idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits31139/draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 8 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 11, 2010) is 4239 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group James Polk 2 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 3 Expires: April 11, 2011 October 11, 2010 4 Intended Status: Standards Track 6 IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header Field 7 Namespace for Local Emergency Communications 8 draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-00 10 Abstract 12 This document creates the new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 13 Resource Priority header field namespace "esnet" for local emergency 14 usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP), between PSAPs, and 15 between a PSAP and first responders and their organizations, and 16 places this namespace in the IANA registry. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with 21 the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 25 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 26 Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 29 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 30 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 31 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 36 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2011. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 51 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 52 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 53 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 54 warranty as described in the BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 4 60 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 7 65 4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 74 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 75 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 76 in [RFC2119]. 78 1. Introduction 80 This document creates the new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 81 Resource Priority header field namespace "esnet" for local emergency 82 usage and places this namespace in the IANA registry. The SIP 83 Resource-Priority header field is defined in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. 84 This new namespace is to be used within public safety answering 85 point (PSAP) networks. This new namespace can be used for inbound 86 calls towards PSAPs, between PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first 87 responders or their organizations. 89 Within controlled environments, such as an IMS infrastructure or 90 Emergency Services network (ESInet), where misuse can be reduced to 91 a minimum because these types of networks have great controls in 92 place, this namespace can be to provide an explicit priority 93 indication that facilitates differing treatment of emergency SIP 94 messages according to local policy, or more likely, a contractual 95 agreement between the network organizations. This indication is 96 used solely to differentiate SIP requests, transactions or dialogs, 97 from other requests, transactions or dialogs that do not have the 98 need for priority treatment. If there are differing, yet still 99 valid Resource-Priority header values between SIP requests in a 100 network, then this indication can be used by local policy to 101 determine which SIP request, transaction or dialog receives which 102 treatment (likely better or worse than another). 104 It can also be imagined that Application Service Providers (ASP) 105 directly attached to an ESInet can have a trust relationship with 106 the ESInet such that within these networks, SIP requests (thereby 107 the session they establish) make use of this "esnet" namespace for 108 appropriate treatment. 110 This document merely creates the namespace, per the rules within 111 [RFC4412], necessitating a Standards Track RFC for IANA registering 112 new RPH namespaces and their relative priority-value order. 114 There is the possibility that within emergency services networks - 115 provided local policy supports enabling this function - a Multilevel 116 Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be achieved 117 (likely without the 'preemption' part, which will always be a matter 118 of local policy, and defined here) - ensuring more important calls 119 are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace is given 5 120 priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined in this 121 document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is not 122 prevented either. 124 Within the ESINet, there will be emergency calls requiring different 125 treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to 126 a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than 127 a PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What 128 about either relative to a call from within the ESINet to a 129 federal government's department of national security, such as the US 130 Department of Homeland Security? For this reason, the "esnet" 131 namespace is given multiple priority levels. 133 This document does not define any of these behaviors, outside of 134 reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples 135 of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA 136 registers the "esnet" RPH namespace for use within emergency 137 services networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs. 139 2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header field 141 This document retains the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority 142 header field, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options 143 surrounding this new "esnet" namespace. The usage of the "esnet" 144 namespace does not have a 'normal', or routine call level, given the 145 environment this is to be used within (i.e., within an ESInet). 146 That is for local jurisdictions to define within their respective 147 parts of the ESInet- which could be islands of local administration. 149 RFC 4412 states that modifying the relative priority ordering or the 150 number of priority-values to a registered namespace is not 151 recommended across the same administrative domain, due to 152 interoperability issues with dissimilar implementations. 154 Every use of this namespace will be in times of an emergency, where 155 at least one end of the signaling is within a local emergency 156 organization. 158 The "esnet" namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative 159 priority order, and is a queue-based treatment namespace [RFC4412]. 160 Individual jurisdictions MAY configure their SIP entities for 161 preemption treatment. This is OPTIONAL, subject to local policy 162 decisions. 164 Conceivably, this could be an example network diagram where the 165 "esnet" namespace is used: 167 |<-"esnet" namespace->| 168 | *WILL* be used | 169 "esnet" namespace | ,-------. 170 usage out of scope | ,' `. 