Catholic and Evangelistic Churches in Austria.
106 - Mental problems hotline in Belgium has nothing to do with the Church.
988 - Helpline (domestic violence/ suicides) in Poland.
 
It is not possible to consolidate these emergency numbers in 3 different countries under only one urn. They provide almost the same service, but have different ways to help. These 3 numbers cannot be referred to a single URN, since public and regulator expectations towards them are different.
I think those are separate services and would clearly qualify for separate registrations.    While one country might have a suicide prevention service and a separate domestic violence service, there could be a question of whether a combined service is a separate service.  I would think it would be, and would qualify for a registration.  It would clearly work if 988 in Poland used the “suicidePrevention” service URN even though it combines it with domestic violence.  However, I think it’s probably best to give it a separate service URN.
 
EXAMPLE 3
197- Terror Alert - Child Alert in France
114 - Child emergency in Italy
They cannot be under one URN since the number in France is also responsible for Terror Alert. 
Same as above. I think France should have a separate registration, but it would work fine if they just used “childEmergency”.
 
  1. In some countries some counselling services are considered as emergency and in other countries they are only counselling services.
 
EXAMPLE 4
In Austria:
-  147 - Notrufdienst für Kinder und Jugendliche is emergency number according to the regulators/ law. While in Germany <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" value="+498001110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 Kinder- und Jugendtelefon is not emergency service.
So?  Do you want to map <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" value="+498001110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 in Germany to childEmergency or not?  If its not mapped to the service URN, then there is no problem.  If it is, then the call is not an emergency call.  The service URN is designed to work with non-emergency services.  There is no restriction on sos:counseling that it can only be used for non-emergency calls.  If it makes sense in some country to treat it as an emergency call, do it.  Nothing will break somewhere else.

 
IANA have registered urn:service:sos for “emergency services” and urn:sos:counceling for non-emergency services. 147 has to be mapped under the “emergency services” tree to satisfy Austrian regulatory requirements, while <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" value="+498001110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 has to remain under the “non-emergency services” tree. It is unclear how the ECRIT expert will handle these requests given the following description for the expert’s role in 4.3 of RFC 5031: 
“The expert review should take into account whether these services are offered widely and in different countries, with approximately the same caller expectation in terms of services rendered.”
This is urn:service:sos.childEmergency (or something like it), not urn:service.sos or urn:sos:counceling.

 
  1. The local regulator may want to have the routing urns in local language or may want to have a better translation to English that what is chosen in the time of the registration.
 
All the examples show that emergency services have its local peculiarities in different countries and consolidating them under respective sos sub-services is difficult. In some cases consolidation is possible (the sos urns which are already registered). But in other cases it is not possible to use the current registration process and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in different countries. 
Once again, this is a urn, not a human readable tag.  It could be X4476 and work fine.  

If there are distinct services, they should get distinct service urns.  Service urns are inexpensive and the process to get a new one is simple.  The fact that in some countries some unusual services, or service combinations exist doesn’t detract from the overall observation that in most countries, there is a common set of services that they all agree on.  Where there are distinct services, ask for a service urn and you will get one.

I believe the examples above give arguments to use “sos.country-specific”.
I don’t agree at all

Brian


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)

I do not believe I quite agree.

 

The top level “sos” carries certain semantics including immediate response, which are quite distinct from “counselling”

 

So while a children’s service in one country may come under “sos” it will come under “counselling” in another.

 

Keith

 

From: Ecrit [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: 08 July 2017 04:47
To: Brian Rosen <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Just to add to this: URNs are not meant to encode all kinds of policy by name, e.g., whether a service is legally considered an emergency service or not. They are protocol identifiers, not legal or human interface labels. The precise content, operator and status of well-known (including emergency) services sometimes change, without the number changing, so this isn't a particularly new issue.

 

The same basic service can function quite differently in different countries, as you know, but we still call it something similar or give it the same number. (For example, many emergency services that have separate numbers in European countries all use 911 in the US.)

 

Thus, the only real requirement is that, within a country or other appropriate jurisdiction, each distinct service has a unique name so that calls can be routed appropriately.

 

A secondary requirement is that a traveler should get a reasonably-close approximation of the service if it is mapped to the same URN. For example, it is probably better that somebody who has a speed dial button for children's services in Austria gets the rough equivalent in Germany or Italy, rather than having to look up the local number. In that case, a caller really does not care one bit that it is legally an emergency service in Austria, and not in Germany.

 

The notion of country-specific labels defeats this core portability design goal of the sos URN.

 

Similarly, if a single number serves two different purposes in one country, there is no harm in having two labels. Indeed, that's probably a good idea, just in case they get split later.

 

I think a helpful next step, which you have already started, is to enumerate the classes of emergency and related public services that currently do not have a suitable URN. We can then decide what the appropriate tree might be, recognizing that some may be a bit fuzzy (e.g., the child services you mentioned). The tree only matters in the case where a particular label does not exist in a country and labels are stripped. In some cases, the right approach may be to define related services in both the 'sos' and 'counseling' tree.

 

Henning

 

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Brian Rosen <[hidden email]> wrote:

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the values in the registry are supposed to be used for.

 

They are meant to be used to identify unique services.  

 

It’s useful to try to not have a lot of services that really are the same service having different entries, but two services that are indeed different ought to have different entries.

 

 

Also, the routing of a service can be whatever is needed; no assumption about routing is made other than the implication that the routing element will have different service URNs for different services.

 

With that it mind, my suggestions for the cases you cited are inline:

 

 

On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Hello,

3GPP tried to register “sos.country-specific” sub-service type with IANA and got a comment back that “country-specific” is not an emergency service. There was a discussion on the last IETF meeting on this topic and as outcome 3 ways forward presented to 3GPP CT1 – change the registration process, create an exception in the registration process or use the current process. 

There were discussions how to go forward with this topic in 3GPP CT1. With the help of some of the delegates list with emergency services was prepared in order to see what exactly problems we might have with registration. You can see the list attached. 

Looking to the list there are some issues which I believe cannot be solved within the current registration process. I have tried to summarize the comments and the examples that we had during our discussions in 3GPP CT1 and to start a discussion in ECRIT mailing list regarding the possible registration of these specific emergency services. Meanwhile there is a process to make the list with the emergency services bigger.

There are some conclusions seen from the list:

 

  1. Each emergency service needs to have unique emergency service URN. Handling in IMS can be different than handling in CS.

 

Example1:

 

In Czech republic, there is a "Municipal police" emergency service (156) and a "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (158) + other emergency services. 

 

Within the CS domain it is possible to indicate the emergency service required, but in a limited set (3GPP TS 22.101) - there is only one bit for Police in the Emergency category Information Element.

 

An operator in Czech republic can provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 158 and the Police bit in the Emergency category IE. Whenever the user dials 158 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS EMERGENCY SETUP with the Emergency category IE with the Police bit set or a UE-detectable IMS emergency call setup with the Request-URI set to the urn:service:sos.police, sent within emergency PDN connection. Either the MSC or the IMS network in Czech republic route the call to the PSAP providing the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service.

 

The operator in Czech republic canNOT provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 156 and a bit in the Emergency category Information element since:

- the "Police" bit is taken for the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service);

- there is no other related bit; and

- providing no bit implies a generic emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service).

 

Given that the UE is not configured with 156, whenever the user dials 156 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS SETUP for 156 or a non-emergency IMS call setup for <a href="tel:156;phone-context=%3cphone-context" target="_blank">tel:156;phone-context=<phone-context>. 

In CS, the MSC is always in the same country as the UE so the MSC just routes the non-emergency CS domain call for 156 to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

In IMS, it is not so easy since inbound-roamer would have P-CSCF abroad. 

                The P-CSCF abroad sends a 380 response to the UE to inform the UE that the UE dialed an emergency number. In the 380 response, there is a Contact header field indicating the "Municipal police" emergency service. 

                Based on the 380 response, the UE determines that a call to an emergency number was attempted and the UE selects whether to attempt the emergency call in CS or in IMS.

                               If in IMS, the UE establishes an emergency PDN connection, and sets up a UE-detectable IMS emergency call and sets the Request-URI to the Contact of the 380 response, i.e. the Request-URI contains a sos URN identifying the "Municipal police" emergency service. Based on the Request-URI, the IMS network in Czech republic routes the call to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

                               If in CS, since the the Contact of the 380 response does not match any of urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.police, urn:service:sos.ambulance, urn:service:sos.fire, urn:service:sos.marine, urn:service:sos.mountain, the UE sends CS SETUP for 156.

 

The marked text above is one reason why each emergency service needs to have a unique emergency service URN (either country specific emergency URN or an emergency URN assigned by IANA and ECRIT).

There will be some form of “national.police” and some form of “local.police” or “municipal.police" registrations.   If needed, other police registrations can be made, but just using the two registrations for “national.police” and “local.police” and mapping 158 to “national.police’ and “156” to “local.police” would make sense here.  The routing element can still route a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP or a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP if it needs to.  Routing can be anything you need it to be; the name of the service doesn’t influence routing.  The system clearly can correctly route a 156 call and a 158 call on the ÇS or IMS networks, and it can clearly route a local.police and a national.police the same way.  The point here is that you have exactly two service codes (156 and 158) and you need exactly two service URNs, and there isn’t any reason at all that using “local.police” and “national.police” won’t work fine.

