Subject: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP & <service> Element Mapping

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:18:18 +0200

When we worked on the text in Section 5.4 of 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5222#section-5.4
"
5.4. The Mapped Service: The <service> Element

   The mandatory <service> element identifies the service for which this
   mapping applies.  Two cases need to be distinguished when the LoST
   server sets the <service> element in the response message:

   1.  If the requested service, identified by the service URN [9] in
       the <service> element of the request, exists for the location
       indicated, then the LoST server copies the service URN from the
       request into the <service> element.

   2.  If, however, the requested service, identified by the service URN
       [9] in the <service> element in the request, does not exist for
       the location indicated, the server either can return a
       <serviceNotImplemented> (Section 13.1) error or can provide an
       alternate service that approximates the desired service for that
       location.  In the latter case, the server MUST include a
       <service> element with the alternative service URN.  The choice
       of service URN is left to local policy, but the alternate service
       should be able to satisfy the original service request.
"

We had a discussion at that time on what information to provide about
mapping of requests for Service URNs that a certain jurisdiction may or may
not implement. 

We decided that we would provide a generic text aout the <service> element
in LoST, as we see from the text above. And, we would provide more details
in the Phone BCP on how this would be done in the emergency services
environment.

I had problems finding something in PhoneBCP. Did I miss it or did we loose
the stuff? We discussed this quite extensively on the list a while ago
(pointers to the discussions welcome). 

So, I believe there needs to be some information about what happens in the
following cases: 

1) Request with a Service URN comes in (e.g. sos.police) and the specific
jurisdiction only provides support for sos without sub-services. We need to
provide some text saying that there should not be a <serviceNotImplemented>
error be returned but instead a mapping takes place and the used serviceURN
is then returned in the response. 

2) Request with a Service URN comes in (e.g., sos) and a specific
jurisdiction implements sub-services. (sos.police, sos.fire, ...). This case
is less common these days as there are emergency numbers like 1-1-2 and
9-1-1. 

Does this make sense or am I jet lagged? 
 
Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:32:07 -0500

I think this may be up to the jurisdiction. Rather than specifying behavior
in -phonebcp, I'd rather just allow the LoST server to have a mapping for
every defined service in sos, which might very well all be the same.  I
could see some text in -framework which says this.

The latter case (request .sos in a country that doesn't have a single call
center) really ought to be specified, one way or another, what that
jurisdiction wishes to be.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:18 PM
To: 'ECRIT'
Subject: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP & <service> Element Mapping

 
Ciao
Hannes