idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-11.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 1953. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1964. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1971. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1977. 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 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 16, 2008) is 5610 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: 'RFC4395' is defined on line 1702, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4346 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-04 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 793 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3023 (Obsoleted by RFC 7303) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3825 (Obsoleted by RFC 6225) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4395 (Obsoleted by RFC 7595) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-12 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-02 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 12 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 GEOPRIV WG M. Barnes, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Nortel 4 Intended status: Standards Track 5 Expires: June 19, 2009 7 December 16, 2008 9 HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) 10 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-11.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2009. 37 Abstract 39 A Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7 LCP) is described that 40 is used for retrieving location information from a server within an 41 access network. The protocol includes options for retrieving 42 location information in two forms: by value and by reference. The 43 protocol is an extensible application-layer protocol that is 44 independent of session-layer. This document describes the use of 45 HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and HTTP over Transport Layer 46 Security (HTTP/TLS) as transports for the protocol. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 2. Conventions & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 3. Overview and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 4. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 4.1. Device Identifiers, NAT and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 55 4.1.1. Devices and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 4.1.2. LIS Handling of NATs and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 57 4.2. Location by Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 58 4.3. Location by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 5.1. Delivery Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 5.2. Location Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 5.3. Location Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 5.4. Indicating Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 6. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 6.1. "responseTime" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 6.2. "locationType" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 6.2.1. "exact" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 68 6.3. "code" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 69 6.4. "message" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 70 6.5. "locationUriSet" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 71 6.5.1. "locationURI" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 72 6.5.2. "expires" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 73 6.6. "Presence" Parameter (PIDF-LO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 7. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 8. HTTP/HTTPS Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 76 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 77 9.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted . . . . . 22 78 9.2. Protecting responses from modification . . . . . . . . . . 22 79 9.3. Privacy and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 80 10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 81 10.1. HTTPS Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 82 10.2. Simple Location Request Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 83 10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types . . . 27 84 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 85 11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 86 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held . . . . . . . . . . . 28 87 11.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 88 11.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml' . 29 89 11.4. Error code Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 90 12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 91 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 92 14. Changes since last Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 93 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 94 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 95 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 97 Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements . . . . . . 40 98 A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 99 A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 100 A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship . . . . 41 101 A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship . . . . . 41 102 A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 103 A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 104 A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 42 105 A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 106 A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 107 A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 108 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 109 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 45 111 1. Introduction 113 The location of a Device is information that is useful for a number 114 of applications. The L7 Location Configuration Protocol (LCP) 115 problem statement and requirements document 116 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] provides some scenarios in which a 117 Device might rely on its access network to provide location 118 information. The Location Information Server (LIS) service applies 119 to access networks employing both wired technology (e.g. DSL, Cable) 120 and wireless technology (e.g. WiMAX) with varying degrees of Device 121 mobility. This document describes a protocol that can be used to 122 acquire Location Information (LI) from a LIS within an access 123 network. 125 This specification identifies two types of location information that 126 may be retrieved from the LIS. Location may be retrieved from the 127 LIS by value, that is, the Device may acquire a literal location 128 object describing the location of the Device. The Device may also 129 request that the LIS provide a location reference in the form of a 130 location URI or set of location URIs, allowing the Device to 131 distribute its LI by reference. Both of these methods can be 132 provided concurrently from the same LIS to accommodate application 133 requirements for different types of location information. 135 This specification defines an extensible XML-based protocol that 136 enables the retrieval of LI from a LIS by a Device. This protocol 137 can be bound to any session-layer protocol, particularly those 138 capable of MIME transport. This document describes the use of 139 HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and HTTP over Transport Layer 140 Security (HTTP/TLS) as transports for the protocol. 142 2. Conventions & Terminology 144 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 145 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 146 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 148 This document uses the terms (and their acronym forms) Access 149 Provider (AP), Location Information (LI), Location Object (LO), 150 Device, Target, Location Generator (LG), Location Recipient (LR), 151 Rule Maker (RM) and Rule Holder (RH) as defined in RFC 3693, GEOPRIV 152 Requirements [RFC3693] . The terms Location Information Server 153 (LIS), Access Network, Access Provider (AP) and Access Network 154 Provider are used in the same context as defined in the L7 LCP 155 Problem statement and Requirements document 156 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. The usage of the terms, Civic 157 Location/Address and Geodetic Location follows the usage in many of 158 the referenced documents. 160 In describing the protocol, the terms "attribute" and "element" are 161 used according to their context in XML. The term "parameter" is used 162 in a more general protocol context and can refer to either an XML 163 "attribute" or "element". 165 3. Overview and Scope 167 This document describes an interface between a Device and a Location 168 Information Server (LIS). This document assumes that the LIS is 169 present within the same administrative domain as the Device (e.g., 170 the access network). An Access Provider (AP) operates the LIS so 171 that Devices (and Targets) can retrieve their LI. The LIS exists 172 because not all Devices are capable of determining LI, and because, 173 even if a device is able to determine its own LI, it may be more 174 efficient with assistance. This document does not specify how LI is 175 determined. 177 This document is based on the attribution of the LI to a Device and 178 not specifically a person (end user) or Target, based on the premise 179 that location determination technologies are generally designed to 180 locate a device and not a person. It is expected that, for most 181 applications, LI for the device can be used as an adequate substitute 182 for the end user's LI. Since revealing the location of the device 183 almost invariably reveals some information about the location of the 184 user of the device, the same level of privacy protection demanded by 185 a user is required for the device. This approach may require either 186 some additional assurances about the link between device and target, 187 or an acceptance of the limitation that unless the device requires 188 active user authentication, there is no guarantee that any particular 189 individual is using the device at that instant. 191 The following diagram shows the logical configuration of some of the 192 functional elements identified in [RFC3693] and the LIS defined in 193 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and where this protocol applies, with 194 the Rule Maker and Target represented by the role of the Device. 195 Note that only the interfaces relevant to the Device are identified 196 in the diagram. 198 +---------------------------------------------+ 199 | Access Network Provider | 200 | | 201 | +--------------------------------------+ | 202 | | Location Information Server | | 203 | | | | 204 | | | | 205 | | | | 206 | | | | 207 | +------|-------------------------------+ | 208 +----------|----------------------------------+ 209 | 210 | 211 HELD 212 | 213 Rule Maker - _ +-----------+ +-----------+ 214 o - - | Device | | Location | 215 724 732 733 734 This document (RFC xxxx) defines HELD messages. 735 737 738 740 743 744 745 746 747 748 750 751 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 803 804 805 806 808 809 810 812 813 814 815 816 817 819 820 821 822 824 825 826 827 828 830 832 833 834 835 837 839 840 841 842 843 844 847 849 850 851 852 853 856 858 859 860 861 862 865 867 868 869 870 872 875 877 8. HTTP/HTTPS Binding 879 This section describes the use of HTTP [RFC2616] and HTTPS [RFC2818] 880 as transport mechanisms for the HELD protocol, which all conforming 881 implementations MUST support. 883 The request is carried in the body of an HTTP/HTTPS POST request. 884 The MIME type of both request and response bodies should be 885 "application/held+xml". This should be reflected in the HTTP 886 Content-Type and Accept header fields. 888 The LIS populates the HTTP/HTTPS headers so that they are consistent 889 with the contents of the message. In particular, the cache control 890 header SHOULD be set to disable the HTTP/HTTPS caching of any PIDF-LO 891 document or Location URIs. Otherwise, there is the risk of stale 892 locations and/or the unauthorized disclosure of the LI. This also 893 allows the LIS to control any caching with the "expires" parameter. 894 The HTTP/HTTPS status code MUST indicate a 2xx series response for 895 all HELD locationResponse and error messages. 897 The use of HTTP/HTTPS also includes a default behaviour, which is 898 triggered by a GET request, or a POST with no request body. If 899 either of these queries are received, the LIS MUST attempt to provide 900 either a PIDF-LO document or a Location URI, as if the request was a 901 location request. 903 Implementation of HELD that implement HTTP transport MUST implement a 904 transport over HTTPS [RFC2818]. TLS provides message integrity and 905 confidentiality between Device and LIS. The LIS MUST implement the 906 server authentication method described in [RFC2818]. The device uses 907 the URI obtained during LIS discovery to authenticate the server. 908 The details of this authentication method are provided in section 3.1 909 of [RFC2818]. When TLS is used, the Device SHOULD fail a request if 910 server authentication fails, except in the event of an emergency. 912 9. Security Considerations 914 HELD is a location acquisition protocol whereby the a client requests 915 its location from a LIS. Specific requirements and security 916 considerations for location acquisition protocols are provided in 917 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. An in-depth discussion of the security 918 considerations applicable to the use of Location URIs and by 919 reference provision of LI is included in 920 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements]. 