draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-02.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-03.txt 
ECRIT Working Group James Polk ECRIT Working Group James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: September 9, 2009 Mar 9, 2009 Expires: September 24, 2009 Mar 24, 2009
Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS) Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS)
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-02 draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-03
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. This document may contain the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made
publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 4 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 4
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 7 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 7
4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
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. Section 8 of [RFC4412] further states that priority-value order.
modifying the order or the number of priority-values to a registered
namespace SHOULD NOT occur, due to interoperability issues with
dissimilar implementations.
There is a possibility that within emergency services networks, a There is a possibility that within emergency services networks, a
Multilevel Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be Multilevel Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be
achieved (likely without the 'preemption' part, which will always be achieved (likely without the 'preemption' part, which will always be
a matter of local policy, and not defined here) - ensuring more a matter of local policy, and not defined here) - ensuring more
important calls are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace important calls are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace
is given 5 priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined is given 5 priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined
in this document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is in this document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is
not prevented either. not prevented either.
skipping to change at page 4, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 10
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 given the environment this is to be used within (i.e., within an
within their respective parts of the ESInet- which could be islands ESInet). That is for local jurisdictions to define within their
of local administration. respective parts of the ESInet- which could be islands of local
administration.
RFC4412 states that modifying the relative priority ordering or the
number of priority-values to a registered namespace is not
recommended across the same administrative domain, due to
interoperability issues with dissimilar implementations.
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 within 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.
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
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 specifically ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is specifically
utilized is out of scope for this document, and left to local utilized is out of scope for this document, and left to local
jurisdictions to define. Adjacent VSPs to the ESInet MAY have a jurisdictions to define. Adjacent VSPs to the ESInet MAY have a
trust relationship that includes allowing this/these neighboring trust relationship that includes allowing this/these neighboring
VSP(s) to use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests VSP(s) to use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests
and dialogs within the VSP's network. How this namespace is and dialogs within the VSP's network. The exact mapping between the
utilized is out of scope for this document. Because the more internal and external sides of the edge proxy at the ESInet
important usage of the "esnet" namespace occurs within the ESInet, boundaries is out of scope of this document.
the edge proxy, called an Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP)
can modify or delete this namespace. This is a normative change to
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
the ESInet boundaries are out of scope of this document.
To be clear, the use of an edge proxy in any network, the rules 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 within the document that create a (i.e., each) namespace apply, and
because the "esnet" namespace is allowed to be modified or deleted 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 at the edge proxy of the ESInet does not allow any edge proxy to
modify or delete any other Resource-Priority namespace. This modify or delete any other Resource-Priority namespace. This
document's target market is for the "esnet" namespace only. document's target market is for the "esnet" namespace only.
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 skipping to change at page 7, line 14
(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 is a policy decision for
local jurisdiction preferred to preempt normal calls in lieu of local jurisdictions. This document is not RECOMMENDING this
completing emergency calls. This document is not RECOMMENDING this
usage, merely pointing out those behaviors is a matter of local usage, merely pointing out those behaviors is a matter of local
policy. policy.
The rules originated in RFC 4412 remain with regard to an RP actor,
who understands more than one namespace, MUST maintain its locally
significant relative priority order.
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
Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters
skipping to change at page 8, line 18 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
here. here.
The implications of using this header-value incorrectly can cause a The implications of using this header-value incorrectly can cause a
large impact on a network - given that this indication is to give large impact on a network - given that this indication is to give
preferential treatment of marked traffic great preference within the preferential treatment of marked traffic great preference within the
network than other traffic. This document does not indicate this network than other traffic. This document does not indicate this
marking is intended for use by endpoints, yet protections need to be marking is intended for use by endpoints, yet protections need to be
taken to prevent granting preferential treatment to unauthorized taken to prevent granting preferential treatment to unauthorized
users not calling for emergency help. users not calling for emergency help.
A simple means of preventing this usage is to not allow marked A simple means of preventing this usage into an ESInet is to not
traffic preferential treatment unless the destination is towards the allow "esnet" marked traffic to get preferential treatment unless
local/regional ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly local the destination is towards the local/regional ESInet. This is not a
in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are considered valid. consideration for internetwork traffic within the ESInet, or
generated out of the ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly
local 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, Janet Gunn Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen, Janet Gunn
and Marc Linsner for constructive comments. and Marc Linsner for constructive comments.
7. References 7. References
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
30 lines changed or deleted 30 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/