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

Versions: (draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

ECRIT                                                           B. Rosen
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                          H. Schulzrinne
Expires: September 10, 2020                                  Columbia U.
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                             ARM Limited
                                                              R. Gellens
                                              Core Technology Consulting
                                                           March 9, 2020


                    Non-Interactive Emergency Calls
                    draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-22

Abstract

   Use of the Internet for emergency calling is described in RFC 6443,
   'Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia'.  In some
   cases of emergency calls, the transmission of application data is all
   that is needed and no interactive media channel is established: a
   situation referred to as 'non-interactive emergency calls', where,
   unlike most emergency calls, there is no two way interactive media
   such as voice or video or text.  This document describes use of a SIP
   MESSAGE transaction that includes a container for the data based on
   the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).  That type of emergency request
   does not establish a session, distinguishing it from SIP INVITE,
   which does.  Any device that needs to initiate a request for
   emergency services without an interactive media channel would use the
   mechanisms in this document.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020.





Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Architectural Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Protocol Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  CAP Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Profiling of the CAP Document Content . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Sending a non-interactive Emergency Call  . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  The AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Call Backs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Handling Large Amounts of Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Registration of the
            'application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml' media type . . .  18
     10.2.  IANA Registration of 'cap' Additional Data Block . . . .  19
     10.3.  IANA Registration for 425 Response Code  . . . . . . . .  19
     10.4.  IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field . .  20
     10.5.  IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes . . .  20
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23








Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


1.  Introduction

   [RFC6443] describes how devices use the Internet to place emergency
   calls and how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) handle Internet
   multimedia emergency calls natively.  The exchange of multimedia
   traffic for emergency services involves a SIP session establishment
   starting with a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for
   that session.

   In some cases, however, there is only application data to be conveyed
   from the end devices to a PSAP or an intermediary.  Examples of such
   environments include sensors issuing alerts, and certain types of
   medical monitors.  These messages may be one-shot alerts to emergency
   authorities and do not require establishment of a session.  These
   types of interactions are called 'non-interactive emergency calls'.
   In this document, we use the term "call" so that similarities between
   non-interactive alerts and sessions with interactive media are more
   obvious.

   Non-interactive emergency calls are similar to regular emergency
   calls in the sense that they require the emergency indications,
   emergency call routing functionality and location.  However, the
   communication interaction will not lead to the exchange of
   interactive media, that is, Real-Time Protocol packets, such as
   voice, video data or real-time text.

   The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) [cap] is a format for exchanging
   emergency alerts and public warnings.  CAP is mainly used for
   conveying alerts and warnings between authorities and from
   authorities to citizens/individuals.  This document is concerned with
   citizen-to-authority "alerts", where the alert is a call without any
   interactive media.

   This document describes a method of including a CAP message in a SIP
   transaction by defining it as a block of "additional data" as defined
   in [RFC7852].  The CAP message is included either by value (the CAP
   message is in the body of the message, using a CID) or by reference
   (the message includes a URI that, when dereferenced, returns the CAP
   message).  The additional data mechanism is also used to send alert-
   specific data beyond that available in the CAP message.  This
   document also describes how a SIP MESSAGE [RFC3428] transaction can
   be used to send a non-interactive call.

2.  Terminology

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



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   A non-interactive emergency call is an emergency call where there is
   no two-way interactive media.

   SIP is the Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261]

   PIDF-LO is Presence Information Data Format - Location Object, a data
   structure for carrying location [RFC4119]

   LoST is the Location To Service Translation protocol [RFC5222]

   CID is Content-ID [RFC2392]

   CAP is the Common Alerting Protocol [cap]

   PSAP is a Public Safety Answering Point, the call center for
   emergency calls.

   ESRP is an Emergency Services Routing Proxy, a type of SIP Proxy
   Server used in some emergency services networks

3.  Architectural Overview

   This section illustrates two envisioned usage modes: targeted and
   location-based emergency alert routing.

   1.  Emergency alerts containing only data are targeted to an
       intermediary recipient responsible for evaluating the next steps.
       These steps could include:

       1.  Sending a non-interactive call containing only data towards a
           Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP);

       2.  Establishing a third-party-initiated emergency call towards a
           PSAP that could include audio, video, and data.

   2.  Emergency alerts may be targeted to a Service URN [RFC5031] used
       for IP-based emergency calls where the recipient is not known to
       the originator.  In this scenario, the alert may contain only
       data (e.g., a CAP, Geolocation header field and one or more Call-
       Info header fields containing Additional Data [RFC7852] in a SIP
       MESSAGE).

   Figure 1 shows a deployment variant where a sensor is pre-configured
   (using techniques outside the scope of this document) to issue an
   alert to an aggregator that processes these messages and performs



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   whatever steps are necessary to appropriately react to the alert.
   For example, a security firm may use different sensor inputs to
   dispatch their security staff to a building they protect or to
   initiate a third-party emergency call.


    +------------+              +------------+
    | Sensor     |              | Aggregator |
    |            |              |            |
    +---+--------+              +------+-----+
        |                              |
     Sensors                           |
     trigger                           |
     emergency                         |
     alert                             |
        |    SIP MESSAGE with CAP      |
        |----------------------------->|
        |                              |
        |                           Aggregator
        |                           processes
        |                           emergency
        |                           alert
        |      SIP 200 (OK)            |
        |<-----------------------------|
        |                              |
        |                              |

                Figure 1: Targeted Emergency Alert Routing

   In Figure 2 a scenario is shown whereby the alert is routed using
   location information and a Service URN.  An emergency services
   routing proxy (ESRP) may use LoST (a protocol defined by [RFC5222]
   which translates a location to a URI used to route an emergency call)
   to determine the next-hop proxy to route the alert message to.  A
   possible receiver is a PSAP and the recipient of the alert may be a
   call taker.  In the generic case, there is very likely no prior
   relationship between the originator and the receiver, e.g., a PSAP.
   For example, a PSAP is likely to receive and accept alerts from
   entities it has no previous relationship with.  This scenario is
   similar to a classic voice emergency services call and the
   description in [RFC6881] is applicable.  In this use case, the only
   difference between an emergency call and an emergency non-interactive
   call is that the former uses INVITE, creates a session, and
   negotiates one or more media streams, while the latter uses MESSAGE,
   does not create a session, and does not have interactive media.






Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


      +----------+         +----------+                  +-----------+
      |Sensor or |         |  ESRP    |                  |   PSAP    |
      |Aggregator|         |          |                  |           |
      +----+-----+         +---+------+                  +----+------+
           |                   |                              |
        Sensors                |                              |
        trigger                |                              |
        emergency              |                              |
        alert                  |                              |
           |                   |                              |
           |                   |                              |
           | SIP MESSAGE w/CAP |                              |
           | (including Service URN,                          |
           | such as urn:service:sos)                         |
           |------------------>|                              |
           |                   |                              |
           |              ESRP performs                       |
           |              emergency alert                     |
           |              routing                             |
           |                   |  MESSAGE with CAP            |
           |                   |  (including identity info)   |
           |                   |----------------------------->|
           |                   |                              |
           |                   |                           PSAP
           |                   |                           processes
           |                   |                           emergency
           |                   |                           alert
           |                   |      SIP 200 (OK)            |
           |                   |<-----------------------------|
           |                   |                              |
           |  SIP 200 (OK)     |                              |
           |<------------------|                              |
           |                   |                              |
           |                   |                              |

             Figure 2: Location-Based Emergency Alert Routing

4.  Protocol Specification

4.1.  CAP Transport

   A CAP message is sent in the initial message of any SIP transaction.
   However, this document only addresses sending a CAP message in a SIP
   MESSAGE transaction for a one-shot, non-interactive emergency call.
   Behavior with other transactions is not defined.

   The CAP message is included in a SIP message as an additional-data
   block [RFC7852].  Accordingly, it is introduced to the SIP message



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   with a Call-Info header field with a purpose of
   "EmergencyCallData.cap".  The header field may contain a URI that is
   used by the recipient (or in some cases, an intermediary) to obtain
   the CAP message.  Alternatively, the Call-Info header field may
   contain a Content-ID url [RFC2392] and the CAP message included in
   the body of the message.  In the latter case, the CAP message is
   located in a MIME block of the type 'application/
   emergencyCallData.cap+xml'.

   If the SIP server does not support the functionality required to
   fulfill the request then a 501 Not Implemented will be returned as
   specified in [RFC3261].  This is the appropriate response when a User
   Agent Server (UAS) does not recognize the request method and is not
   capable of supporting it for any user.

   The 415 Unsupported Media Type error will be returned as specified in
   [RFC3261] if the SIP server is refusing to service the request
   because the message body of the request is in a format not supported
   by the server for the requested method.  The server MUST return a
   list of acceptable formats using the Accept, Accept-Encoding, or
   Accept-Language header fields, depending on the specific problem with
   the content.

4.2.  Profiling of the CAP Document Content

   The usage of CAP MUST conform to the specification provided with
   [cap].  For usage with SIP the following additional requirements are
   imposed (where "sender" and "author" are as defined in CAP and
   "Originator" is the entity sending the alert):

   sender:  The following restrictions and conditions apply to setting
      the value of the <sender> element:

      *  Originator is a SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: When
         the alert was created by a SIP-based originator and it is not
         useful to be explicit about the author of the alert, then the
         <sender> element MUST be populated with the SIP URI of the user
         agent.

      *  Originator is a non-SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant:
         When the alert was created by a non-SIP based entity and the
         identity of this original sender is to be preserved, then this
         identity MUST be placed into the <sender> element.  In this
         situation it is not useful to be explicit about the author of
         the alert.  The specific type of identity being used will
         depend on the technology used by the original originator.





Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


      *  Author indication relevant: When the author is different from
         the actual originator of the message and this distinction
         should be preserved, then the <sender> element MUST NOT contain
         the SIP URI of the user agent.

   incidents:  The <incidents> element MUST be present.  This incident
      identifier MUST be chosen in such a way that it is unique for a
      given <sender, expires, incidents> combination.  Note that the
      <expires> element is OPTIONAL and might not be present.


   scope:  The value of the <scope> element MAY be set to "Private" if
      the alert is not meant for public consumption.  The <addresses>
      element is, however, not used by this specification since the
      message routing is performed by SIP and the respective address
      information is already available in other SIP header fields.
      Populating information twice into different parts of the message
      may lead to inconsistency.



   parameter:  The <parameter> element MAY contain additional
      information specific to the sender, conforming to the CAP message
      syntax.


   area:  It is RECOMMENDED to omit this element when constructing a
      message.  If the CAP message is given to the SIP entity to
      transport and it already contains an <area> element, then the
      specified location information SHOULD be copied into a PIDF-LO
      structure (the data format for location used by emergency calls on
      the Internet) referenced by the SIP 'Geolocation' header field.
      If the CAP message is being created by the SIP entity using a
      PIDF-LO structure referenced by 'geolocation' to construct <area>,
      implementers must be aware that <area> is limited to a circle or
      polygon, and conversion of other shapes will be required.  Points
      SHOULD be converted to a circle with a radius equal to the
      uncertainty of the point.  Arc- bands and ellipses SHOULD be
      converted to polygons with similar coverage, and 3D locations
      SHOULD be converted to 2D forms with similar coverage.

4.3.  Sending a non-interactive Emergency Call

   A non-interactive emergency call is sent using a SIP MESSAGE
   transaction with a CAP URI or body part as described above in a
   manner similar to how an emergency call with interactive media is
   sent, as described in [RFC6881].  The MESSAGE transaction does not
   create a session nor establish interactive media streams, but



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   otherwise, the header content of the transaction, routing, and
   processing of non-interactive calls are the same as those of other
   emergency calls.

5.  Error Handling

   This section defines a new error response code and a header field for
   additional information.

5.1.  425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code

   This SIP extension creates a new location-specific response code,
   defined as follows:

      425 (Bad Alert Message)

   The 425 response code is a rejection of the request, indicating that
   it was malformed enough that no reasonable emergency response to the
   alert can be determined.

   A SIP intermediary can also this code to reject an alert it receives
   from a User Agent (UA) when it detects that the provided alert is
   malformed.

