| < draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-12.txt | draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECRIT H. Schulzrinne | ECRIT H. Schulzrinne | |||
| Internet-Draft Columbia U. | Internet-Draft Columbia U. | |||
| Expires: February 27, 2007 R. Marshall, Ed. | Intended status: Standards Track R. Marshall, Ed. | |||
| TCS | Expires: September 3, 2007 TCS | |||
| August 26, 2006 | March 2, 2007 | |||
| Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet | Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet | |||
| Technologies | Technologies | |||
| draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-12 | draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13 | |||
| 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 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶ | |||
| 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 February 27, 2007. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2007. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). | Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document defines terminology and enumerates requirements for the | This document defines terminology and enumerates requirements for the | |||
| context resolution of emergency calls placed by the public using | context resolution of emergency calls placed by the public using | |||
| voice-over-IP (VoIP) and general Internet multimedia systems, where | voice-over-IP (VoIP) and general Internet multimedia systems, where | |||
| Internet protocols are used end-to-end. | Internet protocols are used end-to-end. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.1 Emergency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. Emergency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.2 Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2. Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.3 Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.3. Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.4 Call Routing Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.4. Call Routing Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.5 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.5. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.6 Identifiers, Numbers and Dial Strings . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.6. Identifiers, Numbers and Dial Strings . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 3.7 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.7. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 4. Basic Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4. Basic Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 5. High-Level Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5. High-Level Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 6. Identifying the Caller's Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 6. Identifying the Caller's Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 7. Emergency Service Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 7. Emergency Service Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 8. Mapping Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 8. Mapping Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| 13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| 13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 32 | Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Users of both voice-centric (telephone-like) and non-voice services | Users of both voice-centric (telephone-like) and non-voice services | |||
| such as text communication for hearing disabled users (RFC 3351 [3]) | such as text communication for hearing disabled users (RFC 3351 | |||
| expect to be able to initiate a request for help in case of an | [RFC3351]) expect to be able to initiate a request for help in case | |||
| emergency. | of an emergency. | |||
| Unfortunately, the existing mechanisms to support emergency calls | Unfortunately, the existing mechanisms to support emergency calls | |||
| that have evolved within the public circuit-switched telephone | that have evolved within the public circuit-switched telephone | |||
| network (PSTN) are not appropriate to handle evolving IP-based voice, | network (PSTN) are not appropriate to handle evolving IP-based voice, | |||
| text and real-time multimedia communications. This document outlines | text and real-time multimedia communications. This document outlines | |||
| the key requirements that IP-based end systems and network elements, | the key requirements that IP-based end systems and network elements, | |||
| such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [2] proxies, need to | such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] proxies, need to | |||
| satisfy in order to provide emergency call services, which at a | satisfy in order to provide emergency call services, which at a | |||
| minimum, offer the same functionality as existing PSTN services, with | minimum, offer the same functionality as existing PSTN services, with | |||
| the additional overall goal of making emergency calling more robust, | the additional overall goal of making emergency calling more robust, | |||
| less costly to implement, and multimedia-capable. | less costly to implement, and multimedia-capable. | |||
| This document only focuses on end-to-end IP-based calls, i.e., where | This document only focuses on end-to-end IP-based calls, i.e., where | |||
| the emergency call originates from an IP end system and terminates in | the emergency call originates from an IP end system and terminates in | |||
| an IP-capable PSAP, conveyed entirely over an IP network. | an IP-capable PSAP, conveyed entirely over an IP network. | |||
| We first define terminology in Section 3. The document then outlines | We first define terminology in Section 3. The document then outlines | |||
| various functional issues which relate to placing an IP-based | various functional issues which relate to placing an IP-based | |||
| emergency call, including a description of baseline requirements | emergency call, including a description of baseline requirements | |||
| (Section 5), identification of the emergency caller's location | (Section 5), identification of the emergency caller's location | |||
| (Section 6), use of a service identifier to declare a call to be an | (Section 6), use of a service identifier to declare a call to be an | |||
| emergency call (Section 7), and finally, the mapping function | emergency call (Section 7), and finally, the mapping function | |||
| required to route the call to the appropriate PSAP (Section 8). | required to route the call to the appropriate PSAP (Section 8). | |||
| The primary purpose of the mapping protocol is to produce a PSAP URI | The primary purpose of the mapping protocol is to produce a PSAP URI | |||
| drawn from a preferred set of URI schemes such as SIP or SIPS URIs, | drawn from a preferred set of URI schemes such as SIP or SIPS URIs, | |||
| based on both location information [8] and a service identifier in | based on both location information [RFC4119] and a service identifier | |||
| order to facilitate the IP end-to-end completion of an emergency | in order to facilitate the IP end-to-end completion of an emergency | |||
| call. | call. | |||
| Aside from obtaining a PSAP URI, the mapping protocol is useful for | Aside from obtaining a PSAP URI, the mapping protocol is useful for | |||
| obtaining other information as well. There may be a case, for | obtaining other information as well. There may be a case, for | |||
| example, where an appropriate emergency number is not known, only | example, where an appropriate emergency number is not known, only | |||
| location. The mapping protocol can then return a geographically | location. The mapping protocol can then return a geographically | |||
| appropriate emergency number based on the input. | appropriate emergency number based on the input. | |||
| Since some PSAPs may not immediately support IP, or because some user | Since some PSAPs may not immediately support IP, or because some user | |||
| equipment (UE) may not initially support emergency service | equipment (UE) may not initially support emergency service | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 14 ¶ | |||
| Identification of the caller, while not incompatible with the | Identification of the caller, while not incompatible with the | |||
| requirements for messaging outlined within this document, is | requirements for messaging outlined within this document, is | |||
| considered to be outside the scope of this document. | considered to be outside the scope of this document. | |||
| Location is required for two separate purposes, first, to support the | Location is required for two separate purposes, first, to support the | |||
| routing of the emergency call to the appropriate PSAP and second, to | routing of the emergency call to the appropriate PSAP and second, to | |||
| display the caller's location to the call taker to help in | display the caller's location to the call taker to help in | |||
| dispatching emergency assistance to the appropriate location. | dispatching emergency assistance to the appropriate location. | |||
| This latter use, the display of location information to the PSAP, is | ||||
| orthogonal to the mapping protocol, and is outside the scope of this | ||||
| document. | ||||
| 2. Requirements Terminology | 2. Requirements Terminology | |||
| In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1], | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119], | |||
| with the qualification that unless otherwise stated these words apply | with the important qualification that, unless otherwise stated, these | |||
| to the design of the mapping protocol, not its implementation or | terms apply to the design of the mapping protocol, not its | |||
| application. | implementation or application. | |||
| 3. Terminology | 3. Terminology | |||
| 3.1 Emergency Services | 3.1. Emergency Services | |||
| Basic emergency service: Basic emergency service allows a caller to | Basic emergency service: Basic emergency service allows a caller to | |||
| reach a PSAP serving its current location, but the PSAP may not be | reach a PSAP serving its current location, but the PSAP may not be | |||
| able to determine the identity or geographic location of the | able to determine the identity or geographic location of the | |||
| caller, except by the call taker asking the caller. | caller, except by the call taker asking the caller. | |||
| Enhanced emergency service: In enhanced emergency service, the PSAP | Enhanced emergency service: In enhanced emergency service, the PSAP | |||
| call taker can determine the caller's current location. | call taker can determine the caller's current location. | |||
| 3.2 Service Providers | 3.2. Service Providers | |||
| Internet Attachment Provider (IAP): An organization that provides | Internet Access Provider (IAP): An organization that provides | |||
| physical and data link (layer 2) network connectivity to its | physical and data link (layer 2) network connectivity to its | |||
| customers or users, e.g., through digital subscriber lines, cable | customers or users, e.g., through digital subscriber lines, cable | |||
| TV plants, Ethernet, leased lines or radio frequencies. Examples | TV plants, Ethernet, leased lines or radio frequencies. Examples | |||
| of such organizations include telecommunication carriers, | of such organizations include telecommunication carriers, | |||
| municipal utilities, larger enterprises with their own network | municipal utilities, larger enterprises with their own network | |||
| infrastructure, and government organizations such as the military. | infrastructure, and government organizations such as the military. | |||
| Internet Service Provider (ISP): An organization that provides IP | Internet Service Provider (ISP): An organization that provides IP | |||
| network-layer services to its customers or users. This entity may | network-layer services to its customers or users. This entity may | |||
| or may not provide the physical-layer and data link (layer-2) | or may not provide the physical-layer and data link (layer-2) | |||
| connectivity, such as fiber or Ethernet, i.e., it may or may not | connectivity, such as fiber or Ethernet, i.e., it may or may not | |||
| play the role of an IAP. | play the role of an IAP. | |||
| Application Service Provider (ASP): The organization or entity that | Application Service Provider (ASP): The organization or entity that | |||
| provides application-layer services, which may include voice (see | provides application-layer services, which may include voice (see | |||
| "Voice Service Provider"). This entity can be a private | "Voice Service Provider"). This entity can be a private | |||
| individual, an enterprise, a government, or a service provider. | individual, an enterprise, a government, or a service provider. | |||
| An ASP is more general than a Voice Service Provider, since | An ASP is more general than a Voice Service Provider, since | |||
| emergency calls may use other media beyond voice, including text | emergency calls may use other media beyond voice, including text | |||
| and video. For a particular user, the ASP may or may not be the | and video. For a particular user, the ASP may or may not be the | |||
| same organization as his IAP or ISP. | same organization as his IAP or ISP. | |||
| Voice Service Provider (VSP): A specific type of Application Service | Voice Service Provider (VSP): A specific type of Application Service | |||
| Provider which provides voice related services based on IP, such | Provider which provides voice related services based on IP, such | |||
| as call routing, a SIP URI, or PSTN termination. In this | as call routing, a SIP URI, or PSTN termination. In this | |||
| document, unless noted otherwise, any reference to "Voice Service | document, unless noted otherwise, any reference to "Voice Service | |||
| Provider" or "VSP" may be used interchangeably with "Application/ | Provider" or "VSP" may be used interchangeably with "Application/ | |||
| Voice Service Provider" or "ASP/VSP". | Voice Service Provider" or "ASP/VSP". | |||
| 3.3 Actors | 3.3. Actors | |||
| (Emergency) caller: The term "caller" or "emergency caller" refer to | (Emergency) caller: The term "caller" or "emergency caller" refer to | |||
| the person placing an emergency call or sending an emergency | the person placing an emergency call or sending an emergency | |||
| instant message (IM). | instant message (IM). | |||
| User Equipment (UE): User equipment is the device or software | User Equipment (UE): User equipment is the device or software | |||
| operated by the caller to place an emergency call. A SIP user | operated by the caller to place an emergency call. A SIP user | |||
| agent (UA) is an example of a UE. | agent (UA) is an example of a UE. | |||
| Call taker: A call taker is an agent at the PSAP that accepts calls | Call taker: A call taker is an agent at the PSAP that accepts calls | |||
| and may dispatch emergency help. Sometimes the functions of call | and may dispatch emergency help. Sometimes the functions of call | |||
| taking and dispatching are handled by different groups of people, | taking and dispatching are handled by different groups of people, | |||
| but these divisions of labor are not generally visible to the | but these divisions of labor are not generally visible to the | |||
| caller and thus do not concern us here. | caller and thus do not concern us here. | |||
| 3.4 Call Routing Entities | 3.4. Call Routing Entities | |||
| Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP): An ESRP is an emergency call | Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP): An ESRP is an emergency call | |||
| routing support entity that invokes the location-to-PSAP URI | routing support entity that invokes the location-to-PSAP URI | |||
| mapping, to return either the URI for the appropriate PSAP, or the | mapping function, to return an appropriate PSAP URI, or the URI | |||
| URI for another ESRP. (In a SIP system, the ESRP would typically | for another ESRP. Client mapping requests could also be performed | |||
| be a SIP proxy, but may also be a back-to-back user agent | by a number of entities, including entities that instantiate the | |||
| (B2BUA)). | SIP proxy role and the SIP user agent client role. | |||
| Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP): Physical location where | Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP): Physical location where | |||
| emergency calls are received under the responsibility of a public | emergency calls are received under the responsibility of a public | |||
| authority. (This terminology is used by both ETSI, in ETSI SR 002 | authority. (This terminology is used by both ETSI, in ETSI SR 002 | |||
| 180, and NENA.) In the United Kingdom, PSAPs are called Operator | 180, and NENA.) In the United Kingdom, PSAPs are called Operator | |||
| Assistance Centres, in New Zealand, Communications Centres. | Assistance Centres, in New Zealand, Communications Centres. | |||
| Within this document, it is assumed, unless stated otherwise, that | Within this document, it is assumed, unless stated otherwise, that | |||
| PSAPs support the receipt of emergency calls over IP, using | PSAPs support the receipt of emergency calls over IP, using | |||
| appropriate application layer protocols such as SIP for call | appropriate application layer protocols such as SIP for call | |||
| signaling and RTP for media. | signaling and RTP for media. | |||
| 3.5 Location | 3.5. Location | |||
| Location: A geographic identification assigned to a region or feature | Location: A geographic identification assigned to a region or | |||
| based on a specific coordinate system, or by other precise | feature based on a specific coordinate system, or by other precise | |||
| information such as a street number and name. It can be either a | information such as a street number and name. It can be either a | |||
| civic or geographic location. | civic or geographic location. | |||
| Civic location: A described location based on some reference system, | Civic location: A described location based on some reference system, | |||
| such as jurisdictional region or postal delivery grid. A street | such as jurisdictional region or postal delivery grid. A street | |||
| address is a common example of a civic location. | address is a common example of a civic location. | |||
| Geographic location: A reference to a point which is able to be | Geographic location: A reference to a point which is able to be | |||
| located as described by a set of defined coordinates within a | located as described by a set of defined coordinates within a | |||
| geographic coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude | geographic coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude | |||
| within the WGS-84 datum. For example, 2-D geographic location is | within the WGS-84 datum. For example, 2-D geographic location is | |||
| defined as an (x,y) coordinate value pair according to the | defined as an (x,y) coordinate value pair according to the | |||
| distance north or south of the equator and east or west of the | distance north or south of the equator and east or west of the | |||
| prime meridian. | prime meridian. | |||
| Location validation: A caller location is considered valid if the | Location validation: A caller location is considered valid if the | |||
| civic or geographic location is recognizable within an acceptable | civic or geographic location is recognizable within an acceptable | |||
| location reference system (e.g., United States Postal Address or | location reference system (e.g., United States Postal Address or | |||
| the WGS-84 datum) and can be mapped to one or more PSAPs. While | the WGS-84 datum) and can be mapped to one or more PSAPs. While | |||
| it is desirable to determine that a location exists, validation | it is desirable to determine that a location exists, validation | |||
| may not ensure that such a location exists, but rather may only | may not ensure that such a location exists, but rather may only | |||
| ensure that the location falls within some range of known values. | ensure that the location falls within some range of known values. | |||
| Location validation ensures that a location is able to be | Location validation ensures that a location is able to be | |||
| referenced for mapping, but makes no assumption about the | referenced for mapping, but makes no assumption about the | |||
| association between the caller and the caller's location. | association between the caller and the caller's location. | |||
| 3.6 Identifiers, Numbers and Dial Strings | 3.6. Identifiers, Numbers and Dial Strings | |||
| (Emergency) service number: The (emergency) service number is a | (Emergency) service number: The (emergency) service number is a | |||
| string of digits used to reach the (emergency) service. The | string of digits used to reach the (emergency) service. The | |||
| emergency service number is often just called the emergency | emergency service number is often just called the emergency | |||
| number. It is the number typically dialed on devices directly | number. It is the number typically dialed on devices directly | |||
| connected to the PSTN and the number reserved for emergency calls | connected to the PSTN and the number reserved for emergency calls | |||
| by national or regional numbering authorities. It only contains | by national or regional numbering authorities. It only contains | |||
| the digits 0 through 9, # and *. The service number may depend on | the digits 0 through 9, # and *. The service number may depend on | |||
| the location of the caller. For example, the general emergency | the location of the caller. For example, the general emergency | |||
| service number in the United States is 911 and the poison control | service number in the United States is 911 and the poison control | |||
| service number is 18002221222. In most cases, the service number | service number is 18002221222. In most cases, the service number | |||
| and dial string are the same; they may differ in some private | and dial string are the same; they may differ in some private | |||
| phone networks. A service number may be carried in tel URLs [6], | phone networks. A service number may be carried in tel URLs | |||
| along with a context identifier. In the North American numbering | [RFC3966], along with a context identifier. In the North American | |||
| plan, some service numbers are also three-digit N11 or service | numbering plan, some service numbers are also three-digit N11 or | |||
| codes, but not all emergency numbers have three digits. A caller | service codes, but not all emergency numbers have three digits. A | |||
| may have to dial a service dial string (below) that differs from | caller may have to dial a service dial string (below) that differs | |||
| the service number when using a PBX. | from the service number when using a PBX. | |||
| (Emergency) service dial string: The service dial string identifies | (Emergency) service dial string: The service dial string identifies | |||
| the string of digits that a caller must dial to reach a particular | the string of digits that a caller must dial to reach a particular | |||
| (emergency) service. In devices directly connected to the PSTN, | (emergency) service. In devices directly connected to the PSTN, | |||
| the service dial string is the same as the service number and may | the service dial string is the same as the service number and may | |||
| thus depend on the location of the caller. However, in private | thus depend on the location of the caller. However, in private | |||
| phone networks, such as in PBXs, the service dial string consists | phone networks, such as in PBXs, the service dial string consists | |||
| of a dialing prefix to reach an outside line, followed by the | of a dialing prefix to reach an outside line, followed by the | |||
| emergency number. For example, in a hotel, the dial string for | emergency number. For example, in a hotel, the dial string for | |||
| emergency services in the United States might be 9911. Dial | emergency services in the United States might be 9911. Dial | |||
| strings may contain indications of pauses or wait-for-secondary- | strings may contain indications of pauses or wait-for-secondary- | |||
| dial-tone indications. Service dial strings are outside the scope | dial-tone indications. Service dial strings are outside the scope | |||
| of this document. | of this document. | |||
| (Emergency) service identifier: The (emergency) service identifier | (Emergency) service identifier: The (emergency) service identifier | |||
| describes the emergency service, independent of the user interface | describes the emergency service, independent of the user interface | |||
| mechanism, the signaling protocol that is used to reach the | mechanism, the signaling protocol that is used to reach the | |||
| service, or the caller's geographic location. It is a protocol | service, or the caller's geographic location. It is a protocol | |||
| constant and used within the mapping and signaling protocols. An | constant and used within the mapping and signaling protocols. An | |||
| example is the service URN [11]. | example is the service URN [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn]. | |||
| (Emergency) service URL: The service URL is a protocol-specific | (Emergency) service URL: The service URL is a protocol-specific | |||
| (e.g., SIP) or protocol-agnostic (e.g., im: [5]) contains the | (e.g., SIP) or protocol-agnostic (e.g., im: [RFC3860]) identifier | |||
| address of the PSAP or other emergency service. It depends on the | which contains the address of the PSAP or other emergency service. | |||
| specific signaling or data transport protocol used to reach the | It depends on the specific signaling or data transport protocol | |||
| emergency service. | used to reach the emergency service. | |||
| Service URN: A service URN is an implementation of a service | Service URN: A service URN is an implementation of a service | |||
| identifier, which can be applied to both emergency and non- | identifier, which can be applied to both emergency and non- | |||
| emergency contexts, e.g., urn:service:sos or | emergency contexts, e.g., urn:service:sos or | |||
| urn:service:counseling. Within this document, service URNs are | urn:service:counseling. Within this document, service URNs are | |||
| referred to as 'emergency service URNs' [11]. | referred to as 'emergency service URNs' | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn]. | ||||
| Home emergency number: A home emergency number is the emergency | Home emergency number: A home emergency number is the emergency | |||
| number valid at the caller's customary home location, e.g., his | number valid at the caller's customary home location, e.g., his | |||
| permanent residence. The home location may or may not coincide | permanent residence. The home location may or may not coincide | |||
| with the service area of the caller's VSP. | with the service area of the caller's VSP. | |||
| Home emergency dial string: A home dial string is the dial string | Home emergency dial string: A home dial string is the dial string | |||
| valid at the caller's customary home location, e.g., his permanent | valid at the caller's customary home location, e.g., his permanent | |||
| residence. | residence. | |||
| Visited emergency number: A visited emergency number is the emergency | Visited emergency number: A visited emergency number is the | |||
| number valid at the caller's current physical location. We | emergency number valid at the caller's current physical location. | |||
| distinguish the visited emergency number if the caller is | We distinguish the visited emergency number if the caller is | |||
| traveling outside his home region. | traveling outside his home region. | |||
| Visited emergency dial string: A visited emergency dial string is the | Visited emergency dial string: A visited emergency dial string is | |||
| dial string number valid at the caller's current physical | the dial string number valid at the caller's current physical | |||
| location. | location. | |||
| 3.7 Mapping | 3.7. Mapping | |||
| Mapping: Mapping is the process of resolving a location to one or | Mapping: Mapping is the process of resolving a location to one or | |||
| more PSAP URIs which directly identify a PSAP, or point to an | more PSAP URIs which directly identify a PSAP, or point to an | |||
| intermediary which knows about a PSAP and that is designated as | intermediary which knows about a PSAP and that is designated as | |||
| responsible for serving that location. | responsible for serving that location. | |||
| Mapping client: A mapping client interacts with the mapping server to | Mapping client: A mapping client interacts with the mapping server | |||
| learn one or more PSAP URIs for a given location. | to learn one or more PSAP URIs for a given location. | |||
| Mapping protocol: A protocol used to convey the mapping request and | Mapping protocol: A protocol used to convey the mapping request and | |||
| response. | response. | |||
| Mapping server: The mapping server holds information about the | Mapping server: The mapping server holds information about the | |||
| location-to-PSAP URI mapping. | location-to-PSAP URI mapping. | |||
| Mapping service: A network service which uses a distributed mapping | Mapping service: A network service which uses a distributed mapping | |||
| protocol to perform a mapping between a location and a PSAP, or | protocol to perform a mapping between a location and a PSAP, or | |||
| intermediary which knows about the PSAP, and is used to assist in | intermediary which knows about the PSAP, and is used to assist in | |||
| routing an emergency call. | routing an emergency call. | |||
| 4. Basic Actors | 4. Basic Actors | |||
| In order to support emergency services covering a large physical | In order to support emergency services covering a large physical | |||
| area, various infrastructure elements are necessary, including | area, various infrastructure elements are necessary, including | |||
| Internet Attachment Providers (IAPs), Application/Voice Service | Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Application/Voice Service Providers | |||
| Providers (ASP/VSPs), Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP) | (ASP/VSPs), Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP) providers, mapping | |||
| providers, mapping service providers, and PSAPs. | service providers, and PSAPs. | |||
| This section outlines which entities will be considered in the | This section outlines which entities will be considered in the | |||
| routing scenarios discussed. | routing scenarios discussed. | |||
| Location | Location | |||
| Information +-----------------+ | Information +-----------------+ | |||
| |(1) |Internet | +-----------+ | |(1) |Internet | +-----------+ | |||
| v |Attachment | | | | v |Access | | | | |||
| +-----------+ |Provider | | Mapping | | +-----------+ |Provider | | Mapping | | |||
| | | | (3) | | Service | | | | | (3) | | Service | | |||
| | Emergency |<---+-----------------+-->| | | | Emergency |<---+-----------------+-->| | | |||
| | Caller | | (2) | +-----------+ | | Caller | | (2) | +-----------+ | |||
| | |<---+-------+ | ^ | | |<---+-------+ | ^ | |||
| +-----------+ | +----|---------+------+ | | +-----------+ | +----|---------+------+ | | |||
| ^ | | Location | | | | ^ | | Location | | | | |||
| | | | Information<-+ | | | | | | Information<-+ | | | |||
| | +--+--------------+ |(5) | | (6) | | +--+--------------+ |(5) | | (6) | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 5 ¶ | |||
| |Service | | |Service | | |||
| |Provider | | |Provider | | |||
| +---------------------+ | +---------------------+ | |||
| Figure 1: Framework for emergency call routing | Figure 1: Framework for emergency call routing | |||
| Figure 1 shows the interaction between the entities involved in the | Figure 1 shows the interaction between the entities involved in the | |||
| call. There are a number of different deployment choices, as can be | call. There are a number of different deployment choices, as can be | |||
| easily seen from the figure. | easily seen from the figure. | |||
| Is the Internet Attachment Provider also the Application/Voice | Is the Internet Access Provider also the Application/Voice Service | |||
| Service Provider? In the Internet today these roles are typically | Provider? In the Internet today these roles are typically provided | |||
| provided by different entities. As a consequence, the Application/ | by different entities. As a consequence, the Application/Voice | |||
| Voice Service Provider is typically not able to directly determine | Service Provider is typically not able to directly determine the | |||
| the physical location of the emergency caller. | physical location of the emergency caller. | |||
| The overlapping squares in the figure indicate that some functions | The overlapping squares in the figure indicate that some functions | |||
| can be collapsed into a single entity. As an example, the | can be collapsed into a single entity. As an example, the | |||
| Application/Voice Service Provider might be the same entity as the | Application/Voice Service Provider might be the same entity as the | |||
| Internet Attachment Provider. There is, however, no requirement that | Internet Access Provider. There is, however, no requirement that | |||
| this must be the case. Additionally, we consider that end systems | this must be the case. Additionally, we consider that end systems | |||
| might act as their own ASP/VSP, e.g., either for enterprises or for | might act as their own ASP/VSP, e.g., either for enterprises or for | |||
| residential users. | residential users. | |||
| Various potential interactions between the entities depicted in | Various potential interactions between the entities depicted in | |||
| Figure 1 are described below: | Figure 1 are described below: | |||
| 1. Location information might be available to the end host itself. | 1. Location information might be available to the end host itself. | |||
| 2. Location information might, however, also be obtained from the | 2. Location information might, however, also be obtained from the | |||
| Internet Attachment Provider. | Internet Access Provider. | |||
| 3. The emergency caller might need to consult a mapping service to | 3. The emergency caller might need to consult a mapping service to | |||
| determine the PSAP (or other relevant information) that is | determine the PSAP (or other relevant information) that is | |||
| appropriate for the physical location of the emergency caller, | appropriate for the physical location of the emergency caller, | |||
| possibly considering other attributes such as appropriate | possibly considering other attributes such as appropriate | |||
| language support by the emergency call taker. | language support by the emergency call taker. | |||
| 4. The emergency caller might get assistance for emergency call | 4. The emergency caller might get assistance for emergency call | |||
| routing by infrastructure elements that are emergency call | routing by infrastructure elements that are emergency call | |||
| routing support entities, such as an Emergency Service Routing | routing support entities, such as an Emergency Service Routing | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 10 ¶ | |||
| 8. The emergency caller may interact directly with the PSAP, where | 8. The emergency caller may interact directly with the PSAP, where | |||
| the UE invokes mapping, and initiates a connection, without | the UE invokes mapping, and initiates a connection, without | |||
| relying on any intermediary emergency call routing support | relying on any intermediary emergency call routing support | |||
| entities. | entities. | |||
| 5. High-Level Requirements | 5. High-Level Requirements | |||
| Below, we summarize high-level architectural requirements that guide | Below, we summarize high-level architectural requirements that guide | |||
| some of the component requirements detailed later in the document. | some of the component requirements detailed later in the document. | |||
| Re1. Application/Voice service provider existence: The initiation of | Re1. Application/Voice service provider existence: The initiation | |||
| an IP-based emergency call SHOULD NOT assume the existence of an | of an IP-based emergency call SHOULD NOT assume the existence of | |||
| Application/Voice Service Provider (ASP/VSP). | an Application/Voice Service Provider (ASP/VSP). | |||
| Motivation: The caller may not have an application/voice service | Motivation: The caller may not have an application/voice service | |||
| provider. For example, a residence may have its own DNS domain | provider. For example, a residence may have its own DNS domain | |||
| and run its own SIP proxy server for that domain. On a larger | and run its own SIP proxy server for that domain. On a larger | |||
| scale, a university might provide voice services to its students | scale, a university might provide voice services to its students | |||
| and staff, but might not be a telecommunication provider. | and staff, but might not be a telecommunication provider. | |||
| Re2. International applicability: Regional, political and | Re2. International applicability: Regional, political and | |||
| organizational aspects MUST be considered during the design of | organizational aspects MUST be considered during the design of | |||
| protocols and protocol extensions which support IP-based emergency | protocols and protocol extensions which support IP-based emergency | |||
| calls. | calls. | |||
| Motivation: It must be possible for a device or software developed | Motivation: It must be possible for a device or software developed | |||
| or purchased in one country to place emergency calls in another | or purchased in one country to place emergency calls in another | |||
| country. System components should not be biased towards a | country. System components should not be biased towards a | |||
| particular set of emergency numbers or languages. Also, different | particular set of emergency numbers or languages. Also, different | |||
| countries have evolved different ways of organizing emergency | countries have evolved different ways of organizing emergency | |||
| services, e.g., either centralizing them or having smaller | services, e.g., either centralizing them or having smaller | |||
| regional subdivisions such as United States counties or | regional subdivisions such as United States counties or | |||
| municipalities handle emergency calls within their jurisdiction. | municipalities handle emergency calls within their jurisdiction. | |||
| Re3. Distributed administration: Deployment of IP-based emergency | Re3. Distributed administration: Deployment of IP-based emergency | |||
| services MUST NOT depend on a single central administrative | services MUST NOT depend on a single central administrative | |||
| authority. | authority. | |||
| Motivation: The design of the mapping protocol must make it | Motivation: The design of the mapping protocol must make it | |||
| possible to deploy and administer emergency calling features on a | possible to deploy and administer emergency calling features on a | |||
| regional or national basis without requiring coordination with | regional or national basis without requiring coordination with | |||
| other regions or nations. The system cannot assume, for example, | other regions or nations. The system cannot assume, for example, | |||
| that there is a single global entity issuing certificates for | that there is a single global entity issuing certificates for | |||
| PSAPs, ASP/VSPs, IAPs or other participants. | PSAPs, ASP/VSPs, IAPs or other participants. | |||
| Re4. Multi-mode communication: IP-based emergency calls MUST support | Re4. Multi-mode communication: IP-based emergency calls MUST | |||
| multiple communication modes, including, for example, audio, video | support multiple communication modes, including, for example, | |||
| and text. | audio, video and text. | |||
| Motivation: Within the PSTN, voice and text telephony (often | Motivation: Within the PSTN, voice and text telephony (often | |||
| called TTY or text-phone in North America) are the only commonly | called TTY or text-phone in North America) are the only commonly | |||
| supported media. Emergency calling must support a variety of | supported media. Emergency calling must support a variety of | |||
| media. Such media should include voice, conversational text (RFC | media. Such media should include voice, conversational text (RFC | |||
| 4103 [7]), instant messaging and video. | 4103 [RFC4103]), instant messaging and video. | |||
| Re5. Mapping result usability: The mapping protocol MUST return one | Re5. Mapping result usability: The mapping protocol MUST return one | |||
| or more URIs that are usable within a standard signaling protocol | or more URIs that are usable within a standard signaling protocol | |||
| (i.e., without special emergency extensions). | (i.e., without special emergency extensions). | |||
| Motivation: For example, a SIP URI which is returned by the | Motivation: For example, a SIP URI which is returned by the | |||
| mapping protocol needs to be usable by any SIP capable phone | mapping protocol needs to be usable by any SIP capable phone | |||
| within a SIP initiated emergency call. This is in contrast to a | within a SIP initiated emergency call. This is in contrast to a | |||
| "special purpose" URI, which may not be recognizable by a legacy | "special purpose" URI, which may not be recognizable by a legacy | |||
| SIP device. | SIP device. | |||
| Re6. PSAP URI accessibility: The mapping protocol MUST support | Re6. PSAP URI accessibility: The mapping protocol MUST support | |||
| interaction between the client and server where no enrollment to a | interaction between the client and server where no enrollment to a | |||
| mapping service exists or is required. | mapping service exists or is required. | |||
| Motivation: The mapping server may well be operated by a service | Motivation: The mapping server may well be operated by a service | |||
| provider, but access to the server offering the mapping must not | provider, but access to the server offering the mapping must not | |||
| require use of a specific ISP or ASP/VSP. | require use of a specific ISP or ASP/VSP. | |||
| Re7. Common data structures and formats: The mapping protocol SHOULD | Re7. Common data structures and formats: The mapping protocol | |||
| support common formats for location data. | SHOULD support common formats for location data. | |||
| Motivation: Location databases should not need to be transformed | Motivation: Location databases should not need to be transformed | |||
| or modified in any unusual or unreasonable way in order for the | or modified in any unusual or unreasonable way in order for the | |||
| mapping protocol to use the data. For example, a database which | mapping protocol to use the data. For example, a database which | |||
| contains civic addresses used by location servers may be used for | contains civic addresses used by location servers may be used for | |||
| multiple purposes and applications beyond emergency service | multiple purposes and applications beyond emergency service | |||
| location-to-PSAP URI mapping. | location-to-PSAP URI mapping. | |||
| Re8. Anonymous mapping: The mapping protocol MUST NOT require the | Re8. Anonymous mapping: The mapping protocol MUST NOT require the | |||
| true identity of the target for which the location information is | true identity of the target for which the location information is | |||
| attributed. | attributed. | |||
| Motivation: Ideally, no identity information is provided via the | Motivation: Ideally, no identity information is provided via the | |||
| mapping protocol. Where identity information is provided, it may | mapping protocol. Where identity information is provided, it may | |||
| be in the form of an unlinked pseudonym (RFC 3693 [4]). | be in the form of an unlinked pseudonym (RFC 3693 [RFC3693]). | |||
| 6. Identifying the Caller's Location | 6. Identifying the Caller's Location | |||
| Location can either be provided directly (by value), or via a pointer | Location can either be provided directly (by value), or via a pointer | |||
| (by reference), and represents either a civic location, or a | (by reference), and represents either a civic location, or a | |||
| geographic location. An important question is how and when to attach | geographic location. An important question is how and when to attach | |||
| location information to the VoIP emergency signaling messages. In | location information to the VoIP emergency signaling messages. In | |||
| general, we can distinguish three modes of operation of how a | general, we can distinguish three modes of operation of how a | |||
| location is associated with an emergency call: | location is associated with an emergency call: | |||
| UA-inserted: The caller's user agent inserts the location information | UA-inserted: The caller's user agent inserts the location | |||
| into the call signaling message. | information into the call signaling message. | |||
| UA-referenced: The caller's user agent provides a pointer (i.e., a | UA-referenced: The caller's user agent provides a pointer (i.e., a | |||
| location reference), via a permanent or temporary identifier, to | location reference), via a permanent or temporary identifier, to | |||
| the location information, which is stored by a location server | the location information, which is stored by a location server | |||
| somewhere else and then retrieved by the PSAP, ESRP, or other | somewhere else and then retrieved by the PSAP, ESRP, or other | |||
| authorized entity. | authorized entity. | |||
| Proxy-inserted: A proxy along the call path inserts the location or | Proxy-inserted: A proxy along the call path inserts the location or | |||
| location reference. | location reference. | |||
| The following requirements apply: | The following requirements apply: | |||
| Lo1. Reference datum: The mapping protocol MUST support the WGS-84 | Lo1. Reference datum: The mapping protocol MUST support the WGS-84 | |||
| coordinate reference system and MAY support other coordinate | coordinate reference system and MAY support other coordinate | |||
| reference systems. | reference systems. | |||
| Motivation: Though many different datums exist around the world, | Motivation: Though many different datums exist around the world, | |||
| this document recommends the WGS-84 datum since it is designed to | this document recommends the WGS-84 datum since it is designed to | |||
| describe the whole earth, rather than a single continent or other | describe the whole earth, rather than a single continent or other | |||
| region, and is commonly used to represent Global Positioning | region, and is commonly used to represent Global Positioning | |||
| System coordinates. | System coordinates. | |||
| Lo2. Location delivery by-value: The mapping protocol MUST support | Lo2. Location delivery by-value: The mapping protocol MUST support | |||
| the delivery of location information using a by-value method, | the delivery of location information using a by-value method, | |||
| though it MAY also support de-referencing a URL that references a | though it MAY also support de-referencing a URL that references a | |||
| location object. | location object. | |||
| Motivation: The mapping protocol is not required to support the | Motivation: The mapping protocol is not required to support the | |||
| ability to de-reference specific location references. | ability to de-reference specific location references. | |||
| Lo3. Alternate community names: The mapping protocol MUST support | Lo3. Alternate community names: The mapping protocol MUST support | |||
| both the jurisdictional community name and the postal community | both the jurisdictional community name and the postal community | |||
| name fields within the PIDF-LO [8] data. | name fields within the PIDF-LO [RFC4119] data. | |||
| Motivation: The mapping protocol must accept queries with either | Motivation: The mapping protocol must accept queries with either a | |||
| a postal or jurisdictional community name field, or both, and | postal or jurisdictional community name field, or both, and | |||
| provide appropriate responses. If a mapping query contains only | provide appropriate responses. If a mapping query contains only | |||
| one community name and the database contains both jurisdictional | one community name and the database contains both jurisdictional | |||
| and postal community names, the mapping protocol response SHOULD | and postal community names, the mapping protocol response SHOULD | |||
| return both community names. | return both community names. | |||
| Lo4. Validation of civic location: The mapping protocol MUST support | Lo4. Validation of civic location: The mapping protocol MUST | |||
| location validation for civic locations (street addresses). | support location validation for civic locations (street | |||
| addresses). | ||||
| Motivation: Location validation provides an opportunity to help | Motivation: Location validation provides an opportunity to help | |||
| ascertain ahead of time whether or not a successful mapping to the | ascertain ahead of time whether or not a successful mapping to the | |||
| appropriate PSAP will likely occur when it is required. | appropriate PSAP will likely occur when it is required. | |||
| Validation may also help to avoid delays during emergency call | Validation may also help to avoid delays during emergency call | |||
| setup due to invalid location data. | setup due to invalid location data. | |||
| Lo5. Validation resolution: The mapping protocol MUST support the | Lo5. Information about location data used for mapping: The mapping | |||
| ability to provide ancillary information about the resolution of | protocol MUST support the ability to provide ancillary information | |||
| location data used to retrieve a PSAP URI. | about the resolution of location data used to retrieve a PSAP URI. | |||
| Motivation: The mapping server may not use all the data elements | Motivation: The mapping server may not use all the data elements | |||
| in the provided location information to determine a match, or may | in the provided location information to determine a match, or may | |||
| be able to find a match based on all of the information except for | be able to find a match based on all of the information except for | |||
| some specific data elements. The uniqueness of this information | some specific data elements. The uniqueness of this information | |||
| set may be used to differentiate among emergency jurisdictions. | set may be used to differentiate among emergency jurisdictions. | |||
| Precision or resolution in the context of this requirement might | Precision or resolution in the context of this requirement might | |||
| mean, for example, explicit identification of the data elements | mean, for example, explicit identification of the data elements | |||
| that were used successfully in the mapping. | that were used successfully in the mapping. | |||
| Lo6. Contact for location problems: The mapping protocol MUST | Lo6. Contact for location problems: The mapping protocol MUST | |||
| support a mechanism to contact an appropriate authority to resolve | support a mechanism to contact an appropriate authority to resolve | |||
| mapping-related issues for the queried location. For example, the | mapping-related issues for the queried location. For example, the | |||
| querier may want to report problems with the response values or | querier may want to report problems with the response values or | |||
| indicate that the mapping database is mistaken on declaring a | indicate that the mapping database is mistaken on declaring a | |||
| civic location as non-existent. | civic location as non-existent. | |||
| Motivation: Initially, authorities may provide URLs where a human | Motivation: Initially, authorities may provide URLs where a human | |||
| user can report problems with an address or location. In | user can report problems with an address or location. In | |||
| addition, web services may be defined to automate such reporting. | addition, web services may be defined to automate such reporting. | |||
| For example, the querier may wish to report that the mapping | For example, the querier may wish to report that the mapping | |||
| database may be missing a newly-built or renamed street or house | database may be missing a newly-built or renamed street or house | |||
| number. | number. | |||
| Lo7. Limits to validation: Successful validation of a civic location | Lo7. Limits to validation: Successful validation of a civic | |||
| MUST NOT be required to place an emergency call. | location MUST NOT be required to place an emergency call. | |||
| Motivation: In some cases, a civic location may not be considered | Motivation: In some cases, a civic location may not be considered | |||
| valid. This fact should not result in the call being dropped or | valid. This fact should not result in the call being dropped or | |||
| rejected by any entity along the call setup signaling path to the | rejected by any entity along the call setup signaling path to the | |||
| PSAP. | PSAP. | |||
| Lo8. 3D sensitive mapping: The mapping protocol MUST implement | Lo8. 3D sensitive mapping: The mapping protocol MUST implement | |||
| support for both 2D and 3D location information, and may accept | support for both 2D and 3D location information, and may accept | |||
| either a 2D or 3D mapping request as input. | either a 2D or 3D mapping request as input. | |||
| Motivation: It is expected that queriers may provide either 2D or | Motivation: It is expected that queriers may provide either 2D or | |||
| 3D data. When a 3D request is presented within an area only | 3D data. When a 3D request is presented within an area only | |||
| defined by 2D data within the mapping server, the mapping result | defined by 2D data within the mapping server, the mapping result | |||
| would be the same as if the height or altitude coordinate had been | would be the same as if the height or altitude coordinate had been | |||
| omitted from the mapping request. | omitted from the mapping request. | |||
| Lo9. Database type indicator: The mapping protocol MAY support a | Lo9. Database type indicator: The mapping protocol MAY support a | |||
| mechanism which provides an indication describing a specific type | mechanism which provides an indication describing a specific type | |||
| of location database used. | of location database used. | |||
| Motivation: It is useful to know the source of the data stored in | Motivation: It is useful to know the source of the data stored in | |||
| the database used for location validation, either for civic or | the database used for location validation, either for civic or | |||
| geographic location matching. In the United States, sources of | geographic location matching. In the United States, sources of | |||
| data could include the United States Postal Service, the Master | data could include the United States Postal Service, the Master | |||
| Street Address Guide (MSAG) or commercial map data providers. | Street Address Guide (MSAG) or commercial map data providers. | |||
| 7. Emergency Service Identifier | 7. Emergency Service Identifier | |||
| Emergency service identifiers are protocol constants that allow | Emergency service identifiers are protocol constants that allow | |||
| protocol entities such as SIP proxy servers to distinguish emergency | protocol entities such as SIP proxy servers to distinguish emergency | |||
| calls from non-emergency calls and to identify the specific emergency | calls from non-emergency calls and to identify the specific emergency | |||
| service desired. Emergency service identifiers are a subclass of | service desired. Emergency service identifiers are a subclass of | |||
| service identifiers that more generally identify services reachable | service identifiers that more generally identify services reachable | |||
| by callers. An example of a service identifier is the service URN | by callers. An example of a service identifier is the service URN | |||
| [11], but other identifiers, such as tel URIs [6], may also serve | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn], but other identifiers, such as tel URIs | |||
| this role during a transition period. | [RFC3966], may also serve this role during a transition period. | |||
| Since this document only addresses emergency services, we use the | Since this document only addresses emergency services, we use the | |||
| terms "emergency service identifier" and "service identifier" | terms "emergency service identifier" and "service identifier" | |||
| interchangeably. Requirements for these identifiers include: | interchangeably. Requirements for these identifiers include: | |||
| Id1. Multiple emergency services: The mapping protocol MUST be able | Id1. Multiple emergency services: The mapping protocol MUST be able | |||
| to distinguish between different emergency services, | to distinguish between different emergency services, | |||
| differentiated by different service identifiers. | differentiated by different service identifiers. | |||
| Motivation: Some jurisdictions may offer multiple types of | Motivation: Some jurisdictions may offer multiple types of | |||
| emergency services that operate independently and can be contacted | emergency services that operate independently and can be contacted | |||
| directly, for example, fire, police and ambulance services. | directly, for example, fire, police and ambulance services. | |||
| Id2. Extensible emergency service identifiers: The mapping protocol | Id2. Extensible emergency service identifiers: The mapping protocol | |||
| MUST support an extensible list of emergency identifiers, though | MUST support an extensible list of emergency identifiers, though | |||
| it is not required to provide mappings for every possible service. | it is not required to provide mappings for every possible service. | |||
| Motivation: Extensibility is required since new emergency | Motivation: Extensibility is required since new emergency services | |||
| services may be introduced over time, either globally or in some | may be introduced over time, either globally or in some | |||