922 By using the HELD protocol, the client and the LIS expose themselves 923 to two types of risk: 925 Accuracy: Client receives incorrect location information 926 Privacy: An unauthorized entity receives location information 928 The provision of an accurate and privacy/confidentiality protected 929 location to the requestor depends on the success of five steps: 931 1. The client must determine the proper LIS. 932 2. The client must connect to the proper LIS. 933 3. The LIS must be able to identify the device by its identifier 934 (IP Address). 935 4. The LIS must be able to return the desired location. 936 5. HELD messages must be transmitted unmodified between the LIS 937 and the client. 939 Of these, only the second, third and the fifth are within the scope 940 of this document. The first step is based on either manual 941 configuration or on the LIS discovery defined in 942 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery], in which appropriate security 943 considerations are already discussed. The fourth step is dependent 944 on the specific positioning capabilities of the LIS, and is thus 945 outside the scope of this document. 947 9.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted 949 This document assumes that the LIS to be contacted is identified 950 either by an IP address or a domain name, as is the case for a LIS 951 discovered as described in LIS Discovery 952 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]. When the HELD transaction is 953 conducted using TLS [RFC4346], the LIS can authenticate its identity, 954 either as a domain name or as an IP address, to the client by 955 presenting a certificate containing that identifier as a 956 subjectAltName (i.e., as an iPAddress or dNSName, respectively). In 957 the case of the HTTP binding described above, this is exactly the 958 authentication described by TLS [RFC2818]. Any binding of HELD MUST 959 be capable of being transacted over TLS so that the client can 960 request the above authentication, and a LIS implementation for a 961 binding MUST include this feature. Note that in order for the 962 presented certificate to be valid at the client, the client must be 963 able to validate the certificate. In particular, the validation path 964 of the certificate must end in one of the client's trust anchors, 965 even if that trust anchor is the LIS certificate itself. 967 9.2. Protecting responses from modification 969 In order to prevent that response from being modified en route, 970 messages must be transmitted over an integrity-protected channel. 971 When the transaction is being conducted over TLS (a required feature 972 per Section 9.1), the channel will be integrity protected by 973 appropriate ciphersuites. When TLS is not used, this protection will 974 vary depending on the binding; in most cases, without protection from 975 TLS, the response will not be protected from modification en route. 977 9.3. Privacy and Confidentiality 979 Location information returned by the LIS must be protected from 980 access by unauthorized parties, whether those parties request the 981 location from the LIS or intercept it en route. As in Section 9.2, 982 transactions conducted over TLS with appropriate ciphersuites are 983 protected from access by unauthorized parties en route. Conversely, 984 in most cases, when not conducted over TLS, the response will be 985 accessible while en route from the LIS to the requestor. 987 Because HELD is an LCP and identifies clients and targets by IP 988 addresses, a requestor is authorized to access location for an IP 989 address only if it is the holder of that IP address. The LIS MUST 990 verify that the client is the target of the returned location, i.e., 991 the LIS MUST NOT provide location to other entities than the target. 992 Note that this is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for 993 authorization. A LIS MAY deny requests according to any local 994 policy. 996 A prerequisite for meeting this requirement is that the LIS must have 997 some assurance of the identity of the client. Since the target of 998 the returned location is identified by an IP address, simply sending 999 the response to this IP address will provide sufficient assurance in 1000 many cases. This is the default mechanism in HELD for assuring that 1001 location is given only to authorized clients; LIS implementations 1002 MUST support a mode of operation in which this is the only client 1003 authentication. 1005 Using IP return routability as an authenticator means that location 1006 information is vulnerable to exposure through IP address spoofing 1007 attacks. A temporary spoofing of IP address could mean that a device 1008 could request a Location Object or Location URI that would result in 1009 another Device's location. In addition, in cases where a Device 1010 drops off the network for various reasons, the re-use of the Device's 1011 IP address could result in another Device receiving the original 1012 Device's location rather than its own location. These exposures are 1013 limited by the following: 1015 o Location URIs MUST have a limited lifetime, as reflected by the 1016 value for the expires element in Section 6.5.2. The lifetime of 1017 location URIs necessarily depends on the nature of the access. 1018 o The LIS and network SHOULD be configured so that the LIS is made 1019 aware of Device movement within the network and addressing 1020 changes. If the LIS detects a change in the network that results 1021 in it no longer being able to determine the location of the 1022 Device, then all location URIs for that Device SHOULD be 1023 invalidated. 1025 The above measures are dependent on network configuration, which 1026 SHOULD be considered. For instance, in a fixed internet access, 1027 providers may be able to restrict the allocation of IP addresses to a 1028 single physical line, ensuring that spoofing is not possible; in such 1029 an environment, additional measures may not be necessary. 1031 10. Examples 1033 The following sections provide basic HTTP/HTTPS examples, a simple 1034 location request example and a location request for multiple location 1035 types example along with the relevant location responses. To focus 1036 on important portions of messages, the examples in Section 10.2 and 1037 Section 10.3 do not show HTTP/HTTPS headers or the XML prologue. In 1038 addition, sections of XML not relevant to the example are replaced 1039 with comments. 1041 10.1. HTTPS Example Messages 1043 The examples in this section show complete HTTP/HTTPS messages that 1044 include the HELD request or response document. 1046 This example shows the most basic request for a LO. The POST 1047 includes an empty "locationRequest" element. 