 

 

  1. It is not possible to consolidate services which are in different nations.

 

Emergency service X might have a different meaning in different countries, e.g. X.A in country A and X.B in country B.

Furthermore, even if at the moment X.A and X.B would be identical, it cannot be guaranteed that national regulations of A and B would keep X.A and X.B in-line.

From this perspective it would make sense to allow national regulators to determine their national emergency service URNs in a way that is clearly indicated as country-specific.

I don’t agree.  While it may be the case that in some future time some country changes the generally accepted definition of a service, all that we care about is that there is a reasonable mapping available.  If we need to, when the new service is defined, it can get a new service urn if it is indeed a different service.



Assume there are several countries defining the following emergency service:

* 555 - religious/spiritual counselling

It might be difficult to ensure to people of different religious convictions that they end up with a counsellor of their need/expectation. Whilst this maybe could be solved by a designator for specific religion, the issue would for sure be seen by some countries as their decision to make (locally).

Like police, fire and ems, if we need a service URN for “spiritualCounseling” and in some country there is “christian.spiritualCounseling” and “moslem.spiritualCounseling” where in another country there is “Catholic.spiritualCounseling” and “easternOrthodox.spiritualCounseling” then we can make registrations for each of them, because they are actually different services.

 

EXAMPLE 2

142- Telefonseelsorge (Telefone soul care) is defined as emergency number in Austria and is served by the Catholic and Evangelistic Churches in Austria.

106 - Mental problems hotline in Belgium has nothing to do with the Church.

988 - Helpline (domestic violence/ suicides) in Poland.

 

It is not possible to consolidate these emergency numbers in 3 different countries under only one urn. They provide almost the same service, but have different ways to help. These 3 numbers cannot be referred to a single URN, since public and regulator expectations towards them are different.

I think those are separate services and would clearly qualify for separate registrations.    While one country might have a suicide prevention service and a separate domestic violence service, there could be a question of whether a combined service is a separate service.  I would think it would be, and would qualify for a registration.  It would clearly work if 988 in Poland used the “suicidePrevention” service URN even though it combines it with domestic violence.  However, I think it’s probably best to give it a separate service URN.

 

EXAMPLE 3

197- Terror Alert - Child Alert in France

114 - Child emergency in Italy

They cannot be under one URN since the number in France is also responsible for Terror Alert. 

Same as above. I think France should have a separate registration, but it would work fine if they just used “childEmergency”.

 

  1. In some countries some counselling services are considered as emergency and in other countries they are only counselling services.

 

EXAMPLE 4

In Austria:

-  147 - Notrufdienst für Kinder und Jugendliche is emergency number according to the regulators/ law. While in Germany <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 Kinder- und Jugendtelefon is not emergency service.

So?  Do you want to map <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 in Germany to “childEmergency” or not?  If it’s not mapped to the service URN, then there is no problem.  If it is, then the call is not an emergency call.  The service URN is designed to work with non-emergency services.  There is no restriction on sos:counseling that it can only be used for non-emergency calls.  If it makes sense in some country to treat it as an emergency call, do it.  Nothing will break somewhere else.

 

 

IANA have registered urn:service:sos for “emergency services” and urn:sos:counceling for non-emergency services. 147 has to be mapped under the “emergency services” tree to satisfy Austrian regulatory requirements, while <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 has to remain under the “non-emergency services” tree. It is unclear how the ECRIT expert will handle these requests given the following description for the expert’s role in 4.3 of RFC 5031: 

“The expert review should take into account whether these services are offered widely and in different countries, with approximately the same caller expectation in terms of services rendered.”

This is urn:service:sos.childEmergency (or something like it), not urn:service.sos or urn:sos:counceling.



 

  1. The local regulator may want to have the routing urns in local language or may want to have a better translation to English that what is chosen in the time of the registration.

 

All the examples show that emergency services have its local peculiarities in different countries and consolidating them under respective sos sub-services is difficult. In some cases consolidation is possible (the sos urns which are already registered). But in other cases it is not possible to use the current registration process and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in different countries. 

Once again, this is a urn, not a human readable tag.  It could be X4476 and work fine.  

 

If there are distinct services, they should get distinct service urns.  Service urns are inexpensive and the process to get a new one is simple.  The fact that in some countries some unusual services, or service combinations exist doesn’t detract from the overall observation that in most countries, there is a common set of services that they all agree on.  Where there are distinct services, ask for a service urn and you will get one.

 

I believe the examples above give arguments to use “sos.country-specific”.

I don’t agree at all

 

Brian

 


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

 


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Henning Schulzrinne
Keith,

like I mentioned, if there is a perception that this matters in response and recognizing the trade-offs (suddenly, a service in country A fails in country B, even though users would perceive the replacement service to be sufficiently close), there's no reason not to create child services under both sos and counseling categories, as they are presumably substantially different in that case (one sends a child protection service worker, the other provides telephone counseling on how to deal with bullying, say). As long as each country is clear on the mapping, there's no real problem.

I think the best path forward is to enumerate the non-traditional (i.e., beyond fire, police and ambulance) services in each country and see what the best set of labels would be, keeping the two objectives in mind (MUST avoid collisions in each country, SHOULD facilitate traveller use).

Thus, I think we're not really disagreeing...

Henning

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do not believe I quite agree.

 

The top level “sos” carries certain semantics including immediate response, which are quite distinct from “counselling”

 

So while a children’s service in one country may come under “sos” it will come under “counselling” in another.

 

Keith

 

From: Ecrit [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: 08 July 2017 04:47
To: Brian Rosen <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Just to add to this: URNs are not meant to encode all kinds of policy by name, e.g., whether a service is legally considered an emergency service or not. They are protocol identifiers, not legal or human interface labels. The precise content, operator and status of well-known (including emergency) services sometimes change, without the number changing, so this isn't a particularly new issue.

 

The same basic service can function quite differently in different countries, as you know, but we still call it something similar or give it the same number. (For example, many emergency services that have separate numbers in European countries all use 911 in the US.)

 

Thus, the only real requirement is that, within a country or other appropriate jurisdiction, each distinct service has a unique name so that calls can be routed appropriately.

 

A secondary requirement is that a traveler should get a reasonably-close approximation of the service if it is mapped to the same URN. For example, it is probably better that somebody who has a speed dial button for children's services in Austria gets the rough equivalent in Germany or Italy, rather than having to look up the local number. In that case, a caller really does not care one bit that it is legally an emergency service in Austria, and not in Germany.

 

The notion of country-specific labels defeats this core portability design goal of the sos URN.

 

Similarly, if a single number serves two different purposes in one country, there is no harm in having two labels. Indeed, that's probably a good idea, just in case they get split later.

 

I think a helpful next step, which you have already started, is to enumerate the classes of emergency and related public services that currently do not have a suitable URN. We can then decide what the appropriate tree might be, recognizing that some may be a bit fuzzy (e.g., the child services you mentioned). The tree only matters in the case where a particular label does not exist in a country and labels are stripped. In some cases, the right approach may be to define related services in both the 'sos' and 'counseling' tree.

 

Henning

 

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Brian Rosen <[hidden email]> wrote:

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the values in the registry are supposed to be used for.

 

They are meant to be used to identify unique services.  

 

It’s useful to try to not have a lot of services that really are the same service having different entries, but two services that are indeed different ought to have different entries.

 

 

Also, the routing of a service can be whatever is needed; no assumption about routing is made other than the implication that the routing element will have different service URNs for different services.

 

With that it mind, my suggestions for the cases you cited are inline:

 

 

On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Hello,

3GPP tried to register “sos.country-specific” sub-service type with IANA and got a comment back that “country-specific” is not an emergency service. There was a discussion on the last IETF meeting on this topic and as outcome 3 ways forward presented to 3GPP CT1 – change the registration process, create an exception in the registration process or use the current process. 

There were discussions how to go forward with this topic in 3GPP CT1. With the help of some of the delegates list with emergency services was prepared in order to see what exactly problems we might have with registration. You can see the list attached. 

Looking to the list there are some issues which I believe cannot be solved within the current registration process. I have tried to summarize the comments and the examples that we had during our discussions in 3GPP CT1 and to start a discussion in ECRIT mailing list regarding the possible registration of these specific emergency services. Meanwhile there is a process to make the list with the emergency services bigger.

There are some conclusions seen from the list:

 

  1. Each emergency service needs to have unique emergency service URN. Handling in IMS can be different than handling in CS.

 

Example1:

 

In Czech republic, there is a "Municipal police" emergency service (156) and a "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (158) + other emergency services. 

 

Within the CS domain it is possible to indicate the emergency service required, but in a limited set (3GPP TS 22.101) - there is only one bit for Police in the Emergency category Information Element.

 

An operator in Czech republic can provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 158 and the Police bit in the Emergency category IE. Whenever the user dials 158 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS EMERGENCY SETUP with the Emergency category IE with the Police bit set or a UE-detectable IMS emergency call setup with the Request-URI set to the urn:service:sos.police, sent within emergency PDN connection. Either the MSC or the IMS network in Czech republic route the call to the PSAP providing the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service.

