< draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-15.txt		draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16.txt >
	ECRIT H. Schulzrinne		ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
	Internet-Draft Columbia University		Internet-Draft Columbia University
	Intended status: Experimental H. Tschofenig		Intended status: Experimental H. Tschofenig
	Expires: July 14, 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks		Expires: July 16, 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks
	January 11, 2012		January 13, 2012
	Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based		Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based
	Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements		Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements
	draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-15.txt		draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based		The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based
	protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic		protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic
	location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In		location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In
	particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate		particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate
	Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.		Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.
	The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for		The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	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."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 4, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 34 ¶
	exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up manually,		exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up manually,
	based on local policies. A LoST server may peer with any number of		based on local policies. A LoST server may peer with any number of
	other LoST servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides;		other LoST servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides;
	authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides and other		authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides and other
	authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above or below		authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above or below
	them in the tree. Authoritative mapping servers push coverage		them in the tree. Authoritative mapping servers push coverage
	regions "up" the tree, i.e., from child nodes to parent nodes. The		regions "up" the tree, i.e., from child nodes to parent nodes. The
	child informs the parent of the geospatial or civic region that it		child informs the parent of the geospatial or civic region that it
	covers for a specific service.		covers for a specific service.
	Consider a hypothetical deployent of LoST in two countries, we call		Consider a hypothetical deployent of LoST in two countries, for
	them Austria and Finland. Austria, in our example, runs three		example Austria and Finland. Austria, in our example, runs three
	authoritative mapping servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna'		authoritative mapping servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna'
	whereby the former two cover the entire country expect for Vienna,		whereby the former two cover the entire country expect for Vienna,
	which is covered by a separate LoST server. There may be other		which is covered by a separate LoST server. There may be other
	caching LoST servers run by ISPs, universities, and VSPs but they are		caching LoST servers run by ISPs, universities, and VSPs but they are
	not relevant for this illustration. Finland, on the other hand,		not relevant for this illustration. Finland, on the other hand,
	decided to only deploy a single LoST server that also acts as a		decided to only deploy a single LoST server that also acts as a
	Forest Guide. For this simplistic illustration we assume that only		Forest Guide. For this simplistic illustration we assume that only
	one service is available, namely 'urn:service:sos' since otherwise		one service is available, namely 'urn:service:sos' since otherwise
	the number of stored mappings would have to be multiplied by the		the number of stored mappings would have to be multiplied by the
	number of used services.		number of used services.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶
	|----------------------------->|		|----------------------------->|
	| |		| |
	| <getMappingsResponse> |		| <getMappingsResponse> |
	|<-----------------------------|		|<-----------------------------|
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	Figure 5: Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> Message		Figure 5: Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> Message
	Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 5 Node B issuing the		Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 5 Node B is issuing
	first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client (with HTTP as		the first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client and Node A
	selected transport) and Node A plays the role of the HTTPS server.		plays the role of the HTTPS server.
	The <pushMappingsRequest> exchange allows a LoST Sync source to push		The <pushMappingsRequest> exchange allows a LoST Sync source to push
	mappings to LoST Sync destination. The assumption is being made that		mappings to LoST Sync destination. The assumption is being made that
	Node A and B have previously been configured in a way that they push		Node A and B have previously been configured in a way that they push
	mappings in such a fashion and that Node A maintains state about the		mappings in such a fashion and that Node A maintains state about the
	mappings have to be pushed to Node B. No subscribe mechanism is		mappings have to be pushed to Node B. No subscribe mechanism is
	defined in this document that would allow Node B to tell Node A about		defined in this document that would allow Node B to tell Node A about
	what mappings it is interested nor a mechanism for learning to which		what mappings it is interested nor a mechanism for learning to which
	entities mappings have to be pushed.		entities mappings have to be pushed.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 31 ¶
	| |		| |
	| <pushMappingsResponse> |		| <pushMappingsResponse> |
	|<-----------------------------|		|<-----------------------------|
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	Figure 6: Pushing Mappings with a <pushMappingsRequest> Message		Figure 6: Pushing Mappings with a <pushMappingsRequest> Message
	Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 6 Node A issuing the		Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 6 Node A issuing the
	first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client (with HTTP as		first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client and Node B plays
	selected transport) and Node B plays the role of the HTTPS server.		the role of the HTTPS server.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping		This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping
	architecture document [RFC5582], such as 'coverage region', 'forest		architecture document [RFC5582], such as 'coverage region', 'forest
	guide', 'mapping', 'authoritative mapping server', etc..		guide', 'mapping', 'authoritative mapping server', etc..
