idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-01.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 (March 09, 2020) is 1481 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 199, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7519' is defined on line 210, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8226' is defined on line 224, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7340' is defined on line 241, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7375' is defined on line 246, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 250, 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: September 10, 2020 Comcast 6 March 09, 2020 8 Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim in Support of 9 Emergency Services Networks 10 draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-01 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 September 10, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2020 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 3.1. ESorig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.2. EScallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 4.1. PASSporT Resource Priority Header (rph) Types . . . . . . 4 59 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 1. Introduction 67 Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Resource Priority 68 Authorization [RFC8443] extended the Personal Assertion Token 69 (PASSporT) specification defined in [RFC8225] to allow the inclusion 70 of cryptographically signed assertions of authorization for the 71 values populated in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 'Resource- 72 Priority' header field, which is used for communications resource 73 prioritization. 75 Compromise of the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field [RFC4412] 76 could lead to misuse of network resources (i.e., during congestion 77 scenarios), impacting the application services supported using the 78 SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field. 80 [RFC8225] allows extensions by which an authority on the originating 81 side verifying the authorization of a particular communication for 82 the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field can use a PASSPorT claim to 83 cryptographically sign the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field and 84 convey assertion of the authorization for the SIP 'Resource-Priority' 85 header field. A signed SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field will 86 allow a receiving entity (including entities located in different 87 network domains/boundaries) to verify the validity of assertions 88 authorizing the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field and to act on 89 the information with confidence that the information has not been 90 spoofed or compromised. 92 This document adds new assertion values for a Resource Priority 93 Header ("rph") claim defined in [RFC8443], in support of Emergency 94 Services Networks for emergency call origination and callback. How 95 these new assertion values for real-time communications supported 96 using the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header field is outside the scope 97 of this document. In addition, the PASSPorT extension defined in 98 this document is intended for use in environments where there are 99 means to verify that the signer of the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header 100 field is authoritative. 102 2. Terminology 104 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 105 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 106 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 107 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 108 capitals, as shown here. 110 3. New Assertion Values 112 This specification defines new assertions values for: 114 * "ESorig": Emergency Services call origination 115 * "EScallback": Emergency Services callback. 117 3.1. ESorig 119 When using "ESorig" as the "rph" assertion value, the "orig" claim of 120 the PASSporT MUST represent the calling party number that initiates 121 the call to emergency services. The "dest" claim MUST either be a 122 country or region specific dial string (e.g., "911" for North America 123 or "112" GSM defined string used in Europe and other countries) or 124 "urn:service:sos" as defined in TBD, representing the emergency 125 services destination of the call. 127 The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource- 128 Priority' header field with a "ESorig" assertion: 130 { 131 "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"}, 132 "dest":{["tn":"urn:service:sos"]}, 133 "iat":1443208345, 134 "rph":{"ESorig":["esnet,x"]} 135 } 137 3.2. EScallback 139 When using "EScallback" as the "rph" assertion value, the "orig" 140 claim of the PASSporT MUST represent the emergency network telephone 141 number. The "dest" claim MUST be the telephone number representing 142 the original calling party of the emergency service call that is 143 being called back. 145 The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource- 146 Priority' header field with a "EScallback" assertion: 148 { 149 "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"}, 150 "dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]}, 151 "iat":1443208345, 152 "rph":{"EScallback":["esnet,x"]} 153 } 155 After the header and claims PASSporT objects have been constructed, 156 their signature is generated normally per the guidance in [RFC8225] 157 using the full form of PASSPorT. The credentials (i.e., Certificate) 158 used to create the signature must have authority over the namespace 159 of the "rph" claim, and there is only one authority per claim. The 160 authority MUST use its credentials associated with the specific 161 service supported by the resource priority namespace in the claim. 162 If r-values are added or dropped by the intermediaries along the 163 path, the intermediaries must generate a new "rph" header and sign 164 the claim with their own authority. 166 The use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified in this 167 document. 169 4. IANA Considerations 171 4.1. PASSporT Resource Priority Header (rph) Types 173 This specification requests that the IANA add two new assertion 174 values to the "PASSporT Resource Priority Header (rph) Types" 175 Registry as defined in [RFC8443]. 177 The following assertion values will be added to the registry: 179 * "ESorig": Emergency Services call origination 180 * "EScallback": Emergency Services callback 182 +--------------+------------+ 183 | rph Type | Reference | 184 +--------------+------------+ 185 | ESorig | [this RFC] | 186 +--------------+------------+ 187 | EScallback | [this RFC] | 188 +--------------+------------+ 190 5. Security Considerations 192 The security considerations discussed in [RFC8224], Section 12, are 193 applicable here. 195 6. References 197 6.1. Normative References 199 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 200 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 201 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 202 DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, 203 . 205 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource 206 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 207 RFC 4412, DOI 10.17487/RFC4412, February 2006, 208 . 210 [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token 211 (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, 212 . 214 [RFC8224] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt, 215 "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session 216 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224, 217 DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018, 218 . 220 [RFC8225] Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion 221 Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018, 222 . 224 [RFC8226] Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity 225 Credentials: Certificates", RFC 8226, 226 DOI 10.17487/RFC8226, February 2018, 227 . 229 [RFC8443] Singh, R., Dolly, M., Das, S., and A. Nguyen, "Personal 230 Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Resource Priority 231 Authorization", RFC 8443, DOI 10.17487/RFC8443, August 232 2018, . 234 6.2. Informative References 236 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 237 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 239 . 241 [RFC7340] Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure 242 Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements", 243 RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014, 244 . 246 [RFC7375] Peterson, J., "Secure Telephone Identity Threat Model", 247 RFC 7375, DOI 10.17487/RFC7375, October 2014, 248 . 250 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 251 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 252 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 253 . 255 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 256 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 257 May 2017, . 259 Authors' Addresses 261 Martin Dolly 262 AT&T 264 Email: md3135@att.com 266 Chris Wendt 267 Comcast 268 Comcast Technology Center 269 Philadelphia, PA 19103 270 USA 272 Email: chris-ietf@chriswendt.net