1049 POST /location HTTPS/1.1 1050 Host: lis.example.com:49152 1051 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1052 Content-Length: 87 1054 1055 1057 Since the above request does not include a "locationType" element, 1058 the successful response to the request may contain any type of 1059 location. The following shows a response containing a minimal 1060 PIDF-LO. 1062 HTTPS/1.1 200 OK 1063 Server: Example LIS 1064 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT 1065 Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT 1066 Cache-control: private 1067 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1068 Content-Length: 594 1070 1071 1072 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1080 -34.407 150.88001 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 2006-01-11T03:42:28+00:00 1086 1087 Wiremap 1088 1089 1090 2006-01-10T03:42:28+00:00 1091 1092 1093 1095 The error response to the request is an error document. The 1096 following response shows an example error response. 1098 HTTPS/1.1 200 OK 1099 Server: Example LIS 1100 Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:49:20 GMT 1101 Cache-control: private 1102 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1103 Content-Length: 135 1105 1106 1110 10.2. Simple Location Request Example 1112 The location request shown below doesn't specify any location types 1113 or response time. 1115 1117 The example response to this location request contains a list of 1118 Location URIs. 1120 1121 1122 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o 1123 1124 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com 1125 1126 1127 1129 An error response to this location request is shown below: 1131 1135 10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types 1137 The following Location Request message includes a request for 1138 geodetic, civic and any Location URIs. 1140 1141 1142 geodetic 1143 civic 1144 locationURI 1145 1146 1148 The corresponding Location Response message includes the requested 1149 location information, including two location URIs. 1151 1152 1153 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o 1154 1155 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com: 1156 1157 1158 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1168 -34.407242 150.882518 1169 30 1170 1172 1173 1176 AU 1177 NSW 1178 Wollongong 1179 Gwynneville 1180 Northfield Avenue 1181 University of Wollongong 1182 2 1183 Andrew Corporation 1184 2500 1185 39 1186 WS-183 1187 U40 1188 1189 1190 1191 false 1192 2007-05-25T12:35:02+10:00 1193 1194 1195 Wiremap 1196 1197 1198 2007-05-24T12:35:02+10:00 1199 1200 1201 1203 11. IANA Considerations 1205 This document requires several IANA registrations detailed in the 1206 following sections. 1208 11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 1209 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held 1211 This section registers a new XML namespace, 1212 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held", per the guidelines in 1213 [RFC3688]. 1215 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held 1216 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, 1217 (geopriv@ietf.org), Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1218 XML: 1220 BEGIN 1221 1222 1224 1225 1226 HELD Messages 1227 1228 1229

Namespace for HELD Messages

1230

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held

1231 [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX 1232 with the RFC number for this specification.] 1233

See RFCXXXX

1234 1235 1236 END 1238 11.2. XML Schema Registration 1240 This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in 1241 [RFC3688]. 1243 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held 1244 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 1245 Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1246 Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of 1247 Section 7 of this document. 1249 11.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml' 1251 This section registers the "application/held+xml" MIME type. 1253 To: ietf-types@iana.org 1254 Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/held+xml 1255 MIME media type name: application 1256 MIME subtype name: held+xml 1257 Required parameters: (none) 1258 Optional parameters: charset 1259 Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is 1260 UTF-8. 1262 Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit 1263 characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC 1264 3023 [RFC3023], section 3.2. 1265 Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry 1266 protocol data related to the location of an entity, which could 1267 include information that is considered private. Appropriate 1268 precautions should be taken to limit disclosure of this 1269 information. 1270 Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a basis 1271 for a protocol 1272 Published specification: RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please 1273 replace XXXX with the RFC number for this specification.] 1274 Applications which use this media type: Location information 1275 providers and consumers. 1276 Additional Information: Magic Number(s): (none) 1277 File extension(s): .xml 1278 Macintosh File Type Code(s): (none) 1279 Person & email address to contact for further information: Mary 1280 Barnes 1281 Intended usage: LIMITED USE 1282 Author/Change controller: The IETF 1283 Other information: This media type is a specialization of 1284 application/xml [RFC3023], and many of the considerations 1285 described there also apply to application/held+xml. 1287 11.4. Error code Registry 1289 This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for the 1290 HELD protocol including an initial registry for error codes. The 1291 error codes are included in HELD error messages as described in 1292 Section 6.3 and defined in the schema in the 'codeType' token in the 1293 XML schema in (Section 7) 1295 The following summarizes the requested registry: 1297 Related Registry: Geopriv HELD Registries, Error codes for HELD 1298 Defining RFC: RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX 1299 with the RFC number for this specification.] 1300 Registration/Assignment Procedures: Following the policies outlined 1301 in [RFC5226], the IANA policy for assigning new values for the 1302 Error codes for HELD shall be Specification Required: values and 1303 their meanings must be documented in an RFC or in some other 1304 permanent and readily available reference, in sufficient detail 1305 that interoperability between independent implementations is 1306 possible. 1308 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 1309 Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1311 This section pre-registers the following seven initial error codes as 1312 described above in Section 6.3: 1314 requestError: This code indicates that the request was badly formed 1315 in some fashion. 1316 xmlError: This code indicates that the XML content of the request 1317 was either badly formed or invalid. 1318 generalLisError: This code indicates that an unspecified error 1319 occurred at the LIS. 1320 locationUnknown: This code indicates that the LIS could not 1321 determine the location of the Device. 