[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance

SIP Working Group                                            James Polk
Internet Draft                                            Cisco Systems
Expiration: Dec 26th, 2006                                  Brian Rosen
                                                                NeuStar




            Session Initiation Protocol Location Conveyance
               draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03.txt
                            June 26th, 2006


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
   progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26th, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document defines how the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   conveys, or pushes, geographic location information from one SIP
   entity to another SIP entity.  SIP Location Conveyance is always end
   to end, but sometimes the embedded location information can be acted
   upon by SIP Servers to direct where the message goes, based on where
   the user agent client is.


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
       1.1 Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Location In the Body or in a Header . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Requirements for SIP Location Conveyance  . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Location Conveyance Using SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1 A New Option Tag and SIP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2 424 (Bad Location Information) Response Code  . . . . . . 14
       4.3 Example PIDF-LO in Geo Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.4 Example PIDF-LO in Civic Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.  SIP Element Behavior When Conveying Location  . . . . . . . . 17
       5.1 Location Conveyance Using the INVITE Method . . . . . . . 17
       5.2 Location Conveyance Using the MESSAGE Method  . . . . . . 19
       5.3 Location Conveyance Using the UPDATE Method . . . . . . . 20
       5.4 Location Conveyance Using the REGISTER Method . . . . . . 20
   6.  Special Considerations for Emergency Calls  . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Meeting RFC 3693 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  IANA Considerations   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       9.1 IANA Registration for the SIP Location Header . . . . . . 22
       9.2 IANA Registration of the Location Option Tags . . . . . . 23
       9.3 IANA Registration for Response Code 424 . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       11.1 Normative References   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       Author Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       Appendix A.  Changes from Prior Versions  . . . . . . . . . . 24
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . 28


1.  Introduction

   There are several situations in which it is desired or necessary for
   a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] user agent to convey,
   or push its geographic Location Information (LI) from one SIP entity
   to another.  This document discusses the rules for such conveyance,
   and includes the requirements to be met when a SIP UAC wants or
   needs to convey its location to another SIP entity.  A concept of
   inheritance exists in which the conveyance of the location of a user
   agent means conveying the location of a user of that user agent.
   This is not an absolute in SIP, but applies for the pushing of
   location using SIP. The privacy concerns of this topic are also
   discussed, and need to meet the requirements laid out in RFC 3693
   [RFC3693].  This document does not discuss the pulling of location
   information from a remote element to learn that element's location.
   This is left for a future effort.

   Why would a SIP user agent (UA) push its location to another SIP UA?

   There are 3 reasonable scenarios why location can be, or needs to be


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   conveyed to a remote SIP element:

   1) to include location in a request message seeking the nearest
      instance of destination, where there could be more than one
      choice; (hey, here I am, I want to talk to the nearest instance
      of you? i.e. where's the nearest Pizza Hut relative to where I
      am now).

   2) to push the user agent's location to a server such that it can
      either deal with all the inquiries, leaving the UA to do other
      tasks (Presence Server), or allow the server to return
      information to that UAC according to what the UAC is at this
      time.

   3) to inform the user of another UA where the sending user is;
      (dude, he is where I am) or (I need help, here I am)

   Scenario #1 revolves around the idea of a user wanting to find the
   nearest instances of something else.  For example, where is the
   nearest pizza parlor.  A chain of pizza parlors may be contacted
   through a single well known URI (sip:pizzaparlor.example.com).  This
   by itself does not solve enough to the sending UA.  The server at
   this well known URI needs to know where the nearest one is to the
   requester.  In SIP, this could be accomplished in the initial
   message by including the location of the UAC in the Request message.
   This allows the SIP message to be forwarded to the closest physical
   site by the pizzaparlor.com proxy server.  Additionally, the
   receiving site's UAS uses the UAC's location to determine the
   location your delivery.  A more immediate example may be: where's
   the nearest (car) garage repair shop, because the user of the UAC
   has a flat tire.

   Scenario #2 revolves around pushing the user's location information
   to an external server to deal with all location requests in the
   future.  This leaves a buffer layer between the user and the seeker
   of the user's location.  This server would typically handle all
   security checks and challenges of those seeking the user's location,
   as well as handling all the processing of the location target's
   profile rules entered into that server.  This external server
   c/would be a Presence server.  This scenario will not be addressed
   in this document because of the prevailing Presence solutions for
   conveying location information.

   Alternatively, a user agent pushing location to a server can allow
   that server to provide back information pertinent to that UA's
   location.  Perhaps replying with certain information unique to the
   country or region a mobile UA resides.  This would not be possible
   without the server knowing where the UA is.

   Scenario #3 actually has a part A and a part B to it.  Both involve
   the UAC including its location in the request to the UAS within a
   SIP transaction.  Part A simply has the user, Alice, informing


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   another user, Bob, where she is.  This could be the loan purpose
   for this SIP message, or it could be part of another transaction -
   in which location were merely included, such as within a call set-
   up.

   Part B of scenario #3 has a user, Alice, calling for help and
   including location to inform who she's calling where she is.  This
   is where the called party needs to come bring help to.  Within this
   scenario, the UAC will need to know this is a special SIP request
   message to include the UAC's location in this message.  It is
   envisioned that SIP elements along the path of the SIP request will
   need to know where Alice's UA is for proper routing purposes.  An
   example of this special SIP request is an emergency call set-up.

   While scenarios 1, 2 and 3A should use some form of SIP security,
   typically at the wishes of the user, scenario 3B may or may not
   involve SIP security measures.  This is because including any
   security measures may cause the SIP request to fail, and that is
   likely not a good result.  It is also conceivable that a first
   attempt with the user's security measures enabled is tried, and if
   there are any failures, the subsequent attempt or attempts do not
   involve security measures.  Most believe that completing the
   emergency call is more important than protecting the information in
   the SIP message.  Obviously this is up to local and jurisdictional
   policies, but is mentioned here as a hint of a rationale of a later
   section of this document.

   This document does not discuss how the UAC discovers or is
   configured with its location.  This document however will specify
   how it meets the requirements for SIP qualifying as a "using
   protocol" as defined in [RFC3693], in section 7.

