ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Expires: September 7, 2006 R. Marshall, Ed.
TCS
March 6, 2006
Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet
Technologies
draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-06.txt
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 September 7, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document enumerates requirements for the context resolution of
emergency calls placed by the public using voice-over-IP (VoIP) and
general Internet multimedia systems, where Internet protocols are
used end-to-end.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Basic Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. High-Level Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Identifying the Caller's Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Emergency Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Mapping Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
1. Introduction
Users of both voice-centric (telephone-like) and non voice type
services (e.g., text communication for hearing disabled users (RFC
3351 [8]) have an expectation to be able to initiate a request for
help in case of an emergency.
Unfortunately, the existing mechanisms to support emergency calls
that have evolved within the public circuit-switched telephone
network (PSTN) are not appropriate to handle evolving IP-based voice,
text and real-time multimedia communications. This document outlines
the key requirements that IP-based end systems and network elements,
such as SIP proxies, need to satisfy in order to provide emergency
call services, which at a minimum, offer the same functionality as
existing PSTN services, with the additional overall goal of making
emergency calling more robust, less costly to implement, and
multimedia-capable.
This document only focuses on end-to-end IP-based calls, i.e., where
the emergency call originates from an IP end system and terminates
into an IP-capable PSAP, conveyed entirely over an IP network.
This document outlines the various functional issues which relate to
placing an IP-based emergency call, including a description of
baseline requirements (Section 4), identification of the emergency
caller's location (Section 5), use of an emergency identifier to
declare a call to be an emergency call (Section 6), and finally, the
mapping function required to route the call to the appropriate PSAP
(Section 7).
Ideally, the mapping protocol would yield a URI from a preferred set
of URIs (e.g., SIP:URI, SIPS:URI) which would allow an emergency call
to be completed using IP end-to-end. Despite this goal, some PSAPs
may not immediately have IP based connectivity, and therefore it is
imperative that the URI scheme not be fixed, in order to ensure
support for a less preferred set of URIs, such as a TEL URI which may
be used to complete a call via the PSTN.
Identification of the caller, while not incompatible with the
requirements for messaging outlined within this document, is
considered to be outside the scope of the ECRIT charter.
Location is required for two separate purposes, first, to route the
call to the appropriate PSAP and second, to display the caller's
location to the call taker for help in dispatching emergency
assistance to the correct location.
As used in this document, validation of location does not require to
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
ascertain whether the location actually exists. For example,
validation might only check that the house number in a civic address
falls within the assigned range, not whether that building exists at
that spot. However, such higher precision validation is desirable.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Since a requirements document does not directly specify a protocol to
implement, these compliance labels should be read as indicating
requirements for the protocol or architecture, rather than an
implementation.
Codes: "caller" or "emergency caller" refers to the person placing an
emergency call or sending an emergency instant message (IM).
Application Service Provider (ASP): The organization or entity that
provides application-layer services, which may include voice (see
"Voice Service Provider"). This entity can be a private
individual, an enterprise, a government, or a service provider.
An ASP is more general than a Voice Service Provider, since
emergency calls may use other media beyond voice, including text
and video. For a particular user, the ASP may or may not be the
same organization as his IAP or ISP.
Basic Emergency Service: Basic Emergency Service allows a user to
reach a PSAP serving its current location, but the PSAP may not be
able to determine the identity or geographic location of the
caller, except by having the call taker ask the caller.
Call taker: A call taker is an agent at the PSAP that accepts calls
and may dispatch emergency help. Sometimes the functions of call
taking and dispatching are handled by different groups of people,
but these divisions of labor are not generally visible to the
outside and thus do not concern us here.
Civic location: A described location based on some defined grid, such
as a jurisdictional, postal, metropolitan, or rural reference
system, (e.g., street address).
Emergency address: The URI (e.g., SIP:URI, SIPS:URI, XMPP:URI, IM:
URI, etc.) which represents the address of the PSAP useful for the
completion of an emergency call.
