idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document 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 (May 11, 2009) is 5465 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2965 (Obsoleted by RFC 6265) ** 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RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 793 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2617 (Obsoleted by RFC 7235, RFC 7615, RFC 7616, RFC 7617) -- 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 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 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: November 12, 2009 7 May 11, 2009 9 HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) 10 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 15 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 12, 2009. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 43 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 44 and restrictions with respect to this document. 46 Abstract 48 A Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7 LCP) is described that 49 is used for retrieving location information from a server within an 50 access network. The protocol includes options for retrieving 51 location information in two forms: by value and by reference. The 52 protocol is an extensible application-layer protocol that is 53 independent of session-layer. This document describes the use of 54 HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and HTTP over Transport Layer 55 Security (HTTP/TLS) as transports for the protocol. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2. Conventions & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3. Overview and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 4. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4.1. Device Identifiers, NAT and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 4.1.1. Devices and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 4.1.2. LIS Handling of NATs and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.2. Location by Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 4.3. Location by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 5.1. Location Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5.2. Location Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 5.3. Indicating Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 6. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 6.1. "responseTime" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 6.2. "locationType" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 6.2.1. "exact" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 6.3. "code" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 6.4. "message" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 6.5. "locationUriSet" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 6.5.1. "locationURI" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 80 6.5.2. "expires" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 81 6.6. "Presence" Parameter (PIDF-LO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 7. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 8. HTTP Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 84 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 85 9.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted . . . . . 22 86 9.2. Protecting responses from modification . . . . . . . . . . 23 87 9.3. Privacy and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 88 10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 89 10.1. HTTPS Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 90 10.2. Simple Location Request Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 91 10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types . . . 28 92 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 93 11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 94 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held . . . . . . . . . . . 29 95 11.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 96 11.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml' . 30 97 11.4. Error code Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 98 12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 99 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 100 14. Changes since last Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 101 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 102 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 103 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 104 Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements . . . . . . 42 105 A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 106 A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 107 A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship . . . . 43 108 A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship . . . . . 43 109 A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 110 A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 111 A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 44 112 A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 113 A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 114 A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 115 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 117 1. Introduction 119 The location of a Device is information that is useful for a number 120 of applications. The L7 Location Configuration Protocol (LCP) 121 problem statement and requirements document 122 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] provides some scenarios in which a 123 Device might rely on its access network to provide location 124 information. The Location Information Server (LIS) service applies 125 to access networks employing both wired technology (e.g. DSL, Cable) 126 and wireless technology (e.g. WiMAX) with varying degrees of Device 127 mobility. This document describes a protocol that can be used to 128 acquire Location Information (LI) from a LIS within an access 129 network. 131 This specification identifies two types of location information that 132 may be retrieved from the LIS. Location may be retrieved from the 133 LIS by value, that is, the Device may acquire a literal location 134 object describing the location of the Device. The Device may also 135 request that the LIS provide a location reference in the form of a 136 location URI or set of location URIs, allowing the Device to 137 distribute its LI by reference. Both of these methods can be 138 provided concurrently from the same LIS to accommodate application 139 requirements for different types of location information. 141 This specification defines an extensible XML-based protocol that 142 enables the retrieval of LI from a LIS by a Device. This protocol 143 can be bound to any session-layer protocol, particularly those 144 capable of MIME transport. This document describes the use of 145 HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and HTTP over Transport Layer 146 Security (HTTP/TLS) as transports for the protocol. 