RFC8876



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Rosen Request for Comments: 8876 Category: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne ISSN: 2070-1721 Columbia U.

                                                       H. Tschofenig
                                                                    
                                                          R. Gellens
                                          Core Technology Consulting
                                                      September 2020

                Non-interactive Emergency Calls

Abstract

Use of the Internet for emergency calling is described in RFC 6443, 'Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia'. In some cases of emergency calls, the transmission of application data is all that is needed, and no interactive media channel is established: a situation referred to as 'non-interactive emergency calls', where, unlike most emergency calls, there is no two-way interactive media such as voice or video or text. This document describes use of a SIP MESSAGE transaction that includes a container for the data based on the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). That type of emergency request does not establish a session, distinguishing it from SIP INVITE, which does. Any device that needs to initiate a request for emergency services without an interactive media channel would use the mechanisms in this document.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8876.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://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.

1. Introduction 2. Terminology 3. Architectural Overview 4. Protocol Specification

 4.1.  CAP Transport
 4.2.  Profiling of the CAP Document Content
 4.3.  Sending a Non-interactive Emergency Call

5. Error Handling

 5.1.  425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code
 5.2.  The AlertMsg-Error Header Field

6. Call Backs 7. Handling Large Amounts of Data 8. Example 9. Security Considerations 10. IANA Considerations

 10.1.  'application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml' Media Type
 10.2.  'cap' Additional Data Block
 10.3.  425 Response Code
 10.4.  AlertMsg-Error Header Field
 10.5.  SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes

11. References

 11.1.  Normative References
 11.2.  Informative References

Acknowledgments Authors' Addresses

Introduction

RFC6443 describes how devices use the Internet to place emergency calls and how Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) handle Internet multimedia emergency calls natively. The exchange of multimedia traffic for emergency services 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 an intermediary. Examples of such environments include sensors issuing alerts, and certain types of medical monitors. These messages may be alerts to emergency authorities and do not require establishment of a session. These types of interactions are called 'non-interactive emergency calls'. In this document, we use the term "call" so that similarities between non-interactive alerts and sessions with interactive media are more obvious.

Non-interactive emergency calls are similar to regular emergency calls in the sense that they require the emergency indications, emergency call routing functionality, and location. However, the communication interaction will not lead to the exchange of interactive media, that is, Real-Time Transport Protocol RFC3550 packets, such as voice, video, or real-time text.

The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) [CAP] is a format for exchanging emergency alerts and public warnings. CAP is mainly used for conveying alerts and warnings between authorities and from authorities to the public. The scope of this document is conveying CAP alerts from private devices to emergency service authorities, as a call without any interactive media.

This document describes a method of including a CAP alert in a SIP transaction by defining it as a block of "additional data" as defined in RFC7852. The CAP alert is included either by value (the CAP alert is in the body of the message, using a CID) or by reference (the message includes a URI that, when dereferenced, returns the CAP alert). The additional data mechanism is also used to send alert- specific data beyond that available in the CAP alert. This document also describes how a SIP MESSAGE RFC3428 transaction can be used to send a non-interactive call.

Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 RFC2119 RFC8174 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Non-interactive emergency call: An emergency call where there is no

  two-way interactive media

SIP: Session Initiation Protocol RFC3261

PIDF-LO: Presence Information Data Format Location Object, a data

  structure for carrying location RFC4119

LoST: Location To Service Translation protocol RFC5222

CID: Content-ID RFC2392

CAP: Common Alerting Protocol [CAP]

PSAP: Public Safety Answering Point, the call center for emergency

  calls

ESRP: Emergency Services Routing Proxy, a type of SIP Proxy Server

  used in some emergency services networks

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 an

   intermediary recipient responsible for evaluating the next steps.
   These steps could include:

   a.  Sending a non-interactive call containing only data towards a
       Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP);

   b.  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 RFC5031 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 SIP MESSAGE with CAP content, a Geolocation header
   field, and one or more Call-Info header fields containing
   additional data RFC7852).

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 to 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.

