idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-telephony-05.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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 5 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines == 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 115: '... telephony MUST be able to carry l...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 117: '... to carry labels MUST be extensible to...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 122: '...signaling labels SHOULD have a mapping...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 133: '...lephony capabilities MUST NOT preclude...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 137: '...eted to recognize ETS type labels MUST...' (7 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to mention RFC 2119. The boilerplate contains a reference [5], but that reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either. -- 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 190 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '5' on line 44 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '4' on line 64 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '3' on line 83 looks like a reference Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 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 June 18, 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 Conventions Used In This Document 41 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 42 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 43 document are to be interpreted as described in [5]. 45 1. Introduction 47 Effective telecommunications capabilities can be imperative to 48 facilitate immediate recovery operations for serious disaster events, 49 such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. 50 Disasters can happen any time, any place, unexpectedly. Quick 51 response for recovery operations requires immediate access to any 52 public telecommunications capabilities at hand. These capabilities 53 include: conventional telephone, cellular phones, and Internet 54 access via online terminals, IP telephones, and wireless Personal 55 Digital Assistants (PDAs). The commercial telecommunications 56 infrastructure is rapidly evolving to Internet-based technology. 57 Therefore, the Internet community needs to consider how it can best 58 support emergency management and recovery operations. 60 1.1 Problem 62 Standards have been developed by other standards bodies concerning 63 emergency communications. As discussed in [2], some of these 64 standards, such as T1.631 [4], define specific indicators or labels 65 for emergency communications in Signaling System 7 (SS7) networks. 66 Certain requirements must be defined in order to achieve peering 67 across hybrid networks (networks that communicate between IP and 68 other types of networks such as that realized by the Public Switched 69 Telephone Network) in order to achieve an interworking of services. 71 2. Scope 73 [2] has defined a set of general system requirements to support 74 Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS). This document defines an 75 additional set of system requirements to achieve support for ETS 76 within the specific context of IP telephony (note that this document 77 views IP telephony within the context of an end-to-end application 78 layer service). Solutions to requirements are not defined. The 79 document does not specify protocol enhancements or specifications. 81 Note that [3], Requirements for Resource Priority Mechanisms for the 82 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), is an RFC that shares some overlap 83 with this document. However, [3] only applies to SIP and is not 84 meant to be applied to a more general perspective of IP telephony as 85 it relates to ETS. 87 2.1 Out of Scope 89 An item that is not in scope of this document is mandating acceptance 90 and support of the requirements presented in this document. The IETF 91 does not mandate requirements or capabilities to independent networks 92 that comprise the Internet. As an example, Internet Service 93 Providers (ISP) may choose not to operate any telephony-related 94 gateways or services. The IETF cannot and does not mandate that an 95 ISP deploy either telephony-related gateways or telephony-related 96 services. There is an expectation that business contracts, for 97 example Service Level Agreements (SLA), will be used to satisfy those 98 following requirements that apply to service providers. Absence of 99 an SLA implies best effort service is provided. 101 It is assumed that some ISPs will choose to offer ETS services and 102 that other carriers will choose not to offer ETS services. These 103 requirements do not apply to ISPs that have chosen not to offer ETS 104 services. 106 3. IP Telephony Requirements 108 The requirements in this section relate only to Telephony Signaling 109 as used in Internet-based telephony services. They are an extension 110 to the general requirements specified in [2]. The following 111 requirements explicitly do not relate to IP-layer mechanisms, such as 112 Differentiated Services or Integrated Services. 114 1) Telephony signaling applications used with Internet-based 115 telephony MUST be able to carry labels. 117 2) The ability to carry labels MUST be extensible to support 118 various types and numbers of labels. A single binary value will 119 not be sufficient given the various labeling standards in existence 120 today. 