1322 unsupportedMessage: This code indicates that the request was not 1323 supported or understood by the LIS. This error code is used when 1324 a HELD request contains a document element that is not supported 1325 by the receiver. 1326 timeout: This code indicates that the LIS could not satisfy the 1327 request within the time specified in the "responseTime" parameter. 1328 cannotProvideLiType: This code indicates that the LIS was unable to 1329 provide LI of the type or types requested. This code is used when 1330 the "exact" attribute on the "locationType" parameter is set to 1331 "true". 1332 notLocatable: This code indicates that the LIS is unable to locate 1333 the Device, and that the Device MUST NOT make further attempts to 1334 retrieve LI from this LIS. This error code is used to indicate 1335 that the Device is outside the access network served by the LIS; 1336 for instance, the VPN and NAT scenarios discussed in 1337 Section 4.1.2. 1339 12. Contributors 1341 James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson and Barbara Stark are the authors 1342 of the original document, from which this WG document was derived. 1343 Their contact information is included in the Author's address 1344 section. In addition, they also contributed to the WG document, 1345 including the XML schema. 1347 13. Acknowledgements 1349 The author/contributors would like to thank the participants in the 1350 GEOPRIV WG and the following people for their constructive input and 1351 feedback on this document (in alphabetical order): Nadine Abbott, 1352 Eric Arolick, Richard Barnes (in particular the security section), 1353 Peter Blatherwick, Ben Campbell, Guy Caron, Eddy Corbett, Martin 1354 Dawson, Lisa Dusseault, Jerome Grenier, Ted Hardie, Cullen Jennings, 1355 Neil Justusson, Tat Lam, Marc Linsner, Patti McCalmont, Roger 1356 Marshall, Perry Prozeniuk, Carl Reed, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, 1357 Brian Rosen, John Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, Henning Schulzrinne, Ed 1358 Shrum, Doug Stuard, Hannes Tschofenig and Karl Heinz Wolf. 1360 14. Changes since last Version 1362 NOTE TO THE RFC-Editor: Please remove this section prior to 1363 publication as an RFC. 1365 Changes from WG 10 to 11 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1367 1) Added additional text around the scope and applicability of the 1368 URI returned from LIS Discovery (section 4). 1370 2) Removed HTTP GET - will always use POST. 1372 3) Removed sentence wrt mobile devices in section 6.2. 1374 4) Added specific recommendation for minimum value for expires in 1375 section 6.5.2 (30 Minutes). 1377 5) Remove reference to RFC 3704 (for IP address spoofing) in section 1378 9.3 (bullet 2). 1380 6) Clarified that both HTTP and HTTPS are allowed - changed last 1381 bullet in section 5.1 from REQUIRES to RECOMMENDS. 1383 7) Clarification wrt "presence" parameter in section 6.6 - a "single" 1384 presence parameter may be included. 1386 Changes from WG 09 to 10 (2nd WGLC): 1388 1) Updated text for Devices and VPNs (section 4.1.1) to include 1389 servers such as HTTP and SOCKs, thus changed the text to be generic 1390 in terms of locating LIS before connecting to one of these servers, 1391 etc. 1393 2) Fixed (still buggy) HTTP examples. 1395 3) Added text explaining the whitespaces in XML schema are for 1396 readability/document format limitations and that they should be 1397 handled via parser/schema validation. 1399 4) Miscellaneous editorial nits 1400 Changes from WG 08 to 09 (Post-IETF LC: continued resolution of sec- 1401 dir and gen-art review comments, along with apps-area feedback): 1403 1) Removed heldref/heldrefs URIs, including fixing examples (which 1404 were buggy anyways). 1406 2) Clarified text for locationURI - specifying that the deref 1407 protocol must define or appropriately restrict and clarifying that 1408 requirements for deref must be met and that deref details are out of 1409 scope for this document. 1411 3) Clarified text in security section for support of both HTTP/HTTPS. 1413 4) Changed definition for Location Type to force the specification of 1414 at least one location type. 1416 Changes from WG 07 to 08 (IETF LC: sec-dir and gen-art review 1417 comments): 1419 1) Fix editorial nits: rearranging sections in 4.1 for readibility, 1420 etc. 1422 2) Added back text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and 1423 LLDP-MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS. 1425 3) Clarified the use of both HTTP and HTTPS. 1427 4) Defined two URIs related to 3 respectively - divided IANA 1428 registrations into sub-sections to accomodate this change. (Note: 1429 LIS Discovery will now define that URI, thus this document defines 1430 the one associatied with a Location reference). 1432 5) Clarified the description of the location URI in Protocol Overview 1433 and Protocol parameter sections. Note that these sections again 1434 reference location dereference protocol for completeness and 1435 clarification of issues that are out of scope for this base document. 1437 6) Defined new error code: notLocatable. 1439 7) Clarifications and corrections in security section. 1441 8) Clarified text for locationType, specifically removing extra text 1442 from "any" description and putting that in a separate paragraph. 1443 Also, provided an example. 1445 9) Added boundaries for "expires" parameter. 1447 10) Clarified that the HELD protocol as defined by this document does 1448 not allow for canceling location references. 1450 Changes from WG 06 to 07 (PROTO review comments): 1452 1) Fix nits: remove unused references, move requirements to 1453 Informational References section, fix long line in ABNF, fix ABNF 1454 (quotes around '?'), add schemaLocation to import namespace in XML 1455 schema. 1457 2) Remove text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and LLDP- 1458 MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS, per Issue 1 resolution at 1459 IETF-71. (Editorial oversight in producing version 06). 1461 Changes from WG 05 to 06 (2nd WGLC comments): 1463 1) Updated security section based on WG feedback, including 1464 condensing section 10.1.1 (Assuring the proper LIS has been 1465 contacted), restructuring sections by flattening, adding an 1466 additional step to the list that had been in the Accuracy section and 1467 removing summary section. 1469 2) Changed URI schema to "helds" to address concerns over referential 1470 integrity and for consistency with mandate of TLS for HELD. 1472 3) Editorial clarifications including fixing examples to match HELD 1473 URI definition (e.g., adding port, adding randomness to URI examples, 1474 etc.) 1476 4) Updated references removing unused references and moving 1477 requirements docs to Informational Reference section to avoid 1478 downrefs. 1480 Changes from WG 04 to 05 (WGLC comments): 1482 1) Totally replaced the security section with the details provided by 1483 Richard Barnes so that we don't need a reference to the location 1484 security document. 1486 2) Fixed error codes in schema to allow extensibility. Change the 1487 IANA registration to be "specification required". 1489 3) Cleaned up the HELD: URI description, per comments from Martin and 1490 James and partially addressing HELD-04 Issue 1. Put the definition 1491 in a separate section and clarified the applicability (to also 1492 include being a results of the discovery process) and fixed examples. 1494 4) Updated the LocationURI section to be more accurate, address 1495 HELD-04 Issue 3, and include the reference to the new HELD:URI 1496 section. Also, fixed an error in the doc in that the top level parm 1497 in the locationResponse is actually locationUriSet, which contains 1498 any number of locationURI elements and the "expires" parameter. So, 1499 Table 1 was also updated and a new section for the LocationURISet was 1500 added that includes the subsections for the "locationURI" and 1501 "expires". And, then clarified that "expires" applies to 1502 "locationURISet" and not per "locationURI". 1504 5) Editorial nits: pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., by-value -> 1505 by value, by-reference -> by reference, etc.) and onlist by James and 1506 Martin. Please refer to the diff for a complete view of editorial 1507 changes. 1509 6) Added text in HTTP binding section to disable HTTP caching 1510 (HELD-04 Issue 5 on the list). 1512 Changes from WG 03 to 04: 1514 1) Terminology: clarified in terminology section that "attribute" and 1515 "element" are used in the strict XML sense and "parameter" is used as 1516 a general protocol term Replaced term "HTTP delivery" with "HTTP 1517 transport". Still have two terms "HTTP transport" and "HTTP 1518 binding", but those are consistent with general uses of HTTP. 1520 2) Editorial changes and clarifications: per Roger Marshall's and 1521 Eric Arolick's comments and subsequent WG mailing list discussion. 1523 3) Changed normative language for describing expected and recommended 1524 LIS behaviors to be non-normative recommendations in cases where the 1525 protocol parameters were not the target of the discussion (e.g., we 1526 can't prescribe to the LIS how it determines location or what it 1527 defines to be an "accurate" location). 1529 4) Clarified responseTime attribute (section 6.1). Changed type from 1530 "decimal" to "nonNegativeInteger" in XML schema (section 7) 1532 5) Updated Table 1 in section 6 to only include top-level parameters 1533 and fixed some errors in that table (i.e., code for locationResponse) 1534 and adding PIDF-LO to the table. Added a detailed section describing 1535 PIDF-LO (section 6.6), moving some of the normative text in the 1536 Protocol Overview to this section. 1538 6) Added schema and description for locationURI to section 6.5. 1539 Added IANA registration for HELD: URI schema. 1541 7) Added IANA registry for error codes. 1543 Changes from WG 02 to 03: 1545 1) Added text to address concern over use of IP address as device 1546 identifier, per long email thread - changes to section 3 (overview) 1547 and section 4 (protocol overview). 1549 2) Removed WSDL (section 8 updated, section 8.1 and 10.4 removed) 1551 3) Added extensibility to baseRequestType in the schema (an oversight 1552 from previous edits), along with fixing some other nits in schema 1553 (section 7) 1555 4) Moved discussion of Location URI from section 5.3 (Location 1556 Response) to where it rightly belonged in Section 6.5 (Location URI 1557 Parameter). 1559 5) Clarified text for "expires" parameter (6.5.1) - it's an optional 1560 parm, but required for LocationURIs 1562 6) Clarified responseTime parameter: when missing, then the LCS 1563 provides most precise LI, with the time required being implementation 1564 specific. 1566 7) Clarified that the MUST use in section 8 (HTTP binding) is a MUST 1567 implement. 1569 8) Updated references (removed unused/added new). 1571 Changes from WG 01 to 02: 1573 1) Updated Terminology to be consistent with WG agreements and other 1574 documents (e.g., LCS -> LIS and removed duplicate terms). In the 1575 end, there are no new terms defined in this document. 1577 2) Modified definition of responseTime to reflect WG consensus. 1579 3) Removed jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic locationTypes (leaving 1580 just "civic"). 1582 4) Clarified text that locationType is optional. Fixed table 1 and 1583 text in section 5.2 (locationRequest description). Text in section 1584 6.2 (description of locationType element) already defined the default 1585 to be "any". 1587 5) Simplified error responses. Separated the definition of error 1588 response type from the locationResponse type thus no need for 1589 defining an error code of "success". This simplifies the schema and 1590 processing. 1592 6) Updated schema/examples for the above. 1594 7) Updated Appendix A based on updates to requirements document, 1595 specifically changes to A.1, A.3 and adding A.10. 1597 8) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications. 1599 Changes from WG 00 to 01: 1601 1) heldResponse renamed to locationResponse. 1603 2) Changed namespace references for the PIDF-LO geoShape in the 1604 schema to match the agreed GML PIDF-LO Geometry Shape Application 1605 Schema. 1607 3) Removed "options" element - leaving optionality/extensibility to 1608 XML mechanisms. 1610 4) Changed error codes to be enumerations and not redefinitions of 1611 HTTP response codes. 1613 5) Updated schema/examples for the above and removed some remnants of 1614 the context element. 1616 6) Clarified the definition of "Location Information (LI)" to include 1617 a reference to the location (to match the XML schema and provide 1618 consistency of usage throughout the document). Added an additional 1619 statement in section 7.2 (locationType) to clarify that LCS MAY also 1620 return a Location URI. 1622 7) Modifed the definition of "Location Configuration Server (LCS)" to 1623 be consistent with the current definiton in the requirements 1624 document. 1626 8) Updated Location Response (section 6.3) to remove reference to 1627 context and discuss the used of a local identifier or unlinked 1628 pseudonym in providing privacy/security. 1630 9) Clarified that the source IP address in the request is used as the 1631 identifier for the target/device for the HELD protocol as defined in 1632 this document. 1634 10) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications. 1636 15. References 1637 15.1. Normative References 1639 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1640 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1642 [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1643 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006. 1645 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 1646 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 1647 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 1649 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. 