   Section 5.2 describes an AlertMsg-Error header field with more
   details about what was wrong with the alert message in the request.
   This header field MUST be included in the 425 response.

   It is usually the case that emergency calls are not rejected if there
   is any useful information that can be acted upon.  It is only
   appropriate to generate a 425 response when the responding entity has
   no other information in the request that is usable by the responder.

   A 425 response code MUST NOT be sent in response to a request that
   lacks an alert message, as the user agent in that case may not
   support this extension.

   A 425 response is a final response within a transaction, and MUST NOT
   terminate an existing dialog.

5.2.  The AlertMsg-Error Header Field

   The AlertMsg-Error header field provides additional information about
   what was wrong with the original request.  In some cases the provided
   information will be used for debugging purposes.

   The AlertMsg-Error header field has the following ABNF [RFC5234]:




Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


      message-header   =/ AlertMsg-Error
                              ; (message-header from RFC3261)
      AlertMsg-Error   = "AlertMsg-Error" HCOLON
                              ErrorValue
      ErrorValue       =  error-code
                               *(SEMI error-params)
      error-code       = 3DIGIT
      error-params     = error-code-text
                               / generic-param ; from RFC3261
      error-code-text  = "message" EQUAL quoted-string ; from RFC3261

   HCOLON, SEMI, and EQUAL are defined in [RFC3261].  DIGIT is defined
   in [RFC5234].

   The AlertMsg-Error header field MUST contain only one ErrorValue to
   indicate what was wrong with the alert payload the recipient
   determined was bad.

   The ErrorValue contains a 3-digit error code indicating what was
   wrong with the alert in the request.  This error code has a
   corresponding quoted error text string that is human readable.  The
   text string is OPTIONAL, but RECOMMENDED for human readability,
   similar to the string phrase used for SIP response codes.  The
   strings in this document are recommendations, and are not
   standardized -- meaning an operator can change the strings -- but
   MUST NOT change the meaning of the error code.  The code space for
   ErrorValue is separate from SIP Status Codes.

   The AlertMsg-Error header field MAY be included in any response if an
   alert message was in the request part of the same transaction.  For
   example, suppose a UA includes an alert in a MESSAGE to a PSAP.  The
   PSAP can accept this MESSAGE, even though its UA determined that the
   alert message contained in the MESSAGE was bad.  The PSAP merely
   includes an AlertMsg-Error header field value in the 200 OK to the
   MESSAGE, thus informing the UA that the MESSAGE was accepted but the
   alert provided was bad.

   If, on the other hand, the PSAP cannot accept the transaction without
   a suitable alert message, a 425 response is sent.

   A SIP intermediary that requires the UA's alert message in order to
   properly process the transaction may also send a 425 with an
   AlertMsg-Error code.

   This document defines an initial list of AlertMsg-Error values for
   any SIP response, including provisional responses (other than 100
   Trying) and the new 425 response.  There MUST NOT be more than one
   AlertMsg-Error code in a SIP response.  AlertMsg-Error values sent in



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   provisional responses MUST be sent using the mechanism defined in
   [RFC3262]; or, if that mechanism is not negotiated, MUST be repeated
   in the final response to the transaction.

   AlertMsg-Error: 100 ; message="Cannot Process the Alert Payload"

   AlertMsg-Error: 101 ; message="Alert Payload was not present or could
   not be found"

   AlertMsg-Error: 102 ; message="Not enough information to determine
   the purpose of the alert"

   AlertMsg-Error: 103 ; message="Alert Payload was corrupted"

   Additionally, if an entity cannot or chooses not to process the alert
   message from a SIP request, a 500 (Server Internal Error) SHOULD be
   used with or without a configurable Retry-After header field.

6.  Call Backs

   This document does not describe any method for the recipient to call
   back the sender of a non-interactive call.  Usually, these alerts are
   sent by automata, which do not have a mechanism to receive calls of
   any kind.  The identifier in the 'From' header field may be useful to
   obtain more information, but any such mechanism is not defined in
   this document.  The CAP message may contain related contact
   information for the sender.