Emergency call routing support: An intermediary function which
assists in the routing of an emergency call via IP. An ESRP, is
an example of an Emergency call routing support entity.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Emergency caller: The user or user device entity which sends his/her
location to another entity in the network.
Emergency identifier: The numerical and/or text identifier which is
supplied by a user or a user device, which identifies the call as
an emergency call. A universal emergency identifier is an example
of an emergency identifier.
Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP): An ESRP is an emergency call
routing support entity that invokes the location-to-URI mapping,
to return either the URI for the appropriate PSAP, or the URL for
another ESRP. (In a SIP system, the ESRP would typically be a SIP
proxy, but may also be a Back-to-back user agent (B2BUA).
Enhanced emergency service: Enhanced emergency services add the
ability to identify the caller's identity or location to basic
emergency services. (Sometimes, only the caller location may be
known, e.g., when a call is placed from a public access point that
is not owned by an individual.)
Geographic location: A reference to a locatable point described by a
set of defined coordinates within a geographic coordinate system,
(e.g., lat/lon within the WGS-84 datum). For example, (2-D)
geographic location is defined as an x,y coordinate value pair
according to the distance North or South of the equator and East
or West of the prime meridian.
Home emergency dial string: A home emergency dial string represents a
(e.g., dialed) sequence of digits, that is used to initiate an
emergency call within a geographically correct location of a
caller if it is considered to be a user's "home" location or
vicinity.
Internet Attachment Provider (IAP): An organization that provides
physical and layer 2 network connectivity to its customers or
users, e.g., through digital subscriber lines, cable TV plants,
Ethernet, leased lines or radio frequencies. Examples of such
organizations include telecommunication carriers, municipal
utilities, larger enterprises with their own network
infrastructure, and government organizations such as the military.
Internet Service Provider (ISP): An organization that provides IP
network-layer services to its customers or users. This entity may
or may not provide the physical-layer and layer-2 connectivity,
such as fiber or Ethernet, i.e., it may or may not be the role of
an IAP.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Location: A geographic identification assigned to a region or feature
based on a specific coordinate system, or by other precise
information such as a street number and name. It can be either a
civic or geographic location.
Location-dependent emergency dial string: Location-dependent
emergency dial strings should be thought of as the digit sequence
that is dialed in order to reach emergency services. There are
two dial strings, namely either a "home emergency dial string", or
a "visited emergency dial string", and is something separate from
a universal emergency identifier, since each represents specific
emergency dial string key sequences which are recognized within a
local geographic area or jurisdiction.
Location validation: A caller location is considered valid if the
civic or geographic location is recognizable within an acceptable
location reference systems (e.g., USPS, WGS-84, etc.), and can be
mapped to one or more PSAPs. While it is desirable to determine
that a location exists, validation may not ensure that such a
location exists. Location validation ensures that a location is
able to be referenced for mapping, but makes no assumption about
the association between the caller and the caller's location.
Mapping: Process of resolving a location to a URI (or multiple URIs)
which identify a PSAP, or intermediary which knows about a PSAP
that is designated as responsible to serve that location.
Mapping client: A mapping client interacts with the Mapping Server to
learn one or more URIs for a given location.
Mapping protocol: A protocol used to convey the mapping request and
response.
Mapping server: The Mapping Server holds information about the
location-to-URI mappings.
Mapping service: A network service which uses a distributed mapping
protocol, to perform a mapping between a location and a PSAP, or
intermediary which knows about the PSAP, and is used to assist in
routing an emergency call.
PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point): Physical location where
emergency calls are received under the responsibility of a public
authority. (This terminology is used by both ETSI, in ETSI SR 002
180, and NENA.) In the United Kingdom, PSAPs are called Operator
Assistance Centres, in New Zealand, Communications Centres.
Within this document, it is assumed, unless stated otherwise, that
PSAP is that which supports the receipt of emergency calls over
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
IP. It is also assumed that the PSAP is reachable by IP-based
protocols, such as SIP for call signaling and RTP for media.
PSAP URI: PSAP URI is a general term, used to refer to the output of
the mapping protocol, and represents either the actual PSAP IP
address, or the IP address of some other intermediary, e.g., an
ESRP, which points to the actual PSAP.
Universal emergency identifier: An emergency identifier which is
recognized by any compatible endpoint, from any geographic
location. A general approach to using universal emergency
identifiers is outlined in the service URN draft (I-D.ietf-ecrit-
service-urn [5]).
Visited emergency dial string: A visited emergency dial string
represents a sequence of digits that is used to initiate an
emergency call within a geographically correct location of the
caller if outside the caller's "home" location or vicinity.
Voice Service Provider (VSP): A specific type of Application Service
Provider which provides voice related services based on IP, such
as call routing, a SIP URI, or PSTN termination.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
3. Basic Actors
In order to support emergency services covering a large physical
area, various infrastructure elements are necessary, including:
Internet Attachment Providers (IAPs), Application/Voice Service
Providers (ASPs or VSPs), PSAPs as endpoints for emergency calls,
mapping services or other infrastructure elements that assist during
the call routing.
This section outlines which entities will be considered in the
routing scenarios discussed.
Location
Information +-----------------+
|(1) |Internet | +-----------+
v |Attachment | | |
+-----------+ |Provider | | Mapping |
| | | (3) | | Service |
| Emergency |<---+-----------------+-->| |
| Caller | | (2) | +-----------+
| |<---+-------+ | ^
+-----------+ | +----|---------+------+ |
^ | | Location | | |
| | | Information<-+ | |
| +--+--------------+ |(5) | | (6)
| | | | |
| | +-----------v+ | |
| (4) | |Emergency | | |
+--------------+--->|Call Routing|<--+---+
| | |Support | |
| | +------------+ |
| | ^ |
| | (7) | | +----+--+
| (8) | +------------>| |
+--------------+----------------------->| PSAP |
| | | |
|Application/ | +----+--+
|Voice |
|Service |
|Provider |
+---------------------+
Figure 1: Framework for emergency call routing
Figure 1 shows the interaction between the entities involved in the
call. There are a number of different deployment choices, as can be
easily seen from the figure.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
o How is location information provided to the end host? It might
either be known to the end host itself via manual configuration,
provided via GPS, or obtained via a third party method. Even if
location information is known to the network it might be made
available to the end host via DHCP (RFC 3825 [2]) or some other
mechanism. Alternatively, location information is used as part of
call routing and inserted by intermediaries.
o Is the Internet Attachment Provider also the Application/Voice
Service Provider? In the Internet today these roles are typically
provided by different entities. As a consequence, the Application/
Voice Service Provider is typically not able to learn the physical
location of the emergency caller.
The overlapping squares in the figure indicate that some functions
can be collapsed into a single entity. As an example, the
Application/Voice Service Provider might be the same entity as the
Internet Attachment Provider. There is, however, no requirement that
this must be the case. Additionally, we consider that end systems
might act as their own VSP, e.g., either for enterprises or for
residential users.
Various potential interactions between the entities depicted in
Figure 1, are described in the following:
(1) Location information might be available to the end host itself.
(2) Location information might, however, also be obtained from the
Internet Attachment Provider (e.g., using DHCP or application layer
signaling protocols).
(3) The emergency caller might need to consult a mapping service to
determine the PSAP that is appropriate for the physical location of
the emergency caller, possibly considering other attributes such as
appropriate language support by the emergency call taker.
(4) The emergency caller might get assistance for emergency call
routing by infrastructure elements that are Emergency Call Routing
Support entities, e.g., an Emergency Service Routing Proxy (ESRP), in
SIP).
(5) Location Information is used by emergency call routing entities
to determine the appropriate PSAP.
(6) Individual emergency call routing support entities might need to
consult a mapping service to determine where to route the emergency
call.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
(7) For infrastructure-based emergency call routing (in contrast to
UE-based emergency call routing), the emergency call routing support
entity needs to forward the call to the PSAP.
(8) The emergency caller (UE) may interact directly with the PSAP
(e.g., UE invokes mapping, and initiates a connection), without
relying on any intermediary emergency call routing support entities.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
4. High-Level Requirements
Below, we summarize high-level architectural requirements that guide
some of the component requirements detailed later in the document.
Re1. Application/Voice service provider: The existence of an
Application/Voice Service Provider (ASP/VSP) SHOULD NOT be
assumed.
Motivation: The caller may not have an application/voice service
provider. For example, a residence may have its own DNS domain
and run its own SIP proxy server for that domain. On a larger
scale, a university might provide voice services to its students
and staff, but not be a telecommunication provider.
Re2. International: Regional, political and organizational aspects
MUST be considered during the design of protocols and protocol
extensions.
Motivation: It must be possible for a device or software developed
or purchased in one country to place emergency calls in another
country. System components should not be biased towards a
particular set of emergency numbers or languages. Also, different
countries have evolved different ways of organizing emergency
services, e.g., either centralizing them or having smaller
regional subdivisions such as United States counties or
municipalities handle emergency calls.
Re3. Distributed administration: Deployment of emergency services
MUST NOT depend on a sole central administration authority.
Motivation: Once common standards are established, it must be
possible to deploy and administer emergency calling features on a
regional or national basis without requiring coordination with
other regions or nations. The system cannot assume, for example,
that there is a single global entity issuing certificates for
PSAPs, ASPs, IAPs or other participants.
Re4. Multiple modes: Multiple communication modes, such as audio,
video and text MUST be supported (i.e., implemented in the
protocol, though not necessarily used in all calls).
Motivation: In PSTN, voice and text telephony (often called TTY or
textphone in North America) are the only commonly supported media.
Emergency calling must support a variety of media. Such media
should include voice, conversational text (RFC 4103 [10]), instant
messaging and video.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Re5. Alternate mapping sources: The mapping protocol MUST implement
a mechanism that allows for the retrieval of mapping information
from different sources.
Motivation: This provides the possibility of having available
alternative sources of mapping information when the normal source
is unavailable or unreachable.
Re6. Differences of currency in mapping sources: For alternate
mapping, differences in currency between mapping data contained
within mapping sources SHOULD be minimized.
Motivation: Alternative sources of mapping data may not have been
created or updated with the same set of information within the
same timeframe.
Re7. Mapping result usability: The ECRIT mapping protocol MUST
return a URI (or URIs) that are usable within a standard signaling
protocol (i.e., without special emergency extensions).
Motivation: For example, a SIP specific URI returned by the
mapping protocol, needs to be usable within any SIP capable phone
in a SIP initiated emergency call. This is in contrast to a
"special purpose" URI, which may not be recognizable by a legacy
SIP device.
Re8. PSAP accessibility: The mapping information MUST be available
without having to enroll with a service provider.
Motivation: The mapping server may well be operated by a service
provider, but access to the server offering the mapping must not
require use of a specific ISP or VSP.
Re9. No modification of location databases: The mapping protocol
SHOULD NOT require that data within location databases be
transformed or modified in any unusual or unreasonable way in
order for the mapping protocol to use the data.
Motivation: Databases which contain civic addresses used within
location servers, may be used for multiple purposes and
applications beyond emergency service mapping.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
5. Identifying the Caller's Location
Location can either be provided direct, or by reference, and
represents either a civic location, or as a geographic location. How
does the location (or location reference) become associated with the
call? In general, we can distinguish three modes of operation of how
a location is associated with an emergency call:
UA-inserted: The caller's user agent inserts the location information
into the call signaling message. The location information is
derived from sources such as GPS, DHCP (RFC 3825 [2]) and
I-D.ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil [7]) or utilizing the Link Layer
Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [see IEEE8021AB].
UA-referenced: The caller's user agent provides a pointer (i.e., a
location reference), via a permanent or temporary identifier, to
the location which is stored by a location service somewhere else
and then retrieved by the PSAP, ESRP, or other authorized service
entity.
Proxy-inserted: A proxy along the call path inserts the location or
location reference.
Lo1. Reference datum: The mapping server MUST implement support for
the WGS-84 coordinate reference system and MAY support other
coordinate reference systems.