	skipping to change at page 11, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 32 ¶
	these mappings have been updated in the meanwhile. The policy		these mappings have been updated in the meanwhile. The policy
	when to poll for updated mapping information is outside the scope		when to poll for updated mapping information is outside the scope
	of this document. The <getMappingsRequest> message with one or		of this document. The <getMappingsRequest> message with one or
	multiple <exists> child element(s) allows to reduce the number of		multiple <exists> child element(s) allows to reduce the number of
	returned mappings to those that have been updated and also to		returned mappings to those that have been updated and also to
	those that are missing.		those that are missing.
	In response to the <getMappingsRequest> message the LoST Sync		In response to the <getMappingsRequest> message the LoST Sync
	destination waits for the <getMappingsResponse> message. In case of		destination waits for the <getMappingsResponse> message. In case of
	a successful response the LoST Sync destination stores the received		a successful response the LoST Sync destination stores the received
	mappings and determines which mappings to replace.		mappings and determines which mappings to update.
	3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source		3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source
	When a LoST Sync source receives an empty <getMappingsRequest>		When a LoST Sync source receives an empty <getMappingsRequest>
	message then all locally available mappings MUST be returned.		message then all locally available mappings MUST be returned.
	When a LoST Sync source receives a <getMappingsRequest> message with		When a LoST Sync source receives a <getMappingsRequest> message with
	one or multiple <exists> child element(s) then it MUST consult with		one or multiple <exists> child element(s) then it MUST consult with
	the local mapping database to determine whether any of the mappings		the local mapping database to determine whether any of the mappings
	of the client is stale and whether there are mappings locally that		of the client is stale and whether there are mappings locally that
	skipping to change at page 12, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 16 ¶
	The first example shows an empty <getMappingsRequest> message that		The first example shows an empty <getMappingsRequest> message that
	would retrieve all locally stored mappings at the LoST Sync source.		would retrieve all locally stored mappings at the LoST Sync source.
	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/>		<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/>
	Figure 7: Example of empty <getMappingsRequest> message		Figure 7: Example of empty <getMappingsRequest> message
	A further example request is shown in Figure 8 and the corresponding		A further example request is shown in Figure 8 and the corresponding
	response is depicted in Figure 9. In this example a request is made		response is depicted in Figure 9. In this example the
	for a specific mapping (with source="authoritative.bar.example" and		<getMappingsRequest> element contains information about the mapping
	sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66") that is more recent than		that is locally available to the client inside the <mapping-
	"2006-11-01T01:00:00Z" as well as any missing mapping.		fingerprint> element (with source="authoritative.bar.example",
			sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66", and lastUpdated="2006-
			11-01T01:00:00Z"). The query asks for mappings that are more recent
			than the available one as well as any missing mapping.
	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">		<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">
	<exists>		<exists>
	<mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example"		<mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example"
	sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"		sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
	lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z">		lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z">
	</mapping-fingerprint>		</mapping-fingerprint>
	</exists>		</exists>
	</getMappingsRequest>		</getMappingsRequest>
	skipping to change at page 14, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 45 ¶
	01T01:00:00Z" is requested to be deleted. Note that the 'expires'		01T01:00:00Z" is requested to be deleted. Note that the 'expires'
	attribute is required per schema definition but will be ignored in		attribute is required per schema definition but will be ignored in
	processing the request on the receiving side. A sync source may want		processing the request on the receiving side. A sync source may want
	to delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but has to		to delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but has to
	remember which peers it has distributed this update to unless it has		remember which peers it has distributed this update to unless it has
	other ways to ensure that databases do not get out of sync.		other ways to ensure that databases do not get out of sync.
