Subject: [Sipping] Draft Liaision response to SG13 on Emergency Telecommunications

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:21:20 +0200

Hi

This is the draft for a liaison response to be sent to SG 13 of the 
ITU-T from the TSVWG, NSIS, SIP and SIPPING WGs. Please provide any 
comments at the latest by the 14th of August. After that we will address 
any raised comments and send the liaison to ITU-T before the end of August.

Submission
Date:		<tbd>, 2007

From: 		IETF Working groups TSVWG, NSIS, SIP and SIPPING

To:		Georges Sebek  <[email-masked]> ,
		Keith Knightson <[email-masked]>

Cc:		Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>,
                 Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>,
                 James Polk <[email-masked]>,
                 Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>,
                 John Loughney <[email-masked]>
                 Dean Willis <[email-masked]>,
                 Keith Drage <[email-masked]>,
                 Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>,
                 Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>,
                 Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>,
                 Kimberly King <[email-masked]>,
                 Scott Brim <[email-masked]>

Response
Contact:	TSV WG ([email-masked])
		NSIS ([email-masked])
		SIPPING ([email-masked])
		SIP ([email-masked])
	
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 Q3/13 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 for anyone. Allowing participants in Q.3/13 
to keep them selves 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 not yet accepted as
    IETF WG items but 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.

-- 

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-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP