| < draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-00.txt | draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ecrit B. Rosen | ecrit B. Rosen | |||
| Internet-Draft NeuStar | Internet-Draft NeuStar | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne | Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne | |||
| Expires: April 18, 2007 Columbia U. | Expires: September 2, 2007 Columbia U. | |||
| J. Polk | J. Polk | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| A. Newton | A. Newton | |||
| SunRocket | SunRocket | |||
| October 15, 2006 | March 01, 2007 | |||
| Framework for Emergency Calling in Internet Multimedia | Framework for Emergency Calling in Internet Multimedia | |||
| draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-00 | draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-01 | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | |||
| applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | |||
| have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | |||
| aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | |||
| 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 | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶ | |||
| 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." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2007. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2007. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). | Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Summoning emergency help by the public is a core feature of telephone | Summoning emergency help by the public is a core feature of telephone | |||
| networks. This document describes a framework of how various IETF | networks. This document describes a framework of how various IETF | |||
| protocols and mechanisms are combined to place emergency calls. This | protocols and mechanisms are combined to place emergency calls. This | |||
| includes how these calls are routed to the correct Public Safety | includes how these calls are routed to the correct Public Safety | |||
| Answering Point (PSAP) based on the physical location of the caller, | Answering Point (PSAP) based on the physical location of the caller, | |||
| while providing the call taker the necessary information to dispatch | while providing the call taker the necessary information to dispatch | |||
| a first responder to that location. This document explains how | a first responder to that location. This document explains how | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 21 ¶ | |||
| 5. Location and Its Role in an Emergency Call . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 5. Location and Its Role in an Emergency Call . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 5.2. Types of Location Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 5.2. Types of Location Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 5.3. Location Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.3. Location Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 5.3.1. User-Entered Location Information . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5.3.1. User-Entered Location Information . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 5.3.2. Access Network "Wire Database" Location Information . 14 | 5.3.2. Access Network "Wire Database" Location Information . 14 | |||
| 5.3.3. End-System Measured Location Information . . . . . . . 15 | 5.3.3. End-System Measured Location Information . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 5.3.4. Third-party Measured Location Information . . . . . . 15 | 5.3.4. Third-party Measured Location Information . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 5.4. Location and References to Location . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.4. Location and References to Location . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 5.5. End System Location Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.5. End System Location Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 5.6. Conveyance of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.6. Conveyance of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 5.7. Location Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 5.7. Location Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 5.8. Location Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 5.8. Location Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 5.9. Default Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 5.9. Default Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 6. Routing the Call to the PSAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 6. Routing the Call to the PSAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 7. Signaling of Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 7. Signaling of Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 8. Caller Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 8. Caller Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 9. Including a Valid Call-Back Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 9. Including a Valid Call-Back Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 10. Mid-Call Services and Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 10. Mid-Call Services and Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 11. Call Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 11. Call Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 12. Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 12. Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 13. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 13. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 14. Example Call Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 14. Example Call Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 15. Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 15. Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 15.1. tel URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 15.1. tel URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 16.1. Caller Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 16.1. Caller Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 16.2. Location Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 16.2. Location Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 16.3. PSAP Impersonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 16.3. PSAP Impersonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 16.4. Preventing Call Misdirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 16.4. Preventing Call Misdirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 16.5. Call Signaling Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 16.5. Call Signaling Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 16.6. Media Integrity and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 16.6. Media Integrity and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 17. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 17. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 31 | Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 1. Terminology | 1. Terminology | |||
| As a framework document, we do not define any new protocols or | As a framework document, we do not define any new protocols or | |||
| articulate new behaviors. Thus we do not use RFC2119 [RFC2119] | articulate new behaviors. Thus we do not use RFC2119 [RFC2119] | |||
| notation. In this document, we reuse terms, and their definition, | notation. In this document, we reuse terms, and their definition, | |||
| from [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements]. In addition, the following terms | from [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements]. In addition, the following terms | |||
| are used: | are used: | |||
| (Emergency) call taker: see [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements] | (Emergency) call taker: see [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements] | |||
| ESRP (emergency service routing proxy): see | ESRP (emergency service routing proxy): see | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 12 ¶ | |||
| We distinguish an individual request for help, usually accomplished | We distinguish an individual request for help, usually accomplished | |||
| by dialing a short digit sequence like 9-1-1 or 1-1-2 from a call | by dialing a short digit sequence like 9-1-1 or 1-1-2 from a call | |||
| placed by specially designated persons who have authority to claim | placed by specially designated persons who have authority to claim | |||
| priority on available Internet communications facilities. This | priority on available Internet communications facilities. This | |||
| document only discusses the former - a request for help by an | document only discusses the former - a request for help by an | |||
| ordinary user answered at an emergency call center (i.e. a PSAP). | ordinary user answered at an emergency call center (i.e. a PSAP). | |||
| Existing emergency call systems are organized locally/nationally; | Existing emergency call systems are organized locally/nationally; | |||
| there are currently no international standards. However, the | there are currently no international standards. However, the | |||
| Internet does not respect national boundaries, and thus international | Internet does not respect national boundaries, and thus international | |||
| standards for equipment and software required. To further complicate | standards for equipment and software are required. To further | |||
| matters, VoIP endpoints can be connected through tunneling mechanisms | complicate matters, VoIP endpoints can be connected through tunneling | |||
| such as virtual private networks (VPNs). This significantly | mechanisms such as virtual private networks (VPNs). This | |||
| complicates emergency calling, because the location of the caller and | significantly complicates emergency calling, because the location of | |||
| the first element that routes emergency calls can be on different | the caller and the first element that routes emergency calls can be | |||
| continents, with different conventions and processes for handling of | on different continents, with different conventions and processes for | |||
| emergency calls. | handling of emergency calls. | |||
| The IETF has historically refused to create national variants of its | The IETF has historically refused to create national variants of its | |||
| standards. Thus, this document attempts to take into account best | standards. Thus, this document attempts to take into account best | |||
| practices that have evolved for circuit switched PSAPs, but makes no | practices that have evolved for circuit switched PSAPs, but makes no | |||
| assumptions on particular operating practices currently in use, | assumptions on particular operating practices currently in use, | |||
| numbering schemes or organizational structures. | numbering schemes or organizational structures. | |||
| This document discusses the use of the Session Initiation Protocol | This document discusses the use of the Session Initiation Protocol | |||
| (SIP) by PSAPs and calling parties. While other inter-domain call | (SIP) [RFC3261] by PSAPs and calling parties. While other inter- | |||
| signaling protocols may be used for emergency calling, SIP is | domain call signaling protocols may be used for emergency calling, | |||
| ubiquitous and possesses, through its related specifications, more of | SIP is ubiquitous and possesses, through its related specifications, | |||
| the needed features for the proper support of this use case. Only | more of the needed features for the proper support of this use case. | |||
| protocols such as H.323, XMPP/Jingle, ISUP and SIP are suitable for | Only protocols such as H.323, XMPP/Jingle, ISUP and SIP are suitable | |||
| inter-domain communications, ruling out master-slave protocols such | for inter-domain communications, ruling out MG/MGC protocols such as | |||
| as MGCP or H.248/Megaco. The latter protocols can naturally be used | MGCP or H.248/Megaco. The latter protocols can naturally be used by | |||
| by the enterprise or carrier placing the call, but any such call | the enterprise or carrier placing the call, but any such call would | |||
| would reach the PSAP through a media gateway controller, similar to | reach the PSAP through a media gateway controller, similar to how | |||
| how interdomain VoIP calls would be placed. Other signaling | interdomain VoIP calls would be placed. Other signaling protocols | |||
| protocols may also use protocol translation to communicate with a | may also use protocol translation to communicate with a SIP-enabled | |||
| SIP-enabled PSAP. | PSAP. | |||
| Existing emergency services rely exclusively on voice and | Existing emergency services rely exclusively on voice and | |||
| conventional text telephony (known as TTY in the United States) media | conventional text telephony (known as TTY in the United States) media | |||
| streams. However, more choices of media offer additional ways to | streams. However, more choices of media offer additional ways to | |||
| communicate and evaluate the situation as well as to assist callers | communicate and evaluate the situation as well as to assist callers | |||
| and call takers to handle emergency calls. For example, instant | and call takers to handle emergency calls. For example, instant | |||
| messaging and video could improve the ability to communicate and | messaging and video could improve the ability to communicate and | |||
| evaluate the situation and to provide appropriate instruction prior | evaluate the situation and to provide appropriate instruction prior | |||
| to arrival of emergency crews. Thus, the architecture described here | to arrival of emergency crews. Thus, the architecture described here | |||
| supports the creation of sessions of any media type, negotiated | supports the creation of sessions of any media type, negotiated | |||
| between the caller and PSAP using existing SIP protocol mechanisms | between the caller and PSAP using existing SIP protocol mechanisms | |||
| [RFC3264]. To ensure that at least one common means of | [RFC3264]. To ensure that at least one common means of | |||
| communications, this document recommends certain minimal capabilities | communications, this document recommends certain minimal capabilities | |||
| in [phonebcp] that call taker user agents and PSAP-operated proxies | in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] that call taker user agents and PSAP- | |||
| should possess. | operated proxies should possess. | |||
| This document does not prescribe the detailed network architecture | This document does not prescribe the detailed network architecture | |||
| for a PSAP or collection of PSAPs. For example, it does not describe | for a PSAP or collection of PSAPs. For example, it does not describe | |||
| where PSAPs may place firewalls or how many SIP proxies they should | where PSAPs may place firewalls or how many SIP proxies they should | |||
| use. | use. | |||
| This document does not introduce any new SIP header fields, request | This document does not introduce any new SIP header fields, request | |||
| methods, status codes, message bodies, or event packages. User | methods, status codes, message bodies, or event packages. User | |||
| agents unaware of the recommendations in this draft can place | agents unaware of the recommendations in this draft can place | |||
| emergency calls, but may not be able to provide the same elevated | emergency calls, but may not be able to provide the same elevated | |||
| user interface functionality. The document suggests behavior for | user interface functionality. The document suggests behavior for | |||
| proxy servers, in particular outbound proxy servers. | proxy servers, in particular outbound proxy servers. | |||
| 3. Overview of How Emergency Calls are Placed | 3. Overview of How Emergency Calls are Placed | |||
| We distinguish (Section 4) an emergency call from any other call by a | We distinguish (Section 4) an emergency call from any other call by a | |||
| unique Service URN[I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn], which is placed in | unique Service URN[I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn], which is placed in | |||
| the initial call set-up signaling when a home or visited dialstring | the initial call set-up signaling when a home or visited emergancy | |||
| is detected. We route emergency calls based on the location ( | dialstring is detected. We route emergency calls based on the | |||
| (Section 5)) of the caller. To get this location we either include a | location ( (Section 5)) of the caller. To get this location we | |||
| form of measuring (e.g. GPS) ( (Section 5.3.3)) device location in | either include a form of measuring (e.g. GPS) ( (Section 5.3.3)) | |||
| the endpoint, or the endpoint is configured ( (Section 5.5)) with its | device location in the endpoint, or the endpoint is configured ( | |||
| location from the access network's Location Information Server (LIS) | (Section 5.5)) with its location from the access network's Location | |||
| The location is conveyed ( (Section 5.6)) in the SIP signaling with | Information Server (LIS) The location is conveyed ( (Section 5.6)) in | |||
| the call. We route( (Section 6)) the call based on location using | the SIP signaling with the call. We route( (Section 6)) the call | |||
| the LoST protocol ( [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]) which maps a location to a | based on location using the LoST protocol ( [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]) | |||
| set of PSAP URIs. Each URI resolves to a PSAP or an Emergency | which maps a location to a set of PSAP URIs. Each URI resolves to a | |||
| Services Routing Proxy which serves a group of PSAPs. The call | PSAP or an Emergency Services Routing Proxy which serves a group of | |||
| arrives at the PSAP with the location included in the INVITE request. | PSAPs. The call arrives at the PSAP with the location included in | |||
| the INVITE request. | ||||
| Configuration Servers | Configuration Servers | |||
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . +--------+ +----------+ . | . +--------+ +----------+ . | |||
| . +--------+ | +----------+ | . | . +--------+ | +----------+ | . | |||
| . | LIS | | | SIP | | . | . | LIS | | | SIP | | . | |||
| . | |-+ | Registrar|-+ . | . | |-+ | Registrar|-+ . | |||
| . +--------+ +----------+ . | . +--------+ +----------+ . | |||
| . ^ ^ . | . ^ ^ . | |||
| . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| |[1] |[2] | |[1][4] |[2] | |||
| | | +--------+ | | | +--------+ | |||
| |+--------------+ +--------+ | | |+--------------+ +--------+ | | |||
| || | LoST | | | || | LoST | | | |||
| ||+-------------------->| Servers|-+ | ||+-------------------->| Servers|-+ | |||
| ||| [3] +--------+ +-------+ | ||| [3][5] +--------+ +-------+ | |||
| ||| ^ | | PSAP2 | | ||| | PSAP2 | | |||
| ||| [6] | | [7] +-------+ | ||| +-------+ | |||
| ||| | v | ||| | |||
| ||| [4] +-------+ [5] +------+ [8] +-------+ [9] | ||| [6] +-------+ [7] +------+ [8] +-------+ [9] | |||
| Alice ------>| Proxy |---->| ESRP |---->| PSAP1 |-----> Call-Taker | Alice ------>| Proxy |---->| ESRP |---->| PSAP1 |-----> Call-Taker | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | |||
| +-------+ | +-------+ | |||
| | PSAP3 | | | PSAP3 | | |||
| +-------+ | +-------+ | |||
| Figure 1: Generic ECRIT Component Topology | Figure 1: Generic ECRIT Component Topology | |||
| Figure 2 shows a generic emergency call establishment. This includes | Figure 2 shows a generic emergency call establishment. This includes | |||
| the following: | the following: | |||
| o Alice - who will make the emergency call. | o Alice - who will make the emergency call. | |||
| o Configuration Servers - Servers providing Alice's UA its IP | o Configuration Servers - Servers providing Alice's UA its IP | |||
| address and other configuration information, perhaps including | address and other configuration information, perhaps including | |||
| Location by-value or by-reference. In this flow, we use DHCP as | Location by-value or by-reference. In this flow, we use DHCP as | |||
| an example location acquisition protocol. To make this flow | an example location acquisition protocol. Configuration servers | |||
| easier to read, these configuration servers include a SIP | also may include a SIP Registrar server, for Alice's UA to | |||
| Registrar server, for Alice's UA to register with the local | register Alice's UA to register with. Most SIP UAs will register | |||
| domain, which will most likely be the case for an emergency call. | with a call server, so it will be a common scenario for UAs that | |||
| All these configuration messages are labeled M1 through M4, but | make emergency calls to be registered with such a server in the | |||
| could easily require more messages than 4 to complete. | originating calling network. All these configuration messages are | |||
| o ESRP - The Emergency Services Routing Proxy Server that recognizes | labeled M1 through M3, but could easily require more messages than | |||
| any INVITE as an emergency session initiation, and does special | 4 to complete. | |||
| things (knows to look for Location in the INVITE, dereferences a | o ESRP - The Emergency Services Routing Proxy Server that is the | |||
| location-by-reference, initiated a LoST Query to learn the PSAP | incoming call proxy in the emergency services domain. The ESRP | |||
| SIP(S)-URI for a UA at this location, etc). ESRPs are optional | makes further routing decisions based on PSAP state and location | |||
| elements and in some jurisdictions an emergency call may not pass | of the caller to choose the actual PSAP which handles the call. | |||
| through one | In some jurisdictions, that may involve another LoST dip | |||
| o Mapping Server - Processes the LoST request for Location to PSAP- | o LoST Server - Processes the LoST request for Location to PSAP-URI | |||
| URI Mapping function, either for an initial request from a UA, or | Mapping function, either for an initial request from a UA, or an | |||
| an in-call establishment request by an ESRP. | in-call routing by the Proxy server in the originating network, or | |||
| possibly by an ESRP. | ||||
| o PSAP - Call center where emergency calls are destined for in times | o PSAP - Call center where emergency calls are destined for in times | |||
| of emergencies. | of emergencies. | |||
| Generally, Alice's UA either has location configured within her UA | Generally, Alice's UA either has location configured manually, has an | |||
| when her UA boots, or she configures it with location once it boots | integral location measurement mechanism, or it runs a location | |||
| up, or her UA receives measured location from the network. Her UA | configuration protocol to obtain location from the access (broadband) | |||
| may have asked for location during boot-time, for example in a | network. For most devices, an LCP will be used, for example a | |||
| DHCPREQUEST message or another location acquisition mechanism. | DHCPREQUEST message or another location acquisition mechanism. | |||
| Alice's UA then will most likely register with a SIP domain. This | Alice's UA then will most likely register with a SIP domain. This | |||
| allows her to be contacted by other SIP entities. Next, her UA will | allows her to be contacted by other SIP entities. Next, her UA will | |||
| perform an initial LoST Location-to-PSAP SIP(S)-URI query to learn an | perform an initial LoST Location-to-PSAP SIP(S)-URI query to learn a | |||
| early URI, for use if the Lost Query fails during an emergency call. | URI, for use if the Lost Query fails during an emergency call. The | |||
| This learned early PSAP-URI will be placed in a Route header within | LoST query may contain the dialstring for emergency calls appropriate | |||
| an emergency INVITE message, message [M7] in Figure 1. | for the location provided. | |||
| Some time has hopefully passed since Alice's UA booted. In this | Some time has hopefully passed since Alice's UA booted. In this | |||
| example, she dials or initiated an emergency call. This may have | example, she dials or initiates an emergency call. This may have | |||
| been through her keypad with her locally known emergency dialstring. | been through her keypad with her locally known emergency dialstring. | |||
| It is important that this dialstring be recognized by her UA wherever | It is important that this dialstring be recognized by her UA wherever | |||
| Alice is because she may be in enough distress she forgets what the | Alice is because she may be in enough distress she forgets what the | |||
| traveled-to emergency dialstring is; as there are more than 60 around | traveled-to emergency dialstring is; as there are more than 60 around | |||
| the world. | the world. | |||
| This emergency INVITE arrives at a SIP Proxy that understands the | The UA recognizes the dialstring, which means this is an emergency | |||
| concept of emergency calling, meaning it is an ESRP. In recognizing | call. The UA attempts to refresh its location, and with that | |||
| the INVITE as an emergency call set-up, the ESRP looks for Location | location, the LoST mapping, to get the most accurate information to | |||
| within the message. [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] defines a SIP | use for routing the call. If the location request or the LoST | |||
| Location header that either contain the location-by-reference URI, or | request fails (or takes too long) the UA uses it's cached values. | |||
| a [RFC2396] "cid:" indicating where in the message body the location- | ||||
| by-value is. The ESRP can dereference the UA provided Location URI, | ||||
| and insert the location information from the PIDF-LO into the LoST | ||||
| query. This will prevent any problems of the LoST Mapping server | ||||
| experiencing dereferencing problems with this request. This is | ||||
| message [M7] and [M8] in Figure 1. The LoST response provides the | ||||
| ESRP with the freshest PSAP-URI for that location (of Alice's UA) for | ||||
| the most up to date routing choice. This is message [M9]. | ||||
| The INVITE message receives a new Request-URI in the ESRP, which was | The UA creates an INVITE which includes the location. | |||
| returned in the LoST response. This message, [M10] is transmitted | [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] defines a SIP Location header that | |||
| towards the most current PSAP for Alice's location. Message [M11], | either contain the location-by-reference URI, or a [RFC2396] "cid:" | |||
| the 200 OK to the INVITE may traverse one or more proxies if they | indicating where in the message body the location-by-value is. | |||
| insert a Via header, or if one or more are B2BUAs. Figure 1 does not | ||||
| show this. The ACK completes the call set-up and the emergency call | The INVITE message routes to the ESRP, which is the first inbound | |||
| proxy for the emergency services domain. This message, is then | ||||
| routed by the ESRP towards the most current PSAP for Alice's | ||||
| location, which uses PSAP state, location and other state information | ||||
| to choose this PSAP. | ||||
| A proxy in the PSAP choses an available call taker and extends the | ||||
| call to its UA. | ||||
| The 200 OK to the INVITE traverses the path in reverse, from call | ||||
| taker UA to PSAP proxy to ESRP to originating network proxy to | ||||
| Alice's UA. The ACK completes the call set-up and the emergency call | ||||
| is established, allowing the PSAP call-taker to talk to Alice about | is established, allowing the PSAP call-taker to talk to Alice about | |||
| her emergency. | her emergency. | |||
| Configuration LoST | Configuration LoST | |||
| Alice Servers ESRP Server PSAP | Alice Servers ESRP Server PSAP | |||
| [M1] DHCP Request(s) (may ask for Location) | [M1] DHCP Request(s) (may ask for Location) | |||
| ----------> | ----------> | |||
| [M2] DHCP Reply(s) (replies with location if asked) | DHCP Reply(s) (replies with location if asked) | |||
| <--------- | <--------- | |||
| [M3] SIP REGISTER (perhaps with PIDF-LO) | [M2] SIP REGISTER | |||
| ----------> | ----------> | |||
| [M4] SIP 200 OK (REGISTER) | SIP 200 OK (REGISTER) | |||
| <--------- | <--------- | |||
| [M5] Initial LoST Protocol Query (contains Location) | [M3] Initial LoST Protocol Query (contains Location) | |||
| ----------------------------------------> | ----------------------------------------> | |||
| [M6] Initial LoST Protocol Response (contains PSAP-URI) | Initial LoST Protocol Response (contains PSAP-URI) | |||
| <---------------------------------------- | <---------------------------------------- | |||
| ***Some time later, Alice dials/initiates emergency call*** | ***Some time later, Alice dials/initiates emergency call*** | |||
| [M7] INVITE (sos, Location & early Mapping URI) | [M4] DHCP Request(s) (update Location) | |||
| ----------> | ||||
| DHCP Reply(s) (replies with location) | ||||
| <--------- | ||||
| [M5] Update LoST Protocol Query (contains Location) | ||||
| ----------------------------------------> | ||||
| LoST Protocol Response (contains PSAP-URI) | ||||
| <---------------------------------------- | ||||
| [M6/7] INVITE (sos URN, Location & early PSAP URI) | ||||
| ---------------------> | ---------------------> | |||
| [M8] LoST Protocol Query (with Location) | [M8] INVITE (sos, Location & PSAP-URI) | |||
| -----------------> | ||||
| [M9] LoST Protocol Response (with PSAP-URI) | ||||
| <----------------- | ||||
| [M10] INVITE (sos, Location & PSAP-URI) | ||||
| --------------------------------------> | --------------------------------------> | |||
| [M11] 200 OK | 200 OK | |||
| <-------------------------------------------------------------- | <-------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| [M12] ACK | ACK | |||
| --------------------------------------------------------------> | --------------------------------------------------------------> | |||
| Emergency Session Established | Emergency Session Established | |||
| <=============================================================> | <=============================================================> | |||
| Figure 2: General Flow of an Emergency Call Establishment | Figure 2: General Flow of an Emergency Call Establishment | |||
| This is a very rough example of the operation of an emergency call | This is a very rough example of the operation of an emergency call | |||
| establishment. There are no layer 3 routers in the message flow, and | establishment. There are no layer 3 routers in the message flow, and | |||
| whatever security messages exist in the call are not shown either. | whatever security messages exist in the call are not shown either. | |||
| Each of those aspects will be addressed individually, to keep each | Each of those aspects will be addressed individually, to keep each | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 30 ¶ | |||
| another for fire. It is deemed impractical to change the dialed | another for fire. It is deemed impractical to change the dialed | |||
| digits to summon help. For end systems, it is desirable to have a | digits to summon help. For end systems, it is desirable to have a | |||
| universal identifier, independent of location, to allow the automated | universal identifier, independent of location, to allow the automated | |||
| inclusion of location information and to allow the device and other | inclusion of location information and to allow the device and other | |||
| entities in the call path to perform appropriate processing within | entities in the call path to perform appropriate processing within | |||
| the signaling protocol in an emergency call set-up. | the signaling protocol in an emergency call set-up. | |||
| As part of the overall emergency calling architecture, we define | As part of the overall emergency calling architecture, we define | |||
| common emergency call URIs which are defined in | common emergency call URIs which are defined in | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn]. Users are not expected to "dial" an | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn]. Users are not expected to "dial" an | |||
| emergency URN. Rather, the current dial sequence should be | emergency URN. Rather, the current dialstring should be translated | |||
| translated to the appropriate service URN. Such translation could | to the appropriate service URN. Such translation could ideally be | |||
| ideally be performed in the endpoint, but could be performed in a | performed in the endpoint, but could be performed in a signaling | |||
| signaling intermediary (proxy server). For devices that are mobile | intermediary (proxy server). For devices that are mobile or nomadic, | |||
| or nomadic, an issue arises of whether the home or visited dialing | an issue arises of whether the home or visited dialing strings should | |||
| strings should be used. Many users would prefer that their home | be used. Many users would prefer that their home dialing sequences | |||
| dialing sequences work no matter where they are. Local laws and | work no matter where they are. Local laws and preferences of the | |||
| preferences of the emergency response professionals are that the | emergency response professionals are such that the visited dialing | |||
| visited dialing sequences be used. The best answer seems to be for | sequences must always work. Having the home dialstring work is | |||
| both to work. | optional. The best answer seems to be for both to work. | |||
| The mechanism for obtaining the dialing sequences for a given | The mechanism for obtaining the dialing sequences for a given | |||
| location is provided by LoST [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] and the procedures | location is provided by LoST [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]. Where the | |||
| for the translation are detailed in [phonebcp]. Where the endpoint | endpoint does not support the translation of dialstrings to telephone | |||
| does not support the translation of dialstrings to telephone numbers, | numbers, the dialing sequence would be represented as a dialstring | |||
| the dialing sequence would be represented as a dialstring | ||||
| [I-D.rosen-iptel-dialstring] and the outgoing proxy would recognize | [I-D.rosen-iptel-dialstring] and the outgoing proxy would recognize | |||
| the dialstring and translate to the service URN. It should be noted | the dialstring and translate to the service URN. It should be noted | |||
| that the endpoint would not normally supply location unless it | that the endpoint would not normally supply location unless it | |||
| understood the call to be an emergency call. To determine the local | understood the call to be an emergency call. To determine the local | |||
| dialstring, the proxy needs the location of the endpoint. This may | dialstring, the proxy needs the location of the endpoint. This may | |||
| be difficult in situations where the user can roam or be nomadic. | be difficult in situations where the user can roam or be nomadic. | |||
| Endpoint recognition of emergency dialstrings is therefore preferred. | Endpoint recognition of emergency dialstrings is therefore preferred. | |||
| 5. Location and Its Role in an Emergency Call | 5. Location and Its Role in an Emergency Call | |||
| 5.1. Introduction | 5.1. Introduction | |||
| Caller location plays a central role in routing emergency calls. For | Caller location plays a central role in routing emergency calls. For | |||
| practical reasons, each PSAP generally handles only calls for a | practical reasons, each PSAP generally handles only calls for a | |||
| certain geographic area (overload arrangements between PSAPs to | certain geographic area (overload arrangements between PSAPs to | |||
| handle each others calls notwithstanding). Other calls that reach it | handle each others calls notwithstanding). Other calls that reach it | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 34 ¶ | |||
| Location information can be entered by the user or installer of a | Location information can be entered by the user or installer of a | |||
| device ("manual configuration"), can be measured by the end system, | device ("manual configuration"), can be measured by the end system, | |||
| can be delivered to the end system by some protocol or can be | can be delivered to the end system by some protocol or can be | |||
| measured by a third party and inserted into the call signaling. We | measured by a third party and inserted into the call signaling. We | |||
| discuss these in detail below. | discuss these in detail below. | |||
| In some cases, an entity may have multiple sources of location | In some cases, an entity may have multiple sources of location | |||
| information, possibly partially contradictory. This is particularly | information, possibly partially contradictory. This is particularly | |||
| likely if the location information is determined both by the end | likely if the location information is determined both by the end | |||
| system and a third party. Handling multiple locations is discussed | system and a third party. Handling multiple locations is discussed | |||
| in XRef??. Conflicting location information is particularly harmful | in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile]. Conflicting location | |||
| if it points to multiple distinct PSAPs. Guidelines for dealing with | information is particularly harmful if it points to multiple distinct | |||
| multiple locations is given in [phonebcp]. | PSAPs. Guidelines for dealing with multiple locations is also given | |||
| in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]. | ||||
| All location objects MUST be delivered to the PSAP. To facilitate | All location objects MUST be delivered to the PSAP. To facilitate | |||
| such policy decisions, location information should contain | such policy decisions, location information should contain | |||
| information about the source of data, such as GPS, manually entered | information about the source of data, such as GPS, manually entered | |||
| or based on access network topology. In addition, the generator of | or based on access network topology. In addition, the generator of | |||
| the location information should be included. The ability of the UA | the location information should be included. The ability of the UA | |||
| to understand how it learned its location, and include this | to understand how it learned its location, and include this | |||
| information element in the location object that is sent to the PSAP, | information element in the location object that is sent to the PSAP, | |||
| provides the call-taker with many pieces of information to make | provides the call-taker with many pieces of information to make | |||
| decisions upon, and ask the caller with. | decisions upon, and guidance for what to ask the caller and what to | |||
| tell the responders. | ||||
| The call should indicate which location information has been used for | The call should indicate which location information has been used for | |||
| routing, so that the same location information is used for all call | routing, so that the same location information is used for all call | |||
| routing decisions. Otherwise, two proxies might pick different | routing decisions. Otherwise, two proxies might pick different | |||
| location information from the call request, resulting in different | location information from the call request, resulting in different | |||
| routing decisions for different transactions. | routing decisions for different transactions. The location | |||
| conveyance mechanism [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] contains a parameter which | ||||
| can be used for this purpose | ||||
| End systems and network elements can derive location information from | End systems and network elements can derive location information from | |||
| a variety of sources. It is not the goal of this document to | a variety of sources. It is not the goal of this document to | |||
| exhaustively enumerate them, but we provide a few common examples in | exhaustively enumerate them, but we provide a few common examples in | |||
| the sections below. | the sections below. | |||
| 5.3.1. User-Entered Location Information | 5.3.1. User-Entered Location Information | |||
| Location information can be maintained by the end user or the | Location information can be maintained by the end user or the | |||
| installer of an endpoint in the endpoint itself, or in a database. | installer of an endpoint in the endpoint itself, or in a database. | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 4 ¶ | |||
| 3. AGPS-device initiated, network determined | 3. AGPS-device initiated, network determined | |||
| 4. AGPS-device initiated, network augmented | 4. AGPS-device initiated, network augmented | |||
| 5. AGPS-network initiated, network determined | 5. AGPS-network initiated, network determined | |||
| 6. AGPS-network initiated, network augmented | 6. AGPS-network initiated, network augmented | |||
| 5.3.4. Third-party Measured Location Information | 5.3.4. Third-party Measured Location Information | |||
| Wireless triangulation: Elements in the network infrastructure | Wireless triangulation: Elements in the network infrastructure | |||
| triangulate end systems based on signal strength, angle of arrival | triangulate end systems based on signal strength, angle of arrival | |||
| or time of arrival. Common mechanisms deployed include. | or time of arrival. Common mechanisms deployed include. | |||
| 1. Time Difference Of Arrival - TDOA | 1. Time Difference Of Arrival - TDOA | |||
| 2. Uplink Time Difference Of Arrival - U-TDOA | 2. Uplink Time Difference Of Arrival - U-TDOA | |||
| 3. Angle of Arrival - AOA | 3. Angle of Arrival - AOA | |||
| 4. RF-Fingerprinting | 4. RF-Fingerprinting | |||
| 5. Advanced Forward Link Trilateration - AFLT | 5. Advanced Forward Link Trilateration - AFLT | |||
| 6. Enhanced Forward Link Trilateration - EFLT | 6. Enhanced Forward Link Trilateration - EFLT | |||
| Sometimes triangulation and measured mechanisms are combined, for | Sometimes triangulation and measured mechanisms are combined, for | |||
| example A-GPS with AFLT | example A-GPS with AFLT | |||
| Location beacons: A short range wireless beacon, e.g., using | Location beacons: A short range wireless beacon, e.g., using | |||
| Bluetooth or infrared, announces its location to mobile devices in | Bluetooth or infrared, announces its location to mobile devices in | |||
| the vicinity. | the vicinity. | |||
| 5.4. Location and References to Location | 5.4. Location and References to Location | |||
| Location information may be expressed as the actual civic or geo | Location information may be expressed as the actual civic or geo | |||
| value but can transmitted as by-value (wholly contained within the | value but can be transmitted as by-value (wholly contained within the | |||
| signaling message) or by-reference (a URI pointing to the value | signaling message) or by-reference (a URI pointing to the value | |||
| residing on a remote node waiting to be dereferenced). There are | residing on a remote node waiting to be dereferenced). There are | |||
| pros and cons to each form: | pros and cons to each form: | |||
| location-by-value: | location-by-value: | |||
| pro- Value available to each device along the path immediately | pro- Value available to each device along the path immediately | |||
| for further processing. | for further processing. | |||
| con- Size, especially if constrained to a UDP transport. Value | con- Size, especially if constrained to a UDP transport. Value | |||
| fixed at the time the value is acquired from the access | fixed at the time the value is acquired from the access | |||
| network. Value can be changed by endpoint, which may be | network. Value can be changed by endpoint, which may be | |||
| considered untrustworthy for this critical usage. | considered untrustworthy for this critical usage. | |||
| location-by-reference | location-by-reference | |||
| pro- 'Small size. Value can fixed at time of dereference. Value | pro- Small size. Value can be fixed at time of dereference. | |||
| cannot be changed by endpoint | Value cannot be changed by endpoint | |||
| con- URI resolution requires location source be available and | con- URI resolution requires location source be available and | |||
| accessible by dereferencer. Dereferencing takes time. | accessible by dereferencer. Dereferencing takes time. | |||
| Dereferencing may fail. | Dereferencing may fail. | |||
| 5.5. End System Location Configuration | 5.5. End System Location Configuration | |||
| Unless a user agent has access to provisioned or locally measured | Unless a user agent has access to provisioned or locally measured | |||
| location information, it must obtain it from the access network. | location information, it must obtain it from the access network. | |||
| There are several Location Configuration Protocols that can be used | There are several Location Configuration Protocols that can be used | |||
| for this purpose. | for this purpose. | |||
| DHCP can deliver civic [I-D.ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil] or geospatial | DHCP can deliver civic [RFC4676] or geospatial [RFC3825] | |||
| [RFC3825] information. User agents would need to support both | information. User agents would need to support both formats. | |||
| formats. Note that a user agent can use DHCP, via the DHCP | Note that a user agent can use DHCP, via the DHCP REQUEST or | |||
| REQUEST or INFORM messages, even if it uses other means to acquire | INFORM messages, even if it uses other means to acquire its IP | |||
| its IP address. | address. | |||
| Insert reference to L7 acquisition protocol document> is another | Insert reference to L7 acquisition protocol document> is another | |||
| choice. | choice. | |||
| Link-Layer Discovery Protocol [LLDP]), with proposed extensions | Link-Layer Discovery Protocol [LLDP]), with proposed extensions | |||
| [LLDP-MED], may also be used to deliver location information. | [LLDP-MED], may also be used to deliver location information. | |||
| SUPL OASIS <insert reference> is yet another choice. | SUPL OASIS <insert reference> is yet another choice. | |||
| Other LCPs may be devised by other standards bodies. Each LCP has | Other LCPs may be devised by other standards bodies. Each LCP has | |||
| limitations in the kinds of networks that can reasonably support it. | limitations in the kinds of networks that can reasonably support it. | |||
| For this reason, it is not possible to choose a single mandatory to | For this reason, it is not possible to choose a single mandatory to | |||
| deploy LCP. For endpoints with common network connections (such as | deploy LCP. For endpoints with common network connections (such as | |||
| an Ethernet jack or a WiFi connection), unless every network | an Ethernet jack or a WiFi connection), unless every network | |||
| supported every protocol, or alternatively, every device supported | supported every protocol, or alternatively, every device supported | |||
| every protocol, serious incompatibilities would ensue. [phonebcp] | every protocol, serious incompatibilities would ensue. | |||
| contains a (short) list of protocols such devices must support. | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] contains a (short) list of protocols such | |||
| devices must support. | ||||
| Where an access network can control the specification of EVERY | Where an access network can control the specification of EVERY | |||
| endpoint that could make an emergency call that is directly connected | endpoint that could make an emergency call that is directly connected | |||
| to the network, or indirectly connected (for example, a device on a | to the network, or indirectly connected (for example, a device on a | |||
| LAN behind a network attachment unit), it may specify any protocol it | LAN behind a network attachment unit), it may specify any protocol it | |||
| wishes for each endpoint. This is a very unusual case; nearly every | wishes for each endpoint. This is a very unusual case; nearly every | |||
| access network can be used to support an Ethernet based LAN behind | access network can be used to support an Ethernet based LAN behind it | |||
| it. For example, existing mobile networks are being used to support | ||||
| routers and LANs behind a wireless data network WAN connection. It | For example, existing mobile networks are being used to support | |||
| is possible that the access network supports a protocol not on the | routers and LANs behind a wireless data network WAN connection, with | |||
| phonebcp list, but another element which the access network provider | Ethernet connected phones connected to that. It is possible that the | |||
| controls the specification of can acquire location using that | access network supports a protocol not on the phonebcp list, and | |||
| protocol and then that element can support one of the phonebcp's list | every handset supported in that network could use that protocol for | |||
| of protocols. For example, if the access network provider supplies a | emergency calls. However, unless another element which the access | |||
| router which includes a DHCP server, it can acquire location using an | network provider controls the specification of can acquire location | |||
| access network specific protocol, and use the location information to | using that protocol and then that element can support one of the | |||
| supply it to its clients via DHCP. | phonebcp's list of protocols, the Ethernt connected phone won't be | |||
| able to acquire location. In this case, if the access network | ||||
| provider supplies a router which includes a DHCP server, it can | ||||
| acquire location using the access network specific protocol, and then | ||||
| use the location information to supply it to its clients (e.g. the | ||||
| Ethernet connected phone) via DHCP. | ||||
| For most networks, it will not be practical to control the | For most networks, it will not be practical to control the | |||
| specification of every device, or arrange interworking with network | specification of every device, or arrange interworking with network | |||
| specific LCPs. For this reason, most devices will need to support | specific LCPs. For this reason, most devices will need to support | |||
| ALL of the LCPs in [phonebcp], and access networks will have to | ALL of the LCPs in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost], and access networks will | |||
| support at least one of these LCPs. | have to support at least one of these LCPs. | |||
| Location for non-mobile devices is normally expected to be acquired | Location for non-mobile devices is normally expected to be acquired | |||
| at network attachment time and retained by the device. It should be | at network attachment time and retained by the device. It should be | |||
| refreshed when the cached value becomes invalid (for example, if DHCP | refreshed when the cached value becomes invalid (for example, if DHCP | |||
| is the acquisition protocol, refresh of location may occur when the | is the acquisition protocol, refresh of location may occur when the | |||
| IP address lease is renewed). At the time of an emergency call, the | IP address lease is renewed). At the time of an emergency call, the | |||
| location should be refreshed, with the retained location used if the | location should be refreshed, with the retained location used if the | |||
| location acquisition does not immediately return a value. Mobile | location acquisition does not immediately return a value. Mobile | |||
| devices may determine location at network attachment time and | devices may determine location at network attachment time and | |||
| periodically thereafter as a backup in case location determination at | periodically thereafter as a backup in case location determination at | |||
| the time of call does not work. Mobile device location may be | the time of call does not work. Mobile device location may be | |||
| refreshed when a TTL expires, the device moves beyond some | refreshed when a TTL expires, the device moves beyond some boundaries | |||
| boundaries, etc. Normally, mobile devices will acquire its location | (as provided by [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]), etc. Normally, mobile | |||
| at call time for use in an emergency call, but see Section 5.7 | devices will acquire its location at call time for use in an | |||
| emergency call routing, but see Section 5.7 | ||||
| 5.6. Conveyance of Location | 5.6. Conveyance of Location | |||
| When an emergency call is placed, the endpoint (normally) puts | When an emergency call is placed, the endpoint (normally) puts | |||
| location information in the signaling with the call. We refer to | location information in the signaling with the call. We refer to | |||
| that as "conveyance" to distinguish it from "acquisition". | that as "conveyance" to distinguish it from "configuration". | |||
| Acquisition gets location from access network to endpoint, conveyance | Configuration gets location from access network to endpoint, | |||
| sends location from endpoint to elements that route the call based on | conveyance sends location from endpoint to elements that route the | |||
| that location object and the PSAP. Using SIP, the location | call based on that location object and the PSAP. Using SIP, the | |||
| information is conveyed following the procedures in | location information is conveyed following the procedures in | |||
| [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]. The form of the location | [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]. The form of the location | |||
| information obtained by the acquisition protocol may not be the same | information obtained by the acquisition protocol may not be the same | |||
| as the conveyance protocol uses (PIDF-LO [RFC4119]). Conversion by | as the conveyance protocol uses (PIDF-LO [RFC4119]). Mapping by the | |||
| the endpoint may be required. Calling networks which support devices | endpoint may be required. Calling networks which support devices | |||
| which do not support location may have to add location to emergency | which do not support location may have to add location to emergency | |||
| calls. Some calling networks have relationships with the access | calls. Some calling networks have relationships with the access | |||
| network that may allow it to accurately determine location of the | network that may allow it to accurately determine location of the | |||
| endpoint, although NATs and other middleboxes often make it | endpoint, although NATs and other middleboxes usually make it | |||
| impossible to determine a reference identifier the access network | impossible to determine a reference identifier the access network | |||
| could use to determine the location. | could use to determine the location. | |||
| For emergency call purposes, conversion of location information from | For emergency call purposes, conversion of location information from | |||
| civic to geo or vice versa is not desirable. The location should be | civic to geo or vice versa prior to conveyance is not desirable. The | |||
| sent in the form it was determined. The PSAP may convert, if it | location should be sent in the form it was determined. The PSAP may | |||
| needs to, and if conversion resulted from an earlier conversion, | convert, if it needs to, and if conversion resulted from an earlier | |||
| unacceptable errors may be introduced. | conversion, unacceptable errors may be introduced. | |||
| 5.7. Location Updates | 5.7. Location Updates | |||
| Location information may not be available at call setup time for | Location information may not be available at call setup time for | |||
| mobile devices. For example, if a GPS-enabled cell phone is turned | mobile devices. For example, if a GPS-enabled cell phone is turned | |||
| on and then immediately places an emergency call, it can take | on and then immediately places an emergency call, it can take | |||
| significant additional time before the cell phone acquires a GPS fix | significant additional time before the cell phone acquires a GPS fix | |||
| and its location. Thus, while it is desirous to base emergency | and its location. Thus, while it is desirous to base emergency | |||
| routing on precise caller location information, it is not possible in | routing on precise caller location information, it is not possible in | |||
| all circumstances to do so. In some cases, the initial call setup | all circumstances to do so. In some cases, the initial call setup | |||
| skipping to change at page 19, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 29 ¶ | |||
| 5.8. Location Validation | 5.8. Location Validation | |||
| Location must be validated prior to a device placing an actual | Location must be validated prior to a device placing an actual | |||
| emergency call. Validation in this context means both that there is | emergency call. Validation in this context means both that there is | |||
| a mapping from the address to a PSAP and that the PSAP understands | a mapping from the address to a PSAP and that the PSAP understands | |||
| how to direct responders to the location. This is not as easy as it | how to direct responders to the location. This is not as easy as it | |||
| sounds. There are, for example, many cases of two names for the same | sounds. There are, for example, many cases of two names for the same | |||
| street, or two streets with the same name in a city. In some | street, or two streets with the same name in a city. In some | |||
| countries, the current system provides validation. For example, in | countries, the current system provides validation. For example, in | |||
| the United States, the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) records all | the United States, the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) records all | |||
| valid street addresses and is used to ensure that phone billing | valid street addresses and is used to ensure that the service | |||
| records correspond to valid emergency service street addresses. | addresses in phone billing records correspond to valid emergency | |||
| Validation is normally a concern for civic addresses, although there | service street addresses. Validation is normally a concern for civic | |||
| could be a concern that a given geo is within at least one PSAP | addresses, although there could be a concern that a given geo is | |||
| service boundary; that is, a "valid" geo is one for which there is a | within at least one PSAP service boundary; that is, a "valid" geo is | |||
| mapping. | one for which there is a mapping. | |||
| The LoST resolver[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] includes a validation | The LoST resolver[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] includes a validation | |||
| function. Validation should ideally be performed when a location is | function. Validation should ideally be performed when a location is | |||
| entered into a Location Information Server (which is normally a | entered into a Location Information Server (which is normally a | |||
| provisioning mechanism in the access carrier's operation and support | provisioning mechanism in the access carrier's operation and support | |||
| system). It should be confirmed periodically, because the mapping | system). It should be confirmed periodically, because the mapping | |||
| database undergoes slow change; new streets are added or removed, | database undergoes slow change; new streets are added or removed, | |||
| community names change, postal codes change, etc. Endpoints may wish | community names change, postal codes change, etc. Endpoints may wish | |||
| to validate locations they receive from the access network, and will | to validate locations they receive from the access network, and will | |||
| need to validate manually entered locations. Test functions | need to validate manually entered locations. Proxies which insert | |||
| (Section 13) should also re-validate. | location may wish to validate locations they recieve from a LIS. | |||
| Test functions (Section 13) should also re-validate. | ||||
| 5.9. Default Location | 5.9. Default Location | |||
| Occasionally, a failure may occur where the access network cannot | Occasionally, a failure may occur where the access network cannot | |||
| determine the actual location of the caller. In these cases, it must | determine the actual location of the caller. In these cases, it must | |||
| supply a default location. The default location should be as | supply a default location. The default location should be as | |||
| accurate as the network can determine. For example, in a cable | accurate as the network can determine. For example, in a cable | |||
| network, a default location for each CMTS, with a representative | network, a default location for each Cable Modem Termination System | |||
| location for all cable modems served by that CMTS could be provided | (CMTS), with a representative location for all cable modems served by | |||
| if the network is unable to resolve the subscriber to any unit less | that CMTS could be provided if the network is unable to resolve the | |||
| than the CMTS. Default locations must be marked as such (how?) so | subscriber to any unit less than the CMTS. Default locations must be | |||
| that the PSAP knows that the location is not accurate. | marked as such (how?) so that the PSAP knows that the location is not | |||
| accurate. | ||||
| 6. Routing the Call to the PSAP | 6. Routing the Call to the PSAP | |||
| Emergency calls are routed based on one or more of the following | Emergency calls are routed based on one or more of the following | |||
| criteria expressed in the call setup request (INVITE): | criteria expressed in the call setup request (INVITE): | |||
| Location: Since each PSAP serves a limited geographic region and | Location: Since each PSAP serves a limited geographic region and | |||
| transferring existing calls delays the emergency response, calls | transferring existing calls delays the emergency response, calls | |||
| need to be routed to the most appropriate PSAP. In this | need to be routed to the most appropriate PSAP. In this | |||
| architecture, emergency call setup requests contain location | architecture, emergency call setup requests contain location | |||
| skipping to change at page 20, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 7 ¶ | |||
| identifier, and returns an xml data structure containing a URI (or | identifier, and returns an xml data structure containing a URI (or | |||
| set of URIs) to route the call to. Normal SIP [RFC3261] routing | set of URIs) to route the call to. Normal SIP [RFC3261] routing | |||
| functions are used to resolve the URI to a next hop destination. | functions are used to resolve the URI to a next hop destination. | |||
| The endpoint can complete the LoST mapping from its location at boot | The endpoint can complete the LoST mapping from its location at boot | |||
| time, and periodically thereafter. It should attempt to obtain a | time, and periodically thereafter. It should attempt to obtain a | |||
| "fresh" location, and from that a current mapping when it places an | "fresh" location, and from that a current mapping when it places an | |||
| emergency call, and if accessing either its location acquisition | emergency call, and if accessing either its location acquisition | |||
| function or mapping function fails, it should use this cached value. | function or mapping function fails, it should use this cached value. | |||
| The call would follow its normal outbound call processing. Networks | The call would follow its normal outbound call processing. Networks | |||
| that support devices that do not implement LoST mapping would have | that support devices that do not implement LoST mapping themseleves | |||
| the outbound proxy do the mapping. The proxy must have the location | would have the outbound proxy do the mapping. The proxy must have | |||
| of the endpoint, which is often difficult for the calling network to | the location of the endpoint, which is often difficult for the | |||
| accurately determine. The endpoint may have its location, but would | calling network to accurately determine. The endpoint may have its | |||
| not normally include it on the call signaling. There is no mechanism | location, but would not normally include it on the call signaling. | |||
| provided in [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] to allow a proxy to | There is no mechanism provided in [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] | |||
| require the endpoint supply location, because that would open the | to allow a proxy to require the endpoint supply location, because | |||
| endpoint to an attack by any proxy on the path to get it to reveal | that would open the endpoint to an attack by any proxy on the path to | |||
| location. The Proxy CAN redirect a call to the service URN which, if | get it to reveal location. The Proxy CAN redirect a call to the | |||
| the device recognized the significance, would include location in the | service URN which, if the device recognized the significance, would | |||
| redirected call. All networks should detect emergency calls and | include location in the redirected call. All networks should detect | |||
| supply default location and/or routing if it is not already | emergency calls and supply default location and/or routing if it is | |||
| performed. | not already performed. | |||
| With the URI obtained from mapping, whether by the endpoint or the | With the URI obtained from mapping, whether by the endpoint or the | |||
| proxy, the proxy routes the call. Normal SIP[RFC3261] mechanisms are | proxy, the proxy routes the call. Normal SIP[RFC3261] mechanisms are | |||
| used to route calls to the URI obtained from the LoST dip. | used to route calls to the URI obtained from the LoST dip. | |||
| Often, the SIP routing of an emergency call will first route to an | ||||
| incoming call proxy in the domain operated by the emergency service. | ||||
| That proxy is called an "Emergency Services Routing Proxy" (ESRP). | ||||
| The ESRP, which is a normal SIP proxy server, may use a variety of | ||||
| PSAP state information, the location of the caller, and other | ||||
| criteria to onward route the call to the PSAP. | ||||
| 7. Signaling of Emergency Calls | 7. Signaling of Emergency Calls | |||
| Since emergency calls carry privacy-sensitive information, they are | As discussed above, location is carried in all emergency calls in the | |||
| subject to the requirements for geospatial protocols [RFC3693]. In | call signaling. Since emergency calls carry privacy-sensitive | |||
| particular, signaling information should be carried in TLS, i.e., in | information, they are subject to the requirements for geospatial | |||
| 'sips' mode. While requiring TLS is actually the way the standards | protocols [RFC3693]. In particular, signaling information should be | |||
| are written, it is unacceptable to have an emergency call fail to | carried in TLS, i.e., in 'sips' mode. While requiring TLS is | |||
| complete because a TLS connection was not created, for any reason. | actually the way the standards are written, it is unacceptable to | |||
| In many cases, persistent TLS connections can be maintained between | have an emergency call fail to complete because a TLS connection was | |||
| elements to minimize the time needed to establish them. | not created, for any reason. In many cases, persistent TLS | |||
| connections can be maintained between elements to minimize the time | ||||
| needed to establish them. | ||||
| Details can be found in [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]. | The use of SIP Identity [RFC4474] to protect the headers of the | |||
| message could improve end-to-end integrity of the information. | ||||
| Details of how location is carried in call signaling can be found in | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]. | ||||
| 8. Caller Preferences | 8. Caller Preferences | |||
| SIP Caller Preferences [RFC3841] may be used to signal how the PSAP | SIP Caller Preferences [RFC3841] may be used to signal how the PSAP | |||
| should handle the call. For example, a language preference expressed | should handle the call. For example, a language preference expressed | |||
| in an Accept-Language header may used as a hint to cause the PSAP to | in an Accept-Language header may used as a hint to cause the PSAP to | |||
| route the call to a call taker who speaks the requested language. | route the call to a call taker who speaks the requested language. | |||
| 9. Including a Valid Call-Back Identifier | 9. Including a Valid Call-Back Identifier | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 29 ¶ | |||
| possibly a GRUU[I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] if calls need to be routed via a | possibly a GRUU[I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] if calls need to be routed via a | |||
| proxy. This identifier would be used to initiate call-backs | proxy. This identifier would be used to initiate call-backs | |||
| immediately by the call-taker if, for example, the call is | immediately by the call-taker if, for example, the call is | |||
| prematurely dropped. | prematurely dropped. | |||
| In addition, a call-back identifier should be included either as the | In addition, a call-back identifier should be included either as the | |||
| URI in the From header field [RFC3261] preferably verified by SIP | URI in the From header field [RFC3261] preferably verified by SIP | |||
| Identity[RFC4474]. This identifier would be used to initiate a call- | Identity[RFC4474]. This identifier would be used to initiate a call- | |||
| back at a later time and may reach the caller, not necessarily on the | back at a later time and may reach the caller, not necessarily on the | |||
| same device (and at the same location) as the original emergency | same device (and at the same location) as the original emergency | |||
| call. | call. Both the Contact and From specific requirements are detailed | |||
| in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] | ||||
| Finally, there may be two other call identifiers included in an | Finally, there may be two other call identifiers included in an | |||
| emergency call. An identifier may be included which can be used to | emergency call. An identifier may be included which can be used to | |||
| identify the caller, as opposed to the device or the subscriber of a | identify the caller, as opposed to the device or the subscriber of a | |||
| specific calling service. This identifier may be used to retrieve | specific calling service. This identifier may be used to retrieve | |||
| information about the caller that is independent of calling service. | information about the caller that is independent of calling service. | |||
| For example, Alice may have home, office and mobile telephony | For example, Alice may have home, office and mobile telephony | |||
| services, but she is the same Alice in all of them. Information | services, but she is the same Alice in all of them. Information | |||
| about Alice may be kept by an entity independent of any telephony | about Alice may be kept by an entity independent of any telephony | |||
| service provider. The caller identity is a URI and is placed in a | service provider. The caller identity is a URI and is placed in a | |||
| SIP Call-Info header [RFC3261] using the token "?" following the | SIP Call-Info header [RFC3261] using the token "?" following the | |||
| recommendations in ???. | recommendations in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. | |||
| The communications service provider may also include an identifier | The communications service provider may also include an identifier | |||
| that may be used to retrieve information specific to the call held by | that may be used to retrieve information specific to the call held by | |||
| the service provider. This identifier, also a URI may be placed in | the service provider. This identifier, also a URI may be placed in | |||
| the Call-Info header using the token "?". | the Call-Info header using the token "?" per | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. | ||||
| 10. Mid-Call Services and Behavior | 10. Mid-Call Services and Behavior | |||
| A PSAP may need to REFER[RFC3515] a call to a bridge for | A PSAP may need to REFER[RFC3515] a call to a bridge for | |||
| conferencing. The caller should also be prepared to have the call | conferencing. The caller should also be prepared to have the call | |||
| transferred (usually attended, but possibly blind) as | transferred (usually attended, but possibly blind) as | |||
| per[I-D.ietf-sipping-service-examples]. | per[I-D.ietf-sipping-service-examples]. | |||
| While in a call, a number of of other call features, such as call | ||||
| waiting, must be disabled. This is also discussed in | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. | ||||
| 11. Call Termination | 11. Call Termination | |||
| It is undesirable for the caller to terminate an emergency call. | It is undesirable for the caller to terminate an emergency call. | |||
| Strategies for devices to handle caller attempts to terminate may be | Strategies for devices to handle caller attempts to terminate may be | |||
| found in [phonebcp]. PSAP call termination is accomplished with | found in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. PSAP call termination is | |||
| normal SIP call termination procedures. | accomplished with normal SIP call termination procedures. | |||
| 12. Media | 12. Media | |||
| PSAPs should accept media streams on RTP [RFC3550]. Traditionally, | PSAPs should accept media streams on RTP [RFC3550]. Traditionally, | |||
| voice has been the only media stream accepted by PSAPs. In some | voice has been the only media stream accepted by PSAPs. In some | |||
| countries, text, in the form of BAUDOT codes or similar tone encoded | countries, text, in the form of BAUDOT codes or similar tone encoded | |||
| signaling within a voiceband is accepted ("TTY") for persons who have | signaling within a voiceband is accepted ("TTY") for persons who have | |||
| hearing disabilities. With the Internet comes a wider array of | hearing disabilities. With the Internet comes a wider array of | |||
| potential media which a PSAP should accept. Using SIP signaling | potential media which a PSAP should accept. Using SIP signaling | |||
| includes the capability to negotiate media. Normal SIP offer/answer | includes the capability to negotiate media. Normal SIP offer/answer | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 49 ¶ | |||
| 13. Testing | 13. Testing | |||
| Since the emergency calling architecture consists of a number of | Since the emergency calling architecture consists of a number of | |||
| pieces operated by independent entities, it is important to be able | pieces operated by independent entities, it is important to be able | |||
| to test whether an emergency call is likely to succeed without | to test whether an emergency call is likely to succeed without | |||
| actually occupying the human resources at a PSAP. Both signaling and | actually occupying the human resources at a PSAP. Both signaling and | |||
| media paths need to be tested since NATs and firewalls may allow the | media paths need to be tested since NATs and firewalls may allow the | |||
| session setup request to reach the PSAP, while preventing the | session setup request to reach the PSAP, while preventing the | |||
| exchange of media. | exchange of media. | |||
| [phonebcp] includes a description of an automated test procedure that | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] includes a description of an automated test | |||
| validates routing, signaling and media path continuity. This test | procedure that validates routing, signaling and media path | |||
| would be used at boot time, and whenever the device location changes | continuity. This test would be used at boot time, and whenever the | |||
| enough that a new PSAP mapping is returned from LoST. A manual | device location changes enough that a new PSAP mapping is returned | |||
| operation for the test should also be possible. | from LoST. A manual operation for the test should also be possible. | |||
| 14. Example Call Flows | 14. Example Call Flows | |||
| TBD | TBD | |||
| 15. Alternatives Considered | 15. Alternatives Considered | |||
| This is a non-normative appendix. During discussions of emergency | This is a non-normative appendix. During discussions of emergency | |||
| calling, a number of suggestions are commonly made. Below, we | calling, a number of suggestions are commonly made. Below, we | |||
| discuss some of the reasons why these alternatives do not satisfy the | discuss some of the reasons why these alternatives do not satisfy the | |||
| skipping to change at page 24, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 45 ¶ | |||
| an outbound proxy would have to ascertain the location of the caller | an outbound proxy would have to ascertain the location of the caller | |||
| to guess whether the "tel" URI identifies an emergency call or some | to guess whether the "tel" URI identifies an emergency call or some | |||
| other number. | other number. | |||
| Thus, "tel" URIs are not likely to be appropriate or sufficient for | Thus, "tel" URIs are not likely to be appropriate or sufficient for | |||
| identifying emergency calls and do not, by themselves, solve the call | identifying emergency calls and do not, by themselves, solve the call | |||
| routing problem. | routing problem. | |||
| 16. Security Considerations | 16. Security Considerations | |||
| Connecting ANY service to the Internet creates threads to the service | ||||
| which did not exist before. The emergency call service is especially | ||||
| critical compared to other services lately connected to the Internet. | ||||
| It must work reliably even in case of a major disaster when thousands | ||||
| of citizens call for help simultaneously. Not only does the service | ||||
| need to be protected but also the liberties of the citizens who might | ||||
| need to use the service must be considered. | ||||
| The emergency service is an obvious target for a deliberate attack, | ||||
| and specifially a denial of service attack. Mechanisms must be | ||||
| provided to help the emergency networks survive such attacks while | ||||
| continuing to provide service to genuine callers. | ||||
| Failure of any security mechanism should normally not prevent an | ||||
| emergency call to be established. Unlike most systems, suspicious | ||||
| calls (that is, those where normal security mechanisms are not | ||||
| attempted or they fail to produce expected valid credentials) are | ||||
| normally not dropped, but are processed with the call taker made | ||||
| aware that the information given (location, for example), may not be | ||||
| accurate. As the discussion in Section 5 shows, providing accurate | ||||
| location in the presence of a very wide variety of circumstances is | ||||
| challenging. Exceptions may result in some of the security | ||||
| mechanisms not being able to be deployed, and yet the information may | ||||
| be valid. | ||||
| When the emergency service is under deliberate attack, the policies | ||||
| on call acceptance may be changed. More stringent compliance to | ||||
| security recommendations may be enforced, or at least calls with full | ||||
| security mechanisms in place may be processed before calls without | ||||
| them. | ||||
| The decision whether other security mechanisms should be tried or the | ||||
| call be dropped depends on the policy of the citizen, the policy of | ||||
| the call router and the policy of the PSAP and out of the scope of | ||||
| this document. | ||||
| 16.1. Caller Authentication | 16.1. Caller Authentication | |||
| Fraudulent calls to PSAPs is a significant concern. Current systems | Fraudulent calls to PSAPs is a significant concern. Current systems | |||
| rely on inherent security mechanisms in the PSTN to make sure the | rely on inherent security mechanisms in the PSTN to make sure the | |||
| identity of the caller is known. As Internet technologies are | identity of the owner of the telephone is known. As Internet | |||
| increasingly used to place calls, it is becoming easier to hide the | technologies are increasingly used to place calls, it is becoming | |||
| indentity of a caller. Use of the SIP Identity mechanism [RFC4474] i | easier to hide the identity of a caller. Use of the SIP Identity | |||
| is recommended. If SIP Identity cannot be provided, carriers should | mechanism [RFC4474] i is recommended. If SIP Identity cannot be | |||
| make use of P-Asserted-Identity, [RFC3325] | provided, carriers should make use of P-Asserted-Identity, [RFC3325] | |||
| In keeping with established customs in circuit-switched emergency | In keeping with established customs in circuit-switched emergency | |||
| calling, authentication cannot be made a prerequisite for routing or | calling, authentication cannot be made a prerequisite for routing or | |||
| accepting an emergency call. However, a call taker may be more | accepting an emergency call. However, a call taker may be more | |||
| suspicious of a caller and request additional information if the call | suspicious of a caller and request additional information if the call | |||
| authenticity cannot be verified. | authenticity cannot be verified. | |||
| 16.2. Location Privacy | 16.2. Location Privacy | |||
| Location is sensitive information, it must be protected against | Location is sensitive information, it must be protected against | |||
| skipping to change at page 26, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 38 ¶ | |||
| Design Team members participating in this draft creation include | Design Team members participating in this draft creation include | |||
| Hannes Tschofenig, Ted Hardie, Martin Dolly, Marc Linsner, Roger | Hannes Tschofenig, Ted Hardie, Martin Dolly, Marc Linsner, Roger | |||
| Marshall, Stu Goldman, Shida Schubert and Tom Taylor. | Marshall, Stu Goldman, Shida Schubert and Tom Taylor. | |||
| 18. References | 18. References | |||
| 18.1. Normative References | 18.1. Normative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] | |||
| Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation | Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation | |||
| Protocol", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02 (work in progress), | Protocol", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-04 (work in progress), | |||
| February 2007. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] | ||||
| Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for | ||||
| Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling", | ||||
| draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-00 (work in progress), | ||||
| October 2006. | October 2006. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements] | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements] | |||
| Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for | Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for | |||
| Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", | Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", | |||
| draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-12 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-12 (work in progress), | |||
| August 2006. | August 2006. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn] | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn] | |||
| Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for | Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for | |||
| Services", draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05 (work in | Services", draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05 (work in | |||
| progress), August 2006. | progress), August 2006. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil] | [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile] | |||
| Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | Tschofenig, H., "GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, | |||
| (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses | Considerations and Recommendations", | |||
| Configuration Information", | draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-05 (work in progress), | |||
| draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09 (work in progress), | October 2006. | |||
| January 2006. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] | [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] | |||
| Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User | Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User | |||
| Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol | Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol | |||
| (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-gruu-10 (work in progress), | (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-gruu-11 (work in progress), | |||
| August 2006. | October 2006. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] | [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] | |||
| Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Session Initiation Protocol | Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Session Initiation Protocol | |||
| Location Conveyance", | Location Conveyance", | |||
| draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-04 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-07 (work in progress), | |||
| August 2006. | February 2007. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework] | [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework] | |||
| Petrie, D., "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol | Petrie, D. and S. Channabasappa, "A Framework for Session | |||
| User Agent Profile Delivery", | Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery", | |||
| draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-09 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-10 (work in progress), | |||
| October 2006. | January 2007. | |||
| [I-D.rosen-iptel-dialstring] | [I-D.rosen-iptel-dialstring] | |||
| Rosen, B., "Dialstring parameter for the Session | Rosen, B., "Dialstring parameter for the Session | |||
| Initiation Protocol Uniform Resource Identifier", | Initiation Protocol Uniform Resource Identifier", | |||
| draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-04 (work in progress), | draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-05 (work in progress), | |||
| June 2006. | March 2007. | |||
| [LLDP] "IEEE802.1ab Station and Media Access Control", Dec 2004. | [LLDP] "IEEE802.1ab Station and Media Access Control", Dec 2004. | |||
| [LLDP-MED] | [LLDP-MED] | |||
| TIA, "ANSI/TIA-1057 Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media | TIA, "ANSI/TIA-1057 Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media | |||
| Endpoint Discovery". | Endpoint Discovery". | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
| skipping to change at page 28, line 52 ¶ | skipping to change at page 30, line 30 ¶ | |||
| Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", | Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", | |||
| RFC 4033, March 2005. | RFC 4033, March 2005. | |||
| [RFC4103] "", 2005. | [RFC4103] "", 2005. | |||
| [RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object | [RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object | |||
| Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. | Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. | |||
| [RFC4474] "", 2005. | [RFC4474] "", 2005. | |||
| [phonebcp] | [RFC4676] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | |||
| Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for | (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses | |||
| Communications Services in support of Emergency | Configuration Information", RFC 4676, October 2006. | |||
| CallingOcti", October 2006. | ||||
| 18.2. Informative References | 18.2. Informative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-sipping-service-examples] | [I-D.ietf-sipping-service-examples] | |||
| Johnston, A., "Session Initiation Protocol Service | Johnston, A., "Session Initiation Protocol Service | |||
| Examples", draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-11 (work in | Examples", draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-12 (work in | |||
| progress), October 2006. | progress), January 2007. | |||
| [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", | [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", | |||
| RFC 3966, December 2004. | RFC 3966, December 2004. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Brian Rosen | Brian Rosen | |||
| NeuStar, Inc. | NeuStar, Inc. | |||
| 470 Conrad Dr | 470 Conrad Dr | |||
| Mars, PA 16046 | Mars, PA 16046 | |||
| skipping to change at page 30, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 31, line 34 ¶ | |||
| URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu | URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu | |||
| James Polk | James Polk | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| 3913 Treemont Circle | 3913 Treemont Circle | |||
| Colleyville, Texas 76034 | Colleyville, Texas 76034 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: +1-817-271-3552 | Phone: +1-817-271-3552 | |||
| Email: jmpolk@cisco.com | Email: jmpolk@cisco.com | |||
| Andrew Newton | Andrew Newton | |||
| SunRocket | SunRocket | |||
| 8045 Leesburg Pike, Suite 300 | 8045 Leesburg Pike, Suite 300 | |||
| Vienna, VA 22182 | Vienna, VA 22182 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: +1 703 636 8052 | Phone: +1 703 636 8052 | |||
| Email: andy@hxr.us | Email: andy@hxr.us | |||
| Full Copyright Statement | Full Copyright Statement | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). | Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). | |||
| This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions | This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions | |||
| contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors | contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors | |||
| retain all their rights. | retain all their rights. | |||
| This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | |||
| "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | |||
| OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND | |||
| ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS | |||
| INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF | |||
| INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | |||
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | |||
| Intellectual Property | Intellectual Property | |||
| The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | |||
| Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | |||
| pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | |||
| this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | |||
| might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | |||
| made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | |||
| End of changes. 76 change blocks. | ||||
| 260 lines changed or deleted | 342 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/ | ||||