draft-ietf-sipping-sos-01.txt   draft-ietf-sipping-sos-02.txt 
Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U. Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Expires: April 26, 2006 October 23, 2005 Expires: August 1, 2006 January 28, 2006
Emergency Services URI for the Session Initiation Protocol Emergency Services URI for the Session Initiation Protocol
draft-ietf-sipping-sos-01 draft-ietf-sipping-sos-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
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."
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 April 26, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
As part of an overall architecture for supporting emergency calling As part of an overall architecture for supporting emergency calling
for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), this document defines for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), this document defines
universal emergency SIP URIs, sip:sos@domain and sips:sos@domain, universal emergency SIP URIs, sip:sos@domain and sips:sos@domain,
that allows SIP user agents to contact the local emergency call that allows SIP user agents to contact the local emergency call
center. It also defines conventions that increase the high center. It also defines conventions that increase the high
probability of reaching the appropriate emergency call center. The probability of reaching the appropriate emergency call center. The
document does not define any SIP protocol extensions. document does not define any SIP protocol extensions.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Emergency URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Emergency URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Request Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Identifying the Local Emergency Numbers . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Alternative Approaches Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Request Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Media Feature Tag Registration: Service . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Alternative Approaches Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Media Feature Tag Registration: Service . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Using the public switched telephone network (PSTN), emergency help Using the public switched telephone network (PSTN), emergency help
can often be summoned at a designated, widely known number, can often be summoned at a designated, widely known number,
regardless of where the telephone was purchased. However, this regardless of where the telephone was purchased. However, this
number differs between localities, even though it is often the same number differs between localities, even though it is often the same
for a country or continent-size region (such as many countries in the for a country or continent-size region (such as many countries in the
European Union or North America). For end systems based on the European Union or North America). For end systems based on the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], it is desirable to have Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], it is desirable to have
a universal identifier, independent of location, to simplify the user a universal identifier, independent of location, to simplify the user
experience and to allow the device to perform appropriate processing. experience and to allow the device to perform appropriate processing.
Here, we define a common user identifier, "sos", as the contact Here, we define a common user identifier, "sos", as the contact
mechanism for emergency assistance. This identifier is meant to be mechanism for emergency assistance. This identifier is meant to be
used in addition to any local emergency numbers. used in addition to any local emergency numbers.
This document specifies only a small part of a comprehensive set of This document specifies only a small part of a comprehensive set of
recommendations for operating emergency services. The overall recommendations for operating emergency services. Future documents
architecture is described in [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-emergency- will describe how a device that identifies a call as an emergency
arch]. That document describes, for example, how a device that call can route it to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point
identifies a call as an emergency call can route it to the (PSAP).
appropriate emergency call center (ECC).
This document does not introduce any new SIP header fields, request This document does not introduce any new SIP header fields, request
methods, status codes, message bodies, or events. User agents methods, status codes, message bodies, or events. User agents
unaware of the recommendations in this draft can place emergency unaware of the recommendations in this draft can place emergency
calls, but may not be able to provide the same user interface calls, but may not be able to provide the same user interface
functionality. The document suggests behavior for proxy servers, in functionality. The document suggests behavior for proxy servers, in
particular outbound proxy servers. particular outbound proxy servers.
The solution described here is not as general as the alternative The solution described here is not as general as the alternative
approach, service URNs [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-service], but approach, service URNs [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-service], but
requires no changes to end systems or proxies. requires no changes to end systems or proxies.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant
implementations. implementations.
3. Requirements 3. Emergency URIs
o It should be possible for devices to provide user interfaces that
can directly cause an emergency call, without the user having to
"dial" or type a specific address.
o Even as each country is likely to operate their emergency calling
infrastructure differently, SIP devices should be able to reach
emergency help and, if possible, be located in any country.
o While traveling, users should be able to use their familiar "home"
emergency number. Users must also be able to dial the local
emergency number in the country they are visiting.
o Any mechanism must be deployable incrementally and work even if
not all SIP entities support emergency calling. User agents
conforming to the SIP specification [RFC3261], but unaware of this
document, must be able to place emergency calls, possibly with
restricted functionality.
o Given incremental deployment, emergency call functionality should
be testable by the user without causing an emergency response.
o Emergency calling mechanisms must support existing emergency call
centers based on circuit-switched technology as well as future ECC
that are SIP-capable.