1651 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 1652 January 2004. 1654 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile] 1655 Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV 1656 PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and 1657 Recommendations", draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14 1658 (work in progress), November 2008. 1660 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] 1661 Thompson, H., Mendelsohn, N., Beech, D., and M. Maloney, 1662 "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide 1663 Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, 1664 October 2004, 1665 . 1667 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 1668 Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes 1669 Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium 1670 Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004, 1671 . 1673 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] 1674 Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local 1675 Location Information Server (LIS)", 1676 draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-04 (work in progress), 1677 October 2008. 1679 15.2. Informative References 1681 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1682 RFC 793, September 1981. 1684 [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media 1685 Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. 1687 [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and 1688 J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. 1690 [RFC3825] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host 1691 Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based 1692 Location Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004. 1694 [LLDP-MED] 1695 TIA, "ANSI/TIA-1057 Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media 1696 Endpoint Discovery". 1698 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1699 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1700 RFC 3986, January 2005. 1702 [RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and 1703 Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 115, 1704 RFC 4395, February 2006. 1706 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1707 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 1708 May 2008. 1710 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] 1711 Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 1712 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and 1713 Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 (work in 1714 progress), June 2008. 1716 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] 1717 Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference 1718 Mechanism", draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-05 (work 1719 in progress), November 2008. 1721 [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] 1722 Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the 1723 Session Initiation Protocol", 1724 draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-12 (work in progress), 1725 November 2008. 1727 [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol] 1728 Winterbottom, J., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., 1729 Thomson, M., and M. Dawson, "An HTTPS Location 1730 Dereferencing Protocol Using HELD", 1731 draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-02 (work in 1732 progress), July 2008. 1734 Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements 1736 This appendix describes HELD's compliance to the requirements 1737 specified in the [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. 1739 A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice 1741 "The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST 1742 define an identifier that is mandatory to implement. Regarding the 1743 latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is from 1744 the same realm as the one for which the location information service 1745 maintains identifier to location mapping." 1747 COMPLY 1749 HELD uses the IP address of the location request message as the 1750 primary source of identity for the requesting device or target. This 1751 identity can be used with other contextual network information to 1752 provide a physical location for the Target for many network 1753 deployments. There may be network deployments where an IP address 1754 alone is insufficient to identify a Target in a network. However, 1755 any necessary identity extensions for these networks is beyond the 1756 scope of this document. 1758 A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support 1760 "The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST support a 1761 broad range of mobility from devices that can only move between 1762 reboots, to devices that can change attachment points with the impact 1763 that their IP address is changed, to devices that do not change their 1764 IP address while roaming, to devices that continuously move by being 1765 attached to the same network attachment point." 1767 COMPLY 1769 Mobility support is inherently a characteristic of the access network 1770 technology and HELD is designed to be access network agnostic. 1771 Consequently HELD complies with this requirement. In addition HELD 1772 provides specific support for mobile environments by providing an 1773 optional responseTime attribute in location request messages. 1774 Wireless networks often have several different mechanisms at their 1775 disposal for position determination (e.g. Assisted GPS versus 1776 location based on serving base station identity), each providing 1777 different degrees of accuracy and taking different amounts of time to 1778 yield a result. The responseTime parameter provides the LIS with a 1779 criterion which it can use to select a location determination 1780 technique. 1782 A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship 1784 "The design of the L7 LCP MUST NOT assume a business or trust 1785 relationship between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the 1786 Access Network Provider. Requirements for resolving a reference to 1787 location information are not discussed in this document." 1789 COMPLY 1791 HELD describes a location acquisition protocol between a Device and a 1792 LIS. In the context of HELD, the LIS is within the Access Network. 1793 Thus, HELD is independent of the business or trust relationship 1794 between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the Access Network 1795 Provider. Location acquisition using HELD is subject to the 1796 restrictions described in Section 9. 