RFC 5069: Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking and Mapping
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document reviews the security threats associated with the marking of signalling messages to indicate that they are related to an emergency, and with the process of mapping locations to Universal Resource Identifiers (URIs) that point to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). This mapping occurs as part of the process of routing emergency calls through the IP network. Based on the identified threats, this document establishes a set of security requirements for the mapping protocol and for the handling of emergency-marked calls. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5069
- Published
- January 2008
- Authors
- T. Taylor; H. Tschofenig; H. Schulzrinne; M. Shanmugam
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- art
- Pages
- 12
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5031A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency and Other Well-Known ServicesUpdated
January 2008
- RFC 5012Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet TechnologiesCurrent
January 2008
- RFC 5582Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and FrameworkCurrent
September 2009
- RFC 6881Best Current Practice for Communications Services in Support of Emergency CallingUpdated
March 2013
- RFC 5027Security Preconditions for Session Description Protocol (SDP) Media StreamsCurrent
October 2007
- RFC 5016Requirements for a DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signing Practices ProtocolCurrent
October 2007
- RFC 5222LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation ProtocolUpdated
August 2008
- RFC 5223Discovering Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)Current
August 2008
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?