Lo2. Location provided: An Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP)
MUST NOT remove location information after performing location
based routing.
Motivation: The ESRP and the PSAP use the same location
information object, but for a different purpose. Therefore, the
PSAP still needs to receive the caller's location.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
6. Emergency Identifier
Id1. Universal emergency identifier setup: One or more universal
emergency identifiers MUST be recognized by any device or network
element for call setup purposes.
Motivation: There must be some way for any device or element to
recognize an emergency call throughout the call setup. This is
regardless of the device location, the application/voice service
provider used. An example of this might be "urn:service:sos".
Id2. Emergency identifier resolution: Where multiple emergency
identifiers exist, there MUST be a mechanism to differentiate each
emergency identifier used, based on the specific type of emergency
help requested.
Motivation: Some jurisdictions may have multiple types of
emergency services available, (e.g., fire, police, ambulance), in
which case, it is important that any one could be selected
directly.
Id3. Emergency identifier marking: Any device in the signaling path
that recognizes by some means that the signaling is associated
with an emergency call MUST add a specific emergency indication,
if it doesn't already exist, to the signaling before forwarding
it. This marking mechanism must be different than QoS marking.
Motivation: Marking ensures proper handling as an emergency call
by downstream elements that may not recognize, for example, a
local variant of a logical emergency address.
Id4. Prevention of fraud: A call MUST be routed to a PSAP if it is
identified as an emergency call.
Motivation: This prevents use of the emergency call indication to
gain access to call features or authentication override for non-
emergency purposes.
Id5. Extensibility of emergency identifiers: The list of defined
emergency identifiers MUST be extensible, and it is not necessary
to provide mapping for every possible service.
Motivation: The use of an emergency identifier is locally
determined.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Id6. Discovery of emergency dial strings: The protocol MUST support
a mechanism to discover existing location-dependent emergency dial
strings, (e.g., "9-1-1", "1-1-2"), which are contextually
appropriate for the location of the caller.
Motivation: Users are trained to dial the appropriate emergency
dial string to reach emergency services. There needs to be a way
to figure out what the dial string is within the local environment
of the caller.
Id7. Local emergency dial string translation: An end device (i.e.,
SIP UA), SHOULD translate home emergency dial strings into
universal emergency identifiers. The UA would most likely be pre-
provisioned with the appropriate information in order to make such
a translation.
Id8. Emergency dial string replacement: For each signaling protocol
that can be used in an emergency call, reserved universal
emergency identifiers SHOULD be allowed to replace the original
emergency dial strings, based on local conventions, regulations,
or preference (e.g., as in the case of an enterprise).
Motivation: Any signaling protocol requires the use of some
identifier to indicate the called party, and the user terminal may
lack the capability to determine the actual emergency address
(PSAP URI). The use of local conventions may be required as a
transition mechanism. Note: Such use complicates international
movement of the user terminal, and evolution to a standardized
universal emergency identifier or set of identifiers is preferred.
Id9. Universal emergency identifier recognition: A universal
emergency identifier MUST be recognized by any network element
which supports the mapping protocol.
Id10. Emergency identifier not recognized: A call MUST be recognized
as an emergency call even if the specific emergency service
requested is not recognized.
Motivation: In order to have a robust system that supports
incremental service deployment while still maintaining a fallback
capability.
Id11. Discovery of visited emergency dial strings: The mapping
protocol MUST support (i.e., implement, though not necessarily
use) a mechanism to allow the end device to learn visited
emergency dial strings.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Motivation: Scenarios exist where a user dials a visited emergency
dial string that is different from the home emergency dial string:
If a user (i.e., UA operator) visits a foreign country, observes a
fire truck with 999 on the side, the expectation is one of being
able to dial that same number to summon a fire truck. Another use
case cited is where a tourist collapses, and a "good Samaritan"
uses the tourist's cell phone to enter a local emergency dial
string.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
7. Mapping Protocol
Given the requirement from the previous section, one of having a
universal emergency identifier that is independent of the caller's
location, and since each PSAP only serves a limited geographic
region, and for reasons of jurisdictional and local knowledge, having
the call reach the appropriate PSAP based on a mapping protocol is
crucial.
