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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

IPTEL WG                                                    R. Mahy, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               Plantronics
Intended status: Informational                             March 5, 2007
Expires: September 6, 2007


             The Calling Party's Category tel URI Parameter
                      draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt

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 September 6, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document specifies a new parameter for the tel URI that
   represents the Calling Party's Category, a parameter used in SS7 ISUP
   and other telephony signaling protocols.


1.  Introduction

   SS7 ISUP [4] defines a Calling Party's Category (CPC) parameter that



Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


   characterizes the station used to originate a call and carries other
   important state that can describe the originating party.  When
   telephone numbers are contained in URIs, such as the tel URI [2], it
   may be desirable to communicate any CPC associated with that
   telephone number or, in the context of a call, the party calling from
   it.

   Note that in some networks (including North America), the Originating
   Line Information (OLI) parameter is used to carry this information in
   ANSI ISUP [9] rather than the CPC parameter.  Legacy multifrequency
   (MF) signaling networks carry this information in the ANI II
   Digits [13].  The tel URI parameter specified in this document is
   designed to carry data from these sources as well.


2.  Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [1].


3.  Parameter Definition

   The Calling Party's Category is represented as a tel URI parameter.
   The ABNF [3] syntax is as follows.  The 'par' production is defined
   in RFC3966 [2].  The "/=" syntax indicates an extension of the
   production on the left-hand side:

      par          /= cpc
      cpc           = cpc-tag "=" cpc-value
      cpc-tag       = "cpc"
      cpc-value     = "ordinary" / "prison"   / "police"  / "test"
                      "operator" / "payphone" / "unknown" /
                      "hospital" / "cellular" / "cellular-roaming" /
                       genvalue
      genvalue      = 1*(alphanum / "-" / "." )

   The semantics of these Calling Party's Category values are described
   below:
      ordinary: The caller has been identified, and has no special
      features.
      test: This is a test call that has been originated as part of a
      maintenance procedure.







Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


      operator: The call was generated by an operator position.
      payphone: The calling station is a payphone.
      prison: The calling station is in a prison.
      hotel: The calling station is in a hotel or motel.
      hospital: The calling station is in a medical facility.
      police: The calling station is associated with a branch of law
      enforcement.
      cellular: The calling station is a radio-telephone operating in
      its home network.
      cellular-roaming: The calling station is a radio-telephone roaming
      in another network
      unknown: The CPC could not be ascertained.

   An example of the syntax of the CPC parameter (in a small fragment of
   a SIP [8] message) is given below:

           INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
           To: "Bob" <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
           From: <tel:+17005554141;cpc=payphone>;tag=1928301774


4.  Usage

   The CPC is generally useful only when describing the originator of a
   telephone call.  Therefore, when this parameter is used in an
   application such as SIP, it is recommended that the parameter be
   applied to URIs that characterize the originator of a call (such as a
   SIP URI or tel URI in the From header field of a SIP message).  Note
   that many Calling Party's Category values from the PSTN were
   intentionally excluded from the cpc parameter as they are either
   meaningless outside of the PSTN or can be represented using another
   existing concept.  For example, the language of an operator can be
   expressed more richly using the Accept-Language header in SIP than in
   the cpc parameter.  Similarly the priority of a call is a
   characteristic of the call and not the calling party.

   It is anticipated that this URI parameter will be used primarily by
   gateways that interwork ISUP or ANI II networks with SIP networks.
   Various SIP network intermediaries might consult the CPC as they make
   routing decisions, although no specific behavior is prescribed in
   this document.  While no specific mapping of the various ISUP
   parameters that contain CPC data is offered in this document,
   creating such a mapping would be trivial.

   While the CPC could be conveyed using the ISUP tunnelling mechanism
   described in RFC 3372 [10], this technique is widely regarded by the
   implementation community as overkill for the problem of conveying CPC
   information.  For example, the CPC parameter provides a convenient



Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


   way for SIP intermediaries to make routing decisions based on the CPC
   without having to implement an ISUP parser.  The CPC paremeter
   provides a simple, convenient form of CPC interoperability between
   ISUP and ANI II, which is otherwise poorly addressed in RFC 3372.
   Indeed when a SIP intermediary makes routing decisions for a call
   where both the originating and the terminating gateways natively use
   ANI II, the ISUP tunnelling approach is especially unattractive,
   requiring each of the three devices to perform a translation into an
   otherwise unneeded PSTN protocol.

