draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-02.txt 
ECRIT Working Group James Polk ECRIT Working Group James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: August 19, 2009 Feb 19, 2009 Expires: September 9, 2009 Mar 9, 2009
Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS) Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS)
Updates: RFC4412 (if published as an RFC) Updates: RFC4412 (if published as an RFC)
IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header
Namespace for Local Emergency Communications Namespace for Local Emergency Communications
draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01 draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made
publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an
adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in
such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF
Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created
outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for
publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than
English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
respect to this document. rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Legal
This documents and the information contained therein 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Abstract Abstract
This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for
local emergency usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP), local emergency usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP),
between PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first responders and their between PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first responders and their
organizations. organizations.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 3 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 4
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 6 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 7
4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [RFC2119]. in [RFC2119].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for
local emergency usage. The SIP Resource-Priority header is defined local emergency usage. The SIP Resource-Priority header is defined
in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. This new namespace within the public safety in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. This new namespace is to be used within
answering point (PSAP) network ("ESInet"). This new namespace can public safety answering point (PSAP) networks. This new namespace
be used for inbound calls to PSAPs, between PSAPs, and between a can be used for inbound calls towards PSAPs, between PSAPs, and
PSAP and first responders and their organizations. between a PSAP and first responders or their organizations.
Within controlled environments, such as an IMS infrastructure or Within controlled environments, such as an IMS infrastructure or
Emergency Services network (ESInet), where misuse can be reduced to Emergency Services network (ESInet), where misuse can be reduced to
a minimum where possible, this namespace is to be to provide an a minimum because these types of networks have great controls in
explicit priority indication facilitates treatment of emergency SIP place, this namespace can be to provide an explicit priority
messages according to local policy. This indication is used to indication that facilitates differing treatment of emergency SIP
differentiate SIP requests, or dialogs, from other requests or messages according to local policy, or more likely, a contractual
dialogs that do not have the need for priority treatment. agreement between the network organizations. This indication is
used to differentiate SIP requests, or dialogs, from other requests
or dialogs that do not have the need for priority treatment.
It can also be imagined that Voice Service Providers (VSP) directly It can also be imagined that Voice Service Providers (VSP) directly
attached to an ESInet can have a trust relationship with the ESInet attached to an ESInet can have a trust relationship with the ESInet
such that within these networks, SIP requests (thereby the session such that within these networks, SIP requests (thereby the session
they establish) make use of this "esnet" namespace for appropriate they establish) make use of this "esnet" namespace for appropriate
treatment. treatment.
Usage of the "esnet" namespace is to be defined in a future Usage of the "esnet" namespace is to be defined in a future
document(s). This document merely creates the namespace, per the document(s). This document merely creates the namespace, per the
rules within [RFC4412] necessitating a Standards Track RFC for rules within [RFC4412], necessitating a Standards Track RFC for
IANA registering new RPH namespaces and their relative IANA registering new RPH namespaces and their relative
priority-value order. [RFC4412] further states that modifying the priority-value order. Section 8 of [RFC4412] further states that
order or the number of priority-values to a registered namespace modifying the order or the number of priority-values to a registered
SHOULD NOT occur, due to interoperability issues with dissimilar namespace SHOULD NOT occur, due to interoperability issues with
implementations. dissimilar implementations.
From this fact about RFC 4412, and the possibility that within There is a possibility that within emergency services networks, a
emergency services networks, a Multilevel Precedence and Preemption Multilevel Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be
(MLPP)-like behavior can be achieved - ensuring more important calls achieved (likely without the 'preemption' part, which will always be
are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace is given 5 a matter of local policy, and not defined here) - ensuring more
priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined in this important calls are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace
document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is not is given 5 priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined
prevented either. in this document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is
not prevented either.
Within the ESINet, there will be emergency calls requiring different Within the ESINet, there will be emergency calls requiring different
treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to
a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than
a PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What a PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What
about either relative to a call from within the ESINet to a about either relative to a call from within the ESINet to a
federal government's department of national security, such as the US federal government's department of national security, such as the US
Department of Homeland Security? For this reason, the "esnet" Department of Homeland Security? For this reason, the "esnet"
namespace is given multiple priority levels. namespace is given multiple priority levels.
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 16
reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples
of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA
registers the "esnet" RPH namespace for use within emergency registers the "esnet" RPH namespace for use within emergency
services networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs. services networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs.
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header
This document updates the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority This document updates the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority
header, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options header, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options
surrounding this new "esnet" namespace only. The usage of the surrounding this new "esnet" namespace only. The usage of the
"esnet" namespace does not have a normal, or routine call level. "esnet" namespace does not have a normal, or routine call level,
defined in this document. That is for local jurisdictions to define
within their respective parts of the ESInet- which could be islands
of local administration.
Every use of this namespace will be in times of an emergency, where Every use of this namespace will be in times of an emergency, where
at least one end of the signaling is with a local emergency at least one end of the signaling is within a local emergency
organization. organization.
The "esnet" namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative The "esnet" namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative
priority order, and is a queue-based treatment namespace [RFC4412]. priority order, and is a queue-based treatment namespace [RFC4412].
Individual jurisdictions MAY configure their SIP entities for Individual jurisdictions MAY configure their SIP entities for
preemption treatment, but this is optional, and a local policy preemption treatment, but this is optional, and a local policy
decision. decision.