| jurisdictions. The availability of emergency services depends on | jurisdictions. The availability of emergency services depends on | |||
| the locations. For example, the Netherlands are unlikely to offer | the locations. For example, the Netherlands are unlikely to offer | |||
| a mountain rescue service. | a mountain rescue service. | |||
| Id3. Discovery of emergency number: The mapping protocol MUST be | Id3. Discovery of emergency number: The mapping protocol MUST be | |||
| able to return the location-dependent emergency number for the | able to return the location-dependent emergency number for the | |||
| location indicated in the query. | location indicated in the query. | |||
| Motivation: Users are trained to dial the appropriate emergency | Motivation: Users are trained to dial the appropriate emergency | |||
| number to reach emergency services. There needs to be a way to | number to reach emergency services. There needs to be a way to | |||
| figure out the emergency number at the current location of the | figure out the emergency number at the current location of the | |||
| caller. | caller. | |||
| Id4. Home emergency number recognition: User equipment MUST be able | Id4. Home emergency number recognition: User equipment MUST be able | |||
| to translate a home emergency number into an emergency service | to translate a home emergency number into an emergency service | |||
| identifier. | identifier. | |||
| Motivation: The UE could be pre-provisioned with the appropriate | Motivation: The UE could be pre-provisioned with the appropriate | |||
| information in order to perform such a translation or could | information in order to perform such a translation or could | |||
| discover the emergency number by querying the mapping protocol | discover the emergency number by querying the mapping protocol | |||
| with its home location. | with its home location. | |||
| Id5. Emergency number replacement: There SHOULD be support for | Id5. Emergency number replacement: There SHOULD be support for | |||
| replacement of the emergency number with the appropriate emergency | replacement of the emergency number with the appropriate emergency | |||
| service identifier for each signaling protocol used for an | service identifier for each signaling protocol used for an | |||
| emergency call, based on local conventions, regulations, or | emergency call, based on local conventions, regulations, or | |||
| preference (e.g., as in the case of an enterprise). | preference (e.g., as in the case of an enterprise). | |||
| Motivation: Any signaling protocol requires the use of some | Motivation: Any signaling protocol requires the use of some | |||
| identifier to indicate the called party, and the user equipment | identifier to indicate the called party, and the user equipment | |||
| may lack the capability to determine the actual service URL (PSAP | may lack the capability to determine the actual service URL (PSAP | |||
| URI). The use of local conventions may be required as a | URI). The use of local conventions may be required as a | |||
| transition mechanism. Since relying on recognizing local | transition mechanism. Since relying on recognizing local | |||
| numbering conventions makes it difficult for devices to be used | numbering conventions makes it difficult for devices to be used | |||
| outside their home context and for external devices to be | outside their home context and for external devices to be | |||
| introduced into a network, protocols should use standardized | introduced into a network, protocols should use standardized | |||
| emergency service identifiers. | emergency service identifiers. | |||
| Id6. Emergency service identifier marking: Signaling protocols MUST | Id6. Emergency service identifier marking: Signaling protocols MUST | |||
| support emergency service identifiers to mark a call as an | support emergency service identifiers to mark a call as an | |||
| emergency call. | emergency call. | |||
| Motivation: Marking ensures proper handling as an emergency call | Motivation: Marking ensures proper handling as an emergency call | |||
| by downstream elements that may not recognize, for example, a | by downstream elements that may not recognize, for example, a | |||
| local variant of a logical emergency address. This marking | local variant of a logical emergency address. This marking | |||
| mechanism is related to, but independent of, marking calls for | mechanism is related to, but independent of, marking calls for | |||
| prioritized call handling [9]. | prioritized call handling [RFC4412]. | |||
| Id7. Handling unrecognized emergency service identifiers: There MUST | Id7. Handling unrecognized emergency service identifiers: There | |||
| be support for calls which are initiated as emergency calls even | MUST be support for calls which are initiated as emergency calls | |||
| if the specific emergency service requested is not recognized by | even if the specific emergency service requested is not recognized | |||
| the ESRP. Such calls will then be routed to a generic emergency | by the ESRP. Such calls will then be routed to a generic | |||
| service. | emergency service. | |||
| Motivation: Fallback routing allows new emergency services to be | Motivation: Fallback routing allows new emergency services to be | |||
| introduced incrementally, while avoiding non-routable emergency | introduced incrementally, while avoiding non-routable emergency | |||
| calls. For example, a call for marine rescue services would be | calls. For example, a call for marine rescue services would be | |||
| routed to a general PSAP if the caller's location does not offer | routed to a general PSAP if the caller's location does not offer | |||
| marine rescue services yet. | marine rescue services yet. | |||
| Id8. Return fallback service identifier: The mapping protocol must | Id8. Return fallback service identifier: The mapping protocol must | |||
| be able to report back the actual service mapped if the mapping | be able to report back the actual service mapped if the mapping | |||
| protocol substitutes another service for the one requested. | protocol substitutes another service for the one requested. | |||
| Motivation: A mapping server may be configured to automatically | Motivation: A mapping server may be configured to automatically | |||
| look up the PSAP for another service if the user-requested service | look up the PSAP for another service if the user-requested service | |||
| is not available for that location. For example, if there is no | is not available for that location. For example, if there is no | |||
| marine rescue service, the mapping protocol might return the PSAP | marine rescue service, the mapping protocol might return the PSAP | |||
| URL for general emergencies and include the "urn:service.sos" | URL for general emergencies and include the "urn:service.sos" | |||
| identifier in the response to alert the querier to that fact. | identifier in the response to alert the querier to that fact. | |||
| Id9. Discovery of visited emergency numbers: There MUST be a | Id9. Discovery of visited emergency numbers: There MUST be a | |||
| mechanism to allow the end device to learn visited emergency | mechanism to allow the end device to learn visited emergency | |||
| numbers. | numbers. | |||
| Motivation: Travelers visiting a foreign country may observe the | Motivation: Travelers visiting a foreign country may observe the | |||
| local emergency number, e.g., seeing it painted on the side of a | local emergency number, e.g., seeing it painted on the side of a | |||
| fire truck, and then rightfully expect to be able to dial that | fire truck, and then rightfully expect to be able to dial that | |||
| emergency number. Similarly, a local "good Samaritan" may use a | emergency number. Similarly, a local "good Samaritan" may use a | |||
| tourist's cell phone to summon help. | tourist's cell phone to summon help. | |||
| 8. Mapping Protocol | 8. Mapping Protocol | |||
| There are two basic approaches to invoke the mapping protocol. We | There are two basic approaches to invoke the mapping protocol. We | |||
| refer to these as caller-based and mediated. In each case, the | refer to these as caller-based and mediated. In each case, the | |||
| mapping client initiates a request to a mapping server via a mapping | mapping client initiates a request to a mapping server via a mapping | |||
| protocol. A proposed mapping protocol, LoST, is outlined in [12]. | protocol. A proposed mapping protocol, LoST, is outlined in | |||
| [I-D.hardie-ecrit-lost]. | ||||
| For caller-based resolution, the caller's user agent invokes the | For caller-based resolution, the caller's user agent invokes the | |||
| mapping protocol to determine the appropriate PSAP based on the | mapping protocol to determine the appropriate PSAP based on the | |||
| location provided. The resolution may take place well before the | location provided. The resolution may take place well before the | |||
| actual emergency call is placed, or at the time of the call. | actual emergency call is placed, or at the time of the call. | |||
| For mediated resolution, an emergency call routing support entity, | For mediated resolution, an emergency call routing support entity, | |||
| such as a SIP (outbound) proxy or redirect server invokes the mapping | such as a SIP (outbound) proxy or redirect server invokes the mapping | |||
| service. | service. | |||
| Since servers may be used as outbound proxy servers by clients that | Since servers may be used as outbound proxy servers by clients that | |||
| are not in the same geographic area as the proxy server, any proxy | are not in the same geographic area as the proxy server, any proxy | |||
| server has to be able to translate any caller location to the | server has to be able to translate any caller location to the | |||
| appropriate PSAP. (A traveler may, for example, accidentally or | appropriate PSAP. (A traveler may, for example, accidentally or | |||
| intentionally configure its home proxy server as its outbound proxy | intentionally configure its home proxy server as its outbound proxy | |||
| server, even while far away from home.) | server, even while far away from home.) | |||
| Ma1. Baseline query protocol: A mandatory-to-implement protocol MUST | Ma1. Baseline query protocol: A mandatory-to-implement protocol | |||
| be specified. | MUST be specified. | |||
| Motivation: An over-abundance of similarly-capable choices appears | Motivation: An over-abundance of similarly-capable choices appears | |||
| undesirable for interoperability. | undesirable for interoperability. | |||
| Ma2. Extensible protocol: The mapping protocol MUST be designed to | Ma2. Extensible protocol: The mapping protocol MUST be designed to | |||
| support the extensibility of location data elements, both for new | support the extensibility of location data elements, both for new | |||
| and existing fields. | and existing fields. | |||
| Motivation: This is needed, for example, to accommodate future | Motivation: This is needed, for example, to accommodate future | |||
| extensions to location information that might be included in the | extensions to location information that might be included in the | |||
| PIDF-LO ([8]). | PIDF-LO ([RFC4119]). | |||
| Ma3. Incrementally deployable: The mapping protocol MUST be designed | Ma3. Incrementally deployable: The mapping protocol MUST be | |||
| to support its incremental deployment. | designed to support its incremental deployment. | |||
| Motivation: It must not be necessary, for example, to have a | Motivation: It must not be necessary, for example, to have a | |||
| global street level database before deploying the system. It is | global street level database before deploying the system. It is | |||