	4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination		4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination
	When a LoST Sync destination receives a <pushMappingsRequest> message		When a LoST Sync destination receives a <pushMappingsRequest> message
	then a newly received mapping M' MUST replace an existing mapping M		then the cache with the existing mappings is inspected to determine
	if all of the following conditions hold:		whether the received mapping should lead to an update of an already
			existing mapping, should create a new mapping in the cache, or should
	1. M'.source equals M.source		be discarded.
	2. M'.sourceID' equals M.sourceID		A newly received mapping MUST update an existing one having the same
	3. M'.lastUpdated is greater than M.lastUpdated		'source' and 'sourceId' and a more recent time in 'lastUpdated'.
	If the received mapping M' does not update any existing mapping M		If the received mapping does not match with any existing mapping
	then it MUST be added to the local cache as an independent mapping.		based on the 'source' and 'sourceId' then it MUST be added to the
			local cache as an independent mapping.
	If a <pushMappingsRequest> message with an empty <mapping> element is		If a <pushMappingsRequest> message with an empty <mapping> element is
	received then a corresponding mapping has to be determined based on		received then a corresponding mapping has to be determined based on
	the 'source', 'sourceID' and 'lastUpdated' attributes. If a mapping		the 'source', and the 'sourceID'.
	has been found then it MUST be deleted. If no mapping can be
	identified then an <errors> response MUST be returned that contains		If no mapping can be identified then an <errors> response MUST be
	the <notDeleted> child element. The <notDeleted> element MAY carry a		returned that contains the <notDeleted> child element. The
	<message> element and MUST contain the <mapping> element(s) that		<notDeleted> element MAY contain a 'message' attribute with an error
	caused the error.		description used for debugging purposes. The <notDeleted> element
			MUST contain the <mapping> element(s) that caused the error.
	The response to a <pushMappingsRequest> request is a		The response to a <pushMappingsRequest> request is a
	<pushMappingsResponse> message. With this specification, a		<pushMappingsResponse> message. With this specification, a
	successful response message returns no additional elements, whereas		successful response message returns no additional elements, whereas
	an <errors> response is returned in the response message, if the		an <errors> response is returned in the response message, if the
	request failed. Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>		request failed. Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>
	or <serverTimeout> errors defined in Section 13.1 of [RFC5222], are		or <serverTimeout> errors defined in Section 13.1 of [RFC5222], are
	used. The <redirect> and <warnings> messages are not used for this		used. The <redirect> and <warnings> messages are not used for this
	query/response.		query/response.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 40 ¶
	several other nodes. This is unavoidable, but generally only imposes		several other nodes. This is unavoidable, but generally only imposes
	a modest overhead. (It would be possible to create a spanning tree		a modest overhead. (It would be possible to create a spanning tree
	in the same fashion as IP multicast, but the complexity does not seem		in the same fashion as IP multicast, but the complexity does not seem
	warranted, given the relatively low volume of data.)		warranted, given the relatively low volume of data.)
	4.3. Example		4.3. Example
	An example is shown in Figure 10. Image a LoST node that obtained		An example is shown in Figure 10. Image a LoST node that obtained
	two new mappings identified as follows:		two new mappings identified as follows:
	o source="authoritative.example"		o
	sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66" lastUpdated="2008-11-
	26T01:00:00Z"
	o source="authoritative.example"		source="authoritative.example"
	sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111" lastUpdated="2008-11-		sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
	01T01:00:00Z"		lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"
			o
			source="authoritative.example"
			sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111"
			lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
	These two mappings have to be added to the peer's mapping database.		These two mappings have to be added to the peer's mapping database.
