< draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-03.txt		draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-04.txt >
	ECRIT H. Schulzrinne		ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
	Internet-Draft Columbia University		Internet-Draft Columbia University
	Intended status: Standards Track S. McCann		Intended status: Standards Track S. McCann
	Expires: January 12, 2012 Research in Motion UK Ltd		Expires: September 13, 2012 Research in Motion UK Ltd
	G. Bajko		G. Bajko
	Nokia		Nokia
	H. Tschofenig		H. Tschofenig
	Nokia Siemens Networks		Nokia Siemens Networks
	D. Kroeselberg		D. Kroeselberg
	Siemens		Siemens
	July 11, 2011		March 12, 2012
	Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for dealing with		Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for dealing with
	Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices		Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices
	draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-03.txt		draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-04.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	The IETF emergency services architecture assumes that the calling		The IETF emergency services architecture assumes that the calling
	device has acquired rights to use the access network or that no		device has acquired rights to use the access network or that no
	authentication is required for the access network, such as for public		authentication is required for the access network, such as for public
	wireless access points. Subsequent protocol interactions, such as		wireless access points. Subsequent protocol interactions, such as
	obtaining location information, learning the address of the Public		obtaining location information, learning the address of the Public
	Safety Answering Point (PSAP) and the emergency call itself are		Safety Answering Point (PSAP) and the emergency call itself are
	largely decoupled from the underlying network access procedures.		largely decoupled from the underlying network access procedures.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 3, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 36 ¶
	5.3.3. SIP Emergency Call Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		5.3.3. SIP Emergency Call Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6. Lower Layer Considerations for NAA Case . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6. Lower Layer Considerations for NAA Case . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	6.1. Link Layer Emergency Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6.1. Link Layer Emergency Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	6.2. Securing Network Attachment in NAA Cases . . . . . . . . . 17		6.2. Securing Network Attachment in NAA Cases . . . . . . . . . 17
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Summoning police, the fire department or an ambulance in emergencies		Summoning police, the fire department or an ambulance in emergencies
	is one of the fundamental and most-valued functions of the telephone.		is one of the fundamental and most-valued functions of the telephone.
	As telephone functionality moves from circuit-switched telephony to		As telephone functionality moves from circuit-switched telephony to
	Internet telephony, its users rightfully expect that this core		Internet telephony, its users rightfully expect that this core
	functionality will continue to work at least as well as it has for		functionality will continue to work at least as well as it has for
	the older technology. New devices and services are being made		the older technology. New devices and services are being made
	available that could be used to make a request for help, which are		available that could be used to make a request for help, which are
	not traditional telephones, and users are increasingly expecting them		not traditional telephones, and users are increasingly expecting them
	to be used to place emergency calls.		to be used to place emergency calls.
	Roughly speaking, the IETF emergency services architecture (see		Roughly speaking, the IETF emergency services architecture (see
	[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and [I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework]) divides		[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and [RFC6443]) divides responsibility for
	responsibility for handling emergency calls between the access		handling emergency calls between the access network (ISP), the
	network (ISP), the application service provider (ASP) that may be a		application service provider (ASP) that may be a VoIP service
	VoIP service provider and the provider of emergency signaling		provider and the provider of emergency signaling services, the
	services, the emergency service network (ESN). The access network		emergency service network (ESN). The access network may provide
	may provide location information to end systems, but does not have to		location information to end systems, but does not have to provide any
	provide any ASP signaling functionality. The emergency caller can		ASP signaling functionality. The emergency caller can reach the ESN
	reach the ESN either directly or through the ASP's outbound proxy.		either directly or through the ASP's outbound proxy. Any of the
	Any of the three parties can provide the mapping from location to		three parties can provide the mapping from location to PSAP URI by
	PSAP URI by offering LoST [RFC5222] services.		offering LoST [RFC5222] services.
	In general, a set of automated configuration mechanisms allows a		In general, a set of automated configuration mechanisms allows a
	device to function in a variety of architectures, without the user		device to function in a variety of architectures, without the user
	being aware of the details on who provides location, mapping services		being aware of the details on who provides location, mapping services
	or call routing services. However, if emergency calling is to be		or call routing services. However, if emergency calling is to be
	supported when the calling device lacks access network authorization		supported when the calling device lacks access network authorization
	or does not have an ASP, one or more of the providers may need to		or does not have an ASP, one or more of the providers may need to
	provide additional services and functions.		provide additional services and functions.
	In all cases, the end device has to be able to perform a LoST lookup		In all cases, the end device has to be able to perform a LoST lookup
	skipping to change at page 14, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 28 ¶
	5.2.1. ESRP Discovery		5.2.1. ESRP Discovery
	An ISP MUST provision a DHCP server with information about LoST		An ISP MUST provision a DHCP server with information about LoST
	servers [RFC5223]. An ISP operator may choose to deploy a LoST		servers [RFC5223]. An ISP operator may choose to deploy a LoST
	server or to outsource it to other parties.		server or to outsource it to other parties.
	5.2.2. Location Determination and Location Configuration		5.2.2. Location Determination and Location Configuration
	The ISP is responsible for location determination and exposes this		The ISP is responsible for location determination and exposes this
	information to the end points via location configuration protocols.		information to the end points via location configuration protocols.
	The considerations described in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req]		The considerations described in [RFC6444] are applicable to this
	are applicable to this document.		document.
	The ISP MUST support one of the LCPs described in Section 6.5 of		The ISP MUST support one of the LCPs described in Section 6.5 of
	[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. The description in Section 6.5 and 6.6 of		[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. The description in Section 6.5 and 6.6 of
	[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] regarding the interaction between the end		[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] regarding the interaction between the end
	device and the LIS applies to this document.		device and the LIS applies to this document.
	The interaction between the LIS at the ISP and the IAP is often		The interaction between the LIS at the ISP and the IAP is often
	priorietary but the description in		priorietary but the description in
	[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req] may be relevant to the reader.		[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req] may be relevant to the reader.
	skipping to change at page 20, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 46 ¶
	filter list.		filter list.
	For the ZBP case the additional aspect of fraud has to be considered.		For the ZBP case the additional aspect of fraud has to be considered.
	Unless the emergency call traverses a PSTN gateway or the ASP charges		Unless the emergency call traverses a PSTN gateway or the ASP charges
	for IP-to-IP calls, there is little potential for fraud. If the ASP		for IP-to-IP calls, there is little potential for fraud. If the ASP
	also operates the LoST server, the outbound proxy MAY restrict		also operates the LoST server, the outbound proxy MAY restrict
	outbound calls to the SIP URIs returned by the LoST server. It is		outbound calls to the SIP URIs returned by the LoST server. It is
	NOT RECOMMENDED to rely on a fixed list of SIP URIs, as that list may		NOT RECOMMENDED to rely on a fixed list of SIP URIs, as that list may
	change.		change.
	Finally, a number of security vulnerabilities discussed in		Finally, a number of security vulnerabilities discussed in [RFC6280]
	[I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch] around faked location information are less		around faked location information are less problematic in the context
	problematic in the context of unauthenticated emergency since		of unauthenticated emergency since location information does not need
	location information does not need to be provided by the end host		to be provided by the end host itself or it can be verified to fall
	itself or it can be verified to fall within a specific geographical		within a specific geographical area.
	area.
	8. Acknowledgments		8. Acknowledgments
	Parts of this document are derived from [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp].		Parts of this document are derived from [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp].
	Participants of the 2nd and 3rd SDO Emergency Services Workshop		Participants of the 2nd and 3rd SDO Emergency Services Workshop
	provided helpful input.		provided helpful input.
	We would like to thank Richard Barnes, Brian Rosen, James Polk, Marc		We would like to thank Richard Barnes, Brian Rosen, James Polk, Marc
	Linsner, and Martin Thomson for their feedback at the IETF#80 ECRIT		Linsner, and Martin Thomson for their feedback at the IETF#80 ECRIT
	meeting.		meeting.
	skipping to change at page 23, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 36 ¶
	A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.		A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
	Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,		Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
	June 2002.		June 2002.
	[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.
	[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]		[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]
	Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for		Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for
	Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling",		Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling",
	draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-17 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-20 (work in progress),
	March 2011.		September 2011.
	[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.		[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
	Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation		Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
	Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.		Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.
	[RFC5223] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Discovering		[RFC5223] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Discovering
	Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the		Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the
	Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)", RFC 5223,		Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)", RFC 5223,
	August 2008.		August 2008.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7		[RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
	Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and		Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and
	Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010.		Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010.
	[I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework]		[RFC6443] Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton,
	Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton,		"Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet
	"Framework for Emergency Calling using Internet		Multimedia", RFC 6443, December 2011.
	Multimedia", draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-12 (work in
	progress), October 2010.
	[I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery]		[I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery]
	Thomson, M. and R. Bellis, "Location Information Server		Thomson, M. and R. Bellis, "Location Information Server
	(LIS) Discovery using IP address and Reverse DNS",		(LIS) Discovery using IP address and Reverse DNS",
	draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-01 (work in		draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-02 (work in
	progress), March 2011.		progress), September 2011.
	[RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",		[RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
	RFC 5985, September 2010.		RFC 5985, September 2010.
	[RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for		[RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for
	Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",		Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
	RFC 5012, January 2008.		RFC 5012, January 2008.
	[I-D.ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req]		[RFC6444] Schulzrinne, H., Liess, L., Tschofenig, H., Stark, B., and
	Schulzrinne, H., Liess, L., Tschofenig, H., Stark, B., and
	A. Kuett, "Location Hiding: Problem Statement and		A. Kuett, "Location Hiding: Problem Statement and
	Requirements", draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-04		Requirements", RFC 6444, January 2012.
	(work in progress), February 2010.
	[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req]		[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req]
	Winterbottom, J. and S. Norreys, "LIS to LIS Protocol		Winterbottom, J. and S. Norreys, "LIS to LIS Protocol
	Requirements", draft-winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req-01		Requirements", draft-winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req-01
	(work in progress), November 2007.		(work in progress), November 2007.
	[RFC5069] Taylor, T., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M.		[RFC5069] Taylor, T., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M.
	Shanmugam, "Security Threats and Requirements for		Shanmugam, "Security Threats and Requirements for
	Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", RFC 5069,		Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", RFC 5069,
	January 2008.		January 2008.
	[I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch]		[RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
	Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
	Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for		Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for
	Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",		Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
	draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-03 (work in progress),		BCP 160, RFC 6280, July 2011.
	October 2010.
	[esw07] "3rd SDO Emergency Services Workshop,		[esw07] "3rd SDO Emergency Services Workshop,
	http://www.emergency-services-coordination.info/2007Nov/",		http://www.emergency-services-coordination.info/2007Nov/",
	October 30th - November 1st 2007.		October 30th - November 1st 2007.
	[nwgstg3] "WiMAX Forum WMF-T33-001-R015V01, WiMAX Network		[nwgstg3] "WiMAX Forum WMF-T33-001-R015V01, WiMAX Network
	Architecture Stage-3		Architecture Stage-3
	http://www.wimaxforum.org/sites/wimaxforum.org/files/ tech		http://www.wimaxforum.org/sites/wimaxforum.org/files/ tech
	nical_document/2009/09/		nical_document/2009/09/
	DRAFT-T33-001-R015v01-O_Network-Stage3-Base.pdf",		DRAFT-T33-001-R015v01-O_Network-Stage3-Base.pdf",
End of changes. 16 change blocks.
	41 lines changed or deleted		34 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/