idnits 2.17.1
draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-03.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (October 16, 2012) is 4207 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol' is defined on line
643, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3629' is defined on line 703, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4079' is defined on line 706, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC5012' is defined on line 714, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC5774' is defined on line 718, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-00
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-04
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5687
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6443
== Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location-03
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 ECRIT J. Winterbottom
3 Internet-Draft CommScope
4 Updates: I-D.ietf.ecrit.phonebcp H. Tschofenig
5 (if approved) Nokia Siemens Networks
6 Intended status: Standards Track L. Liess
7 Expires: April 19, 2013 Deutsche Telekom
8 October 16, 2012
10 Out of Jurisdiction Emergency Routing
11 draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-03
13 Abstract
15 Some countries and regions require location information be
16 constrained to emergency service applications and do not permit
17 location information to traverse the end-point at all. This document
18 describes the requirements of these countries and provides a solution
19 based on an extension to the HELD location protocol.
21 Status of this Memo
23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
36 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2013.
38 Copyright Notice
40 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
41 document authors. All rights reserved.
43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
46 publication of this document. Please review these documents
47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
51 described in the Simplified BSD License.
53 Table of Contents
55 1. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
56 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
57 3. Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
58 4. Key Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
59 5. Available Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
60 6. The Missing Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
61 6.1. Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
62 6.2. Domain Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
63 7. HELD Extensions to Support Emergency Routing Information . . . 11
64 7.1. HELD Schema Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
65 7.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
66 8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
67 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
68 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
69 10.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
70 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:eri' . . . . . . . . 14
71 10.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
72 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
73 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
74 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
75 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
78 1. Introduction and Motivation
80 The Internet emergency calling architecture specified in
81 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] describes two main models for emergency
82 call processing. The first is a device-centric model, where a device
83 obtains location information using a location configuration protocol,
84 such a HELD [RFC5985], and then proceeds to determine the address of
85 the next hop closer to the local PSAP using LoST [RFC5222]. Figure 1
86 shows this model in a simplified form.
88 +---Location Request---+
89 | (1) |
90 +---+----+ +---V---+
91 | |<--Location--| LIS |
92 | Caller | (2) +-------+ +--------+
93 | | | ESRP/ |
94 | |----Find Service-------+ | PSAP |
95 +------^-+ (3) | +--------+
96 | | +--------V----+ ^
97 | +-----Service----| LoST Server | |
98 | (4) +-------------+ +---+---+
99 +-------------Call Initiation------------>| VSP |
100 (5) +-------+
102 Figure 1: Device-Centric Emergency Services Model
104 With the ever increasing deployment of smart phones and tablet
105 devices a variation of the device-centric model is the ability to use
106 location available to the device for routing and then consult a LIS
107 when location is needed for dispatch. Location can come in various
108 forms to the device, e.g., from GPS, third party location databases,
109 as well as IP-to-geolocation services.
111 The second approach is a softswitch-centric model, where a device
112 initiates and emergency call and the serving softswitch detects that
113 the call is an emergency and initiates retrieving the caller's
114 location from a Location Information Server (LIS) using HELD
115 [RFC5985] with identity extensions [RFC6155] and then determining the
116 route to the local PSAP using LoST [RFC5222]. Figure 2 shows the
117 high-level protocol interactions.
119 +---Location Request---+
120 | (2) |
121 +---V---+ |
122 | LIS | |
123 +----+--+ +----+----+
124 | | |
125 +----Location--->| Soft |
126 +--------+ (3) | Switch |
127 | Caller |------Call Initiation------------> | |
128 +--------+ (1) +-+-^---+-+
129 +-------------+ | | |
130 | LoST Server |<-Find Service--+ | |
131 +------+------+ (4) | |
132 | | |
133 +----------Service--------+ |
134 (5) |
135 +-----------+ |
136 | ESRP/PSAP |<------Call----+
137 +-----------+ (6)
139 Figure 2: Softswitch-Centric Calling Model
141 In the softswitch-centric model when a VSP receives an emergency call
142 it will encounter several difficulties. The first hurdle is for the
143 VSP to determine the correct LIS to ask for location information.
144 Having obtained the location, the VSP must then determine the correct
145 PSAP using a LoST server and this requires wide-spread deployment of
146 forest guides. This leads to a failure in the softswitch-centric
147 approach to deliver emergency calls correctly because the VSP is
148 unable to determine the correct PSAP to route the call to. The
149 softswitch-centric model should therefore seen only as a transition
150 architecture towards the end-device model where end devices have not
151 been upgraded. Software updates of end devices are, however, not a
152 problem anymore since software updates have to be provided to end
153 devices on a regular basis to patch security vulnerabilities. Any
154 service provider that does not have an ability to update devices will
155 not only put their own customers at risk but also other Internet
156 users as well since those can become the victims of attacks as well.
158 2. Terminology
160 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
161 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
162 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
164 The terms LIS, ESRP, VSP and PSAP are used as defined in [RFC6443].
166 The term "Access Network Provider" is used as defined in [RFC5687]
167 and incompasses both the Internet Access Provider (IAP) and Internet
168 Service Provider (ISP).
170 3. Problem Description
172 There is a significant faction in the emergency services and the
173 regulatory community that do not want to rely on emergency calls
174 solutions with end-device provided location. This includes location
175 information that is determined by the network but subsequently
176 traverses the end-point prior to being delivered to the emergency
177 organization.
179 There are two concerns:
181 Security: One concern is about the possibility of the software of
182 the end device being able to tamper with location. This can lead
183 to denial of service attacks against the emergency services
184 infrastructure. [I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location] describes
185 these concerns in detail.
187 Privacy: There is the desire to allow location information to be
188 provided to emergency organizations rather than any other party,
189 including the end device or a VSP. In the softswitch model the
190 VSP would have to ask the access provider for location
191 information. However, the number of VSPs asking for location
192 information could, at least in theory depending on the scope of
193 emergency services regulation be very large and is likely to
194 include VSPs that are located in a jurisdiction that is different
195 from the one of the access network provider. Allowing VSPs to ask
196 for location information of end devices at access network
197 providers in a third party fashion without the ability to present
198 the user's consent or the emergency service nature calls for
199 privacy problems. [RFC6155] discusses some of these privacy
200 challenges as part of the third party requests.
202 These arguments may, however, also jacked into place to hide another
203 reason, namely the desire to create an artifical relationship between
204 the VSP and the access network provider. [RFC6444] provides a
205 problem description and [I-D.ietf-ecrit-rough-loc] even offers a
206 solution based on rough location. This solutions, however, requires
207 the access network provider to compute these rough location shapes.
208 Countries that have a large number of PSAPs and neither an ESRP nor a
209 stage-1 PSAP architecture may encounter problems computing these
210 shapes.
212 The Internet calling model does not constrain the call to a single
213 jurisdictional boundary nor does it assume that the Voice Service
214 provider (VSP) role is provided by the access provider. This allows
215 the VSP to be located anywhere on the Internet without requiring any
216 association with Internet access providers.
218 +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
219 | Jurisdiction 1 | | Jurisdiction 2 | | Jurisdiction 3 |
220 | | | | | |
221 | | | | | |
222 | +--------------+--+----------------+--+--------------+ |
223 | | EMERGENCY CALL CENTRES | |
224 | +--------------+--+----------------+--+--------------+ |
225 | ^ ^ ^ | | | | |
226 | | | | | | | | |
227 | +-----+ | | | | +-----+ | | +-----+ |
228 | | VSP | | +--------| VSP | | | | VSP | |
229 | +--^--+ | | | +---^-+ | | +-----+ |
230 | | | | | | | | |
231 | +--------+-----+--+-------+--------+--+--------------+ |
232 | | | | | INTERNET | |
233 | +--------+-----+--+-----+----------+--+--------------+ |
234 | | | | | | | | |
235 | +--------+-----+--+-------+--------+--+--------------+ |
236 | | | | ACCESS | NETWORKS | |
237 | +--------------+--+-------+--------+--+--------------+ |
238 | | | | | | | | |
239 | | | +-------------+ | | |
240 | | | | | | | | |
241 | +------------+ | | | | |
242 | | EMERGENCY | | | | | |
243 | | CALLS | | | | | |
244 | +------------+ | | | | |
245 | +--------+-----+--+-----+----------+--+--------------+ |
246 | | | | DEVICES | |
247 | +--------------+--+-----+----------+--+--------------+ |
248 | | | | | |
249 +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
250 e.g US State e.g. Australia e.g. European
251 Country
253 Figure 3: Internet Calling Models
255 4. Key Observations
257 When these security and privacy requirements are taken into
258 consideration then the emergency calling architecture and associated
259 procedures described in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and [RFC6443]
260 require some adaptation in some configurations to ensure universal
261 operation. The softswitch model fails to meet the privacy
262 requirements and the end-device model has to wrangle with security
263 challenges.
265 Several observations have been posed thus far:
267 Problem#1: Rough location information is required to route emergency
268 calls.
270 Problem#2: The VSP needs the ability to determine the correct LIS to
271 retrieve location information.
273 Problem#3: The VSP needs the ability to contact a LoST server to
274 acquire routing information from.
276 Problem#4: The end host does not acquire or convey location to the
277 emergency network.
279 Problem#5: Access network provider aim to provide location only to
280 emergency service authorities.
282 Problem#6: Precise location information is required to dispatch
283 first responders.
285 5. Available Building Blocks
287 To fulfill A number of building blocks are already available. There
288 is no need to start from a clean sheet.
290 Location: Location standards have existed for mobile cellular
291 networks since the mid to late 1990s, and location standards for
292 the Internet have existed since the mid to late 2000s. The exact
293 determination techniques for each access technology are different
294 but the ability to direct communications across a communications
295 network is inherenetly premised on being able to reach a specific
296 device and this requires some knowledge of where the device is
297 physically located. The term Location Information Server (LIS) is
298 used to identify the element in an access network responsible for
299 providing the location of a device in its administrative domain.
300 LIS service discovery techniques are described in [RFC5986] and
301 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery].
303 Call Routing: The LoST protocol [RFC5222] specifies a means to map
304 location and service information into a destination URI. Next
305 generation emergency services architectures and procedures, such
306 as those defined in [RFC6443], NENA i3, and the EENA NG112
307 document, use LoST for providing routing to local emergency
308 service authorities. LoST servers are discovered using DNS
309 U-NAPTR [RFC4848] to obtain a service URI. The discovered LoST
310 server services the domain in which the device is resident, or is
311 able to provide the identity of a LoST server that can service the
312 request. A access network provider that operates in an area
313 capable of receiving next generation emergency calls is able to
314 include a U-NAPTR record in their DNS servers that identifies the
315 local serving LoST server able to resolve emergency routing
316 requests.
318 LIS Discovery: [I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery] provides a
319 means for discovering a LIS based on the IP address of a device
320 and this could be used in conjunction with [RFC6155] to provide a
321 solution to problem 2. The domain name discovered for the LIS
322 could be reused to discover the correct LoST server to contact
323 thereby solving problem 3.
325 6. The Missing Link
327 Problem 5 does not allow the LIS to provide location information
328 except to emergency authorities, and while the HELD protocol
329 [RFC5985] does allow a location URI to be returned to the requesting
330 entitiy, the LoST protocol [RFC5222] requires a location value and
331 does not support a location reference.
333 One possible solution to problem 5 is to extend LoST to support a
334 location URI in the findService request method. In this case a VSP
335 would detect that a device was making an emergency call, determine
336 the correct LIS to contact using
337 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery], contact the LIS using HELD
338 [RFC5985] using the IP address of the calling device as an identity
339 extension [RFC6155] and the LIS would respond with a location URI
340 that requires client-side authentication for dereferencing Using the
341 LIS domain identifier the VSP would then determine the correct LoST
342 server and request emergency services using the location URI as the
343 location reference. The LoST server must have permission to
344 dereference the location URI, if any form of recurision is
345 encountered then the URI must be dereferenced multiple times
346 increasing the likelihood of failure.
348 An alternative approach is to leave LoST unchanged, but extend the
349 HELD protocol and requirements of the local LIS. In this solution,
350 when the LIS receives the third-party request, it performs the
351 necessary LoST request using the location of the device. The LIS
352 responds with a location URI and the destination URI of the correct
353 emergency service authority. The Location URI will only yield
354 location information to the authorized emergency authority. This
355 solution addresses problem 1 problem 3, problem 4, problem 5.
356 Problem 2 is solved using a combination of
357 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery] and HELD with identity
358 extensions.
360 6.1. Call Flow
362 1. Device initiates an emergency call to the user's VSP
364 2. The VSP's proxy detects emergency call and uses IP address to
365 determine the correct LIS to query using
366 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery].
368 3. The VSP queries the LIS using HELD and the IP address of the
369 calling device as an identity extension.
371 4. The LIS determines the location and uses it request routing
372 information for the local LoST server.
374 5. The LIS return a location URI and the local Emergency Service
375 Routing Proxy (ESRP) URI to the VSP.
377 6. The VSP follows the guidance from [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and
378 routes the call to the ESRP.
380 7. The ESRP authenticates itself with the LIS when it dereferences
381 the location URI.
383 8. The returns location information to the ESRP allowing it route
384 the call to the correct PSAP.
386 +------(2)Find LIS-----+
387 | |
388 +---V---+ |
389 | DNS | |
390 +----+--+ +----+---------+
391 | | |
392 +----LIS URI---->| |
393 +--------+ | VSP |
394 | Caller |------(1)-Call Initiation--------> | |
395 +--------+ +-+--^-------+-+
396 | | |
397 +-------------+ | | |
398 | |<------(3)-locationReq(IP)-------+ | |
399 | LIS | | |
400 | |--(5)-locationResp(locURI,EcrfURI)--+ |
401 +-+--^---+--^-+ |
402 | | | | +-------------+ |
403 | | | +-----Service----+ | |
404 | | | | LoST Server | |
405 | | +-(4)-Find Service->| | |
406 | | +-------------+ |
407 | | |
408 | | +-----------+ |
409 | +--(7)-locReq(Auth)--+ | |
410 | | ESRP/PSAP |<--(6)-Call(locURI)-+
411 +---(8)-locResp(Loc)--->| |
412 +-----------+
414 Figure 4: Modified Softswitch-Centric Emergency Call Flow
416 6.2. Domain Breakdown
418 The key advantage of the call flow show in Section 6.1 is that it
419 separates the entities into two clear groups, those that are inside
420 the regulatory emergency jurisdiction and those that are in the
421 Internet. This is evident in Figure 5.
423 +------(2)Find LIS-----+
424 | |
425 +---V---+ |
426 | DNS | |
427 +----+--+ +----+---------------+
428 | | |
429 +----LIS URI---->| |
430 | VSP |
431 | |
432 +-^---+----^-------+-+
433 I N T E R N E T | | | |
434 =========================================|===|====|=======|===
435 LOCAL JURISDICTION | | | |
436 +--------+ | | | |
437 | Caller |------(1)-Call Initiation------+ | | |
438 +--------+ | | |
439 | | |
440 +-------------+ | | |
441 | |<------(3)-locationReq(IP)-----+ | |
442 | LIS | | |
443 | |--(5)-locationResp(locURI,EcrfURI)--+ |
444 +-+--^---+--^-+ |
445 | | | | +-------------+ |
446 | | | +-----Service----+ | |
447 | | | | LoST Server | |
448 | | +-(4)-Find Service->| | |
449 | | +-------------+ |
450 | | |
451 | | +-----------+ |
452 | +--(7)-locReq(Auth)--+ | |
453 | | ESRP/PSAP |<--(6)-Call(locURI)-+
454 +---(8)-locResp(Loc)--->| |
455 +-----------+
457 Figure 5: Emergency Call Domains
459 7. HELD Extensions to Support Emergency Routing Information
461 Figure 4 shows the enhancements needed to support the new calling
462 model. If the LIS implements this specification then it responds as
463 shown in Figure 4, otherwise it responds with standard HELD [RFC5985]
464 [RFC6155] semantics. Consequently, the locationRequest message is
465 not modified.
467 It is recommended that the location request include a responseTime of
468 emergencyRouting to ensure that the LIS provides a response to the
469 VSP as quickly as possible.
471 When using IP related information to identify the UA to the LIS then
472 the identity information MUST be expressed using the IP flow
473 representation specified in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-flow-identity]. This
474 minimizes any issues caused by address translation entities in the
475 location path.
477 A new optional "emergencyRoutingInformation" element containing the
478 relevant destination URLs is added to the locationResponse message.
479 The list of destination URLs provided MUST conform to the same
480 contraints as the service URLs returned in the LoST protocol
481 [RFC5222] in the findServiceResponse. For clarity these constraints
482 are repreated here:
484 1. The URLs MUST be absolute URLs
486 2. The ordering of the URLs has no particular significance
488 3. Each URL scheme MUST only appear at most once
490 4. It is permissible to include both secured and regular versions of
491 a protocol
493 This specification updates the switch-centric call model in
494 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]. In addition to supporting the return of a
495 location value or location URI set from the LIS, the VSP MUST support
496 receiving only a location URI set and a set of URLs identifying the
497 emergency service routing proxies associated with the UA's location.
499 7.1. HELD Schema Extension
501 This section describes the schema extension to HELD.
503
504
511
512
513
514
515
516
518
520
521
522
523
524
526
528 7.2. Examples
530 Figure 6 illustrates a example that contains IP
531 flow information in the request.
533
535
537
538 192.168.1.1
539 1024
540
541
542 10.0.0.1
543 80
544
545
546
548 Figure 6: Example Location Request.
550 Figure 7 illustrates the message containing two
551 location URIs: a HTTPS and a SIP URI. Additionally, the response
552 contains routing information.
554
555
556
557 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o
558
559
560 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com
561
562
564
566 sip:nypd@example.com
567 sips:nypd@example.com
568 xmpp:nypd@example.com
569
571
573 Figure 7: Example Location Response
575 8. Privacy Considerations
577 [[TBD.]]
579 9. Security Considerations
581 [[TBD.]]
583 10. IANA Considerations
585 10.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
586 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:eri'
588 This document calls for IANA to register a new XML namespace, as per
589 the guidelines in [RFC3688].
591 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:eri
593 Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group (ecrit@ietf.org),
594 James Winterbottom (james.winterbottom@commscope.com).
596 XML:
598 BEGIN
599
600
602
603
604 HELD Emergency Routing Information Extensions
605
606
607 Additional Element for HELD Emergency Routing Information
608 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:eri
609 [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
610 with the RFC number for this specification.]]
611 See RFCXXXX.
612
613
614 END
616 10.2. XML Schema Registration
618 This section registers an XML schema as per the procedures in
619 [RFC3688].
621 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:eri
623 Registrant Contact: IETF, ECRIT working group, (ecrit@ietf.org),
624 James Winterbottom (james.Winterbottom@commscope.com).
626 The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of
627 Section 7.1 of this document.
629 11. Acknowledgements
631 We would like to thank Wilfried Lange for sharing his views with us.
632 We would also like to thank Bruno Chatras for his review comments.
634 12. References
635 12.1. Normative References
637 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp]
638 Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for
639 Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling",
640 draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-20 (work in progress),
641 September 2011.
643 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol]
644 Winterbottom, J., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M.
645 Thomson, "A Location Dereferencing Protocol Using HELD",
646 draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol-07 (work in progress),
647 July 2012.
649 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-flow-identity]
650 Bellis, R., "Flow Identity Extension for HELD",
651 draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-00 (work in progress),
652 September 2012.
654 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery]
655 Thomson, M. and R. Bellis, "Location Information Server
656 (LIS) Discovery using IP address and Reverse DNS",
657 draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-04 (work in
658 progress), September 2012.
660 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
661 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
663 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
664 January 2004.
666 [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
667 Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
668 Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.
670 [RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
671 Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and
672 Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010.
674 [RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
675 RFC 5985, September 2010.
677 [RFC5986] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local
678 Location Information Server (LIS)", RFC 5986,
679 September 2010.
681 [RFC6155] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., Tschofenig, H., and R.
682 Barnes, "Use of Device Identity in HTTP-Enabled Location
683 Delivery (HELD)", RFC 6155, March 2011.
685 [RFC6443] Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton,
686 "Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet
687 Multimedia", RFC 6443, December 2011.
689 12.2. Informative References
691 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-rough-loc]
692 Barnes, R. and M. Lepinski, "Using Imprecise Location for
693 Emergency Context Resolution",
694 draft-ietf-ecrit-rough-loc-05 (work in progress),
695 July 2012.
697 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location]
698 Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and B. Aboba,
699 "Trustworthy Location Information",
700 draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location-03 (work in
701 progress), April 2012.
703 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
704 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
706 [RFC4079] Peterson, J., "A Presence Architecture for the
707 Distribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects", RFC 4079,
708 July 2005.
710 [RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
711 Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
712 (DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
714 [RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for
715 Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
716 RFC 5012, January 2008.
718 [RFC5774] Wolf, K. and A. Mayrhofer, "Considerations for Civic
719 Addresses in the Presence Information Data Format Location
720 Object (PIDF-LO): Guidelines and IANA Registry
721 Definition", BCP 154, RFC 5774, March 2010.
723 [RFC6444] Schulzrinne, H., Liess, L., Tschofenig, H., Stark, B., and
724 A. Kuett, "Location Hiding: Problem Statement and
725 Requirements", RFC 6444, January 2012.
727 Authors' Addresses
729 James Winterbottom
730 CommScope
731 Suit 1, Level 2
732 iC Enterprise 1, Innovation Campus
733 Squires Way
734 North Wollongong, NSW 2500
735 AU
737 Phone: +61 242 212938
738 Email: james.winterbottom@commscope.com
740 Hannes Tschofenig
741 Nokia Siemens Networks
742 Linnoitustie 6
743 Espoo 02600
744 Finland
746 Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
747 Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
748 URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
750 Laura Liess
751 Deutsche Telekom Networks
752 Deutsche Telekom Allee 7
753 Darmstadt, Hessen 64295
754 Germany
756 Phone:
757 Email: L.Liess@telekom.de
758 URI: http://www.telekom.de