148 2. Conventions & Terminology 150 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 151 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 152 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 154 This document uses the terms (and their acronym forms) Access 155 Provider (AP), Location Information (LI), Location Object (LO), 156 Device, Target, Location Generator (LG), Location Recipient (LR), 157 Rule Maker (RM) and Rule Holder (RH) as defined in RFC 3693, GEOPRIV 158 Requirements [RFC3693] . The terms Location Information Server 159 (LIS), Access Network, Access Provider (AP) and Access Network 160 Provider are used in the same context as defined in the L7 LCP 161 Problem statement and Requirements document 162 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. The usage of the terms, Civic 163 Location/Address and Geodetic Location follows the usage in many of 164 the referenced documents. 166 In describing the protocol, the terms "attribute" and "element" are 167 used according to their context in XML. The term "parameter" is used 168 in a more general protocol context and can refer to either an XML 169 "attribute" or "element". 171 3. Overview and Scope 173 This document describes an interface between a Device and a Location 174 Information Server (LIS). This document assumes that the LIS is 175 present within the same administrative domain as the Device (e.g., 176 the access network). An Access Provider (AP) operates the LIS so 177 that Devices (and Targets) can retrieve their LI. The LIS exists 178 because not all Devices are capable of determining LI, and because, 179 even if a device is able to determine its own LI, it may be more 180 efficient with assistance. This document does not specify how LI is 181 determined. 183 This document is based on the attribution of the LI to a Device and 184 not specifically a person (end user) or Target, based on the premise 185 that location determination technologies are generally designed to 186 locate a device and not a person. It is expected that, for most 187 applications, LI for the device can be used as an adequate substitute 188 for the end user's LI. Since revealing the location of the device 189 almost invariably reveals some information about the location of the 190 user of the device, the same level of privacy protection demanded by 191 a user is required for the device. This approach may require either 192 some additional assurances about the link between device and target, 193 or an acceptance of the limitation that unless the device requires 194 active user authentication, there is no guarantee that any particular 195 individual is using the device at that instant. 197 The following diagram shows the logical configuration of some of the 198 functional elements identified in [RFC3693] and the LIS defined in 199 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and where this protocol applies, with 200 the Rule Maker and Target represented by the role of the Device. 201 Note that only the interfaces relevant to the Device are identified 202 in the diagram. 204 +---------------------------------------------+ 205 | Access Network Provider | 206 | | 207 | +--------------------------------------+ | 208 | | Location Information Server | | 209 | | | | 210 | | | | 211 | | | | 212 | | | | 213 | +------|-------------------------------+ | 214 +----------|----------------------------------+ 215 | 216 | 217 HELD 218 | 219 Rule Maker - _ +-----------+ +-----------+ 220 o - - | Device | | Location | 221 721 729 730 731 This document (RFC xxxx) defines HELD messages. 732 734 735 737 739 740 741 742 743 744 746 747 749 750 751 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 769 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 799 800 801 802 804 805 806 808 809 810 811 812 813 815 816 818 819 821 822 823 824 825 827 829 830 832 833 834 835 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 846 848 849 850 851 852 853 856 858 859 860 861 863 866 868 869 870 871 872 875 877 878 879 880 882 885 887 8. HTTP Binding 889 This section describes the use of HTTP [RFC2616] and HTTP Over TLS 890 [RFC2818] as transport mechanisms for the HELD protocol, which a 891 conforming LIS and Device MUST support. 893 Although HELD uses HTTP as a transport, it uses a strict subset of 894 HTTP features, and due to the restrictions of some features, a LIS is 895 not a fully compliant HTTP server. It is intended that a LIS can 896 easily be built using an HTTP server with extensibility mechanisms, 897 and that a HELD Device can trivially use existing HTTP libraries. 898 This subset of requirements helps implementors avoid ambiguity with 899 the many options the full HTTP protocol offers. The LIS MUST NOT 900 rely on device support for cookies [RFC2965] or use Basic or Digest 901 authentication [RFC2617]. 903 A HELD request is carried in the body of an HTTP POST request. The 904 Device MUST include a Host header in the request. 906 The MIME type of HELD request and response bodies is 907 "application/held+xml". LIS and Device MUST provide this value in 908 the HTTP Content-Type and Accept header fields.If the LIS does not 909 receive the appropriate Content-Type and Accept header fields, the 910 LIS SHOULD fail the request, returning a 406 (not acceptable) 911 response. HELD responses SHOULD include a Content-Length header. 913 Devices MUST NOT use the "Expect" header or the "Range" header in 914 HELD requests. The LIS MAY return 501 (not implemented) errors if 915 either of these HTTP features are used. In the case that the LIS 916 receives a request from the Device containing a If-* (conditional) 917 header, the LIS SHOULD return a 412 (precondition failed) response. 919 The POST method is the only method REQUIRED for HELD. If a LIS 920 chooses to support GET or HEAD, it SHOULD consider the kind of 921 application doing the GET. Since a HELD Device only uses a POST 922 method, the GET or HEAD MUST be either an escaped URL (e.g., somebody 923 found a URL in protocol traces or log files and fed it into their 924 browser) or somebody doing testing/ debugging. The LIS could provide 925 information in the HELD response indicating that the URL corresponds 926 to a LIS server and only responds to HELD POST requests or the LIS 927 could instead try to avoid any leak of information by returning a 928 very generic HTTP error message such as 404 (not found). 930 The LIS populates the HTTP headers of responses so that they are 931 consistent with the contents of the message. In particular, the 932 "CacheControl" header SHOULD be set to disable caching of any PIDF-LO 933 document or Location URIs by HTTP intermediaries. Otherwise, there 934 is the risk of stale locations and/or the unauthorized disclosure of 935 the LI. This also allows the LIS to control any caching with the 936 HELD "expires" parameter. The HTTP status code MUST indicate a 2xx 937 series response for all HELD locationResponse and HELD error 938 messages. 940 The LIS MAY redirect a HELD request. A Device MUST handle redirects, 941 by using the Location header provided by the server in a 3xx 942 response. When redirecting, the Device MUST observe the delay 943 indicated by the Retry-After header. The Device MUST authenticate 944 the server that returns the redirect response before following the 945 redirect, if a Device requires that the server is authenticated. A 946 Device SHOULD authenticate the LIS indicated in a redirect. 