Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall
draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall
ECRIT R. Gellens
Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting
Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig
Expires: August 18, 2017 Individual
February 14, 2017
Next-Generation Pan-European eCall
draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-27.txt
Abstract
This document describes how to use IP-based emergency services
mechanisms to support the next generation of the pan European in-
vehicle emergency call service defined under the eSafety initiative
of the European Commission (generally referred to as "eCall"). eCall
is a standardized and mandated system for a special form of emergency
calls placed by vehicles, providing real-time communications and an
integrated set of related data.
This document also registers MIME media types and an Emergency Call
Additional Data Block for the eCall vehicle data and metadata/control
data, and an INFO package to enable carrying this data in SIP INFO
requests.
Although this specification is designed to meet the requirements of
European next-generation eCall, it is specified generically such that
the technology can be re-used or extended to suit requirements across
jurisdictions.
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 August 18, 2017.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. eCall Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Vehicle Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Data Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Call Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Test Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. The Metadata/Control Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. The Control Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1.1. The <ack> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1.1.1. Attributes of the <ack> element . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1.1.2. Child Element of the <ack> element . . . . . . . 14
9.1.1.3. Ack Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.2. The <capabilities> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.2.1. Child Element of the <capabilities> element . . . 15
9.1.2.2. Capabilities Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1.3. The <request> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1.3.1. Attributes of the <request> element . . . . . . . 17
9.1.3.2. Request Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14.1. The EmergencyCallData Media Subtree . . . . . . . . . . 28
14.2. Service URN Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.3. MIME Media Type Registration for
'application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD' . . . . . . . 29
14.4. MIME Media Type Registration for
'application/emergencyCallData.control+xml' . . . . . . 31
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
14.5. Registration of the 'eCall.MSD' entry in the Emergency
Call Additional Data Types registry . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.6. Registration of the 'control' entry in the Emergency
Call Additional Data Types registry . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.7. Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control . . . . 33
14.8. Registry Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14.8.1. Emergency Call Action Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14.8.2. Emergency Call Action Failure Reason Registry . . . 34
14.9. The emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD INFO package . . . . . . 35
14.9.1. Overall Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
14.9.2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
14.9.3. Info Package Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
14.9.4. Info Package Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
14.9.5. SIP Option-Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
14.9.6. INFO Request Body Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
14.9.7. Info Package Usage Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . 37
14.9.8. Rate of INFO Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
14.9.9. Info Package Security Considerations . . . . . . . . 38
14.9.10. Implementation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
14.9.11. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
15. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17. Changes from Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17.1. Changes from draft-ietf-19 to draft-ietf-20 . . . . . . 38
17.2. Changes from draft-ietf-18 to draft-ietf-19 . . . . . . 39
17.3. Changes from draft-ietf-17 to draft-ietf-18 . . . . . . 39
17.4. Changes from draft-ietf-16 to draft-ietf-17 . . . . . . 39
17.5. Changes from draft-ietf-15 to draft-ietf-16 . . . . . . 39
17.6. Changes from draft-ietf-14 to draft-ietf-15 . . . . . . 39
17.7. Changes from draft-ietf-13 to draft-ietf-14 . . . . . . 39
17.8. Changes from draft-ietf-12 to draft-ietf-13 . . . . . . 39
17.9. Changes from draft-ietf-11 to draft-ietf-12 . . . . . . 40
17.10. Changes from draft-ietf-09 to draft-ietf-11 . . . . . . 40
17.11. Changes from draft-ietf-08 to draft-ietf-09 . . . . . . 40
17.12. Changes from draft-ietf-07 to draft-ietf-08 . . . . . . 40
17.13. Changes from draft-ietf-06 to draft-ietf-07 . . . . . . 41
17.14. Changes from draft-ietf-05 to draft-ietf-06 . . . . . . 41
17.15. Changes from draft-ietf-04 to draft-ietf-05 . . . . . . 41
17.16. Changes from draft-ietf-03 to draft-ietf-04 . . . . . . 41
17.17. Changes from draft-ietf-02 to draft-ietf-03 . . . . . . 41
17.18. Changes from draft-ietf-01 to draft-ietf-02 . . . . . . 42
17.19. Changes from draft-ietf-00 to draft-ietf-01 . . . . . . 42
17.20. Changes from draft-gellens-03 to draft-ietf-00 . . . . . 42
17.21. Changes from draft-gellens-02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . 42
17.22. Changes from draft-gellens-01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . 43
17.23. Changes from draft-gellens-00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . 43
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
18.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. 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 [RFC2119].
This document re-uses terminology defined in Section 3 of [RFC5012].
Additionally, we use the following abbreviations:
+--------+----------------------------------------+
| Term | Expansion |
+--------+----------------------------------------+
| 3GPP | 3rd Generation Partnership Project |
| | |
| CEN | European Committee for Standardization |
| | |
| EENA | European Emergency Number Association |
| | |
| ESInet | Emergency Services IP network |
| | |
| IMS | IP Multimedia Subsystem |
| | |
| IVS | In-Vehicle System |
| | |
| MNO | Mobile Network Operator |
| | |
| MSD | Minimum Set of Data |
| | |
| PSAP | Public Safety Answering Point |
+--------+----------------------------------------+
2. Document Scope
This document is focused on the signaling, data exchange, and
protocol needs of next-generation eCall (NG-eCall, also referred to
as packet-switched eCall or all-IP eCall) within the SIP framework
for emergency calls (as described in [RFC6443] and [RFC6881]). eCall
itself is specified by 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) and
CEN (European Committee for Standardization) and these specifications
include far greater scope than is covered here.
The eCall service operates over cellular wireless communication, but
this document does not address cellular-specific details, nor client
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
domain selection (e.g., circuit-switched versus packet-switched).
All such aspects are the purview of their respective standards
bodies. The scope of this document is limited to eCall operating
within a SIP-based environment (e.g., 3GPP IMS Emergency Calling
[TS23.167]).
Although this specification is designed to meet the requirements of
pan-European next-generation eCall, it is specified generically such
that the technology can be re-used or extended to suit requirements
across jurisdictions (see, e.g., [I-D.ietf-ecrit-car-crash]), and
extension points are provided to facilitate this.
Note that vehicles designed for multiple regions might need to
support eCall and other Advanced Automatic Crash Notification (AACN)
systems (such as described in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-car-crash]), but this
is out of scope of this document.
3. Introduction
Emergency calls made from vehicles (e.g., in the event of a crash)
assist in significantly reducing road deaths and injuries by allowing
emergency services to be aware of the incident, the state of the
vehicle, the location of the vehicle, and to have a voice channel
with the vehicle occupants. This enables a quick and appropriate
response.
The European Commission initiative of eCall was conceived in the late
1990s, and has evolved to a European Parliament decision requiring
the implementation of a compliant in-vehicle system (IVS) in new
vehicles and the deployment of eCall in the European Member States in
the very near future. Other regions are developing eCall-compatible
systems.
The pan-European eCall system is a standardized and mandated
mechanism for emergency calls by vehicles, providing a voice channel
and transmission of data. eCall establishes procedures for such
calls to be placed by in-vehicle systems, recognized and processed by
the mobile network, and routed to a specialized PSAP where the
vehicle data is available to assist the call taker in assessing and
responding to the situation. eCall provides a standard set of
vehicle, sensor (e.g., crash related), and location data.
An eCall can be either user-initiated or automatically triggered.
Automatically triggered eCalls indicate a car crash or some other
serious incident. Manually triggered eCalls might be reports of
witnessed crashes or serious hazards. PSAPs might apply specific
operational handling to manual and automatic eCalls.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Legacy eCall is standardized (by 3GPP [SDO-3GPP] and CEN [CEN]) as a
3GPP circuit-switched call over GSM (2G) or UMTS (3G). Flags in the
call setup mark the call as an eCall, and further indicate if the
call was automatically or manually triggered. The call is routed to
an eCall-capable PSAP, a voice channel is established between the
vehicle and the PSAP, and an eCall in-band modem is used to carry a
defined set of vehicle, sensor (e.g., crash related), and location
data (the Minimum Set of Data or MSD) within the voice channel. The
same in-band mechanism is used for the PSAP to acknowledge successful
receipt of the MSD, and to request the vehicle to send a new MSD
(e.g., to check if the state of or location of the vehicle or its
occupants has changed). NG-eCall moves from circuit switched to all-
IP, and carries the vehicle data and eCall signaling as additional
data carried with the call. This document describes how IETF
mechanisms for IP-based emergency calls (including [RFC6443] and
[RFC7852]) are used to provide the signaling and data exchange of the
next generation of pan-European eCall.
The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) [SDO-ETSI]
has published a Technical Report titled "Mobile Standards Group
(MSG); eCall for VoIP" [MSG_TR] that presents findings and
recommendations regarding support for eCall in an all-IP environment.
The recommendations include the use of 3GPP IMS emergency calling
with additional elements identifying the call as an eCall and as
carrying eCall data and with mechanisms for carrying the data and
eCall signaling. 3GPP IMS emergency services support multimedia,
providing the ability to carry voice, text, and video. This
capability is referred to within 3GPP as Multimedia Emergency
Services (MMES).
A transition period will exist during which time the various entities
involved in initiating and handling an eCall might support next-
generation eCall, legacy eCall, or both. The issues of migration and
co-existence during the transition period are outside the scope of
this document.
This document indicates how to use IP-based emergency services
mechanisms to support next-generation eCall.
This document also registers MIME media types and an Emergency Call
Additional Data Block for the eCall vehicle data (MSD) and metadata/
control data, and an INFO package to enable carrying this data in SIP
INFO requests.
The MSD is carried in the MIME type 'application/
emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD' and the metadata/control block is
carried in the MIME type 'application/emergencyCallData.control+xml'
(both of which are registered in Section 14). An INFO package is
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
defined (in Section 14.9) to enable these MIME types to be carried in
SIP INFO requests, per [RFC6086].
4. eCall Requirements
eCall requirements are specified by CEN in [EN_16072] and by 3GPP in
[TS22.101] clauses 10.7 and A.27 and [TS24.229] section 4.7.6.
Requirements specific to vehicle data are contained in EN 15722
[msd].
5. Vehicle Data
Pan-European eCall provides a standardized and mandated set of
vehicle related data (including VIN, vehicle type, propulsion type,
current and optionally previous location coordinates, and number of
occupants), known as the Minimum Set of Data (MSD). The European
Committee for Standardization (CEN) has specified this data in EN
15722 [msd], along with both ASN.1 and XML encodings. Both circuit-
switched eCall and this document use the ASN.1 PER encoding, which is
specified in Annex A of EN 15722 [msd] (the XML encoding specified in
Annex C is not used in this document, per 3GPP [SDO-3GPP]).
This document registers the 'application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD'
MIME media type to enable the MSD to be carried in SIP. As an ASN.1
PER encoded object, the data is binary and transported using binary
content transfer encoding within SIP messages. This document also
adds the 'eCall.MSD' entry to the Emergency Call Additional Data
Types registry to enable the MSD to be recognized as such in a SIP-
based eCall emergency call. (See [RFC7852] for more information
about the registry and how it is used.)
See Section 6 for a discussion of how the MSD vehicle data is
conveyed in an NG-eCall.
6. Data Transport
[RFC7852] establishes a general mechanism for conveying blocks of
data within a SIP emergency call. This document makes use of that
mechanism to include vehicle data (the MSD, see Section 5) and/or
metadata/control information (see Section 9) within SIP messages.
This document also registers an INFO package (in Section 14.9) to
enable eCall related data blocks to be carried in SIP INFO requests
(per [RFC6086], new INFO usages require the definition of an INFO
package).
Note that if other data sets need to be transmitted in the future,
the appropriate signalling mechanism for such data needs to be
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
evaluated, including factors such as the size and frequency of such
data.
An In-Vehicle System (IVS) transmits an MSD (see Section 5) by
encoding it per Annex A of EN 15722 [msd], and including it as a MIME
body part within a SIP message per [RFC7852]. The body part is
identified by its MIME media type ('application/
emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD') in the Content-Type header field of the
body part. The body part is assigned a unique identifier which is
listed in a Content-ID header field in the body part. The SIP
message is marked as containing the MSD by adding (or appending to) a
Call-Info header field at the top level of the SIP message. This
Call-Info header field contains a CID URL referencing the body part's
unique identifier, and a 'purpose' parameter identifying the data as
the eCall MSD per the Emergency Call Additional Data Types registry
entry; the 'purpose' parameter's value is
'emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD'. Per [RFC6086], an MSD is carried in a
SIP INFO request by using the INFO package defined in Section 14.9.
A PSAP or IVS transmits a metadata/control object (see Section 9) by
encoding it per the description in this document, and including it
within a SIP message as a MIME body part per [RFC7852]. The body
part is identified by its MIME media type ('application/
emergencyCallData.control+xml') in the Content-Type header field of
the body part. The body part is assigned a unique identifier which
is listed in a Content-ID header field in the body part. The SIP
message is marked as containing the metadata/control object by adding
(or appending to) a Call-Info header field at the top level of the
SIP message. This Call-Info header field contains a CID URL
referencing the body part's unique identifier, and a 'purpose'
parameter identifying the data as an eCall metadata/control block per
the Emergency Call Additional Data Types registry entry; the
'purpose' parameter's value is 'emergencyCallData.control'. Per
[RFC6086], a metadata/control object is carried in a SIP INFO request
by using the INFO package defined in Section 14.9.
An MSD or a metadata/control block is always enclosed in a multipart
body part (even if it would otherwise be the only body part in the
SIP message).
A body part containing an MSD or metadata/control object has a
Content-Disposition header field value containing "By-Reference".
An In-Vehicle System (IVS) initiating an NG-eCall includes an MSD as
a body part within the initial INVITE, and optionally also includes a
metadata/control object informing the PSAP of its capabilities as
another body part. The MSD body part (and metadata/control and PIDF-
LO body parts if included) have a Content-Disposition header field
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
with the value "By-Reference; handling=optional". Specifying
"handling=optional" prevents the SIP INVITE request from being
rejected if it is processed by a legacy element (e.g., a gateway
between SIP and circuit-switched environments) that does not
understand the MSD (or metadata/control object or PIDF-LO). The PSAP
creates a metadata/control object acknowledging receipt of the MSD
and includes it as a body part within the SIP final response to the
SIP INVITE request per [RFC7852]. A metadata/control object is not
included in provisional (e.g., 180) responses.
A PSAP is able to reject a call while indicating that it is aware of
the situation by including a metadata/control object acknowledging
the MSD and containing "received=true" within a final response using
SIP response code 600 (Busy Everywhere), 486 (Busy Here), or 603
(Decline), per [RFC7852].
If the IVS receives an acknowledgment for an MSD containing
"received=false", this indicates that the PSAP was unable to properly
decode or process the MSD. The IVS action is not defined (e.g., it
might only log an error). Since the PSAP is able to request an
updated MSD during the call, if an initial MSD is unsatisfactory in
any way, the PSAP can choose to request another one.
A PSAP can request that the vehicle send an updated MSD during a call
(e.g., upon manual request of the PSAP call taker who suspects
vehicle state may have changed.) To do so, the PSAP creates a
metadata/control object requesting an MSD and includes it within a
SIP INFO request sent within the dialog. The IVS then includes an
updated MSD within a SIP INFO request and sends it within the dialog.
If the IVS is unable to send an MSD, it instead sends a metadata/
control object acknowledging the request with the 'success' parameter
set to 'false' and a 'reason' parameter (and optionally a 'details'
parameter) indicating why the request could not be accomplished. Per
[RFC6086], metadata/control objects and MSDs are sent using the INFO
package defined in Section 14.9. In addition, to align with how an
MSD or metadata/control block is transmitted in a SIP message other
than an INFO request, a Call-Info header field is included in the SIP
INFO request to reference the MSD or metadata/control block per
[RFC7852]. See Section 14.9 for information about the use of SIP
INFO requests to carry data within an eCall.
The IVS is not expected to send an unsolicited MSD after the initial
INVITE.
This document does not mandate support for the data blocks defined in
[RFC7852].
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
7. Call Setup
In circuit-switched eCall, the IVS places a special form of a 112
emergency call which carries an eCall flag (indicating that the call
is an eCall and also if the call was manually or automatically
triggered); the mobile network operator (MNO) recognizes the eCall
flag and routes the call to an eCall-capable PSAP; vehicle data is
transmitted to the PSAP via the eCall in-band modem (in the voice
channel).
///----\\\ 112 voice call with eCall flag +------+
||| IVS |||---------------------------------------->+ PSAP |
\\\----/// vehicle data via eCall in-band modem +------+
Figure 1: circuit-switched eCall
For NG-eCall, the IVS establishes an emergency call using a Request-
URI indicating a manual or automatic eCall; the MNO (or ESInet)
recognizes the eCall URN and routes the call to an NG-eCall capable
PSAP; the PSAP interprets the vehicle data sent with the call and
makes it available to the call taker.
///----\\\ IMS emergency call with eCall URN +------+
IVS ----------------------------------------->+ PSAP |
\\\----/// vehicle data included in call setup +------+
Figure 2: NG-eCall
See Section 6 for information on how the MSD is transported within an
NG-eCall.
This document adds new service URN children within the "sos"
subservice. These URNs provide the mechanism by which an eCall is
identified, and differentiate between manually and automatically
triggered eCalls (which might be subject to different treatment,
depending on policy). The two service URNs are:
urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic and urn:service:sos.ecall.manual,
which requests resources associated with an emergency call placed by
an in-vehicle system, carrying a standardized set of data related to
the vehicle and incident. These are registered in Section 14.2
Call routing is outside the scope of this document.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
8. Test Calls
eCall requires the ability to place test calls (see [TS22.101] clause
10.7 and [EN_16062] clause 7.2.2). These are calls that are
recognized and treated to some extent as eCalls but are not given
emergency call treatment and are not handled by call takers. The
specific handling of test eCalls is not itself standardized;
typically, the test call facility allows the IVS or user to verify
that an eCall can be successfully established with voice
communication. The IVS might also be able to verify that the MSD was
successfully received.
A service URN starting with "test." indicates a test call. For
eCall, "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" indicates such a test feature.
This functionality is defined in [RFC6881].
This document specifies "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test
calls. This is registered in Section 14.2
The circuit switched eCall test call facility is a non-emergency
number so does not get treated as an emergency call. For NG-eCall,
MNOs, emergency authorities, and PSAPs can determine how to treat a
vehicle call requesting the "test" service URN so that the desired
functionality is tested, but this is outside the scope of this
document.
9. The Metadata/Control Object
eCall requires the ability for the PSAP to acknowledge successful
receipt of an MSD sent by the IVS, and for the PSAP to request that
the IVS send an MSD (e.g., the call taker can initiate a request for
a new MSD to see if there have been changes in the vehicle's state,
e.g., location, direction, number of fastened seatbelts).
This document defines a block of metadata/control data as an XML
structure containing elements used for eCall and other related
emergency call systems and extension points. (This metadata/control
block is in effect a high-level protocol between the PSAP and IVS.)
When the PSAP sends a metadata/control block in response to data sent
by the IVS in a SIP request other than INFO (e.g., the MSD in the
initial INVITE), the metadata/control block is sent in the SIP
response to that request (e.g., the response to the INVITE request).
When the PSAP sends a control block in other circumstances (e.g.,
mid-call), the control block is transmitted from the PSAP to the IVS
in a SIP INFO request within the established dialog. The IVS sends
the requested data (the MSD) in a new SIP INFO request (per
[RFC6086]). This mechanism flexibly allows the PSAP to send eCall-
specific data to the IVS and the IVS to respond. SIP INFO requests
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
are sent using an appropriate SIP INFO Package. See Section 6 for
more information on sending a metadata/control block within a SIP
message. See Section 14.9 for information about the use of SIP INFO
requests to carry data within an eCall.
When the IVS includes an unsolicited MSD in a SIP request (e.g., the
initial INVITE), the PSAP sends a metadata/control block indicating
successful/unsuccessful receipt of the MSD in the SIP response to the
request. This also informs the IVS that an NG-eCall is in operation.
If the IVS receives a SIP final response without the metadata/control
block, it indicates that the SIP dialog is not an NG-eCall (e.g.,
some part of the call is being handled as a legacy call). When the
IVS sends a solicited MSD (e.g., in a SIP INFO request sent following
receipt of a SIP INFO request containing a metadata/control block
requesting an MSD), the PSAP does not send a metadata/control block
indicating successful or unsuccessful receipt of the MSD. (Normal
SIP retransmission handles non-receipt of requested data; note that,
per [RFC6086], a 200 OK response to a SIP INFO request indicates only
that the receiver has successfully received and accepted the SIP INFO
request, it says nothing about the acceptability of the payload.) If
the IVS receives a request to send an MSD but it is unable to do so
for any reason, the IVS sends a metadata/control object acknowledging
the request and containing "success=false" and "reason" set to an
appropriate code.
This provides flexibility to handle various circumstances. For
example, if a PSAP is unable to accept an eCall (e.g., due to
overload or too many calls from the same location), it can reject the
INVITE. Since a metadata/control object is also included in the SIP
response that rejects the call, the IVS knows if the PSAP received
the MSD, and can inform the vehicle occupants that the PSAP
successfully received the vehicle location and information but can't
talk to the occupants at that time. Especially for SIP response
codes that indicate an inability to conduct a call (as opposed to a
technical inability to process the request), the IVS can also
determine that the call was successful on a technical level (e.g.,
not helpful to retry as circuit-switched). (Note that there could be
edge cases where the PSAP response is not received by the IVS, e.g.,
if an intermediary sends a CANCEL, and an error response is forwarded
towards the IVS before the error response from the PSAP is received,
the response will be dropped, but these are unlikely to occur here.)
The metadata/control block is carried in the MIME type 'application/
emergencyCallData.control+xml'.
The metadata/control block is designed for use with pan-European
eCall and also eCall-like systems (i.e., in other regions), and has
extension points. Note that eCall-like systems might define their
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
own vehicle data blocks, and so might need to register a new INFO
package to accommodate the new data MIME media type and the metadata/
control object.
9.1. The Control Block
The control block is an XML data structure allowing for
acknowledgments, requests, and capabilities information. It is
carried in a body part with a specific MIME media type. Three
elements are defined for use within a control block:
ack Acknowledges receipt of data or a request.
capabilities Used in a control block sent from the IVS to the PSAP
(e.g., in the initial INVITE) to inform the PSAP of the
vehicle capabilities. Child elements contain all
actions and data types supported by the vehicle. It is
OPTIONAL for the IVS to send this block. Omitting the
block indicates that the IVS supports only the
mandatory functionality defined in this document.
request Used in a control block sent by the PSAP to the IVS, to
request the vehicle to perform an action.
The <ack> element indicates the object being acknowledged and reports
success or failure.
The <request> element contains attributes to indicate the request and
to supply related information. The 'action' attribute is mandatory
and indicates the specific action. An IANA registry is created in
Section 14.8.1 to contain the allowed values.
The <capabilities> element has child <request> elements to indicate
the actions supported by the IVS.
9.1.1. The <ack> element
The <ack> element acknowledges receipt of an eCall data object or
request. An <ack> element references the Content-ID of the object
being acknowledged. The PSAP MUST send an <ack> element
acknowledging receipt of an unsolicited MSD (e.g., sent by the IVS in
the INVITE); this <ack> element indicates if the PSAP considers the
MSD successfully received or not. An <ack> element is not sent for a
<capabilities> element.
The <ack> element has the following attributes:
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
9.1.1.1. Attributes of the <ack> element
The <ack> element has the following attributes:
Name: ref
Usage: Mandatory
Type: anyURI
Direction: Sent in either direction
Description: References the Content-ID of the body part being
acknowledged.