122 3) Telephony signaling labels SHOULD have a mapping with the 123 various emergency related labels/markings used in other telephony 124 based networks, such as the Public Switched Telephone Network 125 (PSTN). This ensures that a telephone call placed over a hybrid 126 infrastructure (traditional PSTN over some portion(s) of the path, 127 Internet telephony over some other portion(s) of the path) can 128 carry the labels end-to-end with appropriate translation at 129 PSTN/Internet boundaries. Absence of a mapping means that the 130 signaling reverts to a default service (presumably one attributed 131 to the general public). 133 4) Application layer IP telephony capabilities MUST NOT preclude 134 the ability to do application layer accounting. 136 5) With respect to application layer signaling, application layer 137 mechanisms specifically targeted to recognize ETS type labels MUST 138 be ABLE to support "best available" service (this will probably 139 be realized as better than best effort). This support SHOULD 140 focus on probability of forwarding packets used for call 141 completion. Probability MAY reach 100% depending on the local 142 policy associated with the label. Local policy MUST also be used 143 to determine IF better than best effort is to be applied to a 144 specific label (or related set of labels). 146 The above paragraph MUST be taken in its entirety. The ability to 147 support best available service does not mean that the application 148 layer mechanism is expected to be activated. Further, we do not 149 define the means by which best available service is or should be 150 realized. Application layer mechanisms that do not recognize ETS 151 type labels are not subject to this requirement. 153 4. Issues 155 This section presents issues that arise in considering solutions for 156 the telephony requirements that have been defined for ETS. This 157 section does not specify solutions nor is it to be confused with 158 requirements. Subsequent documents that articulate a more specific 159 set of requirements for a particular service may make a statement 160 about the following issues. 162 1) Alternate paths 164 Experience with The Government Emergency Telecommunications 165 Service (GETS) over the PSTN has shown the utility of 166 alternate paths to a destination to help facilitate 167 emergency-related communications. From the perspective of the 168 Internet, this utility may be difficult to achieve and have a 169 more limited benefit. Unlike the PSTN, which creates a fixed 170 path during call setup phase, the Internet uses dynamic routing 171 for IP packets. This dynamic routing capability automatically 172 causes IP packets to travel the best current path. The Internet 173 network infrastructure does not have the concept of a "call" or 174 the concept of "call setup", though IP telephony applications 175 might have application layer awareness of calls or the call 176 setup concept. 178 5. Security Considerations 180 Only authorized users or operators SHOULD be able to create non- 181 ordinary Labels (i.e., labels that may alter the default best effort 182 service. Labels SHOULD be associated with mechanisms to provide 183 strong end-to-end integrity during their transmission through the 184 telephony systems. Finally, in cases where labels are expected to be 185 acted upon by operators, these operators SHOULD have the capability 186 of authenticating the label on a received message or transmission in 187 order to prevent theft of service and reduce risk of denial of 188 service (e.g. by unauthorized users consuming any limited resources). 190 Security is also discussed in the general requirements of [2], which 191 applies to section 3 above. 193 6. References 195 1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 196 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 198 2 Carlberg, K., Atkinson, R., "General System Requirements for 199 Emergency Telecommunications Service", Internet Draft, 200 Work In Progress, September, 2002 202 3 Schulzrinne, H., "Requirements for Resource Priority Mechanisms 203 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3487, February, 204 2003. 206 4 ANSI, "Signaling System No. 7(SS7): High Probability of 207 Completion (HPC) Network Capability", ANSI T1.631, 1993. 209 5 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 210 Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 212 7. Author's Addresses 214 Ken Carlberg Ran Atkinson 215 University College London Extreme Networks 216 Department of Computer Science 3585 Monroe Street 217 Gower Street Santa Clara, CA 218 London, WC1E 6BT 95051 USA 219 United Kingdom 220 k.carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk rja@extremenetworks.com 222 Full Copyright Statement 224 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 225 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 226 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 227 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 228 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 229 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 230 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 231 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 232 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 233 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 234 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 235 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 236 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 237 English. 239 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 240 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 242 This document and the information contained herein is provided as an 243 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 244 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 245 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 246 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR 247 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PRUPOSE.