There are two basic approaches to invoking a mapping service. We
refer to these as caller-based and mediated. In each case, the
mapping client initiates a request to a mapping server via a mapping
protocol. A proposed mapping protocol is outlined in the document
I-D.hardie-ecrit-lost [6].
For caller-based resolution, the caller's user agent invokes a
mapping service to determine the appropriate PSAP based on the
location provided. The resolution may take place well before the
actual emergency call is placed, or at the time of the call.
For mediated resolution, a call signaling server, such as a SIP
(outbound) proxy or redirect server invokes the mapping service.
Since servers may be used as outbound proxy servers by clients that
are not in the same geographic area as the proxy server, any proxy
server has to be able to translate any caller location to the
appropriate PSAP. (A traveler may, for example, accidentally or
intentionally configure its home proxy server as its outbound proxy
server, even while far away from home.)
Ma1. Appropriate PSAP: Calls MUST be routed to the PSAP responsible
for a particular geographic area. In particular, the location
determination should not be fooled by the location of IP telephony
gateways or dial-in lines into a corporate LAN (and dispatch
emergency help to the gateway or campus, rather than the caller),
multi-site LANs and similar arrangements.
Motivation: Routing to the wrong PSAP will result in delays in
handling emergencies as calls are redirected, and result in
inefficient use of PSAP resources at the initial point of contact.
Ma2. Minimal additional delay: The execution of the mapping protocol
SHOULD minimize the amount of additional delay to the overall
call-setup time.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Motivation: Since outbound proxies will likely be asked to resolve
the same geographic coordinates repeatedly, a suitable time-
limited caching mechanism should be supported.
Ma3. Referral: The mapping protocol MUST support (i.e., Implement
for use), a mechanism for the mapping client to be able to contact
any mapping server and be referred to another server that is more
qualified to answer the query.
Motivation: This requirement alleviates the potential for
incorrect configurations to cause calls to fail, particularly for
caller-based queries.
Ma4. Multiple response URIs: The mapping protocol response MUST
support the inclusion of multiple URIs in the response.
Ma5. URI alternate contact: The mapping protocol MUST support the
return of a URI or contact method explicitly marked as an
alternate contact.
Motivation: In response to a mapping request, the mapping server
may return an alternate URI. Implementation details to be
described within an operational document.
Ma6. URL properties: The mapping protocol MUST support the ability
to provide additional information that allows the mapping client
to determine relevant properties of the URL.
Motivation: In some cases, the same geographic area is served by
several PSAPs, for example, a corporate campus might be served by
both a corporate security department and the municipal PSAP. The
mapping protocol should then return URLs for both, with
information allowing the querying entity to choose one or the
other. This determination could be made by either an ESRP, based
on local policy, or by direct user choice, in the case of caller-
based methods.
Ma7. Traceable resolution: The mapping protocol SHOULD support the
ability of the mapping client to be able to determine the entity
or entities which provided the emergency address resolution
information.
Motivation: It is important for public safety reasons, that there
is a method to provide operational traceability in case of errors.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Ma8. URI for error reporting: The mapping protocol MUST support
(i.e., implement for use) a mechanism to return a URI that can be
used to report a suspected or known error within the mapping
database.
Ma9. Resilience against failure: The mapping protocol MUST support
(i.e., implement for use) a mechanism to enable the mapping client
to be able to fail over to another replica of the mapping server,
so that a failure of a server does not endanger the ability to
perform the mapping.
Ma10. Incrementally deployable: The mapping protocol MUST be
designed in such a way that supports the incremental deployment of
mapping services.
Motivation: It must not be necessary, for example, to have a
global street level database before deploying the system. It is
acceptable to have some misrouting of calls when the database does
not (yet) contain accurate PSAP service area information.
Ma11. Mapping requested from anywhere: The mapping protocol MUST
support (i.e., implement, though not necessarily use) the ability
to provide mapping information in response to queries from any
(earthly) location, regardless of where the mapping client is
located, either geographically or by network location.
