ECRIT B. Rosen Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne Expires: April 30, 2015 Columbia U. H. Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks October 27, 2014 Data-Only Emergency Calls draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-09.txt Abstract RFC 6443 'Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia' describes how devices use the Internet to place emergency calls and how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can handle Internet multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of multimedia traffic typically involves a SIP session establishment starting with a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for that session. In some cases, however, the transmission of application data is everything that is needed. Examples of such environments include a temperature sensors issuing alerts, or vehicles sending crash data. Often these alerts are conveyed as one-shot data transmissions. These type of interactions are called 'data-only emergency calls'. This document describes a container for the data based on the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and its transmission using the SIP MESSAGE transaction. 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 April 30, 2015. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 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. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. CAP Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Profiling of the CAP Document Content . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Sending a Data-Only Emergency Call . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. 425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. The AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Updates to the CAP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Call Backs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Handling Large Amounts of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.1. Registration of the 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml' MIME type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. IANA Registration of Additional Data Block . . . . . . . 18 11.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code . . . . . . . . 18 11.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field . . 19 11.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes . . . 19 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 1. Introduction RFC 6443 [RFC6443] describes how devices use the Internet to place emergency calls and how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can handle Internet multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of multimedia traffic typically involves a SIP session establishment starting with a SIP INVITE that negotiates various parameters for that session. In some cases, however, there is only application data to be conveyed from the end devices to a PSAP or some other intermediary. Examples of such environments includes sensors issuing alerts, or vehicles sending crash data. These messages may be one-shot alerts to emergency authorities and do not require establishment of a session. These type of interactions are called 'data-only emergency calls'. In this document, we use the term "call" so that similarities between full sessions with interactive media can be exploited. Data-only emergency calls are similar to regular emergency calls in the sense that they require the emergency indications, emergency call routing functionality and may even have the same location requirements. However, the communication interaction will not lead to the exchange of interactive media, that is, Real-Time Protocol packets, such as voice, video data or real-time text. The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) [cap] is a document format for exchanging emergency alerts and public warnings. CAP is mainly used for conveying alerts and warnings between authorities and from authorities to citizen/individuals. This document is concerned with citizen to authority "alerts", where the alert is sent without any interactive media. This document describes a method of including a CAP message in a SIP transaction, either by value (CAP message is in the body of the message, using a CID) or by reference (A URI is included in the message, which when dereferenced returns the CAP message) by defining it as a block of "additional data" as defined in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. The additional data mechanism is also used to send alert specific data beyond that available in the CAP message. This document also describes how a SIP MESSAGE [RFC3428] transaction can be used to send a data-only call. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 3. Architectural Overview This section illustrates two envisioned usage modes; targeted and location-based emergency alert routing. 1. Emergency alerts containing only data are targeted to a intermediary recipient responsible for evaluating the next steps. These steps could include: 1. Sending a call containing only data toward a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); 2. Establishing a third-party initiated emergency call towards a PSAP that could include audio, video, and data. 2. Emergency alerts may be targeted to a Service URN used for IP- based emergency calls where the recipient is not known to the originator. In this scenario, the alert may contain only data (e.g., a CAP, Geolocation header and one or more Call-Info headers containing Additional Data [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data] in a SIP MESSAGE). Figure 1 shows a deployment variant where a sensor, is pre-configured (using techniques outside the scope of this document) to issue an alert to an aggregator that processes these messages and performs whatever steps are necessary to appropriately react on the alert. For example, a security firm may use different sensor inputs to dispatch their security staff to a building they protect or to initiate a third-party emergency call. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 +------------+ +------------+ | Sensor | | Aggregator | | | | | +---+--------+ +------+-----+ | | Sensors | trigger | emergency | alert | | MESSAGE with CAP | |----------------------------->| | | | Aggregator | processes | emergency | alert | 200 (OK) | |<-----------------------------| | | | | Figure 1: Targeted Emergency Alert Routing In Figure 2 a scenario is shown whereby the alert is routed using location information and the Service URN. An emergency services routing proxy (ESRP) may use LoST to determine the next hop proxy to route the alert message to. A possible receiver is a PSAP and the recipient of the alert may be call taker. In the generic case, there is very likely no prior relationship between the originator and the receiver, e.g. PSAP. A PSAP, for example, is likely to receive and accept alerts from entities it cannot authorize. This scenario corresponds more to the classical emergency services use case and the description in [RFC6881] is applicable. In this use case, the only difference between an emergency call, and an emergency data-only call is that the former uses INVITE, creates a session and negotiates one or more media streams, while the latter uses MESSAGE, does not create a session and does not have media. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 +-----------+ +----------+ +--------+ | ESRP | | PSAP | | Sensor | | | | | +---+----+ +---+-------+ +---+------+ | | | Sensors | | trigger | | emergency | | alert | | | | | | | | | MESSAGE with CAP | | | (including Service URN, | | such as urn:service:sos) | |------------------->| | | | | | ESRP performs | | emergency alert | | routing | | | MESSAGE with CAP | | | (including identity info) | | |----------------------------->| | | | | | PSAP | | processes | | emergency | | alert | | 200 (OK) | | |<-----------------------------| | | | | 200 (OK) | | |<-------------------| | | | | | | | Figure 2: Location-Based Emergency Alert Routing 4. Protocol Specification 4.1. CAP Transport A CAP message may be sent on the initial message of any SIP transaction. However, this document only describes specific behavior when used with a SIP INVITE that would accompany a normal emergency call and a SIP MESSAGE transaction for a one-shot, data-only emergency call. Behavior with other transactions is not defined. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 The CAP message included in a SIP message as an additional-data block [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. Accordingly, it is introduced to the SIP message with a Call-Info header with a purpose of "emergencyCall.cap". The header may contain a URI that is used by the recipient (or in some cases, an intermediary) to obtain the CAP message. Alternative, the Call-Info header may contain a Content Indirect url [RFC2392] and the CAP message included in the body of the message. In either case, the CAP message is located in a MIME block. The MIME type is set to 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml'. If the server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the request then a 501 Not Implemented MUST be returned as specified in RFC 3261 [RFC3261]. This is the appropriate response when a UAS does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any user. The 415 Unsupported Media Type error MUST be returned as specified in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] if the server is refusing to service the request because the message body of the request is in a format not supported by the server for the requested method. The server MUST return a list of acceptable formats using the Accept, Accept-Encoding, or Accept-Language header field, depending on the specific problem with the content. 4.2. Profiling of the CAP Document Content The usage of CAP MUST conform to the specification provided with [cap]. For the usage with SIP the following additional requirements are imposed: sender: A few sub-categories for putting a value in the element have to be considered: Originator is a SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: When the alert was created by a SIP-based originator and it is not useful to be explicit about the author of the alert then the element MUST be populated with the SIP URI of the user agent. Originator is a non-SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant: In case that the alert was created by a non-SIP based entity and the identity of this original sender wants to be preserved then this identity MUST be placed into the element. In this category the it is not useful to be explicit about the author of the alert. The specific type of identity being used will depends on the technology being used by the original originator. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Author indication relevant: In case the author is different from the actual originator of the message and this distinction should be preserved then the element MUST NOT contain the SIP URI of the user agent. incidents: The element MUST be present. This incident identifier MUST be chosen in such a way that it is unique for a given combination. Note that the element is optional and may not be present. scope: The value of the element MAY be set to "Private" if the alert is not meant for public consumption. The element is, however, not used by this specification since the message routing is performed by SIP and the respective address information is already available in other SIP headers. Populating information twice into different parts of the message may lead to inconsistency. parameter: The element MAY contain additional information specific to the sendor. area: It is RECOMMENDED to omit this element when constructing a message. In case that the CAP message already contained an element then the specified location information SHOULD be copied into the PIDF-LO structure of the 'geolocation' header. 4.3. Sending a Data-Only Emergency Call A data-only emergency call is sent using a SIP MESSAGE transaction with a CAP URI or body as described above in a manner similar to how an emergency call with interactive media is sent, as described in [RFC6881]. The MESSAGE transaction does not create a session or send media, but otherwise, the header content of the transaction, routing, and processing of data-only calls are the same as those of other emergency calls. 5. Error Handling This section defines a new error response code and a header field for additional information. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 5.1. 425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code This SIP extension creates a new location-specific response code, defined as follows, 425 (Bad Alert Message) The 425 response code is a rejection of the request due to its included alert content, indicating that it was malformed or not satisfactory for the recipient's purpose. A SIP intermediary can also reject an alert it receives from a UA when it understands that the provided alert is malformed. Section 5.2 describes an AlertMsg-Error header field with more details about what was wrong with the alert message in the request. This header field MUST be included in the 425 response. It is only appropriate to generate a 425 response when the responding entity has no other information in the request that are usable by the responder. A 425 response code MUST NOT be sent in response to a request that lacks an alert message entirely, as the user agent in that case may not support this extension at all. A 425 response is a final response within a transaction, and MUST NOT terminate an existing dialog. 5.2. The AlertMsg-Error Header Field The AlertMsg-Error header provides additional information about what was wrong with the original request. In some cases the provided information will be used for debugging purposes. The AlertMsg-Error header field has the following ABNF [RFC5234]: message-header /= AlertMsg-Error ; (message-header from 3261) AlertMsg-Error = "AlertMsg-Error" HCOLON ErrorValue ErrorValue = error-code *(SEMI error-params) error-code = 1*3DIGIT error-params = error-code-text / generic-param ; from RFC3261 error-code-text = "code" EQUAL quoted-string ; from RFC3261 Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 HCOLON, SEMI, and EQUAL are defined in RFC3261 [RFC3261]. DIGIT is defined in RFC5234 [RFC5234]. The AlertMsg-Error header field MUST contain only one ErrorValue to indicate what was wrong with the alert payload the recipient determined was bad. The ErrorValue contains a 3-digit error code indicating what was wrong with the alert in the request. This error code has a corresponding quoted error text string that is human understandable. The text string are OPTIONAL, but RECOMMENDED for human readability, similar to the string phrase used for SIP response codes. That said, the strings are complete enough for rendering to the user, if so desired. The strings in this document are recommendations, and are not standardized - meaning an operator can change the strings - but MUST NOT change the meaning of the error code. Similar to how RFC 3261 specifies, there MUST NOT be more than one string per error code. The AlertMsg-Error header field MAY be included in any response as an alert message was in the request part of the same transaction. For example, a UA includes an alert in an MESSAGE to a PSAP. The PSAP can accept this MESSAGE, thus creating a dialog, even though his UA determined the alert message contained in the MESSAGE was bad. The PSAP merely includes an AlertMsg-Error header value in the 200 OK to the MESSAGE informing the UA that the MESSAGE was accepted but the alert provided was bad. If, on the other hand, the PSAP cannot accept the transaction without a suitable alert message, a 425 response is sent. A SIP intermediary that requires the UA's alert message in order to properly process the transaction may also sends a 425 with a AlertMsg-Error code. This document defines an initial list of error code ranges for any SIP response, including provisional responses (other than 100 Trying) and the new 425 response. There MUST be no more than one AlertMsg- Error code in a SIP response. AlertMsg-Error: 100 ; code="Cannot Process the Alert Payload" AlertMsg-Error: 101 ; code="Alert Payload was not present or could not be found" AlertMsg-Error: 102 ; code="Not enough information to determine the purpose of the alert" Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 AlertMsg-Error: 103 ; code="Alert Payload was corrupted" Additionally, if an entity cannot or chooses not to process the alert message from a SIP request, a 500 (Server Internal Error) SHOULD be used with or without a configurable Retry-After header field. 6. Updates to the CAP Message If the sender anticipates that the content of the CAP message may need to be updated during the lifecycle of the event referred to in the message, it may include an update block as defined in [I-D.rosen-ecrit-addldata-subnot]. 7. Call Backs This document does not describe any method for the recipient to call back the sender of the data-only call. Usually, these alerts are sent by automata, and do not have any mechanism to receive calls of any kind. The identifier in the From header may be useful to obtain more information, but any such mechanism is not defined in this document. The CAP message may contain related contact information for the sender. 8. Handling Large Amounts of Data It is not atypical for sensor to have large quantities of data that they may wish to send. Including large amounts of data in a MESSAGE is not advisable, because SIP entities are usually not equipped to handle very large messages. In such cases, the sender SHOULD make use of the by-reference mechanisms defined for Additional Data which involve sending a URI in the Call-Info header and using HTTPS to retrieve the data. The CAP message itself can be sent by-reference using this mechanism as well as any or all of the Additional Data blocks that may contain sensor-specific data. 9. Example Figure 3 shows a CAP document indicating a BURGLARY alert issued by a sensor called 'sensor1@domain.com'. The location of the sensor can be obtained from the attached location information provided via the 'geolocation' header contained in the SIP MESSAGE structure. Additionally, the sensor provided some data long with the alert message using proprietary information elements only to be processed by the receiver, a SIP entity acting as an aggregator. This example reflects the description in Figure 1. MESSAGE sip:aggregator@domain.com SIP/2.0 Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP sensor1.domain.