| < draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions-01.txt | draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group A. Forte | Network Working Group A. Forte | |||
| Internet-Draft H. Schulzrinne | Internet-Draft H. Schulzrinne | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track Columbia University | Intended status: Standards Track Columbia University | |||
| Expires: May 7, 2009 November 3, 2008 | Expires: September 24, 2009 March 23, 2009 | |||
| Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) Extensions | Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) Extensions | |||
| draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions-01.txt | draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions-02.txt | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | |||
| applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | ||||
| aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2009. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2009. | |||
| Copyright Notice | ||||
| Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of | ||||
| publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). | ||||
| Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | ||||
| and restrictions with respect to this document. | ||||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| An important class of location-based services answer the question | An important class of location-based services answer the question | |||
| "What instances of this service are closest to me?" Examples include | "What instances of this service are closest to me?" Examples include | |||
| finding restaurants, gas stations, stores, automated teller machines, | finding restaurants, gas stations, stores, automated teller machines, | |||
| wireless access points (hot spots) or parking spaces. Currently, the | wireless access points (hot spots) or parking spaces. Currently, the | |||
| Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol only supports mapping | Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol only supports mapping | |||
| locations to a single service based on service regions. This | locations to a single service based on service regions. This | |||
| document describes an extension that allows queries "N nearest" and | document describes an extension that allows queries "N nearest" and | |||
| "within distance X". | "within distance X". | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. Service Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 3. Service Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 4. New Query Types: "N nearest" and "within distance X" . . . . . 4 | 4. New Query Types: "N nearest" and "within distance X" . . . . . 4 | |||
| 5. LoST Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 5. LoST Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 5.1. New Use of Circular Shape in Queries . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 5.1. Nw Use of Shapes in Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 5.2. Limiting the Number of Returned Service URIs . . . . . . . 5 | 6. Limiting the Number of Returned Service URIs . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 5.3. The <serviceLocation> Element in Responses . . . . . . . . 6 | 7. The <serviceLocation> Element in Responses . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 6. Distance Calculation: General Considerations . . . . . . . . . 9 | ||||
| 7. Complex Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | ||||
| 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 9.1. LoST Extensions Relax NG Schema Registration . . . . . . . 10 | 9.1. LoST Extensions Relax NG Schema Registration . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 9.2. LoST Extensions Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 9.2. LoST Extensions Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 10. Non-Normative RELAX NG Schema in XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . 10 | 10. Non-Normative RELAX NG Schema in XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol [RFC5222] maps | The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol [RFC5222] maps | |||
| service identifiers (URNs) and civic or geospatial information to | service identifiers (URNs) and civic or geospatial information to | |||
| service URIs, based on service regions. While motivated by mapping | service URIs, based on service regions. While motivated by mapping | |||
| locations to the public safety answering point (PSAP) serving that | locations to the public safety answering point (PSAP) serving that | |||
| location, the protocol has been designed to generalize to other | location, the protocol has been designed to generalize to other | |||
| location mapping services. | location mapping services. | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 27 ¶ | |||
| is given by jurisdictional boundaries, but does not work as well for | is given by jurisdictional boundaries, but does not work as well for | |||