 

The operator in Czech republic canNOT provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 156 and a bit in the Emergency category Information element since:

- the "Police" bit is taken for the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service);

- there is no other related bit; and

- providing no bit implies a generic emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service).

 

Given that the UE is not configured with 156, whenever the user dials 156 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS SETUP for 156 or a non-emergency IMS call setup for <a href="tel:156;phone-context=%3cphone-context" target="_blank">tel:156;phone-context=<phone-context>. 

In CS, the MSC is always in the same country as the UE so the MSC just routes the non-emergency CS domain call for 156 to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

In IMS, it is not so easy since inbound-roamer would have P-CSCF abroad. 

                The P-CSCF abroad sends a 380 response to the UE to inform the UE that the UE dialed an emergency number. In the 380 response, there is a Contact header field indicating the "Municipal police" emergency service. 

                Based on the 380 response, the UE determines that a call to an emergency number was attempted and the UE selects whether to attempt the emergency call in CS or in IMS.

                               If in IMS, the UE establishes an emergency PDN connection, and sets up a UE-detectable IMS emergency call and sets the Request-URI to the Contact of the 380 response, i.e. the Request-URI contains a sos URN identifying the "Municipal police" emergency service. Based on the Request-URI, the IMS network in Czech republic routes the call to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

                               If in CS, since the the Contact of the 380 response does not match any of urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.police, urn:service:sos.ambulance, urn:service:sos.fire, urn:service:sos.marine, urn:service:sos.mountain, the UE sends CS SETUP for 156.

 

The marked text above is one reason why each emergency service needs to have a unique emergency service URN (either country specific emergency URN or an emergency URN assigned by IANA and ECRIT).

There will be some form of “national.police” and some form of “local.police” or “municipal.police" registrations.   If needed, other police registrations can be made, but just using the two registrations for “national.police” and “local.police” and mapping 158 to “national.police’ and “156” to “local.police” would make sense here.  The routing element can still route a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP or a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP if it needs to.  Routing can be anything you need it to be; the name of the service doesn’t influence routing.  The system clearly can correctly route a 156 call and a 158 call on the ÇS or IMS networks, and it can clearly route a local.police and a national.police the same way.  The point here is that you have exactly two service codes (156 and 158) and you need exactly two service URNs, and there isn’t any reason at all that using “local.police” and “national.police” won’t work fine.

 

 

  1. It is not possible to consolidate services which are in different nations.

 

Emergency service X might have a different meaning in different countries, e.g. X.A in country A and X.B in country B.

Furthermore, even if at the moment X.A and X.B would be identical, it cannot be guaranteed that national regulations of A and B would keep X.A and X.B in-line.

From this perspective it would make sense to allow national regulators to determine their national emergency service URNs in a way that is clearly indicated as country-specific.

I don’t agree.  While it may be the case that in some future time some country changes the generally accepted definition of a service, all that we care about is that there is a reasonable mapping available.  If we need to, when the new service is defined, it can get a new service urn if it is indeed a different service.



Assume there are several countries defining the following emergency service:

* 555 - religious/spiritual counselling

It might be difficult to ensure to people of different religious convictions that they end up with a counsellor of their need/expectation. Whilst this maybe could be solved by a designator for specific religion, the issue would for sure be seen by some countries as their decision to make (locally).

Like police, fire and ems, if we need a service URN for “spiritualCounseling” and in some country there is “christian.spiritualCounseling” and “moslem.spiritualCounseling” where in another country there is “Catholic.spiritualCounseling” and “easternOrthodox.spiritualCounseling” then we can make registrations for each of them, because they are actually different services.

 

EXAMPLE 2

142- Telefonseelsorge (Telefone soul care) is defined as emergency number in Austria and is served by the Catholic and Evangelistic Churches in Austria.

106 - Mental problems hotline in Belgium has nothing to do with the Church.

988 - Helpline (domestic violence/ suicides) in Poland.

 

It is not possible to consolidate these emergency numbers in 3 different countries under only one urn. They provide almost the same service, but have different ways to help. These 3 numbers cannot be referred to a single URN, since public and regulator expectations towards them are different.

I think those are separate services and would clearly qualify for separate registrations.    While one country might have a suicide prevention service and a separate domestic violence service, there could be a question of whether a combined service is a separate service.  I would think it would be, and would qualify for a registration.  It would clearly work if 988 in Poland used the “suicidePrevention” service URN even though it combines it with domestic violence.  However, I think it’s probably best to give it a separate service URN.

 

EXAMPLE 3

197- Terror Alert - Child Alert in France

114 - Child emergency in Italy

They cannot be under one URN since the number in France is also responsible for Terror Alert. 

Same as above. I think France should have a separate registration, but it would work fine if they just used “childEmergency”.

 

  1. In some countries some counselling services are considered as emergency and in other countries they are only counselling services.

 

EXAMPLE 4

In Austria:

-  147 - Notrufdienst für Kinder und Jugendliche is emergency number according to the regulators/ law. While in Germany <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 Kinder- und Jugendtelefon is not emergency service.

So?  Do you want to map <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 in Germany to “childEmergency” or not?  If it’s not mapped to the service URN, then there is no problem.  If it is, then the call is not an emergency call.  The service URN is designed to work with non-emergency services.  There is no restriction on sos:counseling that it can only be used for non-emergency calls.  If it makes sense in some country to treat it as an emergency call, do it.  Nothing will break somewhere else.

 

 

IANA have registered urn:service:sos for “emergency services” and urn:sos:counceling for non-emergency services. 147 has to be mapped under the “emergency services” tree to satisfy Austrian regulatory requirements, while <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 has to remain under the “non-emergency services” tree. It is unclear how the ECRIT expert will handle these requests given the following description for the expert’s role in 4.3 of RFC 5031: 

“The expert review should take into account whether these services are offered widely and in different countries, with approximately the same caller expectation in terms of services rendered.”

This is urn:service:sos.childEmergency (or something like it), not urn:service.sos or urn:sos:counceling.



 

  1. The local regulator may want to have the routing urns in local language or may want to have a better translation to English that what is chosen in the time of the registration.

 

All the examples show that emergency services have its local peculiarities in different countries and consolidating them under respective sos sub-services is difficult. In some cases consolidation is possible (the sos urns which are already registered). But in other cases it is not possible to use the current registration process and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in different countries. 

Once again, this is a urn, not a human readable tag.  It could be X4476 and work fine.  

 

If there are distinct services, they should get distinct service urns.  Service urns are inexpensive and the process to get a new one is simple.  The fact that in some countries some unusual services, or service combinations exist doesn’t detract from the overall observation that in most countries, there is a common set of services that they all agree on.  Where there are distinct services, ask for a service urn and you will get one.

 

I believe the examples above give arguments to use “sos.country-specific”.

I don’t agree at all

 

Brian

 


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

 



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Aleksiev, Vasil

Hi to all,

 

In my first bullet regarding unique emergency URN I have given the example with differences between IMS and CS and to show that emergency numbers are handled differently and also to show the roaming treatment. For every emergency number defined by regulator it is needed to have sos domain. Sos triggers the respective routing with emergency category and this is different from the CS treatment where some numbers currently are not handled as emergency and detected as such on a later stage. I am glad to understand that this is also the view of ECRIT and for every emergency service defined by local law there shall be sos definition.

 

In my second bullet regarding difficulties of consolidating services in different nations I have given examples of 142 – Telefonseelsorge (telephone soul care), 106 – Mental problems hotline. Just looking to the names - the services look quite similar, so how these two services will be named under sos? Sos.soulcare and sos.mentalhealth?

197 – Terror Alert – Child Alert in France – I suppose the name shall be sos.terror-child? I think somebody from France should explain the specifics regarding this emergency service.

114- Child emergency in Italy – here is easy – sos.children.

 

In my third bullet regarding counselling services in one country considered as emergency in other I have given examples of 147 and +498001110333. I suppose 147 (emergency service for children and youth) shall be sos.children-and-youth. The service does not have the same name as 114- child emergency in Italy. +498001110333 shall be counseling.children.

 

In my fourth bullet regarding the will of the local regulator – I fully agree that the urns may even look like sos.1, sos.2, sos.3, sos.4 … But the problem might be that the local regulator does not think so. Till now in Austria there is no law regarding routing of IMS emergency calls, but when it is written it could be written inside that urns shall be sos.telefonseelsorge, sos.kinder.147.

 

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.

Of course I could try to define sos.children and I agree that this will be enough, but if the regulator later decides that this is not ok?

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

Von: Ecrit [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Henning Schulzrinne
Gesendet: Sonntag, 09. Juli 2017 00:42
An: Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Keith,

 

like I mentioned, if there is a perception that this matters in response and recognizing the trade-offs (suddenly, a service in country A fails in country B, even though users would perceive the replacement service to be sufficiently close), there's no reason not to create child services under both sos and counseling categories, as they are presumably substantially different in that case (one sends a child protection service worker, the other provides telephone counseling on how to deal with bullying, say). As long as each country is clear on the mapping, there's no real problem.

