idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 6 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 112: '... telephony MUST be able to carry l...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 114: '... to carry labels MUST be extensible to...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 119: '...ignalling labels SHOULD have a mapping...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 129: '...lephony capabilities MUST NOT preclude...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 133: '...eted to recognize ETS type labels MUST...' (7 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 15 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 187 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '4' on line 60 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '3' on line 78 looks like a reference Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force Ken Carlberg 3 INTERNET DRAFT UCL 4 March 1, 2003 Ran Atkinson 5 Extreme Networks 7 IP Telephony Requirements for 8 Emergency Telecommunication Service 9 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 18 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft 26 Shadow Directories can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 29 For potential updates to the above required-text see: 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt 32 Abstract 34 This document presents a list of requirements in support of Emergency 35 Telecommunications Service (ETS) within the context of IP telephony. 36 It is an extension to the general requirements presented in [2]. 37 Solutions to these requirements are not presented in this document. 39 1. Introduction 41 Effective telecommunications capabilities can be imperative to 42 facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious disaster events, 43 such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. 44 Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick 45 response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any 46 public telecommunications capabilities at hand. These capabilities 47 include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet 48 access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless PDAs. The 50 ^L 51 commercial telecommunications infrastructure is rapidly evolving to 52 Internet-based technology. Therefore, the Internet community needs to 53 consider how it can best support emergency management and recovery 54 operations. 56 1.1 Problem 58 Standards have been developed by other standards bodies concerning 59 emergency communications. As discussed in [2], some of these 60 standards, such as T1.631 [4], define specific indicators or labels 61 for emergency communications in SS7 networks. Certain requirements 62 must be defined in order to achieve peering across hybrid networks 63 (networks that communicate between IP and other types of networks 64 such as that realized by the Public Switched Telephone Network) in 65 order to achieve an interworking of services. 67 2. Scope 69 [2] has defined a set of general system requirements to support 70 Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS). This document defines an 71 additional set of system requirements to achieve support for ETS 72 within the specific context of IP telephony (note that this document 73 views IP telephony within the context of an end-to-end application 74 layer service). Solutions to requirements are not defined. The 75 document does not specify protocol enhancements or specifications. 77 Note that [3], Requirements for Resource Priority Mechanisms for SIP, 78 is an RFC that shares some overlap with this document. However, [3] 79 only applies to SIP and is not meant to be applied to a more general 80 perspective of IP telephony as it relates to ETS. 82 2.1 Out of Scope 84 An item that is not in scope of this document is mandating acceptance 85 and support of the requirements presented in this document. The IETF 86 does not mandate requirements or capabilities to independent networks 87 that comprise the Internet. As an example, Internet Service 88 Providers (ISP) may choose not to operate any telephony-related 89 gateways or services. The IETF cannot and does not mandate that an 90 ISP deploy either telephony-related gateways or telephony-related 91 services. There is an expectation that business contracts, for 92 example Service Level Agreements (SLA), will be used to satisfy those 93 following requirements that apply to service providers. Absence of 94 an SLA implies best effort service is provided. 96 It is assumed that some ISPs will choose to offer ETS services and 97 that other carriers will choose not to offer ETS services. These 98 requirements do not apply to ISPs that have chosen not to offer ETS 100 ^L 101 services. 103 3. IP Telephony Requirements 105 The requirements in this section relate only to Telephony Signalling 106 as used in Internet-based telephony services. They are an extension 107 to the general requirements specified in [2]. The following 108 requirements explicitly do not relate to IP-layer mechanisms, such as 109 Differentiated Services or Integrated Services. 111 1) Telephony signalling applications used with Internet-based 112 telephony MUST be able to carry labels. 114 2) The ability to carry labels MUST be extensible to support 115 various types and numbers of labels. A single binary value will 116 not be sufficient given the various labeling standards in existance 117 today. 