| < draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-02.txt | draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-05.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group James Polk | Network Working Group J. Polk | |||
| Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | |||
| Expires: January 12, 2013 July 12, 2012 | Intended status: Informational February 22, 2013 | |||
| Intended Status: Standards Track | Expires: August 26, 2013 | |||
| IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header Field | IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header Field Namespace for | |||
| Namespace for Local Emergency Communications | Local Emergency Communications | |||
| draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-02 | draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-05.txt | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document creates the new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) | This document creates the new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) | |||
| Resource Priority header field namespace "esnet" for local emergency | Resource Priority header field namespace 'esnet' for local emergency | |||
| usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP), between PSAPs, and | session establishment to a public safety answering point (PSAP), | |||
| between a PSAP and first responders and their organizations, and | between PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first responders and their | |||
| places this namespace in the IANA registry. | organizations, and places this namespace in the IANA registry. | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2013. | This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2013. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header field . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.2. The 'esnet' Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 6 | 4.1. IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2. IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | ||||
| Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | ||||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL | ||||
| NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | ||||
| "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described | ||||
| in [RFC2119]. | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| This document creates the new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) | This document creates the new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) | |||
| Resource Priority header field namespace "esnet" for local emergency | Resource Priority header (RPH) field namespace 'esnet' for local | |||
| usage and places this namespace in the IANA registry. The SIP | emergency usage and places this namespace in the IANA registry. The | |||
| Resource-Priority header field is defined in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. | SIP Resource-Priority header field is defined in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. | |||
| The new "esnet" namespace is to be used for inbound calls towards a | The new 'esnet' namespace is to be used for inbound calls towards a | |||
| public safety answering point (PSAP), between PSAPs, and between a | public safety answering point (PSAP), between PSAPs, and between a | |||
| PSAP and first responders or their organizations within managed IP | PSAP and first responders or their organizations within managed IP | |||
| networks. This namespace is not envisioned for use on the open | networks. This namespace is not for use on the open public Internet | |||
| public Internet because it can be trivially forged. | because it can be trivially forged. | |||
| This new namespace can be included in SIP requests to provide an | Adding a RPH with the 'esnet' namespace can be differentiated from | |||
| explicit priority indication within controlled environments, such as | the marking of an emergency call using a service urn as defined in | |||
| an IMS infrastructure or Emergency Services network (ESInet) where | RFC 5031 in that the RPH specifically requests preferential treatment | |||
| misuse can be reduced to a minimum because these types of networks | in networks which honor it, while the marking merely identifies an | |||
| have great controls in place. The function is to facilitate | emergency call without necessarily affecting resources allocated to | |||
| differing treatment of emergency SIP requests according to local | it. It is appropriate to use both where applicable. RPH with | |||
| policy, or more likely, a contractual agreement between the network | 'esnet' may also be used within public safety networks for SIP | |||
| organizations. This indication is used solely to differentiate | sessions that are not emergency calls and thus not marked per RFC | |||
| certain SIP requests, transactions or dialogs, from other SIP | 5031. | |||
| requests, transactions or dialogs that do not have the need for | ||||
| priority treatment. If there are differing, yet still | ||||
| understandable and valid Resource-Priority header values in separate | ||||
| SIP requests, then this indication can be used by local policy to | ||||
| determine which SIP request, transaction or dialog receives which | ||||
| treatment (likely better or worse than another). | ||||
| It can also be imagined that Application Service Providers (ASP) | This new namespace is included in SIP requests to provide an explicit | |||
| directly attached to an ESInet can have a trust relationship with | priority indication within controlled environments, such as an IMS | |||
| the ESInet such that within these networks, SIP requests (thereby | infrastructure or Emergency Services network (ESInet) where misuse | |||
| the session(s) they establish) make use of this "esnet" namespace | can be reduced to an acceptable level because these types of networks | |||
| for appropriate treatment. | have controls in place. The function facilitates differing treatment | |||
| of emergency SIP requests according to local policy, or more likely, | ||||
| a contractual agreement between the network organizations. This | ||||
| indication is used solely to differentiate certain SIP requests, | ||||
| transactions or dialogs, from other SIP requests, transactions or | ||||