Conceivably, this could be an example of a generic network diagram Conceivably, this could be an example network diagram where the
where the "esnet" namespace is used: "esnet" namespace is used:
|<-"esnet" namespace->| |<-"esnet" namespace->|
| *WILL* be used | | *WILL* be used |
"esnet" namespace | ,-------. "esnet" namespace | ,-------.
usage out of scope | ,' `. usage out of scope | ,' `.
|<------------>|<---"esnet" namespace ---->| / \ |<------------>|<---"esnet" namespace ---->| / \
+----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESINet | +----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESINet |
| UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ | | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ |
+----+ \ | / +-----+ | | +----+ \ | / +-----+ | |
\ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ | \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ |
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 5, line 44
`. | | | ,' `. | | | ,'
'-|-|-|-' '-|-|-|-'
| | | | | |
Police <--------------+ | | Police <--------------+ | |
Fire <----------+ | Fire <----------+ |
Federal Agency <-------+ Federal Agency <-------+
Figure 1: Where 'esnet' Namespace Can or Will be used Figure 1: Where 'esnet' Namespace Can or Will be used
In Figure 1., the "esnet" namespace is intended for usage within the In Figure 1., the "esnet" namespace is intended for usage within the
ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is utilized is out ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is specifically
of scope for this document. Adjacent VSPs to the ESInet MAY have a utilized is out of scope for this document, and left to local
trust relationship that includes allowing this neighboring VSP to jurisdictions to define. Adjacent VSPs to the ESInet MAY have a
use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests and dialogs trust relationship that includes allowing this/these neighboring
within the VSP network. How this namespace is utilized is out of VSP(s) to use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests
scope for this document. Because the more important usage of the and dialogs within the VSP's network. How this namespace is
"esnet" namespace occurs within the ESInet, the edge proxy, called utilized is out of scope for this document. Because the more
an Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP) can modify or delete this important usage of the "esnet" namespace occurs within the ESInet,
namespace. This is a normative change to the allowed behavior within the edge proxy, called an Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP)
[RFC4412], but MUST only be considered valid in this usage at the can modify or delete this namespace. This is a normative change to
ESInet boundary for this one RP namespace (and associated the allowed behavior within [RFC4412] which only applies to the
"esnet" namespace, and MUST only be considered valid in this usage
at the ESInet boundary for this one RP namespace (and associated
priority-value). The exact mapping between the sides of the ESRP at priority-value). The exact mapping between the sides of the ESRP at
the ESInet boundary are out of scope of this document. the ESInet boundaries are out of scope of this document.
To be clear, the use of an edge proxy in any network, the rules
within the document that create a (i.e., each) namespace apply, and
because the "esnet" namespace is allowed to be modified or deleted
at the edge proxy of the ESInet does not allow any edge proxy to
modify or delete any other Resource-Priority namespace. This
document's target market is for the "esnet" namespace only.
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition
One thing to keep in mind for now is the fact that this namespace One thing to keep in mind for now is the fact that this namespace
is not to be considered just "EMERGENCY" because there are a lot of is not to be considered just "EMERGENCY" because there are a lot of
different kinds of emergencies, some on a military scale ([RFC4412] different kinds of emergencies, some on a military scale ([RFC4412]
defines 3 of these), some on a national scale ([RFC4412] defines 2 defines 3 of these), some on a national scale ([RFC4412] defines 2
of these), some on an international scale. These types of of these), some on an international scale. These types of
emergencies can also have their own namespaces, and although there emergencies can also have their own namespaces, and although there
are 5 defined for other uses, more are possible - so the 911/112/999 are 5 defined for other uses, more are possible - so the 911/112/999
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
3.2. The "esnet" Namespace 3.2. The "esnet" Namespace
Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of
relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to
highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use
in the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the in the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the
"esnet" namespace. This document does not RECOMMEND which "esnet" namespace. This document does not RECOMMEND which
priority-value is used where. That is for another document to priority-value is used where. That is for another document to
specify. This document does RECOMMEND the choice within a national specify. This document does RECOMMEND the choice within a national
jurisdiction be coordinated by all sub-jurisdictions to maintain jurisdiction is coordinated by all sub-jurisdictions to maintain
uniform SIP behavior throughout an emergency calling system. uniform SIP behavior throughout an emergency calling system.
The relative priority order for the "esnet" namespace is as follows: The relative priority order for the "esnet" namespace is as follows:
(lowest) esnet.0 (lowest) esnet.0
esnet.1 esnet.1
esnet.2 esnet.2
esnet.3 esnet.3
(highest) esnet.4 (highest) esnet.4
The "esnet" namespace will be assigned into the priority queuing The "esnet" namespace will be assigned into the priority queuing
algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]) from the public user to the algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]) from the public user to the
PSAP. This does not limit its usage to only the priority queue PSAP. This does not limit its usage to only the priority queue
algorithm; meaning the preemption algorithm can be used where the algorithm; meaning the preemption algorithm can be used where the
local jurisdiction preferred to preempt normal calls in lieu of local jurisdiction preferred to preempt normal calls in lieu of
completing emergency calls. This document is not RECOMMENDING this completing emergency calls. This document is not RECOMMENDING this
usage, merely pointing out those behaviors are a matter of local usage, merely pointing out those behaviors is a matter of local
policy. policy.
NOTE: at this time, there has not been sufficient discussion about NOTE: at this time, there has not been sufficient discussion about
whether or not preemption will be used for communications between whether or not preemption will be used for communications between
PSAPs or between PSAPs and First responders (and their PSAPs or between PSAPs and First responders (and their
organizations). organizations).
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration
skipping to change at page 7, line 15 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
A simple means of preventing this usage is to not allow marked A simple means of preventing this usage is to not allow marked
traffic preferential treatment unless the destination is towards the traffic preferential treatment unless the destination is towards the
local/regional ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly local local/regional ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly local
in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are considered valid. in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are considered valid.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for
help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning
Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen and Marc Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen, Janet Gunn
Linsner for constructive comments. and Marc Linsner for constructive comments.
7. References 7. References
7.1 Normative References 7.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
7.2 Informative References 7.2 Informative References
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 101 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/