Data-Only Emergency Calls
draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-12
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8876.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Brian Rosen , Henning Schulzrinne , Hannes Tschofenig , Randall Gellens | ||
Last updated | 2016-07-18 | ||
Replaces | draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
IOTDIR Telechat review
(of
-21)
by Gonzalo Salgueiro
Ready w/nits
GENART Last Call review
(of
-18)
by Mohit Sethi
Ready w/issues
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Associated WG milestone |
|
||
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8876 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-12
Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 <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="sensor"> <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:timestamp>2010-11-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp> </dm:device> </presence> --boundary1-- Figure 3: Example Message conveying an Alert to an aggregator This shows the same CAP document sent as a data-only emergency call towards a PSAP. MESSAGE urn:service:sos SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP sip:aggreg.1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776abssa Max-Forwards: 70 From: sip:aggregator@example.com;tag=32336 To: 112 Call-ID: asdf33443a@example.com Route: sip:psap1.example.gov Geolocation: <cid:abcdef@example.com> ;routing-allowed=yes Supported: geolocation Accept: application/pidf+xml,application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 Call-info: cid:abcdef2@domain.com;purpose=EmergencyCallData.cap CSeq: 1 MESSAGE Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1 Content-Length: ... --boundary1 Content-Type: application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml Content-ID: <abcdef2@example.com> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <alert xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:cap:1.1"> <identifier>S-1</identifier> <sender>sip:sensor1@domain.com</sender> <sent>2008-11-19T14:57:00-07:00</sent> <status>Actual</status> <msgType>Alert</msgType> <scope>Private</scope> <incidents>abc1234</incidents> <info> <category>Security</category> <event>BURGLARY</event> <urgency>Expected</urgency> <certainty>Likely</certainty> <severity>Moderate</severity> <senderName>SENSOR 1</senderName> <parameter> <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1</valueName> <value>123</value> </parameter> <parameter> <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2</valueName> <value>TRUE</value> </parameter> </info> </alert> --boundary1 Content-Type: application/pidf+xml Content-ID: <abcdef2@domain.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" Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 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="sensor"> <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:timestamp>2010-11-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp> </dm:device> </presence> --boundary1-- Figure 4: Example Message conveying an Alert to a PSAP 9. Security Considerations This section discusses security considerations when SIP user agents issue emergency alerts utilizing MESSAGE and CAP. Location specific threats are not unique to this document and are discussed in [RFC7378] and [RFC6442]. The ECRIT emergency services architecture [RFC6443] considers classic individual-to-authority emergency calling where the identity of the emergency caller does not play a role at the time of the call establishment itself, i.e., a response to the emergency call does not depend on the identity of the caller. In the case of emergency alerts generated by devices such as sensors, the processing may be different in order to reduce the number of falsely generated emergency alerts. Alerts may get triggered based on certain sensor input that may have been caused by factors other than the actual occurrence of an alert relevant event. For example, a sensor may simply be malfunctioning. For this reason, not all alert messages are directly sent to a PSAP, but rather may be pre-processed by a separate entity, potentially under supervision by a human, to filter Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 alerts and potentially correlate received alerts with others to obtain a larger picture of the ongoing situation. In any case, for alerts initiated by sensors, the identity may play an important role in deciding whether to accept or ignore an incoming alert message. With the scenario shown in Figure 1 it is very likely that only authorized sensor input will be processed. For this reason, it needs to be possible to refuse to accept alert messages from an unknown origin. Two types of information elements can be used for this purpose: 1. SIP itself provides security mechanisms that allow the verification of the originator's identity. These mechanisms can be re-used, such as P-Asserted-Identity [RFC3325] or SIP Identity [RFC4474]. The latter provides a cryptographic assurance while the former relies on a chain of trust model. 2. CAP provides additional security mechanisms and the ability to carry further information about the sender's identity. Section 3.3.2.1 of [cap] specifies the signing algorithms of CAP documents. In addition to the desire to perform identity-based access control, the classic communication security threats need to be considered, including integrity protection to prevent forgery or replay of alert messages in transit. To deal with replay of alerts, a CAP document contains the mandatory <identifier>, <sender>, <sent> elements and an optional <expire> element. Together, these elements make the CAP document unique for a specific sender and provide time restrictions. An entity that has already received a CAP message within the indicated timeframe is able to detect a replayed message and, if the content of that message is unchanged, then no additional security vulnerability is created. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED to make use of SIP security mechanisms, such as SIP Identity [RFC4474], to tie the CAP message to the SIP message. To provide protection of the entire SIP message exchange between neighboring SIP entities, the usage of TLS is MANDATORY. Note that none of the security mechanism in this document protect against a compromised sensor sending crafted alerts. 10. IANA Considerations Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 10.1. Registration of the 'application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml' MIME type To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/ EmergencyCallData.cap+xml MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: cap+xml Required parameters: (none) Optional parameters: charset; Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is UTF-8 [RFC3629]. Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC 3023 [RFC3023], Section 3.2. Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry payloads of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). RFC XXX [Replace by the RFC number of this specification] discusses security considerations for this. Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a way to convey CAP payloads. Published specification: RFC XXX [Replace by the RFC number of this specification]. Applications which use this media type: Applications that convey alerts and warnings according to the CAP standard. Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 Additional information: OASIS has published the Common Alerting Protocol at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ documents.php&wg_abbrev=emergency Person and email address to contact for further information: Hannes Tschofenig, hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net Intended usage: Limited use Author/Change controller: IETF ECRIT working group Other information: This media type is a specialization of application/xml RFC 3023 [RFC3023], and many of the considerations described there also apply to application/cap+xml. 10.2. IANA Registration of 'cap' Additional Data Block This document registers a new block type in the sub-registry called 'Emergency Call Data Types' of the Emergency Call Additional Data Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. The token is "cap", the Data About is "The Call" and the reference is this document. 10.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code In the SIP Response Codes registry, the following is added Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e., this document) Response code: 425 (recommended number to assign) Default reason phrase: Bad Alert Message Registry: Response Code Reference ------------------------------------------ --------- Request Failure 4xx 425 Bad Alert Message [this doc] This SIP Response code is defined in Section 5. Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 10.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field The SIP AlertMsg-error header field is created by this document, with its definition and rules in Section 5, to be added to the IANA Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry with two actions: 1. Update the Header Fields registry with Registry: Header Name compact Reference ----------------- ------- --------- AlertMsg-Error [this doc] 2. In the portion titled "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values", add Predefined Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference ----------------- ------------------- ---------- --------- AlertMsg-Error code yes [this doc] 10.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reasons for an error discovered by a recipient, categorized by the action to be taken by the error recipient. The initial values for this registry are shown below. Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes Reference: [this doc] Registration Procedures: Specification Required Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 Code Default Reason Phrase Reference ---- --------------------------------------------------- --------- 100 "Cannot Process the Alert Payload" [this doc] 101 "Alert Payload was not present or could not be found" [this doc] 102 "Not enough information to determine the purpose of the alert" [this doc] 103 "Alert Payload was corrupted" [this doc] Details of these error codes are in Section 5. 11. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the participants of the Early Warning adhoc meeting at IETF#69 for their feedback. Additionally, we would like to thank the members of the NENA Long Term Direction Working Group for their feedback. Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Thomson, James Winterbottom, Shida Schubert, Bernard Aboba, and Marc Linsner for their review comments. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [cap] Jones, E. and A. Botterell, "Common Alerting Protocol v. 1.1", October 2005. [RFC2392] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 2392, DOI 10.17487/RFC2392, August 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2392>. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 [RFC3428] Campbell, B., Ed., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, DOI 10.17487/RFC3428, December 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3428>. [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC 3023, DOI 10.17487/RFC3023, January 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3023>. [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. [RFC6442] Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442, DOI 10.17487/RFC6442, December 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6442>. [RFC6881] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling", BCP 181, RFC 6881, DOI 10.17487/RFC6881, March 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6881>. [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data] Gellens, R., Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., and J. Winterbottom, "Additional Data Related to an Emergency Call", draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-38 (work in progress), April 2016. 12.2. Informative References [RFC7378] Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, Ed., "Trustworthy Location", RFC 7378, DOI 10.17487/RFC7378, December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7378>. [RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, DOI 10.17487/RFC4474, August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4474>. Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls July 2016 [RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, DOI 10.17487/RFC3325, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3325>. [RFC6443] Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton, "Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia", RFC 6443, DOI 10.17487/RFC6443, December 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6443>. Authors' Addresses Brian Rosen NeuStar, Inc. 470 Conrad Dr Mars, PA 16046 US Email: br@brianrosen.net Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 US Phone: +1 212 939 7004 Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu Hannes Tschofenig ARM Limited Austria Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at Randall Gellens Email: rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org Rosen, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 22]