draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-03.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-04.txt 
ECRIT J. Winterbottom ECRIT J. Winterbottom
Internet-Draft Winterb Consulting Services Internet-Draft Winterb Consulting Services
Updates: RFC6881, RFC5985 (if approved) H. Tschofenig Updates: RFC6881, RFC5985 (if approved) H. Tschofenig
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 21, 2016 L. Liess Expires: June 11, 2016 L. Liess
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
July 20, 2015 December 9, 2015
A Routing Request Extension for the HELD Protocol A Routing Request Extension for the HELD Protocol
draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-03.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-04.txt
Abstract Abstract
For cases where location servers have access to emergency routing For cases where location servers have access to emergency routing
information they are able to return routing information with the information they are able to return routing information with the
location information if the location request includes a request for location information if the location request includes a request for
the desired routing information. This document specifies an the desired routing information. This document specifies an
extension to the HELD protocol to support this funciton. extension to the HELD protocol, updating [RFC5985], to support this
funciton.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 21, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. LoST Reuse Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. LoST Reuse Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. HELD Schema Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Modification to Phone BCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. HELD Schema Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. URN sub-namespace registration for 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri' . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
9.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri' . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The general ECRIT calling models described in [RFC6443] and The general ECRIT calling models described in [RFC6443] and
[RFC6881]require a local LoST server or network of forest guides in [RFC6881]require a local LoST server or network of forest guides in
order to determine the address of the PSAP in the best position to order to determine the address of the PSAP in the best position to
handle a call. Networks of forest guides have not eventuated and handle a call. Networks of forest guides have not materialized and
while PSAPs are moving towards IP networks, LoST server deployment is while PSAPs are moving towards IP networks, LoST server deployment is
not ubiquitous. Some regions and countries have expressed reluctance not ubiquitous. Some regions and countries have expressed reluctance
to deploy LoST servers making aspects of the current ECRIT to deploy LoST servers making aspects of the current ECRIT
architecture hard to realize. architecture hard to realize.
Evolving architectures in Europe to address regulatory requirements, Evolving architectures in Europe to address regulatory requirements,
such as [M493], couple location and routing information in the access such as [M493], couple location and routing information in the access
network whilst using a softswitch-centric approach to emergency call network whilst using a softswitch-centric approach to emergency call
processing. This document describes adding an extension to the HELD processing. This document describes an extension to the HELD
protocol [RFC5985] so that a location information server can provide protocol [RFC5985] so that a location information server can provide
emergency routing information in the absence of a LoST server or emergency routing information in the absence of a LoST server or
network of forest guides. network of forest guides.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The terms LIS, ESRP, VSP and PSAP are used as defined in [RFC6443]. The terms Location Information Server (LIS), Emergency Services
Routing Proxy (ESRP), Voice Service Provider (VSP) and Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) are used as defined in [RFC6443].
The term "Access Network Provider" is used as defined in [RFC5687] The term "Access Network Provider" is used as defined in [RFC5687]
and incompasses both the Internet Access Provider (IAP) and Internet and incompasses both the Internet Access Provider (IAP) and Internet
Service Provider (ISP). Service Provider (ISP).
3. Motivation 3. Motivation
The Internet emergency calling architecture specified in [RFC6881] The Internet emergency calling architecture specified in [RFC6881]
describes two main models for emergency call processing. The first describes two main models for emergency call processing. The first
is a device-centric model, where a device obtains location is a device-centric model, where a device obtains location
information using a location configuration protocol, such a HELD information using a location configuration protocol, such as HELD
[RFC5985], and then proceeds to determine the address of the next hop [RFC5985], and then proceeds to determine the address of the next hop
closer to the local PSAP using LoST [RFC5222]. Figure 1 shows this closer to the local PSAP using LoST [RFC5222]. Figure 1 shows this
model in a simplified form. model in a simplified form.
