draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-03.txt   draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-04.txt 
STIR M. Dolly STIR M. Dolly
Internet-Draft AT&T Internet-Draft AT&T
Intended status: Standards Track C. Wendt Intended status: Standards Track C. Wendt
Expires: April 9, 2021 Comcast Expires: May 6, 2021 Comcast
October 06, 2020 November 02, 2020
Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim and a SIP Priority Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim and a SIP Priority
Header Claim in Support of Emergency Services Networks Header Claim in Support of Emergency Services Networks
draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-03 draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-04
Abstract Abstract
This document adds new assertion values for a Resource Priority This document adds new assertion values for a Resource Priority
Header ("rph") claim and a new SIP Priority Header claim ("sph") for Header ("rph") claim and a new SIP Priority Header claim ("sph") for
protection of the "psap-callback" value as part of the "rph" PASSporT protection of the "psap-callback" value as part of the "rph" PASSporT
extension, in support of the security of Emergency Services Networks extension, in support of the security of Emergency Services Networks
for emergency call origination and callback. for emergency call origination and callback.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 April 9, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. New Assertion Values for "rph" claim . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. New Assertion Values for "rph" claim . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The SIP Priority header "sph" claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. The SIP Priority header "sph" claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Order of Claim Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Order of Claim Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Compact Form of PASSporT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Compact Form of PASSporT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. JSON Web Token claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. JSON Web Token claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
region specific dial string (e.g., "911" for North America or "112" region specific dial string (e.g., "911" for North America or "112"
GSM defined string used in Europe and other countries) or GSM defined string used in Europe and other countries) or
"urn:service:sos" as defined in [RFC5031], representing the emergency "urn:service:sos" as defined in [RFC5031], representing the emergency
services destination of the call. services destination of the call.
The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource- The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource-
Priority' header field with an "esnet.1" assertion: Priority' header field with an "esnet.1" assertion:
{ {
"orig":{"tn":"12155551212"}, "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"},
"dest":{["uri":"urn:service:sos"]}, "dest":{"uri":["urn:service:sos"]},
"iat":1443208345, "iat":1443208345,
"rph":{"auth":["esnet.1"]} "rph":{"auth":["esnet.1"]}
} }
For emergency services callbacks, the "orig" claim of the "rph" For emergency services callbacks, the "orig" claim of the "rph"
PASSporT MUST represent the Public Saftey Answering Point (PSAP) PASSporT MUST represent the Public Saftey Answering Point (PSAP)
telephone number. The "dest" claim MUST be the telephone number telephone number. The "dest" claim MUST be the telephone number
representing the original calling party of the emergency service call representing the original calling party of the emergency service call
that is being called back. that is being called back.
The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource- The following is an example of an "rph" claim for SIP 'Resource-
Priority' header field with a "esnet.0" assertion: Priority' header field with a "esnet.0" assertion:
{ {
"orig":{"tn":"12155551213"}, "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"},
"dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]}, "dest":{"tn":["12155551212"]},
"iat":1443208345, "iat":1443208345,
"rph":{"auth":["esnet.0"]} "rph":{"auth":["esnet.0"]}
} }
After the header and claims PASSporT objects have been constructed, After the header and claims PASSporT objects have been constructed,
their signature is generated normally per the guidance in [RFC8225] their signature is generated normally per the guidance in [RFC8225]
using the full form of PASSPorT. The credentials (i.e., Certificate) using the full form of PASSPorT. The credentials (i.e., Certificate)
used to create the signature must have authority over the namespace used to create the signature must have authority over the namespace
of the "rph" claim, and there is only one authority per claim. The of the "rph" claim, and there is only one authority per claim. The
authority MUST use its credentials associated with the specific authority MUST use its credentials associated with the specific
skipping to change at page 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
4. The SIP Priority header "sph" claim 4. The SIP Priority header "sph" claim
As defined in [RFC7090] the SIP Priority header may be set to the As defined in [RFC7090] the SIP Priority header may be set to the
value "psap-callback" for emergency services callback calls. Because value "psap-callback" for emergency services callback calls. Because
some SIP networks may act on this value and provide priority or other some SIP networks may act on this value and provide priority or other
special routing based on this value, it is important to protect and special routing based on this value, it is important to protect and
validate the authoritative use associated with it. validate the authoritative use associated with it.
Therefore, we define a new claim key as part of the "rph" PASSporT, Therefore, we define a new claim key as part of the "rph" PASSporT,
"sph", which MUST be used only for authorized emergency callbacks and "sph". This is an optional claim that MUST only be used only with an
correspond to a SIP Priority header with the value "psap-callback". "auth" claim with an "esnet.x" value indicating an authorized
emergency callback call and corresponding to a SIP Priority header
with the value "psap-callback".
The value of the "sph" claim key should only be "psap-callback" to The value of the "sph" claim key should only be "psap-callback" which
match the SIP Priority header field value for authorized emergency MUST match the SIP Priority header field value for authorized
services callbacks. emergency services callbacks. If the value is anything other than
"psap-callback", the PASSporT validation MUST be considered a failure
case.
Note: Because the intended use of this specification is only for
emergency services, there is also an explicit assumption that the
signer of the "rph" PASSporT can authoritatively represent both the
content of the Resource Priority Header and Priority Header
information associated specifically with a emergency services
callback case where both could exist. This document is not intended
to be a general mechanism for protecting SIP Priority Header fields,
this could be accomplished as part of future work with a new PASSporT
extension or new claim added to either an existing PASSporT or
PASSporT extension usage.
The following is an example of an "sph" claim for SIP 'Priority' The following is an example of an "sph" claim for SIP 'Priority'
header field with the value "psap-callback": header field with the value "psap-callback":
{ {
"orig":{"tn":"12155551213"}, "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"},
"dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]}, "dest":{"tn":["12155551212"]},
"iat":1443208345, "iat":1443208345,
"rph":{"auth":["esnet.0"]}, "rph":{"auth":["esnet.0"]},
"sph":"psap-callback" "sph":"psap-callback"
} }
5. Order of Claim Keys 5. Order of Claim Keys
The order of the claim keys MUST follow the rules of [RFC8225] The order of the claim keys MUST follow the rules of [RFC8225]
Section 9; the claim keys MUST appear in lexicographic order. Section 9; the claim keys MUST appear in lexicographic order.
Therefore, the claim keys discussed in this document appear in the Therefore, the claim keys discussed in this document appear in the
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
applicable here. applicable here.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.rosen-stir-emergency-calls] [I-D.rosen-stir-emergency-calls]
Rosen, B., "Non-Interactive Emergency Calls", draft-rosen- Rosen, B., "Non-Interactive Emergency Calls", draft-rosen-
stir-emergency-calls-00 (work in progress), March 2020. stir-emergency-calls-00 (work in progress), March 2020.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, DOI 10.17487/RFC4412, February 2006, RFC 4412, DOI 10.17487/RFC4412, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4412>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4412>.
[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for [RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
[RFC8224] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt, [RFC8224] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
"Authenticated Identity Management in the Session "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224, Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>.
[RFC8225] Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion [RFC8225] Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion
Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018, Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8225>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8225>.
[RFC8226] Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity
Credentials: Certificates", RFC 8226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8226, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8226>.
[RFC8443] Singh, R., Dolly, M., Das, S., and A. Nguyen, "Personal [RFC8443] Singh, R., Dolly, M., Das, S., and A. Nguyen, "Personal
Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Resource Priority Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Resource Priority
Authorization", RFC 8443, DOI 10.17487/RFC8443, August Authorization", RFC 8443, DOI 10.17487/RFC8443, August
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8443>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8443>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7340] Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure
Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements",
RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7340>.
[RFC7375] Peterson, J., "Secure Telephone Identity Threat Model",
RFC 7375, DOI 10.17487/RFC7375, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7375>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Martin Dolly Martin Dolly
AT&T AT&T
Email: md3135@att.com Email: md3135@att.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 29 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/