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/