ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Expires: October 21, 2006 R. Marshall, Ed.
TCS
April 19, 2006
Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet
Technologies
draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-07.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 October 21, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document enumerates requirements for the context resolution of
emergency calls placed by the public using voice-over-IP (VoIP) and
general Internet multimedia systems, where Internet protocols are
used end-to-end.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Basic Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. High-Level Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Identifying the Caller's Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Emergency Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Mapping Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 30
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
1. Introduction
Users of both voice-centric (telephone-like) and non voice type
services (e.g., text communication for hearing disabled users (RFC
3351 [8]) have an expectation to be able to initiate a request for
help in case of an emergency.
Unfortunately, the existing mechanisms to support emergency calls
that have evolved within the public circuit-switched telephone
network (PSTN) are not appropriate to handle evolving IP-based voice,
text and real-time multimedia communications. This document outlines
the key requirements that IP-based end systems and network elements,
such as SIP proxies, need to satisfy in order to provide emergency
call services, which at a minimum, offer the same functionality as
existing PSTN services, with the additional overall goal of making
emergency calling more robust, less costly to implement, and
multimedia-capable.
This document only focuses on end-to-end IP-based calls, i.e., where
the emergency call originates from an IP end system and terminates
into an IP-capable PSAP, conveyed entirely over an IP network.
This document outlines the various functional issues which relate to
placing an IP-based emergency call, including a description of
baseline requirements (Section 4), identification of the emergency
caller's location (Section 5), use of an emergency identifier to
declare a call to be an emergency call (Section 6), and finally, the
mapping function required to route the call to the appropriate PSAP
(Section 7).
Ideally, the mapping protocol would yield a URI from a preferred set
of URIs (e.g., SIP:URI, SIPS:URI) which would allow an emergency call
to be completed using IP end-to-end. Despite this goal, some PSAPs
may not immediately have IP based connectivity, and therefore it is
imperative that the URI scheme not be fixed, in order to ensure
support for a less preferred set of URIs such as, for example, a TEL
URI which may be used to complete a call via the PSTN.
Identification of the caller, while not incompatible with the
requirements for messaging outlined within this document, is
considered to be outside the scope of the ECRIT charter.
Location is required for two separate purposes, first, to route the
call to the appropriate PSAP and second, to display the caller's
location to the call taker for help in dispatching emergency
assistance to the appropriate location.
As used in this document, validation of location does not require
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
that we ascertain as to whether or not the location actually exists.
For example, validation might only check that the house number in a
civic address falls within the assigned range, not whether the
building exists at that location. However, such higher precision
validation is desirable.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1],
with the qualification that unless otherwise stated these words apply
to the design of the mapping protocol, not its implementation or
application.
Codes: "caller" or "emergency caller" refers to the person placing an
emergency call or sending an emergency instant message (IM).
Application Service Provider (ASP): The organization or entity that
provides application-layer services, which may include voice (see
"Voice Service Provider"). This entity can be a private
individual, an enterprise, a government, or a service provider.
An ASP is more general than a Voice Service Provider, since
emergency calls may use other media beyond voice, including text
and video. For a particular user, the ASP may or may not be the
same organization as his IAP or ISP.
Basic Emergency Service: Basic Emergency Service allows a user to
reach a PSAP serving its current location, but the PSAP may not be
able to determine the identity or geographic location of the
caller, except by having the call taker ask the caller.
Call taker: A call taker is an agent at the PSAP that accepts calls
and may dispatch emergency help. Sometimes the functions of call
taking and dispatching are handled by different groups of people,
but these divisions of labor are not generally visible to the
outside and thus do not concern us here.
Civic location: A described location based on some defined grid, such
as a jurisdictional, postal, metropolitan, or rural reference
system, (e.g., street address).
Emergency address: The URI (e.g., SIP:URI, SIPS:URI, XMPP:URI, IM:
URI, etc.) which represents the address of the PSAP useful for the
completion of an emergency call.
Emergency call routing support: An intermediary function which
assists in the routing of an emergency call via IP. An ESRP is an
example of an Emergency call routing support entity.
Emergency caller: The user or user device entity which sends his/her
location to another entity in the network.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Emergency identifier: An identifier that marks a call as an emergency
call.
Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP): An ESRP is an emergency call
routing support entity that invokes the location-to-PSAP URI
mapping, to return either the URI for the appropriate PSAP, or the
URL for another ESRP. (In a SIP system, the ESRP would typically
be a SIP proxy, but may also be a Back-to-back user agent (B2BUA).
Enhanced emergency service: Enhanced emergency services add the
ability to identify the caller's identity or location to basic
emergency services. (Sometimes, only the caller location may be
known, e.g., when a call is placed from a public access point that
is not owned by an individual.)
Geographic location: A reference to a locatable point described by a
set of defined coordinates within a geographic coordinate system,
(e.g., lat/lon within the WGS-84 datum). For example, (2-D)
geographic location is defined as an x,y coordinate value pair
according to the distance North or South of the equator and East
or West of the prime meridian.
Home emergency dial string: A home emergency dial string represents a
(e.g., dialed) sequence of digits, that is used to initiate an
emergency call within a geographically correct location of a
caller if it is considered to be a user's "home" location or
vicinity.
Internet Attachment Provider (IAP): An organization that provides
physical and layer 2 network connectivity to its customers or
users, e.g., through digital subscriber lines, cable TV plants,
Ethernet, leased lines or radio frequencies. Examples of such
organizations include telecommunication carriers, municipal
utilities, larger enterprises with their own network
infrastructure, and government organizations such as the military.
Internet Service Provider (ISP): An organization that provides IP
network-layer services to its customers or users. This entity may
or may not provide the physical-layer and layer-2 connectivity,
such as fiber or Ethernet, i.e., it may or may not be the role of
an IAP.
Location: A geographic identification assigned to a region or feature
based on a specific coordinate system, or by other precise
information such as a street number and name. It can be either a
civic or geographic location.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Location-dependent emergency dial string: Location-dependent
emergency dial strings should be thought of as the digit sequence
that is dialed in order to reach emergency services. There are
two dial strings, namely either a "home emergency dial string", or
a "visited emergency dial string", and is something separate from
an emergency identifier, since each represents specific emergency
dial string key sequences which are recognized within a local
geographic area or jurisdiction.
Location validation: A caller location is considered valid if the
civic or geographic location is recognizable within an acceptable
location reference system (e.g., USPS, WGS-84, etc.), and can be
mapped to one or more PSAPs. While it is desirable to determine
that a location exists, validation may not ensure that such a
location exists. Location validation ensures that a location is
able to be referenced for mapping, but makes no assumption about
the association between the caller and the caller's location.
Mapping: The process of resolving a location to one or more PSAP URIs
which directly identify a PSAP, or point to an intermediary which
knows about a PSAP and that is designated as responsible to serve
that location.
Mapping client: A mapping client interacts with the Mapping Server to
learn one or more PSAP URIs for a given location.
Mapping protocol: A protocol used to convey the mapping request and
response.
Mapping server: The Mapping Server holds information about the
location-to-PSAP URI mapping.
Mapping service: A network service which uses a distributed mapping
protocol, to perform a mapping between a location and a PSAP, or
intermediary which knows about the PSAP, and is used to assist in
routing an emergency call.
PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point): Physical location where
emergency calls are received under the responsibility of a public
authority. (This terminology is used by both ETSI, in ETSI SR 002
180, and NENA.) In the United Kingdom, PSAPs are called Operator
Assistance Centres, in New Zealand, Communications Centres.
Within this document, it is assumed, unless stated otherwise, that
PSAP is that which supports the receipt of emergency calls over
IP. It is also assumed that the PSAP is reachable by IP-based
protocols, such as SIP for call signaling and RTP for media.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
PSAP URI: PSAP URI is a general term, used to refer to the output of
the mapping protocol, and represents either the actual PSAP IP
address, or the IP address of some other intermediary, e.g., an
ESRP, which points to the actual PSAP.
Visited emergency dial string: A visited emergency dial string
represents a sequence of digits that is used to initiate an
emergency call within a geographically correct location of the
caller if outside the caller's "home" location or vicinity.
Voice Service Provider (VSP): A specific type of Application Service
Provider which provides voice related services based on IP, such
as call routing, a SIP URI, or PSTN termination. In this
document, unless noted otherwise, any reference to "Voice Service
Provider" or "VSP" may be used interchangeably with "Application/
Voice Service Provider" or "ASP/VSP".
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
3. Basic Actors
In order to support emergency services covering a large physical
area, various infrastructure elements are necessary, including:
Internet Attachment Providers (IAPs), Application/Voice Service
Providers (ASP/VSPs), PSAPs as endpoints for emergency calls, mapping
services or other infrastructure elements that assist during the call
routing.
This section outlines which entities will be considered in the
routing scenarios discussed.
Location
Information +-----------------+
|(1) |Internet | +-----------+
v |Attachment | | |
+-----------+ |Provider | | Mapping |
| | | (3) | | Service |
| Emergency |<---+-----------------+-->| |
| Caller | | (2) | +-----------+
| |<---+-------+ | ^
+-----------+ | +----|---------+------+ |
^ | | Location | | |
| | | Information<-+ | |
| +--+--------------+ |(5) | | (6)
| | | | |
| | +-----------v+ | |
| (4) | |Emergency | | |
+--------------+--->|Call Routing|<--+---+
| | |Support | |
| | +------------+ |
| | ^ |
| | (7) | | +----+--+
| (8) | +------------>| |
+--------------+----------------------->| PSAP |
| | | |
|Application/ | +----+--+
|Voice |
|Service |
|Provider |
+---------------------+
Figure 1: Framework for emergency call routing
Figure 1 shows the interaction between the entities involved in the
call. There are a number of different deployment choices, as can be
easily seen from the figure.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
o How is location information provided to the end host? It might
either be known to the end host itself via manual configuration,
provided via GPS, or obtained via a third party method. Even if
location information is known to the network it might be made
available to the end host via DHCP (RFC 3825 [2]) or some other
mechanism. Alternatively, location information is used as part of
call routing and inserted by intermediaries.
o Is the Internet Attachment Provider also the Application/Voice
Service Provider? In the Internet today these roles are typically
provided by different entities. As a consequence, the Application/
Voice Service Provider is typically not able to learn the physical
location of the emergency caller.
The overlapping squares in the figure indicate that some functions
can be collapsed into a single entity. As an example, the
Application/Voice Service Provider might be the same entity as the
Internet Attachment Provider. There is, however, no requirement that
this must be the case. Additionally, we consider that end systems
might act as their own ASP/VSP, e.g., either for enterprises or for
residential users.
Various potential interactions between the entities depicted in
Figure 1, are described in the following:
(1) Location information might be available to the end host itself.
(2) Location information might, however, also be obtained from the
Internet Attachment Provider (e.g., using DHCP or application layer
signaling protocols).
(3) The emergency caller might need to consult a mapping service to
determine the PSAP that is appropriate for the physical location of
the emergency caller, possibly considering other attributes such as
appropriate language support by the emergency call taker.
(4) The emergency caller might get assistance for emergency call
routing by infrastructure elements that are Emergency Call Routing
Support entities, e.g., an Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP), in
SIP).
(5) Location Information is used by emergency call routing entities
for subsequent mapping requests.
(6) Emergency call routing support entities might need to consult a
mapping service to determine where to route the emergency call.
(7) For infrastructure-based emergency call routing (in contrast to
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
UE-based emergency call routing), the emergency call routing support
entity needs to forward the call to the PSAP.
(8) The emergency caller (UE) may interact directly with the PSAP
(e.g., UE invokes mapping, and initiates a connection), without
relying on any intermediary emergency call routing support entities.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
4. High-Level Requirements
Below, we summarize high-level architectural requirements that guide
some of the component requirements detailed later in the document.
Re1. Application/Voice service provider existence: The initiation of
an IP-based emergency call SHOULD NOT assume the existence of an
Application/Voice Service Provider (ASP/VSP).
Motivation: The caller may not have an application/voice service
provider. For example, a residence may have its own DNS domain
and run its own SIP proxy server for that domain. On a larger
scale, a university might provide voice services to its students
and staff, but not be a telecommunication provider.
Re2. International applicability: Regional, political and
organizational aspects MUST be considered during the design of
protocols and protocol extensions which support IP-based emergency
calls.
Motivation: It must be possible for a device or software developed
or purchased in one country to place emergency calls in another
country. System components should not be biased towards a
particular set of emergency numbers or languages. Also, different
countries have evolved different ways of organizing emergency
services, e.g., either centralizing them or having smaller
regional subdivisions such as United States counties or
municipalities handle emergency calls.
Re3. Distributed administration: Deployment of IP-based emergency
services MUST NOT depend on a sole central administration
authority.
Motivation: The design mapping protocol must make it possible to
deploy and administer emergency calling features on a regional or
national basis without requiring coordination with other regions
or nations. The system cannot assume, for example, that there is
a single global entity issuing certificates for PSAPs, ASP/VSPs,
IAPs or other participants.
Re4. Multi-mode communication: IP-based emergency calls MUST support
multiple communication modes, including, for example, audio, video
and text.
Motivation: In PSTN, voice and text telephony (often called TTY or
text-phone in North America) are the only commonly supported
media. Emergency calling must support a variety of media. Such
media should include voice, conversational text (RFC 4103 [10]),
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
instant messaging and video.
Re5. Alternate mapping sources: The mapping protocol MUST implement
a mechanism that allows for the retrieval of mapping information
from different sources.
Motivation: This provides the possibility of having available
alternative sources of mapping information when the normal source
is unavailable or unreachable.
Re6. Currency indication: The mapping protocol SHOULD support an
indicator describing how current the information provided by the
mapping source is.
Motivation: This is especially useful when an alternate mapping is
requested, and alternative sources of mapping data may not have
been created or updated with the same set of information or within
the same timeframe. Differences in currency between mapping data
contained within mapping sources should be minimized.
Re7. Mapping result usability: The mapping protocol MUST return one
or more URIs that are usable within a standard signaling protocol
(i.e., without special emergency extensions).
Motivation: For example, a SIP specific URI which is returned by
the mapping protocol needs to be usable by any SIP capable phone
within a SIP initiated emergency call. This is in contrast to a
"special purpose" URI, which may not be recognizable by a legacy
SIP device.
Re8. PSAP URI accessibility: The mapping protocol MUST support
interaction between the client and server where no enrollment to a
mapping service exists or is required.
Motivation: The mapping server may well be operated by a service
provider, but access to the server offering the mapping must not
require use of a specific ISP or ASP/VSP.
Re9. Common data structures and formats: The mapping protocol SHOULD
support common data structures and formats from the mapping
server.
Motivation: Location databases should not need to be transformed
or modified in any unusual or unreasonable way in order for the
mapping protocol to use the data. For example, a database which
contains civic addresses used by location servers may be used for
multiple purposes and applications beyond emergency service
location-to-PSAP URI mapping.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Re10. Anonymous mapping: The mapping protocol MUST NOT require the
true identity of the target for which the location information is
attributed.
Motivation: Ideally, no identity information is provided via the
mapping protocol. Where identity information is provided, it may
be in the form of an unlinked pseudonym (RFC 3693 [9]).
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
5. Identifying the Caller's Location
Location can either be provided direct, or by reference, and
represents either a civic location, or as a geographic location. How
does the location (or location reference) become associated with the
call? In general, we can distinguish three modes of operation of how
a location is associated with an emergency call:
UA-inserted: The caller's user agent inserts the location information
into the call signaling message. The location information is
derived from sources such as GPS, DHCP (RFC 3825 [2]) and
I-D.ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil [7]) or utilizing the Link Layer
Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [see IEEE8021AB].
UA-referenced: The caller's user agent provides a pointer (i.e., a
location reference), via a permanent or temporary identifier, to
the location which is stored by a location service somewhere else
and then retrieved by the PSAP, ESRP, or other authorized service
entity.
Proxy-inserted: A proxy along the call path inserts the location or
location reference.
Lo1. Reference datum: The mapping protocol MUST support the WGS-84
coordinate reference system and MAY support other coordinate
reference systems.
Lo2. Location provided: The mapping protocol MUST retain any
location information which is provided to it, even after mapping
is performed.
Motivation: The ESRP and the PSAP use the same location
information object, but for a different purpose. Therefore, it is
imperative that the mapping protocol not remove location
Information so that the PSAP can still receive the caller
location.
Lo3. Location delivery by-value: The mapping protocol MUST support
the delivery of location information using a by-value method,
though it MAY also support de-referencing a URL that references a
location object.
Motivation: The mapping protocol is not required to support the
ability to de-reference specific location references.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Lo4. Alternate community names: The mapping protocol MUST support
both the jurisdictional community name and the postal community
name fields within the PIDF-LO data.
Motivation: A mapping query must be accepted with either or both
community name fields, and provide appropriate responses. If a
mapping query is made with only one field present, and if the
database contains both jurisdictional and postal, the mapping
protocol response should return both.
Lo5. Validation of civic location: The mapping protocol MUST support
civic address validation, based on location, prior to initiating
an emergency call.
Motivation: Location validation provides an opportunity to help
assure ahead of time, whether or not successful mapping to the
appropriate PSAP will likely occur when it is required.
Validation may also help to avoid delays during emergency call
setup due to invalid locations.
Lo6. Validation resolution: The mapping protocol MUST support the
ability to provide ancillary information about the resolution of
location data used to retrieve a PSAP URI.
Motivation: The mapping server may not use all the data elements
in the provided location information to determine a match, or may
be able to find a match based on all of the information except for
some specific data elements. The uniqueness of this information
set may be used to differentiate among emergency jurisdictions.
Precision or resolution in the context of this requirement might
mean, for example, explicit identification of the data elements
that were used successfully in the mapping.
Lo7. Indication of non-existent location: The mapping protocol MUST
support a mechanism to indicate and resolve any associated issues
attributed to a location or a part of a location that is known to
not exist, despite the receipt of a successful mapping response.
Motivation: The emergency authority for a given jurisdiction may
provide a means to resolve addressing problems, e.g., a URI for a
web service that can be used to report problems with an address.
Lo8. Limits to validation: Successful validation of a civic location
MUST NOT be required to place an emergency call.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Motivation: In some cases, a civic location may not be considered
valid. This fact should not result in the call being dropped or
rejected by any entity along the call setup signaling path to the
PSAP.
Lo9. 3D sensitive mapping: The mapping protocol MUST implement
support for both 2D and 3D location information, and may accept
either a 2D or 3D mapping request as input.
Motivation: It is expected that provisioning systems will accept
both 2D and 3D data. When a 3D request is presented to an area
only defined by 2D data, the mapping result would be the same as
if the height/altitude dimension was omitted in the request.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
6. Emergency Identifier
Id1. Emergency identifier support: The mapping protocol MUST support
one or more emergency identifiers for delivery back to mapping
clients to be used for call setup purposes.
Motivation: Since there is a need for any device or network
element to recognize an emergency call throughout the call setup,
there is also a need to have the mapping protocol provide support
for such an identifier. This is regardless of the device location
or the ASP/VSP used. An example of this kind of identifier might
be "urn:service:sos".
Id2. Emergency identifier resolution: Where multiple emergency
identifiers exist, the mapping protocol MUST be able to
differentiate between identifiers based on the specific type of
emergency help requested.
Motivation: Some jurisdictions may have multiple types of
emergency services available, (e.g., fire, police, ambulance), in
which case, it is important that any one could be selected
directly.
Id3. Emergency identifier marking: The mapping protocol MUST include
an emergency identifier with the signaling, if one does not exist,
for the purpose of marking the call as an emergency call.
Motivation: Marking ensures proper handling as an emergency call
by downstream elements that may not recognize, for example, a
local variant of a logical emergency address, etc. This marking
mechanism is assumed to be different than a QoS marking mechanism.
Id4. Prevention of fraud: If a call is identified as an emergency
call, the mapping protocol MUST support that call being
successfully routed to a PSAP.
Motivation: This prevents use of the emergency call indication to
gain access to call features or authentication override for non-
emergency purposes.
Id5. Extensible emergency identifiers: The mapping protocol MUST
support an extensible list of emergency identifiers, though it is
not required to provide mapping for every possible service.
Motivation: The use of an emergency identifier is locally
determined.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Id6. Discovery of emergency dial string: The mapping protocol MUST
support a mechanism to discover an existing location-dependent
emergency dial string, (e.g., "9-1-1", "1-1-2"), which are
contextually appropriate for the location of the caller.
Motivation: Users are trained to dial the appropriate emergency
dial string to reach emergency services. There needs to be a way
to figure out what the dial string is within the local environment
of the caller.
Id7. Home emergency dial string translation: The mapping protocol
MUST support end device translation (e.g. SIP UA) of a home
emergency dial string into an emergency identifier.
Motivation: The UA would most likely be pre-provisioned with the
appropriate information in order to make such a translation. The
mapping protocol would be able to support either type for those
clients which may not support dial string translation.
Id8. Emergency dial string replacement: The mapping protocol SHOULD
support replacement of the original dial string with a reserved
emergency identifier for each signaling protocol used for an
emergency call. This replacement of the original dial string
should be based on local conventions, regulations, or preference
(e.g., as in the case of an enterprise).
Motivation: Any signaling protocol requires the use of some
identifier to indicate the called party, and the user terminal may
lack the capability to determine the actual emergency address
(PSAP URI). The use of local conventions may be required as a
transition mechanism. Note: Such use complicates international
movement of the user terminal. Evolution to a standardized
emergency identifier or set of identifiers is preferred.
Id9. Emergency identifier not recognized: The mapping protocol MUST
support calls which are initiated as emergency calls even if the
specific emergency service requested is not recognized, based on
the emergency identifier used.
Motivation: In order to have a robust system that supports
incremental service deployment while still maintaining a fallback
capability.
Id10. Discovery of visited emergency dial strings: The mapping
protocol MUST support a mechanism to allow the end device to learn
visited emergency dial strings.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Motivation: Scenarios exist where a user dials a visited emergency
dial string that is different from the home emergency dial string:
If a user (i.e., UA operator) visits a foreign country, observes a
fire truck with 999 on the side, the expectation is one of being
able to dial that same number to summon a fire truck. Another use
case cited is where a tourist collapses, and a "good Samaritan"
uses the tourist's cell phone to enter a home emergency dial
string appropriate for that foreign country.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
7. Mapping Protocol
There are two basic approaches to invoking a mapping service. We
refer to these as caller-based and mediated. In each case, the
mapping client initiates a request to a mapping server via a mapping
protocol. A proposed mapping protocol is outlined in the document
I-D.hardie-ecrit-lost [6].
For caller-based resolution, the caller's user agent invokes a
mapping service to determine the appropriate PSAP based on the
location provided. The resolution may take place well before the
actual emergency call is placed, or at the time of the call.
For mediated resolution, a call signaling server, such as a SIP
(outbound) proxy or redirect server invokes the mapping service.
Since servers may be used as outbound proxy servers by clients that
are not in the same geographic area as the proxy server, any proxy
server has to be able to translate any caller location to the
appropriate PSAP. (A traveler may, for example, accidentally or
intentionally configure its home proxy server as its outbound proxy
server, even while far away from home.)
Ma1. Appropriate PSAP: The mapping protocol MUST support the routing
of an emergency call to the PSAP responsible for a particular
geographic area.
Motivation: Routing to the wrong PSAP will result in delays in
handling emergencies as calls are redirected, and result in
inefficient use of PSAP resources at the initial point of contact.
It is important that the location determination mechanism not be
fooled by the location of IP telephony gateways or dial-in lines
into a corporate LAN (and dispatch emergency help to the gateway
or campus, rather than the caller), multi-site LANs and similar
arrangements.
Ma2. Minimal additional delay: Mapping protocol execution SHOULD
minimize the amount of delay within the overall call-setup time.
Motivation: Since outbound proxies will likely be asked to resolve
the same geographic coordinates repeatedly, a suitable time-
limited caching mechanism should be supported.
Ma3. Mapping referral: The mapping protocol MUST support a mechanism
for the mapping client to contact any mapping server and be
referred to another mapping server that is more qualified to
answer the query.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Motivation: To help avoid the case of relying on incorrect
configuration data which may cause calls to fail, particularly for
caller-based mapping queries.
Ma4. Multiple response URIs: The mapping protocol MUST support the
possible inclusion of multiple URIs in a mapping response.
Motivation: Multiple URIs may be available from the mapping
server.
Ma5. URI alternate contact: In addition to returning a primary
contact, the mapping protocol MUST support the return of a URI or
contact method explicitly marked as an alternate contact.
Motivation: In response to a mapping request, the mapping server
may return an alternate URI. Implementation details to be
described within an operational document.
Ma6. URL properties: The mapping protocol MUST support the ability
to provide ancillary information about a contact or URI that
allows the mapping client to determine relevant properties of the
URL.
Motivation: In some cases, the same geographic area is served by
several PSAPs, for example, a corporate campus might be served by
both a corporate security department and the municipal PSAP. The
mapping protocol should then return URLs for both, with
information allowing the querying entity to choose one or the
other. This determination could be made by either an ESRP, based
on local policy, or by direct user choice, in the case of caller-
based methods.
Ma7. Traceable resolution: The mapping protocol SHOULD support the
ability of the mapping client to be able to determine the entity
or entities which provided the emergency address resolution
information.
Motivation: It is important for public safety reasons, that there
is a method to provide operational traceability in case of errors.
Ma8. URI for error reporting: The mapping protocol MUST support the
return of a URI that can be used to report a suspected or known
error within the mapping database.
Motivation: If an error is returned, for example, there needs to
be a URI which points to a resource which can explain or
potentially help resolve the error.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Ma9. Resilience against failure: The mapping protocol MUST support a
mechanism which enables fail over to different (replica) mapping
server in order to obtain a successful mapping.
Motivation: It is important that the failure of a single mapping
server does not preclude the mapping client's ability to receive
mapping from a different mapping server.
Ma10. Incrementally deployable: The mapping protocol MUST be
designed in such a way that supports the incremental deployment of
mapping services.
Motivation: It must not be necessary, for example, to have a
global street level database before deploying the system. It is
acceptable to have some misrouting of calls when the database does
not (yet) contain accurate PSAP service area information.
Ma11. Any time mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support the
ability of the mapping function to be invoked at any time,
including while an emergency call is in process and before an
emergency call.
Motivation: Used as a fallback mechanism only, if a mapping query
fails at emergency call time, it may be advantageous to have prior
knowledge of the PSAP URI. This prior knowledge would be obtained
by performing a mapping query at any time prior to an emergency
call.
Ma12. Anywhere mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support the
ability to provide mapping information in response to an
individual query from any (earthly) location, regardless of where
the mapping client is located, either geographically or by network
location.
Motivation: The mapping client, such as an ESRP, may not
necessarily be anywhere close to the caller or the appropriate
PSAP, but must still be able to obtain mapping information.
Ma13. Extensible protocol: The mapping protocol MUST be designed to
support the extensibility of location data elements, both for new
and existing fields.
Motivation: This is needed, for example, to accommodate future
extensions to location information that might be included in the
PIDF-LO (RFC 4119 [3]).
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Ma14. Split responsibility: The mapping protocol MUST support the
division of data subset handling between multiple mapping servers
within a single level of a civic location hierarchy.
Motivation: For example, two mapping servers for the same city or
county may handle different streets within that city or county.
Ma15. Baseline query protocol: A mandatory-to-implement protocol
MUST be specified.
Motivation: An over-abundance of similarly-capable choices appears
undesirable for interoperability.
Ma16. Multiple PSAP URIs: The mapping protocol MUST support a method
to receive multiple PSAP URIs which cover the same geographic
area.
Motivation: Two different mapping servers may cover the same
geographic area, and therefore have the same set of coverage
information.
Ma17. Single URI per contact protocol: Though the mapping protocol
supports the return of multiple URIs, it SHOULD return only one
URI per contact protocol, so that clients are not required to
select among different targets for the same contact protocol.
Motivation: There may be two or more URIs returned when multiple
contact protocols are available (e.g., SIP and SMS). The client
may select among multiple contact protocols based on its
capabilities, preference settings, or availability.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations are discussed in the ECRIT security document
I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats [4] .
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
9. Contributors
The information contained in this document is a result of a joint
effort based on individual contributions by those involved in the
ECRIT WG. The contributors include Nadine Abbott, Hideki Arai,
Martin Dawson, Motoharu Kawanishi, Brian Rosen, Richard Stastny,
Martin Thomson, James Winterbottom.
The contributors can be reached at:
Nadine Abbott nabbott@telcordia.com
Hideki Arai arai859@oki.com
Martin Dawson Martin.Dawson@andrew.com
Motoharu Kawanishi kawanishi381@oki.com
Brian Rosen br@brianrosen.net
Richard Stastny Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at
Martin Thomson Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
James Winterbottom James.Winterbottom@andrew.com
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
10. Acknowledgments
In addition to thanking those listed above, we would like to also
thank Guy Caron, Barry Dingle, Keith Drage, Tim Dunn, Patrik
Faeltstroem, Clive D.W. Feather, Raymond Forbes, Randall Gellens,
Michael Haberler, Michael Hammer, Ted Hardie, Gunnar Hellstrom,
Cullen Jennings, Marc Linsner, Rohan Mahy, Patti McCalmont, Don
Mitchell, John Morris, Andrew Newton, Steve Norreys, Jon Peterson,
James Polk, Benny Rodrig, John Rosenberg, Jonathan Rosenberg, John
Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, James Seng, Byron Smith, Tom Taylor,
Barbara Stark, Hannes Tschofenig, and Nate Wilcox, for their
invaluable input.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004.
[3] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format",
RFC 4119, December 2005.
[4] Taylor, T., "Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency
Call Marking and Mapping", draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-01
(work in progress), April 2006.
[5] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Services",
draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-02 (work in progress), April 2006.
[6] Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol",
draft-hardie-ecrit-lost-00 (work in progress), March 2006.
[7] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
Information", draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09 (work in
progress), January 2006.
11.2. Informative References
[8] Charlton, N., Gasson, M., Gybels, G., Spanner, M., and A. van
Wijk, "User Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) in Support of Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Speech-impaired
Individuals", RFC 3351, August 2002.
[9] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[10] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
Conversation", RFC 4103, June 2005.
[11] Wijk, A., "Framework for real-time text over IP using SIP",
draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04 (work in progress), March 2006.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Authors' Addresses
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Roger Marshall (editor)
TeleCommunication Systems
2401 Elliott Avenue
2nd Floor
Seattle, WA 98121
US
Phone: +1 206 792 2424
Email: rmarshall@telecomsys.com
URI: http://www.telecomsys.com
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements April 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires October 21, 2006 [Page 30]