4. Emergency URIs
Having a single, global identifier for emergency services is highly Having a single, global identifier for emergency services is highly
desirable, as it allows end system and network devices to be built desirable, as it allows end system and network devices to be built
that recognize such services and can act appropriately. Such actions that recognize such services and can act appropriately. Such actions
may include restricting the functionality of the end system, may include restricting the functionality of the end system,
providing special features, overriding user service constraints or providing special features, overriding user service constraints or
routing session setup messages. routing session setup messages.
SIP user agents (UAs) that determine that a dialog or transaction SIP user agents (UAs) that determine that a dialog or transaction
relates to an emergency MUST use an an emergency SIP URI defined relates to an emergency MUST use an an emergency SIP URI defined
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 37
able to determine the local domain it is visiting. This also able to determine the local domain it is visiting. This also
allows each user to test this facility, as the user can ensure allows each user to test this facility, as the user can ensure
that such services are operational in his home domain. An that such services are operational in his home domain. An
outbound proxy in the visited domain can handle the call if it outbound proxy in the visited domain can handle the call if it
believes to be in a position to provide appropriate emergency believes to be in a position to provide appropriate emergency
services. services.
In some cases, end users or, more likely, emergency service routing In some cases, end users or, more likely, emergency service routing
proxies may want to request specific emergency services. We support proxies may want to request specific emergency services. We support
this feature by leveraging the caller preferences [RFC3841] extension this feature by leveraging the caller preferences [RFC3841] extension
and define a new media feature tag, service, in Section 8. and define a new media feature tag, service, in Section 6.
The SIP URI user name "sos" MUST NOT be assigned to any regular user. The SIP URI user name "sos" MUST NOT be assigned to any regular user.
Outbound proxy servers MUST be configurable to recognize additional 4. Request Handling
emergency numbers valid in their geographic service area in "tel"
URIs.
There are about 60 service numbers for emergency services in the
world; including them all is not practical, as that would
interfere with existing local two, three and four-digit dialing
plans.
5. Identifying the Local Emergency Numbers
There are many ways that a user agent can configure emergency numbers
for use in analyzing calls made with telephony-type user input. Such
numbers become part of the device dialplan. Mechanisms include
configuration tokens such as SIM cards in mobile devices, network-
specific solutions (e.g., for 3GPP networks) or protocol-based
solutions. Protocol-based solutions, using XCAP and DNS, are
discussed in [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-arch]. Given the
different trade-offs in user agent implementation complexity and
deployment difficulty, it appears likely that multiple such
mechanisms will co-exist.
Regardless of the mechanism chosen and whether any of the
configuration mechanisms succeed, the digit strings "112" and "911"
MUST always be recognized as emergency numbers.
User agents SHOULD allow users and/or administrators to configure
additional emergency numbers.
User agents SHOULD attempt to ascertain the set of emergency numbers
that are valid in the geographic region that the user agent is
currently located in. Two such mechanisms included XCAP and DNS,
discussed in [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-arch].
If and only if an end system is unable to determine the emergency
numbers valid in its current geographical location, it SHOULD
recognize any of the number 000, 08, 110, 999, 118 and 119 as
emergency numbers. Since these numbers are also used for non-
emergency purposes, their automatic transformation incurs the risk of
accidentally dialing an emergency number when, for example, directory
assistance was desired. To minimize such mistakes, end systems
SHOULD alert users that they are dialing a recognized emergency
number.
This behavior corresponds to the guidelines in 3GPP TS 22.101.
Since general SIP end points cannot be assumed to have SIMs or
USIMs, this document uses the default list (000, 08, 110, 999, 118
and 119) only if no other configuration information about
geographically local emergency numbers is available.
6. Request Handling
Outbound proxy servers SHOULD check whether a tel URIs or a SIP URIs Outbound proxy servers SHOULD check whether a tel URIs or a SIP URIs
containing a dial string represents an emergency number within its containing a dial string represents an emergency number within its
geographic service area, but only if they can be reasonably certain geographic service area, but only if they can be reasonably certain
that the call originated from within that area, e.g., if the call that the call originated from within that area, e.g., if the call
contained location information or the network is known to only be contained location information or the network is known to only be
reachable from a restricted geographic area. Typically, these reachable from a restricted geographic area. Typically, these
service areas encompass whole countries since many countries now have service areas encompass whole countries since many countries now have
nationwide emergency numbers. Once they recognize an emergency nationwide emergency numbers. Once they recognize an emergency
number, they translate the Request-URI to an "sos" URI as described number, they translate the Request-URI to an "sos" URI as described
above. above.
The proxy MAY use any additional information contained in the call The proxy MAY use any additional information contained in the call
request to recognize additional numbers as emergency numbers. Such request to recognize additional numbers as emergency numbers. Such
information includes the Mobile Country Code and the Mobile Network information includes the Mobile Country Code and the Mobile Network
Code for 3GPP devices or country information in location information Code for 3GPP devices or country information in location information
available about the call, The [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-emergency- available about the call.
arch] document describes a possible DNS-based mechanism to obtain
country-specific emergency numbers.
It is RECOMMENDED that gateway SIP MESSAGE requests are directed to a
TTY-for-the-deaf translator or a short-message service (SMS) if the
emergency call center cannot handle SIP instant messaging.
7. Alternative Approaches Considered 5. Alternative Approaches Considered
The "sos" SIP URI reserved user name proposed here follows the The "sos" SIP URI reserved user name proposed here follows the
convention of RFC 2142 [RFC2142] and the "postmaster" convention convention of RFC 2142 [RFC2142] and the "postmaster" convention
documented in RFC 2822 [RFC2822]. One drawback is that it may documented in RFC 2822 [RFC2822]. The approach has the advantage
that only the home proxy for a user needs to understand the
convention and that the mechanism is likely backwards-compatible with
most SIP user agents, with the only requirement that they have to be
able to generate alphanumeric URLs. One drawback is that it may
conflict with locally assigned addresses of the form "sos@domain". conflict with locally assigned addresses of the form "sos@domain".
Also, if proxies not affiliated with the domain translate the URL,
they violate the current SIP protocol conventions.
There are a number of possible alternatives, each with their own set There are a number of possible alternatives, each with their own set
of advantages and problems: of advantages and problems:
tel:NNN;context=+C This approach uses tel URIs [RFC3966]. Here, NNN
is the national emergency number, where the country is identified
by the context C. This approach is easy for user agents to
implement, but hard for proxies and other SIP elements to
recognize, as it would have to know about all number-context
combinations in the world and track occasional changes. In
addition, many of these numbers are being used for other services.
For example, the emergency number in Paraguay (00) is also used to
call the international operator in the United States. A number of
countries, such as Italy, use 118 as an emergency number, but it
also connects to directory assistance in Finland.
tel:sos This solution avoids name conflicts, but is not a valid "tel" tel:sos This solution avoids name conflicts, but is not a valid "tel"
URI. It also only works if every outbound proxy knows how to [RFC3966] URI. It also only works if every outbound proxy knows
route requests to a proxy that can reach emergency services. The how to route requests to a proxy that can reach emergency services
SIP URI proposed here only requires a user's home domain to be since tel URIs. The SIP URI proposed here only requires a user's
appropriately configured. home domain to be appropriately configured.
urn:service:sos A related document [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-service] urn:service:sos A related document [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-service]
defines a URN for identifying services, such as emergency calling. defines a URN for identifying services, such as emergency calling.
This solution fits most cleanly into the overall URI architecture This solution fits most cleanly into the overall URI architecture,
and avoids dependencies on the home domain, but, like the tel URI can support a variety of protocols beyond SIP and avoids
solution above, also requires that every outbound proxy can dependencies on the home domain, but, like the tel URI solution
resolve this URN and can route calls accordingly. Alternatively, above, also requires that every outbound proxy can resolve this
the end system has to be configured with a suitable URN-resolving URN and can route calls accordingly. Alternatively, the end
proxy, e.g., in its home domain. system has to be configured with a suitable URN-resolving proxy,
URI parameter: One could create a special URI, such as "aor- e.g., in its home domain.
SIP URI user parameter: One could create a special URI, such as "aor-
domain;user=sos". This avoids the name conflict problem, but domain;user=sos". This avoids the name conflict problem, but
requires mechanism-aware user agents that are capable of emitting requires mechanism-aware user agents that are capable of emitting
this special URI. this special URI. Also, the 'user' parameter is meant to describe
the format of the user part of the SIP URI, which this usage does
not do. Adding other parameters still leaves unclear what, if
any, conventions should be used for the user and domain part of
the URL. Neither solution is likely to be backward-compatible
with existing clients.
Special domain: A special domain, such as "sip:fire@sos.int" could be Special domain: A special domain, such as "sip:fire@sos.int" could be
used to identify emergency calls. This has similar properties as used to identify emergency calls. This has similar properties as
the "tel:sos" URI, except that it is indeed a valid URI. the "tel:sos" URI, except that it is indeed a valid URI. To make
this usable, the special domain would have to be operational and
point to an appropriate emergency services proxy. Having a
single, if logical, emergency services proxy for the whole world
seems to have undesirable scaling and administrative properties.
8. Media Feature Tag Registration: Service 6. Media Feature Tag Registration: Service
Instead of defining additional, more specific, emergency services in
the SIP URI, we propose the use of a new media feature tag [RFC3840],
sip.service, that describe the desired emergency service.
For example, a user agent could request to be routed to marine rescue
by including the following header:
Accept-Contact: *;sip.service="sos.marine"
[Note: This mechanism fits with the Caller Preferences model, but
reduces the backward-compatibility of the overall approach.]
This specification defines an additional media feature tag, extending This specification defines an additional media feature tag, extending
the SIP tree entries described in [RFC3840] and following the the SIP tree entries described in [RFC3840] and following the
registration process in Section 12.1 of that document. This section registration process in Section 12.1 of that document. This section
serves as the IANA registration for the service feature tags, which serves as the IANA registration for the service feature tags, which
are made into the SIP media feature tag tree. are made into the SIP media feature tag tree.
This facility is not meant to encourage end users to select emergency This facility is not meant to encourage end users to select emergency
services where a uniform ECC for all such services exist. Rather, services where a single PSAP for all such services exist. Rather,
these identifiers reflect current practice in jurisdictions that these identifiers reflect current practice in jurisdictions that
already have different numbers for the different emergency services. already have different numbers for the different emergency services.
For example, in Germany, ambulance and fire use 112, while police For example, in Germany, ambulance and fire use 112, while police
uses 110. uses 110.
We expect that users will rarely invoke specific emergency We expect that users will rarely invoke specific emergency
services directly. Rather, they might be generated by outbound services directly. Rather, they might be generated by outbound
proxy servers translating dial strings or be generated when proxy servers translating dial strings or be generated when
pressing icon-bearing speed dial buttons. pressing icon-bearing speed dial buttons.
Using feature tags has the advantage that they are not affected by Using feature tags has the advantage that they are not affected by
entities that translate URIs, e.g., to route emergency calls to a entities that translate URIs, e.g., to route emergency calls to a
specific ECC. specific PSAP.
The service types for this feature tag are case-insensitive. The service types for this feature tag are case-insensitive.
Additional service types can be registered with IANA (Section Additional service types can be registered with IANA (Section
Section 9). Section 7).
Media feature tag name: sip.emergency-service Media feature tag name: sip.service
ASN.1 Identifier: New assignment by IANA. ASN.1 Identifier: New assignment by IANA.
Summary of the media feature indicated by this tag: Each feature tag Summary of the media feature indicated by this tag: Each feature tag
indicates the type of communication service requested. indicates the type of communication service requested.
Values appropriate for use with this feature tag: Token with an Values appropriate for use with this feature tag: Token with an
equality relationship. Initial values include a number of equality relationship. Initial values include a number of
emergency services: emergency services:
sos: general emergency service sos: general emergency service
sos.fire: fire brigade sos.fire: fire brigade
sos.marine: marine guard sos.marine: marine guard
skipping to change at page 8, line 34 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
applications, protocols, services, or negotiation mechanisms: This applications, protocols, services, or negotiation mechanisms: This
feature tag is most useful in a communications application, for feature tag is most useful in a communications application, for
describing the capabilities of a user agent providing a particular describing the capabilities of a user agent providing a particular
type of communication service. type of communication service.
Examples of typical use: Allowing an emergency service proxy to Examples of typical use: Allowing an emergency service proxy to
select the desired emergency service, such as police or ambulance. select the desired emergency service, such as police or ambulance.
Related standards or documents: RFC3840. Related standards or documents: RFC3840.
Security Considerations: Security considerations for this media Security Considerations: Security considerations for this media
feature tag are discussed in Section 11.1 of RFC3840. feature tag are discussed in Section 11.1 of RFC3840.
9. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
Subaddresses of the "sos" address are registered with IANA This Subaddresses of the "sos" address are registered with IANA This
specification establishes the "sos" subaddres sub-registry under specification establishes the "sos" subaddres sub-registry under
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters. http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.
Subaddresses are registered by the IANA when they are published in Subaddresses are registered by the IANA when they are published in
standards track RFCs. The IANA Considerations section of the RFC standards track RFCs. The IANA Considerations section of the RFC
must include the following information, which appears in the IANA must include the following information, which appears in the IANA
registry along with the RFC number of the publication. registry along with the RFC number of the publication.