| other services that do not have clearly defined boundaries. For | other services that do not have clearly defined boundaries. For | |||
| example, any given location is likely served by a number of different | example, any given location is likely served by a number of different | |||
| restaurants, depending on how far the prospective customer is willing | restaurants, depending on how far the prospective customer is willing | |||
| to walk or drive. | to walk or drive. | |||
| We extend LoST with two additional queries, giving the protocol the | We extend LoST with two additional queries, giving the protocol the | |||
| ability to find the N nearest instances of a particular service and | ability to find the N nearest instances of a particular service and | |||
| all services within a given radius. | all services within a given radius. | |||
| 2. Requirements notation | 2. Requirements Notation | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | |||
| 3. Service Region | 3. Service Region | |||
| In the LoST protocol, the <findServiceResponse> message includes a | In the LoST protocol, the <findServiceResponse> message includes a | |||
| service region [RFC5222]. This is the geographical area for which a | service region [RFC5222]. This is the geographical area for which a | |||
| query will always receive the same response. Because of this, the | query will always receive the same response. Because of this, the | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 50 ¶ | |||
| In emergency services, as soon as the service region changes, the | In emergency services, as soon as the service region changes, the | |||
| client queries the LoST server in order to discover the new PSAP. | client queries the LoST server in order to discover the new PSAP. | |||
| This is important since clients need to know their PSAP before an | This is important since clients need to know their PSAP before an | |||
| emergency occurs, so that no time is wasted in discovering the | emergency occurs, so that no time is wasted in discovering the | |||
| correct PSAP during the emergency. | correct PSAP during the emergency. | |||
| Other location-based services are not as critical as emergency | Other location-based services are not as critical as emergency | |||
| services, and points of interest can be discovered on demand, at the | services, and points of interest can be discovered on demand, at the | |||
| time they are needed and not before. Because of this, for location- | time they are needed and not before. Because of this, for location- | |||
| based services other than emergency services, service regions will be | based services other than emergency services, in many cases service | |||
| of little or no use. | regions will be of little or no use. | |||
| 4. New Query Types: "N nearest" and "within distance X" | 4. New Query Types: "N nearest" and "within distance X" | |||
| The two new types of queries we introduce are "N nearest" and "within | We introduce two new types of querie, "N nearest" and "within | |||
| distance X". The former returns the N points of interest closest to | distance X". The former returns the N points of interest closest to | |||
| the client's physical location, the latter discovers all those points | the client's physical location, the latter discovers all those points | |||
| of interest residing within a given distance from the client's | of interest residing within a given distance from the client's | |||
| physical location. | physical location. | |||
| 5. LoST Extensions | 5. LoST Extensions | |||
| For queries "within distance X", the LoST client needs to specify to | For queries "within distance X", the LoST client needs to specify to | |||
| the server the range within which instances of a particular service | the server the range within which instances of a particular service | |||
| should be searched. In order to do this, we make use of the circular | should be searched. In order to do this, we make use of the circular | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 32 ¶ | |||
| N, that is, the maximum number of service URIs to be returned in a | N, that is, the maximum number of service URIs to be returned in a | |||
| response. In order to specify this, we introduce the <limit> | response. In order to specify this, we introduce the <limit> | |||
| element. | element. | |||
| Also, we introduce a new element in LoST responses, namely | Also, we introduce a new element in LoST responses, namely | |||
| <serviceLocation>. This new element is used by the server to | <serviceLocation>. This new element is used by the server to | |||
| indicate to the client the physical location of points of interest. | indicate to the client the physical location of points of interest. | |||
| In doing so, the client can compute the distance and other metrics | In doing so, the client can compute the distance and other metrics | |||
| between its current location and the points of interest. | between its current location and the points of interest. | |||
| 5.1. New Use of Circular Shape in Queries | 5.1. Nw Use of Shapes in Queries | |||
| In [PIDF-LO] different shapes are defined in order to represent a | In [PIDF-LO] different shapes are defined in order to represent a | |||
| point and an area of uncertainty within which the user might be | point and an area of uncertainty within which the user might be | |||
| situated. In order to extend LoST to support "N nearest" and "within | situated. In the present context, rather than seeing such shapes as | |||
| distance X" queries, we use the PIDF-LO circular shape [PIDF-LO]. In | an area of uncertainty for the physical location of the client, we | |||
| the present context, rather than seeing the circle as an area of | see them as the area within which we want to find a service. | |||
| uncertainty for the physical location of the client, we see it as the | ||||
| area within which we want to find a service. | ||||
| Figure 1 shows a <findService> geodetic query using the circular | For example, Figure 1 shows a <findService> geodetic query using the | |||
| shape. In particular, with the query shown in Figure 1, we are | circular shape. In particular, with the query shown in Figure 1, we | |||
| asking the LoST server to send us a list of service URNs for pizza | are asking the LoST server to send us a list of service URNs for | |||
| places within 850.24 meters from our approximate position specified | pizza places within 200 meters from our approximate position | |||
| in <p2:pos>. | specified in <p2:pos>. | |||
| Aside from the circular shape, other shapes are also useful. In | ||||
| particular, there are situations in which it is useful to query for | ||||
| services in a certain direction of movement rather than in an exact | ||||
| physical location. For example, if a user is driving North from New | ||||
| York City to Boston, it would be useful for this user to be able to | ||||
| query for services North of where he currently is, that is not in his | ||||
| current physical location nor at his final destination. | ||||
| In order to do this, we use shapes such as an ellipse. The ellipse | ||||
| has a major and a minor dimension thus allowing for defining a | ||||
| "priviledged" direction by having the major dimension in the | ||||
| direction of movement. This concept is similar to the one of | ||||
| omnidirectional versus directional antennas, where a device can see | ||||
| in either all directions or a specific direction, respectively. In | ||||
| the present context the circular shape allows a device to search for | ||||
| services in any direction sourrounding its physical location while | ||||
| shapes such as the ellipse allow the device to search for services in | ||||
| a more specific direction. The ellipse shape is defined in | ||||
| [PIDF-LO]. | ||||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |||
| <findService | <findService | |||
| xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1" | xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1" | |||
| xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml" | xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml" | |||
| serviceBoundary="value" | serviceBoundary="value" | |||
| recursive="true"> | recursive="true"> | |||
| <location id="6020688f1ce1896d" profile="geodetic-2d"> | <location id="6020688f1ce1896d" profile="geodetic-2d"> | |||
| <p2:Circle srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"> | <p2:Circle srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"> | |||
| <p2:pos>37.775 -122.422</p2:pos> | <p2:pos>37.775 -122.422</p2:pos> | |||
| <p2:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001"> | <p2:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001"> | |||
| 850.24 | 200 | |||
| </p2:radius> | </p2:radius> | |||
| </p2:Circle> | </p2:Circle> | |||
| </location> | </location> | |||
| <service>urn:service:local.pizza</service> | <service>urn:service:local.pizza</service> | |||
| </findService> | </findService> | |||
| Figure 1: A 'within distance X' <findService> geodetic query using | Figure 1: A 'within distance X' <findService> geodetic query using | |||
| the circular shape | the circular shape | |||
| 5.2. Limiting the Number of Returned Service URIs | 6. Limiting the Number of Returned Service URIs | |||
| Limiting the number of results is helpful, particularly for mobile | Limiting the number of results is helpful, particularly for mobile | |||
| devices with limited bandwidth. For "N closest" queries, the client | devices with limited bandwidth. For "N closest" queries, the client | |||
| needs to be able to tell the server to return no more than N service | needs to be able to tell the server to return no more than N service | |||
| URIs. In order to specify such limit, we define a new namespace | URIs. In order to specify such limit, we define a new namespace | |||
| "ext" for Lost extensions and introduce a new element, namely <ext: | "ext" for Lost extensions and introduce a new element, namely <ext: | |||
| limit>, conveyed inside the <findService> element defined in | limit>, conveyed inside the <findService> element defined in | |||
| [RFC5222]. Figures 2 and 3 show a <findService> geodetic query where | [RFC5222]. Figures 2 and 3 show a <findService> geodetic query where | |||
| the client asks the server to return no more than 20 service URIs. | the client asks the server to return no more than 20 service URIs. | |||
| In particular, Figure 2 shows a 'N closest' query while Figure 3 | In particular, Figure 2 shows a 'N closest' query while Figure 3 | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 43 ¶ | |||
| xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1" | xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1" | |||
| xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml" | xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml" | |||
| xmlns:ext="http://www.thisisnotdoneyet.net" | xmlns:ext="http://www.thisisnotdoneyet.net" | |||
| serviceBoundary="value" | serviceBoundary="value" | |||
| recursive="true"> | recursive="true"> | |||
| <ext:limit>20</ext:limit> | <ext:limit>20</ext:limit> | |||
| <location id="6020688f1ce1896d" profile="geodetic-2d"> | <location id="6020688f1ce1896d" profile="geodetic-2d"> | |||
| <p2:Circle srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"> | <p2:Circle srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"> | |||
| <p2:pos>37.775 -122.422</p2:pos> | <p2:pos>37.775 -122.422</p2:pos> | |||
| <p2:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001"> | <p2:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001"> | |||
| 850.24 | 200 | |||
| </p2:radius> | </p2:radius> | |||
| </p2:Circle> | </p2:Circle> | |||
| </location> | </location> | |||
| <service>urn:service:local.pizza</service> | <service>urn:service:local.pizza</service> | |||
| </findService> | </findService> | |||
| Figure 3: A <findService> geodetic query with the new <limit> | Figure 3: A <findService> geodetic query with the new <limit> | |||
| element. This query is a combination of 'N closest' and 'within | element. This query is a combination of 'N closest' and 'within | |||
| distance X' queries. | distance X' queries. | |||
| 5.3. The <serviceLocation> Element in Responses | 7. The <serviceLocation> Element in Responses | |||
| It is important for the LoST client to know the location of a point | It is important for the LoST client to know the location of a point | |||
| of interest so that distance, route and other metrics can be | of interest so that distance, route and other metrics can be | |||
| computed. We introduce a new element, namely <serviceLocation>. The | computed. We introduce a new element, namely <serviceLocation>. The | |||
| <serviceLocation> element contains the geodetic coordinates of a | <serviceLocation> element contains the geodetic coordinates of a | |||
| point of service and MUST be contained in a <mapping> element. In | point of service and MUST be contained in a <mapping> element. In | |||
| responses such as <findServiceResponse> [RFC5222], a list of service | responses such as <findServiceResponse> [RFC5222], a list of service | |||
| URIs, each with its own <serviceLocation> element, MUST be returned. | URIs, each with its own <serviceLocation> element, MUST be returned. | |||
| The order of service URIs in the list is not relevant. | The order of service URIs in the list is not relevant. | |||
| The <serviceLocation> element has one single attribute, 'profile', in | The <serviceLocation> element has one single attribute, 'profile', in | |||
| order to specify the profile used. Only geodetic profiles SHOULD be | order to specify the profile used. Only geodetic profiles SHOULD be | |||
| used as the computation of the distance, route and other metrics | used as the computation of the distance, route and other metrics | |||
| would at some point require geocoding of the civic address in | would at some point require geocoding of the civic address in | |||
| geodetic coordinates. Because of this, the position specified in | geodetic coordinates. Because of this, the position specified in | |||
| <serviceLocation> SHOULD be represented by using the <Point> element. | <serviceLocation> SHOULD be represented by using the <Point> element. | |||
| The <Point> element is described in Section 12.2 of [RFC5222] and in | The <Point> element is described in Section 12.2 of [RFC5222] and in | |||
| Section 5.2.1 of [PIDF-LO]. Figure 4 shows a <findServiceResponse> | Section 5.2.1 of [PIDF-LO]. Figure 4 shows a <findServiceResponse> | |||
| answer containing two location-to-service-URI mappings. | answer containing two location-to-service-URI mappings. | |||
| It is important to notice that since service regions are not relevant | Since service regions are not relevant in the present context, they | |||
| in the present context, they are not present in the response. | are not present in the response. | |||
| NOTE: The <locationUsed> element cannot be extended for this purpose | NOTE: The <locationUsed> element cannot be extended for this purpose | |||
| as it is defined outside of the <mapping> element. In particular, in | as it is defined outside of the <mapping> element. In particular, in | |||
| a response the <locationUsed> element is always one, while the number | a response the <locationUsed> element is always one, while the number | |||
| of service URIs is typically more than one. | of service URIs is typically more than one. | |||
| There are situations, however, in which it is helpful to include a | There are situations, however, in which it is helpful to include a | |||
| civic address together with the geodetic coordinates of a point of | civic address together with the geodetic coordinates of a point of | |||
| service. Usually, databases already contain the civic address of | service. Usually, databases already contain the civic address of | |||
| points of interest and for devices with limited capabilities it is | points of interest and for devices with limited capabilities it is | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 20 ¶ | |||
| </mapping> | </mapping> | |||
| <path> | <path> | |||
| <via source="resolver.example"/> | <via source="resolver.example"/> | |||
| <via source="authoritative.example"/> | <via source="authoritative.example"/> | |||
| </path> | </path> | |||
| <locationUsed id="6020688f1ce1896d"/> | <locationUsed id="6020688f1ce1896d"/> | |||
| </findServiceResponse> | </findServiceResponse> | |||
| Figure 4: A <findServiceResponse> answer | Figure 4: A <findServiceResponse> answer | |||
| 6. Distance Calculation: General Considerations | ||||
| In order to find the closest point of interest to the client's | ||||
| physical location, the LoST server needs to compute the distance | ||||
| between the client's location and the location of all available | ||||
| points of interest. How to compute such distance is out of the scope | ||||
| of this document. We can say, however, that while with geodetic | ||||
| coordinates such computation is straightforward, when using civic | ||||
| location, geo-coding would be required previous to the computation of | ||||
| the distance. | ||||
| Distance between client and point of interest might not always be a | ||||
| good metric. For example, two points can be close in terms of | ||||
| distance but there could be an obstacle such as a river in between | ||||
| them. Because of this, computing a route rather than just straight- | ||||
| line distance, might represent a more accurate way to solve the | ||||
| problem. Route computation does not have to happen on the server | ||||
| side but rather, could be performed on the LoST client itself, after | ||||
| receiving the list of service URIs. | ||||
| 7. Complex Queries | ||||
| Often, people select services not just based on proximity, but also | ||||
| on a range of other criteria, such as their reputation, the expected | ||||
| price range, hours of operation or whether the service is accepting | ||||
| service requests. While it would be possible to extend the LoST | ||||
| response to incorporate additional information, such information is | ||||
| likely to be highly service-dependent, may change frequently and may | ||||
| well be offered by multiple third parties. For example, there are | ||||
| multiple services that rate restaurants. The availability of seats | ||||
| in restaurants may change hour by hour. Thus, we discourage attempts | ||||
| to extend the LoST response to include such information. Instead, | ||||
| clients should query the service URIs returned to obtain such | ||||
| information, either as a human-readable web page or as a standardized | ||||
| service-specific data format, e.g., as a microformat. | ||||
| 8. Security Considerations | 8. Security Considerations | |||
| The same security considerations as in [RFC5222] apply. | The same security considerations as in [RFC5222] apply. | |||
| 9. IANA Considerations | 9. IANA Considerations | |||
| 9.1. LoST Extensions Relax NG Schema Registration | 9.1. LoST Extensions Relax NG Schema Registration | |||
| TODO. | TODO. | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at line 455 ¶ | |||
| Email: andreaf@cs.columbia.edu | Email: andreaf@cs.columbia.edu | |||
| Henning Schulzrinne | Henning Schulzrinne | |||
| Columbia University | Columbia University | |||
| Department of Computer Science | Department of Computer Science | |||
| 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401 | 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401 | |||
| New York, NY 10027 | New York, NY 10027 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu | Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu | |||
| 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 | ||||
| ietf-ipr@ietf.org. | ||||
| End of changes. 23 change blocks. | ||||
| 76 lines changed or deleted | 63 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||