+---Location Request---+ +---Location Request---+
| (1) | | (1) |
+---+----+ +---V---+ +---+----+ +---V---+
| |<--Location--| LIS | | |<--Location--| LIS |
| Caller | (2) +-------+ +--------+ | Caller | (2) +-------+ +--------+
| | | ESRP/ | | | | ESRP/ |
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 38
If the routing request is sent with no attribute then URIs for If the routing request is sent with no attribute then URIs for
urn:service:sos are returned. If the requestor wants routing urn:service:sos are returned. If the requestor wants routing
information for a specific service then they may include an optional information for a specific service then they may include an optional
service URN. If a service is specified, and the LIS does not service URN. If a service is specified, and the LIS does not
understand the requested service then URIs for urn:service:sos are understand the requested service then URIs for urn:service:sos are
returned. returned.
If the LIS understands the routing request and has routing If the LIS understands the routing request and has routing
information for the location then it includes the information in a information for the location then it includes the information in a
routingInformation element returned in the locationResponse. How the routingInformation element returned in the locationResponse. How the
LIS obtains this information is left to implementation, one possible LIS obtains this information is left to implementation.
option is that the LIS acquires it from a LoST server, other Possibilities are described in Section 3.
possibilities are described in Section 3.
A LIS that does not understand the routing request element ignores it A LIS that does not understand the routing request element ignores it
and returns location as normal. and returns location as normal.
A LIS that does support the routing request element MUST support A LIS that does support the routing request element MUST support
returning URIs for urn:service:sos and any regionally defined sub- returning URIs for urn:service:sos and any regionally defined sub-
services while following the URN traversal rules defined in services while following the URN traversal rules defined in
[RFC5031]. [RFC5031].
A LIS that does understand the routing request element but can't A LIS that does understand the routing request element but can't
obtain any routing information for the end-device's location MUST obtain any routing information for the end-device's location MUST set
only return location information. the defaultRoute attribute to true and return a default PSAP or
gateway URI along with the determined location information in the
locationResponse.
A LIS that understands the routing request element but not the A LIS that understands the routing request element but not the
specified service URN, MUST follow the URN traversal rules defined in specified service URN, MUST follow the URN traversal rules defined in
[RFC5031]. [RFC5031].
A LIS that receives a request for emergency routing information that A LIS that receives a request for emergency routing information that
it understands MUST return the correct emergency routing information it understands MUST return the correct emergency routing information
if it has or is able to acquire the routing information for the if it has or is able to acquire the routing information for the
location of the target device. location of the target device.
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 28
urn and might contain a general emergency service urn such as urn and might contain a general emergency service urn such as
urn:service:sos or might contain a specific service urn depending on urn:service:sos or might contain a specific service urn depending on
what was requested and what the LIS is able to provide. A list of what was requested and what the LIS is able to provide. A list of
one or more service destinations is provided for the service name. one or more service destinations is provided for the service name.
Each destination is expressed as a URI and each URI scheme should Each destination is expressed as a URI and each URI scheme should
only appear once in this list. The routing URIs are intended to be only appear once in this list. The routing URIs are intended to be
used at the time they are received. To avoid any risks of using used at the time they are received. To avoid any risks of using
stale routing URIs the values MUST NOT be cached by the receiving stale routing URIs the values MUST NOT be cached by the receiving
entity. entity.
5. HELD Schema Extension 5. Modification to Phone BCP
This section describes the normative updates to Phone BCP [RFC6881].
It is important for devices and intermediaries to take all steps
possible to ensure that emergency calls are routed to the correct
PSAPS. In absence of global forest guides or local LoST servers and
the possibility that the local network may be configured with PSAP
address information, this specification updates Phone BCP [RFC6881].
The update requires devices and intermediaries using the HELD
protocol to always include the HELD routing extension. If the LIS is
configured with the routing information it can provide it, if it is
not then the device or intermediary tries LoST to acquire the PSAP
URI.
Section 6.5 of [RFC6881] defines "End System Location Configuration".
Requirement ED-23/INT-18/SP-14 is updated when HELD is used as the
LCP such that "the request MUST include the requestRoutingInformation
element". The remainder of the requirement remains unchanged.
This document adds a new requirement to section 7 of [RFC6881].
"ED-51a : Endpoints MUST support the HELD requestRoutingInformation
element and be able and be able to interpret and use any routing
information returned in the locationResponse."
This document adds two new requirements to section 8 of [RFC6881].
