One document matched: draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-01.xml
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC5222 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5222.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC5031 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5031.xml'>
]>
<rfc category="info" ipr="full3978" docName="draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-01.txt">
<front>
<title abbrev="Location Hiding Requirements">Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements</title>
<author initials="H." surname="Schulzrinne" fullname="Henning Schulzrinne">
<organization>Columbia University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Department of Computer Science</street>
<street>450 Computer Science Building</street>
<city>New York</city>
<region>NY</region>
<code>10027</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 212 939 7004</phone>
<email>hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu</email>
<uri>http://www.cs.columbia.edu</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Liess" fullname="Laura Liess">
<organization abbrev="Deutsche Telekom">Deutsche Telekom Networks</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Deutsche Telekom Allee 7</street>
<city>Darmstadt</city>
<region>Hessen</region>
<code>64295</code>
<country>Germany</country>
</postal>
<phone> </phone>
<email>Laura.Liess@t-systems.com</email>
<uri>http://www.telekom.de</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Tschofenig" fullname="Hannes Tschofenig">
<organization>Nokia Siemens Networks</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Linnoitustie 6</street>
<city>Espoo</city>
<code>02600</code>
<country>Finland</country>
</postal>
<phone>+358 (50) 4871445</phone>
<email>Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net</email>
<uri>http://www.tschofenig.priv.at</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Stark" fullname="Barbara Stark">
<organization>AT&T</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>725 W Peachtree St, NE</street>
<city>Atlanta</city>
<region>GA</region>
<code>30308</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 404 499 7026</phone>
<email>barbara.stark@att.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Kuett" fullname="Andres Kuett">
<organization>Skype</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country/>
</postal>
<email>andres.kytt@skype.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2008"/>
<area>Real-time Applications and Infrastructure</area>
<workgroup>ECRIT</workgroup>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>The emergency services architecture developed in the IETF Emergency Context Resolution with
Internet Technology (ECRIT) working group describes an architecture where location
information is provided by access networks to end points or VoIP service providers in order
to determine the correct dial string and information to route the call to a Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP). For determining the PSAP Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) the usage
of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol is envisioned. </t>
<t>This document explores the architectural impact for the IETF emergency services
architecture for situations where the Internet Access Provider (IAP) and/or the Internet
Service Provider (ISP) are only willing to disclose limited or no location information.</t>
<t>This document provides a problem statement and lists requirements.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
<section title="Emergency Services Architecture">
<t>The emergency services architecture developed in the IETF Emergency Context Resolution
with Internet Technology (ECRIT) working group, see <xref
target="I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework"/>, describes an architecture where location
information is provided by access networks to end points or VoIP service providers in
order to determine the correct dial string and information to route the call to a Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP). The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol <xref
target="RFC5222"/> allows callers and other call-routing entities to determine the PSAP
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for a specific geographical location together with a
service URI <xref target="RFC5031"/>. The basic architecture is shown in Figure 1 of <xref
target="I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework"/> and further detailed in the message flow in Figure 2
of <xref target="I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework"/>. </t>
<t>For emergency services, location information is needed in three ways: <list
style="numbers">
<t>Emergency call routing to the PSAP that is responsible for a specific geographical
region</t>
<t>Dispatch of the emergency personnel to the scene of an accident, crime or other types
of incidents</t>
<t>Additionally, a VSP may need to verify that an call is indeed an emergency call and
may therefore require location information to ensure that calls routed to a specific
URI point to a PSAP.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>It is very important to note that this document only discusses location hiding in the
context of location information that is need for call routing. ISPs have no interest or
even legal basis for hiding location information from emergency services personnel.</t>
</section>
<section title="Location Hiding">
<t> In some cases, location providers (e.g., Internet Access Providers (IAPs) and/or the
Internet Service Providers (ISPs)) are unwilling to provide precise location information
to end points or VSPs, as is called for in the above model. The decision to deny location
can be driven by a number of technical and business concerns. Some providers may perceive
a risk that allowing users to access location information for non-emergency purposes or
prior to an emergency call will incur additional server load and thus costs. Other
providers may not want to make location information available without the ability to
charge for it. </t>
</section>
<section title="Location by Reference">
<t>The work on the Location Configuration Protocol (LCP) indicated the need to provide the
capability to obtain Location-by-References (LbyRs) in addition to Location-by-Value
(LbyV) from a Location Information Server (LIS).</t>
<t> The LCP problem statement and requirements document can be found in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps"/>. The requirements for obtaining an LbyR via the
LCP and the corresponding dereferencing step can be found in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements"/>. </t>
<t>HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD), see <xref
target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery"/>, is an instantiation of the LCP
concept and allows LbyVs and LbyRs to be requested. </t>
<t>A location reference may already satisfy the requirement for location hiding if the PSAP
has the appropriate credentials to resolve the reference. This requires a trust
relationship between the PSAP and the ISP. Note that the requirement being met here is for