1798 A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship 1800 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1801 MUST assume that there is a trust and business relationship between 1802 the L2 and the L3 provider. The L3 provider operates the LIS and 1803 needs to obtain location information from the L2 provider since this 1804 one is closest to the end host. If the L2 and L3 provider for the 1805 same host are different entities, they cooperate for the purposes 1806 needed to determine end system locations." 1808 COMPLY 1810 HELD was specifically designed with this model in mind and readily 1811 allows itself to chaining requests between operators without a change 1812 in protocol being required. HELD is a webservices protocol which can 1813 be bound to transports other than HTTP, such as BEEP. Using a 1814 protocol such as BEEP offers the option of high request throughput 1815 over a dedicated connection between an L3 provider and an L2 provider 1816 without incurring the serial restriction imposed by HTTP. This is 1817 less easy to do with protocols that do not decouple themselves from 1818 the transport. 1820 A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations 1822 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1823 MUST consider legacy residential NAT devices and NTEs in an DSL 1824 environment that cannot be upgraded to support additional protocols, 1825 for example to pass additional information through DHCP." 1827 COMPLY 1829 HELD is an application protocol and operates on top of IP. A HELD 1830 request from a host behind a residential NAT will traverse the NAT 1831 acquiring the external address of the home router. The location 1832 provided to the host therefore will be the address of the home router 1833 in this circumstance. No changes are required to the home router in 1834 order to support this function, HELD was designed specifically to 1835 address this deployment scenario. 1837 A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness 1839 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1840 MUST assume that at least one end of a VPN is aware of the VPN 1841 functionality. In an enterprise scenario, the enterprise side will 1842 provide the LIS used by the client and can thereby detect whether the 1843 LIS request was initiated through a VPN tunnel." 1845 COMPLY 1847 HELD does not preclude a LIS on the far end of a VPN tunnel being 1848 aware that the client request is occurring over that tunnel. It also 1849 does not preclude a client device from accessing a LIS serving the 1850 local physical network and subsequently using the location 1851 information with an application that is accessed over a VPN tunnel. 1853 A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication 1855 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1856 MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication." 1858 COMPLY 1860 HELD makes no assumptions about prior network access authentication. 1861 HELD strongly recommends the use of TLS with server-side certificates 1862 for communication between the end-point and the LIS. There is no 1863 requirement for the end-point to authenticate with the LIS. 1865 A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness 1867 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1868 MUST NOT assume end systems being aware of the access network 1869 topology. End systems are, however, able to determine their public 1870 IP address(es) via mechanisms such as STUN or NSIS NATFW NSLP." 1872 COMPLY 1874 HELD makes no assumption about the network topology. HELD doesn't 1875 require that the device know its external IP address, except where 1876 that is required for discovery of the LIS. 1878 A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism 1880 "The L7 LCP MUST define a single mandatory to implement discovery 1881 mechanism." 1883 COMPLY 1885 HELD uses the discovery mechanism in 1886 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]. 1888 A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation 1890 "When a LIS creates a PIDF-LO per RFC 4119 then it MUST put the 1891 element into the element of the presence document 1892 (see RFC 4479). This ensures that the resulting PIDF-LO document, 1893 which is subsequently distributed to other entities, conforms to the 1894 rules outlined in ". [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile] 1896 COMPLY 1898 HELD protocol overview (Section 4 ) describes the requirements on the 1899 LIS in creating the PIDF-LO and prescribes that the PIDF-LO generated 1900 by the LIS MUST conform to [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile]. 1902 Authors' Addresses 1904 Mary Barnes (editor) 1905 Nortel 1906 2201 Lakeside Blvd 1907 Richardson, TX 1909 Email: mary.barnes@nortel.com 1911 James Winterbottom 1912 Andrew 1913 PO Box U40 1914 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 1915 AU 1917 Phone: +61 2 4221 2938 1918 Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com 1919 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 1920 Martin Thomson 1921 Andrew 1922 PO Box U40 1923 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 1924 AU 1926 Phone: +61 2 4221 2915 1927 Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com 1928 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 1930 Barbara Stark 1931 BellSouth 1932 Room 7A43 1933 725 W Peachtree St. 1934 Atlanta, GA 30308 1935 US 1937 Email: barbara.stark@att.com 1939 Full Copyright Statement 1941 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 1943 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 1944 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 1945 retain all their rights. 1947 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1948 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1949 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 1950 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 1951 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 1952 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1953 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1955 Intellectual Property 1957 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1958 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1959 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1960 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1961 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1962 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1963 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1964 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1966 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1967 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1968 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1969 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1970 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1971 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1973 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1974 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1975 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1976 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 1977 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.