draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-06.txt | draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
ECRIT H. Schulzrinne | ECRIT H. Schulzrinne | |||
Internet-Draft Columbia University | Internet-Draft Columbia University | |||
Intended status: Standards Track S. McCann | Intended status: Standards Track S. McCann | |||
Expires: November 01, 2013 Research in Motion UK Ltd | Expires: January 14, 2014 Research in Motion UK Ltd | |||
G. Bajko | G. Bajko | |||
Nokia | Nokia | |||
H. Tschofenig | H. Tschofenig | |||
Nokia Siemens Networks | Nokia Siemens Networks | |||
D. Kroeselberg | D. Kroeselberg | |||
Siemens | Siemens | |||
April 30, 2013 | July 13, 2013 | |||
Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for dealing with | Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for dealing with | |||
Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices | Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices | |||
draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-06.txt | draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07.txt | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
The IETF emergency services architecture assumes that the calling | The IETF emergency services architecture assumes that the calling | |||
device has acquired rights to use the access network or that no | device has acquired rights to use the access network or that no | |||
authentication is required for the access network, such as for public | authentication is required for the access network, such as for public | |||
wireless access points. Subsequent protocol interactions, such as | wireless access points. Subsequent protocol interactions, such as | |||
obtaining location information, learning the address of the Public | obtaining location information, learning the address of the Public | |||
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) and the emergency call itself are | Safety Answering Point (PSAP) and the emergency call itself are | |||
largely decoupled from the underlying network access procedures. | largely decoupled from the underlying network access procedures. | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 | skipping to change at page 2, line 7 | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 01, 2013. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2014. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 | skipping to change at page 2, line 30 | |||
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3. Use Case Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Use Case Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4. ZBP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4. ZBP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
5. NASP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 5. NASP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
5.1. End Host Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.1. End Host Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5.1.1. LoST Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.1.1. LoST Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5.1.2. ESRP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.1.2. ESRP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5.1.3. Location Determination and Location Configuration . . 9 | 5.1.3. Location Determination and Location Configuration . . 10 | |||
5.1.4. Emergency Call Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.1.4. Emergency Call Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5.1.5. SIP Emergency Call Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.1.5. SIP Emergency Call Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5.1.6. Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.1.6. Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.1.7. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.1.7. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.2. IAP/ISP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.2. IAP/ISP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.2.1. ESRP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.2.1. ESRP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.2.2. Location Determination and Location Configuration . . 11 | 5.2.2. Location Determination and Location Configuration . . 11 | |||
5.3. ESRP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.3. ESRP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.3.1. Emergency Call Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.3.1. Emergency Call Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
5.3.2. Emergency Call Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.3.2. Emergency Call Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
5.3.3. SIP Emergency Call Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.3.3. SIP Emergency Call Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
6. Lower Layer Considerations for NAA Case . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 6. Lower Layer Considerations for NAA Case . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
6.1. Link Layer Emergency Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 6.1. Link Layer Emergency Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