+------------+              +------------+
| Sensor     |              | Aggregator |
|            |              |            |
+---+--------+              +------+-----+
    |                              |
 Sensors                           |
 trigger                           |
 emergency                         |
 alert                             |
    |    SIP MESSAGE with CAP      |
    |----------------------------->|
    |                              |
    |                           Aggregator
    |                           processes
    |                           emergency
    |                           alert
    |      SIP 200 (OK)            |
    |<-----------------------------|
    |                              |
    |                              |

             Figure 1: Targeted Emergency Alert Routing

In Figure 2, a scenario is shown where the alert is routed using location information and a service URN. An emergency services routing proxy (ESRP) may use LoST (a protocol defined by RFC5222, which translates a location to a URI used to route an emergency call) 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 a call taker. In the generic case, there is very likely no prior relationship between the originator and the receiver, e.g., a PSAP. For example, a PSAP is likely to receive and accept alerts from entities it has no previous relationship with. This scenario is similar to a classic voice emergency services call, and the description in RFC6881 is applicable. In this use case, the only difference between an emergency call and an emergency non-interactive 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 interactive media.

  +----------+         +----------+                  +-----------+
  |Sensor or |         |  ESRP    |                  |   PSAP    |
  |Aggregator|         |          |                  |           |
  +----+-----+         +---+------+                  +----+------+
       |                   |                              |
    Sensors                |                              |
    trigger                |                              |
    emergency              |                              |
    alert                  |                              |
       |                   |                              |
       |                   |                              |
       | SIP MESSAGE w/CAP |                              |
       | (including service URN,                          |
       | such as urn:service:sos)                         |
       |------------------>|                              |
       |                   |                              |
       |              ESRP performs                       |
       |              emergency alert                     |
       |              routing                             |
       |                   |  MESSAGE with CAP            |
       |                   |  (including identity info)   |
       |                   |----------------------------->|
       |                   |                              |
       |                   |                           PSAP
       |                   |                           processes
       |                   |                           emergency
       |                   |                           alert
       |                   |      SIP 200 (OK)            |
       |                   |<-----------------------------|
       |                   |                              |
       |  SIP 200 (OK)     |                              |
       |<------------------|                              |
       |                   |                              |
       |                   |                              |

          Figure 2: Location-Based Emergency Alert Routing

Protocol Specification

CAP Transport

This document addresses sending a CAP alert in a SIP MESSAGE transaction for a non-interactive emergency call. Behavior with other transactions is not defined.

The CAP alert is included in a SIP message as an additional data block RFC7852. Accordingly, it is conveyed in the SIP message with a Call-Info header field with a purpose of "EmergencyCallData.cap". The header field may contain a URI that is used by the recipient (or in some cases, an intermediary) to obtain the CAP alert. Alternatively, the Call-Info header field may contain a Content-ID URL RFC2392 and the CAP alert included in the body of the message. In the latter case, the CAP alert is located in a MIME block of the type 'application/emergencyCallData.cap+xml'.

If the SIP server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the request, then a 501 Not Implemented will be returned as specified in RFC3261. This is the appropriate response when a User Agent Server (UAS) does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any user.

The 415 Unsupported Media Type error will be returned as specified in RFC3261 if the SIP 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 fields, depending on the specific problem with the content.

Profiling of the CAP Document Content

The usage of CAP MUST conform to the specification provided with [CAP]. For usage with SIP, the following additional requirements are imposed (where "sender" and "author" are as defined in CAP and "originator" is the entity sending the CAP alert, which may be different from the entity sending the SIP MESSAGE):

sender: The following restrictions and conditions apply to setting

  the value of the <sender> element:

  *  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
     <sender> element MUST be populated with the SIP URI of the user
     agent.

  *  Originator is a non-SIP entity, Author indication irrelevant:
     When the alert was created by a non-SIP-based entity and the
     identity of this original sender is to be preserved, then this
     identity MUST be placed into the <sender> element.  In this
     situation, it is not useful to be explicit about the author of
     the alert.  The specific type of identity being used will
     depend on the technology used by the originator.