 

I think the best path forward is to enumerate the non-traditional (i.e., beyond fire, police and ambulance) services in each country and see what the best set of labels would be, keeping the two objectives in mind (MUST avoid collisions in each country, SHOULD facilitate traveller use).

 

Thus, I think we're not really disagreeing...

 

Henning

 

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do not believe I quite agree.

 

The top level “sos” carries certain semantics including immediate response, which are quite distinct from “counselling”

 

So while a children’s service in one country may come under “sos” it will come under “counselling” in another.

 

Keith

 

From: Ecrit [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: 08 July 2017 04:47
To: Brian Rosen <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Just to add to this: URNs are not meant to encode all kinds of policy by name, e.g., whether a service is legally considered an emergency service or not. They are protocol identifiers, not legal or human interface labels. The precise content, operator and status of well-known (including emergency) services sometimes change, without the number changing, so this isn't a particularly new issue.

 

The same basic service can function quite differently in different countries, as you know, but we still call it something similar or give it the same number. (For example, many emergency services that have separate numbers in European countries all use 911 in the US.)

 

Thus, the only real requirement is that, within a country or other appropriate jurisdiction, each distinct service has a unique name so that calls can be routed appropriately.

 

A secondary requirement is that a traveler should get a reasonably-close approximation of the service if it is mapped to the same URN. For example, it is probably better that somebody who has a speed dial button for children's services in Austria gets the rough equivalent in Germany or Italy, rather than having to look up the local number. In that case, a caller really does not care one bit that it is legally an emergency service in Austria, and not in Germany.

 

The notion of country-specific labels defeats this core portability design goal of the sos URN.

 

Similarly, if a single number serves two different purposes in one country, there is no harm in having two labels. Indeed, that's probably a good idea, just in case they get split later.

 

I think a helpful next step, which you have already started, is to enumerate the classes of emergency and related public services that currently do not have a suitable URN. We can then decide what the appropriate tree might be, recognizing that some may be a bit fuzzy (e.g., the child services you mentioned). The tree only matters in the case where a particular label does not exist in a country and labels are stripped. In some cases, the right approach may be to define related services in both the 'sos' and 'counseling' tree.

 

Henning

 

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Brian Rosen <[hidden email]> wrote:

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the values in the registry are supposed to be used for.

 

They are meant to be used to identify unique services.  

 

It’s useful to try to not have a lot of services that really are the same service having different entries, but two services that are indeed different ought to have different entries.

 

 

Also, the routing of a service can be whatever is needed; no assumption about routing is made other than the implication that the routing element will have different service URNs for different services.

 

With that it mind, my suggestions for the cases you cited are inline:

 

 

On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Hello,

3GPP tried to register “sos.country-specific” sub-service type with IANA and got a comment back that “country-specific” is not an emergency service. There was a discussion on the last IETF meeting on this topic and as outcome 3 ways forward presented to 3GPP CT1 – change the registration process, create an exception in the registration process or use the current process. 

There were discussions how to go forward with this topic in 3GPP CT1. With the help of some of the delegates list with emergency services was prepared in order to see what exactly problems we might have with registration. You can see the list attached. 

Looking to the list there are some issues which I believe cannot be solved within the current registration process. I have tried to summarize the comments and the examples that we had during our discussions in 3GPP CT1 and to start a discussion in ECRIT mailing list regarding the possible registration of these specific emergency services. Meanwhile there is a process to make the list with the emergency services bigger.

There are some conclusions seen from the list:

 

  1. Each emergency service needs to have unique emergency service URN. Handling in IMS can be different than handling in CS.

 

Example1:

 

In Czech republic, there is a "Municipal police" emergency service (156) and a "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (158) + other emergency services. 

 

Within the CS domain it is possible to indicate the emergency service required, but in a limited set (3GPP TS 22.101) - there is only one bit for Police in the Emergency category Information Element.

 

An operator in Czech republic can provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 158 and the Police bit in the Emergency category IE. Whenever the user dials 158 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS EMERGENCY SETUP with the Emergency category IE with the Police bit set or a UE-detectable IMS emergency call setup with the Request-URI set to the urn:service:sos.police, sent within emergency PDN connection. Either the MSC or the IMS network in Czech republic route the call to the PSAP providing the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service.

 

The operator in Czech republic canNOT provide to a UE via NAS a mapping of 156 and a bit in the Emergency category Information element since:

- the "Police" bit is taken for the "Police of the Czech Republic" emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service);

- there is no other related bit; and

- providing no bit implies a generic emergency service (which is provided by a different PSAP than the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service).

 

Given that the UE is not configured with 156, whenever the user dials 156 in Czech republic, this causes the UE to use a CS SETUP for 156 or a non-emergency IMS call setup for <a href="tel:156;phone-context=%3cphone-context" target="_blank">tel:156;phone-context=<phone-context>. 

In CS, the MSC is always in the same country as the UE so the MSC just routes the non-emergency CS domain call for 156 to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

In IMS, it is not so easy since inbound-roamer would have P-CSCF abroad. 

                The P-CSCF abroad sends a 380 response to the UE to inform the UE that the UE dialed an emergency number. In the 380 response, there is a Contact header field indicating the "Municipal police" emergency service. 

                Based on the 380 response, the UE determines that a call to an emergency number was attempted and the UE selects whether to attempt the emergency call in CS or in IMS.

                               If in IMS, the UE establishes an emergency PDN connection, and sets up a UE-detectable IMS emergency call and sets the Request-URI to the Contact of the 380 response, i.e. the Request-URI contains a sos URN identifying the "Municipal police" emergency service. Based on the Request-URI, the IMS network in Czech republic routes the call to the PSAP providing the "Municipal police" emergency service.

                               If in CS, since the the Contact of the 380 response does not match any of urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.police, urn:service:sos.ambulance, urn:service:sos.fire, urn:service:sos.marine, urn:service:sos.mountain, the UE sends CS SETUP for 156.

 

The marked text above is one reason why each emergency service needs to have a unique emergency service URN (either country specific emergency URN or an emergency URN assigned by IANA and ECRIT).

There will be some form of “national.police” and some form of “local.police” or “municipal.police" registrations.   If needed, other police registrations can be made, but just using the two registrations for “national.police” and “local.police” and mapping 158 to “national.police’ and “156” to “local.police” would make sense here.  The routing element can still route a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP or a call marked “national.police” to the local PSAP if it needs to.  Routing can be anything you need it to be; the name of the service doesn’t influence routing.  The system clearly can correctly route a 156 call and a 158 call on the ÇS or IMS networks, and it can clearly route a local.police and a national.police the same way.  The point here is that you have exactly two service codes (156 and 158) and you need exactly two service URNs, and there isn’t any reason at all that using “local.police” and “national.police” won’t work fine.

 

 

  1. It is not possible to consolidate services which are in different nations.

 

Emergency service X might have a different meaning in different countries, e.g. X.A in country A and X.B in country B.

Furthermore, even if at the moment X.A and X.B would be identical, it cannot be guaranteed that national regulations of A and B would keep X.A and X.B in-line.

From this perspective it would make sense to allow national regulators to determine their national emergency service URNs in a way that is clearly indicated as country-specific.

I don’t agree.  While it may be the case that in some future time some country changes the generally accepted definition of a service, all that we care about is that there is a reasonable mapping available.  If we need to, when the new service is defined, it can get a new service urn if it is indeed a different service.

 

Assume there are several countries defining the following emergency service:

* 555 - religious/spiritual counselling

It might be difficult to ensure to people of different religious convictions that they end up with a counsellor of their need/expectation. Whilst this maybe could be solved by a designator for specific religion, the issue would for sure be seen by some countries as their decision to make (locally).

Like police, fire and ems, if we need a service URN for “spiritualCounseling” and in some country there is “christian.spiritualCounseling” and “moslem.spiritualCounseling” where in another country there is “Catholic.spiritualCounseling” and “easternOrthodox.spiritualCounseling” then we can make registrations for each of them, because they are actually different services.

 

EXAMPLE 2

142- Telefonseelsorge (Telefone soul care) is defined as emergency number in Austria and is served by the Catholic and Evangelistic Churches in Austria.

106 - Mental problems hotline in Belgium has nothing to do with the Church.

988 - Helpline (domestic violence/ suicides) in Poland.

 

It is not possible to consolidate these emergency numbers in 3 different countries under only one urn. They provide almost the same service, but have different ways to help. These 3 numbers cannot be referred to a single URN, since public and regulator expectations towards them are different.

I think those are separate services and would clearly qualify for separate registrations.    While one country might have a suicide prevention service and a separate domestic violence service, there could be a question of whether a combined service is a separate service.  I would think it would be, and would qualify for a registration.  It would clearly work if 988 in Poland used the “suicidePrevention” service URN even though it combines it with domestic violence.  However, I think it’s probably best to give it a separate service URN.

 

EXAMPLE 3

197- Terror Alert - Child Alert in France

114 - Child emergency in Italy

They cannot be under one URN since the number in France is also responsible for Terror Alert. 