171 |<------------>|<---"esnet" namespace ---->| / \ 172 +----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESINet | 173 | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ | 174 +----+ \ | / +-----+ | | 175 \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ | 176 +----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |PSAP-1| | 177 | UA |--- / User \ / Service \ | | +------+ | 178 +----+ ( Network +---+ Network )| | | 179 \ / \ / | | +------+ | 180 +----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |PSAP-2| | 181 | UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ +------+ | 182 +----+ | +-----+ | | 183 | | | | 184 +----+ | +-----+ | +------+ | 185 | UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ |PSAP-3| | 186 +----+ \ | / +-----+ | +------+ | 187 \ ,-------+ ,-------. | | | 188 +----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | | 189 | UA |--- / User \ / Service \ | | +------+ | 190 +----+ ( Network +---+ Network )| | |PSAP-4| | 191 \ / \ / | | +------+ | 192 +----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | | 193 | UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ ANY can | 194 +----+ | +-----+ | xfer/call | 195 | | \ | | | / 196 `. | | | ,' 197 '-|-|-|-' 198 | | | 199 Police <--------------+ | | 200 Fire <----------+ | 201 to a Federal Agency <-------+ 203 Figure 1: Where 'esnet' Namespace Can or Will be used 205 In Figure 1., the "esnet" namespace is intended for usage within the 206 ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is specifically 207 utilized is out of scope for this document, and left to local 208 jurisdictions to define. Adjacent ASPs to the ESInet MAY have a 209 trust relationship that includes allowing this/these neighboring 210 ASP(s) to use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests 211 and dialogs within the ASP's network. The exact mapping between the 212 internal and external sides of the edge proxy at the ESInet 213 boundaries is out of scope of this document. 215 To be clear, specifically for the use of an edge proxy in any 216 network, because the "esnet" namespace is allowed to be modified or 217 deleted at the edge proxy of the ESInet does not allow any edge 218 proxy to modify or delete any other Resource-Priority namespace. 219 This document's target market is for the "esnet" namespace only. 221 3. "esnet" Namespace Definition 223 One thing to keep in mind for now is the fact that this namespace 224 is not to be considered just "EMERGENCY" because there are a lot of 225 different kinds of emergencies, some on a military scale ([RFC4412] 226 defines 3 of these), some on a national scale ([RFC4412] defines 2 227 of these), some on an international scale. These types of 228 emergencies can also have their own namespaces, and although there 229 are 45 defined for other uses, more are possible - so the 230 911/112/999 style of public user emergency calling for police or 231 fire or ambulance (etc) does not have a monopoly on the word 232 "emergency". 234 The namespace "esnet" has been chosen - roughly to stand for 235 "Emergency Services NETwork", as it is most recognizable as that of 236 citizen's call for help from a public authority type of 237 organization. This namespace will also be used for communications 238 between emergency authorities, and MAY be used for emergency 239 authorities calling public citizens. An example of the later is a 240 PSAP operator calling back someone who previously called 911/112/999 241 and the communication was terminated before it - in the PSAP 242 operator's judgment - should have been. 244 Here is an example of a Resource-Priority header field using the 245 "esnet" namespace: 247 Resource-Priority: esnet.0 249 3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines 251 This specification defines one unique namespace for emergency 252 calling scenarios, "esnet", constituting its registration with IANA. 253 This IANA registration contains the facets defined in Section 9 of 254 [RFC4412]. 256 3.2. The "esnet" Namespace 258 Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of 259 relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to 260 highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use 261 in the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the 262 "esnet" namespace. This document does NOT RECOMMEND which 263 priority-value is used where. That is for another document to 264 specify. This document does RECOMMEND the choice within a national 265 jurisdiction is coordinated by all sub-jurisdictions to maintain 266 uniform SIP behavior throughout an emergency calling system of that 267 country. 269 The relative priority order for the "esnet" namespace is as follows: 271 (lowest) esnet.0 272 esnet.1 273 esnet.2 274 esnet.3 275 (highest) esnet.4 277 The "esnet" namespace will be assigned into the priority queuing 278 algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]) from the public user to the 279 PSAP. This does not limit its usage to only the priority queue 280 algorithm; meaning the preemption algorithm is a policy decision for 281 local jurisdictions. This document is not RECOMMENDING this 282 usage, merely pointing out those behaviors is a matter of local 283 policy. 285 The rules originated in RFC 4412 remain with regard to an RP actor, 286 who understands more than one namespace, MUST maintain its locally 287 significant relative priority order. 289 4. IANA Considerations 291 4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration 293 Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters 294 section of IANA (created by [RFC4412]), the following entries will 295 be added to this table: 297 Intended New warn- New resp. 298 Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference 299 --------- ------ -------------- --------- --------- --------- 300 esnet 5 queue no no [This doc] 302 4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations 304 Within the Resource-Priority Priority-values registry of the 305 sip-parameters section of IANA, the following (below) is to be added 306 to the table: 308 Namespace: esnet 309 Reference: (this document) 310 Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1","2", "3", "4" 312 5. Security Considerations 314 The Security considerations that apply to RFC 4412 [RFC4412] apply 315 here. 317 The implications of using this namespace within the 318 Resource-Priority header field incorrectly can cause a large impact 319 on a network - given that this indication is to give preferential 320 treatment of marked traffic great preference within the network than 321 other traffic. This document does not indicate this marking is 322 intended for use by endpoints, yet protections need to be taken to 323 prevent granting preferential treatment to unauthorized users not 324 calling for emergency help. 326 A simple means of preventing this usage into an ESInet is to not 327 allow "esnet" marked traffic to get preferential treatment unless 328 the destination is towards the local/regional ESInet. This is not a 329 consideration for internetwork traffic within the ESInet, or 330 generated out of the ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly 331 local in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are considered 332 valid. 334 6. Acknowledgements 336 Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for 337 help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning 338 Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen, Janet Gunn 339 and Marc Linsner for constructive comments. 341 7. References 343 7.1 Normative References 345 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 346 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997 348 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource 349 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 350 4411, Feb 2006 352 7.2 Informative References 354 none 356 Author's Address 357 James Polk 358 3913 Treemont Circle 359 Colleyville, Texas 76034 360 USA 361 Phone: +1-817-271-3552 362 Email: jmpolk@cisco.com