Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-02

From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:38:16 +0100

I have been rereading draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-02 and have at least one major comment:

Section 4.3 describes the "sos" service type as:

   The 'sos' service type describes emergency services and services
   related to public safety and health, typically offered by various
   branches of the government or other public institutions.  Additional
   sub-services can be added after expert review and should be of
   general public interest.

The general dictionary definition of "SOS" is the the international call of distress in morse and carries with it therefore requirements for immediate assistance rather than information provision. 

In the case of emergency calls, the UK government currently spends large sums of money in trying to educate the public that the "999" service is for emergencies only, and I think we are adding to that confusion by using "sos" to apparently cover both immediate response and non-immediate response services.

This is made worse because presumably when a subtype is not supported in a particular locality, I assume the call would be routed to the general "sos" answer point, which certainly in the UK would be the current "999" service. I can assure you that any non-urgent request to such services in the UK ends up with a minimum of a verbal warning.

Therefore in section 4.3 I consider that we should clearly state that "sos" is only for emergency or immediate response services, and all the subtype definitions should be rewritten where they do not clearly state that intent.

Further the "sos" type implies some level of priority in treatment of the call, and it appears to me inappropriate that such priority should be given to a non-urgent request.

Thus the current definition of: 

   urn:service:sos.animal-control Animal control is defined as control
      of dogs, cats, and domesticated or undomesticated animals.

needs to reflect something more dangerous or life threatening that stray cats or dogs, or general problems with wasp nests.

Similarly:

   urn:service:sos.mental-health The 'mental-health' service refers to
      the "Diagnostic, treatment, and preventive care that helps improve
      how persons with mental illness feel both physically and
      emotionally as well as how they interact with other persons."
      (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

again needs to reflect some need for immediate assistance with a psychological disorder, rather than just a long term counselling service.

Further the allocation of further values needs to reflect more criteria for the allocation of values. Presumably new values end up being allocated by expert review (allocation of the IANA request to one of a set of designated experts), rather than by reference back to the WG. I consider "of general public interest" an insufficient definition to conduct that review. I would suggest it 

-	needs to include a review of impact of world wide usage in different cultures, 

-	whether such services are generally provided worldwide in a similar fashion (because these urns are meant to support roaming users who expect the same degree of support when they roam).

-	the type of response required to the request. 

In general public information services and other public advice lines probably need to be given a separate type and subtypes, assuming we need well known international identifiers for these at all.

regards

Keith 

Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:56:48 +0100

> In the case of emergency calls, the UK government currently spends large sums of money in trying to educate the public that the "999" service is for emergencies only, and I think we are adding to t…

The UK is about to introduce a new  number 101 for *NON*-emergency
situations.

>       emotionally as well as how they interact with other persons."

Would both be reasons to call 101, as would reporting graffiti in a public
place.

I would not expect any of these to be treated as an emergency (and the
interconnect arrangements for 101 reflect this; there is no special
handling of the call).

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:33:17 -0400

In the U.S., we are now deploying "3-1-1" for local government non-emergency
services and "2-1-1" for human services (both government and
non-government).

I'd support changes as proposed.  I'd even like to see a
"non-emergency-help" service type with at least "local-government" and
"human-services" as subtypes, but we could wait on that.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-02

I have been rereading draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-02 and have at least one
major comment:

The general dictionary definition of "SOS" is the the international call of
distress in morse and carries with it therefore requirements for immediate
assistance rather than information provision. 

In the case of emergency calls, the UK government currently spends large
sums of money in trying to educate the public that the "999" service is for
emergencies only, and I think we are adding to that confusion by using "sos"
to apparently cover both immediate response and non-immediate response
services.

This is made worse because presumably when a subtype is not supported in a
particular locality, I assume the call would be routed to the general "sos"
answer point, which certainly in the UK would be the current "999" service.
I can assure you that any non-urgent request to such services in the UK ends
up with a minimum of a verbal warning.

Therefore in section 4.3 I consider that we should clearly state that "sos"
is only for emergency or immediate response services, and all the subtype
definitions should be rewritten where they do not clearly state that intent.