948 The LIS SHOULD support persistent connections and request pipelining. 949 If pipelining is not supported, the LIS MUST NOT allow persistent 950 connections. The Device MUST support termination of a response by 951 the closing of a connection. 953 Implementations of HELD that implement HTTP transport MUST implement 954 transport over TLS [RFC2818]. TLS provides message integrity and 955 confidentiality between Device and LIS. The Device MUST implement 956 the server authentication method described in HTTPS [RFC2818]. The 957 device uses the URI obtained during LIS discovery to authenticate the 958 server. The details of this authentication method are provided in 959 section 3.1 of HTTPS [RFC2818]. When TLS is used, the Device SHOULD 960 fail a request if server authentication fails, except in the event of 961 an emergency. 963 9. Security Considerations 965 HELD is a location acquisition protocol whereby the a client requests 966 its location from a LIS. Specific requirements and security 967 considerations for location acquisition protocols are provided in 968 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. An in-depth discussion of the security 969 considerations applicable to the use of Location URIs and by 970 reference provision of LI is included in 971 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements]. 973 By using the HELD protocol, the client and the LIS expose themselves 974 to two types of risk: 976 Accuracy: Client receives incorrect location information 977 Privacy: An unauthorized entity receives location information 979 The provision of an accurate and privacy/confidentiality protected 980 location to the requestor depends on the success of five steps: 982 1. The client must determine the proper LIS. 983 2. The client must connect to the proper LIS. 984 3. The LIS must be able to identify the device by its identifier 985 (IP Address). 986 4. The LIS must be able to return the desired location. 987 5. HELD messages must be transmitted unmodified between the LIS 988 and the client. 990 Of these, only the second, third and the fifth are within the scope 991 of this document. The first step is based on either manual 992 configuration or on the LIS discovery defined in 993 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery], in which appropriate security 994 considerations are already discussed. The fourth step is dependent 995 on the specific positioning capabilities of the LIS, and is thus 996 outside the scope of this document. 998 9.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted 1000 This document assumes that the LIS to be contacted is identified 1001 either by an IP address or a domain name, as is the case for a LIS 1002 discovered as described in LIS Discovery 1003 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]. When the HELD transaction is 1004 conducted using TLS [RFC5246], the LIS can authenticate its identity, 1005 either as a domain name or as an IP address, to the client by 1006 presenting a certificate containing that identifier as a 1007 subjectAltName (i.e., as an iPAddress or dNSName, respectively). In 1008 the case of the HTTP binding described above, this is exactly the 1009 authentication described by TLS [RFC2818]. If the client has 1010 external information as to the expected identity or credentials of 1011 the proper LIS (e.g., a certificate fingerprint), these checks MAY be 1012 omitted. Any binding of HELD MUST be capable of being transacted 1013 over TLS so that the client can request the above authentication, and 1014 a LIS implementation for a binding MUST include this feature. Note 1015 that in order for the presented certificate to be valid at the 1016 client, the client must be able to validate the certificate. In 1017 particular, the validation path of the certificate must end in one of 1018 the client's trust anchors, even if that trust anchor is the LIS 1019 certificate itself. 1021 9.2. Protecting responses from modification 1023 In order to prevent that response from being modified en route, 1024 messages must be transmitted over an integrity-protected channel. 1025 When the transaction is being conducted over TLS (a required feature 1026 per Section 9.1), the channel will be integrity protected by 1027 appropriate ciphersuites. When TLS is not used, this protection will 1028 vary depending on the binding; in most cases, without protection from 1029 TLS, the response will not be protected from modification en route. 1031 9.3. Privacy and Confidentiality 1033 Location information returned by the LIS must be protected from 1034 access by unauthorized parties, whether those parties request the 1035 location from the LIS or intercept it en route. As in Section 9.2, 1036 transactions conducted over TLS with appropriate ciphersuites are 1037 protected from access by unauthorized parties en route. Conversely, 1038 in most cases, when not conducted over TLS, the response will be 1039 accessible while en route from the LIS to the requestor. 1041 Because HELD is an LCP and identifies clients and targets by IP 1042 addresses, a requestor is authorized to access location for an IP 1043 address only if it is the holder of that IP address. The LIS MUST 1044 verify that the client is the target of the returned location, i.e., 1045 the LIS MUST NOT provide location to other entities than the target. 1046 Note that this is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for 1047 authorization. A LIS MAY deny requests according to any local 1048 policy. 1050 A prerequisite for meeting this requirement is that the LIS must have 1051 some assurance of the identity of the client. Since the target of 1052 the returned location is identified by an IP address, simply sending 1053 the response to this IP address will provide sufficient assurance in 1054 many cases. This is the default mechanism in HELD for assuring that 1055 location is given only to authorized clients; LIS implementations 1056 MUST support a mode of operation in which this is the only client 1057 authentication. 1059 Using IP return routability as an authenticator means that location 1060 information is vulnerable to exposure through IP address spoofing 1061 attacks. A temporary spoofing of IP address could mean that a device 1062 could request a Location Object or Location URI that would result in 1063 another Device's location. In addition, in cases where a Device 1064 drops off the network for various reasons, the re-use of the Device's 1065 IP address could result in another Device receiving the original 1066 Device's location rather than its own location. These exposures are 1067 limited by the following: 1069 o Location URIs MUST have a limited lifetime, as reflected by the 1070 value for the expires element in Section 6.5.2. The lifetime of 1071 location URIs necessarily depends on the nature of the access. 1072 o The LIS and network SHOULD be configured so that the LIS is made 1073 aware of Device movement within the network and addressing 1074 changes. If the LIS detects a change in the network that results 1075 in it no longer being able to determine the location of the 1076 Device, then all location URIs for that Device SHOULD be 1077 invalidated. 