| dialogs that do not have the need for priority treatment. If there | ||||
| are differing, yet still understandable and valid Resource-Priority | ||||
| header values in separate SIP requests, then this indication can be | ||||
| used by local policy to determine which SIP request, transaction or | ||||
| dialog receives which treatment (likely better or worse than | ||||
| another). | ||||
| Application Service Providers (ASP) securely connected to an ESInet | ||||
| may have sufficient controls policing the header, and a trust | ||||
| relationship with the entities inside the ESInet. SIP requests from | ||||
| such ASPs could make use of this 'esnet' namespace for appropriate | ||||
| treatment when requests are passed from the ASP to the ESInet. | ||||
| The 'esnet' namespace may also be used on calls from a PSAP or other | ||||
| public safety agency on an ESInet towards a private or public | ||||
| network, ASP or UA ("call back") when priority is needed. Again, the | ||||
| request for priority is not for use on the public Internet due to the | ||||
| ease of forging the header. | ||||
| This document merely creates the namespace, per the rules within | This document merely creates the namespace, per the rules within | |||
| [RFC4412], necessitating a Standards Track RFC for IANA registering | [RFC4412] as updated by [I-D.rosen-rph-reg-policy], necessitating | |||
| new RPH namespaces and their relative priority-value order. | IETF review for IANA registering new RPH namespaces and their | |||
| relative priority-value order. | ||||
| There is the possibility that within emergency services networks a | There is the possibility that within emergency services networks a | |||
| Multilevel Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be | Multilevel Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be | |||
| achieved (likely without the 'preemption' part), provided local | achieved (likely without the 'preemption' part), provided local | |||
| policy supports enabling this function,. This will ensure more the | policy supports enabling this function. For example, calls placed | |||
| important calls are established or retained; therefore the "esnet" | between law enforcement agents could be marked similarly to MLPP | |||
| namespace is given five priority-levels instead of just one. | systems used by military networks, and some of those calls could be | |||
| MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined in this document for | handled with higher priority than an emergency call from an ordinary | |||
| 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is not prevented either. | user. Therefore the 'esnet' namespace is given five priority-levels | |||
| instead of just one. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined in this | ||||
| document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is not | ||||
| prevented either. | ||||
| Within the ESInet, there will be emergency calls requiring different | Within the ESInet, there will be emergency calls requiring different | |||
| treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to | treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to | |||
| a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than | a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than a | |||
| a PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What | PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What about | |||
| about either relative to a call from within the ESInet to a | either relative to a call from within the ESInet to a national | |||
| federal government's department of national security, such as the US | government's department responsible for public safety, disaster | |||
| Department of Homeland Security? For these additional reasons, the | relief, national security/defense, etc.? For these additional | |||
| "esnet" namespace was given multiple priority levels. | reasons, the 'esnet' namespace was given multiple priority levels. | |||
| This document does not define any of these behaviors, outside of | This document does not define any of these behaviors, outside of | |||
| reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples | reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples | |||
| of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA | of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA registers | |||
| registers the "esnet" RPH namespace for use within any emergency | the 'esnet' RPH namespace for use within any emergency services | |||
| services networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs. | networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs. | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | ||||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | ||||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | ||||
| 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header field | 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header field | |||
| This document retains the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority | This document retains the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority | |||
| header field, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options | header field, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options | |||
| surrounding this new "esnet" namespace. The usage of the "esnet" | surrounding this new 'esnet' namespace. The usage of the 'esnet' | |||
| namespace does not have a 'normal', or routine call level, given the | namespace does not have a 'normal', or routine call level, given the | |||
| environment this is to be used within (i.e., within an ESInet). | environment this is to be used within (i.e., within an ESInet). That | |||
| That is for local jurisdictions to define within their respective | is left for local jurisdictions to define within their respective | |||
| parts of the ESInet, which could be islands of local administration. | parts of the ESInet, which could be islands of local administration. | |||
| RFC 4412 states that modifying the relative priority ordering or the | The 'esnet' namespace MUST only be used where at least one end of the | |||
| number of priority-values to a registered namespace SHOULD NOT occur | signaling, setting aside the placement of B2BUAs, is within a local | |||
| within the same administrative domain due to interoperability issues | emergency organization. In other words, if either the originating | |||
| with dissimilar implementations and backwards compatibility of past | human caller's UA, or the destination human callee's UA is part of | |||
| configurations. | the local emergency organization, this is a valid use of 'esnet'. | |||
| The "esnet" namespace MUST only be used in times of an emergency, | ||||
| where at least one end, setting aside the placement of B2BUAs, of | ||||
| the signaling is within a local emergency organization. In other | ||||
| words, if either the originating human caller's UA, or the | ||||
| destination human callee's UA is part of the local emergency | ||||
| organization, this is a valid use of "esnet". | ||||
| The "esnet" namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative | The 'esnet' namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative | |||
| priority order, and is registered as a queue-based namespace in | priority order, and is registered as a queue-based namespace in | |||
| compliance with [RFC4412]. Individual jurisdictions MAY configure | compliance with [RFC4412]. SIP entities that support preemption | |||
| their SIP entities for preemption treatment. This is OPTIONAL, | treatment (see Section 5 of [RFC4412]) can be configured according to | |||
| subject to local policy decisions. | local policy. Display names for the 'esnet' values displayed can | |||
| likewise be set according to local policy. | ||||
| The following network diagram provides one example of local policy | The following network diagram provides one example of local policy | |||
| choices for the use of the "esnet" namespace: | choices for the use of the 'esnet' namespace: | |||
| |<-"esnet" namespace->| | |<-'esnet' namespace->| | |||
| | *WILL* be used | | | is used | | |||
| "esnet" namespace | ,-------. | 'esnet' namespace | ,-------. | |||
| usage out of scope | ,' `. | usage out of scope | ,' `. | |||
| |<------------>|<---"esnet" namespace ---->| / \ | |<------------>|<---'esnet' namespace ---->| / \ | |||
| +----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESInet | | +----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESInet | | |||
| | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ | | | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ | | |||
| +----+ \ | / +-----+ | | | +----+ \ | / +-----+ | | | |||
| \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ | | \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ | | |||
| +----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |PSAP-1| | | +----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |PSAP-1| | | |||
| | UA |--- / User \ / Application \ | | +------+ | | | UA |--- / User \ / Application \ | | +------+ | | |||
| +----+ ( Network +---+ Service )| | | | +----+ ( Network +---+ Service )| | | | |||
| \ / \ Provider / | | +------+ | | \ / \ Provider / | | +------+ | | |||
| +----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |PSAP-2| | | +----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |PSAP-2| | | |||
| | UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ +------+ | | | UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ +------+ | | |||
| +----+ | +-----+ | | | +----+ | +-----+ | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +----+ | +-----+ | +------+ | | +----+ | +-----+ | +------+ | | |||
| | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ |PSAP-3| | | | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ |PSAP-3| | | |||
| +----+ \ | / +-----+ | +------+ | | +----+ \ | / +-----+ | +------+ | | |||
| \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | | | \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | | | |||
| +----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | | | +----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | | | |||
| | UA |--- / User \ / Application \ | | +------+ | | | UA |--- / User \ / Application \ | | +------+ | | |||
| +----+ ( Network +---+ Service )| | |PSAP-4| | | +----+ ( Network +---+ Service )| | |PSAP-4| | | |||
| \ / \ Provider / | | +------+ | | \ / \ Provider / | | +------+ | | |||
| +----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | | | +----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | | | |||
| | UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ ANY can | | | UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ ANY can | | |||
| +----+ | +-----+ | xfer/call | | +----+ | +-----+ | xfer/call | | |||
| | | \ | | | / | | | \ | | | / | |||
| `. | | | ,' | `. | | | ,' | |||
| '-|-|-|-' | '-|-|-|-' | |||
| | | | | | | | | |||
| Police <--------------+ | | | Police <--------------+ | | | |||
| Fire <----------+ | | Fire <----------+ | | |||
| Federal Agency <-------+ | National Agency <-------+ | |||
| Figure 1: A possible network architecture using "esnet" namespace | A possible network architecture using 'esnet' namespace | |||
| In Figure 1., the "esnet" namespace is intended for usage within the | In Figure 1., the 'esnet' namespace is used within the ESInet on the | |||
| ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is specifically | right side of the diagram. How it is specifically utilized is out of | |||
| utilized is out of scope for this document, and left to local | scope for this document, and left to local jurisdictions to define. | |||
| jurisdictions to define. Adjacent ASPs to the ESInet MAY have a | Whether preemption is implemented in the ESInet and the values | |||
| trust relationship that includes allowing this/these neighboring | displayed to the ESInet users, is likewise out of scope. Adjacent | |||
| ASP(s) to use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests | ASPs to the ESInet may have a trust relationship that includes | |||
| and dialogs within the ASP's network. The exact mapping between the | allowing this/these neighboring ASP(s) to use the 'esnet' namespace | |||
| internal and external sides of the edge proxy at the ESInet | to differentiate SIP requests and dialogs within the ASP's network. | |||
| boundaries is out of scope of this document. | The exact mapping between the internal and external sides of the edge | |||
| proxy at the ESInet boundaries is out of scope of this document. | ||||
