One document matched: draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-04.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-03.txt
Network Working Group James Polk
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: April 25, 2011 Brian Rosen
Intended Status: Standards Track (PS) Jon Peterson
NeuStar
Oct 25, 2010
Location Conveyance for the Session Initiation Protocol
draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-04.txt
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) to convey geographic location information from one
SIP entity to another SIP entity. The extension covers end-to-end
conveyance as well as location-based routing, where SIP
intermediaries make routing decisions based upon the location of the
user agent client.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 April 25, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the BSD License.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions and Terminology used in this document . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of SIP Location Conveyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Location Conveyed by Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Location Conveyed as a Location URI . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 Location Conveyed though a SIP Intermediary . . . . . . . 5
3.4 SIP Intermediary Replacing Bad Location . . . . . . . . . 6
4. SIP Modifications for Geolocation Conveyance . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 The Geolocation Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 424 (Bad Location Information) Response Code . . . . . . 10
4.3 The Geolocation-Error Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4 The 'geolocation' Option Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5 Location URIs in Message Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6 Location URIs Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Geolocation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1 Location-by-value (Coordinate Format) . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2 Two Locations Composed in Same Location Object Example . 16
6. Geopriv Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1 IANA Registration for New SIP Geolocation Header . . . . 20
8.2 IANA Registration for New SIP 'geolocation' Option Tag . 20
8.3 IANA Registration for New 424 Response Code . . . . . . . 20
8.4 IANA Registration for New SIP Geolocation-Error Header . 20
8.5 IANA Registration for New SIP Geolocation-Error Codes . . 20
8.6 IANA Registration of Location URI Schemes . . . . . . . . 21
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
Author Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Requirements for SIP Location Conveyance . . . . 24
1. Conventions and Terminology used in this document
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]. This document furthermore uses numerous terms defined
in RFC 3693 [RFC3693], including Location Objection, Location
Recipient, Location Server, Target, and Using Protocol.
2. Introduction
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] creates, modifies and
terminates multimedia sessions. SIP carries certain information
related to a session while establishing or maintaining calls. This
document defines how SIP conveys geographic location information of
a Target (Target) to a Location Recipient (LR). SIP acts as a Using
Protocol of location information, as defined in RFC 3693.
In order to convey location information, this document specifies a
new SIP header, the Geolocation header, which carries a reference to
a Location Object. That Location Object may appear in a MIME body
attached to the SIP request, or it may be a remote resource in the
network.
Note that per RFC 3693, a Target is an entity whose location is
being conveyed. Thus, a Target could be a SIP user agent (UA), some
other IP device (a router or a PC) that does not have a SIP stack, a
non-IP device (a person or a black phone) or even a
non-communications device (a building or store front). In no way
does this document assume that the SIP user agent client which sends
a request containing a location object is necessarily the Target.
The location of a Target conveyed within SIP typically corresponds
to that of a device controlled by the Target, for example, a mobile
phone, but such devices can be separated from their owners, and
moreover, in some cases the user agent may not know its own
location.
In the SIP context, a location recipient will most likely be a SIP
UA, but due to the mediated nature of SIP architectures, location
information conveyed by a single SIP request may have multiple
recipients, as any SIP proxy server in the signaling path that
inspects the location of the Target must also be considered a
Location Recipient. In presence-like architectures, an intermediary
that receives publications of location information and distributes
them to watchers acts as a Location Server per RFC 3693. This
location conveyance mechanism can also be used to deliver URIs point
to such Location Servers where prospective Location Recipients can
request Location Objects.
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
3. Overview of SIP Location Conveyance
An operational overview of SIP location conveyance can be shown in 4
basic diagrams, with most applications falling under one of the
following basic use cases. Each is separated into its own subsection
here in section 3.
Each diagram has Alice and Bob as UAs. Alice is the Target, and Bob
is an LR. A SIP intermediary appears in some of the diagrams. Any
SIP entity that receives and inspects location information is an LR,
therefore any of the diagrams the SIP intermediary receives the SIP
request is potentially an LR - though that does not mean such an
intermediary necessarily has to route the SIP request based on the
location information. In some use cases, location information
passes through the LS on the right of each diagram.
3.1 Location Conveyed by Value
We start with the simplest diagram of Location Conveyance, Alice to
Bob, where no other layer 7 entities are involved.
Alice SIP Intermediary Bob LS
| | | |
| Request w/Location | |
|----------------------------------->| |
| | |
| Response | |
|<-----------------------------------| |
| | | |
Figure 1. Location Conveyed by Value
In Figure 1, Alice is both the Target and the LS that is conveying
her location directly to Bob, who acts as an LR. This conveyance is
point-to-point - it does not pass through any SIP-layer
intermediary. A Location Object appears by-value in the initial SIP
request as a MIME body, and Bob responds to that SIP request as
appropriate. There is a 'Bad Location Information' response code
introduced within this document to specifically inform Alice if she
conveys bad location to Bob (e.g., Bob "cannot parse the location
provided", or "there is not enough location information to determine
where Alice is").
3.2 Location Conveyed as a Location URI
Here we make Figure 1 a little more complicated by showing a
diagram of indirect Location Conveyance from Alice to Bob, where
Bob's entity has to retrieve the location object from a 3rd party
server.
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
Alice SIP Intermediary Bob LS
| | | |
| Request w/Location URI | |
|----------------------------------->| |
| | Dereference |
| | Request |
| (To: Location URI) |
| |---------------->|
| | |
| | Dereference |
| | Response |
| (includes location) |
| |<----------------|
| Response | |
|<-----------------------------------| |
| | | |
Figure 2. Location Conveyed as a Location URI
In Figure 2, location is conveyed indirectly, via a Location URI
carried in the SIP message (more of those details later). If Alice
sends Bob this Location URI, Bob will need to dereference the URI -
analogous to Content Indirection [RFC4483] - in order to request the
location information. In general, the LS provides the location value
to Bob instead of Alice directly. From a user interface
perspective, Bob the user won't know that this information was
gathered from an LS indirectly rather than culled from the SIP
request, and practically this does not impact the operation of
location-based applications.
3.3 Location Conveyed though a SIP Intermediary
In Figure 3, we introduce the idea of a SIP intermediary into the
example to illustrate the role of proxying in the location
architecture. This intermediary could be a SIP proxy or it could be
a back-to-back-user-agent (B2BUA). In this message flow, the SIP
intermediary could act as a LR, in addition to Bob. The primary use
case for intermediaries consuming location information is
location-based routing. In this case, the intermediary chooses a
next hop for the SIP request by consulting a specialized location
service which selects forwarding destinations based on geographical
location. In this case, the intermediary acts as a Location
Recipient.
Alice SIP Intermediary Bob LS
| | | |
| Request | | |
| w/Location | | |
|--------------->| | |
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
| | Request | |
| | w/Location | |
| |------------------>| |
| | | |
| | Response | |
| |<------------------| |
| Response | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | |
Figure 3. Location Conveyed though a SIP Intermediary
However, the most common case will be one in which the SIP
intermediary receives a request with location information (conveyed
either by-value or by-reference) and does not know or care about
Alice's location, or support this extension, and merely passes it on
to Bob. In this case, the intermediary does not act as a Location
Recipient.
Note that an intermediary does not have to perform location-based
routing in order to be location recipient. It could be the case that
a SIP intermediary which does not perform location-based routing but
does care when Alice includes her location; for example, it could
care that the location information is complete or that it correctly
identifies where Alice is. The best example of this is
intermediaries that verify location information for emergency
calling, but it could also be for any location based routing - e.g.,
contacting Pizza Hut, making sure that organization has Alice's
proper location in the initial SIP request.
There is another scenario in which the SIP intermediary cares about
location and is not an LR, one in which the intermediary inserts
another location of the Target, Alice in this case, into the
request, and forwards it. This secondary insertion is generally not
advisable because downstream SIP entities will not be given any
guidance about which location to believe is better, more reliable,
less prone to error, more granular, worse than the other location or
just plain wrong.
The only conceivable way forward, when a second location is placed
into the same SIP request by a SIP intermediary is to
take a "you break it, you bought it" philosophy with respect to the
inserting SIP intermediary. That entity becomes completely
responsible for all location within that SIP request (more on this
in Section 4).
3.4 SIP Intermediary Replacing Bad Location
If the SIP intermediary rejects the message due to unsuitable
location information (we are not going to discuss any other reasons
in this document, and there are many), the SIP response will
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
indicate there was 'Bad Location Information' in the SIP request,
and provide a location specific error code indicating what Alice
needs to do to send an acceptable request (see Figure 4 for this
scenario).
Alice SIP Intermediary Bob LS
| | | |
| Request | | |
| w/Location | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | | |
| Rejected | | |
| w/New Location | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | |
| Request | | |
| w/New Location | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | Request | |
| | w/New Location | |
| |------------------>| |
| | | |
Figure 4. SIP Intermediary Replacing Bad Location
In this last use case, the SIP intermediary wishes to include a
Location Object indicating where it understands Alice to be. Thus,
it must inform her user agent what location she should include in
any subsequent SIP request that contains her location. In these
cases, the intermediary can reject Alice's request, through the SIP
response, convey to her the best way to repair the request in order
for the intermediary to accept it.
Overriding location information provided by the user requires a
deployment where an intermediary necessarily knows better than an
end user - after all, it could be that Alice has an on-board GPS,
and the SIP intermediary only knows her nearest cell tower. Which is
more accurate location information? Currently, there is no way to
tell which entity is more accurate, or which is wrong - for that
matter. This document will not specify how to indicate which
location is more accurate than another. If desired, intermediaries
may furthermore allow both Alice's internally generated location, as
well as the SIP intermediary's determination of where Alice, to
appear in the same SIP request (the resubmitted one), and permit
that to be forwarded to Bob. This case is discussed in more detail
in section 4.2 of this document.
As an aside, it is not envisioned that any SIP-based emergency
services request (i.e., IP-911, or 112 type of call attempt) will
receive a corrective 'Bad Location Information' response from an
intermediary. Most likely, the SIP intermediary would in that
scenario act a B2BUA and insert into the request by-value any
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
appropriate location information for the benefit of Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) call centers to expedite call reception by
the emergency services personnel; thereby, minimizing any delay in
call establishment time. The implementation of these specialized
deployments is, however, outside the scope of this document.
4. SIP Modifications for Geolocation Conveyance
The following sections detail the modifications
to SIP for location conveyance.
4.1 The Geolocation Header
This document defines "Geolocation" as a new SIP header field
registered by IANA, with the following ABNF [RFC5234]:
Geolocation-header = "Geolocation" HCOLON Geolocation-value
Geolocation-value = ( locationValue [ COMMA locationValue ] )
/ routing-param
locationValue = LAQUOT locationURI RAQUOT
*(SEMI geoloc-param)
locationURI = sip-URI / sips-URI / pres-URI
/ http-URI / HTTPS-URI
/ cid-url ; (from RFC 2392)
/ absoluteURI ; (from RFC 3261)
geoloc-param = generic-param; (from RFC 3261)
routing-param = "routing-allowed" EQUAL "yes" / "no"
sip-URI, sips-URI and absoluteURI are defined according to [RFC3261].
The pres-URI is defined in [RFC3859].
HTTP-URI and HTTPS-URI are defined according to [RFC2616] and
[RFC2818], respectively.
The cid-url is defined in [RFC2392] to locate message body parts.
This URI type is present in a SIP request when location is conveyed
as a MIME body in the SIP message.
GEO-URIs [RFC5870] are not appropriate for usage the SIP Geolocation
header.
Other URI schemas used in the location URI MUST be reviewed against
the RFC 3693 [RFC3693] criteria for a Using Protocol.
The Geolocation header field has zero, one or two locationValues,
but MUST NOT contain more than two locationValue. A SIP intermediary
SHOULD NOT add location to a SIP request that already contains
location. This will quite often lead to confusion within LRs.
However, if a SIP intermediary were to add location, even if
location was not previously present in a SIP request, that SIP
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
intermediary is fully responsible for addressing the concerns of any
424 (Bad Location Information) SIP response it receives about this
location addition, and MUST NOT pass on (upstream) the 424 response.
The placement of the "routing-allowed" header field parameter,
strongly encouraged by [RFC5606], is outside the locationValue, and
MUST always be last in the header field value. The routing-allowed
parameter MUST be present, even when no locationValue is present.
This scenario sets the routing-allowed policy downstream along the
request's signaling path. This header field parameter only has the
values "=yes" or "=no". When this parameter is "=yes", the
locationValue can be used for routing decisions along the downstream
signaling path by intermediaries. If no routing-allowed parameter
is present in a SIP request, a SIP intermediary MAY insert this
value with a RECOMMENDED value of "no" by default.
When this parameter is "=no", this means no locationValue (inserted
by the originating UAC or any intermediary along the signaling path
can be used by any SIP intermediary to make routing decisions.
Intermediaries that attempt to use the location information for
routing purposes in spite of this counter indication may end up
routing the request improperly as a result. Sections 4.3 describes
the details on what a routing intermediary does if it determines it
needs to use the location in the SIP request in order to process the
message further.
The practical implication is that when the "routing-allowed"
parameter is set to "no", if a cid:url is present in the SIP
request, intermediaries MUST NOT view the location (because it is
not for intermediaries to view), and if a location URI is present,
intermediaries MUST NOT dereference it. UAs are allowed to view
location in the SIP request even when the "routing-allowed"
parameter is set to "no". An LR MUST by default consider the
"routing-allowed" header parameter as set to "no", with no
exceptions, unless the header field value is set to "yes".
If a routing-allowed parameter is parsed as set to "=yes", an
implementation MUST parse the rest of the SIP headers for another
instance of the Geolocation header value to determine if there is
another instance of the routing-allowed parameter set to "=no". If
this is the case, the behavior MUST be to process the "=no"
indication only, and ignore the "=yes".
This document defines the Geolocation header field as valid in the
following SIP requests:
INVITE [RFC3261], REGISTER [RFC3261],
OPTIONS [RFC3261], BYE [RFC3261],
UPDATE [RFC3311], INFO [RFC2976],
MESSAGE [RFC3428], REFER [RFC3515],
SUBSCRIBE [RFC3265], NOTIFY [RFC3265],
PUBLISH [RFC3903], PRACK [RFC3262]
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
The following table extends the values in Tables 2 and 3 of RFC 3261
[RFC3261].
Header field where proxy INV ACK CAN BYE REG OPT PRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geolocation R ar o - - o o o o
Geolocation 424 r o - - o o o o
Header field where proxy SUB NOT UPD MSG REF INF PUB
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geolocation R ar o o o o o o o
Geolocation 424 r o o o o o o o
Table 1: Summary of the Geolocation Header Field
The Geolocation header field MAY be included in any one of the
optional requests by a UA. A proxy MAY add the Geolocation header
field, but MUST NOT modify any pre-existing locationValue, including
the "routing-allowed" header field value.
A SIP intermediary MAY add a Geolocation header field if one is not
present - for example, when a user agent does not support the
Geolocation mechanism but their outbound proxy does and knows their
location, or any of a number of other use cases (see Section 3).
When adding a Geolocation header, a SIP intermediary MAY supply the
"routing-allowed" parameter if not yet present in the SIP request,
but MUST NOT add a "routing-allowed" parameter if one is already
present in this SIP request.
SIP implementations are advised to pay special attention to the
policy elements for location retransmission and retention described
in RFC 4119.
4.2 424 (Bad Location Information) Response Code
This SIP extension creates a new location-specific response code,
defined as follows,
424 (Bad Location Information)
The 424 (Bad Location Information) response code is a rejection of
the request due to its location contents, indicating location
information that was malformed or not satisfactory for the
recipient's purpose, or could not be dereferenced.
A SIP intermediary can also reject a location it receives from a
Target when it understands the Target to be in a different location.
The proper handling of this scenario, described in Section 3.4, is
for the SIP intermediary to include the proper location in the 424
Response. This SHOULD be included in the response as a MIME message
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
body (i.e., a location value), rather than as a URI; however, in
cases where the intermediary is willing to share location with
recipients but not with a user agent, a reference might be
necessary.
As mentioned in Section 3.4, it might be the case that the
intermediary does not want to chance providing less accurate
location information than the user agent; thus it will compose its
understanding of where the user agent is in a separate <geopriv>
element of the same PIDF-LO message body in the SIP response (which
also contains the Target's version of where it is). Therefore, both
locations are included - each with different <method> elements. The
proper reaction of the user agent is to generate a new SIP request
that includes this composed location object, and send it towards the
original LR. SIP intermediaries can verify that subsequent requests
properly insert the suggested location information before forwarding
said requests.
SIP intermediaries MUST NOT add, modify or delete the location in a
424 response. This specifically applies to intermediaries that are
between the 424 response generator and the original UAC. All
respects of the Geolocation and Geolocation-Error headers and
PIDF-LO(s) MUST remain unchanged, never added to or deleted.
Section 4.3 describes a Geolocation-Error header field to provide
more detail about what was wrong with the location information in
the request. This header field MUST be included in the 424 response.
It is only appropriate to generate a 424 response when the
responding entity needs a locationValue and there are no
locationValues included in the SIP request that are usable by that
recipient, or as shown in Figure 4 of section 3.4. In this scenario,
a SIP intermediary is informing the upstream UA which location to
include in the next SIP request.
A 424 MUST NOT be sent in response to a request that lacks a
Geolocation header entirely, as the user agent in that case may not
support this extension at all. If a SIP intermediary inserted a
locationValue into a SIP request where one was not previously
present, it MUST take any and all responsibility for the corrective
action if it receives a 424 to a SIP request it sent.
A 424 (Bad Location Information) response is a final response within
a transaction, and MUST NOT terminate an existing dialog.
4.3 The Geolocation-Error Header
As discussed in Section 4.2, more granular error notifications
specific to location errors within a received request are required
if the UA is to know what was wrong within the original request.
The Geolocation-Error header field is used for this purpose.
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
The Geolocation-Error header field is used to convey
location-specific errors within a response. The Geolocation-Error
header field has the following ABNF [RFC5234]:
Geolocation-Error = "Geolocation-Error" HCOLON
locationErrorValue
locationErrorValue = location-error-arg
location-error-arg = location-error-code
*(SEMI location-error-params)
location-error-code = 1*3DIGIT
location-error-params = location-error-code-text
/ generic-param ; from RFC3261
location-error-code-text = "code" EQUAL quoted-string ; from RFC3261
The Geolocation-Error header field MUST contain only one
locationErrorValue to indicate what was wrong with the locationValue
the Location Recipient determined was bad. The locationErrorValue
contains a 3-digit error code indicating what was wrong with the
location in the request. Each error code has a corresponding quoted
error text string that is human understandable. This text string is
OPTIONAL, but RECOMMENDED for human readability.
The following table extends the values in Table 2&3 of RFC 3261
[RFC3261].
Header field where proxy INV ACK CAN BYE REG OPT PRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geolocation-Error r ar o - - o o o o
Header field where proxy SUB NOT UPD MSG REF INF PUB
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geolocation-Error r ar o o o o o o o
Table 2: Summary of the Geolocation-Error Header Field
The Geolocation-Error header field MAY be included in any response
to one of the above SIP requests, so long as a Geolocation
locationValue was in the request part of the transaction. For
example, Alice includes her location in an INVITE to Bob. Bob can
accept this INVITE, thus creating a dialog, even though his UA
determined the location contained in the INVITE was bad. Bob merely
includes a Geolocation-Error header value in the 200 OK to the
INVITE informing Alice the INVITE was accepted but the location
provided was bad. The SIP requests included in table 2 above are the
ones allowed to optionally contain the Geolocation header field (see
section 4.1).
If, on the other hand, Bob cannot accept Alice's INVITE without a
suitable location, a 424 (Bad Location Information) is sent. This
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
message flow is shown in Figures 1, 2 or 3 in Section 3.
The following subsections provide an initial list of location
based errors for any SIP non-100 response, including the new 424
(Bad Location Information) response. These error codes are divided
into 4 categories, based on how the response receiver should react
to these errors.
o 1XX errors mean the LR cannot process the location within the
request.
o 2XX errors mean the LR wants the LS to send new or updated
location information, perhaps with a delay associated with when
to send the request.
o 3XX errors mean some specific permission is necessary to process
the included location information.
o 4XX errors mean there was trouble dereferencing the Location URI
sent.
Within these 4 number ranges, there is a top level error as follows:
Geolocation-Error: 100 "Cannot Process Location"
Geolocation-Error: 200 "Retry Location Later with device updated
location"
Geolocation-Error: 300 "Permission To Use Location Information"
Geolocation-Error: 400 "Dereference Failure"
There are two specific Geolocation-Error codes necessary to include
in this document, both have to do with permissions necessary to
process the SIP request; they are
Geolocation-Error: 301 "Permission To Retransmit Location
Information to a Third Party"
This location error is specific to having the Presence Information
Data Format (PIDF-LO) [RFC4119] <retransmission-allowed> element set
to "=no". This location error is stating it requires permission
(i.e., PIDF-LO <retransmission-allowed> element set to "=yes") to
process this SIP request further. If the LS sending the location
information does not want to give this permission, it will not reset
this permission in a new request. If the LS wants this message
processed without this permission reset, it MUST choose another
logical path (if one exists).
Geolocation-Error: 302 "Permission to Route based on Location
Information"
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
This location error is specific to having the locationValue header
parameter <routing-allowed> set to "=no". This location error is
stating it requires permission (i.e., a <routing-allowed> set to
"=yes") to process this SIP request further. If the LS sending the
location information does not want to give this permission, it will
not reset this permission in a new request. If the LS wants this
message processed without this permission reset, it MUST choose
another logical path (if one exists).
4.4 The 'geolocation' Option Tag
This document creates and registers with the IANA one new option
tag: "geolocation". This option tag is to be used, as defined in
[RFC3261], in the Require, Supported and Unsupported header fields.
4.5 Location URIs in Message Bodies
In the case where a location recipient sends a 424 response and
wishes to communicate suitable location by reference rather than by
value, the 424 MUST include a content-indirection body per RFC 4483.
4.6 Location URIs Allowed
The following is part of the discussion started in Section 3, Figure
2, which introduced the concept of sending location indirectly.
If a location URI is included in a SIP request, it SHOULD be a SIP-,
SIPS- or PRES-URI. When PRES: is used, as defined in [RFC3856], if
the resulting resolution resolves to a SIP: or SIPS: URI, this
section applies. These schemes MUST be implemented according to
this document.
See [ID-GEO-FILTERS] for more details on dereferencing location.
An HTTP: [RFC2616] or HTTPS: URI [RFC2818] are also allowed, and
SHOULD be dereferenced according to [ID-HELD-DEREF].
5. Geolocation Examples
5.1 Location-by-value (in Coordinate Format)
This example shows an INVITE message with a coordinate location. In
this example, the SIP request uses a sips-URI [RFC3261], meaning
this message is protected using TLS on a hop-by-hop basis.
INVITE sips:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIPS/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
Max-Forwards: 70
To: Bob <sips:bob@biloxi.example.com>
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
Geolocation: <cid:target123@atlanta.example.com>
;routing-allowed=no
Supported: geolocation
Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml
CSeq: 31862 INVITE
Contact: <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
Content-Length: ...
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/sdp
...SDP goes here
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
Content-ID: <target123@atlanta.example.com>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<presence
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
xmlns:gbp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
entity="pres:alice@atlanta.example.com">
<dm:device id="target123-1">
<gp:geopriv>
<gp:location-info>
<gml:location>
<gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:pos>32.86726 -97.16054</gml:pos>
</gml:Point>
</gml:location>
</gp:location-info>
<gp:usage-rules>
<gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
</gbp:retransmission-allowed>
<gbp:retention-expiry>2010-11-14T20:00:00Z
</gbp:retention-expiry>
</gp:usage-rules>
<gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
</gp:geopriv>
<dm:deviceID>mac:1234567890ab</dm:deviceID>
<dm:timestamp>2010-11-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp>
</dm:device>
</presence>
--boundary1--
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
The Geolocation header field from the above INVITE:
Geolocation: <cid:target123@atlanta.example.com>
... indicates the content-ID location [RFC2392] within the multipart
message body of where location information is. An assumption can be
made that SDP is the other message body part. The "cid:" eases
message body parsing by disambiguating the MIME body that contains
the location information associated with this request.
If the Geolocation header field did not contain a "cid:" scheme, for
example, it could look like this location URI:
Geolocation: <sips:target123@server5.atlanta.example.com>
... the existence of a non-"cid:" scheme indicates this is a
location URI, to be dereferenced to learn the Target's location. Any
node wanting to know where user "target123" is would subscribe to
that user at server5 to dereference the sips-URI (see Figure 3 in
section 3 for this message flow).
5.2 Two Locations Composed in Same Location Object Example
This example shows the INVITE message after a SIP intermediary
rejected the original INVITE (say, the one in section 5.1). This
INVITE contains the composed LO sent by the SIP intermediary which
includes where the intermediary understands Alice to be. The rules
of RFC 5491 [RFC5491] are followed in this construction.
This example is here, but should not be taken as occurring very
often. In fact, this is believed to be a corner case of location
conveyance applicability.
INVITE sips:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIPS/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK74bf0
Max-Forwards: 70
To: Bob <sips:bob@biloxi.example.com>
From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188512@atlanta.example.com
Geolocation: <cid:target123@atlanta.example.com>
;routing-allowed=no
Supported: geolocation
Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml
CSeq: 31863 INVITE
Contact: <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
Content-Length: ...
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/sdp
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
...SDP goes here
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
Content-ID: <target123@atlanta.example.com>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<presence
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
xmlns:gbp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
entity="pres:alice@atlanta.example.com">
<dm:device id="target123-1">
<gp:geopriv>
<gp:location-info>
<gml:location>
<gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:pos>32.86726 -97.16054</gml:pos>
</gml:Point>
</gml:location>
</gp:location-info>
<gp:usage-rules>
<gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
</gbp:retransmission-allowed>
<gbp:retention-expiry>2010-11-14T20:00:00Z
</gbp:retention-expiry>
</gp:usage-rules>
<gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
</gp:geopriv>
<dm:deviceID>mac:1234567890ab</dm:deviceID>
<dm:timestamp>2010-11-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp>
</dm:device>
<dm:person id="target123">
<gp:geopriv>
<gp:location-info>
<cl:civicAddress>
<cl:country>US</cl:country>
<cl:A1>Texas</cl:A1>
<cl:A3>Colleyville</cl:A3>
<cl:RD>Treemont</cl:RD>
<cl:STS>Circle</cl:STS>
<cl:HNO>3913</cl:HNO>
<cl:FLR>1</cl:FLR>
<cl:NAM>Haley's Place</cl:NAM>
<cl:PC>76034</cl:PC>
</cl:civicAddress>
</gp:location-info>
<gp:usage-rules>
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
<gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
</gbp:retransmission-allowed>
<gbp:retention-expiry>2010-11-14T20:00:00Z
</gbp:retention-expiry>
</gp:usage-rules>
<gp:method>triangulation</gp:method>
</gp:geopriv>
<dm:timestamp>2010-11-04T12:28:04Z</dm:timestamp>
</dm:person>
</presence>
--boundary1--
6. Geopriv Privacy Considerations
Location information is considered by most to be highly sensitive
information, requiring protection from eavesdropping and altering in
transit. [RFC3693] originally articulated rules to be followed by
any protocol wishing to be considered a "Using Protocol", specifying
how a transport protocol meets those rules. [ID-GEOPRIV-ARCH]
updates the guidance in RFC3693 to include subsequently-introduced
entities and concepts in the geolocation architecture.
Implementations of this SIP location conveyance mechanism MUST
adhere to the guidance given in RFC3693 and its successors,
including (but not limited to) the handling of rules for retention
and retransmission.
7. Security Considerations
Conveyance of physical location of a UA raises privacy concerns,
and depending on use, there probably will be authentication and
integrity concerns. This document calls for conveyance to
be accomplished through secure mechanisms, like S/MIME encrypting
message bodies (although this is not widely deployed), TLS
protecting the overall signaling or conveyance location by-reference
and requiring all entities that dereference location to authenticate
themselves. In location-based routing cases, encrypting the
location payload with an end-to-end mechanism such as S/MIME is
problematic, because one or more proxies on the path need the
ability to read the location information to retarget the message to
the appropriate new destination UAS. Data can only be encrypted to a
particular, anticipated target, and thus if multiple recipients need
to inspect a piece of data, and those recipients cannot be predicted
by the sender of data, encryption is not a very feasible choice.
Securing the location hop-by-hop, using TLS, protects the message
from eavesdropping and modification in transit, but exposes the
information to all proxies on the path as well as the endpoint. In
most cases, the UA has no trust relationship with the proxy or
proxies providing location-based routing services, so such
end-to-middle solutions might not be appropriate either.
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
When location information is conveyed by reference, however, one can
properly authenticate and authorize each entity that wishes to
inspect location information. This does not require that the sender
of data anticipate who will receive data, and it does permit
multiple entities to receive it securely, but it does not however
obviate the need for pre-association between the sender of data and
any prospective recipients. Obviously, in some contexts this
pre-association cannot be presumed; when it is not, effectively
unauthenticated access to location information must be permitted. In
this case, choosing pseudo-random URIs for location by-reference,
coupled with path encryption like SIPS, can help to ensure that only
entities on the SIP signaling path learn the URI, and thus restores
rough parity with sending location by-value.
Location information is especially sensitive when the identity of
its Target is obvious. Note that there is the ability, according to
[RFC3693] to have an anonymous identity for the Target's location.
This is accomplished by use of an unlinkable pseudonym in the
"entity=" attribute of the <presence> element [RFC4479]. Though,
this can be problematic for routing messages based on location
(covered in the document above). Moreover, anyone fishing for
information would correlate the identity at the SIP layer with that
of the location information referenced by SIP signaling.
When a UA inserts location, the UA sets the policy on whether to
reveal its location along the signaling path - as discussed in
Section 4, as well as flags in the PIDF-LO [RFC4119]. UAC
implementations MUST make such capabilities conditional on explicit
user permission, and MUST alert the user that location is being
conveyed.
This SIP extension offers the default ability to require permission
to view location while the SIP request is in transit. The default
for this is set to "no". There is an error explicitly describing
how an intermediary asks for permission to view the Target's
location, plus a rule stating the user has to be made aware of this
permission request.
There is no end-to-end integrity on any locationValue or
locationErrorValue header field parameter (or middle-to-end if the
value was inserted by a intermediary), so recipients of either
header field need to implicitly trust the header field contents, and
take whatever precautions each entity deems appropriate given this
situation.
8. IANA Considerations
The following are the IANA considerations made by this SIP
extension. Modifications and additions to these registrations
require a standards track RFC (Standards Action).
[Editor's Note: RFC-Editor - within the IANA section, please
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
replace "this doc" with the assigned RFC number,
if this document reaches publication.]
8.1 IANA Registration for the SIP Geolocation Header Field
The SIP Geolocation Header Field is created by this document, with
its definition and rules in Section 4.1 of this document, and should
be added to the IANA sip-parameters registry, in the portion titled
"Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values".
Predefined
Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference
---------------- ------------------- ---------- ---------
Geolocation routing-allowed yes [this doc]
8.2 IANA Registration for New SIP 'geolocation' Option Tag
The SIP option tag "geolocation" is created by this document, with
the definition and rule in Section 4.4 of this document, to be added
to the IANA sip-parameters registry.
8.3 IANA Registration for 424 Response Code
Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e., this document)
Response code: 424 (recommended number to assign)
Default reason phrase: Bad Location Information
This SIP Response code is defined in section 4.2 of this document.
8.4 IANA Registration of New Geolocation-Error Header Field
The SIP Geolocation-error header field is created by this document,
with its definition and rules in Section 4.3 of this document, to be
added to the IANA sip-parameters registry, in the portion titled
"Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values".
Predefined
Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference
----------------- ------------------- ---------- ---------
Geolocation-Error code= yes* [this doc]
* see section 8.5 for the newly created values.
8.5 IANA Registration for the SIP Geolocation-Error Codes
New location specific Geolocation-Error codes are created by this
document, and registered in a new table in the IANA sip-parameters
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
registry. Details of these error codes are in Section 4.3 of this
document.
Geolocation-Error codes
-----------------------
Geolocation-Error codes provide reason for the error discovered by
Location Recipients, categorized by action to be taken by error
recipient.
Code Description Reference
---- --------------------------------------------------- ---------
100 "Cannot Process Location" [this doc]
200 "Retry Location Later with device updated location" [this doc]
300 "Permission To Use Location Information" [this doc]
301 "Permission To Retransmit Location Information to a Third Party"
[this doc]
302 "Permission to Route based on Location Information" [this doc]
400 "Dereference Failure" [this doc]
8.6 IANA Registration of Location URI Schemes
This document directs IANA to create a new set of parameters in a
separate location from SIP and Geopriv, called the "Location
Reference URI" registry, containing the URI scheme, the
Content-Type, and the reference, as follows:
URI Scheme Content-Type Reference
---------- ------------ ---------
SIP: [this doc]
SIPS: [this doc]
PRES: [this doc]
HTTP: [this doc]
HTTPS: [this doc]
Additions to this registry must be defined in a permanent and
readily available specification (this is the "Specification
Required" IANA policy defined in [RFC5226]).
9. Acknowledgements
To Dave Oran for helping to shape this idea.
To Dean Willis for guidance of the effort.
To Allison Mankin, Dick Knight, Hannes Tschofenig, Henning
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
Schulzrinne, James Winterbottom, Jeroen van Bemmel, Jean-Francois
Mule, Jonathan Rosenberg, Keith Drage, Marc Linsner, Martin Thomson,
Mike Hammer, Ted Hardie, Shida Shubert, Umesh Sharma, Richard
Barnes, Dan Wing, Matt Lepinski, John Elwell and Jacqueline Lee for
constructive feedback and nits checking.
Special thanks to Paul Kyzivat for his help with the ABNF in this
document and to Robert Sparks for many helpful comments and the
proper construction of the Geolocation-Error header field.
And finally, to Spencer Dawkins for giving this doc a good scrubbing
to make it more readable.
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[RFC3261] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J.
Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, May 2002.
[RFC4119] J. Peterson, "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC2392] E. Levinson, " Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998
[RFC3856] J. Rosenberg, " A Presence Event Package for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004
[RFC3859] J. Peterson, "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", RFC 3859,
August 2004
[RFC3428] B. Campbell, Ed., J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, C. Huitema,
D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
Instant Messaging" , RFC 3428, December 2002
[RFC3311] J. Rosenberg, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
Method", RFC 3311, October 2002
[RFC3265] Roach, A, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
[RFC3262] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of
Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3262, June 2002.
[RFC2976] S. Donovan, "The SIP INFO Method", RFC 2976, Oct 2000
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
[RFC3515] R. Sparks, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
Method", RFC 3515, April 2003
[RFC3903] Niemi, A, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
for Event State Publication", RFC 3903, October 2004.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5226] T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008
[RFC4479] J. Rosenberg, "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479, July
2006
[RFC3264] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, "The Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol", RFC 3264, June 2002
[RFC4483] E. Berger, "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in SIP", RFC
4483, May 2006
[RFC5491] J. Winterbottom, M. Thomson, H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV PIDF-LO
Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations ",
RFC 5491, March 2009
[RFC5870] A. Mayrhofer, C. Spanring, "A Uniform Resource Identifier
for Geographic Locations ('geo' URI)", RFC 5870, June 2010
[RFC5606] J. Peterson, T. Hardie, J. Morris, "Implications of
'retransmission-allowed' for SIP Location Conveyance",
RFC5606, Oct 2008
[RFC2616] R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J., Mogul, H. Frystyk, L.,
Masinter, P. Leach, T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol - HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999
10.2 Informative References
[RFC3693] J. Cuellar, J. Morris, D. Mulligan, J. Peterson. J. Polk,
"Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004
[RFC2818] E. Rescorla, "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000
[ID-GEO-FILTERS] R. Mahy, B. Rosen, H. Tschofenig, "Filtering Location
Notifications in SIP", draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters, "work
in progress", March 2010
[ID-HELD-DEREF] J. Winterbottom, H. Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne, M.
Thomson, M. Dawson, "A Location Dereferencing Protocol Using
HELD", "work in progress", September 2010
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
[ID-GEO-ARCH] R. Barnes, M. Lepinski, A. Cooper, J, Morris, H.
Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for Location
and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
draft-ietf-geopriv-arch, "work in progress", October 2010
Author Addresses
James Polk
Cisco Systems
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
33.00111N
96.68142W
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Brian Rosen
NeuStar, Inc.
470 Conrad Dr.
Mars, PA 16046
40.70497N
80.01252W
Phone: +1 724 382 1051
Email: br@brianrosen.net
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Appendix A. Requirements for SIP Location Conveyance
The following subsections address the requirements placed on the
UAC, the UAS, as well as SIP proxies when conveying location. If a
requirement is not obvious in intent, a motivational statement is
included below it.
A.1 Requirements for a UAC Conveying Location
UAC-1 The SIP INVITE Method [RFC3261] must support location
conveyance.
UAC-2 The SIP MESSAGE method [RFC3428] must support location
conveyance.
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
UAC-3 SIP Requests within a dialog should support location
conveyance.
UAC-4 Other SIP Requests may support location conveyance.
UAC-5 There must be one, mandatory to implement means of
transmitting location confidentially.
Motivation: to guarantee interoperability.
UAC-6 It must be possible for a UAC to update location conveyed
at any time in a dialog, including during dialog
establishment.
Motivation: if a UAC has moved prior to the establishment of a
dialog between UAs, the UAC must be able to send location
information. If location has been conveyed, and the UA
moves, the UAC must be able to update the location previously
conveyed to other parties.
UAC-7 The privacy and security rules established within [RFC3693]
that would categorize SIP as a 'Using Protocol' must be met.
UAC-8 The PIDF-LO [RFC4119] is a mandatory to implement format for
location conveyance within SIP.
Motivation: interoperability with other IETF location protocols and
Mechanisms.
UAC-9 There must be a mechanism for the UAC to request the UAS send
its location.
UAC-9 has been DEPRECATED by the SIP WG, due to the many
problems this requirement would have caused if implemented.
The solution is for the above UAS to send a new request to
the original UAC with the UAS's location.
UAC-10 There must be a mechanism to differentiate the ability of the
UAC to convey location from the UACs lack of knowledge of its
location
Motivation: Failure to receive location when it is expected can
happen because the UAC does not implement this extension, or
because the UAC implements the extension, but does not know
where the Target is. This may be, for example, due to the
failure of the access network to provide a location
acquisition mechanism the UAC supports. These cases must be
differentiated.
UAC-11 It must be possible to convey location to proxy servers
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet Draft Location Conveyance in SIP Oct 2010
along the path.
Motivation: Location-based routing.
A.2 Requirements for a UAS Receiving Location
The following are the requirements for location conveyance by a UAS:
UAS-1 SIP Responses must support location conveyance.
Just as with UAC-9, UAS-1 has been DEPRECATED by the SIP WG,
due to the many problems this requirement would have caused
if implemented. The solution is for the above UAS to send a
new request to the original UAC with the UAS's location.
UAS-2 There must be a unique 4XX response informing the UAC it did
not provide applicable location information.
In addition, requirements UAC-5, 6, 7 and 8 also apply to the UAS.
A.3 Requirements for SIP Proxies and Intermediaries
The following are the requirements for location conveyance by a SIP
proxies and intermediaries:
Proxy-1 Proxy servers must be capable of adding a Location header
field during processing of SIP requests.
Motivation: Provide network assertion of location
when UACs are unable to do so, or when network assertion is
more reliable than UAC assertion of location
Note: Because UACs connected to SIP signaling networks may have
widely varying access network arrangements, including VPN
tunnels and roaming mechanisms, it may be difficult for a
network to reliably know the location of the endpoint. Proxy
assertion of location is NOT RECOMMENDED unless the SIP
signaling network has reliable knowledge of the actual
location of the Targets.
Proxy-2 There must be a unique 4XX response informing the UAC it
did not provide applicable location information.
Polk, et al. Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 26]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 08:02:58 |