Example: <ack received="true" ref="1234567890@atlanta.example.com"/>
Name: received
Usage: Conditional: mandatory in an <ack> element sent by a PSAP
Type: Boolean
Direction: In this document, sent from the PSAP to the IVS
Description: Indicates if the referenced object was considered
successfully received or not.
Example: <ack received="true" ref="1234567890@atlanta.example.com"/>
9.1.1.2. Child Element of the <ack> element
For extensibility, the <ack> element has the following child element:
Name: actionResult
Usage: Optional
Direction: Sent from the IVS to the PSAP
Description: An <actionResult> element indicates the result of an
action (other than a successfully executed 'send-data' action).
The <ack> element contains an <actionResult> element for each
<request> element that is not a successfully executed 'send-data'
action. The <actionResult> element has the following attributes:
Name: action
Usage: Mandatory
Type: token
Description: Contains the value of the 'action' attribute of the
<request> element
Name: success
Usage: Mandatory
Type: Boolean
Description: Indicates if the action was successfully
accomplished
Name: reason
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Usage: Conditional
Type: token
Description: Used when 'success' is "false", this attribute
contains a reason code for a failure. A registry for reason
codes is defined in Section 14.8.2. The initial values are:
damaged (required components are damaged), data-unsupported
(the data item referenced in a 'send-data' request is not
supported), security-failure (the authenticity of the request
or the authority of the requestor could not be verified),
unable (a generic error for use when no other code is
appropriate), and unsupported (the 'action' value is not
supported).
Name: details
Usage: optional
Type: string
Description: Contains further explanation of the circumstances of
a success or failure. The contents are implementation-specific
and human-readable. This is intended for internal use and
troubleshooting, not for display to vehicle occupants.
9.1.1.3. Ack Examples
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<emergencyCallData.control
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<ack received="true" ref="1234567890@atlanta.example.com"/>
</emergencyCallData.control>
Figure 3: Ack Example from PSAP to IVS
9.1.2. The <capabilities> element
The <capabilities> element is transmitted by the IVS to indicate to
the PSAP its capabilities. No attributes for this element are
currently defined. The following child elements are defined:
9.1.2.1. Child Element of the <capabilities> element
The <capabilities> element has the following child element:
Name: request
Usage: Mandatory
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Description: The <capabilities> element contains a <request> child
element per action supported by the vehicle.
Example:
<capabilities>
<request action="send-data" supported-values="eCall.MSD" />
</capabilities>
It is OPTIONAL for the IVS to support the <capabilities> element. If
the IVS does not send a <capabilities> element, this indicates that
the only <request> action supported by the IVS is 'send-data' with
'datatype' set to 'eCall.MSD'.
9.1.2.2. Capabilities Example
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<EmergencyCallData.Control
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control">
<capabilities>
<request action="send-data" supported-values="eCall.MSD"/>
</capabilities>
</EmergencyCallData.Control>
Figure 4: Capabilities Example
9.1.3. The <request> element
A <request> element appears one or more times on its own or as a
child of a <capabilities> element. It allows the PSAP to request
that the IVS perform an action. The only action that MUST be
supported is to send an MSD. The following attributes and child
elements are defined:
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
9.1.3.1. Attributes of the <request> element
The <request> element has the following attributes:
Name: action
Usage: Mandatory
Type: token
Direction: Sent in either direction
Description: Identifies the action that the vehicle is requested to
perform (in a <request> element within a <capabilities> element,
indicates an action that the vehicle is capable of performing).
An IANA registry is established in Section 14.8.1 to contain the
allowed values.
Example: action="send-data"
Name: int-id
Usage: Conditional
Type: int
Direction: Sent in either direction
Description: Defined for extensibility. Documents that make use of
it are expected to explain when it is required and how it is used.
Example: int-id="3"
Name: persistence
Usage: Optional
Type: xs:duration
Direction: Sent in either direction
Description: Defined for extensibility. Specifies how long to carry
on the specified action. If absent, the default is for the
duration of the call.
Example: persistence="PT1H"
Name: datatype
Usage: Conditional
Type: token
Direction: Sent in either direction
Description: Mandatory with a "send-data" action within a <request>
element that is not within a <capabilities> element. Specifies
the data block that the IVS is requested to transmit, using the
same identifier as in the 'purpose' attribute set in a Call-Info
header field to point to the data block. Permitted values are
contained in the 'Emergency Call Data Types' IANA registry
established in [RFC7852]. Only the "eCall.MSD" value is mandatory
to support.
Example: datatype="eCall.MSD"
Name: supported-values
Usage: Conditional
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Type: string
Direction: Sent from the IVS to the PSAP
Description: Defined for extensibility. Used in a <request> element
that is a child of a <capability> element, this attribute lists
all supported values of the action type. Permitted values depend
on the action value. Multiple values are separated with a
semicolon. White space is ignored. Documents that make use of it
are expected to explain when it is required, the permitted values,
and how it is used.
Name: requested-state
Usage: Conditional
Type: token
Direction: Sent from the PSAP to the IVS
Description: Defined for extension. Indicates the requested state
of an element associated with the request type. Permitted values
depend on the request type. Documents that make use of it are
expected to explain when it is required, the permitted values, and
how it is used.
Name: element-id
Usage: Conditional
Type: token
Direction: Sent from the PSAP to the IVS
Description: Defined for extension. Identifies the element to be
acted on. Permitted values depend on the request type. Documents
that make use of it are expected to explain when it is required,
the permitted values, and how it is used.
9.1.3.2. Request Example
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<emergencyCallData.control
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control">
<request action="send-data" datatype="eCall.MSD"/>
</emergencyCallData.control>
Figure 5: Request Example
10. Examples
Figure 6 illustrates an eCall. The call uses the request URI
'urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic' service URN and is recognized as an
eCall, and further as one that was invoked automatically by the IVS
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
due to a crash or other serious incident. In this example, the
originating network routes the call to an ESInet which routes the
call to the appropriate NG-eCall capable PSAP. The emergency call is
received by the ESInet's Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP), as
the entry point into the ESInet. The ESRP routes the call to a PSAP,
where it is received by a call taker. In deployments where there is
no ESInet, the originating network routes the call directly to the
appropriate NG-eCall capable PSAP, an illustration of which would be
identical to the one below except without an ESInet or ESRP.
+------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| | | +-------+ |
| | | | PSAP2 | |
| | | +-------+ |
| | | |
| | | +------+ +-------+ |
Vehicle-->| |--+->| ESRP |---->| PSAP1 |--> Call-Taker |
| | | +------+ +-------+ |
| | | |
| | | +-------+ |
| | | | PSAP3 | |
| Originating| | +-------+ |
| Mobile | | |
| Network | | ESInet |
+------------+ +---------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Example of NG-eCall Message Flow
Figure 7 illustrates an eCall call flow with a mid-call PSAP request
for an updated MSD. The call flow shows the IVS initiating an
emergency call, including the MSD in the INVITE. The PSAP includes
in the 200 OK response a metadata/control object acknowledging
receipt of the MSD. During the call, the PSAP sends a request for an
MSD in an INFO request. The IVS sends the requested MSD in a new
INFO request.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
IVS PSAP
|(1) INVITE (eCall MSD) |
|------------------------------------------->|
| |
|(2) 200 OK (eCall metadata [ack MSD]) |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| |
|(3) start media stream(s) |
|............................................|
| |
|(4) INFO (eCall metadata [request MSD]) |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| |
|(5) 200 OK |
|------------------------------------------->|
| |
|(6) INFO (eCall MSD) |
|------------------------------------------->|
| |
|(7) 200 OK |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| |
|(8) BYE |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| |
|(9) end media streams |
|............................................|
| |
|(10) 200 OK |
|------------------------------------------->|
Figure 7: NG-eCall Call Flow Illustration
The example, shown in Figure 8, illustrates a SIP eCall INVITE
request containing an MSD. For simplicity, the example does not show
all SIP headers, nor the SDP contents, nor does it show any
additional data blocks added by the IVS or the originating mobile
network. Because the MSD is encoded in ASN.1 PER, which is a binary
encoding, its contents cannot be included in a text document.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
INVITE urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic SIP/2.0
To: urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic
From: <sip:+13145551111@example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
Geolocation: <cid:target123@example.com>
Geolocation-Routing: no
Call-Info: <cid:1234567890@atlanta.example.com>;
purpose=emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml,
application/emergencyCallData.control+xml
CSeq: 31862 INVITE
Recv-Info: emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Allow: INVITE, ACK, PRACK, INFO, OPTIONS, CANCEL, REFER, BYE,
SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, UPDATE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary1
Content-Length: ...
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/sdp
...Session Description Protocol (SDP) goes here...
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
Content-ID: <target123@example.com>
Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional
...PIDF-LO goes in here
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Content-ID: <1234567890@atlanta.example.com>
Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional
...MSD in ASN.1 PER encoding goes here...
--boundary1--
Figure 8: SIP NG-eCall INVITE
Continuing the example, Figure 9 illustrates a SIP 200 OK response to
the INVITE request of Figure 8, containing a control block
acknowledging successful receipt of the eCall MSD. (For simplicity,
the example does not show all SIP headers.)
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
SIP/2.0 200 OK
To: urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic;tag=8gydfe65t0
From: <sip:+13145551111@example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
Call-Info: <cid:2345678901@atlanta.example.com>;
purpose=emergencyCallData.control
Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml,
application/emergencyCallData.control+xml,
application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
CSeq: 31862 INVITE
Recv-Info: emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Allow: INVITE, ACK, PRACK, INFO, OPTIONS, CANCEL, REFER, BYE,
SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, UPDATE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundaryX
Content-Length: ...
--boundaryX
Content-Type: application/sdp
...Session Description Protocol (SDP) goes here...
--boundaryX
Content-Type: application/emergencyCallData.control+xml
Content-ID: <2345678901@atlanta.example.com>
Content-Disposition: by-reference
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<emergencyCallData.control
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control">
<ack received="true" ref="1234567890@atlanta.example.com"/>
</emergencyCallData.control>
--boundaryX--
Figure 9: 200 OK response to INVITE
Figure 10 illustrates a SIP INFO request containing a metadata/
control block requesting an eCall MSD. (For simplicity, the example
does not show all SIP headers.)
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
INFO sip:+13145551111@example.com SIP/2.0
To: <sip:+13145551111@example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
From: Exemplar PSAP <urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic>;tag=8gydfe65t0
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
Call-Info: <cid:3456789012@atlanta.example.com>;
purpose=emergencyCallData.control
CSeq: 41862 INFO
Info-Package: emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Allow: INVITE, ACK, PRACK, INFO, OPTIONS, CANCEL, REFER, BYE,
SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, UPDATE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundaryZZZ
Content-Disposition: Info-Package
Content-Length: ...
--boundaryZZZ
Content-Disposition: by-reference
Content-Type: application/emergencyCallData.control+xml
Content-ID: <3456789012@atlanta.example.com>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<emergencyCallData.control
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control">
<request action="send-data" datatype="eCall.MSD"/>
</emergencyCallData.control>
--boundaryZZZ--
Figure 10: INFO requesting MSD
Figure 11 illustrates a SIP INFO request containing an MSD. For
simplicity, the example does not show all SIP headers. Because the
MSD is encoded in ASN.1 PER, which is a binary encoding, its contents
cannot be included in a text document.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
INFO urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic SIP/2.0
To: urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic;tag=8gydfe65t0
From: <sip:+13145551111@example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
Call-Info: <cid:4567890123@atlanta.example.com>;
purpose=emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
CSeq: 51862 INFO
Info-Package: emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Allow: INVITE, ACK, PRACK, INFO, OPTIONS, CANCEL, REFER, BYE,
SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, UPDATE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundaryLine
Content-Disposition: Info-Package
Content-Length: ...
--boundaryLine
Content-Type: application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Content-ID: <4567890123@atlanta.example.com>
Content-Disposition: by-reference
...MSD in ASN.1 PER encoding goes here...
--boundaryLine--
Figure 11: INFO containing MSD
11. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5069] (on marking and
routing emergency calls) apply here.
In addition to any network-provided location (which might be
determined solely by the network, or in cooperation with or possibly
entirely by the originating device), an eCall carries an IVS-supplied
location within the MSD. This is likely to be useful to the PSAP,
especially when no network-provided location is included, or when the
two locations are independently determined. Even in situations where
the network-supplied location is limited to the cell site, this can
be useful as a sanity check on the device-supplied location contained
in the MSD.
The document [RFC7378] discusses trust issues regarding location
provided by or determined in cooperation with end devices.
Security considerations specific to the mechanism by which the PSAP
sends acknowledgments and requests to the vehicle are discussed in
the "Security Considerations" block of Section 14.4. Note that an
attacker that has access to and is capable of generating a response
to the initial INVITE request could generate a 600 (Busy Everywhere),
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
486 (Busy Here), or 603 (Decline) response that includes a metadata/
control object containing a reference to the MSD in the initial
INVITE and a "received=true" field, which could result in the IVS
perceiving the PSAP to be overloaded and hence not attempting to
reinitiate the call. The risk can be mitigated as discussed in the
"Security Considerations" block of Section 14.4.
Data received from external sources inherently carries implementation
risks. For example, depending on the platform, buffer overflows can
introduce remote code execution vulnerabilities, null characters can
corrupt strings, numeric values used for internal calculations can
result in underflow/overflow errors, malformed XML objects can expose
parsing bugs, etc. Implementations need to be cognizant of the
potential risks, observe best practices (which might include
sufficiently capable static code analysis, fuzz testing, component
isolation, avoiding use of unsafe coding techniques, third-party
attack tests, signed software, over-the-air updates, etc.), and have
multiple levels of protection. Implementors need to be aware that,
potentially, the data objects described here and elsewhere (including
the MSD and metadata/control objects) might be malformed, might
contain unexpected characters, excessively long attribute values,
elements, etc.
The security considerations discussed in [RFC7852] apply here (see
especially the discussion of TLS, TLS versions, cipher suites, and
PKI).
When vehicle data or control/metadata is contained in a signed or
encrypted body part, the enclosing multipart (e.g., multipart/signed
or multipart/encrypted) has the same Content-ID as the enclosed data
part. This allows an entity to identify and access the data blocks
it is interested in without having to dive deeply into the message
structure or decrypt parts it is not interested in. (The 'purpose'
parameter in a Call-Info header field identifies the data and
contains a CID URL pointing to the data block in the body, which has
a matching Content-ID body part header field).
12. Privacy Considerations
The privacy considerations discussed in [RFC7852] apply here. The
MSD carries some identifying and personal information (mostly about
the vehicle and less about the owner), as well as location
information, and so needs to be protected against unauthorized
disclosure. Local regulations may impose additional privacy
protection requirements.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Privacy considerations specific to the data structure containing
vehicle information are discussed in the "Security Considerations"
block of Section 14.3.
Privacy considerations specific to the mechanism by which the PSAP
sends acknowledgments and requests to the vehicle are discussed in
the "Security Considerations" block of Section 14.4.