7.  Handling Large Amounts of Data

   It is not atypical for sensors to have large quantities of data that
   they may wish to send.  Including large amounts of data (tens of
   kilobytes) in a MESSAGE is not advisable, because SIP entities are
   usually not equipped to handle very large messages.  In such cases,
   the sender SHOULD make use of the by-reference mechanisms defined in
   [RFC7852], which involves making the data available via HTTPS
   [RFC2818] (either at the originator or at another entity), placing a
   URI to the data in the 'Call-Info' header field, and the recipient
   uses HTTPS to retrieve the data.  The CAP message itself can be sent
   by reference using this mechanism, as can any or all of the
   Additional Data blocks that may contain sensor-specific data.

   There are no rate limiting mechanisms for any SIP transactions that
   are standardized, although implementations often include such
   functions.  Non-interactive emergency calls are typically handled the
   same as any emergency call, which means a human call-taker is
   involved.  Implementations should take note of this limitation,




Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   especially when calls are placed automatically without human
   initiation.

8.  Example

   The following example shows a CAP document indicating a BURGLARY
   alert issued by a sensor called 'sensor1@example.com'.  The location
   of the sensor can be obtained from the attached location information
   provided via the 'geolocation' header field contained in the SIP
   MESSAGE structure.  Additionally, the sensor provided some data along
   with the alert message, using proprietary information elements
   intended only to be processed by the receiver, a SIP entity acting as
   an aggregator.


      MESSAGE sip:aggregator@example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/TCP sensor1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse
      Max-Forwards: 70
      From: sip:sensor1@example.com;tag=49583
      To: sip:aggregator@example.com
      Call-ID: asd88asd77a@2001:db8::ff
      Geolocation: <cid:abcdef@example.com>
        ;routing-allowed=yes
      Supported: geolocation
      CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
      Call-Info: cid:abcdef2@example.com;purpose=EmergencyCallData.cap
      Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
      Content-Length: ...

      --boundary1
      Content-Type: application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml
      Content-ID: <abcdef2@example.com>
      Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

      <alert xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:cap:1.1">
       <identifier>S-1</identifier>
       <sender>sip:sensor1@example.com</sender>
       <sent>2020-01-04T20:57:35Z</sent>
       <status>Actual</status>
       <msgType>Alert</msgType>
       <scope>Private</scope>
       <incidents>abc1234</incidents>
       <info>
           <category>Security</category>
           <event>BURGLARY</event>
           <urgency>Expected</urgency>



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


           <certainty>Likely</certainty>
           <severity>Moderate</severity>
           <senderName>SENSOR 1</senderName>
           <parameter>
             <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1</valueName>
             <value>123</value>
           </parameter>
           <parameter>
             <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2</valueName>
             <value>TRUE</value>
           </parameter>
       </info>
     </alert>

      --boundary1
      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-ID: <abcdef2@example.com>

      <?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:gbp=
                    "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
             xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
             xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
             xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
             entity="pres:alice@atlanta.example.com">
           <dm:device id="sensor">
             <gp:geopriv>
               <gp:location-info>
                 <gml:location>
                   <gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
                     <gml:pos>44.85249659 -93.238665712</gml:pos>
                   </gml:Point>
                </gml:location>
               </gp:location-info>
               <gp:usage-rules>
                 <gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
                 </gbp:retransmission-allowed>
                 <gbp:retention-expiry>2020-02-04T20:57:29Z
                 </gbp:retention-expiry>
               </gp:usage-rules>
               <gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
             </gp:geopriv>
             <dm:timestamp>2020-01-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp>
           </dm:device>
         </presence>



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


      --boundary1--

       Figure 3: Example Message conveying an Alert to an aggregator

   The following shows the same CAP document sent as a non-interactive
   emergency call towards a PSAP.


      MESSAGE urn:service:sos SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/TCP sip:aggreg.1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776abssa
      Max-Forwards: 70
      From: sip:aggregator@example.com;tag=32336
      To: 112
      Call-ID: asdf33443a@example.com
      Route: sip:psap1.example.gov
      Geolocation: <cid:abcdef@example.com>
        ;routing-allowed=yes
      Supported: geolocation
      Call-info: cid:abcdef2@example.com;purpose=EmergencyCallData.cap
      CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
      Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
      Content-Length: ...

