geopriv B. Rosen
Internet-Draft Emergicom
Expires: August 19, 2005 N. Abbott
Telcordia
February 15, 2005
NENA Requirements for Extensions to PIDF-LO
draft-rosen-nena-geopriv-requirements-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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 August 19, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The National Emergency Number Association (NENA)'s mission is to
foster the technological advancement, availability, and
implementation of a universal emergency telephone number system in
North America. In our efforts to support emergency calls coming over
the Internet, we have identified several issues with the present
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NENA Requirements February 2005
definition of the PIDF-LO object. We present our requirements to
address these shortcomings.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NENA Requirements February 2005
1. Requirements notation
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].
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NENA Requirements February 2005
2. Additional Requirements
Req-1: When location is forged, responder resources are
inappropriately dispatched. The location must be
authenticated by its source and verified by the PSAP. This
implies a digital signature on the location object. There are
implications when location is presented to an entity in a form
other than PIDF-LO. For example, if an endpoint learns its
location from DHCP, the source of the location must sign it in
such a way that it can be transported by DHCP, converted to
PIDF-LO, transported by a using protocol, and subsequently
have the digital signature validated.
Req-2: If there is more than one set of location information is
provided in the PIDF-LO, guidelines/policy are needed to
assist in selecting the appropriate location information to be
used for emergency call routing and dispatch.
Req-3: Two community names must be supported (postal and legal).
Req-4: The "DateTimeStamp" defined in PIDF-LO is insufficient for our
needs. We need to know when the location was determined.
That may or not be when the PIDF-LO document was created.
Req-5: Confidence and Uncertainty must be expanded. Two single
component values are proving to be insufficient. We will
bring a proposal to improve the ability to specify these
quantities.
Req-6: "Placetype" must be expanded (does this really need to go to
SIMPLE?)
Req-7: If there is more than one set of location information is
provided in the PIDF-LO, guidelines/policy are needed to
assist in selecting the appropriate location information to be
used for emergency call routing and dispatch.
Req-8: It is desirable to have fall-back location information that
can be used to determine default routing of emergency calls
(e.g., if the specific location information is not currently
represented in the available routing data base).
Req-9: Other information, e.g., associated with the "caller" or the
caller's location, may also be useful to the emergency
responder, but which is more appropriately maintained by the
user, than by a provider of physical, geographical location
information. A mechanism to include or refer to such
additional information is needed. (This may really need to be
considered by SIMPLE?) However, such information may need to
build on the privacy mechanisms defined by Geopriv for
location information. For example, emergency responders today
may have access to information about disabilities of potential
callers in a particular location that will assist emergency
responders in taking special response measures. Examples of
the kind of information that might be helpful include:
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NENA Requirements February 2005
* Life Support System in use
* Oxygen in use
* Mobility Impaired
* Blind
* Hearing Impaired
* Teletypwriter
* Speech Impaired
* Developmentally disabled..
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NENA Requirements February 2005
3. Security Considerations
None.
4. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Brian Rosen
Emergicom
470 Conrad Dr
Mars, PA 16046
US
Phone: +1 724 382 1051
Email: br@brianrosen.net
Nadine Abbott
Telcordia
One Telcordia Drive, Room 4B655
Piscataway, NJ 08854
US
Phone: +1-732-699-6109
Email: nabbott@telcordia.com
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NENA Requirements February 2005
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 (2005). 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.
Rosen & Abbott Expires August 19, 2005 [Page 7]