6.2. Securing Network Attachment in NAA Cases . . . . . . . . 13 | 6.2. Securing Network Attachment in NAA Cases . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 22 | skipping to change at page 3, line 22 | |||
is one of the fundamental and most-valued functions of the telephone. | is one of the fundamental and most-valued functions of the telephone. | |||
As telephone functionality moves from circuit-switched telephony to | As telephone functionality moves from circuit-switched telephony to | |||
Internet telephony, its users rightfully expect that this core | Internet telephony, its users rightfully expect that this core | |||
functionality will continue to work at least as well as it has for | functionality will continue to work at least as well as it has for | |||
the older technology. New devices and services are being made | the older technology. New devices and services are being made | |||
available that could be used to make a request for help, which are | available that could be used to make a request for help, which are | |||
not traditional telephones, and users are increasingly expecting them | not traditional telephones, and users are increasingly expecting them | |||
to be used to place emergency calls. | to be used to place emergency calls. | |||
Roughly speaking, the IETF emergency services architecture (see | Roughly speaking, the IETF emergency services architecture (see | |||
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and [RFC6443]) divides responsibility for | [RFC6881] and [RFC6443]) divides responsibility for handling | |||
handling emergency calls between the access network (ISP), the | emergency calls between the access network (ISP), the application | |||
application service provider (ASP) that may be a VoIP service | service provider (ASP) that may be a VoIP service provider and the | |||
provider and the provider of emergency signaling services, the | provider of emergency signaling services, the emergency service | |||
emergency service network (ESN). The access network may provide | network (ESN). The access network may provide location information | |||
location information to end systems, but does not have to provide any | to end systems, but does not have to provide any ASP signaling | |||
ASP signaling functionality. The emergency caller can reach the ESN | functionality. The emergency caller can reach the ESN either | |||
either directly or through the ASP's outbound proxy. Any of the | directly or through the ASP's outbound proxy. Any of the three | |||
three parties can provide the mapping from location to PSAP URI by | parties can provide the mapping from location to PSAP URI by offering | |||
offering LoST [RFC5222] services. | LoST [RFC5222] services. | |||
In general, a set of automated configuration mechanisms allows a | In general, a set of automated configuration mechanisms allows a | |||
device to function in a variety of architectures, without the user | device to function in a variety of architectures, without the user | |||
being aware of the details on who provides location, mapping services | being aware of the details on who provides location, mapping services | |||
or call routing services. However, if emergency calling is to be | or call routing services. However, if emergency calling is to be | |||
supported when the calling device lacks access network authorization | supported when the calling device lacks access network authorization | |||
or does not have an ASP, one or more of the providers may need to | or does not have an ASP, one or more of the providers may need to | |||
provide additional services and functions. | provide additional services and functions. | |||
In all cases, the end device has to be able to perform a LoST lookup | In all cases, the end device has to be able to perform a LoST lookup | |||
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 | skipping to change at page 5, line 13 | |||
environments. | environments. | |||
There are also indications that the functionality of unauthenticated | There are also indications that the functionality of unauthenticated | |||
emergency calls (called SIM-less calls) in today's cellular system in | emergency calls (called SIM-less calls) in today's cellular system in | |||
certain countries leads to a fair amount of hoax or test calls. This | certain countries leads to a fair amount of hoax or test calls. This | |||
causes overload situations at PSAPs which is considered harmful to | causes overload situations at PSAPs which is considered harmful to | |||
the overall availability and reliability of emergency services. | the overall availability and reliability of emergency services. | |||
As an example, Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM, Switzerland) | As an example, Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM, Switzerland) | |||
provided statistics about emergency (112) calls in Switzerland from | provided statistics about emergency (112) calls in Switzerland from | |||
Jan. 1997 to Nov. 2001. Switzerland did not offer SIM-less | Jan. 1997 to Nov. 2001. Switzerland did not offer SIM-less | |||
emergency calls except for almost a month in July 2000 where a | emergency calls except for almost a month in July 2000 where a | |||
significant increase in hoax and test calls was reported. As a | significant increase in hoax and test calls was reported. As a | |||
consequence, the functionality was disabled again. More details can | consequence, the functionality was disabled again. More details can | |||
be found in the panel presentations of the 3rd SDO Emergency Services | be found in the panel presentations of the 3rd SDO Emergency Services | |||
Workshop [esw07]. | Workshop [esw07]. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", | In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", | |||
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", | "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 | skipping to change at page 6, line 49 | |||
network +--->| End | | +---------------+ | network +--->| End | | +---------------+ | |||
attachment| `...../ | YES | | NO | attachment| `...../ | YES | | NO | |||
possible? | | | | | possible? | | | | | |||
v | v v | v | v v | |||
+------------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | +------------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |||
| Execute | | | Execute | | Execute | | | Execute | | | Execute | | Execute | | |||
| NAA |--------+ | Phone BCP | | NASP | | | NAA |--------+ | Phone BCP | | NASP | | |||
| Procedures | | Procedures | | Procedures | | | Procedures | | Procedures | | Procedures | | |||
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | |||
Authorization for| | | Authorization for| | | |||
Emergency Call? | | | making an | | | |||
emergency call | | | ||||
with the ASP/VSP?| | | ||||
+--------------+ v | +--------------+ v | |||
| NO | YES +-----Y | | NO | YES +-----Y | |||
| | | Done| | | | | Done| | |||
v v `...../ | v v `...../ | |||
+------------+ +------------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |||
| Execute | | Execute | | | Execute | | Execute | | |||
| ZBP | | Phone BCP | | | ZBP | | Phone BCP | | |||
| Procedures | | Procedures | | | Procedures | | Procedures | | |||
+------------+ +------------+ | +------------+ +------------+ | |||
| | | | | | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 | skipping to change at page 7, line 29 | |||
+-----Y +-----Y | +-----Y +-----Y | |||
| Done| | Done| | | Done| | Done| | |||
`...../ `...../ | `...../ `...../ | |||
Abbreviations: | Abbreviations: | |||
LLA: Link Layer Attachment | LLA: Link Layer Attachment | |||
ES: Emergency Services | ES: Emergency Services | |||
Figure 1: Flow Diagram | Figure 1: Flow Diagram | |||
The "No Access Authentication (NAA)" procedures are described in | ||||
Section 6. The "Zero-balance ASP (ZBP)" procedures are described in | ||||
Section 4. The "No ASP (NASP)" procedures are described in | ||||
Section 5. The Phone BCP procedures are described in [RFC6881]. The | ||||
"Link Layer Attachment (LLA)" procedures are not described in this | ||||
document since they are specific to the link layer technology in use. | ||||
4. ZBP Considerations | 4. ZBP Considerations | |||
ZBP includes all cases where a subscriber is known to an ASP, but | ZBP includes all cases where a subscriber is known to an ASP, but | |||
lacks the necessary authorization to access regular ASP services. | lacks the necessary authorization to access regular ASP services. | |||
Example ZBP cases include empty prepaid accounts, barred accounts, | Example ZBP cases include empty prepaid accounts, barred accounts, | |||
roaming and mobility restrictions, or any other conditions set by ASP | roaming and mobility restrictions, or any other conditions set by ASP | |||
policy. | policy. | |||
Local regulation might demand that emergency calls are always | Local regulation might demand that emergency calls cannot proceed | |||
authorized. An ASP can identify emergency sessions by identifying | without successful service authorization. In regulatory regimes, | |||
the service URN [RFC5031] used in call setup. Emergency calls can | however, it may be possible to allow emergency calls to continue | |||
then be authorized accordingly. The ZBP case therefore only affects | despite authorization failures. To distinguish an emergency call | |||
the ASP. | from a regular call an ASP can identify emergency sessions by | |||
inspecting the service URN [RFC5031] used in call setup. The ZBP | ||||
case therefore only affects the ASP. | ||||
Permitting a call with limited authorization could present an | Permitting a call despite authorization failures could present an | |||
opportunity for abuse. The ASP MAY choose to validate session | opportunity for abuse. The ASP may choose to verify the destination | |||
initiation messages for valid destinations, see Section 7. | of the emergency calls and to only permit calls to certain, pre- | |||
configured entities (e.g., to local PSAPs). Section 7 discusses this | ||||
topic in more detail. | ||||
An ASP without a regulatory requirement to authorize emergency calls | An ASP without a regulatory requirement to authorize emergency calls | |||
can deny emergency call setup. Where an ASP does not authorize an | can deny emergency call setup. Where an ASP does not authorize an | |||
emergency call, the caller can fall back to NASP procedures. | emergency call, the caller may be able to fall back to NASP | |||
procedures. | ||||
5. NASP Considerations | 5. NASP Considerations | |||
To start the description we consider the sequence of steps that are | To start the description we consider the sequence of steps that are | |||
executed in an emergency call based on Figure 2. | executed in an emergency call based on Figure 2. | |||
o As an initial step the devices attaches to the network as shown in | o As an initial step the devices attaches to the network as shown in | |||
step (1). This step is outside the scope of this section. | step (1). This step is outside the scope of this section. | |||
o When the link layer network attachment procedure is completed the | o When the link layer network attachment procedure is completed the | |||
end host learns basic configuration information using DHCP from | end host learns basic IP configuration information using DHCP from | |||
the ISP, as shown in step (2). | the ISP, as shown in step (2). | |||
o When the IP address configuration is completed then the end host | o When the IP address configuration is completed then the end host | |||
starts an interaction with the discovered Location Configuration | starts an interaction with the discovered Location Configuration | |||
Server at the ISP, as shown in step (3). The ISP may in certain | Server at the ISP, as shown in step (3). The ISP may in certain | |||
deployments need to interact with the IAP. This protocol exchange | deployments need to interact with the IAP. This protocol exchange | |||
is shown in step (4). | is shown in step (4). | |||
o Once location information is obtained the end host triggers the | o Once location information is obtained the end host triggers the | |||
LoST protocol to obtain the address of the ESRP/PSAP. This step | LoST protocol to obtain the address of the ESRP/PSAP. This step | |||
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 | skipping to change at page 10, line 18 | |||
The end host MUST discover a LoST server [RFC5222] using DHCP | The end host MUST discover a LoST server [RFC5222] using DHCP | |||
[RFC5223]. | [RFC5223]. | |||
5.1.2. ESRP Discovery | 5.1.2. ESRP Discovery | |||
The end host MUST discover the ESRP using the LoST protocol | The end host MUST discover the ESRP using the LoST protocol | |||
[RFC5222]. | [RFC5222]. | |||
5.1.3. Location Determination and Location Configuration | 5.1.3. Location Determination and Location Configuration | |||
The end host MUST support location acquisition and the LCPs described | The end host MUST support location acquisition and the LCPs described | |||
in Section 6.5 of [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. The description in | in Section 6.5 of [RFC6881]. The description in Section 6.5 and 6.6 | |||
Section 6.5 and 6.6 of [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] regarding the | of [RFC6881] regarding the interaction between the device and the LIS | |||
interaction between the device and the LIS applies to this document. | applies to this document. | |||
The SIP UA in the end host MUST attach available location information | The SIP UA in the end host MUST attach available location information | |||
in a PIDF-LO [RFC4119] when making an emergency call. When | in a PIDF-LO [RFC4119] when making an emergency call. When | |||
constructing the PIDF-LO the guidelines in PIDF-LO profile [RFC5491] | constructing the PIDF-LO the guidelines in PIDF-LO profile [RFC5491] | |||
MUST be followed. For civic location information the format defined | MUST be followed. For civic location information the format defined | |||
in [RFC5139] MUST be supported. | in [RFC5139] MUST be supported. | |||
5.1.4. Emergency Call Identification | 5.1.4. Emergency Call Identification | |||
To determine which calls are emergency calls, some entity needs to | To determine which calls are emergency calls, some entity needs to | |||
map a user entered dialstring into this URN scheme. A user may | map a user entered dialstring into this URN scheme. A user may | |||
"dial" 1-1-2, but the call would be sent to urn:service:sos. This | "dial" 1-1-2, 9-1-1, etc., but the call would be sent to | |||
mapping SHOULD be performed at the endpoint device. | urn:service:sos. This mapping SHOULD be performed at the endpoint | |||
device. | ||||
End hosts MUST use the Service URN mechanism [RFC5031] to mark calls | End hosts MUST use the Service URN mechanism [RFC5031] to mark calls | |||
as emergency calls for their home emergency dial string. | as emergency calls for their home emergency dial string. | |||
5.1.5. SIP Emergency Call Signaling | 5.1.5. SIP Emergency Call Signaling | |||
SIP signaling capabilities [RFC3261] are mandated for end hosts. | SIP signaling capabilities [RFC3261] are mandated for end hosts. | |||
The initial SIP signaling method is an INVITE. The SIP INVITE | The initial SIP signaling method is an INVITE. The SIP INVITE | |||
request MUST be constructed according to the requirements in | request MUST be constructed according to the requirements in | |||
Section 9.2 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. | Section 9.2 [RFC6881]. | |||
Regarding callback behavior SIP UAs SHOULD place a globally routable | Regarding callback behavior SIP UAs SHOULD place a globally routable | |||
URI in a Contact: header. | URI in a Contact: header. | |||
5.1.6. Media | 5.1.6. Media | |||
End points MUST comply with the media requirements for end points | End points MUST comply with the media requirements for end points | |||
placing an emergency call found in Section 14 of | placing an emergency call found in Section 14 of [RFC6881]. | |||
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. | ||||
5.1.7. Testing | 5.1.7. Testing | |||
The description in Section 15 of [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] is fully | The description in Section 15 of [RFC6881] is fully applicable to | |||
applicable to this document. | this document. | |||
5.2. IAP/ISP Profile | 5.2. IAP/ISP Profile | |||
5.2.1. ESRP Discovery | 5.2.1. ESRP Discovery | |||
An ISP MUST provision a DHCP server with information about LoST | An ISP MUST provision a DHCP server with information about LoST | |||
servers [RFC5223]. An ISP operator may choose to deploy a LoST | servers [RFC5223]. An ISP operator may choose to deploy a LoST | |||
server or to outsource it to other parties. | server or to outsource it to other parties. | |||
5.2.2. Location Determination and Location Configuration | 5.2.2. Location Determination and Location Configuration | |||
The ISP is responsible for location determination and exposes this | The ISP is responsible for location determination and exposes this | |||
information to the end points via location configuration protocols. | information to the end points via location configuration protocols. | |||
The considerations described in [RFC6444] are applicable to this | The considerations described in [RFC6444] are applicable to this | |||
document. | document. | |||
The ISP MUST support one of the LCPs described in Section 6.5 of | The ISP MUST support one of the LCPs described in Section 6.5 of | |||
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. The description in Section 6.5 and 6.6 of | [RFC6881]. The description in Section 6.5 and 6.6 of [RFC6881] | |||
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] regarding the interaction between the end | regarding the interaction between the end device and the LIS applies | |||
device and the LIS applies to this document. | to this document. | |||
The interaction between the LIS at the ISP and the IAP is often | The interaction between the LIS at the ISP and the IAP is often | |||
priorietary but the description in | priorietary but the description in | |||
[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req] may be relevant to the reader. | [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req] may be relevant to the reader. | |||
5.3. ESRP Profile | 5.3. ESRP Profile | |||
5.3.1. Emergency Call Routing | 5.3.1. Emergency Call Routing | |||
The ESRP continues to route the emergency call to the PSAP | The ESRP continues to route the emergency call to the PSAP | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 23 | skipping to change at page 12, line 39 | |||
To perform network attachment and get access to the resources | To perform network attachment and get access to the resources | |||
provided by an IAP/ISP, the end host uses access technology specific | provided by an IAP/ISP, the end host uses access technology specific | |||
network attachment procedures, including for example network | network attachment procedures, including for example network | |||
detection and selection, authentication, and authorization. For | detection and selection, authentication, and authorization. For | |||
initial network attachment of an emergency service requester, the | initial network attachment of an emergency service requester, the | |||
method of how the emergency indication is given to the IAP/ISP is | method of how the emergency indication is given to the IAP/ISP is | |||
specific to the access technology. However, a number of general | specific to the access technology. However, a number of general | |||
approaches can be identified: | approaches can be identified: | |||
Link layer emergency indication: The end host provides an | Link layer emergency indication: The end host provides an | |||
indication, e.g. an emergency parameter or flag, as part of the | indication, e.g., an emergency parameter or flag, as part of the | |||
link layer signaling for initial network attachment. Examples | link layer signaling for initial network attachment. Examples | |||
include an emergency bit signalled in the IEEE 802.16-2009 | include an emergency bit signalled in the IEEE 802.16-2009 | |||
wireless link. In IEEE 802.11 WLAN, an emergency support | wireless link. In IEEE 802.11 WLAN, an emergency support | |||
indicator allows the STA to download before association an NAI | indicator allows the STA to download before association an NAI | |||
which it can use to request server side authentication only for an | which it can use to request server side authentication only for an | |||
802.1x network. | 802.1x network. | |||
Higher-layer emergency indication: Typically emergency indication in | Higher-layer emergency indication: Typically emergency indication in | |||
access authentication. The emergency caller's end host provides | access authentication. The emergency caller's end host provides | |||
an indication as part of the access authentication exchanges. EAP | an indication as part of the access authentication exchanges. EAP | |||
based authentication is of particular relevance here. Examples | based authentication is of particular relevance here. Examples | |||
are the EAP NAI decoration used in WiMAX networks and modification | are the EAP NAI decoration used in WiMAX networks and modification | |||
of the authentication exchange in IEEE 802.11. [nwgstg3]. | of the authentication exchange in IEEE 802.11. [nwgstg3]. | |||
6.1. Link Layer Emergency Indication | 6.1. Link Layer Emergency Indication | |||
In general, link layer emergency indications provide good integration | In general, link layer emergency indications provide good integration | |||
into the actual network access procedure regarding the enabling of | into the actual network access procedure regarding the enabling of | |||
means to recognize and prioritize an emergency service request from | means to recognize and prioritize an emergency service request from | |||
an end host at a very early stage of the network attachment | an end host at a very early stage of the network attachment | |||
procedure. However, support in end hosts for such methods cannot be | procedure. However, support in end hosts for such methods cannot be | |||
considered to be commonly available. | considered to be commonly available. | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 30 | skipping to change at page 13, line 49 | |||
authorization server that owns the policy for granting access to | authorization server that owns the policy for granting access to | |||
the network resources. As a result, there is no direct dependency | the network resources. As a result, there is no direct dependency | |||
on the access network architecture that otherwise would need to | on the access network architecture that otherwise would need to | |||
take care of merging link-layer indications into the AA and policy | take care of merging link-layer indications into the AA and policy | |||
decision process. | decision process. | |||
o EAP signaling happens at a relatively early stage of network | o EAP signaling happens at a relatively early stage of network | |||
attachment, so it is likely to match most requirements for | attachment, so it is likely to match most requirements for | |||
prioritization of emergency signaling. However, it does not cover | prioritization of emergency signaling. However, it does not cover | |||
early stages of link layer activity in the network attachment | early stages of link layer activity in the network attachment | |||
process. Possible conflicts may arise e.g. in case of MAC-based | process. Possible conflicts may arise e.g. in case of MAC-based | |||
filtering in entities terminating the link-layer signaling in the | filtering in entities terminating the link-layer signaling in the | |||
network (like a base station). In normal operation, EAP related | network (like a base station). In normal operation, EAP related | |||
information will only be recognized in the NAS. Any entity | information will only be recognized in the NAS. Any entity | |||
residing between end host and NAS should not be expected to | residing between end host and NAS should not be expected to | |||
understand/parse EAP messages. | understand/parse EAP messages. | |||
o An emergency indication can be given by forming a specific NAI | o An emergency indication can be given by forming a specific NAI | |||
that is used as the identity in EAP based authentication for | that is used as the identity in EAP based authentication for | |||
network entry. | network entry. | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 26 | skipping to change at page 14, line 46 | |||
appropriate trusted root certificates to be able to verify the | appropriate trusted root certificates to be able to verify the | |||
server certificate of the EAP server (unless this step is | server certificate of the EAP server (unless this step is | |||
explicitly skipped in the device in case of an emergency service | explicitly skipped in the device in case of an emergency service | |||
request). This method is used to provide access of devices | request). This method is used to provide access of devices | |||
without existing credentials to an 802.1x network. The details | without existing credentials to an 802.1x network. The details | |||
are incorporated into the not yet published 802.11-2011 | are incorporated into the not yet published 802.11-2011 | |||
specification. | specification. | |||
2) Null Authentication: | 2) Null Authentication: | |||
In one case (e.g. WiMAX) an EAP method is performed. However, no | In one case (e.g., WiMAX) an EAP method is performed. However, no | |||