      --boundary1

      Content-Type: application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml
      Content-ID: <abcdef2@example.com>
     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

     <alert xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:cap:1.1">
       <identifier>S-1</identifier>
       <sender>sip:sensor1@example.com</sender>
       <sent>2020-01-04T20:57:35Z</sent>
       <status>Actual</status>
       <msgType>Alert</msgType>
       <scope>Private</scope>
       <incidents>abc1234</incidents>
       <info>
           <category>Security</category>
           <event>BURGLARY</event>
           <urgency>Expected</urgency>
           <certainty>Likely</certainty>
           <severity>Moderate</severity>
           <senderName>SENSOR 1</senderName>
           <parameter>
             <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1</valueName>
             <value>123</value>
           </parameter>



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


           <parameter>
             <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2</valueName>
             <value>TRUE</value>
           </parameter>
       </info>
      </alert>

      --boundary1

      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-ID: <abcdef2@example.com>
      <?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:gbp=
                    "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
             xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
             xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
             xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
             entity="pres:alice@atlanta.example.com">
           <dm:device id="sensor">
             <gp:geopriv>
               <gp:location-info>
                 <gml:location>
                   <gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
                     <gml:pos>44.85249659 -93.2386657124</gml:pos>
                   </gml:Point>
                </gml:location>
               </gp:location-info>
               <gp:usage-rules>
                 <gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
                 </gbp:retransmission-allowed>
                 <gbp:retention-expiry>2020-02-04T20:57:25Z
                 </gbp:retention-expiry>
               </gp:usage-rules>
               <gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
             </gp:geopriv>
             <dm:timestamp>2020-01-04T20:57:25Z</dm:timestamp>
           </dm:device>
         </presence>
      --boundary1--

          Figure 4: Example Message conveying an Alert to a PSAP







Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


9.  Security Considerations

   This section discusses security considerations when SIP user agents
   issue emergency alerts utilizing MESSAGE and CAP.  Location-specific
   threats are not unique to this document and are discussed in
   [RFC7378] and [RFC6442].

   The ECRIT emergency services architecture [RFC6443] considers classic
   individual-to-authority emergency calling where the identity of the
   emergency caller does not play a role at the time of the call
   establishment itself, i.e., a response to the emergency call does not
   depend on the identity of the caller.  In the case of emergency
   alerts generated by devices such as sensors, the processing may be
   different in order to reduce the number of falsely generated
   emergency alerts.  Alerts could get triggered based on certain sensor
   input that might have been caused by factors other than the actual
   occurrence of an alert-relevant event.  For example, a sensor may
   simply be malfunctioning.  For this reason, not all alert messages
   are directly sent to a PSAP, but rather may be pre-processed by a
   separate entity, potentially under supervision by a human, to filter
   alerts and potentially correlate received alerts with others to
   obtain a larger picture of the ongoing situation.

   In any case, for alerts initiated by sensors, the identity could play
   an important role in deciding whether to accept or ignore an incoming
   alert message.  With the scenario shown in Figure 1 it is very likely
   that only authenticated sensor input will be processed.  For this
   reason, it needs to be possible to refuse to accept alert messages
   from unknown origins.  Two types of information elements can be used
   for this purpose:

   1.  SIP itself provides security mechanisms that allow the
       verification of the originator's identity, such as P-Asserted-
       Identity [RFC3325] or SIP Identity [RFC8224].  The latter
       provides a cryptographic assurance while the former relies on a
       chain of trust model.  These mechanisms can be reused.

   2.  CAP provides additional security mechanisms and the ability to
       carry further information about the sender's identity.
       Section 3.3.4.1 of [cap] specifies the signing algorithms of CAP
       documents.

   The specific policy and mechanisms used in a given deployment are out
   of scope for this document.

   There is no rate limiting mechanisms in SIP, and all kinds of
   emergency calls, including those defined in this document could be
   used by malicious actors, or misbehaving devices to effect a denial



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   of service attack on the emergency services.  The mechanism defined
   in this document does not introduce any new considerations although
   it may be more likely that devices that place non-interactive
   emergency calls without a human initiating them may be more likely
   than those that require a user to initiate them.

   Implementors should note that automated emergency calls may be
   prohibited or regulated in some jurisdictions, and there may be
   penalties for "false positive" calls.

   This document describes potential retrieval of information by
   dereferencing URIs found in a Call Info header of a SIP MESSAGE.
   These may include a CAP message as well as other Additional Data
   (RFC7852) blocks.  The domain of the device sending the SIP MESSAGE,
   the domain of the server holding the CAP message, if sent by
   reference, and the domain of other Additional Data blocks, if sent by
   reference, may all be different.  No assumptions can be made that
   there are trust relationships between these entities.  Recipients
   MUST take precautions in retrieving any Additional Data blocks passed
   by reference, including the CAP message, because the URI may point to
   a malicious actor or entity not expecting to be referred to for this
   purpose.  The considerations in handling URIs in [RFC3986] apply.

   Use of timestamps to prevent replay is subject to the availability of
   accurate time at all participants.  Because emergency event
   notification via this mechanism is relatively low frequency and
   generally involves human interaction, implementations may wish to
   consider messages with times within small number of seconds of each
   other to be effectively simultaneous for the purposes of detecting
   replay.  Implementations may also wish to consider that most deployed
   time distribution protocols likely to be used by these systems are
   not presently secure.

   In addition to the desire to perform identity-based access control,
   the classic communication security threats need to be considered,
   including integrity protection to prevent forgery or replay of alert
   messages in transit.  To deal with replay of alerts, a CAP document
   contains the mandatory <identifier>, <sender>, <sent> elements and an
   optional <expire> element.  Together, these elements make the CAP
   document unique for a specific sender and provide time restrictions.
   An entity that has already received a CAP message within the
   indicated timeframe is able to detect a replayed message and, if the
   content of that message is unchanged, then no additional security
   vulnerability is created.  Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED to make
   use of SIP security mechanisms, such as the SIP Identity PASSporT
   [RFC8225], to tie the CAP message to the SIP message.  To provide
   protection of the entire SIP message exchange between neighboring SIP
   entities, the usage of TLS is RECOMMENDED.  [RFC6443] discusses the



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   issues of using TLS with emergency calls, which are equally
   applicable to non-interactive emergency calls

   Note that none of the security mechanisms in this document protect
   against a compromised sensor sending crafted alerts.  Confidentiality
   provided for any emergency calls, including non-interactive messages,
   is subject to local regulations.  Privacy issues are discussed in
   [RFC7852] and are applicable here.

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  Registration of the 'application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml' media
       type

   To:  ietf-types@iana.org



   Subject:  Registration of media type application/
      EmergencyCallData.cap+xml


   Type name:  application


   Subtype name:  cap+xml


   Required parameters:  (none)



   Optional parameters:  charset; Indicates the character encoding of
      enclosed XML.  Default is UTF-8 [RFC3629].


   Encoding considerations:  7bit, 8bit or binary.  See [RFC7303],
      Section 3.2.


   Security considerations:  This content type is designed to carry
      payloads of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).  RFC XXX [Replace
      by the RFC number of this specification] discusses security
      considerations for this.


   Interoperability considerations:  This content type provides a way to
      convey CAP payloads.



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   Published specification:  RFC XXX [Replace by the RFC number of this
      specification].


   Applications which use this media type:  Applications that convey
      alerts and warnings according to the CAP standard.


   Fragment Identifier Considerations: N/A  .


   Additional information:  OASIS has published the Common Alerting
      Protocol at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/
      documents.php&wg_abbrev=emergency


   Person and email address to contact for further information:  Hannes
      Tschofenig, hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net


   Intended usage:  Limited use


   Author/Change controller:  The IESG


   Other information:  This media type is a specialization of
      application/xml [RFC7303], and many of the considerations
      described there also apply to application/cap+xml.


10.2.  IANA Registration of 'cap' Additional Data Block

   This document registers a new block type in the sub-registry called
   'Emergency Call Data Types' of the Emergency Call Additional Data
   Registry defined in [RFC7852].  The token is "cap", the Data About is
   "The Call" and the reference is this document.

