ECRIT Working Group James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: September 24, 2009 Mar 24, 2009
Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS)
IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header
Namespace for Local Emergency Communications
draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-03
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made
publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an
adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in
such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF
Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created
outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for
publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than
English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
Legal
This documents and the information contained therein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Abstract
This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for
local emergency usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP),
between PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first responders and their
organizations.
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 4
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 7
4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [RFC2119].
1. Introduction
This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for
local emergency usage. The SIP Resource-Priority header is defined
in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. This new namespace is to be used within
public safety answering point (PSAP) networks. This new namespace
can be used for inbound calls towards PSAPs, between PSAPs, and
between a PSAP and first responders or their organizations.
Within controlled environments, such as an IMS infrastructure or
Emergency Services network (ESInet), where misuse can be reduced to
a minimum because these types of networks have great controls in
place, this namespace can be to provide an explicit priority
indication that facilitates differing treatment of emergency SIP
messages according to local policy, or more likely, a contractual
agreement between the network organizations. This indication is
used to differentiate SIP requests, or dialogs, from other requests
or dialogs that do not have the need for priority treatment.
It can also be imagined that Voice Service Providers (VSP) directly
attached to an ESInet can have a trust relationship with the ESInet
such that within these networks, SIP requests (thereby the session
they establish) make use of this "esnet" namespace for appropriate
treatment.
Usage of the "esnet" namespace is to be defined in a future
document(s). This document merely creates the namespace, per the
rules within [RFC4412], necessitating a Standards Track RFC for
IANA registering new RPH namespaces and their relative
priority-value order.
There is a possibility that within emergency services networks, a
Multilevel Precedence and Preemption (MLPP)-like behavior can be
achieved (likely without the 'preemption' part, which will always be
a matter of local policy, and not defined here) - ensuring more
important calls are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace
is given 5 priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined
in this document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is
not prevented either.
Within the ESINet, there will be emergency calls requiring different
treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to
a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than
a PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What
about either relative to a call from within the ESINet to a
federal government's department of national security, such as the US
Department of Homeland Security? For this reason, the "esnet"
namespace is given multiple priority levels.
This document does not define any of these behaviors, outside of
reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples
of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA
registers the "esnet" RPH namespace for use within emergency
services networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs.
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header
This document updates the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority
header, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options
surrounding this new "esnet" namespace only. The usage of the
"esnet" namespace does not have a 'normal', or routine call level,
given the environment this is to be used within (i.e., within an
ESInet). That is for local jurisdictions to define within their
respective parts of the ESInet- which could be islands of local
administration.
RFC4412 states that modifying the relative priority ordering or the
number of priority-values to a registered namespace is not
recommended across the same administrative domain, due to
interoperability issues with dissimilar implementations.
Every use of this namespace will be in times of an emergency, where
at least one end of the signaling is within a local emergency
organization.
The "esnet" namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative
priority order, and is a queue-based treatment namespace [RFC4412].
Individual jurisdictions MAY configure their SIP entities for
preemption treatment, but this is optional, and a local policy
decision.
Conceivably, this could be an example network diagram where the
"esnet" namespace is used:
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
|<-"esnet" namespace->|
| *WILL* be used |
"esnet" namespace | ,-------.
usage out of scope | ,' `.
|<------------>|<---"esnet" namespace ---->| / \
+----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESINet |
| UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ |
+----+ \ | / +-----+ | |
\ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ |
+----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |PSAP-1| |
| UA |--- / User \ / Service \ | | +------+ |
+----+ ( Network +---+ Network )| | |
\ / \ / | | +------+ |
+----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |PSAP-2| |
| UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ +------+ |
+----+ | +-----+ | |
| | | |
+----+ | +-----+ | +------+ |
| UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ |PSAP-3| |
+----+ \ | / +-----+ | +------+ |
\ ,-------+ ,-------. | | |
+----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |
| UA |--- / User \ / Service \ | | +------+ |
+----+ ( Network +---+ Network )| | |PSAP-4| |
\ / \ / | | +------+ |
+----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |
| UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ ANY can |
+----+ | +-----+ | xfer/call |
| | \ | | | /
`. | | | ,'
'-|-|-|-'
| | |
Police <--------------+ | |
Fire <----------+ |
Federal Agency <-------+
Figure 1: Where 'esnet' Namespace Can or Will be used
In Figure 1., the "esnet" namespace is intended for usage within the
ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is specifically
utilized is out of scope for this document, and left to local
jurisdictions to define. Adjacent VSPs to the ESInet MAY have a
trust relationship that includes allowing this/these neighboring
VSP(s) to use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests
and dialogs within the VSP's network. The exact mapping between the
internal and external sides of the edge proxy at the ESInet
boundaries is out of scope of this document.