| acceptable to have some misrouting of calls when the database does | acceptable to have some misrouting of calls when the database does | |||
| not (yet) contain accurate PSAP service area information. | not (yet) contain accurate PSAP service area information. | |||
| Ma4. Any time mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support the ability | Ma4. Any time mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support the | |||
| of the mapping function to be invoked at any time, including while | ability of the mapping function to be invoked at any time, | |||
| an emergency call is in process and before an emergency call is | including while an emergency call is in process and before an | |||
| initiated. | emergency call is initiated. | |||
| Motivation: Used as a fallback mechanism only, if a mapping query | Motivation: Used as a fallback mechanism only, if a mapping query | |||
| fails at emergency call time, it may be advantageous to have prior | fails at emergency call time, it may be advantageous to have prior | |||
| knowledge of the PSAP URI. This prior knowledge would be obtained | knowledge of the PSAP URI. This prior knowledge would be obtained | |||
| by performing a mapping query at any time prior to an emergency | by performing a mapping query at any time prior to an emergency | |||
| call. | call. | |||
| Ma5. Anywhere mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support the ability | Ma5. Anywhere mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support the | |||
| to provide mapping information in response to an individual query | ability to provide mapping information in response to an | |||
| from any (earthly) location, regardless of where the mapping | individual query from any (earthly) location, regardless of where | |||
| client is located, either geographically or by network location. | the mapping client is located, either geographically or by network | |||
| location. | ||||
| Motivation: The mapping client, such as an ESRP, may not | Motivation: The mapping client, such as an ESRP, may not | |||
| necessarily be anywhere close to the caller or the appropriate | necessarily be anywhere close to the caller or the appropriate | |||
| PSAP, but must still be able to obtain mapping information. | PSAP, but must still be able to obtain mapping information. | |||
| Ma6. Appropriate PSAP: The mapping protocol MUST support the routing | Ma6. Appropriate PSAP: The mapping protocol MUST support the | |||
| of an emergency call to the PSAP responsible for a particular | routing of an emergency call to the PSAP responsible for a | |||
| geographic area. | particular geographic area. | |||
| Motivation: Routing to the wrong PSAP will result in delays in | Motivation: Routing to the wrong PSAP will result in delays in | |||
| handling emergencies as calls are redirected, and therefore will | handling emergencies as calls are redirected, and therefore will | |||
| also result in inefficient use of PSAP resources at the initial | also result in inefficient use of PSAP resources at the initial | |||
| point of contact. It is important that the location determination | point of contact. It is important that the location determination | |||
| mechanism not be fooled by the location of IP telephony gateways | mechanism not be fooled by the location of IP telephony gateways | |||
| or dial-in lines into a corporate LAN (and dispatch emergency help | or dial-in lines into a corporate LAN (and dispatch emergency help | |||
| to the gateway or campus, rather than the caller), multi-site LANs | to the gateway or campus, rather than the caller), multi-site LANs | |||
| and similar arrangements. | and similar arrangements. | |||
| Ma7. Multiple PSAP URIs: The mapping protocol MUST support a method | Ma7. Multiple PSAP URIs: The mapping protocol MUST support a method | |||
| to return multiple PSAP URIs which cover the same geographic area. | to return multiple PSAP URIs which cover the same geographic area. | |||
| Motivation: Different contact protocols (e.g., PSTN via tel URIs | Motivation: Different contact protocols (e.g., PSTN via tel URIs | |||
| and IP via SIP URIs) may be routed to different PSAPs. Less | and IP via SIP URIs) may be routed to different PSAPs. Less | |||
| likely, two PSAPs may overlap in their coverage region. | likely, two PSAPs may overlap in their coverage region. | |||
| Ma8. Single primary URI per contact protocol: Though the mapping | Ma8. Single primary URI per contact protocol: Though the mapping | |||
| protocol may be able to include multiple URIs in the response, it | protocol may be able to include multiple URIs in the response, it | |||
| SHOULD return only one primary URI per contact protocol used, so | SHOULD return only one primary URI per contact protocol used, so | |||
| that clients are not required to select among different targets | that clients are not required to select among different targets | |||
| for the same contact protocol. | for the same contact protocol. | |||
| Motivation: There may be two or more URIs returned when multiple | Motivation: There may be two or more URIs returned when multiple | |||
| contact protocols are available (e.g., SIP and SMS). The client | contact protocols are available (e.g., SIP and SMS). The client | |||
| may select among multiple contact protocols based on its | may select among multiple contact protocols based on its | |||
| capabilities, preference settings, or availability. | capabilities, preference settings, or availability. | |||
| Ma9. URI alternate contact: In addition to returning a primary | Ma9. Non-preferred URI schemes: The mapping protocol MAY support | |||
| contact, the mapping protocol MUST support the return of a PSAP | the return of a less preferred URI scheme, such as a tel URI. | |||
| URI or contact method explicitly marked as an alternate contact | ||||
| for use when a fallback contact is needed. | ||||
| Motivation: There may be multiple ways to provide addresses of | ||||
| backup PSAPs, including the mapping protocol, DNS lookup via NAPTR | ||||
| and SRV, or call routing by SIP proxies. | ||||
| Ma10. Non-preferred URI schemes: The mapping protocol MAY support | ||||
| the return of a less preferred URI scheme, such as a tel URI. | ||||
| Motivation: In order to provide incremental support to non-IP | Motivation: In order to provide incremental support to non-IP | |||
| PSAPs it may be necessary to be able to complete an emergency call | PSAPs it may be necessary to be able to complete an emergency call | |||
| via the PSTN. | via the PSTN. | |||
| Ma11. URI properties: The mapping protocol MUST support the ability | Ma10. URI properties: The mapping protocol MUST support the ability | |||
| to provide ancillary information about a contact that allows the | to provide ancillary information about a contact that allows the | |||
| mapping client to determine relevant properties of the PSAP URI. | mapping client to determine relevant properties of the PSAP URI. | |||
| Motivation: In some cases, the same geographic area is served by | Motivation: In some cases, the same geographic area is served by | |||
| several PSAPs, for example, a corporate campus might be served by | several PSAPs, for example, a corporate campus might be served by | |||
| both a corporate security department and the municipal PSAP. The | both a corporate security department and the municipal PSAP. The | |||
| mapping protocol should then return URIs for both, with | mapping protocol should then return URIs for both, with | |||
| information allowing the querying entity to choose one or the | information allowing the querying entity to choose one or the | |||
| other. This determination could be made by either an ESRP, based | other. This determination could be made by either an ESRP, based | |||
| on local policy, or by direct user choice, in the case of caller- | on local policy, or by direct user choice, in the case of caller- | |||
| based methods. | based methods. | |||
| Ma12. Mapping referral: The mapping protocol MUST support a | Ma11. Mapping referral: The mapping protocol MUST support a | |||
| mechanism for the mapping client to contact any mapping server and | mechanism for the mapping client to contact any mapping server and | |||
| be referred to another mapping server that is more qualified to | be referred to another mapping server that is more qualified to | |||
| answer the query. | answer the query. | |||
| Motivation: Referrals help mitigate the impact of incorrect | Motivation: Referrals help mitigate the impact of incorrect | |||
| configuration that directs a client to the wrong initial mapping | configuration that directs a client to the wrong initial mapping | |||
| server. | server. | |||
| Ma13. Split responsibility: The mapping protocol MUST support the | Ma12. Split responsibility: The mapping protocol MUST support the | |||
| division of data subset handling between multiple mapping servers | division of data subset handling between multiple mapping servers | |||
| within a single level of a civic location hierarchy. | within a single level of a civic location hierarchy. | |||
| Motivation: For example, two mapping servers for the same city or | Motivation: For example, two mapping servers for the same city or | |||
| county may handle different streets within that city or county. | county may handle different streets within that city or county. | |||
| Ma14. URL for error reporting: The mapping protocol MUST support the | Ma13. URL for error reporting: The mapping protocol MUST support | |||
| ability to return a URL that can be used to report a suspected or | the ability to return a URL that can be used to report a suspected | |||
| known error within the mapping database. | or known error within the mapping database. | |||
| Motivation: If an error is returned, for example, there needs to | Motivation: If an error is returned, for example, there needs to | |||
| be a URL which points to a resource which can explain or | be a URL which points to a resource which can explain or | |||
| potentially help resolve the error. | potentially help resolve the error. | |||
| Ma15. Resilience to failure: The mapping protocol MUST support a | Ma14. Resilience to mapping server failure: The mapping protocol | |||
| mechanism which enables the client to fail over to different | MUST support a mechanism which enables the client to fail over to | |||
| (replica) mapping server. | different (replica) mapping server. | |||
| Motivation: The failure of a mapping server should not preclude | Motivation: The failure of a mapping server should not preclude | |||
| the mapping client from receiving an answer to its query. | the mapping client from receiving an answer to its query. | |||
| Ma16. Traceable resolution: The mapping protocol SHOULD support the | Ma15. Traceable resolution: The mapping protocol SHOULD support the | |||
| ability of the mapping client to be able to determine the entity | ability of the mapping client to be able to determine the entity | |||
| or entities that provided the emergency address resolution | or entities that provided the emergency address resolution | |||
| information. | information. | |||
| Motivation: To improve reliability and performance, it is | Motivation: To improve reliability and performance, it is | |||
| important to be able to trace which servers contributed to the | important to be able to trace which servers contributed to the | |||
| resolution of a query. | resolution of a query. | |||
| Ma17. Minimal additional delay: Mapping protocol execution SHOULD | Ma16. Minimal additional delay: Mapping protocol execution SHOULD | |||
| minimize the amount of delay within the overall call-setup time. | minimize the amount of delay within the overall call-setup time. | |||