10.3.  IANA Registration for 425 Response Code

   In the SIP Response Codes registry, the following is added

   Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e., this document)

   Response code: 425 (recommended number to assign)

   Default reason phrase: Bad Alert Message




Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


      Registry:
        Response Code                               Reference
        ------------------------------------------  ---------
        Request Failure 4xx
          425 Bad Alert Message                   [this doc]

   This SIP Response code is defined in Section 5.

10.4.  IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field

   The SIP AlertMsg-error header field is created by this document, with
   its definition and rules in Section 5, to be added to the IANA
   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry with two
   actions:

   1.  Update the Header Fields registry with




      Registry:
        Header Name        compact    Reference
        -----------------  -------    ---------
        AlertMsg-Error             [this doc]

   2.  In the portion titled "Header Field Parameters and Parameter
       Values", add




                                               Predefined
      Header Field        Parameter Name       Values      Reference
      -----------------   -------------------  ----------  ---------
      AlertMsg-Error      code                 no          [this doc]

10.5.  IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes

   This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error
   Codes".  AlertMsg-Error codes provide reasons for an error discovered
   by a recipient, categorized by the action to be taken by the error
   recipient.  The initial values for this registry are shown below.

   Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes

   Reference: [this doc]

   Registration Procedures: Specification Required



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   Code Default Reason Phrase                                 Reference
   ---- ---------------------------------------------------   ---------
   100  "Cannot Process the Alert Payload"                    [this doc]

   101  "Alert Payload was not present or could not be found" [this doc]

   102  "Not enough information to determine
         the purpose of the alert"                            [this doc]

   103  "Alert Payload was corrupted"                         [this doc]

   Details of these error codes are in Section 5.

11.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the participants of the Early Warning
   adhoc meeting at IETF#69 for their feedback.  Additionally, we would
   like to thank the members of the NENA Long Term Direction Working
   Group for their feedback.

   Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Thomson, James
   Winterbottom, Shida Schubert, Bernard Aboba, Marc Linsner, Christer
   Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek for their review comments.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

   [cap]      Jones, E. and A. Botterell, "Common Alerting Protocol v.
              1.2", October 2005, <https://docs.oasis-
              open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.pdf>.

   [RFC2392]  Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
              Locators", RFC 2392, DOI 10.17487/RFC2392, August 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2392>.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.



Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   [RFC3262]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of
              Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 3262, DOI 10.17487/RFC3262, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3262>.

   [RFC3428]  Campbell, B., Ed., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H.,
              Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3428, December 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3428>.

   [RFC4119]  Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
              Format", RFC 4119, DOI 10.17487/RFC4119, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4119>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC7303]  Thompson, H. and C. Lilley, "XML Media Types", RFC 7303,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7303, July 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7303>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC6442]  Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance
              for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6442, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6442>.

   [RFC6881]  Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for
              Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling",
              BCP 181, RFC 6881, DOI 10.17487/RFC6881, March 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6881>.

   [RFC7852]  Gellens, R., Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., and
              J. Winterbottom, "Additional Data Related to an Emergency
              Call", RFC 7852, DOI 10.17487/RFC7852, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7852>.




Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8225]  Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion
              Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8225>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7378]  Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, Ed.,
              "Trustworthy Location", RFC 7378, DOI 10.17487/RFC7378,
              December 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7378>.

   [RFC8224]  Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
              "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>.

   [RFC5031]  Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
              Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>.

   [RFC3325]  Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private
              Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
              Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3325, November 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3325>.

   [RFC5222]  Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
              Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
              Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.

   [RFC6443]  Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton,
              "Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet
              Multimedia", RFC 6443, DOI 10.17487/RFC6443, December
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6443>.

Authors' Addresses









Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       Non-Interactive Emergency Calls          March 2020


   Brian Rosen
   470 Conrad Dr
   Mars,  PA   16046
   US

   Phone:
   Email: br@brianrosen.net


   Henning Schulzrinne
   Columbia University
   Department of Computer Science
   450 Computer Science Building
   New York, NY  10027
   US

   Phone: +1 212 939 7004
   Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu
   URI:   http://www.cs.columbia.edu


   Hannes Tschofenig
   ARM Limited

   Austria

   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at


   Randall Gellens
   Core Technology Consulting

   Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com
   URI:   http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com
















Rosen, et al.          Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/