"ED-52a : Endpoints that acquire routing information in a HELD
locationResponse SHOULD use this routing information but MAY perform
a LoST findService request if they have a location value."
"ED-52b : Endpoints that acquire routing information in a HELD
locationResponse with a defaultRoute attribute of true MUST perform a
LoST findService request if they have a location value. If a route
is provided by the LoST server then this route MUST be used,
otherwise the routing information provided in the HELD response
SHOULD be used."
This document amends SP-26 from Section 8 of [RFC6881] such that a
LoST mapping need not be requested if non-default routing information
is provided in the HELD locationResponse.
6. HELD Schema Extension
This section describes the schema extension to HELD. This section describes the schema extension to HELD.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:schema <xs:schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri" targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:ri="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri" xmlns:ri="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri"
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"> elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
skipping to change at page 8, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
<xs:complexType name="service"> <xs:complexType name="service">
<xs:complexContent> <xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="dest" type="xs:anyURI" <xs:element name="dest" type="xs:anyURI"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence> </xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="defaultRoute" type="xs:boolean"
use="optional" default="false"/>
<xs:attribute name="serviceUri" type="xs:anyURI" <xs:attribute name="serviceUri" type="xs:anyURI"
use="required"/> use="required"/>
<xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>
</xs:restriction> </xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent> </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType> </xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="routingInformation" type="ri:riType"/> <xs:element name="routingInformation" type="ri:riType"/>
<xs:complexType name="riType"> <xs:complexType name="riType">
<xs:complexContent> <xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="service" type="ri:service"/> <xs:element name="service" type="ri:service"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence> </xs:sequence>
<xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>
</xs:restriction> </xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent> </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType> </xs:complexType>
</xs:schema> </xs:schema>
6. Examples 7. Examples
Figure 3 illustrates a <locationRequest> example that contains IP Figure 3 illustrates a <locationRequest> example that contains IP
flow information in the request. flow information in the request.
<locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" <locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
responseTime="emergencyRouting"> responseTime="emergencyRouting">
<requestRoutingInformation <requestRoutingInformation
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri"/> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri"/>
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
<dest>sip:112@example.com</dest> <dest>sip:112@example.com</dest>
<dest>sips:112@example.com</dest> <dest>sips:112@example.com</dest>
<dest>xmpp:112@example.com</dest> <dest>xmpp:112@example.com</dest>
</service> </service>
</routingInformation> </routingInformation>
</locationResponse> </locationResponse>
Figure 4: Example Location Response Figure 4: Example Location Response
7. Privacy Considerations Figure 5 illustrates the <locationResponse> message containing
default routing information and an HTTPS location URI.
<locationResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held">
<locationUriSet expires="2016-01-01T13:00:00.0Z">
<locationURI>
https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o
</locationURI>
</locationUriSet>
<routingInformation
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri">
<service defaultRoute="true" serviceUri="urn:service:sos">
<dest>sip:112@example.com</dest>
<dest>sips:112@example.com</dest>
<dest>xmpp:112@example.com</dest>
</service>
</routingInformation>
</locationResponse>
Figure 5: Example Location Response with default routing information
8. Privacy Considerations
This document makes no changes that require privacy considerations This document makes no changes that require privacy considerations
beyond those already described in [RFC5687]. It does however extend beyond those already described in [RFC5687]. It does however extend
those described in [RFC6155]. those described in [RFC6155].
[RFC5687] describes the issues surrounding Layer 7 location [RFC5687] describes the issues surrounding Layer 7 location
configuration protocols, which this document makes no specific configuration protocols, which this document makes no specific
changes to. changes to.
[RFC6155] extends HELD beyond a simple LCP by enabling authorized [RFC6155] extends HELD beyond a simple location configuration
third-parties to acquire location information and describes the protocol (LCP) by enabling authorized third-parties to acquire
issues in Section 4. The HELD Routing extension supports returning location information and describes the issues in Section 4. The HELD
URIs that represent specific services operating in the Target's Routing extension supports returning URIs that represent specific
vicinity. This represents additional information about the Target, services operating in the Target's vicinity. This represents
as a consequence it is recommended that this option only be used when additional information about the Target, as a consequence it is
a location URI is returned by the LIS. recommended that this option only be used when the LIS returns a
location URI, not a location value.
