Hi,
I have now updated this liaison reply to take the comments into account.
According to the ECRIT chairs they don't think what they are working is
related to the ongoing work Q.3/13 is working on. If you have any final
comments please provide them no later then the Wednesday 29th at 16.00 CEST.
Magnus Westerlund
Submission
Date: <tbd>, 2007
From: IETF Working groups TSVWG, NSIS, SIP and SIPPING
To: Georges Sebek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,
Keith Knightson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
James Polk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Stiemerling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dean Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Keith Drage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mary Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kimberly King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Response
Contact: TSV WG ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
NSIS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
SIPPING ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
SIP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Purpose: Response to Liaison Request
Deadline: None
Title: Response to liaison request from ITU-T Study Group 13 work on
emergency telecommunications
This is a response to the liaison request made by Q.3/13 regarding
emergency telecommunications (REF: NGN-GSI/DOC – 60 Rev.2). We would
first like to apologize for failing to meet the deadline in responding.
We do hope that the late answer still can be of some use.
The liaison request was made to the following working groups (WG):
IEPREP, TSVWG, and NSIS. Since the request was sent the IEPREP WG has
concluded. In addition to the WGs from which information was requested,
we also think that work performed by the SIP and SIPPING WG may be of
relevance.
Pursuant to ITU-T Study Group 13 request for information on relevant and
related work in the IETF regarding emergency communications, we list
below RFCs and works in progress that we feel may be of interest to your
group. Some of the completed work is Informational, and others are in
the category of Standards Track.
Q.3/13 also requested that we keep you informed of any developments in
regards to emergency telecommunications. In those regards we would like
to make you aware that IETF mailing list participation and document
information is free and open to anyone, allowing participants in Q.3/13
to keep themselves informed of any developments. If Q.3/13 desire to get
further information about specific ongoing work, then please send a
liaison request to the responsible WG for those specific documents.
The following list is divided under the associated working groups from
which the work has been done within the IETF.
SIP Working Group
RFC 4411
Title:
Extending the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Reason Header for Preemption Events
Abstract:
This document proposes an IANA Registration extension to the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Reason Header to be included in a BYE
Method Request as a result of a session preemption event, either at a
user agent (UA), or somewhere in the network involving a
reservation-based protocol such as the Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) or Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS). This document does not
attempt to address routers failing in the packet path; instead, it
addresses a deliberate tear down of a flow between UAs, and informs
the terminated UA(s) with an indication of what occurred.
RFC 4412
Title:
Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)
Abstract:
This document defines two new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
header fields for communicating resource priority, namely,
"Resource-Priority" and "Accept-Resource-Priority". The
"Resource-Priority" header field can influence the behavior of SIP
user agents (such as telephone gateways and IP telephones) and SIP
proxies. It does not directly influence the forwarding behavior of
IP routers.
SIPPING Working Group
The below two documents are proposed work items accepted to become IETF
WG items are likely of interest as they update RFC 4412.
Work In Progress: draft-polk-sip-rph-in-responses-00
Title:
Allowing SIP Resource Priority Header in SIP Responses
Abstract:
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority Header
(RPH), in its current form, is ignored in SIP responses. This was a
design choice during RFC 4412's development. This is now considered
a bad design choice in certain scenarios. This document corrects
RFC 4412's communications model by optionally allowing a SIP server
or user agent client to process the Resource-Priority Header in a
response.
Work In Progress: draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces--00
Title:
New Session Initiation Protocol Resource-Priority Header Namespaces for
the Defense Information Systems Agency
Abstract:
This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol
Resource-Priority header namespaces, to be IANA registered. This
document intends to update RFC 4412, as a Proposed Standard document
if published by the RFC-Editor.
IEPREP Working Group
RFC 3487
Title:
Requirements for Resource Priority Mechanisms for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Abstract:
This document summarizes requirements for prioritizing access to
circuit-switched network, end system and proxy resources for
emergency preparedness communications using the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP).
RFC 3689
Title:
General Requirements for
Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)
Abstract:
This document presents a list of general requirements in support of
Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS). Solutions to these
requirements are not presented in this document. Additional
requirements pertaining to specific applications, or types of
applications, are to be specified in separate document(s).
RFC 3690
Title:
IP Telephony Requirements for
Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)
Abstract:
This document presents a list of requirements in support of Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS) within the context of IP telephony.
It is an extension to the general requirements presented in RFC 3689.
Solutions to these requirements are not presented in this document.
RFC 4190
Title:
Framework for Supporting Emergency Telecommunications
Service (ETS) in IP Telephony
Abstract:
This document presents a framework for supporting authorized,
emergency-related communication within the context of IP telephony.
We present a series of objectives that reflect a general view of how
authorized emergency service, in line with the Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS), should be realized within today's
IP architecture and service models. From these objectives, we
present a corresponding set of protocols and capabilities, which
provide a more specific set of recommendations regarding existing
IETF protocols. Finally, we present two scenarios that act as
guiding models for the objectives and functions listed in this
document. These models, coupled with an example of an existing
service in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), contribute
to a constrained solution space.
RFC 4375
Title:
Emergency Telecommunications Services (ETS) Requirements
for a Single Administrative Domain
Abstract:
This document presents a list of requirements in support of Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS) within a single administrative
domain. This document focuses on a specific set of administrative
constraints and scope. Solutions to these requirements are not
presented in this document.
TSV Working Group
RFC 4542
Title:
Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS)
for Real-Time Services in the Internet Protocol Suite
Abstract:
RFCs 3689 and 3690 detail requirements for an Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS), of which an Internet Emergency
Preparedness Service (IEPS) would be a part. Some of these types of
services require call preemption; others require call queuing or
other mechanisms. IEPS requires a Call Admission Control (CAC)
procedure and a Per Hop Behavior (PHB) for the data that meet the
needs of this architecture. Such a CAC procedure and PHB is
appropriate to any service that might use H.323 or SIP to set up
real-time sessions. The key requirement is to guarantee an elevated
probability of call completion to an authorized user in time of
crisis.
This document primarily discusses supporting ETS in the context of
the US Government and NATO, because it focuses on the Multi-Level
Precedence and Preemption (MLPP) and Government Emergency
Telecommunication Service (GETS) standards. The architectures
described here are applicable beyond these organizations.
Work In Progress: draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-03.txt
Title:
Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for
Emergency Services
Abstract:
An Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) requires the ability to
provide an elevated probability of session establishment to an
authorized user in times of network congestion (typically, during a
crisis). When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may be
facilitated through a network layer admission control solution, which
supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth). These
resources may be explicitly set aside for emergency services, or they
may be shared with other sessions.
This document specifies RSVP extensions that can be used to support
such an admission priority capability at the network layer. Note that
these extensions represent one possible solution component in
satisfying ETS requirements. Other solution components, or other
solutions, are outside the scope of this document.
NSIS Working Group
Work In Progress: draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-14.txt
Title:
NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling
Abstract:
This specification describes the NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)
for signaling QoS reservations in the Internet. It is in accordance
with the framework and requirements developed in NSIS. Together with
GIST, it provides functionality similar to RSVP and extends it. The QoS
NSLP is independent of the underlying QoS specification or architecture
and provides support for different reservation models. It is simplified
by the elimination of support for multicast flows. This specification
explains the overall protocol approach, design decisions made and
provides examples. It specifies object, message formats and processing
rules.
Non-WG Documents
Approved for publication: draft-carlberg-trip-attribute-rp-02.txt
Title:
TRIP Attribute for Resource Priority
Abstract:
This document defines a new attribute for the TRIP protocol. The
attribute associates protocols/services in the PSTN offering
authorized prioritization during call setup that are reachable
through a TRIP gateway. Current examples of preferential service in
the PSTN are Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)
in the U.S. and Government Telephone Preference Scheme (GTPS) in the
U.K. The proposed attribute for TRIP is based on the NameSpace.Value
tupple defined for the SIP resource Priority field.
--
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