	Additionally, the following mapping has to be deleted:		Additionally, the following mapping has to be deleted:
	o source="nj.us.example" sourceId="123" lastUpdated="2008-11-		o source="nj.us.example" sourceId="123" lastUpdated="2008-11-
	01T01:00:00Z"		01T01:00:00Z"
	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<sync:pushMappings		<sync:pushMappings
	skipping to change at page 18, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 20 ¶
	<sync:notDeleted		<sync:notDeleted
	message="Could not delete the indicated mapping."		message="Could not delete the indicated mapping."
	xml:lang="en">		xml:lang="en">
	<mapping source="nj.us.example"		<mapping source="nj.us.example"
	sourceId="123"		sourceId="123"
	lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"		lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
	expires="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"/>		expires="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"/>
	</sync:notDeleted>		</sync:notDeleted>
	</errors>		</errors>
	Figure 12: Example <errors> Message		Figure 12: Example <errors> Message
	5. Transport		5. Transport
	LoST Sync needs an underlying protocol transport mechanism to carry		LoST Sync needs an underlying protocol transport mechanism to carry
	requests and responses. This document uses HTTPS as a transport to		requests and responses. This document uses HTTPS as a transport to
	exchange XML documents. No fallback to HTTP is provided.		exchange XML documents. No fallback to HTTP is provided.
	When using HTTP-over-TLS [RFC2818], LoST Sync messages use the POST		When using HTTP-over-TLS [RFC2818], LoST Sync messages use the POST
	method. Request MUST use the Cache-Control response directive "no-		method. Request MUST use the Cache-Control response directive "no-
	cache".		cache".
	All LoST Sync responses, including those indicating a LoST warning or		All LoST Sync responses, including those indicating a LoST warning or
	error, are carried in 2xx responses, typically 200 (OK). Other 2xx		error, are carried in 2xx responses, typically 200 (OK). 3xx, 4xx and
	responses, in particular 203 (Non-authoritative information) may be		5xx HTTP response codes indicates that the request itself failed or
	returned by HTTP caches that disregard the caching instructions. 3xx,		was redirected; these responses do not contain any LoST Sync XML
	4xx and 5xx HTTP response codes indicates that the HTTP request		elements.
	itself failed or was redirected; these responses do not contain any
	LoST Sync XML elements.
	6. RelaxNG		6. RelaxNG
	Note: In order to avoid copying pattern definitions from the LoST		Note: In order to avoid copying pattern definitions from the LoST
	Relax NG schema [RFC5222] to this document we include it as		Relax NG schema [RFC5222] to this document we include it as
	"lost.rng" (XML syntax) in the Relax NG schema below.		"lost.rng" (XML syntax) in the Relax NG schema below.
	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<grammar ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"		<grammar ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
	skipping to change at page 22, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 22, line 29 ¶
	\ /		\ /
	C		C
	Figure 13: Synchronization Configuration Example		Figure 13: Synchronization Configuration Example
	Now, imagine that server A adds a new mapping. This mapping is		Now, imagine that server A adds a new mapping. This mapping is
	uniquely identified by the combination of "source", "sourceid" and		uniquely identified by the combination of "source", "sourceid" and
	"last updated". Assume that A would push this new mapping to B and		"last updated". Assume that A would push this new mapping to B and
	C. When B obtained this new mapping it would find out that it has to		C. When B obtained this new mapping it would find out that it has to
	distribute it to its peer C. C would also want to distribute the		distribute it to its peer C. C would also want to distribute the
	mapping to B (and vice versa). If the originally mapping with the		mapping to B. If the original mapping with the "source", "sourceid"
	"source", "sourceid" and "last updated" is not modified by either B		and "last updated" is not modified by either B or C then these two
	or C then these two servers would recognize that they already possess		servers would recognize that they already possess the mapping and can
	the mapping and can ignore the update.		ignore the update.
