| < draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-00.txt | draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet Engineering Task Force Ken Carlberg | Internet Engineering Task Force Ken Carlberg | |||
| INTERNET DRAFT UCL | INTERNET DRAFT UCL | |||
| September, 2002 Ran Atkinson | December, 2002 Ran Atkinson | |||
| Extreme Networks | Extreme Networks | |||
| IP Telephony Requirements for | IP Telephony Requirements for | |||
| Emergency Telecommunication Service | Emergency Telecommunication Service | |||
| <draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-00.txt> | <draft-carlberg-ets-telephony-01.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | |||
| groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶ | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Effective telecommunications capabilities can be imperative to | Effective telecommunications capabilities can be imperative to | |||
| facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious disaster events, | facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious disaster events, | |||
| such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. | such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. | |||
| Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick | Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick | |||
| response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any | response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any | |||
| public telecommunications capabilities at hand. These capabilities | public telecommunications capabilities at hand. These capabilities | |||
| include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet | include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet | |||
| access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The | access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The | |||
| ^L | ||||
| commercial telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to | commercial telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to | |||
| Internet-based technology. Therefore, the Internet community needs to | Internet-based technology. Therefore, the Internet community needs to | |||
| consider how it can best support emergency management and recovery | consider how it can best support emergency management and recovery | |||
| operations. | operations. | |||
| 1.1 Problem | 1.1 Problem | |||
| Standards have been developed by other standards bodies concerning | Standards have been developed by other standards bodies concerning | |||
| emergency communications. As discussed in [2] and [3], some of these | emergency communications. As discussed in [2] and [3], some of these | |||
| standards, such as T1.693 [4], define specific indicators or labels | standards, such as T1.631 [4], define specific indicators or labels | |||
| for emergency communications in SS7 networks. Certain requirements | for emergency communications in SS7 networks. Certain requirements | |||
| must be defined in order to achieve peering services across hybrid | must be defined in order to achieve peering services across hybrid | |||
| networks (networks that communicate between IP and other types of | networks (networks that communicate between IP and other types of | |||
| networks such as that realized by the Public Switched Telephone | networks such as that realized by the Public Switched Telephone | |||
| Network). | Network). | |||
| 2. Scope | 2. Scope | |||
| [2] has defined a set of general system requirements to support | [2] has defined a set of general system requirements to support | |||
| Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS). This document defines an | Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS). This document defines an | |||
| additional set of system requirements to achieve support for ETS | additional set of system requirements to achieve support for ETS | |||
| within the specific context of IP telephony. Solutions to | within the specific context of IP telephony (note that this document | |||
| requirements are not defined. The document does not specify protocol | views IP telephony within the context of an end-to-end application | |||
| enhancements or specifications. | layer service). Solutions to requirements are not defined. The | |||
| document does not specify protocol enhancements or specifications. | ||||
| 2.1 Out of Scope | 2.1 Out of Scope | |||
| An item that is not in scope of this document is mandating acceptance | An item that is not in scope of this document is mandating acceptance | |||
| and support of the requirements presented in this document. The IETF | and support of the requirements presented in this document. The IETF | |||
| does not mandate requirements or capabilities to independent networks | does not mandate requirements or capabilities to independent networks | |||
| that comprise the Internet. As an example, IP Carriers might choose | that comprise the Internet. As an example, Internet Service | |||
| not to operate any telephony-related gateways or services. The IETF | Providers (ISP) may choose not to operate any telephony-related | |||
| cannot and does not mandate that an IP Carrier deploy either | gateways or services. The IETF cannot and does not mandate that an | |||
| telephony-related gateways or telephony-related services. There is | ISP deploy either telephony-related gateways or telephony-related | |||
| an expectation that business contracts, for example Service Level | services. There is an expectation that business contracts, for | |||
| Agreements (SLA), will be used to satisfy those following | example Service Level Agreements (SLA), will be used to satisfy those | |||
| requirements that apply to service providers. Absence of an SLA | following requirements that apply to service providers. Absence of | |||
| implies best effort service is provided. | an SLA implies best effort service is provided. | |||
| It is assumed that some carriers will choose to offer ETS services | It is assumed that some ISPs will choose to offer ETS services and | |||
| and that other carriers will choose not to offer ETS services. These | that other carriers will choose not to offer ETS services. These | |||
| requirements do not apply to carriers that have chosen not to offer | requirements do not apply to ISPs that have chosen not to offer ETS | |||
| ETS services. | services. | |||
| 3. IP Telephony Requirements | 3. IP Telephony Requirements | |||
| The requirements in this section relate only to Telephony Signalling | The requirements in this section relate only to Telephony Signalling | |||
| (e.g. SS7, DSS1, SIP) as used in Internet-based telephony services. | ||||
| They are an extension to the general requirements specified in [2]. | ^L | |||
| The following requirements explicitly do not relate to IP-layer | as used in Internet-based telephony services. They are an extension | |||
| mechanisms, such as Differentiated Services or Integrated Services. | to the general requirements specified in [2]. The following | |||
| requirements explicitly do not relate to IP-layer mechanisms, such as | ||||
| Differentiated Services or Integrated Services. | ||||
| 1) Telephony signalling applications used with Internet-based | 1) Telephony signalling applications used with Internet-based | |||
| telephony MUST be able to carry labels. | telephony MUST be able to carry labels. | |||
| 2) The ability to carry labels MUST be extensible to support | 2) The ability to carry labels MUST be extensible to support | |||
| various types and numbers of labels. A single binary value will | various types and numbers of labels. A single binary value will | |||
| not be sufficient given the various labeling standards in existance | not be sufficient given the various labeling standards in existance | |||
| today. | today. | |||
| 3) Telephony signalling labels MUST have a mapping with the various | 3) Telephony signalling labels SHOULD have a mapping with the | |||
| labels/markings used in other telephony based networks. This | various emergency related labels/markings used in other telephony | |||
| includes existing labels defined for the PSTN. This ensures that | based networks, such as the PSTN. This ensures that a telephone | |||
| a telephone call that is placed over a hybrid infrastructure | call placed over a hybrid infrastructure (traditional PSTN over | |||
| (traditional PSTN over some portion(s) of the path, Internet | some portion(s) of the path, Internet telephony over some other | |||
| telephony over some other portion(s) of the path) can carry the | portion(s) of the path) can carry the labels end-to-end with | |||
| labels end-to-end with appropriate translation at PSTN/Internet | appropriate translation at PSTN/Internet boundaries. Absence of | |||
| boundaries. | a mapping means that the signaling reverts to a default service | |||
| (presumably one attributed to the general public). | ||||
| 3.1 Value Added Requirements: | 4) Hybrid infrastructures that include and support connectivity | |||
| to the PSTN MAY support application layer accounting within IP | ||||
| telephony applications. These applications MUST NOT preclude | ||||
| the ability to do accounting. | ||||
| 4. Issues | ||||
| This section presents issues that arise in considering solutions for | ||||
| the telephony requirements that have been defined for ETS. This | ||||
| section does not specify solutions nor is it to be confused with | ||||
| requirements. Subsequent documents that articulate a more specific | ||||
| set of requirements for a particular service may make a statement | ||||
| about the following issues. | ||||
| 1) Alternate paths | 1) Alternate paths | |||
| Experience with GETS has shown the utility of alternate paths | Experience with GETS over the PSTN has shown the utility of | |||
| to a destination to help facilitate emergency-related | alternate paths to a destination to help facilitate | |||
| communications. From the perspective of the Internet, this | emergency-related communications. From the perspective of the | |||
| utility may be difficult to achieve and have a more limited | Internet, this utility may be difficult to achieve and have a | |||
| benefit. Hence, we present this requirement as one that is | more limited benefit. Unlike the PSTN, which creates a fixed | |||
| value added, but not to considered critical in supporting ETS. | path during call setup phase, the Internet uses dynamic routing | |||
| Unlike the PSTN, the Internet routing system maintains awareness | for IP packets. This dynamic routing capability automatically | |||
| of all paths to a destination. Further the Internet is | causes IP packets to travel the best current path. The Internet | |||
| packet-based, rather than circuit-switched, so existing flows | ||||
| will automatically be rerouted if an initial route ceases to be | ||||
| available and an alternate route exists. | ||||
| 4. Security | ^L | |||
| infrastructure does not have the concept of a "call" or the | ||||
| concept of "call setup", though IP telephony applications might | ||||
| have application-layer awareness of calls or the call setup | ||||
| concept. | ||||
| Alternate path routing at the application layer may be useful | ||||
| in choosing one of possibly several egress points to the PSTN | ||||
| from the Internet. | ||||
| 5. Security | ||||
| Only authorised users or operators SHOULD be able to create non- | Only authorised users or operators SHOULD be able to create non- | |||
| ordinary labels. Labels SHOULD have mechanisms to provide strong | ordinary labels. Labels SHOULD have mechanisms to provide strong | |||
| end-to-end integrity during their transmission through the telephony | end-to-end integrity during their transmission through the telephony | |||
| systems. Finally, in cases where labels are expected to be acted | systems. Finally, in cases where labels are expected to be acted | |||
| upon by operators, these operators SHOULD have the capability of | upon by operators, these operators SHOULD have the capability of | |||
| authenticating the label on a received message or transmission in | authenticating the label on a received message or transmission in | |||
| order to prevent theft of service and reduce risk of denial of | order to prevent theft of service and reduce risk of denial of | |||
| service (e.g. by unauthorised users consuming any limited resources). | service (e.g. by unauthorised users consuming any limited resources). | |||
| Security is also discussed in the general requirements of [2], which | Security is also discussed in the general requirements of [2], which | |||
| applies to section 3 above. | applies to section 3 above. | |||
| 5. References | 6. References | |||
| 1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP | 1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP | |||
| 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. | 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. | |||
| 2 Carlberg, K., Atkinson, R., "General System Requirements for | 2 Carlberg, K., Atkinson, R., "General System Requirements for | |||
| Emergency Telecommunications Service", Internet Draft, | Emergency Telecommunications Service", Internet Draft, | |||
| Work In Progress, September, 2002 | Work In Progress, September, 2002 | |||
| 3 Folts, H., et. al., "User Requirements for Emergency | 3 Folts, H., et. al., "User Requirements for Emergency | |||
| Telecommunications Service", Internet Draft, Work In | Telecommunications Service", Internet Draft, Work In | |||
| Progress, September 2002 | Progress, September 2002 | |||
| 4 ANSI, "Signaling System No. 7(SS7): High Probability of | 4 ANSI, "Signaling System No. 7(SS7): High Probability of | |||
| Completion (HPC) Network Capability, ANSI T1.631, 1993. | Completion (HPC) Network Capability, ANSI T1.631, 1993. | |||
| Ken Carlberg Ran Atkinson | ^L | |||
| University College London Extreme Networks | ||||
| Department of Computer Science 3585 Monroe Street | 7. Author's Addresses | |||
| Gower Street Santa Clara, CA | ||||
| London, WC1E 6BT 95051 USA | Ken Carlberg Ran Atkinson | |||
| United Kingdom | University College London Extreme Networks | |||
| k.carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk rja@extremenetworks.com | Department of Computer Science 3585 Monroe Street | |||
| Gower Street Santa Clara, CA | ||||
| London, WC1E 6BT 95051 USA | ||||
| United Kingdom | ||||
| k.carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk rja@extremenetworks.com | ||||
| Full Copyright Statement | Full Copyright Statement | |||
| "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. | "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | |||
| others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | |||
| or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | |||
| and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | |||
| kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are | kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are | |||
| included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | |||
| document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | |||
| the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other | the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other | |||
| Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- | Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of | |||
| ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights | developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for | |||
| defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as | copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be | |||
| required to translate it into languages other than English. | followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than | |||
| English. | ||||
| The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be | The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be | |||
| revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. | revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. | |||
| This document and the information contained herein is provided as an | This document and the information contained herein is provided as an | |||
| "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING | "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING | |||
| TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING | TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING | |||
| BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION | BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION | |||
| HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR MER- | HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR | |||
| CHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PRUPOSE. | MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PRUPOSE. | |||
| End of changes. 17 change blocks. | ||||
| 55 lines changed or deleted | 84 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/ | ||||