   If the CPC parameter is not present, consumers of the CPC should
   treat the URI as if it specified a CPC of "ordinary".

   At most, one instance of the CPC can be associated with a particular
   URI.


5.  Security Considerations

   There are three potential risks specific to the information provided
   by the Calling Party's Category: leakage of potentially private
   information, the threat of tampering with the CPC to add false CPC
   values, and the threat of tampering with the CPC to remove actual CPC
   values.

   The information contained in the CPC parameter may be of a private
   nature, and it may not be appropriate for this value to be revealed
   to the destination user (typically it would not be so revealed in the
   PSTN).  However, the calling party's category is often discoverable
   or easily guessable from the calling party's phone number.  For that
   reason it is unlikely that this information is significantly more
   privacy sensitive than the telephone number itself.  The same
   techniques used to provide complete or partial telephone number
   privacy in SIP are appropriate to apply to the CPC parameter as well.
   For more information about privacy issues in SIP see RFC3323 [6].
   The mechanism described in RFC 3325 [7] may also be relevant for
   maintaining partial privacy or the CPC within a trusted
   administrative domain or federation of domains as described in RFC
   3324 [11].

   Making a call with a falsified CPC (ex: hospital, police, or
   operator) could allow the caller to gain access to resources or
   information not otherwise available.  Likewise removing an
   "undesirable" CPC value (ex: prison or hotel) could allow the caller
   to bypass various restrictions in the telephone network.  For that
   reason, agents which expect CPC values SHOULD take care to insure the
   integrity and authenticity of the CPC parameter.  The RECOMMENDED
   mechanism to protect the entire calling party address along with the



Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


   CPC parameter is the SIP Identity [5] mechanism.  Alternatively,
   agents within an adminstrative domain or federation of domains MAY
   use the mechanism described in RFC 3325 [7] to place the CPC
   parameter in a P-Asserted-Identity header field.

   The SIP Identity mechanism provides a signature over the URI in the
   From header field of a SIP request.  It can sign a tel URI alone or a
   tel URI embedded in a SIP or SIPS URI, but it provides stronger
   protection against tampering when the tel URI is embedded in a SIP or
   SIPS URI.  Because there is no direct correlation between a tel URI
   and an Internet domain, the receiver can use a list of domains from
   which it will trust CPC information, or a list of root certificates
   which are associated with trusting CPC information.

   Otherwise, this mechanism adds no new security considerations to
   those discussed in [2].


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document extends the registry of tel URI parameters defined in
   [12] with one new parameter described below.

   Parameter Name:  cpc
   Predefined Values:  Yes
   Reference:  This document


7.  Contributors and Acknowledgments

   The original version of this document was written by Jon Peterson.

   Thanks to Takuya Sawada for a detailed review.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966,
         December 2004.

   [3]   Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
         Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.




Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


   [4]   International Telecommunications Union, "Recommendation Q.763:
         Signalling System No. 7: ISDN user part formats and codes",
         December 1999, <http://www.itu.int>.

   [5]   Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
         Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
         RFC 4474, August 2006.

   [6]   Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation
         Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.

   [7]   Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions
         to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity
         within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002.

8.2.  Informational References

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

   [9]   American National Standards Institute, "ANSI T1.113-2000,
         Signaling System No. 7, ISDN User Part", 2000,
         <http://www.ansi.org>.

   [10]  Vemuri, A. and J. Peterson, "Session Initiation Protocol for
         Telephones (SIP-T): Context and Architectures", BCP 63,
         RFC 3372, September 2002.

   [11]  Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted
         Identity", RFC 3324, November 2002.

   [12]  Gurbani, V. and C. Jennings, "The Internet Assigned Number
         Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource  Identifier (URI)
         Parameter Registry", draft-jennings-iptel-tel-reg-01 (work in
         progress), December 2005.

URIs

   [13]  <http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/
         ani_ii_assignments.html>










Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


Author's Address

   Rohan Mahy (editor)
   Plantronics

   Email: rohan@ekabal.com













































Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 CPC tel URI                    March 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Mahy                    Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 8]


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