To be clear, the use of an edge proxy in any network, the rules
within the document that create a (i.e., each) namespace apply, and
because the "esnet" namespace is allowed to be modified or deleted
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
at the edge proxy of the ESInet does not allow any edge proxy to
modify or delete any other Resource-Priority namespace. This
document's target market is for the "esnet" namespace only.
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition
One thing to keep in mind for now is the fact that this namespace
is not to be considered just "EMERGENCY" because there are a lot of
different kinds of emergencies, some on a military scale ([RFC4412]
defines 3 of these), some on a national scale ([RFC4412] defines 2
of these), some on an international scale. These types of
emergencies can also have their own namespaces, and although there
are 5 defined for other uses, more are possible - so the 911/112/999
style of public user emergency calling for police or fire or
ambulance (etc) does not have a monopoly on the word "emergency".
Therefore, the namespace "esnet" has been chosen, as it is most
recognizable as that of citizen's call for help from a public
authority type of organization. This namespace will also be used
for communications between emergency authorities, and MAY be used
for emergency authorities calling public citizens. An example of
the later is a PSAP operator calling back someone who previously
called 9111/112/999 and the communication was terminated before it
should have been (in the operator's judgment).
Here is an example of a Resource-Priority header using the esnet
namespace:
Resource-Priority: esnet.0
3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines
This specification defines one unique namespace for emergency
calling scenarios, "esnet", constituting its registration with IANA.
This IANA registration contains the facets defined in Section 9 of
[RFC4412].
3.2. The "esnet" Namespace
Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of
relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to
highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use
in the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the
"esnet" namespace. This document does not RECOMMEND which
priority-value is used where. That is for another document to
specify. This document does RECOMMEND the choice within a national
jurisdiction is coordinated by all sub-jurisdictions to maintain
uniform SIP behavior throughout an emergency calling system.
The relative priority order for the "esnet" namespace is as follows:
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
(lowest) esnet.0
esnet.1
esnet.2
esnet.3
(highest) esnet.4
The "esnet" namespace will be assigned into the priority queuing
algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]) from the public user to the
PSAP. This does not limit its usage to only the priority queue
algorithm; meaning the preemption algorithm is a policy decision for
local jurisdictions. This document is not RECOMMENDING this
usage, merely pointing out those behaviors is a matter of local
policy.
The rules originated in RFC 4412 remain with regard to an RP actor,
who understands more than one namespace, MUST maintain its locally
significant relative priority order.
NOTE: at this time, there has not been sufficient discussion about
whether or not preemption will be used for communications between
PSAPs or between PSAPs and First responders (and their
organizations).
4. IANA Considerations
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration
Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters
section of IANA (created by [RFC4412]), the following entries will
be added to this table:
Intended New warn- New resp.
Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference
--------- ------ -------------- --------- --------- ---------
esnet 5 queue no no [This doc]
4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations
Within the Resource-Priority Priority-values registry of the
sip-parameters section of IANA, the following (below) is to be added
to the table:
Namespace: esnet
Reference: (this document)
Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1","2", "3", "4"
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
5. Security Considerations
The Security considerations that apply to RFC 4412 [RFC4412] apply
here.
The implications of using this header-value incorrectly can cause a
large impact on a network - given that this indication is to give
preferential treatment of marked traffic great preference within the
network than other traffic. This document does not indicate this
marking is intended for use by endpoints, yet protections need to be
taken to prevent granting preferential treatment to unauthorized
users not calling for emergency help.
A simple means of preventing this usage into an ESInet is to not
allow "esnet" marked traffic to get preferential treatment unless
the destination is towards the local/regional ESInet. This is not a
consideration for internetwork traffic within the ESInet, or
generated out of the ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly
local in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are considered
valid.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for
help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning
Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen, Janet Gunn
and Marc Linsner for constructive comments.
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4411, Feb 2006
7.2 Informative References
none
Author's Address
James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
USA
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Mar 2009
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Polk Expires Sept 24, 2009 [Page 9]