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document imposes no additional security considerations beyond This document imposes no additional security considerations beyond
those already described in [RFC5687] and [RFC6155]. those already described in [RFC5687] and [RFC6155].
9. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
9.1. URN sub-namespace registration for 10.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri' 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri'
This document calls for IANA to register a new XML namespace, as per This document calls for IANA to register a new XML namespace, as per
the guidelines in [RFC3688]. the guidelines in [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri
Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group (ecrit@ietf.org), Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group (ecrit@ietf.org),
James Winterbottom (a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com). James Winterbottom (a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com).
XML: XML:
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 13, line 38
<body> <body>
<h1>Additional Element for HELD Routing Information</h1> <h1>Additional Element for HELD Routing Information</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri</h2> <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:ri</h2>
[[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
with the RFC number for this specification.]] with the RFC number for this specification.]]
<p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p> <p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
</body> </body>
</html> </html>
END END
9.2. XML Schema Registration 10.2. XML Schema Registration
This section registers an XML schema as per the procedures in This section registers an XML schema as per the procedures in
[RFC3688]. [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:ri URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:ri
Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group, (ecrit@ietf.org), Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group, (ecrit@ietf.org),
James Winterbottom (a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com). James Winterbottom (a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com).
The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of Section 5 The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of Section 6
of this document. of this document.
10. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Wilfried Lange for sharing his views with us. We would like to thank Wilfried Lange for sharing his views with us.
We would also like to thank Bruno Chatras for his early review We would also like to thank Bruno Chatras for his early review
comments and Keith Drage ofr his more detailed review. Thanks to comments and Keith Drage for his more detailed review. Thanks to
Roger Marshall and Randy Gellens for their helpful suggestions. Roger Marshall and Randy Gellens for their helpful suggestions.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5985] Barnes, M., Ed., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
RFC 5985, DOI 10.17487/RFC5985, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5985>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6881>.
12.2. Informative References
[M493] European Telecommunications Standards Institute,
"Functional architecture to support European requirements
on emergency caller location determination and transport",
ES 203 178, V 1.0.5, December 2014.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for [RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008, Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.
[RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 [RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and
Requirements", RFC 5687, DOI 10.17487/RFC5687, March 2010, Requirements", RFC 5687, DOI 10.17487/RFC5687, March 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5687>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5687>.
[RFC5985] Barnes, M., Ed., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
RFC 5985, DOI 10.17487/RFC5985, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5985>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6443>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6881>.
11.2. Informative References
[M493] European Telecommunications Standards Institute,
"Functional architecture to support European requirements
on emergency caller location determination and transport",
ES 203 178, V 1.0.5, December 2014.
[RFC5986] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local [RFC5986] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local
Location Information Server (LIS)", RFC 5986, Location Information Server (LIS)", RFC 5986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5986, September 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5986, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5986>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5986>.
[RFC6155] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., Tschofenig, H., and R. [RFC6155] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., Tschofenig, H., and R.
Barnes, "Use of Device Identity in HTTP-Enabled Location Barnes, "Use of Device Identity in HTTP-Enabled Location
Delivery (HELD)", RFC 6155, DOI 10.17487/RFC6155, March Delivery (HELD)", RFC 6155, DOI 10.17487/RFC6155, March
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6155>. 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6155>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6443>.
[RFC6915] Bellis, R., "Flow Identity Extension for HTTP-Enabled [RFC6915] Bellis, R., "Flow Identity Extension for HTTP-Enabled
Location Delivery (HELD)", RFC 6915, DOI 10.17487/RFC6915, Location Delivery (HELD)", RFC 6915, DOI 10.17487/RFC6915,
April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6915>. April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6915>.
[RFC7216] Thomson, M. and R. Bellis, "Location Information Server [RFC7216] Thomson, M. and R. Bellis, "Location Information Server
(LIS) Discovery Using IP Addresses and Reverse DNS", (LIS) Discovery Using IP Addresses and Reverse DNS",
RFC 7216, DOI 10.17487/RFC7216, April 2014, RFC 7216, DOI 10.17487/RFC7216, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7216>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7216>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 143 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/