Technical Summary
After an emergency call is completed (either prematurely terminated by the
emergency caller or normally by the call taker) it is possible that the call
taker feels the need for further communication. For example, the call may have
been dropped by accident without the call taker having sufficient information
about the current situation of a wounded person. A call taker may trigger a
callback towards the emergency caller using the contact information provided
with the initial emergency call. This callback could, under certain
circumstances, be treated like any other call and as a consequence it may get
blocked by authorization policies or may get forwarded to an answering machine.
The IETF emergency services architecture specification already offers a
solution approach for allowing PSAP callbacks to bypass authorization policies
to reach the caller without unnecessary delays. Unfortunately, the specified
mechanism only supports limited scenarios. This document discusses shortcomings
of the current mechanisms and illustrates additional scenarios where
better-than-normal call treatment behavior would be desirable. A solution based
on a new header field value, called "psap-callback", for the SIP Priority
header field is specified to accomplish the PSAP callback marking.
Working Group Summary
This document represents strong work group consensus and group participation in
having worked out the details of the mechanism described. There were no
significant controversies that were not overcome during the development stage.
A successful document development history is documented in the email list
archive.
Document Quality
No existing implementations are known to exist. Several vendors have shown
interest, and have also been involved in the development and review of the
document.
Personnel
Document shepherd: Roger Marshall (ECRIT co-chair)
Responsible Area Director: Richard Barnes (RAI AD)
Write-up as follows:
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
Careful review by the document shepherd following WGLC. Several nits were found
and author was asked to resubmit the document, which has been done.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
None noted.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
None that I'm aware of.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is strong work group consensus to move this document forward to RFC
status.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
None that are impacting. There are 1 instance of lines with
non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no MIB, media, or new URI types referenced to in this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
One listed: draft-tschofenig-ecrit-xmpp-es-00 (expired)
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No referenced RFCs will change in status due to publication of this document.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
All IANA registry requirements have been met.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
None.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
None applied.