Skip to main content

A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency and Other Well-Known Services
RFC 5031

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from ecrit-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lisa Dusseault
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2008-01-09
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-01-09
07 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5031' added by Amy Vezza
2008-01-07
07 (System) RFC published
2007-08-22
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-08-22
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2007-08-22
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-08-22
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-08-22
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-08-21
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-08-21
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-08-21
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-08-21
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-08-21
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2007-08-20
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2007-08-17
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2007-08-17
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-08-17
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-07.txt
2007-06-22
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-06-21
2007-06-21
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2007-06-21
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lisa Dusseault
2007-06-21
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-06-21
07 Chris Newman
[Ballot comment]
I support the "fix this" DISCUSS comments from Lars and Russ.

Has there been a urn-nid@apps.ietf.org review of this as recommended by RFC …
[Ballot comment]
I support the "fix this" DISCUSS comments from Lars and Russ.

Has there been a urn-nid@apps.ietf.org review of this as recommended by RFC 3406?

The registration should be owned by the IETF, to avoid the later need for
an IESG action to change ownership in the event the ECRIT WG completes.
2007-06-21
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2007-06-21
07 Lisa Dusseault
[Ballot discuss]
I'm marking this as a DISCUSS just until we manage to discuss in the call.

It strikes me as somewhat worrisome to standardize …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm marking this as a DISCUSS just until we manage to discuss in the call.

It strikes me as somewhat worrisome to standardize this URN before standardizing the resolution method for the URN, but I understand LOST is actively worked on.  Should anything be said in this document about what to do with the 'service' URN in cases of some failure to resolve to a URL?
2007-06-21
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot comment]
2007-06-21
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Lisa Dusseault
2007-06-21
07 Lisa Dusseault
[Ballot comment]
I'm marking this as a DISCUSS just until we manage to discuss in the call.

It strikes me as somewhat worrisome to standardize …
[Ballot comment]
I'm marking this as a DISCUSS just until we manage to discuss in the call.

It strikes me as somewhat worrisome to standardize this URN before standardizing the resolution method for the URN, but I understand LOST is actively worked on.  Should anything be said in this document about what to do with the 'service' URN in cases of some failure to resolve to a URL?
2007-06-21
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2007-06-21
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-06-21
07 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-06-20
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-06-20
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2007-06-20
07 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-06-20
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Agree with Russ on the title. Similarly, the abstract also doesn't
  talk about ECRIT.


Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    Declared registrant …
[Ballot comment]
Agree with Russ on the title. Similarly, the abstract also doesn't
  talk about ECRIT.


Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    Declared registrant of the namespace:
>      Registering organization:  IETF ECRIT Working Group

  Can an ephemeral entity like a WG be a registrant? Should this be "the
  IETF" instead? (Question for the APP ADs.)
2007-06-20
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3., paragraph 4:
>      service      = top-level *("." sub-service)
>      let-dig      = ALPHA / …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3., paragraph 4:
>      service      = top-level *("." sub-service)
>      let-dig      = ALPHA / DIGIT
>      let-dig-hyp  = let-dig / '-'
>      sub-service  = let-dig [ *let-dig-hyp let-dig ]
>      top-level    = let-dig [ *25let-dig-hyp let-dig ]

  DISCUSS: ABNF doesn't validate (3:26: error: Illegal character "'" -
  skipping to end of line). Also, should cite RFC 4234 normatively for
  ABNF.
2007-06-20
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-06-19
07 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
I believe that the title of this document should be revised.  The
  current title does not include any indication that the document …
[Ballot discuss]
I believe that the title of this document should be revised.  The
  current title does not include any indication that the document is
  about ECRIT services.  I recognize that the mechanism can be used
  for non-emergency services (such as directory assistance).  I
  suggest: "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency Services
  and Other Well-Known Services"
2007-06-19
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-06-19
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2007-06-19
07 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2007-06-19
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-06-18
07 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-06-14
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
07 Jon Peterson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-06-21 by Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
07 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
07 Jon Peterson Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
07 Jon Peterson Created "Approve" ballot
2007-05-23
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2007-05-17
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Barry Leiba.
2007-05-17
07 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last call Comments:

[ IESG Note: Expert Assignment Required ]

[ Note: In keeping with general IANA practiced the
Reference has been moved to …
IANA Last call Comments:

[ IESG Note: Expert Assignment Required ]

[ Note: In keeping with general IANA practiced the
Reference has been moved to the final entry in the
tables. The document should get updated to reflect
this change. ]

[ Question: I've separated out the service label
registries to make it clearer that the sub-services
could have different policies and make it easier
to attach the policies to the sub-service registries.
Is this okay? ]

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will take
the following Actions:

Action 1 (Section 4, referring to Section 3):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "URN Namespaces"
registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces

sub-registry "Registered Formal URN Namespaces"

Registered Formal
URN Namespaces Value Reference
--------------------- ----- ---------
service [tbd] [RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]


Action 2 (Section 4.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will
create the following registry "Service URN Labels"
located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

The policy for adding top-level service labels is
'Standards Action'. (This document defines the top-level
service 'sos' and 'counseling'.) The policy for
assigning labels to sub-services may differ for
each top-level service designation and MUST be
defined by the document describing the top-level
service.

To allow use within the constraints of S-NAPTR [ref],
all top-level service names MUST NOT exceed 27
characters.


Initial contents of this registry will be:

Service Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
counseling Counseling services [RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos Emergency services [RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]


Action 3 (Section 4.2):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in
the following registry "Service URN Labels" located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

create a new sub-registry "sos sub-services"

Additional sub-services can
be added after expert review and must be of general
public interest and have a similar emergency nature.
The expert is designated by the ECRIT working group,
its successor, or, in their absence, the IESG.

NOTE: Expert Required

Initial contents of this sub-registry will be:

Service Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
sos.animal-control Animal control
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.fire Fire service
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.gas Gas leaks and gas emergencies
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.marine Maritime search and rescue
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.mountain Mountain rescue
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.physician Physician referral service
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.poison Poison control center
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
sos.police Police, law enforcement
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]


Action 4 (Section 4.3):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in
the following registry "Service URN Labels" located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

create a new sub-registry "counseling sub-services"

Additional sub-services can be added after expert
review and should be of general public interest.
The expert is chosen in the same manner as describe
for the 'sos' service. The expert review

NOTE: Expert Required

Initial contents of this sub-registry will be:

Service Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
counseling.children Counseling for children
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
counseling.mental-health Mental health counseling
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]
counseling.suicide Suicide prevention hotline
[RFC-ecrit-service-urn-06]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions
for this document.
2007-05-11
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2007-05-11
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2007-05-09
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-05-09
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-05-08
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jon Peterson
2007-05-08
07 Jon Peterson Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson
2007-05-08
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-05-08
07 (System) Last call text was added
2007-05-08
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-03-06
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-03-06
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06.txt
2007-03-02
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson
2006-11-05
07 Jon Peterson

PROTO writeup:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version …

PROTO writeup:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).
The document is ready for publications and I have reviewed the document personally.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The Service URN document has a long history:

The basic idea started as an individual submission (draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-00) in December 2001 before the document became a working group document in SIPPING (draft-ietf-sipping-sos-00.txt) in Feb. 2004. In July 2006 another solution approach was published, which is documented in draft-schulzrinne-sipping-service-00.txt.

At the ECRIT interim meeting in Feb. 2006 the available solution approaches were discussed and the work on draft-ietf-sipping-sos-03.txt was stopped in favor of an alternative solution draft-schulzrinne-sipping-service-01.txt. The discussion was confirmed on the ECRIT mailing list and the alternative solutions are documented in the Appendix A of draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05.txt.

The Service URN document was reviewed by several ECRIT working group members. Comments were made by SIP working group members including the SIP working group chair Keith Drage. The content of the document was also presented to the 3GPP and discussed in a small group at the 3GPP CT/IETF ECRIT joint ad hoc meeting on emergency services in July 2006.

The first WGLC for the -03 version of the document was announced May 2006. The -03 version of the draft contained the LoST DNS based discovery procedure in addition to the registration of service URNs. A review by James Polk and a subsequent discussion with Leslie Daigle lead to the publication of -04 version without the DNS-based LoST discovery procedure.

A second WGLC was started early August 2006 after the publication of draft version -04. No further disagreement with the content was raised.   



  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?


The document contains a URN scheme template and respective IANA consideration section that was reviewed by Ted Hardie, Leslie Daigle and Andy Newton. These persons have the necessary expertise in this area and provided clarifying responses.

There are no remaining concerns with the document.



  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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 those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
          WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
          detail those concerns here.

There are no concerns with this version of the document.

There was some discussion whether the Service URN document needs to wait for publication of LoST (or other mapping protocols) to offer the ability to resolve service URNs.




  (1.e)  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?


There is solid consensus behind this document. The remaining concerns have been resolved by moving the DNS-based LoST discovery into the LoST document.



  (1.f)  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 will
          be entered into the ID Tracker.)

Nothing to state here.



  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies
          all ID nits?  (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The document does not contain nits.



  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].


The document has references split into a normative and informative references.
There is no dependency on a normative that haven't been finished.
There are no downward references.



  (1.i)  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:


Document Announcement Write-Up for draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05.txt.



          Technical Summary


  The content of many communication services depends on the context,
  such as the user's location.  The Service URN document describes a
  'service' URN that allows to identify context-dependent services
  that can be resolved in a distributed manner.



          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?

The subject of the Service URN document has a long history that started with the inital publication of draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-00.txt in December 2001. Later, the SOS document was stopped in favior
of the approach described by the Service URN draft.

draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05.txt does not contain a DNS-based LoST discovery procedure that was present in previous versions of the draft.


          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?

Henning Schulzrinne and his group have implemented the 'sos' service URN in their NG911 
prototype (including on the VoIP client (sipc) and the LoST server). The ECRIT working group chairs have created a webpage and setup a mailing list
to discuss implementation specific aspects. A number of parties expressed interest to start implementations soon.
In these implementations the Service URN draft is only one component.
2006-11-05
07 Jon Peterson Draft Added by Jon Peterson in state Publication Requested
2006-08-28
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05.txt
2006-08-07
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-04.txt
2006-05-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-03.txt
2006-04-04
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-02.txt
2006-03-07
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-01.txt
2006-02-17
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-00.txt