RE: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #2 - emergency calls

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

In line

> So, this text:
> 
>    In this document, we frequently refer to the "emergency case".  This
>    refers to a specific, important use of sip location conveyance where
>    the location of the caller is used to determine which Public Safety
>    Answering Point (PSAP) should receive an emergency call request for
>    help (e.g. a call to 1-1-2 or 9-1-1).  This is an example of
>    location-based routing.  The location conveyed is also used by the
>    PSAP to dispatch first responders to the caller's location.  There
>    are special security considerations which make the emergency case
>    unique, compared to a normal location conveyance within SIP.
We will rewrite this text to say that emergency call routing is a use case
for this document.  Something like:
  A specific, important use of sip location conveyance is in emergency 
  calls (citizen to authority, for example a call to 1-1-2 or 9-1-1) where
  the location of the caller is used to determine which Public Safety
  Answering Point (PSAP) should receive an emergency call request for
  help.  This is an example of location-based routing.  The location 
  conveyed is also used by the PSAP to dispatch first responders to the 
  caller's location.
> 
> 
> >-- Last sentence of Section 4.3
> 
> The last sentence of this:
> 
>    A location recipient would need to dereference the sips-URI in the
>    Geolocation header to retrieve Alice's location.  If the
>    atlanta.example.com domain chooses to implement location conveyance
>    and delivery in this way (i.e. location-by-reference), it is
>    RECOMMENDED that entities outside this domain be able to reach the
>    dereferencing LIS server, otherwise this model of implementation is
>    only viable within the atlanta.example.com domain.  This will likely
>    not suit some services already being considered in the IETF at the
>    time of this writing, such as emergency calling.
I think we should leave this.

> 
> And section 6, which I talked about in my first message.
> 
> Having reviewed this again, I don't believe that it is appropriate to
> remove the text in Section 1, since the emergency use case was and
> is an important driver for both location based routing and location
> conveyance.  Removing that context doesn't help the reader.  An
> additional pointer there to the ECRIT documents and a statement
> that the full context is in them might be valuable as a way of pointing
> out that the location-conveyance draft will not provide that.
> 
> I think much the same is true for the last sentence in 4.3; replacing
> it with a statement like "For special considerations relevant to
> dereferencing location in emergency call situations, see [CITATION]"
> would be better.
I'd rather not have a normative reference to ecrit documents hold up this
document.

> 
> I believe the issues in Section 6 could be covered in the ECRIT phonebcp
> document, but I continue to believe that they will need to be re-written
> to fit into that document.
Yes, of course

> 
> I assume that any change to this text will require an update to the
> Security Considerations, which currently have this:
> 
>     UAC implementations MUST make such capabilities
>    conditional on explicit user permission, and SHOULD alert a user
>    that location is being conveyed.  Emergency calls have their own
>    rules in this regard, as detailed in Section 6.  Proxies inserting
>    location for location-based routing are unable to meet this
>    requirement, and such use is NOT RECOMMENDED.  Proxies conveying
>    location using this extension MUST have the permission of the target
>    to do so.
Yes, a rewrite of this text is in order




_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip