| < draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-06.txt | draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-07.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECRIT B. Rosen | ECRIT B. Rosen | |||
| Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc. | Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc. | |||
| Intended status: Informational H. Tschofenig | Intended status: Informational H. Tschofenig | |||
| Expires: January 16, 2013 Nokia Siemens Networks | Expires: August 25, 2013 Nokia Siemens Networks | |||
| July 15, 2012 | February 21, 2013 | |||
| Internet Protocol-based In-Vehicle Emergency Call | Internet Protocol-based In-Vehicle Emergency Call | |||
| draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-06.txt | draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-07.txt | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes how to use a subset of the IETF-based | This document describes how to use a subset of the IETF-based | |||
| emergency call framework for accomplishing emergency calling support | emergency call framework for accomplishing emergency calling support | |||
| in vehicles. Simplifications are possible due to the nature of the | in vehicles. Simplifications are possible due to the nature of the | |||
| functionality that is going to be provided in vehicles with the usage | functionality that is going to be provided in vehicles with the usage | |||
| of GPS. Additionally, further profiling needs to be done regarding | of GPS. Additionally, further profiling needs to be done regarding | |||
| the encoding of location information. | the encoding of location information. | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2013. | This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2013. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. Protocol Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 4. Data Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 10.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | Appendix A. Matching Functionality with eCall Minimum Set of | |||
| Data (MSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Emergency calls made from vehicles can assist with the objective of | Emergency calls made from vehicles can assist with the objective of | |||
| significantly reducing road deaths and injuries. Unfortunately, | significantly reducing road deaths and injuries. Unfortunately, | |||
| drivers often have a poor location-awareness, especially on urban | drivers often have a poor location-awareness, especially on urban | |||
| roads (also during night) and abroad. In the most crucial cases, the | roads (also during night) and abroad. In the most crucial cases, the | |||
| victim(s) may not be able to call because they have been injured or | victim(s) may not be able to call because they have been injured or | |||
| trapped. | trapped. | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 25 ¶ | |||
| that may best be described as a user initiated or automatically | that may best be described as a user initiated or automatically | |||
| triggered system to provide notifications to Public Safety Answering | triggered system to provide notifications to Public Safety Answering | |||
| Point's (PSAP), by means of cellular communications, that a vehicle | Point's (PSAP), by means of cellular communications, that a vehicle | |||
| has crashed, and to provide geodetic location information and where | has crashed, and to provide geodetic location information and where | |||
| possible a voice channel to the PSAP. At the time of writing the | possible a voice channel to the PSAP. At the time of writing the | |||
| suppor for eCall are focused on legacy technology. This document | suppor for eCall are focused on legacy technology. This document | |||
| details how emergency calls triggered by vehicles can be accomplished | details how emergency calls triggered by vehicles can be accomplished | |||
| in an Internet Protocol-based environment. | in an Internet Protocol-based environment. | |||
| This document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines the | This document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines the | |||
| terminology, Section 3 illustrates the required protocol | terminology, Section 3 describes how the required functionality can | |||
| functionality, Section 4 indicates the required data that has to be | be accomplished by combining several already existing standards, and | |||
| transmitted within a PIDF-LO and Section 5 shows an example message | Section 4 shows an example message exchange. This document concludes | |||
| exchange. This document concludes with the security considerations | with the security considerations in Section 5 and IANA considerations | |||
| in Section 6 and IANA considerations in Section 7. | in Section 6. | |||
| 2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [1]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [1]. | |||
| This document re-uses a lot of the terminology defined in Section 3 | This document re-uses terminology defined in Section 3 of [10]. | |||
| of [9]. | ||||
| 3. Protocol Profile | ||||
| The usage of in-vehicular emergency calls does not require the usage | ||||
| of a Location Configuration Protocol since GPS is used. Furthermore, | ||||
| since the GPS receiver is permanently turned on it can even provide | ||||
| useful information in cases where the car entered a tunnel. | ||||
| Consequently, there is no need to discover any Location Information | ||||
| Server (LIS). | ||||
| Since the emergency call within the car is either triggered by a | ||||
| button or, in most cases, automatically thanks to sensors mounted in | ||||
| the car there is no need to learn a dial string. This document | ||||
| registers a separate Service URN, namely 'urn:service:ecall', used | ||||
| specifically for emergency calls that are triggered by vehicles. | ||||
| This URN comes with two sub-services to indicate how the emergency | ||||
| call was triggered, namely 'automatic' for cases when the emergency | ||||
| call was triggered due to a crash automatically without any user | ||||
| involvement and 'manual' for cases where a driver or a passenger | ||||
| triggered the emergency call. If the device initiating the emergency | ||||
| call does not allow to differentiate these two cases then the Service | ||||
| URN 'urn:service:ecall' is used. | ||||
| The following list provides information about the sections and | ||||
| requires of [2] that are relevant to this specification: | ||||
| Identifying an emergency call: Emergency calls are detected at the | ||||
| end point, i.e., by the vehicle, and the Service URN | ||||
| 'urn:service:ecall' MUST be implemented by the end point and | ||||
| recognized by the VSP. The requirements listed in Section 5 of | ||||
| [2] are therefore irrelevant to this specification, as they deal | ||||
| with identifying an emergency call based on dial strings. | ||||
| Location: The encoding of the PIDF-LO [3] is described in Section 4. | ||||
| In an emergency, the end point adds the available location | ||||
| information to the initial SIP INVITE emergency call message. In | ||||
| special cases a location update may be provided, using the | ||||
| procedure described in requirement ED-38 of Section 6.8 of [2]; | ||||
| all other aspects of Section 6.8 from that document are not | ||||
| applicable to this specification. Section 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.4, | ||||
| 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 of [2] are not applicable to this document. For | ||||
| location conveyance in SIP [4] MUST be used. Further aspects that | ||||
| are not relevant for this document are multiple locations (Section | ||||
| 6.9 of [2]), location validation (Section 6.10 of [2]), default | ||||
| location (Section 6.11 of [2]) | ||||
| LoST: Emergency call routing support, for example utilizing LoST, is | ||||
| provided by VSP. As such, the description in Section 8 of [2] is | ||||
| applicable to this document, except for requirement SP-25 and | ||||
| SP-26 regarding legacy devices. | ||||
| Signaling of emergency calls: Section 9 of [2] is applicable to this | ||||
| document with the following exception: ED-60/AN-25 is not | ||||
| applicable as HELD is not used. Video and real-time text may be | ||||
| supported by end device in the future, although currently not | ||||
| envisioned. The corresponding text paragraphs are relevant from | ||||
| Section 9 of [2] when support is being provided. Additionally, | ||||
| ED-62 dealing with "SIP signaling requirements for User Agents" is | ||||
| simplified as follows. The initial SIP signaling method is an | ||||
| INVITE request with the following setting: | ||||
| 1. The Request URI MUST be the service URN 'urn:service:ecall' | ||||
| or one of the sub-services. | ||||
| 2. The To header MUST be a service URN | ||||
| 'urn:service:ecall.automatic' or one of the sub-services. | ||||
| 3. The From header MUST be present and SHOULD be the AoR of the | ||||
| caller. | ||||
| 4. A Via header MUST be present. | ||||
| 5. A Contact header MUST be present which MUST be globally | ||||
| routable to permit an immediate call-back to the specific | ||||
| device which placed the emergency call. | ||||
| 6. Other headers MAY be included as per normal SIP behavior. | ||||
| 7. A Supported header MUST be included with the 'geolocation' | ||||
| option tag [4]. | ||||
| 8. The device MUST include location by-value into the call. | ||||
| 9. A normal SDP offer SHOULD be included in the INVITE. If | ||||
| voice is supported the offer SHOULD include the G.711 codec, | ||||
| if a voice channel can be established based on the equipment | ||||
| in the car. | ||||
| 10. If the device includes location-by-value, the UA MUST support | ||||
| multipart message bodies, since SDP will likely be also in | ||||
| the INVITE. | ||||
| 11. The UAC MUST include a "inserted-by=endpoint" header | ||||
| parameter on all Geolocation headers. This informs | ||||
| downstream elements which device entered the location at this | ||||
| URI (either cid-URL or location-by-reference URI). | ||||
| 12. SIP Caller Preferences [5] MAY be used to signal how the PSAP | ||||
| should handle the call. For example, a language preference | ||||
| expressed in an Accept-Language header may be used as a hint | ||||
| to cause the PSAP to route the call to a call taker who | ||||
| speaks the requested language. SIP Caller Preferences may | ||||
| also be used to indicate a need to invoke a relay service for | ||||
| communication with people with disabilities in the call. | ||||
| Call backs: The description in Section 10 of [2] is relevant for | ||||
| this document. | ||||
| Mid-call behavior: The description in Section 11 of [2] is fully | ||||
| applicable to this document. | ||||
| Call termination: The description in Section 12 of [2] is fully | ||||
| applicable to this document. | ||||
| Disabling of features: The description in Section 13 of [2] is fully | ||||
| applicable to this document. | ||||
| Media: If hardware and software for real-time text, voice, and video | ||||
| is available in the end device then the requirements regarding | ||||
| multi-media support described in [2] are applicable. | ||||
| Testing: The description in Section 15 of [2] is fully applicable to | 3. Profile | |||
| this document. | ||||
| 4. Data Profile | In the context of emergncy calls placed from a vehicle it is assumed | |||
| that the car is equipped with a built-in GPS receiver. For this | ||||
| reason only geodetic location information will be sent within an | ||||
| emergency call. The following location shapes MUST be implemented: | ||||
| 2d and 3d Point (see Section 5.2.1 of [2]), Circle (see Section 5.2.3 | ||||
| of [2]), and Ellipsoid (see Section 5.2.7 of [2]). The coordinate | ||||
| reference systems (CRS) specified in [2] are also mandatory for this | ||||
| document. The <direction> element, as defined in [3] which indicates | ||||
| the direction of travel of the vehicle, is important for dispatch and | ||||
| hence it MUST be included in the PIDF-LO . The <heading> element | ||||
| specified in [3] MUST be implemented and MAY be included. | ||||
| Due to the requirement for a built-in GPS receiver only geodetic | This specification also inherits the test call functionality from | |||
| location information will be sent within an emergency call. | Section 15 of [4]. | |||
| Furthermore, the number of location shapes is is restricted. Hence, | ||||
| the following location shapes of [6] MUST be implemented: 2d and 3d | ||||
| Point (see Section 5.2.1 of [6]), Circle (see Section 5.2.3 of [6]), | ||||
| and Ellipsoid (see Section 5.2.7 of [6]). The coordinate reference | ||||
| systems (CRS) specified in [6] are also mandatory for this document. | ||||
| Furthermore, the direction of travel of the vehicle is important for | ||||
| dispatch and hence it MUST be included in the PIDF-LO. The <heading> | ||||
| element specified in [7] MUST be supported. | ||||
| 5. Example | 4. Example | |||
| Figure 1 shows an emergency call placed from a vehicle whereby | Figure 1 shows an emergency call placed from a vehicle whereby | |||
| location information information is directly attached to the SIP | location information information is directly attached to the SIP | |||
| INVITE message itself. The call is marked as an emergency call using | INVITE message itself. The call is marked as an emergency call using | |||
| the 'urn:service:ecall.automatic' service URN and the PSAP of the | the 'urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic' service URN and the PSAP of the | |||
| VoIP provider determines which PSAP to contact based on the provided | VoIP provider determines which PSAP to contact based on the provided | |||
| location information. As shown in the figure, this route | location information. The emergency call continues towards the PSAP | |||
| determination may be based on LoST. Then, the emergency call | and in this example it hits the ESRP, as the entry point to the PSAP | |||
| continues towards the PSAP and in this example it hits the ESRP, as | operators emergency services network. Finally, the emergency call | |||
| the entry point to the PSAP operators emergency services network. | will be received by a call taker and first reponders will be | |||
| Finally, the emergency call will be received by a call taker and | dispatched. | |||
| first reponders will be dispatched. | ||||
| +--------+ | +--------+ | |||
| | LoST | | | LoST | | |||
| | Servers| | | Server | | |||
| +--------+ | +--------+ | |||
| ^ +-------+ | ^ +-------+ | |||
| | | PSAP2 | | | | PSAP2 | | |||
| | +-------+ | | +-------+ | |||
| v | v | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | |||
| Vehicle ------>| Proxy |---->| ESRP |---->| PSAP1 |-----> Call-Taker | Vehicle ------>| Proxy |---->| ESRP |---->| PSAP1 |-----> Call-Taker | |||
| +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ | |||
| +-------+ | +-------+ | |||
| | PSAP3 | | | PSAP3 | | |||
| +-------+ | +-------+ | |||
| Figure 1: Example of In-Vehicular Emergency Call Message Flow | Figure 1: Example of In-Vehicular Emergency Call Message Flow | |||
| The following example, in Figure 2, shows the SIP INVITE and location | The example, shown in Figure 2, illustrates a SIP INVITE and location | |||
| information encoded in a PIDF-LO that is being conveyed in such an | information encoded in a PIDF-LO that is being conveyed in such an | |||
| emergency call. | emergency call. | |||
| INVITE urn:service:ecall.automatic SIP/2.0 | INVITE urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic SIP/2.0 | |||
| To: <sip:intermediate-psap@example.com> | To: urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic | |||
| From: <sip:+13145551111@example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl | From: <sip:+13145551111@example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl | |||
| Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com | Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com | |||
| Geolocation: <cid:target123@example.com> | Geolocation: <cid:target123@example.com> | |||
| Geolocation-Routing: no | Geolocation-Routing: no | |||
| Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml | Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml | |||
| CSeq: 31862 INVITE | CSeq: 31862 INVITE | |||
| Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1 | Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1 | |||
| Content-Length: ... | Content-Length: ... | |||
| --boundary1 | --boundary1 | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 16 ¶ | |||
| Content-Type: application/sdp | Content-Type: application/sdp | |||
| ...Session Description Protocol (SDP) goes here | ...Session Description Protocol (SDP) goes here | |||
| --boundary1 | --boundary1 | |||
| Content-Type: application/pidf+xml | Content-Type: application/pidf+xml | |||
| Content-ID: <target123@atlanta.example.com> | Content-ID: <target123@atlanta.example.com> | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |||
| <presence | <presence | |||
| xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf" | xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf" | |||
| xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model" | xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model" | |||
| xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10" | xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10" | |||
| xmlns:dyn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dynamic" | xmlns:dyn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dynamic" | |||
| xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml" | xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml" | |||
| xmlns:gs="http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0" | xmlns:gs="http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0" | |||
| entity="sip:+13145551111@example.com"> | entity="sip:+13145551111@example.com"> | |||
| <dm:device id="123"> | <dm:device id="123"> | |||
| <gp:geopriv> | <gp:geopriv> | |||
| <gp:location-info> | <gp:location-info> | |||
| <gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"> | <gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"> | |||
| <gml:pos>-34.407 150.883</gml:pos> | <gml:pos>-34.407 150.883</gml:pos> | |||
| </gml:Point> | </gml:Point> | |||
| <dyn:Dynamic> | <dyn:Dynamic> | |||
| <dyn:heading>278</dyn:heading> | <dyn:heading>278</dyn:heading> | |||
| <dyn:direction><dyn:direction> | ||||
| </dyn:Dynamic> | </dyn:Dynamic> | |||
| </gp:location-info> | </gp:location-info> | |||
| <gp:usage-rules/> | <gp:usage-rules/> | |||
| <method>gps</method> | <method>gps</method> | |||
| </gp:geopriv> | </gp:geopriv> | |||
| <timestamp>2012-04-5T10:18:29Z</timestamp> | <timestamp>2012-04-5T10:18:29Z</timestamp> | |||
| <dm:deviceID>vehicle-number</dm:deviceID> | <dm:deviceID>1M8GDM9A_KP042788</dm:deviceID> | |||
| </dm:device> | </dm:device> | |||
| </presence> | </presence> | |||
| --boundary1-- | --boundary1-- | |||
| Figure 2: SIP INVITE indicating an In-Vehicular Emergency Call | Figure 2: SIP INVITE indicating an In-Vehicular Emergency Call | |||
| 6. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| This document does not raise security considerations beyond those | This document does not raise security considerations beyond those | |||
| described in [10]. As with emergency service systems with end host | described in [11]. As with emergency service systems with end host | |||
| provided location information there is the possibility that that | provided location information there is the possibility that that | |||
| location is incorrect, either intentially (in case of an a denial of | location is incorrect, either intentially (in case of an a denial of | |||
| service attack against the emergency services infrastructure) or due | service attack against the emergency services infrastructure) or due | |||
| to a malfunctioning devices. The reader is referred to [11] for a | to a malfunctioning devices. The reader is referred to [12] for a | |||
| discussion of some of these vulnerabilities. | discussion of some of these vulnerabilities. | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
| IANA is requested to register the URN 'urn:service:ecall' under the | IANA is requested to register the URN 'urn:service:sos.ecall' under | |||
| sub-services 'sos' registry defined in Section 4.2 of [8]. | the sub-services 'sos' registry defined in Section 4.2 of [5]. | |||
| This service identifier reaches a public safety answering point | This service identifier reaches a public safety answering point | |||
| (PSAP), which in turn dispatches aid appropriate to the emergency | (PSAP), which in turn dispatches aid appropriate to the emergency | |||
| related to accidents of vehicles. Two sub-services are registered as | related to accidents of vehicles. Two sub-services are registered as | |||
| well, namely | well, namely | |||
| urn:service:ecall.manual This service URN indicates that an eCall | urn:service:sos.ecall.manual | |||
| had been triggered based on the manual interaction of the driver | ||||
| or a passenger. | ||||
| urn:service:ecall.automatic This service URN indicates that an eCall | This service URN indicates that an eCall had been triggered based | |||
| had been triggered automatically, for example, due to a crash. No | on the manual interaction of the driver or a passenger. | |||
| human involvement was detected. | ||||
| 8. Contributors | urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic | |||
| This service URN indicates that an eCall had been triggered | ||||
| automatically, for example, due to a crash. No human involvement | ||||
| was detected. | ||||
| 7. Contributors | ||||
| We would like to thank Ulrich Dietz for his help with earlier | We would like to thank Ulrich Dietz for his help with earlier | |||
| versions of the document. | versions of the document. | |||
| 9. Acknowledgements | 8. Acknowledgements | |||
| We would like to thank Michael Montag, Arnoud van Wijk, and Gunnar | We would like to thank Michael Montag, Arnoud van Wijk, Ban Al-Bakri, | |||
| Hellstroem for their feedback. | and Gunnar Hellstroem for their feedback. | |||
| 10. References | 9. References | |||
| 10.1. Normative References | 9.1. Normative References | |||
| [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement | [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement | |||
| Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
| [2] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for | [2] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV | |||
| Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) | ||||
| Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations", | ||||
| RFC 5491, March 2009. | ||||
| [3] Schulzrinne, H., Singh, V., Tschofenig, H., and M. Thomson, | ||||
| "Dynamic Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format | ||||
| Location Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5962, September 2010. | ||||
| [4] 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-20 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-20 (work in progress), | |||
| September 2011. | September 2011. | |||
| [3] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object | [5] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency | |||
| and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, January 2008. | ||||
| [6] Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., and R. Randy, | ||||
| "Additional Data related to an Emergency Call", | ||||
| draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-06 (work in progress), | ||||
| February 2013. | ||||
| [7] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object | ||||
| Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. | Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. | |||
| [4] Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance for | [8] Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance for | |||
| the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442, December 2011. | the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442, December 2011. | |||
| [5] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller | [9] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller | |||
| Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", | Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", | |||
| RFC 3841, August 2004. | RFC 3841, August 2004. | |||
| [6] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV | 9.2. Informative references | |||
| Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) | ||||
| Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations", | ||||
| RFC 5491, March 2009. | ||||
| [7] Schulzrinne, H., Singh, V., Tschofenig, H., and M. Thomson, | ||||
| "Dynamic Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format | ||||
| Location Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5962, September 2010. | ||||
| [8] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency | ||||
| and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, January 2008. | ||||
| 10.2. Informative references | ||||
| [9] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for Emergency | [10] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for Emergency | |||
| Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", RFC 5012, | Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", RFC 5012, | |||
| January 2008. | January 2008. | |||
| [10] Taylor, T., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M. Shanmugam, | [11] Taylor, T., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M. Shanmugam, | |||
| "Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking | "Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking | |||
| and Mapping", RFC 5069, January 2008. | and Mapping", RFC 5069, January 2008. | |||
| [11] Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, "Trustworthy | [12] Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, "Trustworthy | |||
| Location Information", draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location-03 | Location", draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location-04 (work in | |||
| (work in progress), April 2012. | progress), October 2012. | |||
| [13] CEN, "Intelligent transport systems - eSafety - eCall minimum | ||||
| set of data (MSD), EN 15722", June 2011. | ||||
| [14] Schulzrinne, H., "Timed Presence Extensions to the Presence | ||||
| Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status Information | ||||
| for Past and Future Time Intervals", RFC 4481, July 2006. | ||||
| Appendix A. Matching Functionality with eCall Minimum Set of Data (MSD) | ||||
| [13] outlines a number of data elements that are transmitted in an | ||||
| emergency call triggered by a vehicle. This list compares the eCall | ||||
| minimum set of data with the functionality provided in this document. | ||||
| Version of the MSD Format | ||||
| Message Identifier: Every SIP INVITE message contains a Call-ID, | ||||
| which is a globally unique identifier for this call. | ||||
| Vehicle Type Encoding: [Editor's Note: Description to be added.]. | ||||
| Test Call Indication A service URN starting with "test." indicates a | ||||
| request for an automated test. For example, | ||||
| "urn:service:test.sos.ecall.automatic" indicates such a test | ||||
| feature. This functionality is defined in [4]. | ||||
| Automatic Activation Indication: This document registers new service | ||||
| URNs, which allow the differentiation between manually and | ||||
| automatically triggered emergency calls. The two service URNs | ||||
| are: urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic and | ||||
| urn:service:sos.ecall.manual | ||||
| Vehicle Identification: The PIDF data structure contains a deviceID | ||||
| field that holds the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). | ||||
| Vehicle Propulsion Storage type: These parameters identify the type | ||||
| of vehicle energy storage(s) present. [Editor's Note: | ||||
| Description to be added.] | ||||
| Timestamp of Incident Event: The PIDF-LO element contains the | ||||
| timestamp when the PIDF-LO was created, which is at the time of | ||||
| the incident. | ||||
| Vehicle Location: The location of the vehicle is conveyed using the | ||||
| PIDF location objection, as described in Section 3. | ||||
| Vehicle Direction: The direction of the vehicle is part of location | ||||
| information, as described in Section 3. | ||||
| Recent Vehicle Location: With this optional functionality multiple | ||||
| location objects may be required to be transported simultaneously. | ||||
| This can be achieved using <timed-presence>, defined in RFC 4481 | ||||
| [14]. | ||||
| Number of Passengers: Minimum known number of fastened seatbelts. | ||||
| [Editor's Note: Description to be added.] | ||||
| Additional Data: [6] provides the ability to carry additional data | ||||
| for an emergency call. | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Brian Rosen | Brian Rosen | |||
| NeuStar, Inc. | NeuStar, Inc. | |||
| 470 Conrad Dr | 470 Conrad Dr | |||
| Mars, PA 16046 | Mars, PA 16046 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: | Phone: | |||
| End of changes. 39 change blocks. | ||||
| 209 lines changed or deleted | 156 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/ | ||||