119 3) Telephony signalling labels SHOULD have a mapping with the 120 various emergency related labels/markings used in other telephony 121 based networks, such as the PSTN. This ensures that a telephone 122 call placed over a hybrid infrastructure (traditional PSTN over 123 some portion(s) of the path, Internet telephony over some other 124 portion(s) of the path) can carry the labels end-to-end with 125 appropriate translation at PSTN/Internet boundaries. Absence of 126 a mapping means that the signaling reverts to a default service 127 (presumably one attributed to the general public). 129 4) Application layer IP telephony capabilities MUST NOT preclude 130 the ability to do application-layer accounting. 132 5) With respect to application layer signaling, Application-layer 133 mechanisms specifically targeted to recognize ETS type labels MUST 134 be ABLE to support a service other than best effort (we assume this 135 to be better than best effort service). This support SHOULD focus 136 on probability of forwarding packets used for call completion. 137 Probability MAY reach 100% depending on the local policy associated 138 with the label. Local policy MUST also be used to determine IF 139 better than best effort is to be applied to a specific label (or 140 related set of labels). 142 The above paragraph MUST be taken in its entirety. The ability to 143 support better than best effort does not mean that the application 144 layer mechanism is expected to be activated. Further, we do not 145 define the means by which better than best effort is or should be 146 realized. Application-layer mechanims that do not recognize ETS 147 type labels are not subject to this requirement. 149 ^L 151 4. Issues 153 This section presents issues that arise in considering solutions for 154 the telephony requirements that have been defined for ETS. This 155 section does not specify solutions nor is it to be confused with 156 requirements. Subsequent documents that articulate a more specific 157 set of requirements for a particular service may make a statement 158 about the following issues. 160 1) Alternate paths 162 Experience with GETS over the PSTN has shown the utility of 163 alternate paths to a destination to help facilitate 164 emergency-related communications. From the perspective of the 165 Internet, this utility may be difficult to achieve and have a 166 more limited benefit. Unlike the PSTN, which creates a fixed 167 path during call setup phase, the Internet uses dynamic routing 168 for IP packets. This dynamic routing capability automatically 169 causes IP packets to travel the best current path. The Internet 170 network infrastructure does not have the concept of a "call" or 171 the concept of "call setup", though IP telephony applications 172 might have application-layer awareness of calls or the call 173 setup concept. 175 5. Security 177 Only authorised users or operators SHOULD be able to create non- 178 ordinary Labels (i.e., labels that may alter the default best effort 179 service. Labels SHOULD be associated with mechanisms to provide 180 strong end-to-end integrity during their transmission through the 181 telephony systems. Finally, in cases where labels are expected to be 182 acted upon by operators, these operators SHOULD have the capability 183 of authenticating the label on a received message or transmission in 184 order to prevent theft of service and reduce risk of denial of 185 service (e.g. by unauthorised users consuming any limited resources). 187 Security is also discussed in the general requirements of [2], which 188 applies to section 3 above. 190 6. References 192 1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 193 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 195 ^L 197 2 Carlberg, K., Atkinson, R., "General System Requirements for 198 Emergency Telecommunications Service", Internet Draft, 199 Work In Progress, September, 2002 201 3 Schulzrinne, H., "Requirements for Resorce Priority Mechanisms 202 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3487, February, 203 2003. 205 4 ANSI, "Signaling System No. 7(SS7): High Probability of 206 Completion (HPC) Network Capability, ANSI T1.631, 1993. 208 7. Author's Addresses 210 Ken Carlberg Ran Atkinson 211 University College London Extreme Networks 212 Department of Computer Science 3585 Monroe Street 213 Gower Street Santa Clara, CA 214 London, WC1E 6BT 95051 USA 215 United Kingdom 216 k.carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk rja@extremenetworks.com 218 Full Copyright Statement 220 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. 221 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 222 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 223 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 224 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 225 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 226 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 227 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 228 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 229 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 230 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 231 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 232 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 233 English. 235 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 236 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 238 This document and the information contained herein is provided as an 239 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 241 ^L 242 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 243 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 244 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR 245 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PRUPOSE.