Subject: [Geopriv] Geopriv for emergency calls

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:40:41 -0500

At IETF58, I presented a short summary of issues of location for
emergency calls (9-1-1 in NA, 1-1-2 in GSM, ...).  They are:
  1) Emergency calls route based on location (e.g. what PSAP serves 
	you depends on where you are)

	Therefore, location must be on first message (INVITE in SIP)

  2) There are 2 or more intermediaries between the origination and 
     termination that need location to route; it's not end to end

  3) Post Dial Delay (e.g. rule processing time) is very limited 
    (fraction of a second for 2 second PDD)

  4) Rules for retention, forwarding, and to some extent, accuracy 
     are determined by local laws, i.e. RM is LR

The implications of this on the geopriv work is:
1) Choice of crypto is important, because and end-to-end
mechanism is problematic, and compute resources, especially
at the originating terminal (sip phone) is limited.

2) It is not practical (or legal), for the originating user
to specify the rules for e.g. retention, retransmission,...
as they are governed by the destination or law.

There is work ongoing in SIP/SIPPING and elsewhere to deal with
emergency calls.  At the moment, it appears that phones will
learn their location and report it when placing an emergency
call.  At the meeting, I proposed:

a) SIP phones be required to implement S/MIME to protect
geoloc data, but use of TLS or IPSEC should be used in
an emergency call, so that intermediary routing elements
(sip proxy servers) can route based on location.  We note
that in many cases, the security associations may be established
in advance, thus further reducing the delay, while maintaining
reasonable authentication, integrity and privacy of location
data

b) A default rule for emergency calls be specified in the RFC
for the using protocol.  Emergency calls would reference this rule.

I welcome your comments on this proposal.  

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:20:19 -0500

> for the using protocol.  Emergency calls would reference this rule.

This leads to an interesting question whether it makes sense to allow 
URNs for rules and have some resolution mechanism. I'm thinking of the 
rough equivalent of the IETF schema repository, which is apparently in 
the works. This wouldn't be used for a random person's personal privacy 
preferences listing his uncles and nephews, but rather for common "best 
practice" rule sets.