	It is important that implementations MUST NOT modify mappings they		It is important that implementations MUST NOT modify mappings they
	receive. An entity acting maliciously would, however, intentially		receive. An entity acting maliciously would, however, intentially
	modify mappings or inject bogus mappings. To avoid the possibility		modify mappings or inject bogus mappings. To avoid the possibility
	of an untrustworthy member claiming a coverage region that it is not		of an untrustworthy member claiming a coverage region that it is not
	authorized for, any node introducing a new service boundary MUST sign		authorized for, authoritative mapping server MUST sign mappings they
	the object by protecting the data with an XML digital signature		distribute using an XML digital signature
	[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212]. A recipient MUST verify that the		[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212]. A recipient MUST verify that the
	signing entity is indeed authorized to speak for that region.		signing entity is indeed authorized to speak for that region. In
	Determining who can speak for a particular region is inherently		many cases, this will require an out-of-band agreement to be in place
	difficult unless there is a small set of authorizing entities that		to agree on specific entities to take on this role. Determining who
	participants in the mapping architecture can trust. Receiving		can speak for a particular region is inherently difficult unless
	systems should be particularly suspicious if an existing coverage		there is a small set of authorizing entities that participants in the
	region is replaced with a new one with a new mapping address. With		mapping architecture can trust. Receiving systems should be
	this mechanism it is also possible to avoid the distribution of		particularly suspicious if an existing coverage region is replaced by
	mappings that have been modified by servers forwarding mappings as		a new one that contains a different value in the <uri> element. With
	part of the synchronization procedure.		digitially singed mappings mappings cannot be modified by
			intermediate LoST servers.
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	This document defines a protocol for exchange of mapping information		This document defines a protocol for exchange of mapping information
	between two entities. Hence, the operations described in this		between two entities. Hence, the protocol operations described in
	document involve mutually-trusting LoST nodes. These nodes MUST		this document require authentication of neighboring nodes.
	authenticate each other, using mechanisms such as HTTP Digest
	[RFC2617] over TLS, HTTP Basic [RFC2617] over TLS [RFC5246] or TLS		The LoST Sync client and servers MUST implement TLS and use TLS.
	client and server certificates. Manual configuration for the setup		Which version(s) ought to be implemented will vary over time, and
	of the peering relationships is required and hence the choice of the		depend on the widespread deployment and known security
	security mechanisms used between the two entities is a deployment		vulnerabilities at the time of implementation. At the time of this
	specific decision. In any case, TLS MUST be implemented and used.		writing, TLS version 1.2 [RFC5246] is the most recent version, but
	TLS provides a secure communication channel, an integrity and		has very limited actual deployment, and might not be readily
	confidentiality protected exchange of data with the help of the TLS		available in implementation toolkits. TLS version 1.0 [RFC2246] is
	Record Layer, and prevents intermediaries to injecting bogus		the most widely deployed version, and will give the broadest
	mappings.		interoperability.
	An additional threat is caused by compromised or misconfigured LoST		An additional threat is caused by compromised or misconfigured LoST
	servers. A denial of service could be the consequence of an injected		servers. A denial of service could be the consequence of an injected
	mapping. If the mapping data contains an URL that does not exist		mapping. If the mapping data contains an URL that does not exist
	then emergency services for the indicated area are not reachable. If		then emergency services for the indicated area are not reachable. If
	all mapping data contains URLs that point to a single PSAP (rather		all mapping data contains URLs that point to a single PSAP (rather
	than a large number of PSAPs) then this PSAP is likely to experience		than a large number of PSAPs) then this PSAP is likely to experience
	overload conditions. If the mapping data contains a URL that points		overload conditions. If the mapping data contains a URL that points
	to a server controlled by the adversary itself then it might		to a server controlled by the adversary itself then it might
	impersonate PSAPs. Section 7 discusses this issue and recommends		impersonate PSAPs.
	individually signed mappings. For unusal changes to the mapping
	database approval by an expert may be required before any mappings		Section 7 discusses this security threat and mandates signed
	are installed.		mappings. For unusal changes to the mapping database approval by a
			system administrator of the emergency services infrastructure (or a
			similar expert) may be required before any mappings are installed.