  *  Author indication relevant: When the author is different from
     the originator of the message and this distinction should be
     preserved, then the <sender> element MUST NOT contain the SIP
     URI of the user agent.

incidents: The <incidents> element MUST be present. This incident

  identifier MUST be chosen in such a way that it is unique for a
  given <sender, expires, incidents> combination.  Note that the
  <expires> element is OPTIONAL and might not be present.

scope: The value of the <scope> element MAY be set to "Private" if

  the alert is not meant for public consumption.  The <addresses>
  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 header fields.
  Populating information twice into different parts of the message
  may lead to inconsistency.

parameter: The <parameter> element MAY contain additional

  information specific to the sender, conforming to the CAP alert
  syntax.

area: It is RECOMMENDED to omit this element when constructing a

  message.  If the CAP alert is given to the SIP entity to transport
  and it already contains an <area> element, then the specified
  location information SHOULD be copied into a PIDF-LO structure
  (the data format for location used by emergency calls on the
  Internet) referenced by the SIP 'Geolocation' header field.  If
  the CAP alert is being created by the SIP entity using a PIDF-LO
  structure referenced by 'geolocation' to construct <area>,
  implementers must be aware that <area> is limited to a circle or
  polygon, and conversion of other shapes will be required.  Points
  SHOULD be converted to a circle with a radius equal to the
  uncertainty of the point.  Arc-bands and ellipses SHOULD be
  converted to polygons with similar coverage, and 3D locations
  SHOULD be converted to 2D forms with similar coverage.

Sending a Non-interactive Emergency Call

A non-interactive emergency call is sent using a SIP MESSAGE transaction with a CAP URI or body part 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 nor establish interactive media streams, but otherwise, the header content of the transaction, routing, and processing of non-interactive calls are the same as those of other emergency calls.

Error Handling

This section defines a new error response code and a header field for additional information.

425 (Bad Alert Message) Response Code

This SIP extension creates a new response code defined as follows:

  425 (Bad Alert Message)

The 425 response code is a rejection of the request, indicating that it was malformed enough that no reasonable emergency response to the alert can be determined.

A SIP intermediary can also use this code to reject an alert it receives from a User Agent (UA) when it detects 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 usually the case that emergency calls are not rejected if there is any useful information that can be acted upon. It is only appropriate to generate a 425 response when the responding entity has no other information in the request that is usable by the responder.

A 425 response code MUST NOT be sent in response to a request that lacks an alert message (i.e., CAP data), as the user agent in that case may not support this extension.

A 425 response is a final response within a transaction and MUST NOT terminate an existing dialog.

The AlertMsg-Error Header Field

The AlertMsg-Error header field 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 RFC 3261)
  AlertMsg-Error   = "AlertMsg-Error" HCOLON
                          ErrorValue
  ErrorValue       =  error-code
                           *(SEMI error-params)
  error-code       = 3DIGIT
  error-params     = error-code-text
                           / generic-param ; from RFC 3261
  error-code-text  = "message" EQUAL quoted-string ; from RFC 3261

HCOLON, SEMI, and EQUAL are defined in RFC3261. DIGIT is defined in 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 readable. The text string is OPTIONAL, but RECOMMENDED for human readability, similar to the string phrase used for SIP response codes. 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. The code space for ErrorValue is separate from SIP Status Codes.

The AlertMsg-Error header field MAY be included in any response if an alert message was in the request part of the same transaction. For example, suppose a UA includes an alert in a MESSAGE to a PSAP. The PSAP can accept this MESSAGE, even though its UA determined that the alert message contained in the MESSAGE was bad. The PSAP merely includes an AlertMsg-Error header field value in the 200 OK to the MESSAGE, thus 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 send a 425 response with an AlertMsg-Error code.

This document defines an initial list of AlertMsg-Error values for any SIP response, including provisional responses (other than 100 Trying) and the new 425 response. There MUST NOT be more than one AlertMsg-Error code in a SIP response. AlertMsg-Error values sent in provisional responses MUST be sent using the mechanism defined in RFC3262; or, if that mechanism is not negotiated, they MUST be repeated in the final response to the transaction.

AlertMsg-Error: 100 ; message="Cannot process the alert payload"

AlertMsg-Error: 101 ; message="Alert payload was not present or could not be found"

AlertMsg-Error: 102 ; message="Not enough information to determine the purpose of the alert"

AlertMsg-Error: 103 ; message="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.

Call Backs

This document does not describe any method for the recipient to call back the sender of a non-interactive call. Usually, these alerts are sent by automata, which do not have a mechanism to receive calls of any kind. The identifier in the 'From' header field may be useful to obtain more information, but any such mechanism is not defined in this document. The CAP alert may contain related contact information for the sender.

Handling Large Amounts of Data

Sensors may have large quantities of data that they may wish to send. Including large amounts of data (tens of kilobytes) 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 in RFC7852, which involves making the data available via HTTPS RFC2818 (either at the originator or at another entity), placing a URI to the data in the 'Call-Info' header field, and the recipient uses HTTPS to retrieve the data. The CAP alert itself can be sent by reference using this mechanism, as can any or all of the additional data blocks that may contain sensor-specific data.

There are no rate-limiting mechanisms for any SIP transactions that are standardized, although implementations often include such functions. Non-interactive emergency calls are typically handled the same as any emergency call, which means a human call-taker is involved. Implementations should take note of this limitation, especially when calls are placed automatically without human initiation.

Example

The following example shows a CAP document indicating a BURGLARY alert issued by a sensor called '[email protected]'. The location of the sensor can be obtained from the attached location information provided via the 'Geolocation' header field contained in the SIP MESSAGE structure. Additionally, the sensor provided some data along with the alert message, using proprietary information elements intended only to be processed by the receiver, a SIP entity acting as an aggregator.

  MESSAGE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
  Via: SIP/2.0/TCP sensor1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse
  Max-Forwards: 70
  From: sip:[email protected];tag=49583
  To: sip:[email protected]
  Call-ID: asd88asd77a@2001:db8::ff
  Geolocation: <cid:[email protected]>
    ;routing-allowed=yes
  Supported: geolocation
  CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
  Call-Info: cid:[email protected];purpose=EmergencyCallData.cap
  Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
  Content-Length: ...

  --boundary1
  Content-Type: application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml
  Content-ID: <[email protected]>
  Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

  <alert xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:cap:1.1">
   <identifier>S-1</identifier>
   <sender>sip:[email protected]</sender>
   <sent>2020-01-04T20:57:35Z</sent>
   <status>Actual</status>
   <msgType>Alert</msgType>
   <scope>Private</scope>
   <incidents>abc1234</incidents>
   <info>
       <category>Security</category>
       
       <urgency>Expected</urgency>
       <certainty>Likely</certainty>
       <severity>Moderate</severity>
       <senderName>SENSOR 1</senderName>
       <parameter>
         <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1</valueName>
         <value>123</value>
       </parameter>
       <parameter>
         <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2</valueName>
         <value>TRUE</value>
       </parameter>
   </info>
 </alert>

  --boundary1
  Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
  Content-ID: <[email protected]>

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence
         xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
         xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
         xmlns:gbp=
                "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
         xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
         xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
         xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
         entity="pres:[email protected]">
       <dm:device id="sensor">
         <gp:geopriv>
           <gp:location-info>
             <gml:location>
               <gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
                 <gml:pos>44.85249659 -93.238665712</gml:pos>
               </gml:Point>
            </gml:location>
           </gp:location-info>
           <gp:usage-rules>
             <gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
             </gbp:retransmission-allowed>
             <gbp:retention-expiry>2020-02-04T20:57:29Z
             </gbp:retention-expiry>
           </gp:usage-rules>
           <gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
         </gp:geopriv>
         <dm:timestamp>2020-01-04T20:57:29Z</dm:timestamp>
       </dm:device>
     </presence>
  --boundary1--

   Figure 3: Example Message Conveying an Alert to an Aggregator

The following shows the same CAP document sent as a non-interactive 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:[email protected];tag=32336
  To: 112
  Call-ID: [email protected]
  Route: sip:psap1.example.gov
  Geolocation: <cid:[email protected]>
    ;routing-allowed=yes
  Supported: geolocation
  Call-info: cid:[email protected];purpose=EmergencyCallData.cap
  CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
  Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
  Content-Length: ...

  --boundary1

  Content-Type: application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml
  Content-ID: <[email protected]>
 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

 <alert xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:cap:1.1">
   <identifier>S-1</identifier>
   <sender>sip:[email protected]</sender>
   <sent>2020-01-04T20:57:35Z</sent>
   <status>Actual</status>
   <msgType>Alert</msgType>
   <scope>Private</scope>
   <incidents>abc1234</incidents>
   <info>
       <category>Security</category>
       
       <urgency>Expected</urgency>
       <certainty>Likely</certainty>
       <severity>Moderate</severity>
       <senderName>SENSOR 1</senderName>
       <parameter>
         <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE1</valueName>
         <value>123</value>
       </parameter>
       <parameter>
         <valueName>SENSOR-DATA-NAMESPACE2</valueName>
         <value>TRUE</value>
       </parameter>
   </info>
  </alert>

  --boundary1

  Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
  Content-ID: <[email protected]>
  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence
         xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
         xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
         xmlns:gbp=
                "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
         xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
         xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
         xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
         entity="pres:[email protected]">
       <dm:device id="sensor">
         <gp:geopriv>
           <gp:location-info>
             <gml:location>
               <gml:Point srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
                 <gml:pos>44.85249659 -93.2386657124</gml:pos>
               </gml:Point>
            </gml:location>
           </gp:location-info>
           <gp:usage-rules>
             <gbp:retransmission-allowed>false
             </gbp:retransmission-allowed>
             <gbp:retention-expiry>2020-02-04T20:57:25Z
             </gbp:retention-expiry>
           </gp:usage-rules>
           <gp:method>802.11</gp:method>
         </gp:geopriv>
         <dm:timestamp>2020-01-04T20:57:25Z</dm:timestamp>
       </dm:device>
     </presence>
  --boundary1--

       Figure 4: Example Message Conveying an Alert to a PSAP

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 RFC7378 and RFC6442.

The Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ECRIT) emergency services architecture RFC6443 considers classic individual-to-authority emergency calling where 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 does not depend on the identity of the caller. In the case of emergency alerts generated by devices such as sensors, the processing may be different in order to reduce the number of falsely generated emergency alerts. Alerts could get triggered based on certain sensor input that might have been caused by factors other than the actual occurrence of an alert-relevant event. For example, a sensor may simply be malfunctioning. For this reason, 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 initiated by sensors, the identity could 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 authenticated sensor input will be processed. For this reason, it needs to be possible to refuse to accept alert messages from unknown origins. 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, such as P-Asserted-
   Identity RFC3325 or SIP Identity RFC8224.  The latter
   provides a cryptographic assurance while the former relies on a
   chain-of-trust model.  These mechanisms can be reused.

2. CAP provides additional security mechanisms and the ability to

   carry further information about the sender's identity.
   Section 3.3.4.1 of [CAP] specifies the signing algorithms of CAP
   documents.

The specific policy and mechanisms used in a given deployment are out of scope for this document.

There is no rate limiting mechanisms in SIP, and all kinds of emergency calls, including those defined in this document, could be used by malicious actors or misbehaving devices to effect a denial- of-service attack on the emergency services. The mechanism defined in this document does not introduce any new considerations, although it may be more likely that devices that place non-interactive emergency calls without a human initiating them may be more likely than those that require a user to initiate them.

Implementors should note that automated emergency calls may be prohibited or regulated in some jurisdictions, and there may be penalties for "false positive" calls.

