URN for Country-Specific Emergency Services
draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn-03

[Ballot comment]
The abstract really threw me, as did the consistent repetition of the "in one country only" mantra.  May I suggest a couple of editorial changes that I think will fix that?

Abstract:
NEW
  Section 4.2 of RFC 5031 allows the registration of service URNs with
  the 'sos' service type only for emergency services "that are offered
  widely and in different countries".  This document updates those
  instructions in RFC 5031 to allow such registrations when, at the
  time of registration, those services are offered in one country only.
END

Then, I agree with Pete that Section 4 is redundant, but I also think Section 3 is redundant.  All of this is said in Section 1, and doesn't need to be repeated.  I suggest removing both sections 3 and 4.  I also strongly agree that it's a bad idea to copy the text from 5031, and think removing Section 5.2 is correct.  Then this document describes the change to 5031 in the Introduction, and then has the explicit new text in Section 5 (which should become Section 3).  If anyone wants to see what it used to say, they can readily look at 5031.

[Ballot comment]
This is nothing I'm going to make a big stink about, but I think it would greatly improve the document to do the following:


1:

- Editorial: Change the first paragraph to:
NEW
  The policy for registration of sub-services of the service URN with
  the 'sos' service type is defined in section 4.2 of RFC 5031
  [RFC5031] as follows:

Then change the table to simply an indented quote.

Strike section 4. It's completely redundant. (Meaning you can also strike section 2.)

Strike section 5.2. It could accidentally confuse people because they are looking at the wrong section.

Section 5.3: I suggest simply stating that you are replacing the second paragraph of section 4.2 and not re-including the registrations. 5031 is still going to exist, and people will still have to refer to it, so there's nothing to be gained by completely replacing 4.2. Leave the registry pointing to 5031. That also doesn't require IANA to make a change.

Editorial:

  The expert review should only approve services that have emergency
  nature, that...
 
That's not grammatical. Also, the actor is called the "designated expert". Instead:
NEW
  The designated expert should only approve sub-services that are
  emergency services, that...

[Ballot comment]
I think that SOS is supposed to be capitalized. If any organization owns the definition of SOS it is the ITU for historical reasons, and they certainly think that it is capitalized.

I wonder about the merits of a list given that by definition it is a partial list.

[Ballot comment]
Wikipedia being what it is, if you use it as a reference you should also
provide the date of the reference. But I am surprised that established
emergency services that motivate this work don't have their wn stable
URLs that you can reference.

---

I don't agree with Sean that this document should attempt to list all
known emergency service categories since there is a mechanisms for new
ones to be added as requested. Of course, if you were to list them all
then adding Cave Rescue would be on my list.

However, I do worry that this schema negelects the call hierarchy that
varies by national authority (and sometimes by regional authority). In
the UK the Coast Guard can be called direct, but cave Rescue must be
invoked via the police, yet both use the same emergency telephone
number. In some countries, Cave Rescue has a dedicated phone number.

It strikes me that "police" is a very loose category in many states
where there are multiple disjoint police services that have different
jurisdictions and call-out mechanisms (not to mention control
mechanisms).

Anyway, I've not been following this work closely enough to know whether
this sort of categorisation really matters.

---

  urn:service:sos.gas  The 'gas' service allows the reporting of
      natural gas (and other flammable gas) leaks or other natural gas
      emergencies.

Why only "natural gas"? Would they not attend a leak of man-made gas?

[Ballot comment]
0) Where's hazmat fall?

1) Should there be a mine rescue service?  If I'm in a mine, I'd sure like to have one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Copiapó_mining_accident).  Actually any reason you didn't collect all the SAR-type (search and rescue) services under sar?:

sos.sar.m* where m* is mountain, marine, mine?

1) Does fire cover both urban fire services as well an rural fire services (e.g., wildfires in mountains)?

2) Should "gas" be generalized to "utility"?  Power lines being down, power being out, and water mains spewing water when it's freezing can be bad too.  So it could be:

sos.utility.gas
sos.utility.electric
sos.utility.water

Not sure if phone requires an immediate response but I could see some non-SIP people thinking it does:

sos.utility.phone

3) Should there be one for social services?

4) We also need sos.cat to make sure more cats that want to get on the internet don't get stuck up trees ;)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn-01.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:


IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the 'sos' service subregistry of the URN Service Labels registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-serviceid-labels/

the reference for the subregistry is to be updated from RFC 5031 to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed
upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (URN For Country Specific Emergency Services) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Emergency Context Resolution
with Internet Technologies WG (ecrit) to consider the following document:
- 'URN For Country Specific Emergency Services'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates section 4.2 of RFC 5031, in order to allow the
  registration of service URNs with the 'sos' service type for
  emergency services that, at the time of registration, are offered in
  one country only.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
The policy for registration of sub-services of the service URN with the 'sos' service type, as defined in RFC 5031, prevents the registration of a sub-service of the service URN with the 'sos' service type for a service that, at the time of registration, is offered in one country only. This draft updates the procedures in RFC5031.
Working Group Summary:
There is strong consensus in the Working Group for this change to RFC5031. The only objection was the missing WG milestones, which has now been resolved.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
This draft updated registration procedures in RFC5031, no protocol changes are requested.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd = Marc Linsner (mlinsner@cisco.com)
Responsible Area Director = Richard Barnes (mailto:rlb@ipv.sx)
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I reviewed the document for missing elements, nits, and overall readability.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has been reviewed by several ECRIT participants and is ready for publication.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No, the document is ready for publication.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
There are no concerns from me or the working group.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
The has been no IPR disclosures submitted on this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
NA
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
All reviewers of this document support it going forward, there are no objections.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document.

-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5031, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5031 though, so this could be OK.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required, updates registration procedures only.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
NA
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
NA
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
NA
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document update registration procedures in RFC5031.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The author updated the IANA section to meet WG criteria before submission.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Followed comments on the WG mail list, read the document, discussed with the author(s) specific IANA instructions, ran Idnits.