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.