Same as above. I think France should have a separate registration, but it would work fine if they just used “childEmergency”.

 

  1. In some countries some counselling services are considered as emergency and in other countries they are only counselling services.

 

EXAMPLE 4

In Austria:

-  147 - Notrufdienst für Kinder und Jugendliche is emergency number according to the regulators/ law. While in Germany <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 Kinder- und Jugendtelefon is not emergency service.

So?  Do you want to map <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 in Germany to “childEmergency” or not?  If it’s not mapped to the service URN, then there is no problem.  If it is, then the call is not an emergency call.  The service URN is designed to work with non-emergency services.  There is no restriction on sos:counseling that it can only be used for non-emergency calls.  If it makes sense in some country to treat it as an emergency call, do it.  Nothing will break somewhere else.

 

 

IANA have registered urn:service:sos for “emergency services” and urn:sos:counceling for non-emergency services. 147 has to be mapped under the “emergency services” tree to satisfy Austrian regulatory requirements, while <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+49 800 1110333 has to remain under the “non-emergency services” tree. It is unclear how the ECRIT expert will handle these requests given the following description for the expert’s role in 4.3 of RFC 5031: 

“The expert review should take into account whether these services are offered widely and in different countries, with approximately the same caller expectation in terms of services rendered.”

This is urn:service:sos.childEmergency (or something like it), not urn:service.sos or urn:sos:counceling.

 

 

  1. The local regulator may want to have the routing urns in local language or may want to have a better translation to English that what is chosen in the time of the registration.

 

All the examples show that emergency services have its local peculiarities in different countries and consolidating them under respective sos sub-services is difficult. In some cases consolidation is possible (the sos urns which are already registered). But in other cases it is not possible to use the current registration process and to satisfy the regulatory requirements in different countries. 

Once again, this is a urn, not a human readable tag.  It could be X4476 and work fine.  

 

If there are distinct services, they should get distinct service urns.  Service urns are inexpensive and the process to get a new one is simple.  The fact that in some countries some unusual services, or service combinations exist doesn’t detract from the overall observation that in most countries, there is a common set of services that they all agree on.  Where there are distinct services, ask for a service urn and you will get one.

 

I believe the examples above give arguments to use “sos.country-specific”.

I don’t agree at all

 

Brian

 


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

 

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Henning Schulzrinne
We can't predict what unknown third parties, such as regulators, will do, but since registrations of sos URNs is not a high-effort project, we can always go back and try again. I think it is incumbent upon standards organizations to explain that these are "mechanical" protocol constants, not user interface elements.

The most productive way forward would be to enumerate the services by description (and, for concreteness, the [short code] number and country) and whether these services are meant as emergency services (i.e., a vehicle with flashing lights get dispatched) or as counseling (i.e., somebody provides advice or information over the phone, with no expectation that anything or anyone is dispatched to your location). That way, we can collectively judge which ones are sufficiently similar and avoid any collisions, as well as judge whether a hierarchical label is useful. As I mentioned, the goal is collision avoidance within a country and rough categorization, without worrying about fine details. (After all, we don't get too concerned for 112/911 of how each country or region organizes their fire brigades and whether dispatch is done across services, integrated or separated by service.)

From your note, it is clear that we're lacking an authoritative description in some cases. For example, I admit that I don't understand the 197 service (why would children call in terrorism alerts?). I'm afraid in some cases, nuance or substance has been lost in translation (literally, in some cases).

Since you seem to have a good list of emergency services, maybe you can get this started and others can chime in. Again, I wouldn't worry about the labels at this point as that is probably more of a distraction.

In some cases, I think it would be helpful to have somebody with local knowledge contribute, possibly after consulting with local authorities.

Henning

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi to all,

 

In my first bullet regarding unique emergency URN I have given the example with differences between IMS and CS and to show that emergency numbers are handled differently and also to show the roaming treatment. For every emergency number defined by regulator it is needed to have sos domain. Sos triggers the respective routing with emergency category and this is different from the CS treatment where some numbers currently are not handled as emergency and detected as such on a later stage. I am glad to understand that this is also the view of ECRIT and for every emergency service defined by local law there shall be sos definition.

 

In my second bullet regarding difficulties of consolidating services in different nations I have given examples of 142 – Telefonseelsorge (telephone soul care), 106 – Mental problems hotline. Just looking to the names - the services look quite similar, so how these two services will be named under sos? Sos.soulcare and sos.mentalhealth?

197 – Terror Alert – Child Alert in France – I suppose the name shall be sos.terror-child? I think somebody from France should explain the specifics regarding this emergency service.

114- Child emergency in Italy – here is easy – sos.children.

 

In my third bullet regarding counselling services in one country considered as emergency in other I have given examples of 147 and <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" value="+498001110333" target="_blank">+498001110333. I suppose 147 (emergency service for children and youth) shall be sos.children-and-youth. The service does not have the same name as 114- child emergency in Italy. <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" value="+498001110333" target="_blank">+498001110333 shall be counseling.children.

 

In my fourth bullet regarding the will of the local regulator – I fully agree that the urns may even look like sos.1, sos.2, sos.3, sos.4 … But the problem might be that the local regulator does not think so. Till now in Austria there is no law regarding routing of IMS emergency calls, but when it is written it could be written inside that urns shall be sos.telefonseelsorge, sos.kinder.147.

 

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.

Of course I could try to define sos.children and I agree that this will be enough, but if the regulator later decides that this is not ok?

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Aleksiev, Vasil

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet
: Montag, 10. Juli 2017 14:45
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

We can't predict what unknown third parties, such as regulators, will do, but since registrations of sos URNs is not a high-effort project, we can always go back and try again. I think it is incumbent upon standards organizations to explain that these are "mechanical" protocol constants, not user interface elements.

 

The most productive way forward would be to enumerate the services by description (and, for concreteness, the [short code] number and country) and whether these services are meant as emergency services (i.e., a vehicle with flashing lights get dispatched) or as counseling (i.e., somebody provides advice or information over the phone, with no expectation that anything or anyone is dispatched to your location). That way, we can collectively judge which ones are sufficiently similar and avoid any collisions, as well as judge whether a hierarchical label is useful. As I mentioned, the goal is collision avoidance within a country and rough categorization, without worrying about fine details. (After all, we don't get too concerned for 112/911 of how each country or region organizes their fire brigades and whether dispatch is done across services, integrated or separated by service.)

 

From your note, it is clear that we're lacking an authoritative description in some cases. For example, I admit that I don't understand the 197 service (why would children call in terrorism alerts?). I'm afraid in some cases, nuance or substance has been lost in translation (literally, in some cases).

 

Since you seem to have a good list of emergency services, maybe you can get this started and others can chime in. Again, I wouldn't worry about the labels at this point as that is probably more of a distraction.

 

In some cases, I think it would be helpful to have somebody with local knowledge contribute, possibly after consulting with local authorities.

 

Henning

 

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi to all,

 

In my first bullet regarding unique emergency URN I have given the example with differences between IMS and CS and to show that emergency numbers are handled differently and also to show the roaming treatment. For every emergency number defined by regulator it is needed to have sos domain. Sos triggers the respective routing with emergency category and this is different from the CS treatment where some numbers currently are not handled as emergency and detected as such on a later stage. I am glad to understand that this is also the view of ECRIT and for every emergency service defined by local law there shall be sos definition.

 

In my second bullet regarding difficulties of consolidating services in different nations I have given examples of 142 – Telefonseelsorge (telephone soul care), 106 – Mental problems hotline. Just looking to the names - the services look quite similar, so how these two services will be named under sos? Sos.soulcare and sos.mentalhealth?

197 – Terror Alert – Child Alert in France – I suppose the name shall be sos.terror-child? I think somebody from France should explain the specifics regarding this emergency service.

114- Child emergency in Italy – here is easy – sos.children.

 

In my third bullet regarding counselling services in one country considered as emergency in other I have given examples of 147 and <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+498001110333. I suppose 147 (emergency service for children and youth) shall be sos.children-and-youth. The service does not have the same name as 114- child emergency in Italy. <a href="tel:+49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+498001110333 shall be counseling.children.

 

In my fourth bullet regarding the will of the local regulator – I fully agree that the urns may even look like sos.1, sos.2, sos.3, sos.4 … But the problem might be that the local regulator does not think so. Till now in Austria there is no law regarding routing of IMS emergency calls, but when it is written it could be written inside that urns shall be sos.telefonseelsorge, sos.kinder.147.

 

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.

Of course I could try to define sos.children and I agree that this will be enough, but if the regulator later decides that this is not ok?

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

R: country specific emergency URNs

Procopio Roberto

Dear All,

 

I share the points raised by Vasil. In some of the emails below I red that a way forward could be to identify a reasonable mapping between an emergency service and the related sos urns. I don’t think that this is a good way forward. The reason is that this way forward requires a consolidation of emergency service requirements among different countries and this requires a deep understanding of the emergency services definition in each country.

 

Simply looking at the emergency services collected in the table shared by Vasil, it can be understood that services having the same name can have different requirements in different countries. This mistmatch generates problems in the emergency service operation as showed in the example raised by Vasil (e.g. roaming, borders). If we look at future possible deployments of mobile networks, we can also find other scenarios (such as cross-national MVNO) where is crucial to identify exactly one specific emergency service in one country.

