< draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-03.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-04.txt >
skipping to change at page 1, line 16 skipping to change at page 1, line 16
Expires: August 25, 2010 Deutsche Telekom Expires: August 25, 2010 Deutsche Telekom
H. Tschofenig H. Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks Nokia Siemens Networks
B. Stark B. Stark
AT&T AT&T
A. Kuett A. Kuett
Skype Skype
February 21, 2010 February 21, 2010
Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-03.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-04.txt
Abstract Abstract
The emergency services architecture developed in the IETF Emergency The emergency services architecture developed in the IETF Emergency
Context Resolution with Internet Technology (ECRIT) working group Context Resolution with Internet Technology (ECRIT) working group
describes an architecture where location information is provided by describes an architecture where location information is provided by
access networks to end points or VoIP service providers in order to access networks to end points or VoIP service providers in order to
determine the correct dial string and information to route the call determine the correct dial string and information to route the call
to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). For determining the PSAP to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). For determining the PSAP
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) the usage of the Location-to- Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) the usage of the Location-to-
skipping to change at page 3, line 13 skipping to change at page 3, line 13
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Emergency Services Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Emergency Services Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Location Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Location Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Location by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Location by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. High-Level Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Detailed Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Miscellaneous Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119], with the document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119], with the
important qualification that, unless otherwise stated, these terms important qualification that, unless otherwise stated, these terms
apply to the design of an solution supporting location hiding, not apply to the design of an solution supporting location hiding, not
its implementation or application. its implementation or application.
This document reuses terminology from [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. This document reuses terminology from [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].
3. Requirements 3. Requirements
3.1. High-Level Requirements Req-1: There MUST be a way for the ISP/IAP to withhold precise
Req-A: There MUST be a way for the ISP/IAP to withhold precise
location information from the endpoint and from the VSP. location information from the endpoint and from the VSP.
Req-B: The ISP/IAP MUST support the ability of the endpoint or the Req-2: The ISP/IAP MUST support the ability of the endpoint or the
VSP to route emergency calls. VSP to route emergency calls.
Req-C: The VSP MUST be able to validate that a call purported to be Req-3: The VSP MUST be able to validate that a call purported to be
an emergency call is being routed to a bona fide URI, which is an emergency call is being routed to a bona fide URI, which is
denoted by being a URI in LoST for the designated emergency denoted by being a URI in LoST for the designated emergency
service. This requirement is provided to deal with potential service. This requirement is provided to deal with potential
security problems described in Section 5.1 of [RFC5069]. security problems described in Section 5.1 of [RFC5069].
Req-D: The PSAP MUST receive precise location information (by value) Req-4: The PSAP MUST receive precise location information (by value)
about emergency callers. As such, any solution MUST be able to about emergency callers. As such, any solution MUST be able to
provide location information to the PSAP even while withholding it provide location information to the PSAP even while withholding it
from the emergency caller. from the emergency caller.
Req-5: The proposed solution MUST NOT assume a business or trust
3.2. Detailed Requirements
Req-1: The proposed solution MUST NOT assume a business or trust
relationship between the caller's VSP and the caller's ISP. relationship between the caller's VSP and the caller's ISP.
Req-2: A solution MUST consider deployment scenarios where a VSP Req-6: A solution MUST consider deployment scenarios where a VSP
does not operate in the same jurisdiction as the PSAP. does not operate in the same jurisdiction as the PSAP.
Req-3: The solution MUST offer automated discovery of servers and Req-7: The solution MUST offer automated discovery of servers and
and other necessary configuration information. No manual and other necessary configuration information. No manual
configuration can be assumed. configuration can be assumed.
Req-4: The steps needed by the endpoint for emergency calling SHOULD Req-8: The steps needed by the endpoint for emergency calling SHOULD
be no different when location is withheld vs. when location is not be no different when location is withheld vs. when location is not
withheld. In particular, user agents cannot require additional withheld. In particular, user agents cannot require additional
configuration to discover which particular environment (hiding or configuration to discover which particular environment (hiding or
no hiding) they find themselves in. no hiding) they find themselves in.
