idnits 2.17.1 draft-dolly-stir-rph-emergency-services-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 03, 2019) is 1628 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3261' is defined on line 179, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7519' is defined on line 190, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8226' is defined on line 204, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7340' is defined on line 221, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7375' is defined on line 226, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 230, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 STIR M. Dolly 3 Internet-Draft AT&T 4 Intended status: Standards Track C. Wendt 5 Expires: May 6, 2020 Comcast 6 November 03, 2019 8 Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim in Support of 9 Emergency Services Networks 10 draft-dolly-stir-rph-emergency-services-00 12 Abstract 14 This document adds new assertion values for a Resource Priority 15 Header ("rph") claim defined in RFC 8443, in support of Emergency 16 Services Networks for emergency call origination and callback. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. New Assertion Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4.1. PASSporT Resource Priority Header (rph) Types . . . . . . 4 57 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 1. Introduction 65 Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Resource Priority 66 Authorization [RFC8443] extended the Personal Assertion Token 67 (PASSporT) specification defined in [RFC8225] to allow the inclusion 68 of cryptographically signed assertions of authorization for the 69 values populated in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 'Resource- 70 Priority' header field, which is used for communications resource 71 prioritization. 73 Compromise of the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field [RFC4412] 74 could lead to misuse of network resources (i.e., during congestion 75 scenarios), impacting the application services supported using the 76 SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field. 78 [RFC8225] allows extensions by which an authority on the originating 79 side verifying the authorization of a particular communication for 80 the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field can use a PASSPorT claim to 81 cryptographically sign the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field and 82 convey assertion of the authorization for the SIP 'Resource-Priority' 83 header field. A signed SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field will 84 allow a receiving entity (including entities located in different 85 network domains/boundaries) to verify the validity of assertions 86 authorizing the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field and to act on 87 the information with confidence that the information has not been 88 spoofed or compromised. 90 This document adds new assertion values for a Resource Priority 91 Header ("rph") claim defined in [RFC8443], in support of Emergency 92 Services Networks for emergency call origination and callback. How 93 these new assertion values for real-time communications supported 94 using the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field is outside the scope 95 of this document. In addition, the PASSPorT extension defined in 96 this document is intended for use in environments where there are 97 means to verify that the signer of the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header 98 field is authoritative. 100 2. Terminology 102 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 103 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 104 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 105 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 106 capitals, as shown here. 108 3. New Assertion Values 110 This specification defines new assertions values for: 112 * "ESorig": Emergency Services call origination 113 * "EScallback": Emergency Services callback. 115 The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource- 116 Priority' header field with a "ESorig" assertion: 118 { 119 "orig":{"tn":"CgPN"}, 120 "dest":{["tn":"911 or URN-SOS"]}, 121 "iat":1443208345, 122 "rph":{"ESorig":["esnet,x"]} 123 } 125 The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource- 126 Priority' header field with a "ESorig" assertion: 128 { 129 "orig":{"tn":"EmergNet Num"}, 130 "dest":{["tn":"CgPN that originated emergency call"]}, 131 "iat":1443208345, 132 "rph":{"EScallback":["esnet,x"]} 133 } 135 After the header and claims PASSporT objects have been constructed, 136 their signature is generated normally per the guidance in [RFC8225] 137 using the full form of PASSPorT. The credentials (i.e., Certificate) 138 used to create the signature must have authority over the namespace 139 of the "rph" claim, and there is only one authority per claim. The 140 authority MUST use its credentials associated with the specific 141 service supported by the resource priority namespace in the claim. 142 If r-values are added or dropped by the intermediaries along the 143 path, the intermediaries must generate a new "rph" header and sign 144 the claim with their own authority. 146 The use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified in this 147 document. 149 4. IANA Considerations 151 4.1. PASSporT Resource Priority Header (rph) Types 153 This specification requests that the IANA add two new assertion 154 values to the "PASSporT Resource Priority Header (rph) Types" 155 Registry as defined in [RFC8443]. 157 The following assertion values will be added to the registry: 159 * "ESorig": Emergency Services call origination 160 * "EScallback": Emergency Services callback 162 +--------------+------------+ 163 | rph Type | Reference | 164 +--------------+------------+ 165 | ESorig | [this RFC] | 166 +--------------+------------+ 167 | EScallback | [this RFC] | 168 +--------------+------------+ 170 5. Security Considerations 172 The security considerations discussed in [RFC8224], Section 12, are 173 applicable here. 175 6. References 177 6.1. Normative References 179 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 180 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 181 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 182 DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, 183 . 185 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource 186 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 187 RFC 4412, DOI 10.17487/RFC4412, February 2006, 188 . 190 [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token 191 (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, 192 . 194 [RFC8224] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt, 195 "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session 196 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224, 197 DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018, 198 . 200 [RFC8225] Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion 201 Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018, 202 . 204 [RFC8226] Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity 205 Credentials: Certificates", RFC 8226, 206 DOI 10.17487/RFC8226, February 2018, 207 . 209 [RFC8443] Singh, R., Dolly, M., Das, S., and A. Nguyen, "Personal 210 Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Resource Priority 211 Authorization", RFC 8443, DOI 10.17487/RFC8443, August 212 2018, . 214 6.2. Informative References 216 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 217 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 218 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 219 . 221 [RFC7340] Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure 222 Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements", 223 RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014, 224 . 226 [RFC7375] Peterson, J., "Secure Telephone Identity Threat Model", 227 RFC 7375, DOI 10.17487/RFC7375, October 2014, 228 . 230 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 231 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 232 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 233 . 235 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 236 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 237 May 2017, . 239 Authors' Addresses 241 Martin Dolly 242 AT&T 244 Email: mmd3135@att.com 246 Chris Wendt 247 Comcast 248 Comcast Technology Center 249 Philadelphia, PA 19103 250 USA 252 Email: chris-ietf@chriswendt.net