Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field
draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Winterbottom , Roland Jesske , Bruno Chatras , Andrew Hutton | ||
| Last updated | 2017-02-15 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam, RFC 8787 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-00
SIPCORE J. Winterbottom
Internet-Draft Winterb Consulting Services
Updates: RFC6442 (if approved) R. Jesske
Intended status: Standards Track Deutsche Telekom
Expires: August 19, 2017 B. Chatras
Orange Labs
A. Hutton
Unify
February 15, 2017
Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field
draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-00.txt
Abstract
There are some circumstances where a geolocation header field may
contain more than one location value. Knowing the identity of the
node adding the location value allows the recipient more freedom in
selecting the value to look at first rather than relying solely on
the order of the location values.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Registration of loc-src Parameter for geolocation header
field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
1. Introduction
The SIP geolocation specification [RFC6442] describes a SIP header
field that is used to indicate that the SIP message is conveying
location information. The specification suggests that only one
location value should be conveyed. However, some communications
architectures, such as 3GPP [TS23-167] and ETSI [M493], prefer to use
information provided by edge-proxies or acquired through the use of
core-network nodes, before using information provided solely by user
equipment (UE). These solutions don't preclude the use of UE
provided location but require a means of being able to distinguish
the identity of the node adding the location value to the SIP message
from that provided by the UE. [RFC6442] stipulates that the order of
location values in the geolocation header field aligns with the order
in which they were added to the header field. Whilst this order
provides guidance to the recipient as to which values were added to
the message earlier in the communication chain, it does not provide
any indication of which node actually added the location value.
Knowing the identity of the entity that added the location to the
message allows the recipient to choose which location to consider
first rather than relying solely on the order of the location values
in the geolocation header field.
This document adds a location-source (loc-src) parameter to the
location values in [RFC6442] so that the entity adding the location
value to geolocation header field can identify itself using its
hostname. How the entity adding the location value to the header
field obtains the location information is out of scope of this
document.
2. Terminology
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].
3. Rationale
The primary intent of the parameter defined in this specific is for
use in emergency calling. There are various architectures defined
for providing emergency calling using SIP-based messaging. Each has
it own characteristics with corresponding pros and cons. All of them
allow the UE to provide location information, however, many also
attach other sources of location information to support veracity
checks, provide backup information, or to be used as the primary
location. This document makes no attempt to comment on these various
architectures or the rationale for them wishing to include multiple
location values. It does recognize that these architectures exist
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
and that there is a need to identify the entity adding the location
information.
The parameter defined in this specification adds the location source
generating the location value to increase the trustworthiness of the
location information. Thus it is intended to use this parameter in
trust domains where Spec(T) as described in [RFC3325] exists only.
The functional architecture described within ETSI [M493] is an
example of architecture where this parameter makes sense to be used.
4. Mechanism
The mechanism employed adds a parameter to the location value defined
in [RFC6442] that identifies the hostname of the entity adding the
location value to the geolocation header field. The Augmented BNF
(ABNF) [RFC5234] for this parameter is shown in Figure 1.
location-source = "loc-src=" (host / other-loc-src)
other-loc-src = token
Figure 1: Location Source
Only a fully qualified host name is valid, an IP address MUST NOT be
added by an entity conforming with this specification. If a node
conforming to this specification receives a geolocation header field
with a loc-src parameter containing an IP address then the parameter
MUST be removed.
Any proxy adding a location value to a geolocation header field
SHOULD also add its host name using the loc-src parameter so that it
is clearly identified as the node adding the location. A UE MUST NOT
provide a loc-src parameter value. If a proxy receives a message
from an untrusted source with the loc-src parameter set then it MUST
remove the loc-src parameter before passing the message into a
trusted network.
5. Example
The following example shows a SIP INVITE message containing a
geolocation header field with two location values. The first
location value points to a PIDF-LO in the SIP body using a content-
indirection (cid:) URI per [RFC4483] and this is provided by the UE.
The second location value is an https URI the provided by a proxy
which identifies itself using the loc-src parameter.
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
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>
From: Alice <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
Geolocation: <cid:target123@atlanta.example.com>,
<https://lis.example.com:8222/y77syc7cuecbh>;
loc-src=edgeproxy.example.com
Geolocation-Routing: yes
Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml
CSeq: 31862 INVITE
Contact: <sips:alice@atlanta.example.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
Content-Length: ...
Figure 2: Example Location Request.
6. Privacy Considerations
This document doesn't change any of the privacy considerations
described in [RFC6442]. While the addition of the loc-src parameter
does provide an indicator of the entity that added the location in
the signaling path this provides little more exposure than a proxy
identity being added to the record-route header field.
7. Security Considerations
This document introduces the ability of a proxy or middle box to
insert a host name indicating the that they added the specific
location value to the geolocation header field. The intent is for
this field to be used by the location recipient in the event that the
SIP message contains multiple location values. As a consequence this
parameter should only be used by the location recipient in a trusted
network.
The use of this parameter is not restricted to a specific
architecture but using multiples locations and loc-src may end in
compatibility issues. [RFC6442] already addresses the issue of
multiples locations. To avoid problems of wrong interpretation of
loc-src the value may be discarded when passed to an other domain.
8. IANA Considerations
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
8.1. Registration of loc-src Parameter for geolocation header field
This document calls for IANA to register a new SIP header parameter
as per the guidelines in [RFC3261], which will be added to header
sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.
Header Field: geolocation
Parameter Name: loc-src
9. Acknowledgements
NONE
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
10.2. Informative References
[M493] European Telecommunications Standards Institute,
"Functional architecture to support European requirements
on emergency caller location determination and transport",
ES 203 178, V 1.1.1, Februar 2015.
[RFC4483] Burger, E., Ed., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4483, May 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4483>.
[TS23-167]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3rd Generation
Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
Services and System Aspects; IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)
emergency sessions", TS 23.167, V 12.1.0, March 2015.
Authors' Addresses
James Winterbottom
Winterb Consulting Services
Gwynneville, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 448 266004
Email: a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com
Roland Jesske
Deutsche Telekom
Heinrich-Hertz Str, 3-7
Darmstadt 64295
Germany
Email: r.jesske@telekom.de
URI: www.telekom.de
Bruno Chatras
Orange Labs
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy Moulineaux Cedex 9 F-92794
France
Email: bruno.chatras@orange.com
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Location Parameter February 2017
Andrew Hutton
Unify
Technology Drive
Nottingham NG9 1LA
UK
Email: andrew.hutton@unify.com
Winterbottom, et al. Expires August 19, 2017 [Page 8]