   Section 3 lists the requirements for SIP location conveyance.
   Section 4 defines how SIP conveys location.  Section 5 illustrates
   specifics about location conveyance in certain SIP request messages.
   Section 6 briefly discusses pertinent behaviors with respect to the
   unique nature of emergency calling.  Section 9 provides the security
   considerations and Section 9 IANA registers one new SIP header, two
   new option tags and one new 4XX Response codes.

   The "changes from prior versions" section (the old Section 1.2) has
   been moved to the lone appendix, as its size is getting too large
   for efficient reading of this document.


1.1  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in [RFC2119].



Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

2.  Location In the Body or in a Header

   In determining where "location" is placed in a SIP message,
   consideration is taken as to where the trust model is based on the
   architecture involved.

   If the user agent has the location stored within it, and this user
   agent wants to inform another user agent where it is, it seems
   reasonable to have this accomplished by placing the location
   information (coordinate or civic) in a message body (part), sending
   it as part of a SIP request or response.  This is location by-value.

   No routing of the request based on the location contents is required
   in this case, therefore no SIP Proxies between these two UAs need to
   view the location information contained in the SIP message(s).  The
   UAC should know certain types of messages will be routed based on
   the UA's location when creating a message.

   RFC 3261 does not permit SIP intermediaries to modify or delete a
   message body [RFC3261].  There is, however, no restriction on
   intermediaries viewing message bodies.  S/MIME protected message
   bodies, implemented on bodies for end-to-end communications only
   (i.e. between user agents), would render the location object opaque
   to a proxy server from any viewing of the message body.

   The location format is defined in [RFC4119] as a "Presence
   Information Data Format - Location Object", or PIDF-LO.  The amount
   of information that is necessary to appropriately transmit location
   information in a format that is understandable is larger than a SIP
   header could realistically include.  However, there must be a means
   for both a UAC to include a reference point to where location can be
   retrieved from a remote server, and in some cases, for a SIP server
   to add a UAC's location to a SIP message as it is processed
   by that element.  This must be in a SIP header for the above stated
   reason, and should therefore be in a compact form.  A URI satisfies
   this description.  This is location-by-reference.

   The idea of Location-by-Reference is to allow a UA to store its
   location on a remote node, to be retrieved by who has this URI.
   This concept allows the remote node to use its processing power to
   handle all policy rule operations the user wants performed per
   request, and all security challenges done as well.

   Since location in a message body may be opaque to a routing element,
   message needing to be routed based on the UAC's location should not
   have said location in the message body where it may not be seen.  A
   UAC's Location in these cases should be in the Location header where
   it can be dereferenced by a (SIP) routing element.

   [RFC3693] prefers S/MIME for confidentiality and integrity of
   Location Information on an end-to-end basis, and indeed S/MIME is
   preferable in SIP [RFC3261] for protecting a message body.


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   Accordingly, this document specifies location be carried in a body
   when it is known to/stored in a user agent for end-to-end conveyance
   of location.  The use of SIPS [RFC3261] is orthogonal to this
   discussion and should always be used.

   It is conceivable that an initial attempt to communicate with
   location included may fail due to the security measures used.
   Subsequent requests ought to use less security.  For example, if an
   initial request used S/MIME and failed.  A subsequent request could
   downgrade the security measures used to that of TLS.  A message may
   be important enough, say an emergency call attempt, where TLS is not
   used.  This should not be a default configuration, but a fallback
   usage. This is always a matter for local and jurisdictional policy.


3.  Requirements for SIP Location Conveyance

   The following subsections address the requirements placed on the
   user agent client, the user agent server, as well as SIP proxies
   when conveying location.

3.1 Requirements for a UAC Conveying Location

   The following are the requirements for location conveyance by a user
   agent client.  There is a motivational statement below each
   requirements that is not obvious in intent.

   UAC-1  The SIP INVITE Method [RFC3261] MUST support Location
          Conveyance.

   UAC-2  The SIP MESSAGE method [RFC3428] MUST support Location
          Conveyance.

   UAC-3  SIP Requests within a dialog SHOULD support Location
          Conveyance.

   UAC-4  Other SIP Requests MAY support Location Conveyance.

   UAC-5  There MUST be one, mandatory to implement means of
          transmitting location confidentially.

   Motivation:  interoperability

   UAC-6  It MUST be possible for a UAC to update location conveyed
          at any time in a dialog, including during dialog
          establishment.

   Motivation: in case a UAC has moved prior to the establishment of a
          dialog between UAs, the UAC must be able to send new location
          information.  In the case of location having been conveyed,
          and the UA moves, it needs a means to update the conveyed to
          party of this location change.


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 6]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   UAC-7  The privacy and security rules established within [RFC3693]
          that would categorize SIP as a 'using protocol' MUST be met.
          See Section 7 for analysis.

   UAC-8  The PIDF-LO [RFC4119] is a mandatory to implement format for
          location conveyance within SIP, whether included by-value or
          by-reference.

   If location is within the message, it is a PIDF-LO by-value in a
   message body (part).  If location is stored on an external node, it
   is dereferenced as a PIDF-LO.

   Motivation:  interoperability

   UAC-9  A UAC MUST be capable of transmitting a SIP request without
          protecting the PIDF-LO message body.  It is RECOMMENDED this
          not be the default configuration of any UA.  This requirement
          is orthogonal to the use of TLS or IPSec hop-by-hop between
          SIP elements.

   Motivation:  If a SIP request is part of an emergency call,
          therefore includes the UAC's location, the UAC may understand
          through local policy or configuration that a proxy server
          will need to learn the UAC's location to route the message
          correctly.  Using S/MIME on the PIDF-LO defeats this
          capability in proxies.

   UAC-10 A UAC MUST allow its user to be able to disable providing
          location within any SIP request message.  It is RECOMMENDED
          this not is the default configuration of any UA.

   Motivation:  local laws may give this right to all users within a
          jurisdiction, even when the request is initiating an
          emergency call.

   UAC-11 A UAC SHOULD NOT use the Proxy-Require header indicating a
          SIP intermediary is required to act upon location within a
          SIP message.

