Network Working Group K. Carlberg

Network Working Group K. Carlberg
Request for Comments: 5115 G11
Category: Standards Track P. O'Hanlon
UCL
January 2008

Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) Attribute for Resource Priority

Status of This Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document defines a new attribute for the Telephony Routing over
IP (TRIP) protocol. The attribute associates protocols/services in
the PSTN offering authorized prioritization during call setup that
are reachable through a TRIP gateway. Current examples of
preferential service in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
are Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) in the
U.S. and Government Telephone Preference Scheme (GTPS) in the U.K.
The proposed attribute for TRIP is based on the NameSpace.Value tuple
defined for the SIP Resource-Priority field.

1. Introduction

An IP telephony gateway allows nodes on an IP-based network to
communicate with other entities on the circuit switched telephone
network. The Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) protocol [rfc3219]
provides a way for nodes on the IP network to locate a suitable
gateway through the use of Location Servers. TRIP is a policy-
driven, inter-administrative domain protocol for advertising the
reachability, negotiating the capabilities, and specifying the
attributes of these gateways.

The TRIP protocol is modeled after BGP-4 [rfc4271] and uses path-
vector advertisements distributed in a hop-by-hop manner (resembling
a Bellman-Ford routing algorithm) via Location Servers. These
Location Servers are grouped in administrative clusters known as
Internet Telephony Administrative Domains (ITADs). A more extensive
framework discussion on TRIP can be found in [rfc2871].

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

This document defines a new attribute that has been registered with
IANA. The purpose of this new attribute, and the rationale behind
its specification, is explained in the following sections.

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].

2. Emergency Telecommunications Service

Emergency Telecommunications Service is a broad term that refers to
the services provided by systems used to support emergency
communications. One example of these systems is the U.S. Government
Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS). This system currently
operates over the U.S. Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) as a
pay-per-use system by authorized personnel. It uses the T1.631-1993
ANSI standard [ANSI] to signal the presence of the National Security
/ Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) codepoint in an ISDN User Part
(ISUP) Initial Address Message (IAM) for Signaling System No. 7
(SS7). A key aspect of GETS is that a signaling standard in the U.S.
PSTN is used to convey the activation/request of the GETS service.

From a protocol perspective, other examples of priority (and which
can be argued as emergency/disaster related) standards are the
H.460.4 ITU [itu460] standard on Call Priority designation for H.323
calls, and the I.255.3 [itu255] ITU standard on Multi-Level
Precedence and Preemption Service. The latter has been integrated
into private telephony systems like AUTOVON. In both cases,
signaling codepoints exist to distinguish telephony calls by
authenticated and prioritized end-user from the normal end-user. The
form of this distinction varies and is outside the scope of this
document. [rfc3689] and [rfc3690] provide additional information on
ETS and its requirements.

3. SIP Resource-Priority Effort

The initial discussions in the IEPREP working group list, along with
the presentation at the Adelaide IETF [ADEL00], led to strawman
requirements to augment SIP to have the ability to prioritize call
signaling. This effort was then advanced formally in the SIPPING
working group so that SIP would be able to prioritize access to
circuit-switched networks, end systems, and proxy resources for
emergency preparedness communication [rfc3487].

The requirements in [rfc3487] produced the corresponding document
[rfc4412] in the SIP working group, which defines a new header for
SIP called Resource-Priority. This new header, which is optional, is

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

divided into two parts: a NameSpace and a Value. The NameSpace part
uniquely identifies a group of one or more priorities. The Value
part identifies one of a set of priorities used for a SIP message.

3.1. Benefits

There are three basic benefits derived from the addition of the
Resource Priority header in SIP. The first is an ability to signal
the priority within a SIP message to other entities in an IP network.
The caveat is that some entities may not recognize/support the
priority or namespace, but at least the ability to signal the
priority with respect to resources has been specified in the SIP
protocol.

The second benefit is that telephony-related protocol/codepoints from
other standards can have a corresponding mapping to SIP NameSpace and
Value tokens in the Resource-Priority header. Hence, the current
NS/EP codepoint in ANSI standard T1.631-1993 could have a
corresponding NameSpace.Value token set for the IETF standards body.
And as a result, this mapping would facilitate the transparent
bridging of signals (i.e., codepoints) between standards defined by
various organizations -- be they private or public.

The third benefit of the Resource-Priority header, and its definition
of alphanumeric tokens, is that it is highly versatile. The
NameSpace allows for a wide set of priorities to be defined and
updated, if the need arises, by simply defining a new NameSpace
token. Hence, there is no reliance on a single set of priorities
applied for all cases.

3.2 Issue

Having defined a means of signaling priority through gateways, the
follow-on question arises of how does one determine which gateways
support a given NameSpace. The dissemination of this type of
information is within the scope of TRIP. However, the current
specification of TRIP does not include a component that advertises
associations of gateways with specific NameSpaces. To address this
omission, the following section defines a new TRIP attribute that
associates one or more NameSpaces with a gateway.

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

4. New Attribute: ResourcePriority

This section provides details on the syntax and semantics of the
ResourcePriority TRIP attribute. Its presentation reflects the form
of existing attributes presented in Section 5 of [rfc3219].

Attribute Flags are set to the following:

Conditional Mandatory: False
Required Flags: Not Well-Known, Independent Transitive
Potential Flags: None
TRIP Type Code: 12

There are no dependencies on other attributes, thus Conditional
Mandatory is set to "False".

Since the Resource-Priority field in SIP, with its corresponding
NameSpace token, is optional, the ResourcePriority attribute in TRIP
is also optional. Hence, it is set to "Not Well-Known".

The Independent Transitive condition indicates that the attribute is
to be forwarded amongst all ITADs. The Location Server that does not
recognize the attribute sets the Partial flag as well.

4.1. Syntax of ResourcePriority

The ResourcePriority attribute contains one or more NameSpace token
identifiers. An initial set of identifiers is defined in [rfc4412],
with subsequent identifiers to be found in the IANA registry. The
syntax of the ResourcePriority attribute is copied from the
"namespace" token syntax from [rfc4412], which in turn imported
"alphanum" from [rfc3261], and is an alphanumeric value as shown
below:

namespace = 1*( alphanum / "-" / "!" / "%" / "*" / "_" / "+"
/ "`" / "'" / "~" )

Note that an augmented version of Backus-Naur Form is found in
[rfc4234].

Since NameSpaces are arbitrary in length, each tuple consists of a
Length value with a NameSpace value as shown in the figure below.
There is no padding between tuples.

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+
| NameSpace Length | NameSpace Value (variable) |
+---------------+---------------+--------------+----------------+

It is important to note that the priority (i.e., "r-priority" token
syntax) from [rfc4412] is NOT used in the ResourcePriority attribute.
This is because the objective of the attribute is to advertise the
NameSpace associated with a gateway and not the individual priorities
within that NameSpace.

4.2 Additional TRIP Considerations

Section 5.12 of TRIP lists a number of considerations that should be
addressed when defining new attributes. The first three
considerations (use of the attribute, its flags, and syntax) have
been discussed above in this section. The final three considerations
are the following.

4.2.1. Route Origination

The ResourcePriority attribute is not well-known. If a route has a
ResourcePriority attribute associated with it, the Location Server
(LS) MUST include that attribute in the advertisement it originates.

4.2.2. Route Aggregation

Routes with differing ResourcePriority token values MUST NOT be
aggregated. Routes with the same token values in the
ResourcePriority attribute MAY be aggregated and the same
ResourcePriority attribute attached to the aggregated object.

4.2.3. Route Dissemination and Attribute Scope

An LS MUST include the ResourcePriority attribute when communicating
with peer LSs within its own domain.

If received from a peer LS in another domain, an LS MUST propagate
the ResourcePriority attribute to other LSs within its domain.

An LS MAY add the ResourcePriority attribute when propagating routing
objects to an LS in another domain. The inclusion of the
ResourcePriority attribute is a matter of local administrative
policy.

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

5. Security Considerations

The document defines a new attribute for the TRIP protocol and has no
direct security considerations applied to it. However, the security
considerations for TRIP and its messages remain the same and are
articulated in Section 14 of [rfc3219].

6. IANA Considerations

As described in Section 4 above, one new "TRIP attribute" has been
defined. Its name and code value are the following:

Code Attribute Name
---- ----------------
12 ResourcePriority

These assignments are recorded in the following registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/trip-parameters

7. Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate review and subsequent comments from James Polk
and Henning Schulzrinne.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[rfc3219] Rosenberg, J., Salama, H., and M. Squire, "Telephony
Routing over IP (TRIP)", RFC 3219, January 2002.

[rfc4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4412, February 2006.

8.2. Informative References

[ADEL00] IETF Proceedings (47th), SIP Working Group, Adelaide,
Australia, June 2000.

[ANSI] ANSI, "Signaling System No. 7 (SS7): High Probability of
Completion (HPC) Network Capability", ANSI T1.631, 1993.

[itu460] ITU, "Call Priority Designation for H.323 Calls", ITU
Recommendation H.460.4, November 2002.

[itu255] ITU, "Multi-Level Precedence and Preemption Service", ITU
Recommendation I.255.3, July 1990.

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

[rfc2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[rfc2871] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "A Framework for
Telephony Routing over IP", RFC 2871, June 2000.

[rfc3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler,
"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

[rfc3487] Schulzrinne, H., "Requirements for Resource Priority
Mechanisms for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
3487, February 2003.

[rfc3689] Carlberg, K. and R. Atkinson, "General Requirements for
Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)", RFC 3689,
February 2004.

[rfc3690] Carlberg, K. and R. Atkinson, "IP Telephony Requirements
for Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS)", RFC 3690,
February 2004.

[rfc4234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

[rfc4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

Authors' Addresses

Ken Carlberg
G11
123a Versailles Circle
Baltimore, MD
USA

EMail: [email protected]

Piers O'Hanlon
University College London
Gower Street
London
UK

EMail: [email protected]

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 5115 Resource Priority Attribute January 2008

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
[email protected].

Carlberg & O'Hanlon Standards Track [Page 8]