Further the "sos" type implies some level of priority in treatment of the
call, and it appears to me inappropriate that such priority should be given
to a non-urgent request.

needs to reflect something more dangerous or life threatening that stray
cats or dogs, or general problems with wasp nests.

Similarly:

again needs to reflect some need for immediate assistance with a
psychological disorder, rather than just a long term counselling service.

Further the allocation of further values needs to reflect more criteria for
the allocation of values. Presumably new values end up being allocated by
expert review (allocation of the IANA request to one of a set of designated
experts), rather than by reference back to the WG. I consider "of general
public interest" an insufficient definition to conduct that review. I would
suggest it 

-	needs to include a review of impact of world wide usage in different
cultures, 

-	whether such services are generally provided worldwide in a similar
fashion (because these urns are meant to support roaming users who expect
the same degree of support when they roam).

In general public information services and other public advice lines
probably need to be given a separate type and subtypes, assuming we need
well known international identifiers for these at all.

regards

Keith 

Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:07:15 -0400

I generally agree with your comments. The inclusion of animal control, 
in particular, was motivated by the usage in an American PSAP I visited, 
which has 'animal control' as one of their transfer destinations.

I'm less certain about mental health; I suspect a suicide prevention 
hotline is the closest we could get to an emergency service and maybe it 
should be labeled as such.

In general, almost all emergency services are used for less-urgent 
services as well. For example, the fire department often extracts cats 
from trees and the police department writes parking tickets or 
investigates shop lifting. Neither requires flashing blue lights and sirens.

As to the term animal control, it appears to be, at least in the US, the 
established term for services that deal with both emergency, 
threat-of-life ("bear", "crocodile") and nuisance ("skunk") animal 
issues. See http://www.nacanet.org/ for the official association, as far 
as I can tell.

Suggestions for naming the "211" and "311" services are welcome. 
urn:service:information is a bit too generic, but maybe 
urn:service:government and urn:service:social would be close enough.

Henning

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:25:16 -0400

I've updated some of the draft text in my working draft at

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/service/draft-ietf-ecrit-service- 
urn-03.html

Let me know if that addresses your concerns.

On Apr 28, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> The general dictionary definition of "SOS" is the the international  
> call of distress in morse and carries with it therefore  
> requirements for immediate assistance rather than information  
> provision.
>
> In the case of emergency calls, the UK government currently spends  
> large sums of money in trying to educate the public that the "999"  
> service is for emergencies only, and I think we are adding to that  
> confusion by using "sos" to apparently cover both immediate  
> response and non-immediate response services.
>
> This is made worse because presumably when a subtype is not  
> supported in a particular locality, I assume the call would be  
> routed to the general "sos" answer point, which certainly in the UK  
> would be the current "999" service. I can assure you that any non- 
> urgent request to such services in the UK ends up with a minimum of  
> a verbal warning.
>
> Therefore in section 4.3 I consider that we should clearly state  
> that "sos" is only for emergency or immediate response services,  
> and all the subtype definitions should be rewritten where they do  
> not clearly state that intent.
>
> Further the "sos" type implies some level of priority in treatment  
> of the call, and it appears to me inappropriate that such priority  
> should be given to a non-urgent request.
>
> needs to reflect something more dangerous or life threatening that  
> stray cats or dogs, or general problems with wasp nests.
>
> Similarly:
>
> Further the allocation of further values needs to reflect more  
> criteria for the allocation of values. Presumably new values end up  
> being allocated by expert review (allocation of the IANA request to  
> one of a set of designated experts), rather than by reference back  
> to the WG. I consider "of general public interest" an insufficient  
> definition to conduct that review. I would suggest it
>
> -	whether such services are generally provided worldwide in a  
> similar fashion (because these urns are meant to support roaming  
> users who expect the same degree of support when they roam).
>
> In general public information services and other public advice  
> lines probably need to be given a separate type and subtypes,  
> assuming we need well known international identifiers for these at  
> all.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
> Keith Drage
> Lucent Technologies
> [email-masked]
> tel: +44 1793 776249
>