   Motivation:  This is because it is not expected that all SIP
          elements will understand location, therefore the chances of a
          message failure is high if proxies are required to support
          location before forwarding a message.  This will lead to
          unnecessary message failures.


3.2 Requirements for a UAS Receiving Location

   The following are the requirements for location conveyance by a user
   agent server:

   UAS-1  SIP Responses MUST support Location Conveyance.


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 7]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   UAS-2  There MUST be one, mandatory to implement means of
          receiving location confidentially.

   Motivation:  interoperability

   UAS-3  The PIDF-LO [RFC4119] is a mandatory to implement format for
          location conveyance within SIP, whether included by-value or
          by-reference.

   If location is within the message, it is a PIDF-LO by-value in a
   message body (part).  If location is stored on an external node, it
   is dereferenced as a PIDF-LO.

   Motivation:  interoperability

   UAS-4  There MUST be a unique 4XX error response code informing
          the UAC it did not provide applicable location information.

   UAS-5  UASs MUST be prepared to receive location without privacy
          mechanisms enabled.  It is RECOMMENDED this not be the
          default configuration of any UA, however, this MUST be
          possible for local laws that require this function.

   Motivation:  Because a SIP request can fail in transit for security
          reasons, UACs are allowed to transmit, or retransmit requests
          including location without any security mechanisms utilized,
          even when this SIP transaction is an emergency call.  UAs
          must be prepared to receive the messages without confidential
          location.

   UAS-6  There MUST be a unique 4XX error response code informing the
          UAC it did not provide applicable location information.


3.3 Requirements for SIP Proxies and Intermediaries

   The following are the requirements for location conveyance by a SIP
   proxies and intermediaries:

   Proxy-1  Proxy servers MUST NOT modify or remove a location
            message body part, and SHOULD NOT modify or remove a
            location header or location header value.

   Motivation:  [RFC3261] forbids the removal of a message body part,
            and the proxy may not have all the relevant information as
            to why location was included in this message (meaning it
            might need to be there), and should not remove this
            critical piece of information.

   Proxy-2  Proxy servers MUST be capable of adding a Location header
            during processing of SIP requests.



Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 8]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   Motivation:  If the proxy determines a message needs to have the
            location of the UAC in the message, and knows the UAC's
            location by-reference, it must be able to add this header
            and URI to the message during processing.  This SHOULD NOT
            violate requirement Proxy-3 below.

   Proxy-3  If a Proxy server detects "location" already exists within
            a SIP message, it SHOULD NOT add another location header or
            location body to the message.

   Motivation:  This may lead to confusion downstream.  Section 4.1
            explains this more.

   Proxy-4  There MUST be a unique 4XX error response code informing
            the UAC it did not provide applicable location information.


4.  Location Conveyance Using SIP

   RFC 4119 defines the PIDF-LO location object to be inside a RFC 3693
   defined "using protocol" message from one entity to another entity.
   For SIP location conveyance, using the PIDF-LO body satisfies the
   entire format and message-handling requirements as stated in the
   baseline Geopriv Requirements [RFC3693].

   Although a PIDF-LO is to be used to indicate location of a UA, the
   actual PIDF-LO does not need to be contained in the message itself,
   it can be as a by-reference URI in a SIP header or message body
   part, pointing to the PIDF-LO of that UA on a remote node.

   The basic operation of location conveyance is as easy as this in
   Figure 1., showing a user agent conveying its location to another
   user agent:

       UA Alice                            UA Bob

          |      [M1] Request (w/ Location)   |
          |---------------------------------->|
          |      [M2] Response                |
          |<----------------------------------|
          |                                   |

         Figure 1. Basic SIP Location Conveyance

   Alice wants to inform Bob where she is.  She includes location
   by-value (in a message body) or by-reference (in a new Location
   header) in her request message towards Bob.  Bob MAY choose to
   include his location in a response back to Alice.

   Another usage of location conveyance is for a SIP Server route the
   SIP request message based on included location information, by-value
   or by-reference, to an appropriate destination.  Figure 2 shows this


Polk & Rosen                                                   [Page 9]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   message flow to UAS-B, because that is determined to be the
   appropriate destination for this message, based on the location of
   Alice.

    UA Alice                     SIP Server   UAS-A   UAS-B   UAS-C

       |  [M1] Request (w/ Location) |          |       |       |
       |---------------------------->|          |       |       |
       |                             |                  |
       |                             |----------------->|
       |                             |                  |
       |               [M2] Response                    |
       |<-----------------------------------------------|
       |                                                |

    Figure 2. Message Routing based on Location Information

   How a SIP Server would route a message based on the location in a
   SIP message is out of scope for this document.  But in Figure 2,
   Alice's message could go to one of three destinations, with the SIP
   server choosing destination B based on Alice's location.

   A use-case for Figure 2 could be one in which Alice wants a pizza
   delivered to her location, wherever she is.  She calls her favorite
   pizza store chain's main address, perhaps this is a single, national
   URI, with her included location determining which specific store
   this SIP request is routed to.  In such a use-case, Alice can use
   the same URI wherever she is to contact the same store chain she
   prefers; never needing to look up the specifics of which store is
   closest in a unfamiliar city.

   Another use-case is emergency calling, in which the location of the
   caller is the key trigger as to which emergency response center
   receives this SIP request.

   Because a person's location is generally considered to be sensitive
   in nature, certain security measures need to be taken into account
   when transmitting such information.  Section 26 of [RFC3261] defines
   the security functionality SIPS for transporting SIP messages with
   either TLS or IPSec, and S/MIME for encrypting message bodies from
   SIP intermediaries that would otherwise have access to reading the
   clear-text bodies.  SIP endpoints SHOULD implement S/MIME to encrypt
   the PIDF-LO message body (part) end-to-end.  The SIPS-URI from
   [RFC3261] MUST be implemented for message protection (message
   integrity and confidentiality) and SHOULD be used when S/MIME is not
   used.

   The entities sending and receiving location MUST obey the privacy
   and security rules in the PIDF-LO, regarding retransmission and
   retention, to be compliant with this specification.