| Motivation: Since outbound proxies will likely be asked to | Motivation: Since outbound proxies will likely be asked to resolve | |||
| resolve the same geographic coordinates repeatedly, a suitable | the same geographic coordinates repeatedly, a suitable time- | |||
| time-limited caching mechanism should be supported. | limited caching mechanism should be supported. | |||
| Ma18. Alternate mapping sources: The mapping protocol MUST implement | ||||
| a mechanism that allows for the retrieval of mapping information | ||||
| from different sources. | ||||
| Motivation: This provides the possibility of having available | ||||
| alternative sources of mapping information when the normal source | ||||
| is unavailable or unreachable. | ||||
| Ma19. Freshness indication: The mapping protocol SHOULD support an | Ma17. Freshness indication: The mapping protocol SHOULD support an | |||
| indicator describing how current the information provided by the | indicator describing how current the information provided by the | |||
| mapping source is. | mapping source is. | |||
| Motivation: This is especially useful when an alternate mapping is | Motivation: This is especially useful when an alternate mapping is | |||
| requested, and alternative sources of mapping data may not have | requested, and alternative sources of mapping data may not have | |||
| been created or updated with the same set of information or within | been created or updated with the same set of information or within | |||
| the same timeframe. Differences in currency between mapping data | the same timeframe. Differences in currency between mapping data | |||
| contained within mapping sources should be minimized. | contained within mapping sources should be minimized. | |||
| 9. Security Considerations | 9. Security Considerations | |||
| Threats and security requirements are discussed in a separate | Threats and security requirements are discussed in a separate | |||
| document [10]. | document [I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats]. | |||
| 10. IANA Considerations | 10. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document does not require actions by the IANA. | This document does not require actions by the IANA. | |||
| 11. Contributors | 11. Contributors | |||
| The information in this document is partially derived from text | The information in this document is partially derived from text | |||
| written by the following contributors: | written by the following contributors: | |||
| skipping to change at page 30, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 7 ¶ | |||
| Michael Haberler, Michael Hammer, Ted Hardie, Gunnar Hellstrom, | Michael Haberler, Michael Hammer, Ted Hardie, Gunnar Hellstrom, | |||
| Cullen Jennings, Marc Linsner, Rohan Mahy, Patti McCalmont, Don | Cullen Jennings, Marc Linsner, Rohan Mahy, Patti McCalmont, Don | |||
| Mitchell, John Morris, Andrew Newton, Steve Norreys, Jon Peterson, | Mitchell, John Morris, Andrew Newton, Steve Norreys, Jon Peterson, | |||
| James Polk, Benny Rodrig, John Rosenberg, Jonathan Rosenberg, John | James Polk, Benny Rodrig, John Rosenberg, Jonathan Rosenberg, John | |||
| Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, James Seng, Byron Smith, Barbara Stark, | Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, James Seng, Byron Smith, Barbara Stark, | |||
| Richard Stastny, Tom Taylor, Hannes Tschofenig, and Nate Wilcox for | Richard Stastny, Tom Taylor, Hannes Tschofenig, and Nate Wilcox for | |||
| their helpful input. | their helpful input. | |||
| 13. References | 13. References | |||
| 13.1 Normative References | 13.1. Normative References | |||
| [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
| 13.2 Informative References | 13.2. Informative References | |||
| [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., | [I-D.hardie-ecrit-lost] | |||
| Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: | Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation | |||
| Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. | Protocol", draft-hardie-ecrit-lost-00 (work in progress), | |||
| March 2006. | ||||
| [3] Charlton, N., Gasson, M., Gybels, G., Spanner, M., and A. van | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats] | |||
| Wijk, "User Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol | Taylor, T., "Security Threats and Requirements for | |||
| (SIP) in Support of Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Speech-impaired | Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", | |||
| Individuals", RFC 3351, August 2002. | draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-03 (work in progress), | |||
| July 2006. | ||||
| [4] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J. | [I-D.ietf-ecrit-service-urn] | |||
| Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. | Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for | |||
| Services", draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-05 (work in | ||||
| progress), August 2006. | ||||
| [5] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging (CPIM)", | [I-D.ietf-sipping-toip] | |||
| RFC 3860, August 2004. | Wijk, A. and G. Gybels, "Framework for real-time text over | |||
| IP using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", | ||||
| draft-ietf-sipping-toip-07 (work in progress), | ||||
| August 2006. | ||||
| [6] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, | [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | |||
| December 2004. | A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | |||
| Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | ||||
| June 2002. | ||||
| [7] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text | [RFC3351] Charlton, N., Gasson, M., Gybels, G., Spanner, M., and A. | |||
| Conversation", RFC 4103, June 2005. | van Wijk, "User Requirements for the Session Initiation | |||
| Protocol (SIP) in Support of Deaf, Hard of Hearing and | ||||
| Speech-impaired Individuals", RFC 3351, August 2002. | ||||
| [8] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object | [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and | |||
| Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. | J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. | |||
| [9] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority | [RFC3860] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging | |||
| for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4412, | (CPIM)", RFC 3860, August 2004. | |||
| February 2006. | ||||
| [10] Taylor, T., "Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency | [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", | |||
| Call Marking and Mapping", draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-03 | RFC 3966, December 2004. | |||
| (work in progress), July 2006. | ||||
| [11] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Services", | [RFC4103] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text | |||
| draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-04 (work in progress), | Conversation", RFC 4103, June 2005. | |||
| August 2006. | ||||
| [12] Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol", | [RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object | |||
| draft-hardie-ecrit-lost-00 (work in progress), March 2006. | Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. | |||
| [13] Wijk, A. and G. Gybels, "Framework for real-time text over IP | [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource | |||
| using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", | Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", | |||
| draft-ietf-sipping-toip-06 (work in progress), August 2006. | RFC 4412, February 2006. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Henning Schulzrinne | Henning Schulzrinne | |||
| Columbia University | Columbia University | |||
| Department of Computer Science | Department of Computer Science | |||
| 450 Computer Science Building | 450 Computer Science Building | |||
| New York, NY 10027 | New York, NY 10027 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: +1 212 939 7004 | Phone: +1 212 939 7004 | |||
| Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu | Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu | |||
| URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu | URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu | |||
| Roger Marshall (editor) | Roger Marshall (editor) | |||
| TeleCommunication Systems | TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. | |||
| 2401 Elliott Avenue | 2401 Elliott Avenue | |||
| 2nd Floor | 2nd Floor | |||
| Seattle, WA 98121 | Seattle, WA 98121 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: +1 206 792 2424 | Phone: +1 206 792 2424 | |||
| Email: rmarshall@telecomsys.com | Email: rmarshall@telecomsys.com | |||
| URI: http://www.telecomsys.com | URI: http://www.telecomsys.com | |||
| Intellectual Property Statement | Full Copyright Statement | |||
| Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). | ||||
| This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions | ||||
| contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors | ||||
| retain all their rights. | ||||
| This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | ||||
| "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | ||||
| OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND | ||||
| THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS | ||||
| OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF | ||||
| THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | ||||
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | ||||
| 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 | |||
| on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | |||
| found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. | found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| skipping to change at page 32, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 32, line 45 ¶ | |||
| such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this | such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this | |||
| specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at | specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ipr. | http://www.ietf.org/ipr. | |||
| The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any | The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any | |||
| copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | |||
| rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement | rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement | |||
| this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at | this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at | |||
| ietf-ipr@ietf.org. | ietf-ipr@ietf.org. | |||
| Disclaimer of Validity | ||||
| This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | ||||
| "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | ||||
| OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | ||||
| ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | ||||
| INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | ||||
| INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | ||||
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | ||||
| Copyright Statement | ||||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject | ||||
| to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | ||||
| except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | ||||
| Acknowledgment | Acknowledgment | |||
| Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF | |||
| Internet Society. | Administrative Support Activity (IASA). | |||
| End of changes. 148 change blocks. | ||||
| 289 lines changed or deleted | 288 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/ | ||||