1079 The above measures are dependent on network configuration, which 1080 SHOULD be considered. For instance, in a fixed internet access, 1081 providers may be able to restrict the allocation of IP addresses to a 1082 single physical line, ensuring that spoofing is not possible; in such 1083 an environment, additional measures may not be necessary. 1085 10. Examples 1087 The following sections provide basic HTTP/HTTPS examples, a simple 1088 location request example and a location request for multiple location 1089 types example along with the relevant location responses. To focus 1090 on important portions of messages, the examples in Section 10.2 and 1091 Section 10.3 do not show HTTP/HTTPS headers or the XML prologue. In 1092 addition, sections of XML not relevant to the example are replaced 1093 with comments. 1095 10.1. HTTPS Example Messages 1097 The examples in this section show complete HTTP/HTTPS messages that 1098 include the HELD request or response document. 1100 This example shows the most basic request for a LO. The POST 1101 includes an empty "locationRequest" element. 1103 POST /location HTTP/1.1 1104 Host: lis.example.com:49152 1105 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1106 Content-Length: 87 1108 1109 1111 Since the above request does not include a "locationType" element, 1112 the successful response to the request may contain any type of 1113 location. The following shows a response containing a minimal 1114 PIDF-LO. 1116 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1117 Server: Example LIS 1118 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT 1119 Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT 1120 Cache-control: private 1121 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1122 Content-Length: 594 1124 1125 1126 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1134 -34.407 150.88001 1135 1136 1137 1139 2006-01-11T03:42:28+00:00 1140 1141 1142 Wiremap 1143 1144 1145 2006-01-10T03:42:28+00:00 1146 1147 1148 1150 The error response to the request is an error document. The 1151 following response shows an example error response. 1153 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1154 Server: Example LIS 1155 Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:49:20 GMT 1156 Cache-control: private 1157 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1158 Content-Length: 135 1160 1161 1163 Unable to determine location 1164 1165 1167 10.2. Simple Location Request Example 1169 The location request shown below doesn't specify any location types 1170 or response time. 1172 1174 The example response to this location request contains a list of 1175 Location URIs. 1177 1178 1179 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o 1180 1181 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com 1182 1183 1184 1185 An error response to this location request is shown below: 1187 1189 1191 1193 10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types 1195 The following Location Request message includes a request for 1196 geodetic, civic and any Location URIs. 1198 1199 1200 geodetic 1201 civic 1202 locationURI 1203 1204 1206 The corresponding Location Response message includes the requested 1207 location information, including two location URIs. 1209 1210 1211 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o 1212 1213 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com: 1214 1215 1216 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1225 -34.407242 150.882518 1226 30 1227 1228 1229 1232 AU 1233 NSW 1234 Wollongong 1235 Gwynneville 1236 Northfield Avenue 1237 University of Wollongong 1238 2 1239 Andrew Corporation 1240 2500 1241 39 1242 WS-183 1243 U40 1244 1245 1246 1248 false 1249 1250 2007-05-25T12:35:02+10:00 1251 1252 1253 Wiremap 1254 1255 1256 2007-05-24T12:35:02+10:00 1257 1258 1259 1261 11. IANA Considerations 1263 This document requires several IANA registrations detailed in the 1264 following sections. 1266 11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 1267 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held 1269 This section registers a new XML namespace, 1270 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held", per the guidelines in 1272 [RFC3688]. 1274 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held 1275 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, 1276 (geopriv@ietf.org), Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1277 XML: 1279 BEGIN 1280 1281 1283 1284 1285 HELD Messages 1286 1287 1288

Namespace for HELD Messages

1289

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

1290 [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX 1291 with the RFC number for this specification.] 1292

See RFCXXXX

1293 1294 1295 END 1297 11.2. XML Schema Registration 1299 This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in 1300 [RFC3688]. 1302 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held 1303 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 1304 Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1305 Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of 1306 Section 7 of this document. 1308 11.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml' 1310 This section registers the "application/held+xml" MIME type. 1312 To: ietf-types@iana.org 1313 Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/held+xml 1314 MIME media type name: application 1315 MIME subtype name: held+xml 1316 Required parameters: (none) 1317 Optional parameters: charset 1318 Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is 1319 UTF-8. 1320 Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit 1321 characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC 1322 3023 [RFC3023], section 3.2. 1323 Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry 1324 protocol data related to the location of an entity, which could 1325 include information that is considered private. Appropriate 1326 precautions should be taken to limit disclosure of this 1327 information. 1328 Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a basis 1329 for a protocol 1330 Published specification: RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please 1331 replace XXXX with the RFC number for this specification.] 1332 Applications which use this media type: Location information 1333 providers and consumers. 1334 Additional Information: Magic Number(s): (none) 1335 File extension(s): .xml 1336 Macintosh File Type Code(s): (none) 1337 Person & email address to contact for further information: Mary 1338 Barnes 1339 Intended usage: LIMITED USE 1340 Author/Change controller: The IETF 1341 Other information: This media type is a specialization of 1342 application/xml [RFC3023], and many of the considerations 1343 described there also apply to application/held+xml. 1345 11.4. Error code Registry 1347 This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for the 1348 HELD protocol including an initial registry for error codes. The 1349 error codes are included in HELD error messages as described in 1350 Section 6.3 and defined in the schema in the 'codeType' token in the 1351 XML schema in (Section 7) 1353 The following summarizes the requested registry: 1355 Related Registry: Geopriv HELD Registries, Error codes for HELD 1356 Defining RFC: RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX 1357 with the RFC number for this specification.] 