Req-5: The solution SHOULD work without the ISP/IAP having to Req-9: The solution SHOULD work without the ISP/IAP having to
support SIP and without the need to utilize SIP between the support SIP and without the need to utilize SIP between the
endpoint and the VSP. endpoint and the VSP.
Req-6: The solution MUST work if PSAP boundaries have holes. (For a Req-10: The solution MUST work if PSAP boundaries have holes. (For
discussion about holes in PSAP boundaries and their encoding the a discussion about holes in PSAP boundaries and their encoding the
reader is referred to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes].) reader is referred to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes].)
Req-7: The solution MUST NOT assume the existence of Emergency Req-11: The solution MUST NOT assume the existence of Emergency
Service Routing Proxies (ESRPs) per country, state and city. Service Routing Proxies (ESRPs) per country, state and city.
Req-8: The solution MUST consider that service boundaries for Req-12: The solution MUST consider that service boundaries for
different emergency services may differ, but they overlap at the different emergency services may differ, but they overlap at the
location of the caller. location of the caller.
Req-9: Though the solution MAY add steps to the emergency call Req-13: Though the solution MAY add steps to the emergency call
routing process described in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework], these routing process described in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework], these
steps MUST NOT significantly increase call setup latency. For steps MUST NOT significantly increase call setup latency. For
example, the revised process MUST NOT include "trial-and-error" example, the revised process MUST NOT include "trial-and-error"
operations on its critical path, such as attempts at LbyR operations on its critical path, such as attempts at LbyR
resolutions that may take time to time out. resolutions that may take time to time out.
Req-10: The solution MUST allow the end host to determine PSAP/ESRP Req-14: The solution MUST allow the end host to determine PSAP/ESRP
URLs prior to the call, for all emergency services. URLs prior to the call, for all emergency services.
Req-11: The solution MUST allow UAs to discover at least their dial Req-15: The solution MUST allow UAs to discover at least their dial
string ahead of the emergency call. string ahead of the emergency call.
Req-12: The solution MUST have minimal impact on UAs, i.e., a Req-16: The solution MUST have minimal impact on UAs, i.e., a
solution is preferred if it does not require an substantially solution is preferred if it does not require an substantially
different emergency services procedures compared to the procedure different emergency services procedures compared to the procedure
of dealing with emergency services where no location hiding is of dealing with emergency services where no location hiding is
applied. applied.
Req-13: The solution MUST NOT interfere with the use of LoST for Req-17: The solution MUST NOT interfere with the use of LoST for
non-emergency services. non-emergency services.
Req-14: The solution MUST allow emergency calls to reach an IP-to- Req-18: The solution MUST allow emergency calls to reach an IP-to-
PSTN gateway rather than the IP-based PSAP directly. PSTN gateway rather than the IP-based PSAP directly.
3.3. Miscellaneous Properties Req-19: The solution MUST NOT shift effort (externality), i.e., the
o The solution MUST NOT shift effort (externality), i.e., the
convenience of the location-hiding ISP MUST NOT impose a burden on convenience of the location-hiding ISP MUST NOT impose a burden on
user agents or non-hiding ISPs/IAPs and SHOULD NOT impose a burden user agents or non-hiding ISPs/IAPs and SHOULD NOT impose a burden
on VSPs. on VSPs.
o The solution SHOULD minimize the impact on LoST, SIP conveyance Req-20: The solution SHOULD minimize the impact on LoST, SIP
[I-D.ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance] and DHCP. conveyance [I-D.ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance] and DHCP.
o The solution SHOULD NOT break in the presence of NATs and SHOULD Req-21: The solution SHOULD NOT break in the presence of NATs and
consider the presence of legacy devices, as described in SHOULD consider the presence of legacy devices, as described in
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA. This document does not require actions by IANA.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not raise additional security consideration beyond This document does not raise additional security consideration beyond
those mentioned in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and discussed in this those mentioned in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and discussed in this
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 25 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/