One document matched: draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-00.txt
Network Working Group James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: April 16th, 2007 Oct 16th, 2006
IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header
Namespace for Local Emergency Communications
draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-00
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 April 16th, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document IANA registers the new Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace Fred&Barney for local
emergency usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP), between
PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first responders and their
organizations.
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Oct 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . .
3. Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . .
3.2 The "Fred&Barney" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . .
3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
This document IANA registers the new Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) [RFC4412] namespace Fred&Barney
for local emergency usage to a public safety answering point (PSAP),
between PSAPs, and between a PSAP and first responders and their
organizations.
As an additional indication for preferential treatment in servers
along the signaling path from a caller to a PSAP, which most
jurisdictions consider to be highly important calls, the Fred&Barney
namespace is created by this document. This type of emergency
calling, i.e. to the PSAP from a person in distress, is a relatively
localized event with respect to where the first responders are in
relation to the caller. This means the caller and the ultimate PSAP
should be relatively near each other, even though the signaling
messages may traverse a VPN back through some corporate network half
a world away, or may go to a centralized facility before being
directed out to a PSAP near the caller. How SIP signaling finds the
appropriate PSAP is out of scope for this document.
The primary or near-term usage for this local emergency namespace
will be for callers to PSAPs. However, there currently is no reason
why the preferentially treated calling between PSAPs, say for a call
transfer, or calls into the first responder network by PSAPs
shouldn't use the same RPH namespace. [RFC4412] advises limiting
the number of namespaces used to as few as possible.
That said, it is not up to the IETF, at this time, to specify or
even identify which priority-values within this Fred&Barney
namespace will be used for what purpose. IETF discussion, in
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Oct 2006
conjunction with other SDOs and jurisdictional feedback could yield
a better answer here in subsequent versions of this document.
[RFC4412] requires a Standards Track RFC for IANA registering new
RPH namespaces.
1.1 Conventions 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].
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header
The rules of usage of the SIP RPH are defined by [RFC4412]. This
document does not extent the usage or treatment options at this
time. However, usage of this namespace does not have a normal call
level. In other words, there is not a "namespace.0" like
namespace.priority-value that Joe Public is going to use in SIP
messages when communicating to another type of entity than a PSAP or
equivalent. Every use of this namespace will be in times of an
emergency.
The Fred&Barney namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified
relative priority order, and is a queue based treatment namespace.
Individual jurisdictions MAY configure their SIP entities for
preemption, but this is optional.
3. Namespace Definition
Obviously, the namespace string "Fred&Barney" is not going to last,
as a simple global replace of this string replaces it with a
consensus based string throughout this document. The idea here is
to get this effort going to decide on an appropriate namespace
string. IETF discussion is expected to finalize the choice of a
more appropriate namespace string.
One thing to keep in mind for now is the fact that this namespace
shouldn't be considered just "EMERGENCY" because there are a lot of
different kinds of emergencies, some on a military scale ([RFC4412]
defines 3 of these), some on a national scale ([RFC4412] defines 2
of these), some on an international scale. These types of
emergencies can also have their own namespaces, and although there
are 5 defined for other uses, more are possible - so the 911/112/999
style of public user emergency calling for police or fire or
ambulance (etc) does not have a monopoly on the word "emergency".
Here are a series of quick initial choices of a namespace to start
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Oct 2006
folks thinking (in which perhaps the acronym could become the
namespace):
Option #1 - Local Emergency Services - acronym "LES" or "LEMS"
Example: Resource-Priority: LES.0
Option #2 - Public Safety Answering Point - acronym "PSAP"
Example: Resource-Priority: PSAP.0
Option #3 - Emergency Services Call - acronym "ESC"
Example: Resource-Priority: ESC.0
Option #4 - Public Emergency Call - acronym "PUC"
Example: Resource-Priority: PUC.0
Option 5# - ECRIT
Example: Resource-Priority: ECRIT.0
Option 6# - SOS
Example: Resource-Priority: sos.0
Option # - - acronym ""
Example: Resource-Priority: .0
We're sure there will be others suggested on the way to consensus of
this namespace.
3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines
This specification defines one unique namespace below: Fred&Barney,
constituting its registration with IANA. This IANA registration
contains the facets defined in Section 9 of [RFC4412]. (once an
appropriate namespace is chosen) For recognizability, we will label
the namespace in capital letters, but note that namespace names are
case insensitive and are customarily rendered as lowercase in
protocol requests.
3.2. The "Fred&Barney" Namespace
The Fred&Barney namespace comes from ...
The Fred&Barney namespace has a finite list of relative
priority-values, listed below from lowest priority to highest
priority:
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Oct 2006
(lowest) Fred&Barney.0
Fred&Barney.1
Fred&Barney.2
Fred&Barney.3
(highest) Fred&Barney.4
The Fred&Barney namespace operates according to the priority queuing
algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]) from the public user to the
PSAP.
NOTE: at this time, there has not been sufficient discussion about
whether or not preemption will be used for communications
between PSAPs or between PSAPs and First responders (and their
organizations).
4. IANA Considerations
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration
Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" of the sip-parameters
section of IANA (created by [RFC4412]), the following entries will
be added to this table:
Intended New warn- New resp.
Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference
--------- ------ -------------- --------- --------- ---------
Fred&Barney 5 queue no no [This doc]
4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations
Within the Resource-Priority Priority-values registry of the
sip-parameters section of IANA, the following (below) is to be added
to the table:
Namespace: Fred&Barney
Reference: (this document)
Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1","2", "3", "4"
5. Security Considerations
The Security considerations that apply to RFC 4412 [RFC4412] apply
here. This document introduces no new security issues relative to
RFC 4412.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn and Fred Baker for help with this
doc.
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Oct 2006
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4411, Feb 2006
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
7.2 Informative References
none
Author's Address
James M. Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
USA
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
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.
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Oct 2006
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 provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Polk Expires April 2007 [Page 7]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:10:32 |