1358 Registration/Assignment Procedures: Following the policies outlined 1359 in [RFC5226], the IANA policy for assigning new values for the 1360 Error codes for HELD shall be Standards Action: Values are 1361 assigned only for Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. 1363 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 1364 Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1366 This section pre-registers the following seven initial error codes as 1367 described above in Section 6.3: 1369 requestError: This code indicates that the request was badly formed 1370 in some fashion. 1371 xmlError: This code indicates that the XML content of the request 1372 was either badly formed or invalid. 1373 generalLisError: This code indicates that an unspecified error 1374 occurred at the LIS. 1375 locationUnknown: This code indicates that the LIS could not 1376 determine the location of the Device. 1377 unsupportedMessage: This code indicates that the request was not 1378 supported or understood by the LIS. This error code is used when 1379 a HELD request contains a document element that is not supported 1380 by the receiver. 1381 timeout: This code indicates that the LIS could not satisfy the 1382 request within the time specified in the "responseTime" parameter. 1383 cannotProvideLiType: This code indicates that the LIS was unable to 1384 provide LI of the type or types requested. This code is used when 1385 the "exact" attribute on the "locationType" parameter is set to 1386 "true". 1387 notLocatable: This code indicates that the LIS is unable to locate 1388 the Device, and that the Device MUST NOT make further attempts to 1389 retrieve LI from this LIS. This error code is used to indicate 1390 that the Device is outside the access network served by the LIS; 1391 for instance, the VPN and NAT scenarios discussed in 1392 Section 4.1.2. 1394 12. Contributors 1396 James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson and Barbara Stark are the authors 1397 of the original document, from which this WG document was derived. 1398 Their contact information is included in the Author's address 1399 section. In addition, they also contributed to the WG document, 1400 including the XML schema. 1402 13. Acknowledgements 1404 The author/contributors would like to thank the participants in the 1405 GEOPRIV WG and the following people for their constructive input and 1406 feedback on this document (in alphabetical order): Nadine Abbott, 1407 Eric Arolick, Richard Barnes (in particular the security section), 1408 Peter Blatherwick, Ben Campbell, Guy Caron, Eddy Corbett, Martin 1409 Dawson, Lisa Dusseault, Jerome Grenier, Ted Hardie, Cullen Jennings, 1410 Neil Justusson, Tat Lam, Marc Linsner, Patti McCalmont, Roger 1411 Marshall, Perry Prozeniuk, Carl Reed, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, 1412 Brian Rosen, John Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, Henning Schulzrinne, Ed 1413 Shrum, Doug Stuard, Hannes Tschofenig and Karl Heinz Wolf. 1415 14. Changes since last Version 1417 NOTE TO THE RFC-Editor: Please remove this section prior to 1418 publication as an RFC. 1420 Changes from 13 to 14 (AD comments post 2nd IETF LC): 1422 1) Section 4.3: Removed reference to location-dereference protocol 1423 document. Generalized statement wrt HELD not meeting all the lbyr 1424 requirements (e.g., cancelling of location references). 1426 2) Removed section 5.1 (Delivery Protocol) and just left the 1427 statement that this document describes the use of HTTP and that HELD 1428 is an application layer protocol. 1430 3) Section 6.1: "the LIS should provide the most accurate LI" -> "the 1431 LIS provides the most accurate LI" to avoid the inference of a 1432 normative requirement. 1434 4) Section 6.3: clarified "locationUnknown" error code. 1436 5) Section 6.4: changed text to indication that errors can contain 1437 multiple "message" parameters to accommodate errors in different 1438 languages. 1440 6) Section 7 : updated XML schema to reflect change in error message 1441 to accommodate multiple "message" parameters. Note, a few other 1442 changes to XML schema based on "strict" validation. 1444 7) Section 8: clarified that redirect should be authenticated if the 1445 Device requires that the redirect server is authenticated. 1447 8) Section 10: 1449 - updated examples due to updates to XML schema 1451 - removed empty POST example. 1453 9) Section 11.4: Changed IANA registration for error codes from 1454 "Specification Required" to "Standards Action" 1455 10) Other minor clarifications. 1457 Changes from WG 12 to 13 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1459 1) Fixed editorial error in section 6.2 with regards to empty 1460 "locationType" - error was introduced in 06 to 07 changes. 1462 2) Added additional text in section 6.5.1 to improve security 1463 associated with locationURIs. 1465 3) Modified XML schema for errorType and responseType to allow an 1466 attribute to be returned. Also, added extensibility to errorType. 1468 Changes from WG 11 to 12 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1470 1) Expanded text in section 8 (HTTP binding) to provide more detail 1471 about the requirements for an HTTP implementation supporting HELD. 1472 Clarified the mandatory functionality and specific handling of other 1473 functionality of HTTP. 1475 2) Clarification in section 9.1 for clients that have external info 1476 wrt the identity or credentials of the LIS. 1478 3) More nits. 1480 Changes from WG 10 to 11 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1482 1) Added additional text around the scope and applicability of the 1483 URI returned from LIS Discovery (section 4). 1485 2) Removed HTTP GET - will always use POST. 1487 3) Removed sentence wrt mobile devices in section 6.2. 1489 4) Added specific recommendation for minimum value for expires in 1490 section 6.5.2 (30 Minutes). 1492 5) Remove reference to RFC 3704 (for IP address spoofing) in section 1493 9.3 (bullet 2). 1495 6) Clarified that both HTTP and HTTPS are allowed - changed last 1496 bullet in section 5.1 from REQUIRES to RECOMMENDS. 1498 7) Clarification wrt "presence" parameter in section 6.6 - a "single" 1499 presence parameter may be included. 1501 Changes from WG 09 to 10 (2nd WGLC): 1503 1) Updated text for Devices and VPNs (section 4.1.1) to include 1504 servers such as HTTP and SOCKs, thus changed the text to be generic 1505 in terms of locating LIS before connecting to one of these servers, 1506 etc. 1508 2) Fixed (still buggy) HTTP examples. 1510 3) Added text explaining the whitespaces in XML schema are for 1511 readability/document format limitations and that they should be 1512 handled via parser/schema validation. 1514 4) Miscellaneous editorial nits 1516 Changes from WG 08 to 09 (Post-IETF LC: continued resolution of sec- 1517 dir and gen-art review comments, along with apps-area feedback): 1519 1) Removed heldref/heldrefs URIs, including fixing examples (which 1520 were buggy anyways). 1522 2) Clarified text for locationURI - specifying that the deref 1523 protocol must define or appropriately restrict and clarifying that 1524 requirements for deref must be met and that deref details are out of 1525 scope for this document. 