 

Therefore in my opinion is very important to guarantee the flexibility in the naming definition of the sos urns. As Vasil said, this flexibility was one of the reasons behind the proposal of the country specific emergency URN.

 

BR

Roberto

 

Da: Ecrit [mailto:[hidden email]] Per conto di Aleksiev, Vasil
Inviato: martedì 11 luglio 2017 10:36
A: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [[hidden email]]
Gesendet
: Montag, 10. Juli 2017 14:45
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

We can't predict what unknown third parties, such as regulators, will do, but since registrations of sos URNs is not a high-effort project, we can always go back and try again. I think it is incumbent upon standards organizations to explain that these are "mechanical" protocol constants, not user interface elements.

 

The most productive way forward would be to enumerate the services by description (and, for concreteness, the [short code] number and country) and whether these services are meant as emergency services (i.e., a vehicle with flashing lights get dispatched) or as counseling (i.e., somebody provides advice or information over the phone, with no expectation that anything or anyone is dispatched to your location). That way, we can collectively judge which ones are sufficiently similar and avoid any collisions, as well as judge whether a hierarchical label is useful. As I mentioned, the goal is collision avoidance within a country and rough categorization, without worrying about fine details. (After all, we don't get too concerned for 112/911 of how each country or region organizes their fire brigades and whether dispatch is done across services, integrated or separated by service.)

 

From your note, it is clear that we're lacking an authoritative description in some cases. For example, I admit that I don't understand the 197 service (why would children call in terrorism alerts?). I'm afraid in some cases, nuance or substance has been lost in translation (literally, in some cases).

 

Since you seem to have a good list of emergency services, maybe you can get this started and others can chime in. Again, I wouldn't worry about the labels at this point as that is probably more of a distraction.

 

In some cases, I think it would be helpful to have somebody with local knowledge contribute, possibly after consulting with local authorities.

 

Henning

 

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi to all,

 

In my first bullet regarding unique emergency URN I have given the example with differences between IMS and CS and to show that emergency numbers are handled differently and also to show the roaming treatment. For every emergency number defined by regulator it is needed to have sos domain. Sos triggers the respective routing with emergency category and this is different from the CS treatment where some numbers currently are not handled as emergency and detected as such on a later stage. I am glad to understand that this is also the view of ECRIT and for every emergency service defined by local law there shall be sos definition.

 

In my second bullet regarding difficulties of consolidating services in different nations I have given examples of 142 – Telefonseelsorge (telephone soul care), 106 – Mental problems hotline. Just looking to the names - the services look quite similar, so how these two services will be named under sos? Sos.soulcare and sos.mentalhealth?

197 – Terror Alert – Child Alert in France – I suppose the name shall be sos.terror-child? I think somebody from France should explain the specifics regarding this emergency service.

114- Child emergency in Italy – here is easy – sos.children.

 

In my third bullet regarding counselling services in one country considered as emergency in other I have given examples of 147 and <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank"> +498001110333. I suppose 147 (emergency service for children and youth) shall be sos.children-and-youth. The service does not have the same name as 114- child emergency in Italy. <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+498001110333 shall be counseling.children.

 

In my fourth bullet regarding the will of the local regulator – I fully agree that the urns may even look like sos.1, sos.2, sos.3, sos.4 … But the problem might be that the local regulator does not think so. Till now in Austria there is no law regarding routing of IMS emergency calls, but when it is written it could be written inside that urns shall be sos.telefonseelsorge, sos.kinder.147.

 

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.

Of course I could try to define sos.children and I agree that this will be enough, but if the regulator later decides that this is not ok?

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: R: country specific emergency URNs

Henning Schulzrinne
For cross-national MVNOs, routing to a service that does not exist in the country you are visiting is not helpful (or even possible). Thus, if you define a country-specific service that exists only in, say, Italy, and then visit Austria, the call will have to fail. In the SOS model, you get a close approximation, which seems much more user friendly.

As I have stated repeatedly, and you seem to continue to ignore, is that the label is an internal protocol label where the only requirement is that there is a unique 1-1 mapping within one country from number to label. This requirement exist even if you create country-specific labels unless your "label" is sos:fr.147, i.e., you directly encode the number. This is clearly a bad idea.

I disagree that this requires a "consolidation of emergency service requirements". It requires a listing of services, which I have again asked for again and again. 

As I have also tried to explain several times, we only have to make sure two things are true:

(1) The description is precise enough so that it is clear in each country whether it matches an existing service. If a newly-discovered service does not seem to match an existing one, a new label is created. The description does not have to be a legal one or cover every aspect of operation (which changes over time anyway). In all the cases we have discussed, this seems relatively straightforward.

(2) Within each country, all existing numbers have to map to unique URNs.

It is very difficult to make progress if you (and your colleagues) insist that something is not possible, but then make it impossible to make progress by not providing the necessary information. It would be most helpful if you could engage constructively rather than insisting on a solution that violates the spirit and design principles of the architecture.

I continue to look forward to starting the list of services we should discuss.

Henning


On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Procopio Roberto <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear All,

 

I share the points raised by Vasil. In some of the emails below I red that a way forward could be to identify a reasonable mapping between an emergency service and the related sos urns. I don’t think that this is a good way forward. The reason is that this way forward requires a consolidation of emergency service requirements among different countries and this requires a deep understanding of the emergency services definition in each country.

 

Simply looking at the emergency services collected in the table shared by Vasil, it can be understood that services having the same name can have different requirements in different countries. This mistmatch generates problems in the emergency service operation as showed in the example raised by Vasil (e.g. roaming, borders). If we look at future possible deployments of mobile networks, we can also find other scenarios (such as cross-national MVNO) where is crucial to identify exactly one specific emergency service in one country.

 

Therefore in my opinion is very important to guarantee the flexibility in the naming definition of the sos urns. As Vasil said, this flexibility was one of the reasons behind the proposal of the country specific emergency URN.

 

BR

Roberto

 


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Henning Schulzrinne
In reply to this post by Aleksiev, Vasil
You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.

For France, the law seems to be at

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:
"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See

Henning

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
Hi Henning,

>You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

The list was attached in an e-mail sent to this list, by Vasil, Thursday 6th.

Regards,

Christer



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Aleksiev, Vasil
In reply to this post by Henning Schulzrinne

Hi Henning,

I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.

I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.

 

I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.

 

According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

 

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

 

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.

 

For France, the law seems to be at

 

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

Emergency-numbers-v1.6.xlsx (24K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Brian Rosen
Henning provided the answer to this issue:
1. We make a list of all known services, and create registrations for them.  Your list from CT1 will be very helpful to do this
2. A country makes its own determination of which existing registrations match its services, and uses those registrations for services that it determines match
3. If there is a service in a country that does not match, it requests a new registration.  As this involves a designated expert reviewer, there may be some questions back and forth about why an existing registration is not acceptable, but if it is actually a different service, then there is a reasonable expectation the new registration will be allowed.

As Henning and I have observed, the only requirement is that there be a unique mapping between the service number and a registration.  The name of the service doesn’t matter.  It’s helpful if the service matches the description in the registration, but, strictly speaking, it doesn’t have to, it only needs to be unique from other services in that country.

Brian


On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Henning,

I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.

I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.

 

I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.

 

According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

 

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

 

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.

 

For France, the law seems to be at

 

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
<Emergency-numbers-v1.6.xlsx>_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Henning Schulzrinne
In reply to this post by Aleksiev, Vasil
Vasil,

my apologies for missing the attachment. This is indeed quite helpful. I have started to collect those and some other numbers at


I've "pencilled in" some tentative names in red mainly to make sure that there are no in-country duplications.

There are a number of to-do countries, but so far, I've noticed a few that are likely to be easy (well-defined), with some tentative names:

sos.child-protection (for emergency services that deal with child abuse)
sos.child-missing (for missing or abducted children)
sos.water (for water utility-related emergencies, similar to sos.gas)
sos.electric (for electricity-related emergencies)

No particular preference on whether to label the children-related ones

sos.children.protection
sos.children.missing

I'll raise a few others separately to avoid mixing threads.

Henning

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Henning,

I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.

I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.

 

I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.

 

According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

 

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

 

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.

 

For France, the law seems to be at

 

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

marianne.mohali-2
In reply to this post by Aleksiev, Vasil

Hi,

 

Concerning the 197 service in France for Terror Alert – Child Alert, it is a single number for 2 very different purposes: the abduction alert AND the terrorist attack alert.

There is a single number because it is related to a dedicated procedures that can be launched including radio and TV programs interruption for alerting people and other national security procedures.

 

Best regards,

Marianne

 

De : Ecrit [mailto:[hidden email]] De la part de Aleksiev, Vasil
Envoyé : mardi 11 juillet 2017 10:36
À : Henning Schulzrinne
Cc : [hidden email]
Objet : Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [[hidden email]]
Gesendet
: Montag, 10. Juli 2017 14:45
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

We can't predict what unknown third parties, such as regulators, will do, but since registrations of sos URNs is not a high-effort project, we can always go back and try again. I think it is incumbent upon standards organizations to explain that these are "mechanical" protocol constants, not user interface elements.