   Self-signed certificates SHOULD NOT be used for protecting PIDF-LO,


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 10]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   as the sender does not have a secure identity of the recipient.

   More than one location representation or format MAY be included in
   the same message body part, but all MUST point at the same position
   on the earth (altitude not withstanding), as this would confuse the
   recipient by pointing at more than one position within the same
   message body part.  There MAY be a case in which part or parts of
   one location format and part or parts of another format exist in the
   same message body part.  These complementary pieces of information
   MUST point at the same position on the earth, yet are incomplete
   within their own format. For example, there maybe be a latitude and
   longitude in coordinate format and a civic altitude value to
   complete a 3-dimensional position of a thing (i.e. which floor of a
   building the UA is on in a building at a particular lat/long
   coordinates pair).

   There MAY be more than one PIDF-LO in the same SIP message, but each
   in separate message body parts. Each location body part MAY point at
   different positions on the earth (altitude not withstanding).  If
   the message length exceeds the maximum message length of a single
   packet (1300 bytes), TCP MUST to be used for proper message
   fragmentation and reassembly.

   Several push-based SIP Request Methods are capable (and applicable)
   of carrying location, including:

      INVITE,
      REGISTER,
      UPDATE, and
      MESSAGE,

   While the authors do not yet see a reason to have location conveyed
   in the ACK, PRACK, BYE, REFER and CANCEL Methods, we do not see a
   reason to prevent carrying a PIDF-LO within these Method Requests as
   long as the SIP message meets the requirements stated within this
   document.  Discussing Location in the PUBLISH Request Method will be
   for another document.

   SIP Methods such as SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY are considered a pull-based
   location retrieval mechanism, and are therefore not part of this
   document.

   A 200 OK to a SIP Request MAY carry the UAS's PIDF-LO back to the
   UAC that provided its location in the original request, but this is
   not something that can be required due to the timing of the request
   to 200 OK messages, with potential local/user policy requiring the
   called user to get involved in determining if the caller is someone
   they wish to give their location to (and at what precision).






Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 11]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

4.1  A New Option Tag and SIP Header

   This document creates and IANA registers one new option tag:
   "location".  This option tag is to be used, per RFC 3261 in the
   Require, Supported and Unsupported headers.  Whenever a UA wants to
   indicate it understands this SIP extension, the location option tag
   is included in a Supported header of the SIP message.

   This option tag SHOULD NOT be used in the Proxy-Require header.

   This document also creates and IANA registers a new SIP header:
   Location.  The Location header, if present, will have one of two
   header values defined by this document:

   o  a Location-by-reference URI

   o  a Content-ID indicating where location is within the message body

   A location-by-reference URI is a pointer to a record on a remote
   node containing the PIDF-LO of a UA.

   If the PIDF-LO of a UA is contained in a SIP message, a Location
   header will be present in the message with a content-ID (cid-url)
   [RFC2392] indicating which message body part contains location for
   this UA.  This is to aid a node in not having to parse the whole
   message body or body parts looking for this body type.

   The purpose of the Location option-tag is to indicate support for
   this document in the Require, Supported and Unsupported headers.
   It gives a UAS the proper means to indicate it does not support the
   concept of location in an Unsupported header in a response message
   that might otherwise not be clear that the lack of support for
   location is the problem with the request message.

   The presence of the Location option tag in a Supported header
   without a Location header in the same message informs a receiving
   SIP element the UAC understands the concept of location, but it does
   not know its location at this time.

   The new "Location" header has the following BNF syntax:

   Location           =  "Location" HCOLON (locationURI *(COMMA
                          locationURI))
   locationURI        =  absoluteURI / cidURI
   cidURI             =  "cid:" content-id

   content-id         =  addr-spec ; URL encoding of RFC3261 addr-spec

   The content-ID (cid:) is defined in [RFC2392] to locate message body
   parts.  This MUST be present if location is by-value in a message.

   It is envisioned that HTTP, through the http_URL in [RFC216], and


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 12]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   HTTPS [RFC2818] MAY be used to dereference a location-by-reference
   PIDF-LO.

   The following table extends the values in Table 2&3 of RFC3261
   [RFC3261].

      Header field             where proxy INV ACK CAN BYE REG OPT PRA
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Location                 Rr    ar     o   -   -   o   o   o   -

      Header field             where proxy SUB NOT UPD MSG REF INF PUB
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Location                 Rr    ar     -   -   o   o   o   o   -

   The Location header MAY be added to, or read if present in, a
   request message listed above.  A proxy MAY add the Location header
   in transit if one is not present.  [RFC3261] states message bodies
   cannot be added by proxies.  A proxy MAY read the location header in
   transit if present, and MAY use the contents of the location header
   to make message routing decisions.

   It is RECOMMENDED that only one Location header be in the same
   message, but this is not mandatory.  That said, there MUST NOT be
   more than one cid-url pointing to the same location message body
   (part) in a SIP message, regardless of how many Location headers
   there are in that message.

   As of the writing of this document, there is no means in a PIDF-LO
   to indicate which element generated that PIDF-LO.  There is a means
   of indicating what the subject of the location information is within
   a PIDF-LO.  Meaning, if more than one location, by-value and/or
   by-reference is included in a message, the recipient, whether
   intermediary or destination, will not know which location entry was
   inserted by which element.  This can lead to confusion in some
   cases.  Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that there be a single location
   representation referring to the same target/subject in a SIP
   message.  This PIDF-LO generation indication may be fixed in the
   future, resolving this limitation, but that is not part of the scope
   of this document.

   Here is an example INVITE request message that includes the proper
   Location and Supported headers:

   INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pc33.atlanta.example.com
     ;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   Location: cid:alice123@atlanta.example.com
   Supported: location


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 13]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml
   CSeq: 31862 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>
   Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
   Content-Length: ...

   --boundary1

   Content-Type: application/sdp

   ...SDP here

   --boundary1

   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
   Content-ID: alice123@atlanta.example.com

   ...PIDF-LO here

   --boundary1--

   The Location header from the above INVITE:

      Location: cid:alice123@atlanta.example.com

   indicates the Content-ID location [RFC2392] within the multipart
   message body of were location information is.