1527 3) Clarified text in security section for support of both HTTP/HTTPS. 1529 4) Changed definition for Location Type to force the specification of 1530 at least one location type. 1532 Changes from WG 07 to 08 (IETF LC: sec-dir and gen-art review 1533 comments): 1535 1) Fix editorial nits: rearranging sections in 4.1 for readibility, 1536 etc. 1538 2) Added back text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and 1539 LLDP-MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS. 1541 3) Clarified the use of both HTTP and HTTPS. 1543 4) Defined two URIs related to 3 respectively - divided IANA 1544 registrations into sub-sections to accomodate this change. (Note: 1545 LIS Discovery will now define that URI, thus this document defines 1546 the one associatied with a Location reference). 1548 5) Clarified the description of the location URI in Protocol Overview 1549 and Protocol parameter sections. Note that these sections again 1550 reference location dereference protocol for completeness and 1551 clarification of issues that are out of scope for this base document. 1553 6) Defined new error code: notLocatable. 1555 7) Clarifications and corrections in security section. 1557 8) Clarified text for locationType, specifically removing extra text 1558 from "any" description and putting that in a separate paragraph. 1559 Also, provided an example. 1561 9) Added boundaries for "expires" parameter. 1563 10) Clarified that the HELD protocol as defined by this document does 1564 not allow for canceling location references. 1566 Changes from WG 06 to 07 (PROTO review comments): 1568 1) Fix nits: remove unused references, move requirements to 1569 Informational References section, fix long line in ABNF, fix ABNF 1570 (quotes around '?'), add schemaLocation to import namespace in XML 1571 schema. 1573 2) Remove text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and LLDP- 1574 MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS, per Issue 1 resolution at 1575 IETF-71. (Editorial oversight in producing version 06). 1577 Changes from WG 05 to 06 (2nd WGLC comments): 1579 1) Updated security section based on WG feedback, including 1580 condensing section 10.1.1 (Assuring the proper LIS has been 1581 contacted), restructuring sections by flattening, adding an 1582 additional step to the list that had been in the Accuracy section and 1583 removing summary section. 1585 2) Changed URI schema to "helds" to address concerns over referential 1586 integrity and for consistency with mandate of TLS for HELD. 1588 3) Editorial clarifications including fixing examples to match HELD 1589 URI definition (e.g., adding port, adding randomness to URI examples, 1590 etc.) 1592 4) Updated references removing unused references and moving 1593 requirements docs to Informational Reference section to avoid 1594 downrefs. 1596 Changes from WG 04 to 05 (WGLC comments): 1598 1) Totally replaced the security section with the details provided by 1599 Richard Barnes so that we don't need a reference to the location 1600 security document. 1602 2) Fixed error codes in schema to allow extensibility. Change the 1603 IANA registration to be "specification required". 1605 3) Cleaned up the HELD: URI description, per comments from Martin and 1606 James and partially addressing HELD-04 Issue 1. Put the definition 1607 in a separate section and clarified the applicability (to also 1608 include being a results of the discovery process) and fixed examples. 1610 4) Updated the LocationURI section to be more accurate, address 1611 HELD-04 Issue 3, and include the reference to the new HELD:URI 1612 section. Also, fixed an error in the doc in that the top level parm 1613 in the locationResponse is actually locationUriSet, which contains 1614 any number of locationURI elements and the "expires" parameter. So, 1615 Table 1 was also updated and a new section for the LocationURISet was 1616 added that includes the subsections for the "locationURI" and 1617 "expires". And, then clarified that "expires" applies to 1618 "locationURISet" and not per "locationURI". 1620 5) Editorial nits: pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., by-value -> 1621 by value, by-reference -> by reference, etc.) and onlist by James and 1622 Martin. Please refer to the diff for a complete view of editorial 1623 changes. 1625 6) Added text in HTTP binding section to disable HTTP caching 1626 (HELD-04 Issue 5 on the list). 1628 Changes from WG 03 to 04: 1630 1) Terminology: clarified in terminology section that "attribute" and 1631 "element" are used in the strict XML sense and "parameter" is used as 1632 a general protocol term Replaced term "HTTP delivery" with "HTTP 1633 transport". Still have two terms "HTTP transport" and "HTTP 1634 binding", but those are consistent with general uses of HTTP. 1636 2) Editorial changes and clarifications: per Roger Marshall's and 1637 Eric Arolick's comments and subsequent WG mailing list discussion. 1639 3) Changed normative language for describing expected and recommended 1640 LIS behaviors to be non-normative recommendations in cases where the 1641 protocol parameters were not the target of the discussion (e.g., we 1642 can't prescribe to the LIS how it determines location or what it 1643 defines to be an "accurate" location). 1645 4) Clarified responseTime attribute (section 6.1). Changed type from 1646 "decimal" to "nonNegativeInteger" in XML schema (section 7) 1647 5) Updated Table 1 in section 6 to only include top-level parameters 1648 and fixed some errors in that table (i.e., code for locationResponse) 1649 and adding PIDF-LO to the table. Added a detailed section describing 1650 PIDF-LO (section 6.6), moving some of the normative text in the 1651 Protocol Overview to this section. 1653 6) Added schema and description for locationURI to section 6.5. 1654 Added IANA registration for HELD: URI schema. 1656 7) Added IANA registry for error codes. 1658 Changes from WG 02 to 03: 1660 1) Added text to address concern over use of IP address as device 1661 identifier, per long email thread - changes to section 3 (overview) 1662 and section 4 (protocol overview). 1664 2) Removed WSDL (section 8 updated, section 8.1 and 10.4 removed) 1666 3) Added extensibility to baseRequestType in the schema (an oversight 1667 from previous edits), along with fixing some other nits in schema 1668 (section 7) 1670 4) Moved discussion of Location URI from section 5.3 (Location 1671 Response) to where it rightly belonged in Section 6.5 (Location URI 1672 Parameter). 1674 5) Clarified text for "expires" parameter (6.5.1) - it's an optional 1675 parm, but required for LocationURIs 1677 6) Clarified responseTime parameter: when missing, then the LCS 1678 provides most precise LI, with the time required being implementation 1679 specific. 1681 7) Clarified that the MUST use in section 8 (HTTP binding) is a MUST 1682 implement. 1684 8) Updated references (removed unused/added new). 1686 Changes from WG 01 to 02: 1688 1) Updated Terminology to be consistent with WG agreements and other 1689 documents (e.g., LCS -> LIS and removed duplicate terms). In the 1690 end, there are no new terms defined in this document. 