Motivation: The mapping client, such as an ESRP, may not
necessarily be anywhere close to the caller or the appropriate
PSAP, but must still be able to obtain a mapping.
Ma12. Extensible protocol: The mapping protocol MUST be designed to
support the extensibility of location data elements, both for new
and existing fields.
Motivation: This is needed, for example, to accommodate future
extensions to location information that might be included in the
PIDF-LO (RFC 4119 [3]).
Ma13. Split responsibility: The mapping protocol MUST support (i.e.,
implement for use) the division of data subset handling between
multiple mapping servers within a single level of a civic location
hierarchy.
Motivation: For example, two mapping servers for the same city or
county may handle different streets within that city or county.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Ma14. Any time mapping: The mapping protocol MUST support (i.e.,
implement for use) the ability of the mapping function to be
invoked at any time, including while an emergency call is in
process and before an emergency call.
Motivation: Used as a fallback mechanism only, if a mapping query
fails at emergency call time, it may be advantageous to have prior
knowledge of the PSAP URI. This prior knowledge would be obtained
by performing a mapping query at any time prior to an emergency
call.
Ma15. Baseline query protocol: A mandatory-to-implement protocol
MUST be specified.
Motivation: An over-abundance of similarly-capable choices appears
undesirable for interoperability.
Ma16. Multiple PSAP URIs: The mapping protocol MUST support (i.e.,
implement, though not necessarily use), a method to be able to
return multiple URIs for different PSAPs that cover the same area.
Ma17. Single URI per contact protocol: Though the mapping protocol
supports the return of multiple URIs, it SHOULD return only one
URI per contact protocol, so that clients are not required to
select among different targets for the same contact protocol.
Motivation: There may be two or more URIs returned when multiple
contact protocols are available (e.g., SIP and SMS). The client
may select among multiple contact protocols based on its
capabilities, preference settings, or availability.
Ma18. Anonymous mapping: The mapping protocol MUST NOT require the
true identity of the target for which the location information is
attributed. Ideally, no identity information is provided via the
mapping protocol. Where identity information is provided, it may
be in the form of an unlinked pseudonym (RFC 3693 [9]).
Ma19. Location delivery by-value: The mapping protocol MUST support
(i.e., implement, though not necessarily use) the delivery of
location information using a by-value method, though it MAY also
support de-referencing a URL that references a location object.
Motivation: The mapping protocol is not required to support the
ability to de-reference specific location references.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Ma20. Alternate community names: The mapping protocol MUST support
both the jurisdictional community name and the postal community
name fields within the PIDF-LO data.
Motivation: A mapping query must be accepted with either or both
community name fields, and provide appropriate responses. If a
mapping query is made with only one field present, and if the
database contains both jurisdictional and postal, the mapping
protocol response should return both.
Ma21. Ubiquitous triggering: The mapping protocol MUST implement,
but not necessarily use, the ability to be invoked at any time,
from any location, by any client which supports the mapping
protocol.
Motivation: While end devices are the typical initiators of
mapping service requests, it is also expected that other mapping
clients, such as relays, 3rd party devices, PSAPs, etc. may also
trigger a mapping request.
Ma22. Validation of civic location: The mapping protocol MUST
implement a method via a mapping request, that makes it possible
for a mapping server to validate a civic location prior to that
location's use in an actual emergency call.
Motivation: Location validation provides an opportunity to help
assure ahead of time, whether successful mapping to the
appropriate PSAP will likely occur when it is required.
Validation may also help to avoid delays during emergency call
setup due to invalid locations.
Ma23. Validation resolution: The mapping protocol MUST support
(i.e., required to implement, but not required for use) the return
of additional information which can be used to determine the
precision or resolution of the data elements used to determine a
PSAP URI.
Motivation: The mapping server may not use all the data elements
in the provided location information to determine a match, or may
be able to find a match based on all of the information except for
some specific data elements. The uniqueness of this information
set may be used to differentiate among emergency jurisdictions.
Precision or resolution in the context of this requirement might
mean, for example, explicit identification of the data elements
that were used successfully in the mapping.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Ma24. Indication of non-existent location: The protocol MUST support
a mechanism to indicate that a location or a part of a location is
known to not exist, even if a valid location-to-PSAP URI mapping
can be provided. This includes a way to identify a separate
mechanism to resolve any such discrepancy.
Motivation: The emergency authority for a given jurisdiction may
provide a means to resolve addressing problems, e.g., a URI for a
web service that can be used to report problems with an address.
Ma25. Limits to validation: Successful validation of a civic
location MUST NOT be required to place an emergency call.
Motivation: In some cases, a civic location may not be considered
valid. This fact should not result in the call being dropped or
rejected by any entity along the signaling path to the PSAP.
Ma26. 3D sensitive mapping: The mapping protocol MUST implement
support for both 2D and 3D location information, and may accept
either a 2D or 3D mapping request as input.
Motivation: It is expected that provisioning systems will accept
both 2D and 3D data. When a 3D request is presented to an area
only defined by 2D data, the mapping result would be the same as
if the height/altitude dimension was omitted in the request.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations are discussed in the ECRIT security document
I-D.taylor-ecrit-security-threats [4] .
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
9. Contributors
The information contained in this document is a result of a joint
effort based on individual contributions by those involved in the
ECRIT WG. The contributors include Nadine Abbott, Hideki Arai,
Martin Dawson, Motoharu Kawanishi, Brian Rosen, Richard Stastny,
Martin Thomson, James Winterbottom.
The contributors can be reached at:
Nadine Abbott nabbott@telcordia.com
Hideki Arai arai859@oki.com
Martin Dawson Martin.Dawson@andrew.com
Motoharu Kawanishi kawanishi381@oki.com
Brian Rosen br@brianrosen.net
Richard Stastny Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at
Martin Thomson Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
James Winterbottom James.Winterbottom@andrew.com
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
10. Acknowledgments
In addition to thanking those listed above, we would like to also
thank Guy Caron, Barry Dingle, Keith Drage, Tim Dunn, Patrik
Faeltstroem, Clive D.W. Feather, Raymond Forbes, Randall Gellens,
Michael Haberler, Michael Hammer, Ted Hardie, Gunnar Hellstrom,
Cullen Jennings, Marc Linsner, Rohan Mahy, Patti McCalmont, Don
Mitchell, John Morris, Andrew Newton, Steve Norreys, Jon Peterson,
James Polk, Benny Rodrig, John Rosenberg, Jonathan Rosenberg, John
Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, James Seng, Byron Smith, Tom Taylor,
Barbara Stark, Hannes Tschofenig, and Nate Wilcox, for their
invaluable input.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004.
[3] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format",
RFC 4119, December 2005.
[4] Schulzrinne, H., "Security Threats and Requirements for
Emergency Call Marking and Mapping",
draft-taylor-ecrit-security-threats-03 (work in progress),
March 2006.
[5] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Services",
draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-00 (work in progress),
February 2006.
[6] Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol",
draft-hardie-ecrit-lost-00 (work in progress), March 2006.
[7] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
Information", draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09 (work in
progress), January 2006.
11.2. Informative References
[8] Charlton, N., Gasson, M., Gybels, G., Spanner, M., and A. van
Wijk, "User Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) in Support of Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Speech-impaired
Individuals", RFC 3351, August 2002.
[9] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[10] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
Conversation", RFC 4103, June 2005.
[11] Wijk, A., "Framework of requirements for real-time text
conversation using SIP", draft-ietf-sipping-toip-03 (work in
progress), September 2005.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
Authors' Addresses
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
Roger Marshall (editor)
TeleCommunication Systems
2401 Elliott Avenue
2nd Floor
Seattle, WA 98121
US
Phone: +1 206 792 2424
Email: rmarshall@telecomsys.com
URI: http://www.telecomsys.com
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ECRIT Requirements March 2006
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.
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 currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schulzrinne & Marshall Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 29]