| 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition | 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition | |||
| The "esnet" namespace SHOULD NOT to be considered generic for all | The 'esnet' namespace is not generic for all emergencies because | |||
| emergencies because there are a lot of different kinds of | there are a lot of different kinds of emergencies, some on a military | |||
| emergencies, some on a military scale ([RFC4412] defines 3 of | scale ([RFC4412] defines 3 of these), some on a national scale | |||
| these), some on a national scale ([RFC4412] defines 2 of these), | ([RFC4412] defines 2 of these), some on an international scale. Each | |||
| some on an international scale. Each type of emergency can also | type of emergency can also have its own namespace(s), and although | |||
| have its own namespace(s), and although there are 45 defined for | there are many defined for other uses, more are possible - so the | |||
| other uses, more are possible - so the 911/112/999 style of public | 911/112/999 style of public user emergency calling for police or fire | |||
| user emergency calling for police or fire or ambulance (etc) does | or ambulance (etc) does not have a monopoly on the word "emergency". | |||
| not have a monopoly on the word "emergency". | ||||
| The namespace "esnet" has been chosen, roughly to stand for | The namespace 'esnet' has been chosen, roughly to stand for | |||
| "Emergency Services NETwork", for a citizen's call for help from a | "Emergency Services NETwork", for a citizen's call for help from a | |||
| public authority type of organization. This namespace will also be | public authority type of organization. This namespace will also be | |||
| used for communications between emergency authorities, and MAY be | used for communications between emergency authorities, and MAY be | |||
| used for emergency authorities calling public citizens. An example | used for emergency authorities calling public citizens. An example | |||
| of the latter is a PSAP operator calling back someone who previously | of the latter is a PSAP operator calling back someone who previously | |||
| called 911/112/999 and the communication was terminated before it - | called 911/112/999 and the communication was terminated before it - | |||
| in the PSAP operator's judgment - should have been. | in the PSAP operator's judgment - should have been. | |||
| Here is an example of a Resource-Priority header field using the | Here is an example of a Resource-Priority header field using the | |||
| "esnet" namespace: | 'esnet' namespace: | |||
| Resource-Priority: esnet.0 | Resource-Priority: esnet.0 | |||
| 3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines | 3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines | |||
| This specification defines one unique namespace for emergency | This specification defines one unique namespace for emergency calling | |||
| calling scenarios, "esnet", constituting its registration with IANA. | scenarios, 'esnet', constituting its registration with IANA. This | |||
| This IANA registration contains the facets defined in Section 9 of | IANA registration contains the facets defined in Section 9 of | |||
| [RFC4412]. | [RFC4412]. | |||
| 3.2. The "esnet" Namespace | 3.2. The 'esnet' Namespace | |||
| Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of | Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of | |||
| relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to | relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to | |||
| highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use | highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use in | |||
| in the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the | the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the 'esnet' | |||
| "esnet" namespace. This document does not recommend which | namespace. This document does not recommend which Priority-value is | |||
| Priority-value is used where in which situation or scenario. That | used where in which situation or scenario. That is for another | |||
| is for another document to specify. This document does RECOMMEND | document to specify. To be effective, the choice within a national | |||
| the choice within a national jurisdiction be coordinated by all | jurisdiction needs to be coordinated by all sub-jurisdictions to | |||
| sub-jurisdictions to maintain uniform SIP behavior throughout an | maintain uniform SIP behavior throughout an emergency calling system | |||
| emergency calling system of that country. | of that nation | |||
| The relative priority order for the "esnet" namespace is as follows: | The relative priority order for the 'esnet' namespace is as follows: | |||
| (lowest) esnet.0 | (lowest) esnet.0 | |||
| esnet.1 | esnet.1 | |||
| esnet.2 | esnet.2 | |||
| esnet.3 | esnet.3 | |||
| (highest) esnet.4 | (highest) esnet.4 | |||
| The "esnet" namespace will be designated into the priority queuing | The 'esnet' namespace will have priority queuing registrations for | |||
| algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]). However, as a policy | these levels per Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]. Although no preemption | |||
| decision, local jurisdiction(s) MAY configure their SIP | is specified in this document for any levels of esnet, local | |||
| infrastructure to use the this namespace in a preemption algorithm | jurisdiction(s) MAY configure their SIP infrastructure to use this | |||
| way, defined in RFC 4412. This document does not recommend this | namespace with preemption, as defined in RFC 4412. | |||
| usage, but it is permissible according to this specification. | ||||
| The remaining rules originated in RFC 4412 apply with regard to an | The remaining rules originated in RFC 4412 apply with regard to an RP | |||
| RP actor, who understands more than one namespace, and MUST maintain | actor who understands more than one namespace, and is must maintain | |||
| its locally significant relative priority order. | its locally significant relative priority order. | |||
| 4. IANA Considerations | 4. IANA Considerations | |||
| 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration | 4.1. IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration | |||
| Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters | Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters | |||
| section of IANA (created by [RFC4412]), the following entries will | section of IANA (created by [RFC4412]), the following entries will be | |||
| be added to this table: | added to this table: | |||
| Intended New warn- New resp. | Intended New warn- New resp. | |||
| Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference | Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference | |||
| --------- ------ -------------- --------- --------- --------- | --------- ------ -------------- --------- --------- --------- | |||
| esnet 5 queue no no [This doc] | esnet 5 queue no no [This doc] | |||
| 4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations | 4.2. IANA Priority-Value Registrations | |||
| Within the Resource-Priority Priority-values registry of the | Within the Resource-Priority Priority-values registry of the sip- | |||
| sip-parameters section of IANA, the following (below) is to be added | parameters section of IANA, the following (below) is to be added to | |||
| to the table: | the table: | |||
| Namespace: esnet | Namespace: esnet | |||
| Reference: (this document) | Reference: (this document) | |||
| Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1","2", "3", "4" | Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1","2", "3", "4" | |||
| 5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| The Security considerations that apply to RFC 4412 [RFC4412] apply | The Security considerations that apply to RFC 4412 [RFC4412] apply | |||
| here. | here. | |||
| Within a network that is enabled to act on the Resource-Priority | For networks that act on the SIP Resource-Priority header field, | |||
| header field within SIP requests, the implications of using this | incorrect use of namespaces can result in traffic that should have | |||
| namespace within the field incorrectly can potentially cause a large | been given preferential treatment not be given it and vice versa. | |||
| impact on a network, given that this indication is to give | This document does not define a use case where an endpoint outside | |||
| preferential treatment of marked traffic great preference within the | the ESInet marks its call for preferential treatment. Protections | |||
| network verses other traffic. This document does not indicate this | need to be taken to prevent granting preferential treatment to | |||
| marking is intended for use by endpoints, yet protections need to be | unauthorized users not calling for emergency help even if they are in | |||
| taken to prevent granting preferential treatment to unauthorized | the ESInet, as well as to prevent misuse by callers outside the | |||
| users not calling for emergency help. | ESInet. | |||
| A simple means of preventing this usage into an ESInet is to not | A simple means of preventing this usage is to not allow 'esnet' | |||
| allow "esnet" marked traffic to get preferential treatment unless | marked traffic to get preferential treatment unless the destination | |||
| the destination is towards the local/regional ESInet. This is not a | is towards the local/regional ESInet. This is not a consideration | |||
| consideration for internetwork traffic within the ESInet, or | for internetwork traffic within the ESInet, or generated out of the | |||
| generated out of the ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly | ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly local in nature, with a | |||
| local in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are likely to be | finite number of URIs that are likely to be considered valid within a | |||
| considered valid within a portion of a network receiving SIP | portion of a network receiving SIP signaling. | |||
| signaling. | ||||
| This namespace is not intended for use on the Internet because of the | ||||
| difficulty in detecting abuse, specifically, it can trivially be | ||||
| forged and used on a non-emergency session to obtain resource | ||||
| priority. Some networks may determine that it can reasonably prevent | ||||
| abuse and/or the consequences of undetected abuse is not significant. | ||||
| In such cases, use of esnet MAY be allowed. | ||||
| 6. Acknowledgements | 6. Acknowledgements | |||
| Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for | Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for | |||
| help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning | help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning | |||
| Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen, Janet Gunn | Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Janet Gunn and Marc | |||
| and Marc Linsner for constructive comments. A big thanks to Robert | Linsner for constructive comments. A big thanks to Robert Sparks for | |||
| Sparks for being patient with the author. | being patient with the author and Brian Rosen for completing the | |||
| final edits. | ||||
| 7. References | ||||
| 7.1 Normative References | 7. Normative References | |||
| [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997 | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
| [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource | [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource | |||
| Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC | Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", | |||
| 4411, Feb 2006 | RFC 4412, February 2006. | |||
| 7.2 Informative References | [RFC5031] H. Schulzrinne, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for | |||
| Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, | ||||
| January 2008 | ||||
| none | [I-D.rosen-rph-reg-policy] | |||
| Rosen, B., "Resource Priority Header (RPH) Registry | ||||
| Management Policy to IETF Review", | ||||
| draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-00 (work in progress), | ||||
| February 2013. | ||||
| Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
| James Polk | James Polk | |||
| Cisco Systems | ||||
| 3913 Treemont Circle | 3913 Treemont Circle | |||
| Colleyville, Texas 76034 | Colleyville, TX 76034 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Phone: +1-817-271-3552 | Phone: +1-817-271-3552 | |||
| Email: jmpolk@cisco.com | Email: jmpolk@cisco.com | |||
| End of changes. 53 change blocks. | ||||
| 233 lines changed or deleted | 256 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||