1692 2) Modified definition of responseTime to reflect WG consensus. 1694 3) Removed jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic locationTypes (leaving 1695 just "civic"). 1697 4) Clarified text that locationType is optional. Fixed table 1 and 1698 text in section 5.2 (locationRequest description). Text in section 1699 6.2 (description of locationType element) already defined the default 1700 to be "any". 1702 5) Simplified error responses. Separated the definition of error 1703 response type from the locationResponse type thus no need for 1704 defining an error code of "success". This simplifies the schema and 1705 processing. 1707 6) Updated schema/examples for the above. 1709 7) Updated Appendix A based on updates to requirements document, 1710 specifically changes to A.1, A.3 and adding A.10. 1712 8) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications. 1714 Changes from WG 00 to 01: 1716 1) heldResponse renamed to locationResponse. 1718 2) Changed namespace references for the PIDF-LO geoShape in the 1719 schema to match the agreed GML PIDF-LO Geometry Shape Application 1720 Schema. 1722 3) Removed "options" element - leaving optionality/extensibility to 1723 XML mechanisms. 1725 4) Changed error codes to be enumerations and not redefinitions of 1726 HTTP response codes. 1728 5) Updated schema/examples for the above and removed some remnants of 1729 the context element. 1731 6) Clarified the definition of "Location Information (LI)" to include 1732 a reference to the location (to match the XML schema and provide 1733 consistency of usage throughout the document). Added an additional 1734 statement in section 7.2 (locationType) to clarify that LCS MAY also 1735 return a Location URI. 1737 7) Modifed the definition of "Location Configuration Server (LCS)" to 1738 be consistent with the current definiton in the requirements 1739 document. 1741 8) Updated Location Response (section 6.3) to remove reference to 1742 context and discuss the used of a local identifier or unlinked 1743 pseudonym in providing privacy/security. 1745 9) Clarified that the source IP address in the request is used as the 1746 identifier for the target/device for the HELD protocol as defined in 1747 this document. 1749 10) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications. 1751 15. References 1753 15.1. Normative References 1755 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1756 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1758 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1759 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. 1761 [RFC2965] Kristol, D. and L. Montulli, "HTTP State Management 1762 Mechanism", RFC 2965, October 2000. 1764 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 1765 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 1766 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 1768 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. 1770 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 1771 January 2004. 1773 [RFC5491] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV 1774 Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) 1775 Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations", 1776 RFC 5491, March 2009. 1778 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] 1779 Beech, D., Thompson, H., Mendelsohn, N., and M. Maloney, 1780 "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide 1781 Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, 1782 October 2004, 1783 . 1785 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 1786 Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes 1787 Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium 1788 Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004, 1789 . 1791 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] 1792 Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local 1793 Location Information Server (LIS)", 1794 draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11 (work in progress), 1795 May 2009. 1797 15.2. Informative References 1799 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1800 RFC 793, September 1981. 1802 [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., 1803 Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP 1804 Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", 1805 RFC 2617, June 1999. 1807 [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media 1808 Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. 1810 [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and 1811 J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. 1813 [RFC3825] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host 1814 Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based 1815 Location Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004. 1817 [LLDP-MED] 1818 TIA, "ANSI/TIA-1057 Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media 1819 Endpoint Discovery". 1821 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1822 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1823 RFC 3986, January 2005. 1825 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1826 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 1827 May 2008. 1829 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] 1830 Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 1831 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and 1832 Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-09 (work in 1833 progress), February 2009. 1835 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] 1836 Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference 1837 Mechanism", draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07 (work 1838 in progress), February 2009. 1840 [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] 1841 Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the 1842 Session Initiation Protocol", 1843 draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13 (work in progress), 1844 March 2009. 1846 Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements 1848 This appendix describes HELD's compliance to the requirements 1849 specified in the [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. 1851 A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice 1853 "The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST 1854 define an identifier that is mandatory to implement. Regarding the 1855 latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is from 1856 the same realm as the one for which the location information service 1857 maintains identifier to location mapping." 1859 COMPLY 1861 HELD uses the IP address of the location request message as the 1862 primary source of identity for the requesting device or target. This 1863 identity can be used with other contextual network information to 1864 provide a physical location for the Target for many network 1865 deployments. There may be network deployments where an IP address 1866 alone is insufficient to identify a Target in a network. However, 1867 any necessary identity extensions for these networks is beyond the 1868 scope of this document. 1870 A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support 1872 "The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST support a 1873 broad range of mobility from devices that can only move between 1874 reboots, to devices that can change attachment points with the impact 1875 that their IP address is changed, to devices that do not change their 1876 IP address while roaming, to devices that continuously move by being 1877 attached to the same network attachment point." 1879 COMPLY 1881 Mobility support is inherently a characteristic of the access network 1882 technology and HELD is designed to be access network agnostic. 1883 Consequently HELD complies with this requirement. In addition HELD 1884 provides specific support for mobile environments by providing an 1885 optional responseTime attribute in location request messages. 1886 Wireless networks often have several different mechanisms at their 1887 disposal for position determination (e.g. Assisted GPS versus 1888 location based on serving base station identity), each providing 1889 different degrees of accuracy and taking different amounts of time to 1890 yield a result. The responseTime parameter provides the LIS with a 1891 criterion which it can use to select a location determination 1892 technique. 1894 A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship 1896 "The design of the L7 LCP MUST NOT assume a business or trust 1897 relationship between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the 1898 Access Network Provider. Requirements for resolving a reference to 1899 location information are not discussed in this document." 1901 COMPLY 1903 HELD describes a location acquisition protocol between a Device and a 1904 LIS. In the context of HELD, the LIS is within the Access Network. 1905 Thus, HELD is independent of the business or trust relationship 1906 between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the Access Network 1907 Provider. Location acquisition using HELD is subject to the 1908 restrictions described in Section 9. 1910 A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship 1912 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1913 MUST assume that there is a trust and business relationship between 1914 the L2 and the L3 provider. The L3 provider operates the LIS and 1915 needs to obtain location information from the L2 provider since this 1916 one is closest to the end host. If the L2 and L3 provider for the 1917 same host are different entities, they cooperate for the purposes 1918 needed to determine end system locations." 1920 COMPLY 1922 HELD was specifically designed with this model in mind and readily 1923 allows itself to chaining requests between operators without a change 1924 in protocol being required. HELD is a webservices protocol which can 1925 be bound to transports other than HTTP, such as BEEP. Using a 1926 protocol such as BEEP offers the option of high request throughput 1927 over a dedicated connection between an L3 provider and an L2 provider 1928 without incurring the serial restriction imposed by HTTP. This is 1929 less easy to do with protocols that do not decouple themselves from 1930 the transport. 1932 A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations 1934 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1935 MUST consider legacy residential NAT devices and NTEs in an DSL 1936 environment that cannot be upgraded to support additional protocols, 1937 for example to pass additional information through DHCP." 1939 COMPLY 1941 HELD is an application protocol and operates on top of IP. A HELD 1942 request from a host behind a residential NAT will traverse the NAT 1943 acquiring the external address of the home router. The location 1944 provided to the host therefore will be the address of the home router 1945 in this circumstance. No changes are required to the home router in 1946 order to support this function, HELD was designed specifically to 1947 address this deployment scenario. 1949 A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness 1951 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1952 MUST assume that at least one end of a VPN is aware of the VPN 1953 functionality. In an enterprise scenario, the enterprise side will 1954 provide the LIS used by the client and can thereby detect whether the 1955 LIS request was initiated through a VPN tunnel." 1957 COMPLY 1959 HELD does not preclude a LIS on the far end of a VPN tunnel being 1960 aware that the client request is occurring over that tunnel. It also 1961 does not preclude a client device from accessing a LIS serving the 1962 local physical network and subsequently using the location 1963 information with an application that is accessed over a VPN tunnel. 1965 A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication 1967 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1968 MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication." 1970 COMPLY 1972 HELD makes no assumptions about prior network access authentication. 1973 HELD strongly recommends the use of TLS with server-side certificates 1974 for communication between the end-point and the LIS. There is no 1975 requirement for the end-point to authenticate with the LIS. 1977 A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness 1979 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1980 MUST NOT assume end systems being aware of the access network 1981 topology. End systems are, however, able to determine their public 1982 IP address(es) via mechanisms such as STUN or NSIS NATFW NSLP." 1984 COMPLY 1986 HELD makes no assumption about the network topology. HELD doesn't 1987 require that the device know its external IP address, except where 1988 that is required for discovery of the LIS. 1990 A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism 1992 "The L7 LCP MUST define a single mandatory to implement discovery 1993 mechanism." 1995 COMPLY 1997 HELD uses the discovery mechanism in 1998 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]. 2000 A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation 2002 "When a LIS creates a PIDF-LO per RFC 4119 then it MUST put the 2003 element into the element of the presence document 2004 (see RFC 4479). This ensures that the resulting PIDF-LO document, 2005 which is subsequently distributed to other entities, conforms to the 2006 rules outlined in ". [RFC5491] 2008 COMPLY 2010 HELD protocol overview (Section 4 ) describes the requirements on the 2011 LIS in creating the PIDF-LO and prescribes that the PIDF-LO generated 2012 by the LIS MUST conform to [RFC5491]. 2014 Authors' Addresses 2016 Mary Barnes (editor) 2017 Nortel 2018 2201 Lakeside Blvd 2019 Richardson, TX 2020 USA 2022 Email: mary.barnes@nortel.com 2023 James Winterbottom 2024 Andrew 2025 PO Box U40 2026 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 2027 AU 2029 Phone: +61 2 4221 2938 2030 Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com 2031 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 2033 Martin Thomson 2034 Andrew 2035 PO Box U40 2036 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 2037 AU 2039 Phone: +61 2 4221 2915 2040 Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com 2041 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 2043 Barbara Stark 2044 BellSouth 2045 Room 7A43 2046 725 W Peachtree St. 2047 Atlanta, GA 30308 2048 US 2050 Email: barbara.stark@att.com