   If the Location header were this instead:

      Location: <server5@atlanta.example.com/alice123>

   this would indicate location by-reference was included in this
   message.  It is expected that any node wanting to know where user
   alice123 is would fetch (dereference) the PIDF-LO from the server
   URI.


4.2 424 (Bad Location Information) Response Code

   In the case that a UAS or SIP intermediary detects an error
   in a request message specific to the location information supplied
   by-value or by-reference, a new 4XX level error is created here to
   indicate this is the problem with the request message.  This
   document creates the new error code:

      424 (Bad Location Information)

   The 424 (Bad Location Information) response code is a rejection of
   the location contents, whether by-value or by-reference of the
   original SIP Request.  The server function of the recipient (UAS or
   intermediary) has deemed this location by-reference or location by-


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 14]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   value to be bad.  No further action by the UAC is required.  The UAC
   can use whatever means it knows of to verify/refresh its location
   information before attempting a new request that includes location.
   There is no cross-transaction awareness expected by either the UAS
   or SIP intermediary as a result of this error message.

   This new error code will be IANA registered in Section 9.


4.3 Example PIDF-LO in Geo Format

   This subsection will show a sample of what just the PIDF-LO can look
   like, as defined in [RFC4119].  Having this here will first offer a
   look at a location by-value message body, and secondly, give readers
   an appreciation for how large a location message body is.  This
   section shows a coordinate position based PIDF-LO.  Section 4.4
   shows this same position in a civic address format.  Full example
   message flows will be left for another document.

   Whether this PIDF-LO message body is S/MIME encrypted in the SIP
   message or not, the PIDF-LO stays exactly the same.  There is no
   change to its format, text or characteristics.  Whether TLS or IPSec
   is used to encrypt this overall SIP message or not, the PIDF-LO
   stays exactly the same.  There is no change to its format, text or
   characteristics.  The examples in section 4.3 (Geo format) taken
   from [RFC3825] and 4.4 (Civic format) taken from [ID-CIVIC] are for
   the exact same position on the Earth.  The differences between the
   two formats is within the <gp:location-info> are of the examples.
   Other than this portion, of each PIDF-LO, the rest the same for both
   location formats.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
       <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
          xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
          xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
          xmlns:gs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:geoShape"
          entity="pres:alice@atlanta.example.com">
        <tuple id="sg89ae">
         <timestamp>2006-03-20T14:00:00Z</timestamp>
         <status>
          <gp:geopriv>
            <gp:location-info>
              <gml:location>
                <gml:Point gml:id="point96" srsName="epsg:4326">
                  <gml:coordinates>33.001111N
                                   96.68142W</gml:coordinates>
                </gml:Point>
               </gml:location>
            </gp:location-info>
            <gp:usage-rules>
              <gp:retransmission-allowed>no</gp:retransmission-allowed>
              <gp:retention-expiry>2006-03-24T18:00:00Z</gp:retention-


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 15]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

                            expiry>
              <gp:method>DHCP</gp:method>
              <gp:provided-by>www.cisco.com</gp:provided-by>
            </gp:usage-rules>
          </gp:geopriv>
         </status>
        </tuple>
       </presence>


4.4 Example PIDF-LO in Civic Format

   This subsection will show a sample of what just the PIDF-LO can look
   like, as defined in [RFC4119].  Having this here will first offer a
   look at a location by-value message body, and secondly, give readers
   an appreciation for how large a location message body.  This section
   shows a civic address based PIDF-LO.  Section 4.3 shows this same
   position in a coordinate format.  Full example message flows will be
    left for another document.

   Whether this PIDF-LO message body is S/MIME encrypted in the SIP
   message or not, the PIDF-LO stays exactly the same.  There is no
   change to its format, text or characteristics.  Whether TLS or IPSec
   is used to encrypt this overall SIP message or not, the PIDF-LO
   stays exactly the same.  There is no change to its format, text or
   characteristics.  The examples in section 4.3 (Geo format) taken
   from [RFC3825] and 4.4 (Civic format) taken from [ID-CIVIC] are for
   the exact same position on the Earth.  The differences between the
   two formats is within the <gp:location-info> are of the examples.
   Other than this portion, of each PIDF-LO, the rest the same for both
   location formats.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
          xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
          xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
          xmlns:gs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:geoShape"
          entity="pres:alice@atlanta.example.com">
        <tuple id="sg89ae">
         <timestamp>2006-03-20T14:00:00Z</timestamp>
         <status>
          <gp:geopriv>
            <gp:location-info>
              <cl:civilAddress>
                <cl:country>US</cl:country>
                <cl:A1>Texas</cl:A1>
                <cl:A3>Colleyville</cl:A3>
                <cl:HNO>3913</cl:HNO>
                <cl:A6>Treemont</cl:A6>
                <cl:STS>Circle</cl:STS>
                <cl:PC>76034</cl:PC>
                <cl:LMK>Polk Place</cl:LMK>


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 16]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

                <cl:FLR>1</cl:FLR>
              <cl:civilAddress>
            </gp:location-info>
            <gp:usage-rules>
              <gp:retransmission-allowed>no</gp:retransmission-allowed>
              <gp:retention-expiry>2006-03-24T18:00:00Z</gp:retention-
                            expiry>
              <gp:method>DHCP</gp:method>
              <gp:provided-by>www.cisco.com</gp:provided-by>
            </gp:usage-rules>
          </gp:geopriv>
         </status>
        </tuple>
       </presence>


5.  SIP Element Behavior When Conveying Location

   This specification includes requirements for the conveyance of
   location information in the INVITE, REGISTER, UPDATE, and MESSAGE
   request methods. The mechanisms within this specification could
   presumably be used in other SIP requests types. However, since there
   currently are no agreed upon requirement(s) for conveying location
   in other request types, this specification only describes location
   conveyance in the four request methods mentioned here.

   The message flows in this document will be example messages
   containing only the key headers to convey the point being made that
   do not include all the requisite SIP headers.  All well formed SIP
   message flows are to be in a separate document for brevity here.

5.1 Location Conveyance Using the INVITE Method

   Below is a common SIP session set-up sequence between two user
   agents.  In this example, Alice will provide Bob with her location
   in the INVITE message.

