draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-00.txt		draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-01.txt
	SIPCORE J. Winterbottom		SIPCORE J. Winterbottom
	Internet-Draft Winterb Consulting Services		Internet-Draft Winterb Consulting Services
	Updates: RFC6442 (if approved) R. Jesske		Updates: RFC6442 (if approved) R. Jesske
	Intended status: Standards Track Deutsche Telekom		Intended status: Standards Track Deutsche Telekom
	Expires: February 3, 2019 B. Chatras		Expires: July 6, 2019 B. Chatras
	Orange Labs		Orange Labs
	A. Hutton		A. Hutton
	Unify		Unify
	August 2, 2018		January 2, 2019
	Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field		Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field
	draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-00.txt		draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-01.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	There are some circumstances where a geolocation header field may		There are some circumstances where a geolocation header field may
	contain more than one location value. Knowing the identity of the		contain more than one location value. Knowing the identity of the
	node adding the location value allows the recipient more freedom in		node adding the location value allows the recipient more freedom in
	selecting the value to look at first rather than relying solely on		selecting the value to look at first rather than relying solely on
	the order of the location values.		the order of the location values.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://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 February 3, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	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. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8.1. Registration of loc-src Parameter for geolocation header		8.1. Registration of loc-src Parameter for geolocation header
	field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The SIP geolocation specification [RFC6442] describes the		The SIP geolocation specification [RFC6442] describes the
	"Geolocation" SIP header field which is used to indicate that the SIP		"Geolocation" SIP header field which is used to indicate that the SIP
	message is conveying location information. The specification		message is conveying location information. The specification
	suggests that only one location value should be conveyed. However,		suggests that only one location value should be conveyed. However,
	some communications architectures, such as 3GPP [TS23-167] and ETSI		some communications architectures, such as 3GPP [TS23-167] and ETSI
	[M493], prefer to use information provided by edge-proxies or		[M493], prefer to use information provided by edge-proxies or
	acquired through the use of core-network nodes, before using		acquired through the use of core-network nodes, before using
	skipping to change at page 3, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 39 ¶
	This document adds a location-source (loc-src) parameter to the		This document adds a location-source (loc-src) parameter to the
	location values in [RFC6442] so that the entity adding the location		location values in [RFC6442] so that the entity adding the location
	value to geolocation header field can identify itself using its		value to geolocation header field can identify itself using its
	hostname. How the entity adding the location value to the header		hostname. How the entity adding the location value to the header
	field obtains the location information is out of scope of this		field obtains the location information is out of scope of this
	document.		document.
	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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
	3. Rationale		3. Rationale
	The primary intent of the parameter defined in this specific is for		The primary intent of the parameter defined in this specific is for
	use in emergency calling. There are various architectures defined		use in emergency calling. There are various architectures defined
	for providing emergency calling using SIP-based messaging. Each has		for providing emergency calling using SIP-based messaging. Each has
	it own characteristics with corresponding pros and cons. All of them		it own characteristics with corresponding pros and cons. All of them
	allow the UE to provide location information, however, many also		allow the UE to provide location information, however, many also
	attach other sources of location information to support veracity		attach other sources of location information to support veracity
	checks, provide backup information, or to be used as the primary		checks, provide backup information, or to be used as the primary
	skipping to change at page 5, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 24 ¶
	5. Example		5. Example
	The following example shows a SIP INVITE message containing a		The following example shows a SIP INVITE message containing a
	geolocation header field with two location values. The first		geolocation header field with two location values. The first
	location value points to a PIDF-LO in the SIP body using a content-		location value points to a PIDF-LO in the SIP body using a content-
	indirection (cid:) URI per [RFC4483] and this is provided by the UE.		indirection (cid:) URI per [RFC4483] and this is provided by the UE.
	The second location value is an https URI the provided by a proxy		The second location value is an https URI the provided by a proxy
	which identifies itself using the loc-src parameter.		which identifies itself using the loc-src parameter.
	INVITE sips:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0		INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
	Via: SIPS/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9		Via: SIP/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
	Max-Forwards: 70		Max-Forwards: 70
	To: Bob <sips:bob@biloxi.example.com>		To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
	From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl		From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
	Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com		Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
	Geolocation: <cid:target123@atlanta.example.com>,		Geolocation: <cid:target123@atlanta.example.com>,
	<https://lis.example.com:8222/y77syc7cuecbh>;		<https://lis.example.com:8222/y77syc7cuecbh>;
	loc-src=edgeproxy.example.com		loc-src=edgeproxy.example.com
	Geolocation-Routing: yes		Geolocation-Routing: yes
	Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml		Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml
	CSeq: 31862 INVITE		CSeq: 31862 INVITE
	Contact: <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>		Contact: <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>
	Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1		Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
	Content-Length: ...		Content-Length: ...
	Figure 2: Example Location Request.		Figure 2: Example Location Request.
	6. Privacy Considerations		6. Privacy Considerations
	This document doesn't change any of the privacy considerations		This document doesn't change any of the privacy considerations
	described in [RFC6442]. While the addition of the loc-src parameter		described in [RFC6442]. While the addition of the loc-src parameter
	does provide an indicator of the entity that added the location in		does provide an indicator of the entity that added the location in
	skipping to change at page 6, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 15 ¶
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	This document introduces the ability of a proxy or middle box to		This document introduces the ability of a proxy or middle box to
	insert a host name indicating the that they added the specific		insert a host name indicating the that they added the specific
	location value to the geolocation header field. The intent is for		location value to the geolocation header field. The intent is for
	this field to be used by the location recipient in the event that the		this field to be used by the location recipient in the event that the
	SIP message contains multiple location values. As a consequence this		SIP message contains multiple location values. As a consequence this
	parameter should only be used by the location recipient in a trusted		parameter should only be used by the location recipient in a trusted
	network.		network.
			As already stated in [RFC6442] securing the location hop- by-hop,
			using TLS, protects the message from eavesdropping and modification
			in transit, but exposes the information to all proxies on the path as
			well as the endpoint. The service provider has to take care is
			scenarios when location information is leaving it's own network that
			the receiving network is trustworthy to handle the information
			properly. If such trustworthines is not given it is strongly
			recommended to delete the location information.
	The use of this parameter is not restricted to a specific		The use of this parameter is not restricted to a specific
	architecture but using multiples locations and loc-src may end in		architecture but using multiples locations and loc-src may end in
	compatibility issues. [RFC6442] already addresses the issue of		compatibility issues. [RFC6442] already addresses the issue of
	multiples locations. To avoid problems of wrong interpretation of		multiples locations. To avoid problems of wrong interpretation of
	loc-src the value may be discarded when passed to an other domain.		loc-src the value may be discarded when passed to an other domain.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	8.1. Registration of loc-src Parameter for geolocation header field		8.1. Registration of loc-src Parameter for geolocation header field
	skipping to change at page 7, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 33 ¶
	[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,		Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
	[RFC6442] Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance		[RFC6442] Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance
	for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442,		for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6442, December 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6442, December 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6442>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6442>.
			[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>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[M493] European Telecommunications Standards Institute,		[M493] European Telecommunications Standards Institute,
	"Functional architecture to support European requirements		"Functional architecture to support European requirements
	on emergency caller location determination and transport",		on emergency caller location determination and transport",
	ES 203 178, V 1.1.1, Februar 2015.		ES 203 178, V 1.1.1, Februar 2015.
	[RFC4483] Burger, E., Ed., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in		[RFC4483] Burger, E., Ed., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in
	Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483,		Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4483, May 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4483, May 2006,
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	15 lines changed or deleted		30 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/