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse Max-Forwards: 70 From: sip:sensor1@domain.com;tag=49583 To: sip:aggregator@domain.com Call-ID: asd88asd77a@1.2.3.4 Geolocation: ;routing-allowed=yes Supported: geolocation Accept: application/pidf+xml, application/emergencyCall.cap+xml CSeq: 1 MESSAGE Call-Info: cid:abcdef2@domain.com;purpose=emergencyCall.cap Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1 Content-Length: ... --boundary1 Content-Type: application/emergencyCall.cap Content-ID: Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional S-1 sip:sensor1@domain.com 2008-11-19T14:57:00-07:00 Actual Alert Private abc1234 Security BURGLARY Expected Likely Moderate SENSOR 1 SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1 123 SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2 TRUE --boundary1 Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Content-Type: application/pidf+xml Content-ID: Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional 32.86726 -97.16054 false 2010-11-14T20:00:00Z 802.11 2010-11-04T20:57:29Z --boundary1-- Figure 3: Example Message conveying an Alert to an Aggregator Figure 4 shows the same CAP document sent as a data-only emergency call towards a PSAP. MESSAGE urn:service:sos SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP sip:aggreg.1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776abssa Max-Forwards: 70 From: sip:aggregator@example.com;tag=32336 To: 112 Call-ID: asdf33443a@example.com Route: sip:psap1.example.gov Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Geolocation: ;routing-allowed=yes Supported: geolocation Accept: application/pidf+xml, application/emergencyCall.cap+xml Call-info: cid:abcdef2@domain.com;purpose=emergencyCall.cap CSeq: 1 MESSAGE Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1 Content-Length: ... --boundary1 Content-Type: application/emergencyCall.cap+xml Content-ID: S-1 sip:sensor1@domain.com 2008-11-19T14:57:00-07:00 Actual Alert Private abc1234 Security BURGLARY Expected Likely Moderate SENSOR 1 SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1 123 SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2 TRUE --boundary1 Content-Type: application/pidf+xml Content-ID: 32.86726 -97.16054 false 2010-11-14T20:00:00Z 802.11 2010-11-04T20:57:29Z --boundary1-- Figure 4: Example Message conveying an Alert to a PSAP 10. Security Considerations This section discusses security considerations when SIP user agents issue emergency alerts utilizing MESSAGE and CAP. Location specific threats are not unique to this document and are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location] and [RFC6442]. The ECRIT emergency services architecture [RFC6443] considers classical individual-to-authority emergency calling and the identity of the emergency caller does not play a role at the time of the call establishment itself, i.e., a response to the emergency call will not depend on the identity of the caller. In case of emergency alerts generated by devices, like sensors, the processing may be different in order to reduce the number of falsely generated emergency alerts. Alerts may get triggered based on certain sensor input that may have been caused by other factors than the actual occurrence of an alert relevant event. For example, a sensor may simply be malfunctioning. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 For this purpose not all alert messages are directly sent to a PSAP but rather may be pre-processed by a separate entity, potentially under supervision by a human, to filter alerts and potentially correlate received alerts with others to obtain a larger picture of the ongoing situation. In any case, for alerts that are initiated by sensors the identity may play an important role in deciding whether to accept or ignore an incoming alert message. With the scenario shown in Figure 1 it is very likely that only authorized sensor input will be processed. For this purpose it needs to be ensured that no alert messages from an unknown origin are accepted. Two types of information elements can be used for this purpose: 1. SIP itself provides security mechanisms that allow the verification of the originator's identity. These mechanisms can be re-used, such as P-Asserted-Identity [RFC3325] or SIP Identity [RFC4474]. The latter provides a cryptographic assurance while the former relies on a chain of trust model. 2. CAP provides additional security mechanisms and the ability to carry additional information about the sender's identity. Section 3.3.2.1 of [cap] specifies the signing algorithms of CAP documents. In addition to the desire to perform identity-based access control the classical communication security threats need to be considered, including integrity protection to prevent forgery and replay of alert messages in transit. To deal with replay of alerts a CAP document contains the mandatory , , elements and an optional element. These attributes make the CAP document unique for a specific sender and provide time restrictions. An entity that has received a CAP message already within the indicated timeframe is able to detect a replayed message and, if the content of that message is unchanged, then no additional security vulnerability is created. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED to make use of SIP security mechanisms, such as SIP Identity [RFC4474], to tie the CAP message to the SIP message. To provide protection of the entire SIP message exchange between neighboring SIP entities the usage of TLS is mandatory. Note that none of the security mechanism in this document protect against a compromised sensor sending crafted alerts. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 11. IANA Considerations 11.1. Registration of the 'application/emergencyCall.cap+xml' MIME type To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/ emergencyCall.cap+xml MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: cap+xml Required parameters: (none) Optional parameters: charset; Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is UTF-8 [RFC3629]. Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC 3023 [RFC3023], Section 3.2. Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry payloads of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a way to convey CAP payloads. Published specification: RFC XXX [Replace by the RFC number of this specification]. Applications which use this media type: Applications that convey alerts and warnings according to the CAP standard. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Additional information: OASIS has published the Common Alerting Protocol at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ documents.php&wg_abbrev=emergency Person and email address to contact for further information: Hannes Tschofenig, Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com Intended usage: Limited use Author/Change controller: IETF ECRIT working group Other information: This media type is a specialization of application/xml RFC 3023 [RFC3023], and many of the considerations described there also apply to application/cap+xml. 11.2. IANA Registration of Additional Data Block This document registers a new block type in the sub-registry called 'Additional Data Blocks' defined in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data]. The token is "cap" and the reference is this document. 11.3. IANA Registration for 425 Response Code In the SIP Response Codes registry, the following is added Reference: RFC-XXXX (i.e., this document) Response code: 425 (recommended number to assign) Default reason phrase: Bad Alert Message Registry: Response Code Reference ------------------------------------------ --------- Request Failure 4xx 425 Bad Alert Message [this doc] This SIP Response code is defined in Section 5. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 11.4. IANA Registration of New AlertMsg-Error Header Field The SIP AlertMsg-error header field is created by this document, with its definition and rules in Section 5, to be added to the IANA sip- parameters registry with two actions: 1. Update the Header Fields registry with Registry: Header Name compact Reference ----------------- ------- --------- AlertMsg-Error [this doc] 2. In the portion titled "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values", add Predefined Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference ----------------- ------------------- ---------- --------- AlertMsg-Error code yes [this doc] 11.5. IANA Registration for the SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes This document creates a new registry for SIP, called "AlertMsg-Error Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reason for the error discovered by recipients, categorized by action to be taken by error recipient. The initial values for this registry are shown below. Registry Name: AlertMsg-Error Codes Reference: [this doc] Registration Procedures: Specification Required Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Code Default Reason Phrase Reference ---- --------------------------------------------------- --------- 100 "Cannot Process the Alert Payload" [this doc] 101 "Alert Payload was not present or could not be found" [this doc] 102 "Not enough information to determine the purpose of the alert" [this doc] 103 "Alert Payload was corrupted" [this doc] Details of these error codes are in Section 5. 12. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the participants of the Early Warning adhoc meeting at IETF#69 for their feedback. Additionally, we would like to thank the members of the NENA Long Term Direction Working Group for their feedback. Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Thomson, James Winterbottom, Shida Schubert, Bernard Aboba, and Marc Linsner for their review comments. 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [cap] Jones, E. and A. Botterell, "Common Alerting Protocol v. 1.1", October 2005. [RFC2392] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002. [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. [RFC6442] Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442, December 2011. [RFC6881] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling", BCP 181, RFC 6881, March 2013. [I-D.ietf-ecrit-additional-data] Randy, R., Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., and J. Winterbottom, "Additional Data related to an Emergency Call", draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-24 (work in progress), October 2014. [I-D.rosen-ecrit-addldata-subnot] Rosen, B., "Updating Additional Data related to an Emergency Call using Subscribe/ Notify", draft-rosen- ecrit-addldata-subnot-01 (work in progress), November 2013. 13.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location] Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, "Trustworthy Location", draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy- location-14 (work in progress), July 2014. [RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006. [RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002. [RFC6443] Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton, "Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia", RFC 6443, December 2011. Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Data-Only Emergency Calls October 2014 Authors' Addresses Brian Rosen NeuStar, Inc. 470 Conrad Dr Mars, PA 16046 US Email: br@brianrosen.net Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 US Phone: +1 212 939 7004 Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu Hannes Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks Linnoitustie 6 Espoo 02600 Finland Phone: +358 (50) 4871445 Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at Rosen, et al. Expires April 30, 2015 [Page 22]