delivery of location information to the PSAP, not for LoST routing or for validation at
the VSP. </t>
<t>Unfortunately, a location reference is not compatible with LoST, as LoST requires an
information value rather than a reference. Also, LoST servers may be operated by the VSP,
which may not have a trust relationship with the ISP.</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology">
<t>The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
<xref target="RFC2119"/>, with the important qualification that, unless otherwise stated,
these terms apply to the design of an solution supporting location hiding, not its
implementation or application.</t>
<t>This document reuses terminology from <xref target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps"/>. </t>
</section>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<section anchor="reqs" title="Requirements">
<section title="High-Level Requirements">
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Req-A:"> There MUST be a way an access network can withhold detailed
location information from any entity it wishes to, and specifically, the endpoint, and
a VSP.<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-B:"> The ISP/IAP MUST support the ability of the endpoint or the VSP to
route emergency calls. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-C:">The VSP MUST be able to validate that a call purported to be an
emergency call is being routed to a bona fide URI, which is denoted by being a URI in
LoST for the designated emergency service.<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-D:"> The PSAP MUST be provided precise location information (by value)
for emergency callers. The endpoint and/or VSP may provide this information either by
value or by reference. </t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Detailed Requirements">
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Req-1:"> The proposed solution MUST NOT assume a business or trust
relationship between the caller's VSP and the caller's ISP. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-2:"> A solution MUST consider deployment scenarios where a VSP is
outside the jurisdiction of the PSAP. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-3:"> The solution MUST offer automated discovery of servers and other
behavior, i.e., no manual configuration can be assumed. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-4:">The steps needed by the endpoint for emergency calling SHOULD be no
different when location is withheld vs. when location is not withheld. In particular,
user agents cannot require additional configuration to discover which particular
environment (hiding or no hiding) they find themselves in. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-5:">The solution SHOULD work for non-SIP entities, without the ISP/IAP
having to support these protocols.<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-6:">The solution MUST work if PSAP boundaries have holes.<vspace
blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-7:">The solution MUST NOT assume the existence of Emergency Service
Routing Proxies (ESRPs) per country, state and city. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-8:">The solution MUST consider that service boundaries for different
emergency services may differ, but they overlap at the location of the caller.<vspace
blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-9:"> Though the solution MAY add steps to the emergency call routing
process described in [framework], these steps MUST NOT significantly increase call
setup latency. For example, the revised process MUST NOT include "trial-and-error"
operations on its critical path, such as attempts at LbyR resolutions that may take
time to time out. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-10:">The solution MUST allow the end host to determine PSAP/ESRP URLs
prior to the call, for all emergency services. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-11:">The solution MUST allow UAs to discover at least their dial string
ahead of the emergency call. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-12:">The solution MUST have minimal impact on UAs. <vspace
blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-13:">The solution MUST NOT interfere with the use of LoST for
non-emergency services. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-14:">Deleted<!-- The solution MUST allow a VSP to verify that the call is indeed
destined for a PSAP.-->
<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-15:">Calls may reach a PSTN gateway, rather than the PSAP directly.
<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<!-- <t hangText="Req-16:"> The solution MUST NOT significantly increase call setup latency.
</t>-->
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Desirable Properties">
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t hangText="Req-X1:">The solution MUST NOT shift effort(externality), i.e., the
convenience of the location-hiding ISP MUST NOT impose a burden on user agents or
non-hiding ISPs/IAPs and SHOULD NOT impose a burden on VSPs.<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-X2:">The solution SHOULD minimize the impact on LoST, SIP conveyance
<xref target="I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance"/> and DHCP.<vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Req-X4:">The solution SHOULD NOT rely on DHCP for LoST configuration, as
the information in the DHCP server provided by the ISP may not reach the UA, due to
NATs.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document does not require actions by IANA.</t>
</section>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>This document does not raise additional security consideration beyond those mentioned in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps"/> and discussed in this document.</t>
</section>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<section title="Acknowledgments">
<t>We would like to thank the following ECRIT working group members (in no particular order)
for their contributions:</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>Andrew Newton (andy@hxr.us) </t>
<t>James Winterbottom (James.Winterbottom@andrew.com) </t>
<t>Brian Rosen (br@brianrosen.net) </t>
<t>Richard Barnes (rbarnes@bbn.com)</t>
<t>Marc Linsner (mlinsner@cisco.com)</t>
<t>Ted Hardie (hardie@qualcomm.com)</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
</middle>
<!-- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -->
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="Scott Bradner">
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
</author>
<date month="March" year="1997"/>
</front>
<format type="TXT" octets="4723" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119.txt"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References"> &I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps;
&I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance; &I-D.ietf-ecrit-framework; &RFC5222;
&I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements; &RFC5031;
&I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery; </references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 06:48:48 |