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters. http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.
Subaddresses are registered by the IANA when they are published in Subaddresses are registered by the IANA when they are published in
standards track RFCs. The IANA Considerations section of the RFC standards track RFCs. The IANA Considerations section of the RFC
must include the following information, which appears in the IANA must include the following information, which appears in the IANA
registry along with the RFC number of the publication. registry along with the RFC number of the publication.
o Name of the subaddress. The name MAY be of any length, but SHOULD o Name of the subaddress. The name MAY be of any length, but SHOULD
be no more than twenty characters long. The name MUST consist of be no more than twenty characters long. The name MUST consist of
NVT alphanumeric characters only and is case-insensitive. NVT alphanumeric characters only and is case-insensitive.
o Descriptive text that describes the emergency service. o Descriptive text that describes the emergency service.
10. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The SIP specification [RFC3261] details security considerations that The SIP specification [RFC3261] details security considerations that
apply to emergency calls as well. Security for emergency calls has apply to emergency calls as well. Security for emergency calls has
conflicting goals, namely to make it as easy and reliable as possible conflicting goals, namely to make it as easy and reliable as possible
to reach emergency services, while discouraging and possibly tracing to reach emergency services, while discouraging and possibly tracing
prank calls. It appears unlikely that classical authentication prank calls. It appears unlikely that classical authentication
mechanisms can be required by emergency call centers, but SIP proxy mechanisms can be required by emergency call centers, but SIP proxy
servers may be able to add identifying information. servers may be able to add identifying information.
Given the sensitive nature of many emergency calls, it is highly Given the sensitive nature of many emergency calls, it is highly
skipping to change at page 9, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 38
to emergency call centers. They may also base their decision on the to emergency call centers. They may also base their decision on the
user-declared destination of the call. user-declared destination of the call.
Recognizing only "sos" in the user's home domain, i.e., the domain of Recognizing only "sos" in the user's home domain, i.e., the domain of
the user's AOR, prevents spoofing where a link points to a fake the user's AOR, prevents spoofing where a link points to a fake
emergency calling number and leads the user to, for example, include emergency calling number and leads the user to, for example, include
location information in the request. location information in the request.
Additional security considerations related to call routing, Additional security considerations related to call routing,
destination authentication and other issues are detailed in destination authentication and other issues are detailed in
[I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-arch]. [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements] and [I-D.taylor-ecrit-security-
threats].
11. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Andrew Allen, Keith Drage, Cullen Jennings, Mike Pierce, James Polk, Andrew Allen, Keith Drage, Cullen Jennings, Mike Pierce, James Polk,
Brian Rosen and John Schnizlein contributed helpful comments. Brian Rosen, John Schnizlein and Hannes Tschofenig contributed
helpful comments.
12. References 10. References
12.1 Normative References 10.1 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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3361] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC3361] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
(SIP) Servers", RFC 3361, August 2002. (SIP) Servers", RFC 3361, August 2002.
[RFC3840] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, [RFC3840] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat,
"Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004. Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004.
[RFC3841] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller [RFC3841] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller
Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3841, August 2004. RFC 3841, August 2004.
12.2 Informative References 10.2 Informative References
[I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-arch] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements]
Schulzrinne, H. and B. Rosen, "Emergency Services for Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for
Internet Telephony Systems", Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
draft-schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-arch-02 (work in draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-02 (work in progress),
progress), October 2004. January 2006.
[I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-service] [I-D.schulzrinne-sipping-service]
Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Services", draft-schulzrinne-sipping-service-00 (work in Services", draft-schulzrinne-sipping-service-01 (work in
progress), July 2005. progress), October 2005.
[I-D.taylor-ecrit-security-threats]
Schulzrinne, H., "Security Threats and Requirements for
Emergency Calling", draft-taylor-ecrit-security-threats-01
(work in progress), December 2005.
[RFC2142] Crocker, D., "MAILBOX NAMES FOR COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND [RFC2142] Crocker, D., "MAILBOX NAMES FOR COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND
FUNCTIONS", RFC 2142, May 1997. FUNCTIONS", RFC 2142, May 1997.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001. April 2001.
[RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers",
RFC 3966, December 2004.
Author's Address Author's Address
Henning Schulzrinne Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University Columbia University
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building 450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027 New York, NY 10027
US US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004 Phone: +1 212 939 7004
skipping to change at page 11, line 41 skipping to change at page 11, line 41
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
141 lines changed or deleted 110 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.28, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/