	9. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	9.1. Content-type registration for 'application/lostsync+xml'		9.1. Content-type registration for 'application/lostsync+xml'
	This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type		This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type
	according to the procedures of RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and guidelines in		according to the procedures of RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and guidelines in
	RFC 3023 [RFC3023].		RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
	Type name: application		Type name: application
	Subtype name: lostsync+xml		Subtype name: lostsync+xml
	Required parameters: none		Required parameters: none
	Optional parameters: charset		Optional parameters: charset
	Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML.		Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML.
	Encoding considerations: Identical to those of "application/xml" as		Encoding considerations: Identical to those of "application/xml" as
	described in RFC 3023 [RFC3023], Section 3.2.		described in [RFC3023], Section 3.2.
	Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry LoST		Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry LoST
	Synchronization protocol payloads described in RFCXXXX. The		Synchronization protocol payloads and the security considerations
	security considerations section of RFCXXXX is applicable. In		section of RFCXXXX is applicable. In addition, as this media type
	addition, as this media type uses the "+xml" convention, it shares		uses the "+xml" convention, it shares the same security
	the same security considerations as described in RFC 3023		considerations as described in [RFC3023], Section 10. [NOTE TO
	[RFC3023], Section 10. [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace		IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
	XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.]		specification.]
	Interoperability considerations: None		Interoperability considerations: None
	Published specification: RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please		Published specification: RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please
	replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.]		replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.]
	Applications which use this media type: Emergency and Location-based		Applications which use this media type: Emergency and Location-based
	Systems		Systems
	Additional information:		Additional information:
	skipping to change at page 26, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 26, line 26 ¶
	<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"		<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
	"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">		"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
	<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">		<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
	<head>		<head>
	<meta http-equiv="content-type"		<meta http-equiv="content-type"
	content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>		content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
	<title>LoST Synchronization Namespace</title>		<title>LoST Synchronization Namespace</title>
	</head>		</head>
	<body>		<body>
	<h1>Namespace for LoST server synchronization</h1>		<h1>Namespace for LoST server synchronization</h1>
	<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync</h2>		<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1</h2>
	<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX		<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX
	[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:		[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:
	Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this		Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
	specification.]</a>.</p>		specification.]</a>.</p>
	</body>		</body>
	</html>		</html>
	END		END
	10. Acknowledgments		10. Acknowledgments
	Robins George, Cullen Jennings, Karl Heinz Wolf, Richard Barnes,		Robins George, Cullen Jennings, Karl Heinz Wolf, Richard Barnes,
	Mayutan Arumaithurai, Alexander Mayrhofer, and Andrew Newton provided		Mayutan Arumaithurai, Alexander Mayrhofer, and Andrew Newton provided
	helpful input. Jari Urpalainen assisted with the Relax NG schema.		helpful input. Jari Urpalainen assisted with the Relax NG schema.
	We would also like to thank our PROTO shepherd Roger Marshall for his		We would also like to thank our document shepherd Roger Marshall for
	help with the document.		his help with the document.
	We would like to particularly thank Andrew Newton for his timely and		We would like to particularly thank Andrew Newton for his timely and
	valuable review of the XML-related content.		valuable review of the XML-related content.
	We would like to thank Robert Sparks for his AD review feedback,		We would like to thank Robert Sparks for his AD review feedback,
	Bjoern Hoehrmann for his media type review, and Julian Reschke for		Bjoern Hoehrmann for his media type review, and Julian Reschke and
	his applications area review.		Martin Duerst for their applications area reviews.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
			[RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
			RFC 2246, January 1999.
	[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext		Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
	Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.		Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
	[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,		[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
	Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP		Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
	Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",		Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
	RFC 2617, June 1999.		RFC 2617, June 1999.
	[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.		[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
End of changes. 27 change blocks.
	85 lines changed or deleted		99 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/