This document describes potential retrieval of information by dereferencing URIs found in a Call Info header of a SIP MESSAGE. These may include a CAP alert as well as other additional data RFC7852 blocks. The domain of the device sending the SIP MESSAGE; the domain of the server holding the CAP alert, if sent by reference; and the domain of other additional data blocks, if sent by reference, may all be different. No assumptions can be made that there are trust relationships between these entities. Recipients MUST take precautions in retrieving any additional data blocks passed by reference, including the CAP alert, because the URI may point to a malicious actor or entity not expecting to be referred to for this purpose. The considerations in handling URIs in RFC3986 apply.

Use of timestamps to prevent replay is subject to the availability of accurate time at all participants. Because emergency event notification via this mechanism is relatively low frequency and generally involves human interaction, implementations may wish to consider messages with times within a small number of seconds of each other to be effectively simultaneous for the purposes of detecting replay. Implementations may also wish to consider that most deployed time distribution protocols likely to be used by these systems are not presently secure.

In addition to the desire to perform identity-based access control, the classic communication security threats need to be considered, including integrity protection to prevent forgery or replay of alert messages in transit. To deal with replay of alerts, a CAP document contains the mandatory <identifier>, <sender>, and <sent> elements and an optional <expire> element. Together, these elements make the CAP document unique for a specific sender and provide time restrictions. An entity that has already received a CAP alert 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 the SIP Identity PASSporT RFC8225, to tie the CAP alert to the SIP message. To provide protection of the entire SIP message exchange between neighboring SIP entities, the usage of TLS is RECOMMENDED. RFC6443 discusses the issues of using TLS with emergency calls, which are equally applicable to non-interactive emergency calls.

Note that none of the security mechanisms in this document protect against a compromised sensor sending crafted alerts. Confidentiality provided for any emergency calls, including non-interactive messages, is subject to local regulations. Privacy issues are discussed in RFC7852 and are applicable here.

10. IANA Considerations

10.1. 'application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml' Media Type

Type name: application

Subtype name: EmergencyCallData.cap+xml

Required parameters: N/A

Optional parameters: charset; Indicates the character encoding of

  enclosed XML.  Default is UTF-8 RFC3629.

Encoding considerations: 7bit, 8bit, or binary. See Section 3.2 of

  RFC7303.

Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry

  payloads of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).  RFC 8876
  discusses security considerations for this.

Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a way to

  convey CAP payloads.

Published specification: RFC 8876

Applications that use this media type: Applications that convey

  alerts and warnings according to the CAP standard.

Fragment identifier considerations: N/A

Additional information: OASIS has published the Common Alerting

  Protocol at <https://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-
  v1.2-os.pdf>

Person and email address to contact for further information:

  Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>

Intended usage: Limited use

Author/Change controller: The IESG

Other information: This media type is a specialization of

  'application/xml' RFC7303, and many of the considerations
  described there also apply to application/
  EmergencyCallData.cap+xml.

10.2. 'cap' Additional Data Block

Per this document, IANA has registered a new block type in the "Emergency Call Data Types" subregistry of the "Emergency Call Additional Data" registry defined in RFC7852. The token is "cap", the Data About is "The Call", and the reference is this document.

10.3. 425 Response Code

In the SIP "Response Codes" registry, the following has been added under Request Failure 4xx.

         +===============+===================+===========+
         | Response Code | Description       | Reference |
         +===============+===================+===========+
         | 425           | Bad Alert Message | RFC 8876  |
         +---------------+-------------------+-----------+

             Table 1: Response Codes Registry Addition

This SIP Response code is defined in Section 5.

10.4. AlertMsg-Error Header Field

The SIP AlertMsg-Error header field is created by this document, with its definition and rules in Section 5. The IANA "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry has been updated as follows.

1. In the "Header Fields" subregistry, the following has been added:

               +================+=========+===========+
               | Head Name      | compact | Reference |
               +================+=========+===========+
               | AlertMsg-Error |         | RFC 8876  |
               +----------------+---------+-----------+

               Table 2: Header Fields Registry Addition

2. In the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values"

   subregistry, the following has been added:

     +================+================+============+===========+
     | Header Field   | Parameter Name | Predefined | Reference |
     |                |                | Values     |           |
     +================+================+============+===========+
     | AlertMsg-Error | code           | no         | RFC 8876  |
     +----------------+----------------+------------+-----------+

        Table 3: Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values
                          Registry Addition

10.5. SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes

This document creates a new registry called "SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes". AlertMsg-Error codes provide reasons for an error discovered by a recipient, categorized by the action to be taken by the error recipient. The initial values for this registry are shown below. The registration procedure is Specification Required RFC8126.

    +======+=====================================+===========+
    | Code | Default Reason Phrase               | Reference |
    +======+=====================================+===========+
    | 100  | "Cannot process the alert payload"  | RFC 8876  |
    +------+-------------------------------------+-----------+
    | 101  | "Alert payload was not present or   | RFC 8876  |
    |      | could not be found"                 |           |
    +------+-------------------------------------+-----------+
    | 102  | "Not enough information to          | RFC 8876  |
    |      | determine the purpose of the alert" |           |
    +------+-------------------------------------+-----------+
    | 103  | "Alert payload was corrupted"       | RFC 8876  |
    +------+-------------------------------------+-----------+

       Table 4: SIP AlertMsg-Error Codes Registry Creation

Details of these error codes are in Section 5.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[CAP] Jones, E. and A. Botterell, "Common Alerting Protocol

          Version 1.2", OASIS Standard CAP-V1.2, July 2010,
          <https://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-
          v1.2-os.pdf>.

RFC2119 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

          Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

RFC2392 Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource

          Locators", RFC 2392, DOI 10.17487/RFC2392, August 1998,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2392>.

RFC2818 Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,

          DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

RFC3261 Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,

          A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
          Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

RFC3262 Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of

          Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol
          (SIP)", RFC 3262, DOI 10.17487/RFC3262, June 2002,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3262>.

RFC3428 Campbell, B., Ed., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H.,

          Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol
          (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC3428, December 2002,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3428>.

RFC4119 Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object

          Format", RFC 4119, DOI 10.17487/RFC4119, December 2005,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4119>.

RFC5234 Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax

          Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

RFC7303 Thompson, H. and C. Lilley, "XML Media Types", RFC 7303,

          DOI 10.17487/RFC7303, July 2014,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7303>.

RFC3629 Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO

          10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
          2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

RFC3986 Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform

          Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
          RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

RFC6442 Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance

          for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC6442, December 2011,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6442>.

RFC6881 Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for

          Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling",
          BCP 181, RFC 6881, DOI 10.17487/RFC6881, March 2013,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6881>.

RFC7852 Gellens, R., Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., and

          J. Winterbottom, "Additional Data Related to an Emergency
          Call", RFC 7852, DOI 10.17487/RFC7852, July 2016,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7852>.

RFC8174 Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC

          2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
          May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

RFC8225 Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion

          Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8225>.

11.2. Informative References

RFC7378 Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, Ed.,

          "Trustworthy Location", RFC 7378, DOI 10.17487/RFC7378,
          December 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7378>.

RFC8126 Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for

          Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
          RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

RFC8224 Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,

          "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>.

RFC5031 Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for

          Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>.

RFC3325 Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private

          Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
          Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
          DOI 10.17487/RFC3325, November 2002,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3325>.

RFC5222 Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.

          Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
          Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
          <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.

RFC6443 Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton,

          "Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet
          Multimedia", RFC 6443, DOI 10.17487/RFC6443, December
          2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6443>.

RFC3550 Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.

          Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
          Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
          July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants of the Early Warning ad hoc 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, Marc Linsner, Christer Holmberg, and Ivo Sedlacek for their review comments.

Authors' Addresses

Brian Rosen 470 Conrad Dr Mars, PA 16046 United States of America

Email: [email protected]

Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 United States of America

Phone: +1 212 939 7004 Email: [email protected] URI: https://www.cs.columbia.edu

Hannes Tschofenig Austria

Email: [email protected] URI: https://www.tschofenig.priv.at

Randall Gellens Core Technology Consulting

Email: [email protected] URI: http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com