< draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-06.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-07.txt >
ECRIT B. Rosen ECRIT B. Rosen
Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc. Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne
Expires: January 16, 2014 Columbia U. Expires: August 18, 2014 Columbia U.
H. Tschofenig H. Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks Nokia Siemens Networks
July 15, 2013 February 14, 2014
Data-Only Emergency Calls Data-Only Emergency Calls
draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-06.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-07.txt
Abstract Abstract
RFC 6443 'Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia' RFC 6443 'Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia'
describes how devices use the Internet to place emergency calls and describes how devices use the Internet to place emergency calls and
how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can handle Internet how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can handle Internet
multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of multimedia multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of multimedia
traffic typically involves a SIP session establishment starting with traffic typically involves a SIP session establishment starting with
a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for that session. a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for that session.
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 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 16, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. CAP Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. CAP Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Profiling of the CAP Document Content . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Profiling of the CAP Document Content . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Sending a Data-Only Emergency Call . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Sending a Data-Only Emergency Call . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. 425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. 425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. The AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. The AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Updates to the CAP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Updates to the CAP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Call Backs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Handling Large Amounts of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Registration of the 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml' 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
MIME type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. IANA Registration of Additional Data Block . . . . . . . 17 11.1. Registration of the 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml'
9.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code . . . . . . . . . 17 MIME type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . 18 11.2. IANA Registration of Additional Data Block . . . . . . . 18
9.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes . . . 18 11.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes . . . 19
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 6443 [RFC6443] describes how devices use the Internet to place RFC 6443 [RFC6443] describes how devices use the Internet to place
emergency calls and how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can emergency calls and how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can
handle Internet multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of handle Internet multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of
multimedia traffic typically involves a SIP session establishment multimedia traffic typically involves a SIP session establishment
starting with a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for starting with a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for
that session. that session.
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
exchanging emergency alerts and public warnings. CAP is mainly used exchanging emergency alerts and public warnings. CAP is mainly used
for conveying alerts and warnings between authorities and from for conveying alerts and warnings between authorities and from
authorities to citizen/individuals. This document is concerned with authorities to citizen/individuals. This document is concerned with
citizen to authority "alerts", where the alert is sent without any citizen to authority "alerts", where the alert is sent without any
interactive media. interactive media.
This document describes a method of including a CAP message in a SIP This document describes a method of including a CAP message in a SIP
transaction, either by value (CAP message is in the body of the transaction, either by value (CAP message is in the body of the
message, using a CID) or by reference (A URI is included in the message, using a CID) or by reference (A URI is included in the
message, which when dereferenced returns the CAP message) by defining message, which when dereferenced returns the CAP message) by defining
it as a block of "additional data" as definded in it as a block of "additional data" as defined in
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. The additional data mechanism is [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. The additional data mechanism is
also used to send alert specific data beyond that available in the also used to send alert specific data beyond that available in the
CAP message. CAP message.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
1. Sending an alert containing only data toward a Public Safety 1. Sending an alert containing only data toward a Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP); Answering Point (PSAP);
2. Establishing a third-party initiated emergency call towards a 2. Establishing a third-party initiated emergency call towards a
PSAP that could include audio, video, and data. PSAP that could include audio, video, and data.
2. Emergency alerts targeted to a Service URN used for IP-based 2. Emergency alerts targeted to a Service URN used for IP-based
emergency calls where the recipient is not known to the emergency calls where the recipient is not known to the
originator. In this scenario, the alert may contain only data originator. In this scenario, the alert may contain only data
(e.g., a CAP and a PIDF-LO payload in a SIP MESSAGE). (e.g., a CAP, Geolocation header and one or more Call-Info
headers containing Additional Data
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data] in a SIP MESSAGE).
Figure 1 shows a deployment variant where a sensor, is pre-configured Figure 1 shows a deployment variant where a sensor, is pre-configured
(using techniques outside the scope of this document) to issue an (using techniques outside the scope of this document) to issue an
alert to an aggregator that processes these messages and performs alert to an aggregator that processes these messages and performs
whatever steps are necessary to appropriately react on the alert. whatever steps are necessary to appropriately react on the alert.
For example, a security firm may use different sensor inputs to For example, a security firm may use different sensor inputs to
dispatch their security staff to a building they protect or to dispatch their security staff to a building they protect or to
initiate a third-party emergency call. initiate a third-party emergency call.
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
In Figure 2 a scenario is shown whereby the alert is routed using In Figure 2 a scenario is shown whereby the alert is routed using
location information and the Service URN. An emergency services location information and the Service URN. An emergency services
routing proxy (ESRP) may use LoST to determine the next hop proxy to routing proxy (ESRP) may use LoST to determine the next hop proxy to
route the alert message to. A possible receiver is a PSAP and the route the alert message to. A possible receiver is a PSAP and the
recipient of the alert may be call taker. In the generic case, there recipient of the alert may be call taker. In the generic case, there
is very likely no prior relationship between the originator and the is very likely no prior relationship between the originator and the
receiver, e.g. PSAP. A PSAP, for example, is likely to receive and receiver, e.g. PSAP. A PSAP, for example, is likely to receive and
accept alerts from entities it cannot authorize. This scenario accept alerts from entities it cannot authorize. This scenario
corresponds more to the classical emergency services use case and the corresponds more to the classical emergency services use case and the
description in [RFC6881] is applicable. description in [RFC6881] is applicable. In this use case, the only
difference between an emergency call, and an emergency data-only call
is that the former uses INVITE and creates a session and negotiates
one or more media streams, and the latter uses MESSAGE, does not
create a session and does not have media.
+-----------+ +----------+ +-----------+ +----------+
+--------+ | ESRP | | PSAP | +--------+ | ESRP | | PSAP |
| Sensor | | | | | | Sensor | | | | |
+---+----+ +---+-------+ +---+------+ +---+----+ +---+-------+ +---+------+
| | | | | |
Sensors | | Sensors | |
trigger | | trigger | |
emergency | | emergency | |
alert | | alert | |
skipping to change at page 7, line 6 skipping to change at page 7, line 36
4.2. Profiling of the CAP Document Content 4.2. Profiling of the CAP Document Content
The usage of CAP MUST conform to the specification provided with The usage of CAP MUST conform to the specification provided with
[cap]. For the usage with SIP the following additional requirements [cap]. For the usage with SIP the following additional requirements
are imposed: are imposed:
sender: A few sub-categories for putting a value in the <sender> sender: A few sub-categories for putting a value in the <sender>
element have to be considered: element have to be considered:
Originator is a SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: When Originator is a SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: When
the alert was created by a SIP-based originator and it is the alert was created by a SIP-based originator and it is not
not useful to be explicit about the author of the alert then useful to be explicit about the author of the alert then the
the <sender> element MUST be populated with the SIP URI of <sender> element MUST be populated with the SIP URI of the user
the user agent. agent.
Originator is a non-SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: In Originator is a non-SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: In
case that the alert was created by a non-SIP based entity case that the alert was created by a non-SIP based entity and
and the identity of this original sender wants to be the identity of this original sender wants to be preserved then
preserved then this identity MUST be placed into the this identity MUST be placed into the <sender> element. In
<sender> element. In this category the it is not useful to this category the it is not useful to be explicit about the
be explicit about the author of the alert. The specific author of the alert. The specific type of identity being used
type of identity being used will depends on the technology will depends on the technology being used by the original
being used by the original originator. originator.
Author indication relevant: In case the author is different from Author indication relevant: In case the author is different from
the actual originator of the message and this distinction the actual originator of the message and this distinction
should be preserved then the <sender> element MUST NOT should be preserved then the <sender> element MUST NOT contain
contain the SIP URI of the user agent. the SIP URI of the user agent.
incidents: The <incidents> element MUST be present. This incident incidents: The <incidents> element MUST be present. This incident
identifier MUST be chosen in such a way that it is unique for a identifier MUST be chosen in such a way that it is unique for a
given <sender, expires, incidents> combination. Note that the given <sender, expires, incidents> combination. Note that the
<expires> element is optional and may not be present. <expires> element is optional and may not be present.
scope: The value of the <scope> element MAY be set to "Private" if scope: The value of the <scope> element MAY be set to "Private" if
the alert is not meant for public consumption. The <addresses> the alert is not meant for public consumption. The <addresses>
element is, however, not used by this specification since the element is, however, not used by this specification since the
message routing is performed by SIP and the respective address message routing is performed by SIP and the respective address
skipping to change at page 10, line 21 skipping to change at page 11, line 4
and the new 425 response. There MUST be no more than one AlertMsg- and the new 425 response. There MUST be no more than one AlertMsg-
Error code in a SIP response. Error code in a SIP response.
AlertMsg-Error: 100 ; code="Cannot Process the Alert Payload" AlertMsg-Error: 100 ; code="Cannot Process the Alert Payload"
AlertMsg-Error: 101 ; code="Alert Payload was not present or could AlertMsg-Error: 101 ; code="Alert Payload was not present or could
not be found" not be found"
AlertMsg-Error: 102 ; code="Not enough information to determine the AlertMsg-Error: 102 ; code="Not enough information to determine the
purpose of the alert" purpose of the alert"
AlertMsg-Error: 103 ; code="Alert Payload was corrupted" AlertMsg-Error: 103 ; code="Alert Payload was corrupted"
Additionally, if an entity cannot or chooses not to process the alert Additionally, if an entity cannot or chooses not to process the alert
message from a SIP request, a 500 (Server Internal Error) SHOULD be message from a SIP request, a 500 (Server Internal Error) SHOULD be
used with or without a configurable Retry-After header field. used with or without a configurable Retry-After header field.
6. Updates to the CAP Message 6. Updates to the CAP Message
If the sender anticipates that the content of the CAP message may If the sender anticipates that the content of the CAP message may
need to be updated during the lifecycle of the event referred to in need to be updated during the lifecycle of the event referred to in
the message, it may include an update block as defined in the message, it may include an update block as defined in
[I-D.rosen-ecrit-addldata-subnot]. [I-D.rosen-ecrit-addldata-subnot].
7. Example 7. Call Backs
This document does not describe any method for the recipient to call
back the sender of the data-only call. Usually, these alerts are
sent by automata, and do not have any mechanism to receive calls of
any kind. The identifier in the From header may be useful to obtain
more information, but any such mechanism is not defined in this
document. The CAP message may contain related contact information
for the sender.
8. Handling Large Amounts of Data
It is not atypical for sensor to have large quantities of data that
they may wish to send. Including large amounts of data in a MESSAGE
is not advisable, because SIP entities are usually not equipped to
handle very large messages. In such cases, the sender SHOULD make
use of the by-reference mechanisms defined for Additional Data which
involve sending a URI in the Call-Info header and using HTTPS to
retrieve the data. The CAP message itself can be sent by-reference
using this mechanism as well as any or all of the Additional Data
blocks that may contain sensor-specific data.
9. Example
Figure 3 shows a CAP document indicating a BURGLARY alert issued by a Figure 3 shows a CAP document indicating a BURGLARY alert issued by a
sensor called 'sensor1@domain.com'. The location of the sensor can sensor called 'sensor1@domain.com'. The location of the sensor can
be obtained from the attached location information provided via the be obtained from the attached location information provided via the
'geolocation' header contained in the SIP MESSAGE structure. 'geolocation' header contained in the SIP MESSAGE structure.
Additionally, the sensor provided some data long with the alert Additionally, the sensor provided some data long with the alert
message using proprietary information elements only to be processed message using proprietary information elements only to be processed
by the receiver, a SIP entity acting as an aggregator. This example by the receiver, a SIP entity acting as an aggregator. This example
reflects the description in Figure 1. reflects the description in Figure 1.
skipping to change at page 14, line 31 skipping to change at page 15, line 35
</gp:usage-rules> </gp:usage-rules>
<gp:method>802.11</gp:method> <gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
</gp:geopriv> </gp:geopriv>
<dm:timestamp>2010-11-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp> <dm:timestamp>2010-11-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp>
</dm:device> </dm:device>
</presence> </presence>
--boundary1-- --boundary1--
Figure 4: Example Message conveying an Alert to a PSAP Figure 4: Example Message conveying an Alert to a PSAP
8. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
This section discusses security considerations when SIP user agents This section discusses security considerations when SIP user agents
issue emergency alerts utilizing MESSAGE and CAP. Location specific issue emergency alerts utilizing MESSAGE and CAP. Location specific
threats are not unique to this document and are discussed in threats are not unique to this document and are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location] and [RFC6442]. [I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location] and [RFC6442].
The ECRIT emergency services architecture [RFC6443] considers The ECRIT emergency services architecture [RFC6443] considers
classical individual-to-authority emergency calling and the identity classical individual-to-authority emergency calling and the identity
of the emergency caller does not play a role at the time of the call of the emergency caller does not play a role at the time of the call
establishment itself, i.e., a response to the emergency call will not establishment itself, i.e., a response to the emergency call will not
skipping to change at page 16, line 10 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
that message is unchanged, then no additional security vulnerability that message is unchanged, then no additional security vulnerability
is created. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED to make use of SIP is created. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED to make use of SIP
security mechanisms, such as SIP Identity [RFC4474], to tie the CAP security mechanisms, such as SIP Identity [RFC4474], to tie the CAP
message to the SIP message. To provide protection of the entire SIP message to the SIP message. To provide protection of the entire SIP
message exchange between neighboring SIP entities the usage of TLS is message exchange between neighboring SIP entities the usage of TLS is
mandatory. mandatory.
Note that none of the security mechanism in this document protect Note that none of the security mechanism in this document protect
against a compromised sensor sending crafted alerts. against a compromised sensor sending crafted alerts.
9. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
9.1. Registration of the 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml' MIME type 11.1. Registration of the 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml' MIME type
To: ietf-types@iana.org To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/ Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/
emergencyCall.cap+xml emergencyCall.cap+xml
MIME media type name: application MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: cap+xml MIME subtype name: cap+xml
skipping to change at page 17, line 23 skipping to change at page 18, line 20
Tschofenig, Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com Tschofenig, Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com
Intended usage: Limited use Intended usage: Limited use
Author/Change controller: IETF ECRIT working group Author/Change controller: IETF ECRIT working group
Other information: This media type is a specialization of Other information: This media type is a specialization of
application/xml RFC 3023 [RFC3023], and many of the considerations application/xml RFC 3023 [RFC3023], and many of the considerations
described there also apply to application/cap+xml. described there also apply to application/cap+xml.
9.2. IANA Registration of Additional Data Block 11.2. IANA Registration of Additional Data Block
This document registers a new block type in the sub-registry called This document registers a new block type in the sub-registry called
'Additional Data Blocks' defined in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. 'Additional Data Blocks' defined in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data].
The token is "cap" and the reference is this document. The token is "cap" and the reference is this document.
9.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code 11.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code
In the SIP Response Codes registry, the following is added In the SIP Response Codes registry, the following is added
Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e., this document) Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e., this document)
Response code: 425 (recommended number to assign) Response code: 425 (recommended number to assign)
Default reason phrase: Bad Alert Message Default reason phrase: Bad Alert Message
Registry: Registry:
Response Code Reference Response Code Reference
------------------------------------------ --------- ------------------------------------------ ---------
Request Failure 4xx Request Failure 4xx
425 Bad Alert Message [this doc] 425 Bad Alert Message [this doc]
This SIP Response code is defined in Section 5. This SIP Response code is defined in Section 5.
9.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field 11.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field
The SIP AlertMsg-error header field is created by this document, with The SIP AlertMsg-error header field is created by this document, with
its definition and rules in Section 5, to be added to the IANA sip- its definition and rules in Section 5, to be added to the IANA sip-
parameters registry with two actions: parameters registry with two actions:
1. Update the Header Fields registry with 1. Update the Header Fields registry with
Registry: Registry:
Header Name compact Reference Header Name compact Reference
----------------- ------- --------- ----------------- ------- ---------
AlertMsg-Error [this doc] AlertMsg-Error [this doc]
2. In the portion titled "Header Field Parameters and Parameter 2. In the portion titled "Header Field Parameters and Parameter
Values", add Values", add
Predefined Predefined
Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference
----------------- ------------------- ---------- --------- ----------------- ------------------- ---------- ---------
AlertMsg-Error code yes [this doc] AlertMsg-Error code yes [this doc]
9.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes 11.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes
This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error
Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reason for the error discovered Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reason for the error discovered
by recipients, categorized by action to be taken by error recipient. by recipients, categorized by action to be taken by error recipient.
The initial values for this registry are shown below. The initial values for this registry are shown below.
Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes
Reference: [this doc] Reference: [this doc]
skipping to change at page 18, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 4
This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error
Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reason for the error discovered Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reason for the error discovered
by recipients, categorized by action to be taken by error recipient. by recipients, categorized by action to be taken by error recipient.
The initial values for this registry are shown below. The initial values for this registry are shown below.
Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes
Reference: [this doc] Reference: [this doc]
Registration Procedures: Specification Required Registration Procedures: Specification Required
Code Default Reason Phrase Reference Code Default Reason Phrase Reference
---- --------------------------------------------------- --------- ---- --------------------------------------------------- ---------
100 "Cannot Process the Alert Payload" [this doc] 100 "Cannot Process the Alert Payload" [this doc]
101 "Alert Payload was not present or could not be found" [this doc] 101 "Alert Payload was not present or could not be found" [this doc]
102 "Not enough information to determine 102 "Not enough information to determine
the purpose of the alert" [this doc] the purpose of the alert" [this doc]
103 "Alert Payload was corrupted" [this doc] 103 "Alert Payload was corrupted" [this doc]
Details of these error codes are in Section 5. Details of these error codes are in Section 5.
10. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the participants of the Early Warning The authors would like to thank the participants of the Early Warning
adhoc meeting at IETF#69 for their feedback. Additionally, we would adhoc meeting at IETF#69 for their feedback. Additionally, we would
like to thank the members of the NENA Long Term Direction Working like to thank the members of the NENA Long Term Direction Working
Group for their feedback. Group for their feedback.
Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Thomson, James Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Thomson, James
Winterbottom, Shida Schubert, Bernard Aboba, and Marc Linsner for Winterbottom, Shida Schubert, Bernard Aboba, and Marc Linsner for
their review comments. their review comments.
11. References 13. References
11.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997. Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[cap] Jones, E. and A. Botterell, "Common Alerting Protocol v. [cap] Jones, E. and A. Botterell, "Common Alerting Protocol v.
1.1 ", October 2005. 1.1", October 2005.
[RFC2392] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource [RFC2392] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998. Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., [RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
skipping to change at page 20, line 25 skipping to change at page 21, line 28
[RFC6665] Roach, A., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665, [RFC6665] Roach, A., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
July 2012. July 2012.
[RFC6881] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for [RFC6881] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for
Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling", Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling",
BCP 181, RFC 6881, March 2013. BCP 181, RFC 6881, March 2013.
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]
Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., Randy, R., and J. Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., Randy, R., and J.
Winterbottom, "Additional Data related to an Emergency Winterbottom, "Additional Data related to an Emergency
Call", draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-10 (work in Call", draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-20 (work in
progress), July 2013. progress), February 2014.
[I-D.rosen-ecrit-addldata-subnot] [I-D.rosen-ecrit-addldata-subnot]
Rosen, B., "Updating Additional Data related to an Rosen, B., "Updating Additional Data related to an
Emergency Call using Subscribe/ Notify", draft-rosen- Emergency Call using Subscribe/ Notify", draft-rosen-
ecrit-addldata-subnot-00 (work in progress), July 2013. ecrit-addldata-subnot-01 (work in progress), November
2013.
11.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location]
Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba,
"Trustworthy Location", draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy- "Trustworthy Location", draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-
location-06 (work in progress), July 2013. location-08 (work in progress), January 2014.
[RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for [RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006. Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.
[RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private [RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private
Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
November 2002. November 2002.
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 90 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/