 

The most productive way forward would be to enumerate the services by description (and, for concreteness, the [short code] number and country) and whether these services are meant as emergency services (i.e., a vehicle with flashing lights get dispatched) or as counseling (i.e., somebody provides advice or information over the phone, with no expectation that anything or anyone is dispatched to your location). That way, we can collectively judge which ones are sufficiently similar and avoid any collisions, as well as judge whether a hierarchical label is useful. As I mentioned, the goal is collision avoidance within a country and rough categorization, without worrying about fine details. (After all, we don't get too concerned for 112/911 of how each country or region organizes their fire brigades and whether dispatch is done across services, integrated or separated by service.)

 

From your note, it is clear that we're lacking an authoritative description in some cases. For example, I admit that I don't understand the 197 service (why would children call in terrorism alerts?). I'm afraid in some cases, nuance or substance has been lost in translation (literally, in some cases).

 

Since you seem to have a good list of emergency services, maybe you can get this started and others can chime in. Again, I wouldn't worry about the labels at this point as that is probably more of a distraction.

 

In some cases, I think it would be helpful to have somebody with local knowledge contribute, possibly after consulting with local authorities.

 

Henning

 

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi to all,

 

In my first bullet regarding unique emergency URN I have given the example with differences between IMS and CS and to show that emergency numbers are handled differently and also to show the roaming treatment. For every emergency number defined by regulator it is needed to have sos domain. Sos triggers the respective routing with emergency category and this is different from the CS treatment where some numbers currently are not handled as emergency and detected as such on a later stage. I am glad to understand that this is also the view of ECRIT and for every emergency service defined by local law there shall be sos definition.

 

In my second bullet regarding difficulties of consolidating services in different nations I have given examples of 142 – Telefonseelsorge (telephone soul care), 106 – Mental problems hotline. Just looking to the names - the services look quite similar, so how these two services will be named under sos? Sos.soulcare and sos.mentalhealth?

197 – Terror Alert – Child Alert in France – I suppose the name shall be sos.terror-child? I think somebody from France should explain the specifics regarding this emergency service.

114- Child emergency in Italy – here is easy – sos.children.

 

In my third bullet regarding counselling services in one country considered as emergency in other I have given examples of 147 and <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank"> +498001110333. I suppose 147 (emergency service for children and youth) shall be sos.children-and-youth. The service does not have the same name as 114- child emergency in Italy. <a href="tel:&#43;49%20800%201110333" target="_blank">+498001110333 shall be counseling.children.

 

In my fourth bullet regarding the will of the local regulator – I fully agree that the urns may even look like sos.1, sos.2, sos.3, sos.4 … But the problem might be that the local regulator does not think so. Till now in Austria there is no law regarding routing of IMS emergency calls, but when it is written it could be written inside that urns shall be sos.telefonseelsorge, sos.kinder.147.

 

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.

Of course I could try to define sos.children and I agree that this will be enough, but if the regulator later decides that this is not ok?

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Aleksiev, Vasil
In reply to this post by Henning Schulzrinne

Hi Henning,

I have looked at the list and noticed that you have also entered the other numbers for Austria, which are not emergency numbers. They shall not be under sos. This is what I see as other problem – there are services which you call for help - the respective service or vehicle is dispatched, but since they are not defined as emergency according to the law, they shall not be under sos domain.

For Austria you can also see in the law document (https://www.bmvit.gv.at/telekommunikation/recht/aut/rtrverordnung/downloads/kem_vo/2009212.pdf ) that the non-emergency services are:

 

130 Landeswarnzentralen (Country warning centre) – used in cases of storms, floods, different crisis, disaster control.

120, 123 Pannendienste – Roadside assistance.

1484-x Krankentransporte – ambulance services – only regional service.

116000 Hotline für vermiste Kinder – hotline for missinig children.

116111 Hotline für Hilfe suchender Kinder - hotline for searched (wanted) children.

116123 Hotline zur Lebenshilfe – hotline for support.

111 Telefonströrungsannahmestellen – Registering technical problems with telecommunication services.

118 Telefonauskunftsdienste – Telephone information services.

 

Some of them can be registered under counselling. Obviously road assistance and disaster line are not counselling services  - they can be defined under new domain – for example help.road.

 

Interesting is that 147 is emergency service, so it shall be sos.children, but 116000 shall be counselling.child.missing or help.child.missing. 116111 – help.child.wanted, 116123 – counselling.life (combination of mental-health and suicide). 1484-x help.ambulance. 111 – help.telecom, 118 – help.info.

 

The number which you have entered in the table of your file 01/406 43 43 and 0800/133133 are not present in the law document so they shall not at all be present in your file. The number starting with 01 is a normal number in Vienna, 0800 is a free phone service according to the law.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12.
Juli 2017 00:32
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Vasil,

 

my apologies for missing the attachment. This is indeed quite helpful. I have started to collect those and some other numbers at

 

 

I've "pencilled in" some tentative names in red mainly to make sure that there are no in-country duplications.

 

There are a number of to-do countries, but so far, I've noticed a few that are likely to be easy (well-defined), with some tentative names:

 

sos.child-protection (for emergency services that deal with child abuse)

sos.child-missing (for missing or abducted children)

sos.water (for water utility-related emergencies, similar to sos.gas)

sos.electric (for electricity-related emergencies)

 

No particular preference on whether to label the children-related ones

 

sos.children.protection

sos.children.missing

 

I'll raise a few others separately to avoid mixing threads.

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Henning,

I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.

I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.

 

I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.

 

According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

 

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

 

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.

 

For France, the law seems to be at

 

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country.

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Brian Rosen
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


On Jul 12, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Henning,
I have looked at the list and noticed that you have also entered the other numbers for Austria, which are not emergency numbers. They shall not be under sos. This is what I see as other problem – there are services which you call for help - the respective service or vehicle is dispatched, but since they are not defined as emergency according to the law, they shall not be under sos domain.
For Austria you can also see in the law document (https://www.bmvit.gv.at/telekommunikation/recht/aut/rtrverordnung/downloads/kem_vo/2009212.pdf ) that the non-emergency services are:
 
130 Landeswarnzentralen (Country warning centre) – used in cases of storms, floods, different crisis, disaster control.
120, 123 Pannendienste – Roadside assistance.
1484-x Krankentransporte – ambulance services – only regional service.
116000 Hotline für vermiste Kinder – hotline for missinig children.
116111 Hotline für Hilfe suchender Kinder - hotline for searched (wanted) children.
116123 Hotline zur Lebenshilfe – hotline for support.
111 Telefonströrungsannahmestellen – Registering technical problems with telecommunication services.
118 Telefonauskunftsdienste – Telephone information services.
 
Some of them can be registered under counselling. Obviously road assistance and disaster line are not counselling services  - they can be defined under new domain – for example help.road.
 
Interesting is that 147 is emergency service, so it shall be sos.children, but 116000 shall be counselling.child.missing or help.child.missing. 116111 – help.child.wanted, 116123 – counselling.life (combination of mental-health and suicide). 1484-x help.ambulance. 111 – help.telecom, 118 – help.info.
 
The number which you have entered in the table of your file 01/406 43 43 and 0800/133133 are not present in the law document so they shall not at all be present in your file. The number starting with 01 is a normal number in Vienna, 0800 is a free phone service according to the law.
 
Best regards,
 
Vasil
 
 
Von: Henning Schulzrinne [[hidden email]] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. 
Juli 2017 00:32
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
 
Vasil,
 
my apologies for missing the attachment. This is indeed quite helpful. I have started to collect those and some other numbers at
 
 
I've "pencilled in" some tentative names in red mainly to make sure that there are no in-country duplications.
 
There are a number of to-do countries, but so far, I've noticed a few that are likely to be easy (well-defined), with some tentative names:
 
sos.child-protection (for emergency services that deal with child abuse)
sos.child-missing (for missing or abducted children)
sos.water (for water utility-related emergencies, similar to sos.gas)
sos.electric (for electricity-related emergencies)
 
No particular preference on whether to label the children-related ones
 
sos.children.protection
sos.children.missing
 
I'll raise a few others separately to avoid mixing threads.
 
Henning
 
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Henning,
I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.
I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.
 
I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.
 
According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service. 
 
Best regards,
 
Vasil
 
 
 
 
 
Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
 
You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?
 
One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.
 
I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.
 
For France, the law seems to be at
 
Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See
 
Henning
 
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,
I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country. 
Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.
The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.
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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.
 
Best regards,
 
Vasil
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
Hi,

>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.

Section 4.2 of RFC 5031 says:

   "The 'sos' service type describes emergency services requiring an
   immediate response, typically offered by various branches of the
   government or other public institutions." 

So, at least the ‘sos’ part of the name DOES have significance, doesn’t it?

Regards,

Christer

On Jul 12, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Henning,
I have looked at the list and noticed that you have also entered the other numbers for Austria, which are not emergency numbers. They shall not be under sos. This is what I see as other problem – there are services which you call for help - the respective service or vehicle is dispatched, but since they are not defined as emergency according to the law, they shall not be under sos domain.
For Austria you can also see in the law document (https://www.bmvit.gv.at/telekommunikation/recht/aut/rtrverordnung/downloads/kem_vo/2009212.pdf ) that the non-emergency services are:
 
130 Landeswarnzentralen (Country warning centre) – used in cases of storms, floods, different crisis, disaster control.
120, 123 Pannendienste – Roadside assistance.
1484-x Krankentransporte – ambulance services – only regional service.
116000 Hotline für vermiste Kinder – hotline for missinig children.
116111 Hotline für Hilfe suchender Kinder - hotline for searched (wanted) children.
116123 Hotline zur Lebenshilfe – hotline for support.
111 Telefonströrungsannahmestellen – Registering technical problems with telecommunication services.
118 Telefonauskunftsdienste – Telephone information services.
 
Some of them can be registered under counselling. Obviously road assistance and disaster line are not counselling services  - they can be defined under new domain – for example help.road.
 
Interesting is that 147 is emergency service, so it shall be sos.children, but 116000 shall be counselling.child.missing or help.child.missing. 116111 – help.child.wanted, 116123 – counselling.life (combination of mental-health and suicide). 1484-x help.ambulance. 111 – help.telecom, 118 – help.info.
 
The number which you have entered in the table of your file 01/406 43 43 and 0800/133133 are not present in the law document so they shall not at all be present in your file. The number starting with 01 is a normal number in Vienna, 0800 is a free phone service according to the law.
 
Best regards,
 
Vasil
 
 
Von: Henning Schulzrinne [[hidden email]] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. 
Juli 2017 00:32
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
 
Vasil,
 
my apologies for missing the attachment. This is indeed quite helpful. I have started to collect those and some other numbers at
 
 
I've "pencilled in" some tentative names in red mainly to make sure that there are no in-country duplications.
 
There are a number of to-do countries, but so far, I've noticed a few that are likely to be easy (well-defined), with some tentative names:
 
sos.child-protection (for emergency services that deal with child abuse)
sos.child-missing (for missing or abducted children)
sos.water (for water utility-related emergencies, similar to sos.gas)
sos.electric (for electricity-related emergencies)
 
No particular preference on whether to label the children-related ones
 
sos.children.protection
sos.children.missing
 
I'll raise a few others separately to avoid mixing threads.
 
Henning
 
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Henning,
I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.
I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.
 
I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.
 
According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service. 
 
Best regards,
 
Vasil
 
 
 
 
 
Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs
 
You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?
 
One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.
 
I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.
 
For France, the law seems to be at
 
Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

>From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See
 
Henning
 
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,
I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country. 
Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.
The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.
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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.
 
Best regards,
 
Vasil
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: country specific emergency URNs

Aleksiev, Vasil
In reply to this post by Brian Rosen

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:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12.
Juli 2017 15:46
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <Vasi
[hidden email]>
Cc: Henning Schulzrinne <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
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

 

 

On Jul 12, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Hi Henning,

I have looked at the list and noticed that you have also entered the other numbers for Austria, which are not emergency numbers. They shall not be under sos. This is what I see as other problem – there are services which you call for help - the respective service or vehicle is dispatched, but since they are not defined as emergency according to the law, they shall not be under sos domain.

For Austria you can also see in the law document (https://www.bmvit.gv.at/telekommunikation/recht/aut/rtrverordnung/downloads/kem_vo/2009212.pdf ) that the non-emergency services are:

 

130 Landeswarnzentralen (Country warning centre) – used in cases of storms, floods, different crisis, disaster control.

120, 123 Pannendienste – Roadside assistance.

1484-x Krankentransporte – ambulance services – only regional service.

116000 Hotline für vermiste Kinder – hotline for missinig children.

116111 Hotline für Hilfe suchender Kinder - hotline for searched (wanted) children.

116123 Hotline zur Lebenshilfe – hotline for support.

111 Telefonströrungsannahmestellen – Registering technical problems with telecommunication services.

118 Telefonauskunftsdienste – Telephone information services.

 

Some of them can be registered under counselling. Obviously road assistance and disaster line are not counselling services  - they can be defined under new domain – for example help.road.

 

Interesting is that 147 is emergency service, so it shall be sos.children, but 116000 shall be counselling.child.missing or help.child.missing. 116111 – help.child.wanted, 116123 – counselling.life (combination of mental-health and suicide). 1484-x help.ambulance. 111 – help.telecom, 118 – help.info.

 

The number which you have entered in the table of your file 01/406 43 43 and 0800/133133 are not present in the law document so they shall not at all be present in your file. The number starting with 01 is a normal number in Vienna, 0800 is a free phone service according to the law.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [[hidden email]] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. 
Juli 2017 00:32
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

Vasil,

 

my apologies for missing the attachment. This is indeed quite helpful. I have started to collect those and some other numbers at

 

 

I've "pencilled in" some tentative names in red mainly to make sure that there are no in-country duplications.

 

There are a number of to-do countries, but so far, I've noticed a few that are likely to be easy (well-defined), with some tentative names:

 

sos.child-protection (for emergency services that deal with child abuse)

sos.child-missing (for missing or abducted children)

sos.water (for water utility-related emergencies, similar to sos.gas)

sos.electric (for electricity-related emergencies)

 

No particular preference on whether to label the children-related ones

 

sos.children.protection

sos.children.missing

 

I'll raise a few others separately to avoid mixing threads.

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Henning,

I am sending the list attached. Sorry for not adding it in every email. It was present in the first mail that I have sent. It was prepared from 3GPP CT1 delegates as a list of emergency services in the respective countries according to current law – links to the law texts is also provided. Unfortunately we do not have more knowledge regarding other countries.

I gave the example with 147 again regarding not typical emergency service making sure that there is common understanding. Only the local law has the authority to say what services are emergency and all parties involved shall take this for granted and treat every aspect of the service as emergency including the sos registration.

 

I have tried to use google translate for the French document and it seems to be what you describe. But it is better somebody knowing French language to say more about it. Even if this service is activated under special circumstances it is still expected to have treatment as emergency call and it shall be under sos subspace.

 

According to the current law if subscriber from Telekom Italia goes to Austria and taking in mind emergency numbers in Italy dials 113 (Police) from phone with IMS registration, such call shall be stopped since 113 is not existing number in Austria. Dialling the number is leading and dialling of not existing number cannot route the call to emergency service. 

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[hidden email]] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juli 2017 13:33
An: Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] country specific emergency URNs

 

You mention a list (or lists) that you and others have compiled. Can you point at it (or attach the documents or presentations) as I'm afraid I don't have a good place to look?

 

One of the advantages that we have on this mailing list is that we can indeed draw on the expertise of a wide variety of international experts.

 

I also don't understand your comment regarding 147. I thought we had agreed that if a service exists as an emergency service, it will be added as an SOS URN, even if there's already a counseling version that's somewhat similar. Again, the user expectation should guide this since the goal is to fall back to something that the user isn't (too) surprised by if the service does not exist.

 

For France, the law seems to be at

 

Interestingly, the link (via Google Translate) offers the following helpful advice:

"Finally, without calling into question the need of the Ministry of the Interior, the majority of contributions reminds us of the inefficiency and the risk of confusion associated with the multiplication of emergency numbers. Some operators reiterate the request made by the French Telecom Federation during the previous consultation of a reflection on the rationalization of emergency numbers."

From what I can tell, 197 is a number that combines two services, namely for citizens calling in information about an attack or a child abduction. The number is only activated after an incident and is otherwise dormant. In the US, we call them "tip lines" (although they are used for crimes in general, not just the two special cases). See

 

Henning

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Aleksiev, Vasil <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I do not agree with your interpretation of emergency services. In one country only the local authority can define what are the emergency services. Since there is law saying that 147 Telefonseelsorge is emergency service, it shall be treated as such. Regarding the vehicle with flashing lights dispatched – you cannot guarantee for that the respective operator on 147 will not send the police for example via its own channel if this is needed. So in my understanding the approach shall be based on local law. Regarding the benefits in routing of having all the emergency services in one country under sos subspace I have given examples already. In the file that I have send I have added only the emergency services for Austria with the respective link to the written law. The same is done from other 3GPP CT1 delegates who have given the info regarding the other countries in the file. Ecrit experts can check the links and read the respective law requirements written in the languages of the respective country. 

Regarding 197 service, the original name of the service of the name in French is: Alerte attentat – Alerte enlèvement from the provided link with written law. So I suppose this is a little bit different meaning from what is written as translation – according to Google it is more regarding alert abduction and attack. It was filled in the file from Orange delegate in 3GPP CT1, so I suppose more explanation from her will follow. If there is Ecrit expert speaking French, he can also help.

The list is present already – done with help of 3GPP CT1 delegates from the respective countries, but only some countries in Europe present there. It is seen from the list that consolidation between different countries is not so simple and it cannot be done without reading the law of the respective country on the respective language.

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 is why 3GPP CT1 tried to register country specific emergency URN as a simple solution for countries where the emergency services are different from the common ones.

 

Best regards,

 

Vasil

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

 


__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
1234
Loading...