   UA Alice                                  UA Bob

      |               [M1] INVITE               |
      |---------------------------------------->|
      |               [M2] 200 OK               |
      |<----------------------------------------|
      |               [M3] ACK                  |
      |---------------------------------------->|
      |                    RTP                  |
      |<=======================================>|
      |                                         |

   Figure 3. Location Conveyance in INVITE Requests

   User agent Alice invites user agent Bob to a session [M1 of Figure


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 17]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   1].

   INVITE sips:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   To: Bob <sips:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Supported: Location
   Location: cid:alice123@atlanta.example.com

   If the message were S/MIME encrypted, this would be the Content-type
   header:

   Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime;
      smime-type=enveloped-data; name=smime.p7m

   If this INVITE were not S/MIME encrypted, this would be the
   Content-Type header:

   Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1

   The obvious reason this for a multipart/mixed Content-Type is that
   this is an INVITE message and there is an SDP message body part
   included.  This is not mandatory, but highly likely.  The cid-url in
   the Location header points a parsing entity that can view the
   message body to where the PIDF-LO is in the message.

     Within the non-S/MIME message body is this:

   --boundary1

   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   ...

   --boundary1

   Content-type: application/pidf+xml

   PIDF-LO

   --boundary1--

   In the INVITE, Alice's UAC included the Supported header with the
   location option tag, and the Location header with the cid:url
   pointing at the by-value PIDF-LO.  These two headers MAY be hidden
   in the S/MIME encrypted message body next to the topmost
   Content-Type header to hide the fact that this message is carrying
   location in transit.  Bob's UAS, the destination UA of Alice's
   message, will read these headers when deciphering the overall
   message body.

   - If Bob's UA wants to join the call, his UA responses with a 200 OK


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 18]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

     [M2].  Bob can include his location in the 200 OK response, but
     this shouldn't be expected to due to user timing.

   A 424 (Bad Location Information) Response is the proper response if
   Bob's UA understands this SIP extension (location), but somehow
   determines the supplied location information is bad.

   [Alternative M2(1) of Figure 3]
   SIP/2.0 424 Bad Location Information
   To: Bob <sips:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774

   The 424 is expected to be more commonly sent by SIP intermediaries
   along the path between Alice and Bob, than from Bob's UA.

   - If Bob's UA accepts with a 200 OK message, Alice's UA replies with
     an ACK and the session is set up.

   - If Bob's UA does not accept the INVITE for reasons other than
     location included, a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) may be the
     response.

   Figure 3 does not include any Proxies because in it assumed they
   would not affect the session set-up with respect to whether or not
   Alice's location is in a message body part, and Proxies do not react
   to S/MIME encrypted bodies, making their inclusion more or less moot
   and asking for more complex message flows than necessary here.

   If Alice included a Require header such as this:

   Require: Location

   and Bob did not understand this SIP extension, Bob's appropriate
   response would be a 420 (Bad Extension) with an Unsupported header
   containing the Location option tag.  This is shown below as an
   alternative (2) to M2 in Figure 3.

   [Alternative M2(2) of Figure 3]
   SIP/2.0 420 Bad Extension
   To: Bob <sips:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Unsupported: location


5.2 Location Conveyance Using the MESSAGE Method

   There are no additional rules regarding conveying location in a
   MESSAGE request verses an INVITE request.






Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 19]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

5.3 Location Conveyance Using the UPDATE Method

   The UPDATE Method [RFC3311] is to be used any time location
   information is to be updated between UAs setting up a dialog or
   after the dialog has been established, no matter how long that
   dialog has been operational.  reINVITE is inappropriate here, and
   the MESSAGE Method is for non-dialog location conveyance between UAs
   only.  The same security properties used in the INVITE MUST be
   applied in the UPDATE message.

   There are 3 conditions UPDATE is used to convey location between
   UAs:

   1) During dialog establishment, but before the final 200 OK

   2) After dialog establishment, but no prior location information has
      been convey, and

   3) After dialog establishment, when a UA has determined it has moved
      (not specified here)

   There are no additional rules regarding conveying location in a
   UPDATE request verses an INVITE request.


5.4 Location Conveyance Using the REGISTER Method

   Alice's user agent MAY choose to communicate its location during
   registration, the REGISTER Method is used here.  This MAY be done to
   inform the Registrar server where this UA is to provide it a
   customized response based on the particulars of UAs in that
   jurisdiction.  To indicate to a Registrar Server a UAC supports this
   SIP extension, but does not include location in the message,
   including a Supported header with a location option tag does this.
   Either transaction SHOULD an appropriate confidentiality mechanism.


6.  Special Considerations for Emergency Calls

   Emergency calling, such as 911, 112 and 999 calling today,
   necessitates a UAC to understand the type of call it is about to
   initiate with an INVITE message to a PSAP.  First of all, the
   purpose of calling for emergency help is to get someone to respond
   to the UAC's location, therefore, location MUST be included in the
   INVITE, if known by the UAC.  If the UAC understands this, but does
   not know its location at this time, it MUST include the location
   option tag in the Supported header, and MUST NOT include the
   Location header, as it would not have anything to put as a header
   value.

   The emergency services community strongly prefers that message
   routing occur in the network with the freshest available Public


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 20]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   Safety Answering Point (PSAP) information.  Message routing, in this
   context, means choosing which SIP(S)-URI to place in the Request-URI
   field of the status line.

   If a UAC knows it is generating an emergency request towards a PSAP,
   there MAY be unique message handling characteristics that diminish
   the level of confidentiality of the location information within the
   SIP message(s).  This is because emergency call routing requires
   proxies to know the location of the message originating UAC in order
   to make a decision on where to route the message.  This is because
   emergency calls are directed to the PSAP local to the caller's
   location.  A proxy performing this function requires that proxy to
   learn the location of the UAC during message processing.

   How a message is routed based on the location of the UAC, and if and
   by how much the level of confidentiality of location information is
   diminished when calling for emergency help are both out of scope of
   this document.

   Hop-by-hop confidentiality mechanisms, as defined in [RFC3261] MUST
   be initially attempted by a UAC that includes location.  Local
   configuration MAY allow a subsequent retry, after a security related
   failure, to be without hop-by-hop confidentiality.  SIP elements
   MUST obey the rules set forth in [RFC3261] regarding maintaining
   hop-by-hop confidentiality when a message using a SIPS-URI.  If a
   UAC retries an emergency request as the result of a 424 (Bad
   Location) response, that new request MUST NOT include message body
   encryption.  Further details of emergency request messages are left
   to future work to define.

   While many jurisdictions force a user to reveal their location
   during an emergency call set-up, there is a small, but real, number
   of jurisdictions that allow a user to configure their calling device
   to disable providing location, even during emergency calling.  This
   capability MUST be configurable, but is not RECOMMENDED as the
   default configuration of any UA.  Local policies will dictate this
   ability.


7.  Meeting RFC3693 Requirements

   Section 7.2 of [RFC3693] details the requirements of a "using
   protocol".  They are:

   Req. 4.  The using protocol has to obey the privacy and security
      instructions coded in the Location Object and in the
      corresponding Rules regarding the transmission and storage of the
      LO.

   This document requires, in Section 3, that SIP entities sending or
   receiving location MUST obey such instructions.



Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 21]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   Req. 5.  The using protocol will typically facilitate that the keys
      associated with the credentials are transported to the respective
      parties, that is, key establishment is the responsibility of the
      using protocol.

   [RFC3261] and the documents it references define the key establish
   mechanisms.

   Req. 6.  (Single Message Transfer)  In particular, for tracking of
      small target devices, the design should allow a single
      message/packet transmission of location as a complete
      transaction.

   This document specifies that the LO be contained in the body of a
   single message, which may be fragmented via TCP, but is still not a
   streaming delivery.


8.  Security Considerations

   Conveyance of physical location of a UAC is problematic for many
   reasons.  This document calls for that conveyance to normally be
   accomplished through secure message body means (like S/MIME or TLS).
   In cases where a session set-up is routed based on the location of
   the UAC initiating the session or SIP MESSAGE, securing the location
   with an end-to-end mechanism such as S/MIME is problematic, due to
   the probability of a proxy from requiring the ability to read that
   information to route the message appropriately.  This means the use
   of S/MIME may not be possible.  This leaves location information of
   the caller available in each proxy through to the PSAP.  This may
   not be a perfect solution, but may be a pill we need to swallow to
   enable this functionality.

   A bad implementation of SIP location conveyance would have a UAC
   send location in cleartext, without hop-by-hop confidentiality, or
   have any SIP element along the path towards the PSAP alter the
   transport of any message carrying location to be without hop-by-hop
   confidentiality between elements.  The latter would be in clear
   violation of RFC3261 rules surrounding the use of a SIPS-URI.


9.  IANA Considerations

   This section defines one new SIP header, one new option tag, and
   one new 4XX error response code within the sip-parameters section of
   IANA.  [NOTE: RFC XXXX denotes this document].


9.1 IANA Registration for the SIP Location Header

   The SIP Location header is created by this document, with its
   definition and rules in Section 4 of this document.


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 22]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006


9.2 IANA Registration for New SIP Option Tag

   The SIP option tag "Location" is created by this document, with the
   definition and rule in Section 4 of this document.

9.3 IANA Registration for Response Code 4XX

   Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e. this document)
   Response code: 424
   Default reason phrase: Bad Location Information

   This SIP Response code is defined in section 4.2 of this document.


10.  Acknowledgements

   To Dave Oran for helping to shape this idea. To Jon Peterson and
   Dean Willis on guidance of the effort. To Henning Schulzrinne,
   Jonathan Rosenberg, Dick Knight, Mike Hammer, Paul Kyzivat,
   Jean-Francois Mule, Hannes Tschofenig, Marc Linsner, Jeroen van
   Bemmel and Keith Drage for constructive feedback.


11. References

11.1 References - Normative

 [RFC3261] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J.
           Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP:
           Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, May 2002.

 [RFC3693] J. Cuellar, J. Morris, D. Mulligan, J. Peterson. J. Polk,
           "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004

 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997

 [RFC4119] J. Peterson, "draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03", Internet
           Draft, Sept 2004, work in progress

 [RFC3428] B. Campbell, Ed., J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, C. Huitema,
           D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
           Instant Messaging" , RFC 3428, December 2002

 [RFC2392] E. Levinson, " Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
           Locators", RFC 2393, August 1998

 [RFC2616] R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J., Mogul, H. Frystyk, L.,
           Masinter, P. Leach, T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer
           Protocol - HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999



Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 23]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

 [RFC2818] E. Rescorla, "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000

 [RFC3311] J. Rosenberg, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
           Method", RFC 3311, October 2002


11.2 References - Informative

 [RFC3825] J. Polk, J. Schnizlein, M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
           Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
           Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004

 [ID-CIVIC] H. Schulzrinne, " Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
           (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
           Information ", draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09, "work in
           progress", January 2006

   Author Information

   James Polk
   Cisco Systems
   3913 Treemont Circle                              33.00111N
   Colleyville, Texas  76034                         96.68142W

   Phone: +1-817-271-3552
   Email: jmpolk@cisco.com


   Brian Rosen
   470 Conrad Dr.                                    40.70497N
   Mars, PA  16046                                   80.01252W
   US

   Phone: +1 724 382 1051
   Email: br@brianrosen.net


Appendix A. Changes from Prior Versions

   [NOTE TO RFC-EDITOR: If this document is to be published as an RFC,
   this Appendix is to be removed prior to that event.]

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the SIP WG
   version -02 to this version -03:

   - general clean-up of some of the sections

   - removed the message examples from the UPDATE, MESSAGE and REGISTER
     sections, as these seemed to be making the doc less readable, and
     not more readable

   - removed the "unknown" option tag, as it was not needed with a


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 24]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

     certain combination of the Supported and Location headers

   - clarified the location option tag usage in Supported, Require,
     Unsupported, and that it shouldn't be used in Proxy-Require, and
     why not.

   - Added a basic message flow to the basic operation section (Section
     4) to aid in understanding of this SIP extension.

   - Added a message routing flow, which is based on the location of
     the requestor to show how a SIP server can make a routing decision
     to a destination based on where the UAC is.

   - Articulated how a UAS concludes a UAC understands this extension,
     yet does not know its location to provide to the UAS.  This is
     helpful in those times where an intermediary will act differently
     based on whether or not a UAC understands this extension, and
     whether or not the UAC includes its location in the request.

   - Corrected the erroneous text regarding an Unsupported header being
     in a 424 response.  It belongs in a 420 response. (Section 5.1)

   - Corrected the BNF (I hope)

   - Corrected some text in Section 5 that read like this document was
     an update to RFC 3261.

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the SIP WG
   version -01 to this version -02:

   - streamlined the doc by removing text (ultimately removing 42 pages
     of text).

   - Limited the scope of this document to SIP conveyance, meaning only
     how SIP can push location information.

   - reduced emergency calling text to just a few paragraphs now that
     the ECRIT WG is taking most of that topic on.

   - greatly reduced the number of requirements in this version.

   - changed the requirements groups from "UA-to-UA", "UA-to-Proxy",
     etc to "UAC Reqs", "UAS-Reqs" and "Proxy-Reqs" to focus on what is
     being asked of each SIP element.

   - Removed the full SIP message examples.

   - completed the ABNF for the Location header, including a cid-url to
     point at a message body part to help in parsing for location.

   - Deleted the call for a new 425 (Retry Location) response code, as
     it appears this can easily be used to spoof a UA into providing


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 25]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

     where it is inadvertently, even if the intent is legitimate by the
     UAC.

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the SIP WG
   version -00 to this version -01:

   - cleaned up a lot of loose ends in the text

   - created a new Location header to convey many means (location is in
     the body - even if not viewable, which location format is present,
     which format is requested in a query, how to request more than one
     location format in a query, whether the UAC understands location
     at all, if the UA knows its location, how to push location from
     one UA to through a second to a third UA, etc).

   - added the ability to convey location by-reference, but only under
     certain conditions.

   - Added support for the OPTIONS Request to query a server for the
     UAC's location, through the use of the new Location header.

   - moved both new Response code sections forward in the document for
     their meaning to be clearer, earlier for necessary discussion.

   - Changed the message flows to only have the pertinent message
     headers shown for brevity.

   - Added text to the SUB/NOT section showing how and why the location
     of a UA can be refreshed or updated with an interval, or by a
     trigger.

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the SIPPING
   WG version -02 to this SIP WG item document version -00:

   - Changed which WG this document is in from SIPPING to SIP due to
     the extension of the protocol with new Response codes (424 and
     425) for when there is an error involving the LO message body.

   - Moved most of the well formed SIP messages out of the main body of
     this document and into separate appendixes.  This should clean up
     the document from a readability point of view, yet still provide
     the intended decode examples to readers of this document who wish
     that level of detail per flow.  The first few flows still have the
     decoded SIP messages (unencrypted and encrypted).

   - Removed some flow examples which no longer made sense

   - Changed all references of "ERC" (Emergency Response Center) to
     "PSAP" (Public Safety Answering Point) as a result of discussion
     within the new ECRIT WG to define a single term

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the sipping-


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 26]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   01 working group version of this effort to the sipping-02 version:

   - added requirements for 2 new 4XX error responses (Bad Location
     Information) and (Retry Location Body)

   - added "Bad Location Information" as section 8.6

   - added "Retry Location Body " as section 9.3

   - added support for session mode to cover packet sizes larger than
     the single packet limit of 1300 bytes in the message body

   - added requirement for a SIP entity to SUBSCRIBE to another for
     location information

   - added SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY as section 8.5

   - added requirement to have user turn off any tracking created by
     subscription

   - removed doubt about which method to use for updating location
     after a INVITE is sent (update)

   - cleaned up which method is to be used if there is no dialog
     existing (message)

   - removed use of reINVITE to convey location

   - clarified that UAs include <provided-by> element of PIDF-LO when
     placing an emergency call (to inform PSAP who supplied Location
     information)

   - updated list of open issues

   - added to IANA Considerations section for the two new 4XX level
     error responses requested in the last meeting

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the sipping-
   00 working group version of this ID to the sipping-01 version:

   - Added the offered solution in detail (with message flows,
     appropriate SIP Methods for location conveyance, and

   - Synchronized the requirements here with those from the Geopriv
     Working Group's (attempting to eliminate overlap)

   - Took on the task of making this effort the SIP "using protocol"
     specification from Geopriv's POV

   - Refined the Open Issues section to reflect the progress we've made
     here, and to indicate what we have discovered needs addressing,
     but has not been to date.


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 27]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the -01
   individual submission version to the sipping-00 version of this ID:

   - Brian Rosen was brought on as a co-author

   - Requirements that a location header were negatively received in
     the previous version of this document.  AD and chair advice was to
     move all location information into a message body (and stay away
     from headers)

   - Added a section of "emergency call" specific requirements

   - Added an Open Issues section to mention what hasn't been resolved
     yet in this effort

   This is a list of the changes that have been made from the
   individual submission version -00 to the -01 version

   - Added the IPR Statement section

   - Adjusted a few requirements based on suggestions from the
     Minneapolis meeting

   - Added requirements that the UAC is to include from where it
     learned its location in any transmission of its LI

   - Distinguished the facts (known to date) that certain jurisdictions
     relieve persons of their right to privacy when they call a PSAP,
     while other jurisdictions maintain a person's right to privacy,
     while still others maintain a person's right to privacy - but only
     if they ask that their service be set up that way.

   - Made the decision that TLS is the security mechanism for location
     conveyance in emergency communications (vs. S/MIME, which is still
     the mechanism for UA-to-UA non-emergency location conveyance
     cases).

   - Added the Open Issue of whether a Proxy can insert location
     information into an emergency SIP INVITE message, and some of the
     open questions surrounding the implications of that action

   - added a few names to the acknowledgements section


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.


Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 28]

Internet Draft         SIP Location Conveyance          June 26th, 2006

   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.















Polk & Rosen                                                  [Page 29]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/