13. XML Schema
This section defines an XML schema for the control block. The text
description of the control block in Section 9.1 is normative and
supersedes any conflicting aspect of this schema.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:pi="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control"
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"/>
<xs:element name="EmergencyCallData.control"
type="pi:controlType"/>
<xs:complexType name="controlType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="capabilities"
type="pi:capabilitiesType"/>
<xs:element name="request" type="pi:requestType"/>
<xs:element name="ack" type="pi:ackType"/>
<xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:choice>
<xs:anyAttribute/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="ackType">
<xs:complexContent>
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element name="actionResult" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:attribute name="action"
type="xs:token"
use="required"/>
<xs:attribute name="success"
type="xs:boolean"
use="required"/>
<xs:attribute name="reason"
type="xs:token">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
conditionally mandatory
when @success="false"
to indicate reason code
for a failure
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="details"
type="xs:string"/>
<xs:anyAttribute
processContents="skip"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="ref"
type="xs:anyURI"
use="required"/>
<xs:attribute name="received"
type="xs:boolean"/>
<xs:anyAttribute/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="capabilitiesType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element name="request"
type="pi:requestType"
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
minOccurs="1"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:anyAttribute/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="requestType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:choice minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:choice>
<xs:attribute name="action" type="xs:token"
use="required"/>
<xs:attribute name="int-id" type="xs:unsignedInt"/>
<xs:attribute name="persistence"
type="xs:duration"/>
<xs:attribute name="datatype" type="xs:token"/>
<xs:attribute name="supported-values"
type="xs:string"/>
<xs:attribute name="element-id" type="xs:token"/>
<xs:attribute name="requested-state"
type="xs:token"/>
<xs:anyAttribute/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
Figure 12: Control Block Schema
14. IANA Considerations
14.1. The EmergencyCallData Media Subtree
This document establishes the "EmergencyCallData" media (MIME)
subtype tree, a new media subtree rooted at "application/
EmergencyCallData". This subtree is used only for content associated
with emergency communications. New subtypes in this subtree follow
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
the rules specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC6838], with the additional
restriction that the standards-related organization MUST be
responsible for some aspect of emergency communications.
This subtree initially contains the following subtypes (defined here
or in [RFC7852]):
emergencyCallData.control+xml
EmergencyCallData.Comment+xml
EmergencyCallData.DeviceInfo+xml
EmergencyCallData.MSD
EmergencyCallData.ProviderInfo+xml
EmergencyCallData.ServiceInfo+xml
EmergencyCallData.SubscriberInfo+xml
14.2. Service URN Registrations
IANA is requested to register the URN 'urn:service:sos.ecall' under
the sub-services 'sos' registry defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5031].
This service requests resources associated with an emergency call
placed by an in-vehicle system, carrying a standardized set of data
related to the vehicle and incident. Two sub-services are registered
as well:
urn:service:sos.ecall.manual
Used with an eCall invoked due to manual interaction by a vehicle
occupant.
urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic
Used with an eCall invoked automatically, for example, due to a
crash or other serious incident.
IANA is also requested to register the URN
'urn:service:test.sos.ecall' under the sub-service 'test' registry
defined in Setcion 17.2 of [RFC6881]. This service requests
resources associated with a test (non-emergency) call placed by an
in-vehicle system. See Section 8 for more information on the test
eCall request URN.
14.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/
emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD'
IANA is requested to add application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD as a
MIME media type, with a reference to this document, in accordance to
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
the procedures of RFC 6838 [RFC6838] and guidelines in RFC 7303
[RFC7303].
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
Mandatory parameters: none
Optional parameters: none
Encoding scheme: binary
Encoding considerations: Uses ASN.1 PER, which is a binary
encoding; when transported in SIP, binary content transfer
encoding is used.
Security considerations: This media type is designed to carry
vehicle and incident-related data during an emergency call. This
data contains personal information including vehicle VIN,
location, direction, etc. Appropriate precautions need to be
taken to limit unauthorized access, inappropriate disclosure to
third parties, and eavesdropping of this information. Sections 9
and Section 10 of [RFC7852] contain more discussion.
Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: Annex A of EN 15722 [msd]
Applications which use this media type: Pan-European eCall
compliant systems
Additional information: None
Magic Number: None
File Extension: None
Macintosh file type code: 'BINA'
Person and email address for further information: Randall Gellens,
rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Author: The MSD specification was produced by the European
Committee For Standardization (CEN). For contact information,
please see <http://www.cen.eu/cen/Pages/contactus.aspx>.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Change controller: The European Committee For Standardization
(CEN)
14.4. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/
emergencyCallData.control+xml'
IANA is requested to add application/emergencyCallData.control+xml as
a MIME media type, with a reference to this document, in accordance
to the procedures of RFC 6838 [RFC6838] and guidelines in RFC 7303
[RFC7303].
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: emergencyCallData.control+xml
Mandatory parameters: none
Optional parameters: charset
Indicates the character encoding of the XML content.
Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit
characters, depending on the character encoding used. See
Section 3.2 of RFC 7303 [RFC7303].
Security considerations:
This media type carries metadata and control information and
requests, such as from a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
to an In-Vehicle System (IVS) during an emergency call.
Metadata (such as an acknowledgment that data sent by the IVS
to the PSAP was successfully received) has limited privacy and
security implications. Control information (such as requests
from the PSAP that the vehicle perform an action) has some
privacy and security implications. The privacy concern arises
from the ability to request the vehicle to transmit a data set,
which as described in Section 14.3, can contain personal
information. The security concern is the ability to request
the vehicle to perform an action. Control information needs to
originate only from a PSAP or other emergency services
provider, and not be modified en-route. The level of integrity
of the cellular network over which the emergency call is placed
is a consideration: when the IVS initiates an eCall over a
cellular network, in most cases it relies on the MNO to route
the call to a PSAP. (Calls placed using other means, such as
Wi-Fi or over-the-top services, generally incur somewhat higher
levels of risk than calls placed "natively" using cellular
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
networks.) A call-back from a PSAP merits additional
consideration, since current mechanisms are not ideal for
verifying that such a call is indeed a call-back from a PSAP in
response to an emergency call placed by the IVS. See the
discussion in Section 11 and the PSAP Callback document
[RFC7090].
Sections 7 and Section 8 of [RFC7852] contain more discussion.
Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: This document
Applications which use this media type: Pan-European eCall
compliant systems
Additional information: None
Magic Number: None
File Extension: .xml
Macintosh file type code: 'TEXT'
Person and email address for further information: Randall Gellens,
rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Author: The IETF ECRIT WG.
Change controller: The IETF ECRIT WG.
14.5. Registration of the 'eCall.MSD' entry in the Emergency Call
Additional Data Types registry
This specification requests IANA to add the 'eCall.MSD' entry to the
Emergency Call Additional Data Types registry, with a reference to
this document; the 'Data About' value is 'The Call'.
14.6. Registration of the 'control' entry in the Emergency Call
Additional Data Types registry
This specification requests IANA to add the 'control' entry to the
Emergency Call Additional Data Types registry, with a reference to
this document; the 'Data About' value is 'The Call'.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
14.7. Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control
This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in
RFC 3688 [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:EmergencyCallData:control
Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group, <ecrit@ietf.org>, as
delegated by the IESG <iesg@ietf.org>.
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>Namespace for Emergency Call Data Control Block</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for Emergency Call Data Control Block</h1>
<p>See [TBD: This document].</p>
</body>
</html>
END
14.8. Registry Creation
This document creates a new registry called "Emergency Call Metadata/
Control Data". The following sub-registries are created for this
registry.
14.8.1. Emergency Call Action Registry
This document creates a new sub-registry called "Emergency Call
Action". As defined in [RFC5226], this registry operates under
"Expert Review" rules. The expert should determine that the proposed
action is within the purview of a vehicle, is sufficiently
distinguishable from other actions, and the action is clearly and
fully described. In most cases, a published and stable document is
referenced for the description of the action.
The content of this registry includes:
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Name: The identifier to be used in the 'action' attribute of a
control <request> element.
Description: A description of the action. In most cases this will
be a reference to a published and stable document. The
description MUST specify if any attributes or child elements are
optional or mandatory, and describe the action to be taken by the
vehicle.
The initial set of values is listed in Table 2.
+-----------+--------------------------------------+
| Name | Description |
+-----------+--------------------------------------+
| send-data | See Section 9.1.3.1 of this document |
+-----------+--------------------------------------+
Table 2: Emergency Call Action Registry Initial Values
14.8.2. Emergency Call Action Failure Reason Registry
This document creates a new sub-registry called "Emergency Call
Action Failure Reason" which contains values for the 'reason'
attribute of the <actionResult> element. As defined in [RFC5226],
this registry operates under "Expert Review" rules. The expert
should determine that the proposed reason is sufficiently
distinguishable from other reasons and that the proposed description
is understandable and correctly worded.
The content of this registry includes:
ID: A short string identifying the reason, for use in the 'reason'
attribute of an <actionResult> element.
Description: A description of the reason.
The initial set of values is listed in Table 3.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| ID | Description |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| damaged | Required components are damaged. |
| | |
| data-unsupported | The data item referenced in a 'send-data' |
| | request is not supported. |
| | |
| security-failure | The authenticity of the request or the |
| | authority of the requestor could not be |
| | verified. |
| | |
| unable | The action could not be accomplished (a |
| | generic error for use when no other code is |
| | appropriate). |
| | |
| unsupported | The 'action' value is not supported. |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Emergency Call Action Failure Reason Registry Initial Values
14.9. The emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD INFO package
This document registers the 'emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD' INFO
package.
Both endpoints (the IVS and the PSAP equipment) include
'emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD' in a Recv-Info header field per
[RFC6086] to indicate ability to receive INFO requests carrying data
as described here.
Support for the 'emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD' INFO package indicates
the ability to receive eCall related body parts as specified in [TBD:
THIS DOCUMENT].
An INFO request message carrying body parts related to an emergency
call as described in [TBD: THIS DOCUMENT] has an Info-Package header
field set to 'emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD' per [RFC6086].
The requirements of Section 10 of [RFC6086] are addressed in the
following sections.
14.9.1. Overall Description
This section describes "what type of information is carried in INFO
requests associated with the Info Package, and for what types of
applications and functionalities UAs can use the Info Package."
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
INFO requests associated with the emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD INFO
package carry data associated with emergency calls as defined in
[TBD: THIS DOCUMENT]. The application is vehicle-initiated emergency
calls established using SIP. The functionality is to carry vehicle
data and metadata/control information between vehicles and PSAPs.
Refer to [TBD: THIS DOCUMENT] for more information.
14.9.2. Applicability
This section describes "why the Info Package mechanism, rather than
some other mechanism, has been chosen for the specific use-case...."
The use of the SIP INFO method is based on an analysis of the
requirements against the intent and effects of the INFO method versus
other approaches (which included the SIP MESSAGE method, the SIP
OPTIONS method, the SIP re-INVITE method, media plane transport, and
non-SIP protocols). In particular, the transport of emergency call
data blocks occurs within a SIP emergency dialog, per Section 6, and
is normally carried in the initial INVITE request and response; the
use of the SIP INFO method only occurs when emergency-call-related
data needs to be sent mid-call. While the SIP MESSAGE method could
be used, it is not tied to a SIP dialog as is the SIP INFO method and
thus might not be associated with the dialog. Either the SIP OPTIONS
or re-INVITE methods could also be used, but is seen as less clean
than the SIP INFO method. The SIP SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY method could be
coerced into service, but the semantics are not a good fit, e.g., the
subscribe/notify mechanism provides one-way communication consisting
of (often multiple) notifications from notifier to subscriber
indicating that certain events in notifier have occurred, whereas
what's needed here is two-way communication of data related to the
emergency dialog. Use of the media plane mechanisms was discounted
because the number of messages needing to be exchanged in a dialog is
normally zero or very few, and the size of the data is likewise very
small. The overhead caused by user plane setup (e.g., to use MSRP as
transport) would be disproportionately large.
Based on the analyses, the SIP INFO method was chosen to provide for
mid-call data transport.
14.9.3. Info Package Name
The info package name is emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
14.9.4. Info Package Parameters
None
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
14.9.5. SIP Option-Tags
None
14.9.6. INFO Request Body Parts
The body for an emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD info package is a
multipart (normally multipart/mixed) body containing zero or one
application/emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD part (containing an MSD) and
zero or more application/emergencyCallData.control+xml (containing a
metadata/control object) parts. At least one MSD or metadata/control
body part is expected; the behavior upon receiving an INFO request
with neither is undefined.
The body parts are sent per [RFC6086], and in addition, to align with
with how these body parts are sent in SIP messages other than INFO
requests, each associated body part is referenced by a Call-Info
header field at the top level of the SIP message. The body part has
a Content-Disposition header field set to "By-Reference".
An MSD or metadata/control block is always enclosed in a multipart
body part (even if it would otherwise be the only body part in the
SIP message). The innermost multipart that contains only body parts
associated with the INFO package has a Content-Disposition value of
Info-Package.
See [TBD: THIS DOCUMENT] for more information.
14.9.7. Info Package Usage Restrictions
Usage is limited to vehicle-initiated emergency calls as defined in
[TBD: THIS DOCUMENT].
14.9.8. Rate of INFO Requests
The SIP INFO request is used within an established emergency call
dialog for the PSAP to request the IVS to send an updated MSD, and
for the IVS to send a requested MSD. Because this is normally done
only on manual request of the PSAP call taker (who suspects some
aspect of the vehicle state has changed), the rate of SIP INFO
requests associated with the emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD info package
is normally quite low (most dialogs are likely to contain zero INFO
requests, while others might carry an occasional request).
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
14.9.9. Info Package Security Considerations
The MIME media type registrations specified for use with this INFO
package (Section 14.3 and Section 14.4) contain a discussion of the
security and/or privacy considerations specific to that data block.
The "Security Considerations" and "Privacy Considerations" sections
of [TBD: THIS DOCUMENT] discuss security and privacy considerations
of the data carried in eCalls.
14.9.10. Implementation Details
See [TBD: THIS DOCUMENT] for protocol details.
14.9.11. Examples
See [TBD: THIS DOCUMENT] for protocol examples.
15. Contributors
Brian Rosen was a co-author of the original document upon which this
document is based.
16. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Bob Williams and Ban Al-Bakri for their
feedback and suggestion; Rex Buddenberg, Lena Chaponniere, Alissa
Cooper, Keith Drage, Stephen Edge, Wes George, Mirja Kuehlewind,
Allison Mankin, Alexey Melnikov, Ivo Sedlacek, and James Winterbottom
for their review and comments; Robert Sparks and Paul Kyzivat for
their help with the SIP mechanisms; Mark Baker and Ned Freed for
their help with the media subtype registration issue. We would like
to thank Michael Montag, Arnoud van Wijk, Gunnar Hellstrom, and
Ulrich Dietz for their help with the original document upon which
this document is based. Christer Holmberg deserves special mention
for his many detailed reviews.
17. Changes from Previous Versions
RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.
17.1. Changes from draft-ietf-19 to draft-ietf-20
o Fixed various nits
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
17.2. Changes from draft-ietf-18 to draft-ietf-19
o Added additional text to "Rate of Info Requests"
o Added additional text to "Security Considerations"
o Further corrected "content type" to "media type"
17.3. Changes from draft-ietf-17 to draft-ietf-18
o Added reference to 3GPP TS24.229
o Clarified that an INFO request is expected to have at least one
MSD or metadata/control body part
o Fixed minor errors in examples
o Corrected "content type" to "media type"
o Deleted "xsi:schemaLocation" from examples
17.4. Changes from draft-ietf-16 to draft-ietf-17
o Clarify Content-Disposition value in INFO requests
17.5. Changes from draft-ietf-15 to draft-ietf-16
o Various clarifications and simplifications
o Added reference to 3GPP 23.167
17.6. Changes from draft-ietf-14 to draft-ietf-15
o eCall body parts now always sent enclosed in multipart (even if
only body part in SIP message) and hence always have a Content-
Disposition of By-Reference
o Fixed errors in attribute directionality text
o Fixed typos.
17.7. Changes from draft-ietf-13 to draft-ietf-14
o Added text to the IANA Considerations to formalize the
EmergencyCallData media subtree
o Fixed some typos
17.8. Changes from draft-ietf-12 to draft-ietf-13
o Clarifications suggested by Christer
o Corrections to Content-Disposition text and examples as suggested
by Paul Kyzivat
o Clarifications to Content-Disposition text and examples to clarify
that handling=optional is only used in the initial INVITE
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
17.9. Changes from draft-ietf-11 to draft-ietf-12
o Fixed errors in examples found by Dale
o Removed enclosing sub-section of INFO package registration section
o Added text per Christer and Dale's suggestions that the MSD and
metadata/control blocks are sent in INFO with a Call-Info header
field referencing them
o Deleted Call Routing section (7.1) in favor of a statement that
call routing is outside the scope of the document
o Other text changes per comments received from Christer and Ivo.
17.10. Changes from draft-ietf-09 to draft-ietf-11
o Renamed INFO package to emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD
o Changed INFO package to only permit MSD and metadata/control MIME
types
o Moved <capabilities> element back from car-crash but made it
OPTIONAL
o Moved other extension points back from car-crash so that extension
points are in base spec (and also to get XML schema to compile)
o Text changes for clarification.
17.11. Changes from draft-ietf-08 to draft-ietf-09
o Created a new "Data Transport" section that describes how the MSD
and metadata/control blocks are attached, and then referred to
that section rather than repeat the information about the CID and
Call-Info and so forth, which means most references to the
additional-data draft have now been deleted
o Mentioned edge cases where a PSAP response to INVITE isn't
received by the IVS
o Reworded description of which status codes are used when a PSAP
wishes to reject a call but inform the vehicle occupants that it
is aware of the situation to be more definite
o Added examples showing INFO
o Added references for eCall test call requirement
o Described meaning of eCall URNs in Section 8 as well as in IANA
registration
17.12. Changes from draft-ietf-07 to draft-ietf-08
o eCall MSD now encoded as ASN.1 PER, using binary content transfer
encoding
o Added text to point out aspects of call handling and metadata/
control usage, such as use in rejected calls, and solicited MSDs
o Revised use of INFO to require that when a request for an MSD is
sent in INFO, the MSD sent in response is in its own INFO, not the
response to the requesting INFO
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
o Added material to INFO package registation to comply with
Section 10 of [RFC6086]
o Moved material not required by 3GPP into
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-car-crash], e.g., some of the eCall metadata/
control elements, attributes, and values
o Revised test call wording to clarify that specific handling is out
of scope
o Revised wording throughout the document to simplify
o Moved new Section 7.1 to be a subsection of 7
o Moved new Section Section 14.9 to be a main section instead of a
subsection of Section 9
o Revised SIP INFO usage and package registration per advice from
Robert Sparks and Paul Kyzivat
17.13. Changes from draft-ietf-06 to draft-ietf-07
o Fixed typo in Acknowledgements
17.14. Changes from draft-ietf-05 to draft-ietf-06
o Added additional security and privacy clarifications regarding
signed and encrypted data
o Additional security and privacy text
o Deleted informative section on ESINets as unnecessary.
17.15. Changes from draft-ietf-04 to draft-ietf-05
o Reworked the security and privacy considerations material in the
document as a whole and in the MIME registation sections of the
MSD and control objects
o Clarified that the <actionResult> element can appear multiple
times within an <ack> element
o Fixed IMS definition
o Added clarifying text for the 'msgid' attribute
17.16. Changes from draft-ietf-03 to draft-ietf-04
o Added Privacy Considerations section
o Reworded most uses of non-normative "may", "should", "must", and
"recommended."
o Fixed nits in examples
17.17. Changes from draft-ietf-02 to draft-ietf-03
o Added request to enable cameras
o Improved examples and XML schema
o Clarifications and wording improvements
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
17.18. Changes from draft-ietf-01 to draft-ietf-02
o Added clarifying text reinforcing that the data exchange is for
small blocks of data infrequently transmitted
o Clarified that dynamic media is conveyed using SIP re-INVITE to
establish a one-way media stream
o Clarified that the scope is the needs of eCall within the SIP
emergency call environment
o Added informative statement that the document may be suitable for
reuse by other ACN systems
o Clarified that normative language for the control block applies to
both IVS and PSAP
o Removed 'ref', 'supported-mime', and <media> elements
o Minor wording improvements and clarifications
17.19. Changes from draft-ietf-00 to draft-ietf-01
o Added further discussion of test calls
o Added further clarification to the document scope
o Mentioned that multi-region vehicles may need to support other
crash notification specifications in addition to eCall
o Added details of the eCall metadata and control functionality
o Added IANA registration for the MIME media type for the control
object
o Added IANA registries for protocol elements and tokens used in the
control object
o Minor wording improvements and clarifications
17.20. Changes from draft-gellens-03 to draft-ietf-00
o Renamed from draft-gellens- to draft-ietf-.
o Added mention of and reference to ETSI TR "Mobile Standards Group
(MSG); eCall for VoIP"
o Added text to Introduction regarding migration/co-existence being
out of scope
o Added mention in Security Considerations that even if the network-
supplied location is just the cell site, this can be useful as a
sanity check on the IVS-supplied location
o Minor wording improvements and clarifications
17.21. Changes from draft-gellens-02 to -03
o Clarifications and editorial improvements.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
17.22. Changes from draft-gellens-01 to -02
o Minor wording improvements
o Removed ".automatic" and ".manual" from
"urn:service:test.sos.ecall" registration and discussion text.
17.23. Changes from draft-gellens-00 to -01
o Now using 'EmergencyCallData' for purpose parameter values and
MIME subtypes, in accordance with changes to [RFC7852]
o Added reference to RFC 6443
o Fixed bug that caused Figure captions to not appear
18. References
18.1. Normative References
[msd] CEN, , "Intelligent transport systems -- eSafety -- eCall
minimum set of data (MSD), EN 15722", April 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5031, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5031>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6086] Holmberg, C., Burger, E., and H. Kaplan, "Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) INFO Method and Package
Framework", RFC 6086, DOI 10.17487/RFC6086, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6086>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6881>.
[RFC7303] Thompson, H. and C. Lilley, "XML Media Types", RFC 7303,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7303, July 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7303>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7852>.
18.2. Informative references
[CEN] "European Committee for Standardization",
<http://www.cen.eu>.
[EN_16062]
CEN, , "Intelligent transport systems -- eSafety -- eCall
High Level Application Requirements (HLAP) Using GSM/UMTS
Circuit Switched Networks, EN 16062", April 2015.
[EN_16072]
CEN, , "Intelligent transport systems -- eSafety -- Pan-
European eCall operating requirements, EN 16072", April
2015.
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-car-crash]
Gellens, R., Rosen, B., and H. Tschofenig, "Next-
Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls", draft-ietf-
ecrit-car-crash-23 (work in progress), January 2017.
[ITU.X691]
International Telecommunications Union, , "Information
technology -- ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of
Packed Encoding Rules (PER), ITU-T X.691", July 2002,
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/
X.691-0207.pdf>.
[MSG_TR] ETSI, , "ETSI Mobile Standards Group (MSG); eCall for
VoIP", ETSI Technical Report TR 103 140 V1.1.1 (2014-04),
April 2014.
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
[RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, Ed., "Requirements for
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
RFC 5012, DOI 10.17487/RFC5012, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5012>.
[RFC5069] Taylor, T., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M.
Shanmugam, "Security Threats and Requirements for
Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", RFC 5069,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5069, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5069>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6443>.
[RFC7090] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Holmberg, C., and M.
Patel, "Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Callback",
RFC 7090, DOI 10.17487/RFC7090, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7090>.
[RFC7378] Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba, Ed.,
"Trustworthy Location", RFC 7378, DOI 10.17487/RFC7378,
December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7378>.
[SDO-3GPP]
"3d Generation Partnership Project",
<http://www.3gpp.org/>.
[SDO-ETSI]
"European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)",
<http://www.etsi.org>.
[TS22.101]
3GPP, , "3GPP TS 22.101: Technical Specification Group
Services and System Aspects; Service aspects; Service
principles".
[TS23.167]
3GPP, , "3GPP TS 23.167: IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)
emergency sessions".
[TS24.229]
3GPP, , "3GPP TS 24.229: IP multimedia call control
protocol based on Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and
Session Description Protocol (SDP); Stage 3".
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Next-Generation eCall February 2017
Authors' Addresses
Randall Gellens
Core Technology Consulting
Email: rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org
Hannes Tschofenig
Individual
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Gellens & Tschofenig Expires August 18, 2017 [Page 46]