credentials specific to either the server or the device or | credentials specific to either the server or the device or | |||
subscription are used as part of the authentication exchange. An | subscription are used as part of the authentication exchange. An | |||
example for this would be an EAP-TLS exchange with using the | example for this would be an EAP-TLS exchange with using the | |||
TLS_DH_anon (anonymous) ciphersuite. Alternatively, a publicly | TLS_DH_anon (anonymous) ciphersuite. Alternatively, a publicly | |||
available static key for emergency access could be used. In the | available static key for emergency access could be used. In the | |||
latter case, the device would need to be provisioned with the | latter case, the device would need to be provisioned with the | |||
appropriate emergency key for the IAP/ISP in advance. In another | appropriate emergency key for the IAP/ISP in advance. In another | |||
case (e.g. IEEE 802.11), no EAP method is used, so that empty | case (e.g., IEEE 802.11), no EAP method is used, so that empty | |||
frames are transported during the over the air IEEE 802.1X | frames are transported during the over the air IEEE 802.1X | |||
exchange. In this case the authentication state machine completes | exchange. In this case the authentication state machine completes | |||
with no cryptographic keys being exchanged. | with no cryptographic keys being exchanged. | |||
3) Device Authentication: | 3) Device Authentication: | |||
This case extends the server-only authentication case. If the | This case extends the server-only authentication case. If the | |||
device is configured with a device certificate and the IAP/ISP EAP | device is configured with a device certificate and the IAP/ISP EAP | |||
server can rely on a trusted root allowing the EAP server to | server can rely on a trusted root allowing the EAP server to | |||
verify the device certificate, at least the device identity (e.g., | verify the device certificate, at least the device identity (e.g., | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 26 | skipping to change at page 15, line 45 | |||
functionality is used for GSM networks today this has lead to a | functionality is used for GSM networks today this has lead to a | |||
significant amount of misuse. | significant amount of misuse. | |||
In the context of NAA, the IAP and the ISP will probably want to make | In the context of NAA, the IAP and the ISP will probably want to make | |||
sure that the claimed emergency caller indeed performs an emergency | sure that the claimed emergency caller indeed performs an emergency | |||
call rather than using the network for other purposes, and thereby | call rather than using the network for other purposes, and thereby | |||
acting fraudulent by skipping any authentication, authorization and | acting fraudulent by skipping any authentication, authorization and | |||
accounting procedures. By restricting access of the unauthenticated | accounting procedures. By restricting access of the unauthenticated | |||
emergency caller to the LoST server and the PSAP URI, traffic can be | emergency caller to the LoST server and the PSAP URI, traffic can be | |||
restricted only to emergency calls. This can be accomplished with | restricted only to emergency calls. This can be accomplished with | |||
traffic separation. The details, however, e.g. for using filtering, | traffic separation. The details, however, e.g. for using filtering, | |||
depend on the deployed ISP architecture and are beyond the scope of | depend on the deployed ISP architecture and are beyond the scope of | |||
this document. | this document. | |||
We only illustrate a possible model. If the ISP runs its own LoST | We only illustrate a possible model. If the ISP runs its own LoST | |||
server, it would maintain an access control list including all IP | server, it would maintain an access control list including all IP | |||
addresses contained in responses returned by the LoST server, as well | addresses contained in responses returned by the LoST server, as well | |||
as the LoST server itself. (It may need to translate the domain | as the LoST server itself. (It may need to translate the domain | |||
names returned to IP addresses and hope that the resolution captures | names returned to IP addresses and hope that the resolution captures | |||
all possible DNS responses.) Since the media destination addresses | all possible DNS responses.) Since the media destination addresses | |||
are not predictable, the ISP also has to provide a SIP outbound proxy | are not predictable, the ISP also has to provide a SIP outbound proxy | |||
skipping to change at page 16, line 13 | skipping to change at page 16, line 28 | |||
change. | change. | |||
Finally, a number of security vulnerabilities discussed in [RFC6280] | Finally, a number of security vulnerabilities discussed in [RFC6280] | |||
around faked location information are less problematic in the context | around faked location information are less problematic in the context | |||
of unauthenticated emergency since location information does not need | of unauthenticated emergency since location information does not need | |||
to be provided by the end host itself or it can be verified to fall | to be provided by the end host itself or it can be verified to fall | |||
within a specific geographical area. | within a specific geographical area. | |||
8. Acknowledgments | 8. Acknowledgments | |||
Parts of this document are derived from [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. | Parts of this document are derived from [RFC6881]. Participants of | |||
Participants of the 2nd and 3rd SDO Emergency Services Workshop | the 2nd and 3rd SDO Emergency Services Workshop provided helpful | |||
provided helpful input. | input. | |||
We would like to thank Richard Barnes, Brian Rosen, James Polk, Marc | We would like to thank Richard Barnes, Brian Rosen, James Polk, Marc | |||
Linsner, and Martin Thomson for their feedback at the IETF#80 ECRIT | Linsner, and Martin Thomson for their feedback at the IETF#80 ECRIT | |||
meeting. | meeting. | |||
Furthermore, we would like to thank Martin Thomson and Bernard Aboba | Furthermore, we would like to thank Martin Thomson and Bernard Aboba | |||
for their detailed document review in preparation of the 81st IETF | for their detailed document review in preparation of the 81st IETF | |||
meeting. | meeting. | |||
9. IANA Considerations | 9. IANA Considerations | |||
skipping to change at page 17, line 8 | skipping to change at page 17, line 25 | |||
Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008. | Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008. | |||
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | |||
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | |||
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | |||
June 2002. | June 2002. | |||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] | [RFC6881] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for | |||
Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for | Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling", | |||
Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling", | BCP 181, RFC 6881, March 2013. | |||
draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-20 (work in progress), September | ||||
2011. | ||||
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. | [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. | |||
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation | Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation | |||
Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008. | Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008. | |||
[RFC5223] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Discovering | [RFC5223] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Discovering | |||
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the | Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the | |||
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)", RFC 5223, | Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)", RFC 5223, | |||
August 2008. | August 2008. | |||
10.2. Informative References | 10.2. Informative References | |||
[RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 | [RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 | |||
Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and | Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and | |||
Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010. | Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010. | |||
[RFC6443] Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton, | [RFC6443] Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton, | |||
"Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet | "Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet | |||
Multimedia", RFC 6443, December 2011. | Multimedia", RFC 6443, December 2011. | |||
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery] | ||||
Thomson, M. and R. Bellis, "Location Information Server | ||||
(LIS) Discovery using IP address and Reverse DNS", draft- | ||||
ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-05 (work in progress), | ||||
April 2013. | ||||
[RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", RFC | ||||
5985, September 2010. | ||||
[RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for | [RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for | |||
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", | Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", | |||
RFC 5012, January 2008. | RFC 5012, January 2008. | |||
[RFC6444] Schulzrinne, H., Liess, L., Tschofenig, H., Stark, B., and | [RFC6444] Schulzrinne, H., Liess, L., Tschofenig, H., Stark, B., and | |||
A. Kuett, "Location Hiding: Problem Statement and | A. Kuett, "Location Hiding: Problem Statement and | |||
Requirements", RFC 6444, January 2012. | Requirements", RFC 6444, January 2012. | |||
[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req] | [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req] | |||
Winterbottom, J. and S. Norreys, "LIS to LIS Protocol | Winterbottom, J. and S. Norreys, "LIS to LIS Protocol | |||
End of changes. 31 change blocks. | ||||
74 lines changed or deleted | 79 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |