One document matched: draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-04.txt
Differences from draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-03.txt
ECRIT Working Group James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: August 19, 2009 Feb 19, 2009
Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS)
Updates: RFC4412 (if published as an RFC)
IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header
Namespace for Local Emergency Communications
draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-04
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 August 20, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
Abstract
This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" 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 August 19, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header . . . . . . . 3
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 The "esnet" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . 7
4.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 8
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].
1. Introduction
This document creates and IANA registers the new Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority header (RPH) namespace "esnet" for
local emergency usage. The SIP Resource-Priority header is defined
in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. This new namespace within the public safety
answering point (PSAP) network ("ESInet"). This new namespace can
be used for inbound calls to PSAPs, between PSAPs, and between a
PSAP and first responders and their organizations.
Within controlled environments, such as an IMS infrastructure or
Emergency Services network (ESInet), where misuse can be reduced to
a minimum where possible, this namespace is to be to provide an
explicit priority indication facilitates treatment of emergency SIP
messages according to local policy. This indication is used to
differentiate SIP requests, or dialogs, from other requests or
dialogs that do not have the need for priority treatment.
It can also be imagined that Voice Service Providers (VSP) directly
attached to an ESInet can have a trust relationship with the ESInet
such that within these networks, SIP requests (thereby the session
they establish) make use of this "esnet" namespace for appropriate
treatment.
Usage of the "esnet" namespace is to be defined in a future
document(s). This document merely creates the namespace, per the
rules within [RFC4412] necessitating a Standards Track RFC for
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
IANA registering new RPH namespaces and their relative
priority-value order. [RFC4412] further states that modifying the
order or the number of priority-values to a registered namespace
SHOULD NOT occur, due to interoperability issues with dissimilar
implementations.
From this fact about RFC 4412, and the possibility that within
emergency services networks, a Multilevel Precedence and Preemption
(MLPP)-like behavior can be achieved - ensuring more important calls
are established or retained, the "esnet" namespace is given 5
priority-levels. MLPP-like SIP signaling is not defined in this
document for 911/112/999 style emergency calling, but it is not
prevented either.
Within the ESINet, there will be emergency calls requiring different
treatments, according to the type of call. Does a citizen's call to
a PSAP require the same, a higher or a lower relative priority than
a PSAP's call to a police department, or the police chief? What
about either relative to a call from within the ESINet to a
federal government's department of national security, such as the US
Department of Homeland Security? For this reason, the "esnet"
namespace is given multiple priority levels.
This document does not define any of these behaviors, outside of
reminding readers that the rules of RFC 4412 apply - though examples
of usage are included for completeness. This document IANA
registers the "esnet" RPH namespace for use within emergency
services networks, not just of those from citizens to PSAPs.
2. Rules of Usage of the Resource Priority Header
This document updates the behaviors of the SIP Resource Priority
header, defined in [RFC4412], during the treatment options
surrounding this new "esnet" namespace only. The usage of the
"esnet" namespace does not have a normal, or routine call level.
Every use of this namespace will be in times of an emergency, where
at least one end of the signaling is with a local emergency
organization.
The "esnet" namespace has 5 priority-values, in a specified relative
priority order, and is a queue-based treatment namespace [RFC4412].
Individual jurisdictions MAY configure their SIP entities for
preemption treatment, but this is optional, and a local policy
decision.
Conceivably, this could be an example of a generic network diagram
where the "esnet" namespace is used:
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
|<-"esnet" namespace->|
| *WILL* be used |
"esnet" namespace | ,-------.
usage out of scope | ,' `.
|<------------>|<---"esnet" namespace ---->| / \
+----+ | can be used +-----+ | ESINet |
| UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ ------ |
+----+ \ | / +-----+ | |
\ ,-------+ ,-------. | | +------+ |
+----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |PSAP-1| |
| UA |--- / User \ / Service \ | | +------+ |
+----+ ( Network +---+ Network )| | |
\ / \ / | | +------+ |
+----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |PSAP-2| |
| UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ +------+ |
+----+ | +-----+ | |
| | | |
+----+ | +-----+ | +------+ |
| UA |--- | --------------------|Proxy|-+ |PSAP-3| |
+----+ \ | / +-----+ | +------+ |
\ ,-------+ ,-------. | | |
+----+ ,' `. ,' `. | | |
| UA |--- / User \ / Service \ | | +------+ |
+----+ ( Network +---+ Network )| | |PSAP-4| |
\ / \ / | | +------+ |
+----+ /`. ,' `. .+-----+ | |
| UA |---- '-------' '-------' |Proxy|-+ ANY can |
+----+ | +-----+ | xfer/call |
| | \ | | | /
`. | | | ,'
'-|-|-|-'
| | |
Police <--------------+ | |
Fire <----------+ |
Federal Agency <-------+
Figure 1: Where 'esnet' Namespace Can or Will be used
In Figure 1., the "esnet" namespace is intended for usage within the
ESInet on the right side of the diagram. How it is utilized is out
of scope for this document. Adjacent VSPs to the ESInet MAY have a
trust relationship that includes allowing this neighboring VSP to
use the "esnet" namespace to differentiate SIP requests and dialogs
within the VSP network. How this namespace is utilized is out of
scope for this document. Because the more important usage of the
"esnet" namespace occurs within the ESInet, the edge proxy, called
an Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP) can modify or delete this
namespace. This is a normative change to the allowed behavior within
[RFC4412], but MUST only be considered valid in this usage at the
ESInet boundary for this one RP namespace (and associated
priority-value). The exact mapping between the sides of the ESRP at
the ESInet boundary are out of scope of this document.
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
3. "esnet" Namespace Definition
One thing to keep in mind for now is the fact that this namespace
is not to 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".
Therefore, the namespace "esnet" has been chosen, as it is most
recognizable as that of citizen's call for help from a public
authority type of organization. This namespace will also be used
for communications between emergency authorities, and MAY be used
for emergency authorities calling public citizens. An example of
the later is a PSAP operator calling back someone who previously
called 9111/112/999 and the communication was terminated before it
should have been (in the operator's judgment).
Here is an example of a Resource-Priority header using the esnet
namespace:
Resource-Priority: esnet.0
3.1. Namespace Definition Rules and Guidelines
This specification defines one unique namespace for emergency
calling scenarios, "esnet", constituting its registration with IANA.
This IANA registration contains the facets defined in Section 9 of
[RFC4412].
3.2. The "esnet" Namespace
Per the rules of [RFC4412], each namespace has a finite set of
relative priority-value(s), listed (below) from lowest priority to
highest priority. In an attempt to not limit this namespace's use
in the future, more than one priority-value is assigned to the
"esnet" namespace. This document does not RECOMMEND which
priority-value is used where. That is for another document to
specify. This document does RECOMMEND the choice within a national
jurisdiction be coordinated by all sub-jurisdictions to maintain
uniform SIP behavior throughout an emergency calling system.
The relative priority order for the "esnet" namespace is as follows:
(lowest) esnet.0
esnet.1
esnet.2
esnet.3
(highest) esnet.4
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
The "esnet" namespace will be assigned into the priority queuing
algorithm (Section 4.5.2 of [RFC4412]) from the public user to the
PSAP. This does not limit its usage to only the priority queue
algorithm; meaning the preemption algorithm can be used where the
local jurisdiction preferred to preempt normal calls in lieu of
completing emergency calls. This document is not RECOMMENDING this
usage, merely pointing out those behaviors are a matter of local
policy.
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
--------- ------ -------------- --------- --------- ---------
esnet 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: esnet
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.
The implications of using this header-value incorrectly can cause a
large impact on a network - given that this indication is to give
preferential treatment of marked traffic great preference within the
network than other traffic. This document does not indicate this
marking is intended for use by endpoints, yet protections need to be
taken to prevent granting preferential treatment to unauthorized
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP RPH Namespace for Local Emergencies Feb 2009
users not calling for emergency help.
A simple means of preventing this usage is to not allow marked
traffic preferential treatment unless the destination is towards the
local/regional ESInet. 911/112/999 type of calling is fairly local
in nature, with a finite number of URIs that are considered valid.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ken Carlberg, Janet Gunn, Fred Baker and Keith Drage for
help and encouragement with this effort. Thanks to Henning
Schulzrinne, Ted Hardie, Hannes Tschofenig, Brian Rosen and Marc
Linsner for constructive comments.
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4411, Feb 2006
7.2 Informative References
none
Author's Address
James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
USA
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Polk Expires August 19, 2009 [Page 7]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:44:50 |